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
i971
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
gfiffig!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 0 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
0
Southern Utah
3
0
Central Utah
7
15
West Central Colorado
6
0
Star Lake-Bisti New
Mexico
0
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 PRLAs
where coal has been found in commercial quanti-
ties. It also affirmed the validity of the May 7,
1976, regulations, 41 Federal Register 18848, and,
in particular, the point that the cost of complying
with lease terms is properly a part of a commercial
quantities showing. However, if the issuance of a
PRLA would constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, an environmental impact statement
must first be prepared. The plaintiffs (Natural
Resources Defense Council and three other
groups) and intervenor defendants (Utah Power
and Light Company and Chaco Energy Company)
have appealed this decision to the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court is
not expected to decide this case until late in 1979.
1.3 FEDERAL CONSTRAINTS ON AND
AUTHORITIES FOR COAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
This section presents an overview of the major
laws and regulations and the programs of Federal
agencies which influence the development of
Federal coal resources. Primary emphasis is on
statutes which directly control leasing and mining
activities. Other authorities are cited in less detail
to provide a perspective on factors which may
indirectly influence the demand for coal resources
and the location and intensity of coal development
and related activities.
13.1 Laws Governing Development of Federal
Coal
1.3.1.1 Mineral Leasing Act and Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. The Depart-
ment's concern in the early 1970's with the efficacy
of its coal management program was shared by the
Congress, particularly as it related to deficiencies
in the coal provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act
of 1920. Major deficiencies of the 1920 Act are
discussed below [8,9]. (See also the discussion in
Section 1.2.1).
1 . Problems with 1 920 Act
Speculation. While the 1920 Act provided for
lease cancellation, no lease was ever cancelled for
failure to develop. In addition, issuance of PRLAs
made it possible to gain control of public resources
for nominal payments to the Federal government.
Slightly less than half of all Federal leases were
issued with no competitive bidding [7]. Conse-
quently, holding companies and energy resource
speculators had entered the market for Federal
coal in large numbers.
Lease Concentration. In 1976, approximately 57
percent of Federal acreage under lease was held by
15 leaseholders [10].
Fair Return to the Public. Under preference
right leasing procedures, no competitive sales were
held and lessees who discovered commercial
quantities of coal had only to pay minimum
royalties and rentals. Also, although more than 50
percent of all leases had been offered competitive-
ly, 72 percent of the competitive sales had either no
bidder or only one bidder [7].
Social and Economic Impacts. When areas were
newly opened to large-scale mining, state and local
governments had the responsibility of providing
needed public services. The 1920 Act provided that
monies returned to state government from lease
sales were to be used only for schools and roads.
This restriction made it difficult for affected areas
to meet the needs of their new inhabitants. The
attendant problems were exacerbated by the
"boom-bust" economic cycle associated with rapid
resource development in rural areas.
Maximum Economic Recovery. Some lessees
developed only the most easily reached surface
deposits which yielded the highest profits. Other
resources of coal less easily mined were sometimes
left in place.
2. Congressional Response
The Congress responded to these problems
with the passage, over President Ford's veto, in
August 1976 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amend-
ments Act (FCLAA). The broad purpose of the
FCLAA is to provide a more orderly procedure for
the leasing and development of coal presently
owned by the United States.
1-15
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Among the most significant requirements of
the FCLAA governing the award and development
of Federal leases are the following:
© All leasing must be by competitive bidding;
no bids can be accepted which do not equal
or exceed fair market value.
• Noncompetitive (preference right) leasing is
abolished (subject to valid existing rights).
• Leases may be consolidated into logical
mining units (LMUs) when needed to
insure maximum economic recovery of the
coal deposit; 1 all LMU reserves must be
mined within 40 years.
• Diligent development and continuous oper-
ation is required (except continuous opera-
tion may be waived upon payment of
advance royalties).
• Leases to a single person are limited to
100,000 acres nationwide (as well as 46,080
acres in a particular state).
Economic, social, and environmental deficien-
cies inherent in the 1920 Act were also addressed
in the FCLAA. The Congress ratified the BLM
practice of doing land use plans prior to issuing
competitive leases and a comprehensive land use
plan or its equivalent was ordinarily required prior
to leasing. State shares of royalties were raised
from 37 1/2 percent to 50 percent with the new
portion of the monies available not just for
construction of roads and schools but also for a
wide range of public services and facilities in
impacted areas. Finally, public bodies were enti-
tled to have reserved a reasonable number of
leasing tracts for their own energy production.
1.3.1.2 Federal Lands Policy and Management Act
of 1976. Governing the activities of the Bureau of
Land Management was a vast number of outmod-
ed public land laws enacted when disposal and
largely uncontrolled development of the public
domain reflected then-current Federal policy. The
Bureau's difficulty in carrying out its land manage-
ment responsibilities under the statutes was exam-
ined in detail in the late 1960's by the Public Land
Law Review Commission. After five years of
1 An LMU, simply stated, is an area of land that will be mined as a single
unit. The statutory definition is "an area of land in which the coal resources can
be developed in an efficient, economical, and orderly manner as a unit with due
regard to conservation of coal reserves and other resources. A logical mining
unit may consist of one or more Federal leaseholds, and may include
intervening or adjacent lands in which the United States does not own the coal
resource, but all the lands in a logical mining unit must be under the effective
control of a single operator, be able to be developed and operated as a single
operation, and be contiguous."
extensive investigations, the Commission submit-
ted its final report [11] to the President and the
Congress. A major recommendation of the Com-
mission was that the policy of large-scale disposal
of public lands reflected by the majority of statutes
then in force should be revised and that future
disposal of public lands should be limited to only
those lands which will provide maximum benefit
for the general public in non-Federal ownership.
Federal ownership should be retained for those
lands whose values must be preserved so that they
may be used and enjoyed by all Americans. The
Commission also emphasized the need to develop
a clear set of goals for the management and use of
public lands.
The Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) enacted in October 1976 embodied
many of the Commission's recommendations. The
purpose of FLPMA is to provide the first compre-
hensive statutory statement of purposes, goals, and
authority for the use and management of the
approximately 448 million acres of Federally-
owned lands administered by the Secretary of the
Interior through the BLM.
Title II of FLPMA provides BLM with a
statutory framework for land use planning for
public lands. In the development of land use plans,
BLM must:
• Use the principles of multiple use and
sustained yield2
• Give priority to the protection of areas of
critical environmental concern (such as
historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and
wildlife resources, etc.).
• Consider present as well as future uses of
public lands.
• Coordinate planning activities with those of
Federal, state, and local agencies.
The Act also confirms that the BLM may continue
to rely on existing plans.
The Act further liberalized the use of mineral
revenues by states and local governments by
providing that the entire 50 percent of the funds
received by the Federal government for the
2 "Multiple-use" means the combination of resource values that consider
changing needs and conditions, long-term needs for renewable and non-
renewable resources, land productivity, environmental values, and economic
return. "Sustained yield" means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity
of a high-level output of public lands natural resources consistent with multiple
use.
1-16
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
development of leasable minerals on Federal land,
which the FCLAA had provided to the states and
local governments, could be used for any public
purpose and by establishing a program to provide
low interest loans to states and local governments
to be impacted by Federal land mineral develop-
ment activities. Proposed regulations to carry out
the loan program were recently published, 43
Federal Register 49018 (1978).
FLPMA also requires the Department to
review all BLM lands for potential designation as
wilderness. The major steps in the process are
inventory, identification of wilderness study areas,
Presidential recommendations, and formal Con-
gressional designation. Proposed procedures and
requirements for interior management were pub-
lished in 44 Federal Register 2699 (1979).
1.3.1.3 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977. The Surface Mining Control and Recla-
mation Act (SMCRA) was passed in August 1977
in response to concern over the extensive environ-
mental damage caused by all coal mining and to
technological and economic changes which now
favor surface over underground mining. By 1976,
over 60 percent of the coal produced nationally
came from surface mines.
Surface coal mining activities have imposed
large social and environmental costs in many areas
of the country in the form of unreclaimed lands,
diminished agricultural productivity, water pollu-
tion, erosion, floods, slope failures, loss of fish and
wildlife resources, and a decline in natural beauty.
In the western coalfields, many of which are in
arid or semi-arid areas, the environmental prob-
lems associated with surface mining are significant.
Erosion rates on western range lands are among
the highest in the United States for upland areas
not under cultivation. The arid climate provides
minimal moisture for a protective vegetative cover,
and once this fragile vegetative cover has been
disturbed, its restoration is difficult [12]. Further-
more, in most of the western coalfields the coal
beds which lie close to the surface are also aquifers.
Removal of the coal by surface mining operations
could intersect those aquifers which are the source
of water for many wells. Flow patterns in such
aquifers could be changed, resulting in reduced
availability of water for other uses.
In passing SMCRA, the Congress recognized
that many states already had laws to regulate
surface coal mining operations. However, most
existing state laws and Federal regulations as well
for surface mining and reclamation were inade-
quate in that they were tailored to suit ongoing
mining practices, and did not require modification
of mining practices to meet established environ-
mental standards. Regardless of the adequacy of
state mining and reclamation laws, the Congress
felt that they were not fully enforced, partly from a
lack of funding and manpower to adequately
ensure compliance. As a result, violations of the
law and regulations were frequent.
SMCRA, therefore, established uniform mini-
mum Federal standards for regulating surface
mining and reclamation activities throughout the
country on Federal, state, and private lands, and
for assuring adequate protection from the environ-
mental impacts of surface mining in all states. The
states can assume the primary responsibilities for
administration and enforcement of the act under
Federally-approved state programs. The Secretary
must approve state programs; the Department will
assume administrative responsibilities if a state
program under the act is found to be inadequate.
The Department is responsible for enforcing
reclamation requirements on Federal leases
through a Federal lands program. SMCRA also
gives a state the right to enforce reclamation
requirements on Federal land if it enters into a
cooperative agreement with the Department. If
this occurs, Federal lessees in that state will have to
comply with those requirements rather than those
which would be Federally-enforced in the Federal
lands program.
The Act has several features directly relevant
to the coal management program. While FLPMA
and FCLAA are applicable only to Federal coal
and surface estates, SMCRA applies to all surface
mining operations, whether Federal, state, or
private. Thus, many of the prior advantages of
developing private coal resources (such as reduced
administrative burdens and related environmental
and reclamation standards) have been eliminated.
Of particular importance to this environmental
impact statement are the Act's provisions regard-
ing environmental protection performance stan-
dards (Section 515) and designation of areas
unsuitable for surface coal mining (Section 522). A
synopsis of these sections follows.
Section 515's performance standards are mini-
mum standards applicable to all surface coal
1-17
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
mining and reclamation operations. These stan-
dards include:
• Maximum utilization and conservation of
the solid fuel resource being recovered.
• Restoration of disturbed land to support
the same or better conditions.
© Restoration of the approximate original
land contour.
• Stabilization and protection of all surface
areas.
® Protection of prime farmlands through
specific reclamation techniques.
• Minimization of disturbances to the exist-
ing hydrological balance.
® Limitation on mining of steep slopes.
Section 522 of SMCRA establishes a procedure
to designate lands unsuitable for all or certain
types of coal mining operations. The Secretary of
the Interior determines unsuitability on Federal
lands. The states have authority to determine
unsuitability for non-Federal lands. Areas on both
Federal and non-Federal lands may be designated
unsuitable if, upon petition, the Secretary deter-
mines that reclamation of disturbed lands is not
economically or technologically feasible. Areas
may also be classified unsuitable if mining opera-
tions will:
• Be incompatible with existing land use
plans.
• Significantly affect important fragile or
historic lands.
• Result in substantial loss or reduction in the
productivity of renewable resource lands
which produce food or fiber.
• Substantially endanger life and property in
natural hazard lands.
Unsuitability designations must be preceded
by a report addressing an area's potential coal
resources, the demand for these resources, and the
impact of designation on the environment, the
economy, and the supply of coal. In addition, as
part of its obligation under Section 522 of
SMCRA, the Department of the Interior must
review all Federal lands for unsuitability for all or
certain types of coal development, although no
formal "designation" of unsuitability is made as
part of this lands review.
The environmental impact of unsuitability
standards on a broad scale is discussed in the
environmental impact statement prepared by the
Department of the Interior's Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) in
connection with its permanent program regula-
tions [13,14]. Section 702 of SCMRA exempts the
Federal Lands Program, including the Federal
lands review required by Section 522, from
compliance with the requirements of NEPA for
preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Since November 1977, 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.
Major 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)
pRIHE 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 Worker7 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/m3) annual and
260 jUg/m3 24-hour standards are more stringent
than the 80 jtig/m3 annual and 365 /xg/m3 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
0
3,271
3,271
0
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
0
23,101
23,101
0
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
0
10,144
Denver-Raton Mesa
3,865
' 0
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 BASEV ' 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
0
155,251.8
39,362.1
-
-
182,037.8
46,905.1
107
736.2
60
689
0
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
0
0
4,246.4
Surface
7,377.8
21.0
0
0
7,399.0
Arizona
Surface
173.2
176.7
0
0
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
0
0
870.0
Iowa
Underground
1.6
226.7
2
,105.9
549.2
2,884.9
Kansas
Surface
0
309.3
695.6
383.2
1,388.1
Missouri
Underground
0
134.2
3
,590.2
2,350.5
6,073.6
Surface
0
47.8
1
,635.8
1,730.0
3,413.7
Montana
Underground 63,464.4
1
,939.9
456.2
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
0
1.0
Surface
0.5
0.3
0
0
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
0
0
0
0
0.2
(b)
0.5
0
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
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
0
2,890
0
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
0
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
0
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
0 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 0
99,010 950,713 942,531
0
1,040
3,140
3,140
640
2,920
600
4,160
15,320
640
0
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
0 640 0 474,180
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
0
3,333
170
25,368
Ohio
40,854
0
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 RIVER/ 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
0
4.3
126.8
5.
9
201.
5
42
9
43
3
10
.5
0
.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 REC0VERABLE RESERVES PRODUCTION IN
RECOVERABLE ^KKVKj LEASES WITHOUT nnoc: „_,„ TFAcFc
IN FEDERAL LEASES pT T tufty to 1985 FR LEASES
WITHOUT MINE PLANS ^^ PLANS L t WITHOUT MINE PLANS d)
WITHOU1 MINI fLANb BE pR0DUCING IN 1985 f ,,,, tons/vear)
(million tons) (miiliori tons) ("llhon tons/year>
(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 Tribes1
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
0
4
0
14,673
0.0
(a)
0.0
(a)
0.0
(a)
Total
4
14,673
(a)
(a)
(a)
Powder River
Montana
Wyoming
0
60
0
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
0
42,118
0
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 *(»•>
lftn *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
0
4.5
6.9
0
0
14.0
11.1
0
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
0
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
0
10.1
0Cd)
8.5
0
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 • ^
0 /
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
PRODUCTION1 '
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 , lM|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: : ■:•.•■■■ 4ppi 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-ITIH 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^BMMMllllrf" '
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
^
■
kf
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 WEP 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 (choices in addition to
consultation occurring 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 is and the 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 Recovery" (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 CONS
How should the Department manage preference right
lease applications; (PRLAs)?
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 non-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 condition his decision to proceed
with leasing based on existence of split estate
(surface/minerals under different 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 applied? 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
What 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 that surface would not 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 manager
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^ ■.....,....".'■
"■"""Mniwi
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
INDUSTRYWH° 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 Population3
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 Population3
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 Population3
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 Population3
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 Population3
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 Population3
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 Population3
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 Population3
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 (S02), 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
0
0
+ 0.6
0
+ 0.2
Coal Consumption (million tons)
182.9
0
- 4.9
- 4.9
- 4.9
0
- 4.9
Land Committed (acres)
25,870
0
- 2.8
- 2.8
- 3.0
0
- 2.9
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
5,073
0
- 2.8
- 2.8
- 3.0
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
0
- 4.4
- 4.4
- 4.4
0
- 4.4
Game Animal Losses
18,110
0
- 2.8
- 2.8
- 2.8
0
- 2.9
Particulate Emissions (tons)
131,713
0
- 2.9
- 2.9
- 3.0
0
- 3.0
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
213,649
0
- 3.8
- 3.8
- 3.6
0
- 3.7
1990
|
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
Coal Production (million tons)
219.4
+ 0.3
0
0
- 0.7
+ 1.3
+ 2.6
Coal Consumption (million tons)
210.1
0
- 4.9
- 4.9
0
0
- 4.9
Land Committed (acres)
28,125
+ 0.1
0
0
- 0.2
+ 0.4
+ 0.6
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
2,758
+ 0.1
0
0
- 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
0
0
0
0
0
0
Game Animal Losses
9,845
+ 0.1
0
0
- 0.2
+ 0.4
+ 0.6
Particulate Emissions (tons)
153,266
+ 0.1
0
0
- 0.1
+ 0.3
+ 0.5
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
255,337
+ 0.1
0
0
+ 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
+ 0.3
- 6.3
- 1.0
+ 2.6
Coal Consumption (million tons)
56.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
+ 0.4
+ 0.1
- 3.3
0
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
0
+ 1.8
0
0
0
- 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
0
0
- 2.0
- 0.8
+ 4.1
Water (thousand acre-feet)
309.8
- 0.1
+ 1.7
0
+ 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
0
+ 1.8
0
- 0.9
0
- 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
- 0
+ 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
0
- 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
0
- 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
+ 0.5
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Coal Consumption (million tons)
118.0
0
+ 1.2
0
0
- 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
0.9
0
0.6
- 0.3
- 1.6
Game Animal Losses
5,710
- 0.4
+ 0.9
0
+ 1.6
- 3.4
- 4.7
Particulate Emissions (tons)
85,373
- 0.1
+ 0.1
0
+ 1.2
- 1.8
- 3.2
SulEur Oxide Emissions (tons)
122,861
0
+ 0.9
0
+ 0.6
+ 0.2
- 1.3
(a) Represents absolute values at medium level production
o .19/',; ! 1 20 to 29%
Shading Key:
Diotol9Ii
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
+ 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
- 0.8
- 2.4
+ 0.4
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
20,997
+ 0.5
- 0.2
0
- 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
- 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
- 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
0
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
0
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
0
+14.7
Agriculture (thousands 1974 S)
6,648
- 4.1
- 5.3
- 4.6
- 6.0
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
0
+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
0
- 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
- 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
+ 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
0
- 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
0
0
0
+ 9.8
0
+10.3
Coal Consumption (million tons)
16.6
0
0
0
+ 2.4
- 1.8
- 1.8
Land Committed (acres)
8.426
+ 0.2
0
+ 0.1
+ 8.1
- 0.4
- 7.8
Agriculture (thousands 1974 S)
23
0
0
0
+ 8.7
0
- 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
0
0
0
+ 4.2
- 1.-4
- 3.5
Came Animal Losses
3,410
0
0
0
+ 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
0
+ 3.4
- 1.0
- 1.3
1990
PERCENT CHANGE FROM NO N
EW LEASING
j 4*7,
+ 4.1
l ,^«..n......llllllln
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
0
+ 2.6
L — .
- i.i
Land Committed (acres)
12,535
"' • ■:.■ ■■
+11 .6
+ 2.1
1 - 9.3
Agriculture (thousands 1974 $)
18
.:...!":;■ „
0
::.:::: :
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
0
0
0
+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
0
0
0
+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
0
0
-1.1
-10,8 J
■!-?.<b0:- >V
: : :
Coal Consumption (million tons)
8.9
0
0
0
-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
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
-0.5
-0.5
0.8
:. : >-l3.37 : '
1.3
Game Animal Losses
50
0
0
0
™
Particulate Emissions (tons)
9,891
+0.3
-0.4
-0.4
+6.6
-12.3
+9.2
Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons)
7,327
0
-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
+ 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
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
0
+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
0
0
0
0
- +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
0
-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 production.
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
-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
0
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
0
-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
0
-2.4
-1.9
2.7
2.8
-7.3
Game Animal Losses
360
0
+2.8
-2.8
+5.6
0
-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 purposes the differences in coal
production between the no new leasing alternative
and each of the other alternatives is shown in
Table 5-20. For the preferred program and for the
no new leasing alternative, data are presented for
the high, medium, and low production estimates.
For the other alternatives, only the medium
production level is tabulated. For all alternatives
the medium level is the only production level
regularly addressed in the textual discussion.
The no new leasing alternative is considered as
a base case against which the other alternatives are
compared, as in Table 5-20, for example. Under
this alternative, the supply of Federal coal avail-
able for development would be limited to coal
already under lease or coal which may be leased
under the consent agreement in NRDC v. Hughes.
This could, nevertheless, result in a significant
increase in Federal coal production, as already
existing leases alone now have a 1985 planned
production of 308.6 million tons (see Table 2-20).
Adding in other likely production (see Table 2-21),
total planned and likely production from existing
Federal leases in 1985 is 366 million tons. With the
addition of planned production from Indian and
other non-Federal lands, total 1985 planned and
likely production in the western states comes to
422.2 million tons (see Table 2-29). Essentially
none of this production depends on new leasing. In
1985, western coal production under the no new
leasing alternative would be 34 percent of total
U.S. production (compared to 16 percent in 1976)
as shown in Table 5-18. For most alternatives, the
differences in western coal production are less than
one percent of this base case projection. An
exception is the lease to meet industry needs
alternative under which western coal is estimated
to increase (at the medium level of production) by
20 percent to over 450 million tons.
By 1990, however, the western production
projections would show more pronounced changes
among the alternatives. For example, western
production under the no new leasing alternative
would be 38 percent of U.S. production, compared
to 43 percent under the preferred program, 49
percent under the lease to meet industry needs
alternative, and 34 percent under the state determi-
nation of leasing levels alternative. Within the
western regions, the greatest fluctuations in abso-
lute terms would be experienced within the Powder
River Coal Region. The lease to meet industry
needs and lease to meet DOE production goals
alternatives project 1990 production from this
region at 450 million tons and 396 million tons,
respectively. The medium projection under the no
new leasing alternative would result in the produc-
tion of 305 million tons.
Given the Powder River Coal Region's land
ownership patterns and the economic desirability
of the coal resources, this disparity is to be
expected. The coal industry, as any private
enterprise, seeks to maximize profits in part by
minimizing costs. Producers are attracted to the
Powder River Coal Region's fields in Wyoming
and Montana with their thick coal seams and
relatively low ratio of seam thickness to overbur-
den. The NCM production projections are based
on a least cost linear programming model. A
program of leasing to meet industry needs would
emphasize production of this economically attrac-
tive coal. On the other hand, a policy of no new
leasing would restrict available production both by
preventing expansion of the Federal coal lease
reserve base and by affecting the economic
viability of private coal dependent upon adjacent
Federal reserves for their development. The Pow-
der River Coal Region is highly dependent on
Federal leasing to expand production beyond
currently planned levels. Between the two alterna-
tives there is a difference in medium level projec-
tions for Powder River production of over 20
million tons in 1985 and 145 million tons in 1990.
Changes in western production from one
alternative to another would lead to reactive
5-36
TABLE 5-18
COAL PRODUCTION SUMMARY
(million tons)
I
1976
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
, EMERGENCY
PRLA s LEASING
°NW j ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
COAL
LOW 1 MEDIUM HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM | HIGH
MEDIUM MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985 PROJECTIONS
Northern Appalachian
1/6.0
208.3
211.7
217.5
208.4
211.6
216.7
211.8
211.7
210.4
211.5
211.1
Central Appalachian
206.8
202.7
205.5
178.8
202.7
204.4
175.9
205.6
204.8
192.5
203.4
211.0
Southern Appalachian
23.4
18.0
27.5
42.7
18.0
26.6
40.6
26.5
27.5
31.6
22.1
23.0
Eastern Interior
136.4
209.0
206.1
172.4
209.0
209.7
161.0
206.0
207.1
196.1
203.4
212.6
Western Interior
11.5
12.7
14.2
14.2
12.6
13.6
14.5
13.7
14.2
8.2
10.8
15.8
14.1
62.4
64.0
48.6
62.5
66.3
35.3
63.7
64.6
50.2
57.7
78.6
Other East
- -
- -
— "
TOTAL EAST
568.2
713.1
729.0
674.2
713.2
732.2
644.0
727.3
729.9
689.0
708.9
752.1
Powder River
37.4
150.0
204.8
275.0
150.0
205.0
300.0
205.0
205.0
225.0
204.6
183.7
Green River-Hams Fork
25.7
40.0
76.0
99.6
40.0
80.0
130.0
77.9
77.0
112.0
112.0
57.5
Fort Union
11.4
16.9
31.9
51.9
16.9
31.9
51.9
31.9
31.9
36.9
21.9
37.4
8.8
15.0
24.8
39.7
15.0
25.0
40.0
24.8
24.8
30.0
22.1
32.0
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
10.2
15.0
29.6
44.5
15.0
30.0
45.0
30.0
29.7
35.0
26.4
29.4
Denver-Raton Mesa
1.9
2.0
5.0
10.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
Other West
10.4
18.3
4.2
6.7
18.3
3.0
6.7
3.8
3.8
6.8
6.6
1.8
TOTAL WEST
105.8
257.2
376.3
527.4
257.2
379.9
583.6
378.4
377.2
451.7
399.6
348.8
TOTAL U.S.
674.0
970.4
1,105.3
1,201.6
970.4
1,112.1
1,227.6
1,105.7
1 ,107.1
1,140.7
1,108.5
1,100.9
I
CO
TABLE 5-18 (Concluded)
COAL PRODUCTION SUMMARY
(million tons)
COAL
1976
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLAs
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
COALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
REGIONS
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1990 PROJECTIONS
Northern Appalachian
176.0
193.8
219.4
261.5
193.8
220.1
252.8
219.4
219.6
217.8
222.3
225.3
Central Appalachian
206.8
191.3
211.2
237.8
191.2
206.2
217.6
210.5
210.0
203.0
205.5
225.4
Southern Appalachian
23.4
15.6
26.4
42.8
15.6
25.4
40.4
26.3
26.4
30.4
14.5
14.2
Eastern Interior
136.4
275.7
331.5
351.1
274.7
319.7
280.1
314.4
328.0
284.6
312.5
381.1
Western Interior
11.5
13.1
25.5
58.5
12.7
17.1
14.0
19.3
24.2
10.2
10.1
35.0
Texas
14.1
74.0
119.4
154.0
73.0
86.1
100.0
116.4
115.8
58.9
79.6
111.0
Other East
--
_ _
TOTAL EAST
568.2
763.5
933.4
1105.7
761.0
874.6
904.9
906.3
924.0
804.9
844.5
992.0
Powder River
37.4
175.0
305.0
335.0
175.0
400.0
600.0
355.0
316.0
450.0
396.1
269.1
Green River-Hams Fork
25.7
66.5
98.7
119.0
70.0
120.0
■ i
175.0
101.0
104.2
150.0
149.5
62.8
Fcrt Union
11.4
21.9
51.0
94.9
21.9
41.9
81.9
47.4
50.6
51.9
22.5
54.4
San Juan River
8.8
25.0
59.4
77.3
25.0
50.0
75.0
54.9
58.4
60.0
57.7
63.0
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
10.21
19.8
45.0
65.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
42.0
44.8
50.0
28.3
36.8
Denver-Raton Mesa
1.9
5.0
10.7
15.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
10.5
10.6
10.0
7.5
10.3
Other West
10.4
14.4
10.3
7.7
14.4
10.7
9.1
8.6
10.2
3.7
8.3
14.1
TOTAL WEST
105.8
327.6
580.1
713.9
331.3
672.6
1016.0
619.4
594.8
775.6
669.9
510.5
TOTAL 11. S,.
674.0
1091.1
1513.5
1819.6
1
1092.3
i
1547.2
1
1920.9
1525.7
1518.8
1580.5
1
1514.4
1502.5
g-£g_£g^£_gy^^g__^_^^_^j^_0^£^_^^^^^^^^^^^
■MHM|
w^m
TABLE 5-19
GOAL COMSUHTTIOH WMHAJtT
(Billion ton.)
I
M3
no m
LEASING
nzmturo
nocnuf
niLA'a
o:ii.v
EWERCEHCT
LEASING
uiur
MEET
IMDUSTVr
NEEDS
MEET
DUE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
COAL
REGIONS
»n
U» | MEDIUM
ilea
LOU | MEDIUM | BUS
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
IMS najECTiom
Horther* Appalachian
16J.0
ISO. 3
182.9
180.4
180.3
182.9
180.0
173.9
173.9
173.9
182.9
173.9
Central Appalachian
50.7
49.1
56.4
56.8
49.1
56.0
56.0
56.1
56.1
56.0
56.2
56.0
Southern Appalachian
46.6
80.5
106.0
105.3
80.5
103.9
105.9
104.6
104.3
104.0
102.6
104.2
Better* Interior
107.2
148.4
154.4
165.4
148.4
154.1
166.3
154.0
154.0
154.9
150.6
153.4
Ueatern Interior
37.1
83.1
106.9
109.9
83.1
102.6
117.8
101.1
101.5
105.3.
110.2
101.2
Toxoi
16.5
90.2
137.7
138.8
90.3
138.3
133.0
136.6
137.1
135.9
137.2
140.7
Other East
109.2
141.2
154.7
166.4
141.2
156.1
167.7
155.0
155. 4
157.7
155.5
157.0
TOTAL EAST
530.3
772.8
899.0
923.0
772.9
893.9
926.7
881.3
882.3
887.7
895.2
886.4
Pov<Jer River
6.2
16.6
16.6
20.2
16.6
16.6
20.5
16.6
16.6
17.0
16.3
16.3
Creen River-Rasa York
8.6
15.4
18.0
18.0
15.4
18.5
18.4
17.8
18.0
19.1
18.8
18.2
Fort Union
11.6
19.9
19.8
35.4
22.1
22.1
35.8
22.1
22.1
23.3
20.3
23.4
San Juan River
0.5
8.6
8.9
14.1
8.6
8.9
14.1
8.9
8.9
8.8
7.7
8.8
Ulate-Southveeten. Utah
4.9
16.8
17.8
20.7
16.8
18.3
21.1
17.9
18.0
18.5
18.3
18.3
Denver-Raton Heia
5.2
16.5
20.0
22.7
16.5
21.1
23.2
21.1
21.0
22.1
24.0
19.9
Other Meat
19.7
28.3
33.2
44.9
28.4
33.3
45.5
33.1
33.1
33.6
33.4
33.2
TOTAL WEST
64.7
122.1
134.3
17S.9
124.4
138.8
178.6
137.4
137.7
142.4
138.8
138.1
TOTAL U.S.
595.0
894.9
1.033.3
1,098.9
897.3
1,032.7
1.105.3
1,018.7
1,020.0
1,030,1
1,034.0
1,024.5
TABLE 5-19 (Concluded)
COAL CONSUMPTION SUMMARY
(million tons)
Ol
I
O
COAL
1976
NO NF.W
LEASING
PREFERS ED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMF.RCF.XCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
CPA! S
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
REGIONS
LOW
MEDIUM
MICH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1990 PROJECTIONS
Northern Appalachian
163.0
178.9
210.1
210.1
183.6
2.10.3
312.9
210.1
210.1
210.1
210.1
210.1
Central Appalachian
50.7
65.6
84.7
85.3
65.6
84.7
100.3
86.3
84.8
85.4
84.6
82.4
Southern Appalachian
46.6
80.3
118.0
118.5
80.3
118.0
156.7
119.2
118.1
118.6
118.0
116.4
Eastern Interior
107.2
164.7
174.4
173.4
164.9
174.4
214.8
174.7
173.5
174.7
175.0
172.5
Western Interior
37.1
90.7
175.1
173.6
90.9
175.1
201.2
171.1
171.1
180.2
179.1
165.2
Texas
16.5
116.0
251.3
228.2
115.7
'251.3
271.1
247.2
247.9
247.7
250.0
248.0
Other East
109.2
155.8
206.7
204.9
155.8
206.7
287.5
203.3
203.7
209.1
204.5
204.9
TOTAL EAST
530.3
852.0
1,220.3
1,194.0
856.8
1,220.5
1,544.5
1,211.9
1,209.2
1,225.8
1,221.3
1,199.5
Powder River
6.2
23.3
27.6
27.1
23.4
27.6
27.6
27.2
26.9
28.0
27.6
26.6
Creen Rtver-llams Fork
8.6
18.1
20.1
18.3
18.2
20.1
19.1
18.4
18.2
20.7
20.1
18.2
Fort Union
11.6
30.1
44.0
48.7
30.1
44.0
47.4
44.6
44.9
46.9
39.4
45.2
San Juan River
8.5
10.5
13.6
13.3
10.7
13.6
24.6
13.6
13.4
13.5
13.6
13.2
Ulnta-Southveatern Utah
4.9
21.7
21.8
21.7
22.3
21.8
29.1
20.5
20.7
22.0
21.8
20.9
Denver-Raton Mesa
5.2
23.4
30.3
30.6
23.4
30.3
35.3
29.6
■ 29.7
31.1
31.3
28.1
Other West
19.7
38.9
70.6
66.3
39.2
70.6
91.7
66.3
66.3
71.1
70.8
_
67.1
TOTAL WEST
61.7
166.0
228.0
226.0
167.3
228.0
274.8
220.2
220.1
233.3
224.6
219.3
TOTAL U.S.
595.0
1,018.0
1,448.3
1,420.0
1,024.1
1,448.5
1,818.3
1,432.1
1,429.4
1,459.1
1,445.9
1,418.8
TABLE 5-20
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
COMPARISON OF 1985 AND 1990 REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION LEVELS
(million tons)
COAL
REGIONS
1976
NO "NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
"5°
IS 3 w
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985 PROJECTIONS
Northern Appalachian
208.3
211.7
217.5
0.1
-0.1
-0.8
0.1
-
-1.3
-n.2
-0.6
Central Appalachian
206.8
202.7
205.5
178.8
-
-1.1
-2.9
0.1
-0.7
-13.0
-2.1
5.5
Southern Appalachian
23. A
18.0
27.5
42.7
-
-0.9
-2.1
-1.0
-
4.1
-5.4
-4.5
Eastern Interior
136.4
209.0
206.1
172.4
-
3.6
-11.4
-0.1
1.0
-10.0
-2.7
6.5
Western Interior
11.5
12.7
14.2
14.2
-0.1
-0.6
0.3
-0.5
-
-6.0
-3.4
1.6
1
14.1
62.4
64.0
48.6
0.1
2.3
-13.3
-0.3
0.6
-13.8
-6.3
14.6
4>
H
Other East
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
TOTAL EAST
568.2
713.1
729.0
674.2
0.1
3.2
-30.2
-1.7
-
-40.0
-20.1
23.1
37.4
150.0
204.8
275.0
-
0.2
25.0
0.2
0.2
20.2
-0.2
-21.1
Green River-Hams Fork
25.7
40.0
76.0
99.6
-
4.0
30.4
1.9
1.0
36.0
36.0
-18.5
Fort Union
11.4
16.9
31.9
51.9
-
-
-
-
-
5.0
-10.0
5.5
San Juan River .
8.8
15.0
24.8
39.7
_
0.2
0.3
-
-
5.2
-2.7
7.2
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
10.2
15.0
29.6
44.5
-
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.1
5.4
-3.2
-0.2
1.9
2.0
5.0
10.0
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
2.0
10.4
18.3
4.2
6.7
-
-1.2
-
-0.4
-0.4
2.6
2.4
-2.4
TOTAL WEST
105.8
257.2
376.3
527.4
-
3.6
56.2
2.1
0.9
75.4
23.3
"27.5
TOTAL U.S.
674.0
970.3
1105.3
1201.6
0.1
6.8
26.0
.4
1.8
35.4
3.2
- 4.4
TABLE 5-20 (concluded)
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
COMPARISON OF 1985 AND 1990 REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION LEVELS
( million tons)
I
-P-
COAL
1976
NO NEW
LEASING
' PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
.EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
REGIONS
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1990 PROJECTIONS
Northern Appalachian
176.0
193.8
219.4
212.6
-
0.7
40.2
0.2
-1.6
2.9
5.9
Central Appalachian
206.8
191.3
211.2
196.6
-0.1
-5.0
21.0
-0.7
-1.2
- 8.2
- 5.7
14.2
Southern Appalachian
23.4
15.6
26.4
42.3
-
-1.0
- 1.9
-0.1
_
4.0
-11.9
-12.2
Eastern Interior
136.4
275.7
331.5
290.4
-1.0
-11.8
-10.3
-17.1
-3.5
-46.9
-19.0
49.6
Western Interior
11.5
13.1
25.5
26.6
-0.4
- 8.4
-12.6
- 6.2
-1.3
-15.3
-15.4
9.5
Texas
14.1
74.0
119.4
98.9
-1.0
-33.3
1.1
- 3.0
-3.6
-60.5
-39.8
- 8.4
Other East
—
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
TOTAL EAST
568.2
763.5
933.4
867.4
-2.5
-58.8
37.5
-27.1
-9.4
-128.5
-88.9
58.6
Powder River
37.4
175.0
305.0
337.0
95.0
263.0
50.0
]1.0
145 0
91 1
Green River-Hams Fork
25.7
66.5
98.7
119.0
3.5
21.3
56.0
2.3
5.5
51.3
50.8
-35.9
Fort Union
11.4
21.9
51.0
94.9
-
-9.1
-13.0
-3.6
-0.4
0.9
-28.5
3.4
San Joan River
8.8
25.0
59.4
77.3
-
-9.4
- 2.3
-4.5
-1.0
0.6
- 1.7
3.6
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
10.2
19.8
45.0
65.0
0.2
-5.0
- 5.0
-3.0
-0.2
5.0
-16.7
-8.2
Denver-Raton Mesa
1.9
5.0
10.7
15.0
-
-0.7
-
-0.2'
-0.1
-0.7
-3.2
-0.4
Other West
10.4
14.4
10.3
0.4
""
0.4
8.7
-1.7
-0.1
-6.6
-2.0
3.8
TOTAL WEST
105.8
327.6 | 580.1
708.6
3.7
92.5
307.4
-39.3
14.7
195.5
89.8
-69.6
TOTAL U.S.
574.0
1091.1
L
1513.5
1576.0
1.2
33.7 . j
344.9
12.2
5.3
67.0
.9
-11 . 0
am
TABLE 5-21
Ui
LAND REQUIREMENTS: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
__ — p
PROCRAM
ALTEKNATIVES
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
least::g
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
26,367
25,870
26,711
4
- 5
- 63
-721
-724
- 769
10
- 746
Central Appalachian
14,715
15,796
14,754
0
-108
-239
- 39
- 74
- 624
- 131
- 187
Southern Appalachian
11,160
15,301
15,970
0
-311
- 55
-236
-211
3
- 800
- 486
Eastern Interior
26,055
26,295
25,835
0
135
-250
- 53
- 1
- 206
- 640
107
'.-.'estern Interior
13,282
16,386
16,816
-6
-671
1,107
-865
-748
- 982
7
2,410
Tei'.as
17,108
23,707
22,649
21
260
•1,851
-174
- 36
-1,343
- 570
1,550
Pev.ler River
6,783
8,426
10,947
0
20
814
5
11
- 685
32
- 656
Green River-Hans Fork
4,992
8,210
10,106
0
362
2,433
107
78
2,964
2,926
-1,455
P.rt Uninn
3,506
4,190
7,490
298
315
52
316
316
751
- 475
787
San Juan River
2,273
3,100
4,884
0
9
17
- 7
- 7
408
- 352
576
Ulnta-S-juthve item L'tah
2,550
2,793
3,249
0
77
61
20
30
184
16
60
iJ._-nver-Raton Mesa
2,196
2,921
3,577
0
127
63
121
121
446
704
183
1990
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASINC VALUE
N>rLhtrn Appalachian
24,448
28,125
40,800
357
36
581
- 7
- 1
- 56 j 113
169
C-ntral Appalachian
15,511
18,662
21,148
- 4
-187
- 164
190
- 37
74
- 230
216
S cithern Appalai.hlan
10,713
16,311
20,912
0
-47
1,227
147
11
261
! - 560
i
- 767
Eastern interior
26,253
28,393
31,554
2
-354
5
-291
-213
-1,259
- 861
1,100
Western Interior
13,395
25,876
30,886
- 5
-661
2,320
-991
-631
- 433
- 713
- 797
Te/.'i'i
21,519
43,684
48,676
-120
-2,640
3,993
-791
-751
-5,282
-3,320
-1,123
P- ~der River
8,455
12,535
13,232
17
2,898
8,535
1,454
260
4,457
2,780
-1,168
Creen River-Hams Fork
7,433
9,822
11,197
266
1,645
4,734
- 74
190
4,087
3,972
- 310
Fort Union
5,115
8,517
11,287
0
- 496
683
-108
110
434
-2,181
363
San l:.in River
3,441
6,430
9,492
38
- 723
155
-335
- 88
70
- 249
269
Uinta-Southvestern Utah'
3,412
3,439
4,487
96
- 50
161
-182
-128
110
- 312
- 985
Denver-Raton Mesa
3,431
4,523
5,215
11
8
495
- 81
- 68
281
21
- 249
(a)
Land reouired for facilities and coal production (alnlng) In 1985 and 1990 under the Ho He- Leasing Alternative.
Valuing column, repre.ent differences fro- the Ho N«, Leasing Levels.
REGIONAL IMPACTS
changes in eastern and midwestern coal produc-
tion. This result follows from the assumption that
total regional energy demands (on a Btu basis)
remain invariant under the program alternatives
analyzed (for given low, medium, or high demand
assumptions). Thus, when the supply of western
coal is assumed to decline under a given leasing
alternative (for example, state determination of
leasing levels), greater output from other coal fields
is projected to take up the excess. The adjustments
resulting from different western production levels
create the greatest supply fluctuations in regions
that are geographically close to the western coal
supply areas, namely the Texas, Eastern Interior,
and Western Interior Coal Regions. For example,
should the supply of coal in the Powder River Coal
Region projected to flow to the Texas Coal Region
markets be restricted under the no new leasing
alternative, the energy shortfall would not be
expected to be made up with coal supplied from
the East, but from elsewhere in the West and
Midwest.
5.3.1.2 Implications of Methodological Approach. As
discussed in Section 5.1, in defining production
levels and flow distributions for the Federal coal
management program alternatives, it was assumed
that Btu demand in each of the 53 geographical
consumption areas analyzed would be specified at
a constant level for each of the production levels in
1985 and 1990. For example, the Btu demand in
the Northern Appalachian Coal Region at the
medium production level would be constant for all
mid-level production program alternatives ana-
lyzed. The specified area demand levels (in terms
of total Btus of energy) correspond to the lease to
meet DOE production goals levels as derived from
the NCM output. Because the Btu content of coal
from various sources differs, the projected tonnage
will also vary under these alternatives where
differing amounts of coal from each region are
projected. The Btu consumption, however, is
assumed to remain constant for each level (i.e.,
high, medium and low).
The primary advantage of this assumption is
that it enables a rapid redistribution of coal flows
in response to projected changes in the level of
future western coal production. Other approaches
were not available to generate comparable data
essential to the timely completion of this environ-
mental impact statement. Major implications of
the constant demand and related methodological
assumptions are discussed below.
The first implication relates to the general
acceptability of the NCM high, medium, and low
coal demand estimates. The NCM projects a 1985
medium level demand of 1.1 billion tons, a 64
percent increase over the 1976 production of 674
million tons. Many believe growth of this magni-
tude is overly optimistic, particularly in view of the
myriad of uncertainties involved in estimating coal
demand at such high levels over the relatively short
time between 1979 and 1985. A new iteration of
the NCM, may, with updated assumptions such as
competing fuel costs, transportation rates, and
environmental control standards, produce total
United States coal demand projections which
would be more generally accepted by governmen-
tal and industry spokesmen. Nevertheless, for the
purposes of this environmental impact statement,
the projections derived from NCM output effec-
tively bracket the range of regional coal demand in
1985 and in 1990.
The methodology also assumes that the pro-
portional split between underground and surface
mining would remain constant for a given produc-
tion level for a given year for all alternatives
analyzed. The proportional split does, however,
vary between production levels (high, medium, and
low) and between years (1985 and 1990). It is likely
that the relative economics of extraction could
shift slightly to favor one extractive method over
another for incremental changes in production in a
given year between the program alternatives.
However, any inaccuracies resulting from this
approach appear to be minor. Also, the coal
regions experiencing the greatest production varia-
tions among the alternatives (i.e., Power River and
Texas) are not projected to produce any under-
ground mined coal.
Another assumption in the projections derived
from the NCM output is related to the use of coal.
These projections assume a constant proportional
allocation of coal in a region among various coal
conversion and utilization technologies for a given
national coal production level (low, medium, or
high). For example, the proportional split among
coal-using sectors (i.e, steam electric generation,
coke production, synthetic fuels) does not vary
between alternatives at any specified production
level. The proportional split does, however, vary
between production levels (low to medium, medi-
5-44
REGIONAL IMPACTS
urn to high, etc.) and between years (1985 versus
1990).
A final consideration concerns the constant
regional demand assumption. The economics of
coal use are such that a change of only a few cents
per million Btus of energy could influence both the
consumptive demand for coal and the relative
economic desirability of developing regional coal
reserves. To a considerable extent, this fact is
considered in the projections by the NCM, which
reports the interrelationship between the price of
coal and the quantity demanded at each produc-
tion level. A more sophisticated methodology
would have been possible, taking into account the
interaction between various substitutes for coal
(e.g., oil and gas, nuclear generation of electricity,
etc.) such that a change in the relative prices of
these alternative energy sources would result in a
shift in demand. Such a methodology might have
yielded more precise estimates of the amount of
coal demanded, but it is questionable whether it
would be more useful. For one thing (as discussed
in Section 2.5), coal substitutes such as oil and gas
are of limited availability in the long term. Also,
the NCM uses a least cost linear programming
approach. To assume restricted availability of the
most economically recoverable coal reserves (pri-
vate or Federal) would invariably lead to higher
fuel costs, with potentially serious national eco-
nomic growth implications.
53.2 Physical Impacts
This section analyzes the environmental im-
pacts of the Federal coal management program
alternatives on selected physical resources. Topog-
raphy, geology, minerals, and soils impacts are
treated rather broadly on a regional basis; the
specific effects are highly dependent on the
physical setting of individual mines and other coal-
related activities. Land disturbance, water quality,
and air quality also depend to a considerable
degree on conditions at each specific site. How-
ever, to the extent feasible, these are discussed
quantitatively in more detail. These factors, how-
ever, are highly significant in any comprehensive
consideration of physical impacts of the Federal
coal management program alternative.
5.3.2.1 Land Disturbance and Reclamation. This
section addresses the amounts of land in each coal
region that would be temporarily and permanently
disturbed during the periods from 1976 to 1985
and from 1986 to 1990 for each production level of
each alternative. Land requirements for mining,
coal beneficiation, conversion, and utilization
plants and development to support coal related
population increases are considered.
Land area that would be required for coal
development activities in the specific years 1985
and 1990 (exclusive of land to support coal related
population increases) under the no new leasing
alternative is listed by coal regions and coal
projections in Table 5-21. Land required to
implement the other six alternatives is tabulated
according to its variation from the no new leasing
values. For example, under the preferred program
at the medium level of production, 311 fewer acres
would be required in the Southern Appalachian
Coal Region than under no new leasing program
alternative, whereas in the Eastern Interior Coal
Region, 135 more acres would be required. Acres
tabluated represent land required for coal opera-
tions during the relevant time period, without
regard to how much could be reclaimed. In terms
of total land required at these discrete periods in
time, midwestern coal regions (Eastern and West-
ern Interior and Texas) would be impacted
substantially more than the eastern or western
regions regardless of the Federal coal management
program alternative implemented. Maximum dif-
ferences among alternatives at the medium pro-
duction level would occur under the leasing to
meet industry needs and leasing to meet DOE
goals alternatives; the land requirement for 1985 in
the Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region is about
35 percent greater under these than for the base
case of no new leasing. In 1990, increases in land
requirements under these alternatives and under
the lease PRLAs only alternative may also be
deemed significant for the Powder River Coal
Region. Decreased land requirements under leas-
ing to meet industry needs and leasing to meet
DOE goals alternatives in both 1985 and 1990
would be experienced in the Texas Coal Region.
Significant increases in the Western Interior and
Texas Coal Regions would occur in 1985 under the
state determination of leasing levels alternative
whereas in 1990 this alternative would slightly
decrease land requirements in these regions.
Changes in other regions, and particularly in the
East under all alternatives, reflect only small
percentages of the base case values.
5-45
REGIONAL IMPACTS
The accumulative amounts of land that would
be required under the preferred program (medium
level of production) for each region between 1976
and 1990 are listed in Table 5-22. Land require-
ments for coal production (mining), facilities (coal
cleaning, conversion, and consumption, and mine
site facilities) and coal-related population increases
are considered. Total land required (column 4)
represents the sum of land requirements by 1990
without regard for reclamation, and includes both
long-term and short-term commitments. Figures
enclosed in parentheses show in each column the
percent of the total land represented by each
category of usage.
It can be seen that greatest land requirements
under the preferred program would occur in the
Eastern Interior Coal Region (approximately
170,000 acres). The Northern Appalachian
(150,000 acres) and Texas (138,000 acres) Coal
Regions would rank second and third respectively.
The largest percentage of land required for non-
mining purposes, 82 percent, occurs in the Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Region, followed by the
Denver-Raton Mesa (75 percent), Western Interior
(68 percent), and Texas (60 percent) Coal Regions.
In terms of total acreage, the greatest land area for
coal-related facilities is required in the Texas Coal
Region (36,000 acres).
Land requirements for coal production under
the preferred program would be greatest in the
Central Appalachian (79,000 acres) and Northern
Appalachian (71,000 acres) Coal Regions between
1976 and 1985. Between 1986 and 1990 the land
required for mining would be greatest in the Green
River-Hams Fork and Powder River (both approx-
imately 33,000 acres) Coal Regions.
Estimates of the amount of land that would
remain actively disturbed (including land subject
to a major change of land use) as of 1990 under the
preferred program at the medium level of produc-
tion are shown in Table 5-23. The estimates have
been derived in the following way. It was assumed
that on the average 40 percent of the land actually
required for coal-related purposes would be
preempted from any other use. For example, much
of the land purchased for a power plant may be left
in its wooded state. Similarly, transmission lines
frequently occupy land devoted to other purposes.
Thus, the figures in the first column of Table 5-23
represent 40 percent of the corresponding values in
Table 5-22. The second column lists acreage
estimated to be disturbed due to coal-related
population increases. It was assumed that all land
required to support this increase in population
would remain in intensive useage throughout the
life of the project, and would not be subject to
reclamation in the same sense as land actively
mined. The third column lists acreage disturbed
due to active mining. These figures represent twice
the estimated annual production rate assumed for
1990, based on the assumption of a two-year lag
between mining and reclamation; thus, land which
had been mined three or more years before 1990
would be in the process of being reclaimed. The
fourth column sums these figures to give estimates
of land disturbance in 1990. Column 5 estimates
long term (beyond 1990) disturbance based on the
assumption that all land actually mined between
1976-1990 will be reclaimed and could put in a
different land use while the component of land
comitted to facilities or coal-related population
increase would likely remain the the same use. The
Texas (73,000 acres), Eastern Interior (68,000
acres) and Powder River (54,000 acres) Coal
Regions would have the largest amounts of land
disturbed by 1990, and, on a long-term basis
(beyond 1990). Comparatively speaking, and con-
sidering only total numbers, more land would be
disturbed by 1990 and over the long term in the
Eastern and Interior Coal Regions than in the
West. These relative impacts would not be signifi-
cantly changed under any of the other alternatives,
as tabulated in Table 5-21, although the amount of
land under long-term commitment would increase
for the Powder River and Green River-Hams Fork
Coal Regions under those alternatives (such as
leasing to meet industry needs and leasing to meet
DOE production goals) in which total land usage
increases over the no new leasing base case.
Reclamation Potential. The basic purposes of
SMCRA that pertain to reclamation are to assure
that surface mining operations are not allowed if
the required reclamation is not feasible, to assure
that reclamation be as contemporaneous with
mining as possible, and to promote reclamation of
abandoned mine areas. The unsuitability criteria
(Section 522 of SMCRA) relate to reclamation in a
general way in that mining would not be allowed if
it caused a substantial long-range production loss
of renewable resource lands and such a loss would
occur if it were not possible to reclaim the mined
5-46
TABLE 5-22
ACRES OF LAND REQUIRED BY COAL REGION FOR THE PREFERRED PROGRAM
MEDIUM COAL PRODUCTION PROJECTION BETWEEN 1976 AND 1990
_
.-. 1
REGION
LAND REQUIRED FOR
COAL PRODUCTION (a)
LAND REQUIRED FOR
COAL DELATED
FACILITIES (b)
LAND REQUIRED FOR
COAL- RELATED POPULATION
INCREASES (c)
TOTAL LAND
REQUIRED
1976-1985
1986-1990
Total
(1976-1990)
Northern Appalachian
70,605
26,405
97,010 (65%)(d).
25,296 (17%)
27,480 (18%)
149,786
Central Appalachian
78,660
29,425
108,085 (79%)
14,865 (11%)
14,300 (10%)
137,250
Southern Appalachian
15,680
6,653
22,333 (41%)
15,621 (29%)
16,760 (30%)
54,714
Eastern Interior
70,009
27,863
97,872 (58%)
24,014 (14%)
48,280 (28%)
170,166
Western Interior
18,445
7,063
25,528 (32%)
24,202 (30%)
29,980 (38%)
79,710
Texas
28,525
27,050
55,575 (40%)
35,541 (26%)
46,600 (34%)
137,716
Powder River
26,650
33,275
59,925 (59%)
9,185 ( 9%)
32,480 (32%)
101,590
Green River-Hams Fork
35,870
33,365
69,235 (82%)
4,954 ( 6%)
9,740 (12%)
83,929
1
Fort Union
10,395
8,855
19,250 (54%)
6,211 (17%)
10,120 (28%)
35,581
San Juan River
11,515
12,765
24,280 (69%)
3,342 (10%)
7,460 (21%)
35,082
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
1,255
1,350
2,605 (18%)
3,164 (22%)
8,640 (60%)
14,409
Denver-Raton Mesa
1,845
1,963
3,808 (25%)
4,157 (27%)
7,300 (48%)
15,265
Totals
585,506 (58%)
170,552 (17%)
259,140 (25%)
1,015,198
(a) Acres required to meet projected coal production estimates exclusive of reclamation.
(b) Includes estimates of land required for coal cleaning, conversion and consumption facilities and land required for mine-site facilities.
(c) Based on a requirement of 200 acres per 1000 people. Population projections from Table 5-48 Higher population projection
(1985 or 1990) used under the assumption that if population due to coal development decreased from 1985 to 1990, land
supporting coal related population would continue to support people regardless of occupation.
(d) Percent of the total land required by region for each of the categories.
I
CO
TABLE 5-23
ESTIMATES OF LAND DISTURBED BY MINING ACTIVITIES, GOAL CLEANING AND CONSUMPTION, AND COAL-
RELATED POPULATION INCREASES IN 1990 UNDER THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, MEDIUM COAL PRODUCTION PROJECTIONS
(acres)
REGION
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
Powder River
Green River-Hams Fork
Fort Union
San Juan River
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
COAL-RELATED FACILITIES (a)
(AS OF 1990)
Total
10,118
5,946
6,248
9.606
9,681
14,216
3,674
1,982
2,484
1,337
1,266
1,663
COAL- RELATED
POPULATION INCREASES
(b)
68,221
27,480
14,300
16,760
48,280
29,980
46,600
32,480
9,740
10,120
7,460
8,640
7,300
ACTIVE MINING PLUS LAND
BEING RESHAPED (c)
259,140
8,820
10,614
2,440
9,700
2,470
12,226
17,600
15,882
4,022
6,856
578
948
TOTAL LAND
DISTURBANCE IN
1990 (d)
LONG TERM
DISTURBANCE
(BEYOND 1990) (e)
92,156
46,418
30,860
25,448
67,586
42,131
73,042
53,754
27,604
16,626
15,653
10,484
9,911
37,598
20,246
23,008
57,886
39,661
60,816
36,154
8,722
12,604
8,797
9.906
8,963
419,517
327,361
(a) Assumes 40% of the total land required for coal cleaning conversion and consumption facilities and mine site facilities (Table 5-6)
is put into buildings or other hard surface areas and would not be reclaimable during the life of the project.
(b) ffromeTabie ^reqUired t0 SUPP°rt coal related Population increases remains man-influenced for the life of the project
(c) 1990 mining rate time two. Assumes a two year lag between mining and when land is ready for seeding/revegetation.
(d) Land disturbance includes land actively being disturbed (e.g. mining) and land committed to a major land use change
(e.g. building, pavement). &
(e) Assumes all mined land is reclaimed without regard to success of reclamation effort or future land use.
■jMnnMrinMita
REGIONAL IMPACTS
land. The primary reclamation requirements are
contained in the environmental protection perfor-
mance standards (Section 515 of SMCRA) which
require that mined land be restored to equal or
better uses compared to its premining condition.
All of the surface coal operations associated
with each of the program alternatives being
considered in this environmental impact state-
ment, including the no new leasing alternative,
would be covered by the reclamation requirements
of SMCRA. The only variations in reclamation
requirements among the different program alterna-
tives would be the number of acres requiring
reclamation and the differences in degree of
intensity of reclamation efforts as they relate to the
various types of land being disturbed.
This section addresses the reclamation poten-
tial and problems likely to be encountered in the
coal producing regions. Since specific sites to be
mined or reclaimed are not known at this level of
analysis, the discussion is necessarily generic in
nature. Actual reclamation potential is highly
dependent on detailed information specific to the
sites to be reclaimed. Since each of the alternatives
project some coal development in all of the coal
regions, all of the alternatives could affect lands
with varying potentials for reclamation. Therefore,
variation among alternatives at this non-site
specific level of analysis will be in the differing
amounts of land that will require reclamation as a
result of coal development.
Reclamation potential is dependent upon
climate, inherent chemical and physical properties
of the spoils, and to a lesser extent, upon the
biological character of the area. Among the factors
that would affect reclamation success are type,
toxicity, depth, and fertility of the spoils, amounts
and frequency of precipitation, erosion potential,
slope and aspect of the land, choice of plants used
in revegetation, timing of seeding or planting, and
proposed use of the reclaimed area.
Water availability would have a direct influ-
ence on revegetation potential in all of the coal
regions. Generally speaking, water availability is
not a major problem in the eastern (Appalachian)
or midwestern (Eastern and Western Interior and
Texas) coal regions. In the western coal regions,
however, rainfall patterns are extremely variable
5An example of water harvesting is a method under investigation in
Washington state which involves smoothing tops and sides of spoil banks and
seeding "valleys" between banks. Experiments are being conducted to provide
and in some areas, consistently low. Arid and
semiarid lands, particularly in the southwest (e.g.
San Juan River Coal Region), have areas with
average rainfalls of eight inches or less a year.
While the amounts of water needed to sustain
revegetation will vary with species requirements,
areas receiving less than 10 inches of annual
precipitation will likely require supplemental wa-
ter. The question of whether initially irrigated
plant communities can achieve and maintain
densities similiar to undisturbed native areas on
reclaimed land has not been answered. Additional-
ly, plant communities established under irrigation
systems may be severely impacted if a drought
year occurs after irrigation is terminated [14, 15].
Revegetation success may also vary according to
techniques used for irrigation. Dense stands of
vegetation established under sprinkler irrigation
may not establish dense root systems. Drip
irrigation, on the other hand, may encourage a
more concentrated root system around the water
source, but may not encourage the development of
dense stands [105]. Water harvesting methods5
may prove successful for arid and semiarid land
reclamation [104,105]. However, when ditching is
used for water harvesting, periods of exceptionally
heavy runoff may create enough siltation to
destroy established. vegetation [105]. Water rights
and legal claims to water may also limit the
amount of water available for mined land irriga-
tion, particularly in the San Juan River Coal
Region [105].
Soil conditioning and amendment may be
required in any of the regions. Included among the
most common conditioning techniques are topsoil-
ing, fertilizer addition, spreading chemical addi-
tives for soil neutralization, and mulching. Topsoil
addition may be required to overcome specific
problems or to provide a proper medium for plant
growth. In areas naturally subject to leaching,
underlying soils may contain more nutrients than
native topsoil. Segregation and replacement of
native topsoils in these cases could produce less
favorable results than mixing spoils. The amounts
of topsoil required to overcome saline or sodic soils
in western coal regions, or acid conditions in
eastern and mid-western coal regions, are variable.
Barth [102] indicates that while the depth or topsoil
more effective waterproofing of spoil slopes to allow more of the runoff water to
reach the planted area.
5-49
REGIONAL IMPACTS
required for successful revegetation has yet to be
precisely determined, as much as one foot may be
required over saline or sodic spoils in the western
regions. Sandoval et al. [98] found that as little as
two inches of topsoil placed over sodic soils in
portions of the Northern Great Plains increased
the water infiltration rate several fold, reduced
runoff, and vastly improved plant survival and
growth. It is preferred, however, to apply a greater
thickness of topsoil [96]. A topsoil layer of up to
two feet or more may be required in extremely acid
sites in the Appalachian Coal Region [97]. Unless
handled properly, toxic spoils would severely limit
or totally negate any revegetation effort.
A number of plant species have been tested
and appear to be useful for revegetation on spoils
of varying quality [99, 100, 101, 103]. Care must be
taken that proper species (and in many cases
proper strain of the species) be selected for
revegetation that will best serve the intended land
use objective. Reseeding efforts, however, will
likely produce areas with different species and
densities from surrounding natural areas. Recla-
mation efforts in the southwest currently empha-
size late successional species which are difficult to
establish under low water availability [105]. Plant-
ings with earlier sucessional stages may prove a
benefit to long term success. Plantings with
introduced species may be established quicker and
be more productive, but they also require more
skillful management to achieve and maintain this
production [96]. Long term stability of revegetated
areas is not known.
Success of revegetation is also highly depen-
dent on timing and method of planting. Generally
speaking, arid and semiarid regions of the south-
west may show greatest results from plantings in
late summer since this is just prior to normal
periods of greatest precipitation. Similarly, fall
plantings in intermountain areas of the West and
spring plantings in the Plains areas and in the
interior and eastern coal regions should give more
favorable results.
Land use planning and objectives will play a
major role in determining the success of reclama-
tion. Forage, pasture, and agricultural crops may
grow well on mine spoils, but would be less
practical in regions where agriculture contributed
little to the economy [97]. Packer [4] lists several
rehabitation options available for the Northern
Great Plains which would also be applicable to
other regions. These are:
• Return as nearly as possible to original
range/forest condition.
• Return to previous agricultural cropland
condition.
• Convert from previous range/forest condi-
tion to agricultural cropland.
• Convert from previous agricultural crop-
land to range/forest condition.
• Take advantage of such specialized features
as water for ponds or lakes to develop
unique recreation and/or wildlife habitat
areas.
• Develop such intensified land uses as
airports, industrial or residential areas,
solar energy sites, etc.
In western coal regions, postmining land use
would likely be limited to grazing as the dominant
land use. Because of difficulties associated with
overcoming precipitation deficits, this dominant
land use should not change.
In the midwestern regions, extensive mining
and postmining reclamation would probably de-
crease forest land acreage while increasing the
amount of grazing land. For example, presently
approved reclamation plans in Illinois may cause a
20 percent increase in pastureland and a 19
percent decrease in forest land in affected areas.
Carter et al [11] and Kennedy et al [12] attribute
the increase in pastureland to its much lower cost
of reclamation. Cropland would remain about the
same [5]. Surface coal mining in midwestern areas
has encroached on valuable prime agricultural
lands. In 1976, for example, three-year permits
were issued to surface mine 17,230 acres within the
State of Illinois. Of this total acreage, 12,954 acres,
or about 75 percent, is classified as prime agricul-
tural land by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
[5]. An increase in surface mining activity would
undoubtedly advance the disturbance of prime
agricultural lands and affect both the economies
and environments in midwestern surface mining
areas. A major concern of mining prime agricultur-
al lands is whether or not the technology or
knowledge exists which would allow the successful
reestablishment of those soil factors which are
conducive to successful crop production.
In the Texas Coal Region, reclamation to the
current dominant land use of grazing probably
would not change appreciably. In the Appalachian
5-50
REGIONAL IMPACTS
Coal Regions, a reduction of forest land (the
dominant land use) is anticipated. Due to the close
proximity of numerous densely populated cities to
coal areas in the Appalachian Regions, an oppor-
tunity would be provided for increased land values
and stimulation of local economies by establishing
recreational facilities and second home communi-
ties. Coal companies have recently given more
emphasis to reclaiming surface-mined land to
recreational and housing developments [13]. How-
ever, these have been isolated endeavors, primarily
because marketability has not been thoroughly
investigated.
Packer [4] developed a method for predicting
the rehabilitation potential success on large tracts
of land in the Northern Great Plains. This method
expresses rehabilitation potential using a scale
from -9 to +9, with the latter representing areas
where success is expected to be greatest. The scale
considers: (1) the productivity and stability char-
acteristics of surface soil materials; (2) the suitabil-
ity and availability of native plant species for plant
cover re-establishment and their availability; and
(3) the amount and distribution of rainfall. The
predictive capacity of Packer's method is not
expected to be useful on a site specific basis, but is
useful in predicting potential rehabilitation success
on larger tracts of land which may be character-
ized by soil associations, broad vegetation types,
and average annual rainfall characteristics [4]. The
length of time required to successfully rehabilitate
surface mined sites can also be expected to depend
on essentially the same environmental factors that
determine rehabilitation potentials. These times
similarly should not be applied to specific sites.
Reclamation potential in the Northern Great
Plains is highly variable even between broad areas.
Higher rated response units ( + 3 to +9) which
occur predominately in North Dakota, may re-
quire as little as one year to restore to agricultural
cropland and five years to restore to mixed-grass
range [4]. Medium-rated ( + 3 to -3) response units
which dominate the moister areas of southeastern
Montana and northeastern Wyoming may vary
from five to 10 years, depending on whether the
rehabilitation objective is to return the land to
short-grass prairie, grass-shrub steppe, a mixture of
these types or ponderosa pine. On lower response
units (-3 to -9), such as those in northeastern
Wyoming and northeastern Montana, from five to
15 years may be required to return the land to
short-grass and/or shrub-steppe range. These time
frames would be heavily influenced by rainfall
patterns.
Assuming a direct correlation between the
rehabilitation potential scale and time estimates,
Table 5-24 estimates years to reclaim mined land
to rangeland and cropland. Of importance here is
the relative nature of time. Generally speaking,
and assuming that the best technology available is
applied, it would take longer to achieve reclama-
tion in the San Juan River, Uinta-Southwestern
Utah, and Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Regions.
Revegetation to native species may require a much
longer time period. It may not be possible to
restore mixed native vegetation in the Northern
Great Plains in less than 30 to 40 years [96].
Natural succession to coniferous and hardwood
forest on old abandoned fields averages about 60
to 150 years, respectively, although present com-
mercial forestry techniques have reduced this
period by about 50 percent for both conifer and
hardwood stands [9, 10]. Whether long-term
postmining productivities can equal premining
levels is unknown due to the relative infancy of
timberland reclamation practices [10]. Reestablish-
ment of ponderosa pine and mountain shrub types
in areas where rainfall is favorable for plant
growth and where deep fertile soils have developed
(intermediate elevation zones in parts of Uinta-
Southwestern Utah, Green River-Hams Fork,
Powder River, and Denver-Raton Mesa Coal
Regions) may not present a revegetation problem.
Growth of pine trees and shrubs could reasonably
be expected within 10 to 20 years in these areas
[14].
In desert areas of the West, natural regenera-
tion of the dominant plant species occurs only
every five to seven years, and only when two better
than average years occur in succession [14].
Natural ecological succession in deserts even when
a seed source is close by and the disturbed areas
are not extensive, requires from 20 to 50 years [14].
The National Academy of Science [14] indicates
probabilities of reaching rehabilitation objectives
for desert, sagebrush foothills mixed grass plains
and ponderosa pine and mountain brush in the
western region. These probabilities depend on the
land use objectives, characteristics of the site,
available reclamation technology, and the skill
with which this technology is applied.
5-51
TABLE 5-24
ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED TO RECLAIM MINED-LAND
(Western Regions) (a)
COAL
RECLAMATION POTENTIAL (b)
TIME TO RECLAIM
(years) (e)
REGION
WEIGHTED AVERAGE (c)
RANGE
RANGELAND
CROPLAND
Powder River
0.9
-2 to 5
10.0
5.0
Green River-Hams Fork
0.2
-2 to 4
10.0
8.0
Fort Union
3.4
1 to 8
8.0
5.0
San Juan River
-6.9
-8 to 3
14.0
14.0
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
-5.0
-5 ■
14.0
13.0
Denver-Raton Mesa(d)
-5.0
-5
14.0
13.0
(a) Source: Reference Numbers 3 and 4.
(b) Based on scale of -8 to +8 developed in Reference Number 3.
(c) Based on total acres which would be mined through 1980 and
reclamation potential of active mines.
(d) Same value as Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region due to regional
productivity and latitudinal similarities.
(e) In the Appalachian and Eastern Interior Coal Regions reclamation
to the equivalent of rangeland could occur in 1-2 years and
to prime cropland in 5-15 years.
5-52
REGIONAL IMPACTS
In general, if sites are reshaped and left to
natural succession, only sites in ponderosa pine
and mixed grass plains have a moderate chance of
revegetating in a short time. Successful revegeta-
tion in the desert is low even when existing
technology is applied properly, and sagebrush
revegetation is moderate. The chance of approach-
ing the original ecosystem is moderate even on the
best sites, and there is no probability of complete
restoration anywhere.
5.3.2.2 Topography. An impact on the topography
of an area would occur if a permanent change in
the general configuration of the land surface were
to result from coal related development. The
concept of permanent change is a key factor in
determining the topographic impacts of surface
mining under the provisions of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The
environmental protection performance standards
of that law (section 515(c)(3)) operate to mitigate
the significance of topographic changes compared
with those changes that would occur under
conditions of no control.
During early activities in developing a coal
mine, topographic changes would be limited to the
grading required for access roads and for the
preparation of the drill sites used to determine the
overburden and coal-deposit dimensions. Holes
are drilled at quarter-mile intervals; this involves
approximately 35 holes per 1,000 acres of lease-
hold. Except in very rugged terrain, grading for
access roads and drilling sites would involve a
negligible portion of the leasehold.
Topographic impacts could also occur during
premining site preparation and facilities construc-
tion. Cuts and fills could be required for coal haul
roads and some surface grading might be needed
for mine-support facilities such as offices, ware-
houses, shops, and equipment parking or storage
areas. The amount of such changes would be
highly dependent on the characterisitics of a
particular site. However, the topographic changes
resulting from these activities would not generally
be extensive enough to significantly impact the
topography of the area or any sizeable portion of
it.
The extent of topographic disturbance due to
coal extraction operations differs considerably
between surface mining and underground mining.
By far, the greater disturbance is associated with
surface mining. Surface mining involves the re-
moval of the overburden and the extraction of the
exposed coal seam or seams. The primary impact
of this activity would be the lowering of the surface
in the area mined to depths that vary from a few
feet to hundreds of feet, depending on the
combination of overburden depth and coal seam
thickness. If left in its surface-mined form, the area
would suffer a significant topographic impact.
However, SMCRA (section 515(b)(3)) requires that
all overburden material be backfilled and graded
to restore the approximate original contour of the
land.
Section 515(b)(3) also covers provisions in
SMCRA for instances where insufficient or excess
overburden does not allow restoration of original
contours. The geological nature of the overburden
and the ratio of overburden thickness to coal seam
thickness are factors that would determine whether
there is excess or insufficient overburden. During
excavation, the overburden material would be
broken up and expansion of its volume, known as
bulking, would occur. This overburden bulking
(from 10 to 20 percent) could vary between
regions, within regions, and even within a particu-
lar leasehold depending on the geological materials
encountered. If a 20-foot coal seam were to be
mined in an area that required the removal of 200
feet of overburden material having a 10 percent
bulking factor, backfilling and grading of the
overburden could restore the approximate original
contour of the land with all highwalls, spoil piles,
and depressions eliminated. If the ratio of overbur-
den to coal seam thickness ratio were greater than
the percent of overburden bulking, there would be
excess overburden. Conversely, if the overburden
to coal ratio were less than the percent of bulking,
there would be insufficient overburden and a
depression would remain after mining reclamation.
Among the various coal regions, the Powder River
Coal Region, with its 26-foot average seam
thickness, would have a much higher proportion of
lowered topography than the other regions. Sur-
face lowerings of 25 to 40 feet have been experi-
enced at some present mining operations in this
region involving coal seams up to 70 feet thick with
overburden thicknesses averaging 150 to 250 feet.
The conditions of both hill and depression forma-
tion are covered under SMCRA, which requires
that the overburden material be backfilled, graded,
and compacted (where advisable) to the lowest
5-53
REGIONAL IMPACTS
practicable grade but not more than the angle of
repose.
Another area of topographic impact resulting
from surface mining operations involves the
general shape of the restored land. Regardless of
whether the restored area is at the same elevation,
raised, or depressed relative to the original eleva-
tion, the landforms resulting from restoration
activities would have more smoothly contoured
surfaces than the original landscape; most of the
microrelief features, such as small ledges, rock
outcrops, and natural steep banks, would be
eliminated.
Underground mining could impact surface
topography through deformation of the geologic
strata above the coal extraction area. This could
lead to lowerings of the surface, cracks due to
tension, or bulges resulting from compression.
These types of impacts could have a major effect
on future use to which the land surface above the
mine workings can be put. The type and magni-
tude of such surface changes is highly site-specific
and cannot be generalized for any region. Condi-
tions which affect subsidence include the nature of
the rock formation and thickness of the overbur-
den, the geometry of mine workings, coal-bed
thickness and the rate of mining, and the direction
in which any coal bed dips as seen at the point
where it is exposed at the surface [17]. Under-
ground mining activities can be designed to take
into account those factors which influence subsi-
dence processes. New techniques, such as the use
of remote sensing imagery, are being developed to
provide better information for evaluating mine
ground stability and potential areas of subsidence
[17,18,19].
Other activities associated with the coal devel-
opment cycle such as plant construction, utility
and transportation corridor construction, and
employment-related factors might also produce
topographic changes. New roads or rail lines might
require cuts or fills; coal-conversion and electric-
generation facilities would generally require site
preparation in the form of some degree of surface
grading or leveling; and community-development
activities (housing, utilities, schools, etc.) associ-
ated with coal development would also involve a
certain amount of surface grading. These changes
would also be site dependent and the magnitude of
such changes from a topographical basis should
not be significant. The overall effect on topogra-
phy would be moderate alterations in land cont-
ours of the acres involved.
It is not anticipated that the impacts in the
topography of any region will differ significantly
under any one of the program alternatives as
compared with the other alternatives. In general,
mining more coal increases the potential for
topographic impact, especially when surface min-
ing techniques are used. Hence, the chance of
lasting topographic effects for each region is
greatest under that alternative in which coal
production from that region is maximum. As noted
in section 5.1.3, it was assumed that the split
between underground and surface mining (i.e., the
percentage of coal extracted by each method) in
each region would be the same for all alternatives.
Therefore, when coal production in a given region
varies as a result of interregional shifts, the amount
of coal extracted by each method will change by a
proportional amount. In each coal region, the
alternative for which surface extraction is maxi-
mum will be the same as. that for which overall
production is maximum; minimum production by
each method will also correspond with the alterna-
tive for which overall production is minimum.
5.3.2.3 Geology. Mining is the only activity in the
coal development cycle in which significant geo-
logical impacts could occur. Although coal pro-
cessing, transport, conversion, and use might
produce minor topographic changes, the impacts
of such changes would not be great enough to
significantly alter the geologic character of an area.
In the mining phase, surface mining operations
would produce significantly greater geologic im-
pacts than underground operations. The exact
extent of surface mining impacts would be directly
related to the geological characteristics and
thickness of the overburden, and cannot be
generalized for a particular region. When overbur-
den is broken up, removed, and later replaced, the
geological structure and natural stratification of
the overburden is destroyed and its physical and
chemical properties are altered. Although such
structural alterations would prevent any future
scientific study of the original nature and structure
of the overburden, much of the needed informa-
tion would be collected during earlier development
activities. Exploratory drilling includes the collec-
tion of core samples for mineralogical, physical,
and chemical testing and also includes bore hole
5-54
REGIONAL IMPACTS
testing to collect data on the seismic, gravimetric,
and magnetic characteristics of the different
underground strata. The breaking up of the
overburden and the mining of coal could also
affect groundwater through the disruption of any
aquifers in the overburden material or in the coal
itself. This area of impacts is described in detail in
Section 5.3.2.6.
Paleontological resources could be affected by
the disturbance, destruction, or removal of fossil
material from overburden during stripping and
backfilling operations. The exposure of fossilifer-
ous rocks that might occur in association with
conjuctive activities could also lead to losses
resulting from unauthorized fossil collecting and
vandalism. The significance of impacts on paleon-
tological resources from stripping operations can-
not be meaningfully assessed without data collec-
tion guidelines, assessment procedures, and eva-
luatory criteria. The Bureau of Land Management
and the U.S. Geological Survey are currently
developing a mechanism to provide for the
protection of paleontological resources on Federal
lands. The overall impacts from a geological
standpoint would be minimal. Likewise, paleonto-
logical resources in any coal region should sustain
only minimal impacts, although some specific sites
might be adversely affected.
Another category of potential geological im-
pacts involves the Department of the Interior's
Natural Landmarks Program that affects other
Federally designated scenic and natural areas. A
certain number of these areas would be considered
as unsuitable for coal mining under the lands
unsuitability criteria set forth in Table 3-1 above.
Scenic Federal lands designated by visual resource
management analysis as areas of outstanding
scenic quality and/or of high visual sensitivity -
Class I or II - but not currently on the National
Registry of Natural Landmarks would, in general,
also be considered unsuitable for coal mining. An
exception is that a lease may be issued in a scenic
area only if the land management agency deter-
mines that: (1) the area or site is only of regional or
local significance and the state concurs that leasing
may be permitted; (2) the use of appropriate
mining technology would result in no significant
adverse impact to the area or site; and (3) the
mining of the coal resource would enhance
information recovery (e.g., paleontological sites).
The extent of the areas that would be considered as
unsuitable for coal mining because of their natural
or scenic qualities cannot be determined at the
programmatic level.
The objective of the Natural Landmarks
Program is to assist the preservation of the various
categories of significant natural areas which would
illustrate the diversity of the country's natural
history. The types of nationally-significant geologi-
cal features that could qualify for natural land-
mark designation are outstanding formations
significantly illustrating geologic processes, signifi-
cant fossil evidence of the development of life on
earth, and examples of the scenic grandeur of our
natural heritage [20]. Efforts to inventory signifi-
cant landmarks of all the natural regions are
continuing through a variety of natural-region
theme studies. It is not possible at present to
determine the magnitude of potential impacts on
these landmarks without specific data on all of the
sites where mining will occur. The nature of the
landmark would be a factor in determining
whether coal development activities would cause a
significant impact. For example, a landmark which
owed part of its significance to the ability to view it
from a particular vantage point could be impacted
by the visual intrusion of man-made structures or
terrain alterations while a significant fossil area
could remain unaffected by such activities so long
as they did not physically disrupt the fossil
formations.
In general, all of the activities in the coal
development cycle contain elements which could
possibly affect natural landmarks. However, sur-
face mining activities would present the highest
probability of potential impacts. Thirteen land-
marks currently included on the National Registry
of Natural Landmarks have been reported to be
threatened by various types of surface mining [21].
Although only one of these sites specifically
involved coal mining, these cases are illustrative of
potential coal development impacts on designated
natural landmarks. Coal development activities
could also alter a site so as to preclude its possible
designation as a natural landmark. Other activities
which would have potential for landmark impacts
include uncontrolled fossil collection due to mine-
related population increases and community devel-
opments which could preempt the designation of
an area as a natural landmark.
As with topographic impacts, increasing the
amount of coal mined heightens the potential for
5-55
REGIONAL IMPACTS
significantly affecting an area's geology. The
greatest potential for adverse impacts in paleontol-
ogy and natural landmarks exists in the West. This
section has long been known for its diversity of
natural formations and unusual geologic features;
with its low population density, many scenic
attractions remain open to uninterrupted view.
While fossil remains are found throughout the
U.S., the likelihood of still undiscovered remains is
greater in the abundant open spaces of the West.
On judgement, then, the potential for unantici-
pated adverse geologic impacts is greatest for those
alternatives that call for mining the largest
amounts of western coal.
5.3.2.4 Minerals. Mineral resources would be
impacted by their extraction, by the establishment
of conditions which preempt any future develop-
ment, or by conditions which delay their develop-
ment. The major impacts of any Federal coal
management program would be the permanent
depletion of coal as a nonrenewable resource
through the production and consumption of the
tonnages of coal associated with each of the
alternatives. Additional minor impacts would
occur through the use of sand and gravel or other
materials for road-base material and as construc-
tion aggregate. These materials would be required
in varying quantities in all activities of the coal
development cycle and in any community develop-
ment that would occur due to coal development.
Although the requirements are not known at this
time, regionally significant impacts would not be
expected because of the widespread availability of
these construction materials. Hence no region is
likely to experience significant depletion nor would
major differences occur under the various alterna-
tives.
Both surface and underground mining have the
potential to preempt future development of other
mineral resources. The magnitude of any preemp-
tion cannot be estimated for any region. The
factors that determine what and how much of a
mineral is thus preempted depend on the specific
sites chosen for mining coal. These factors include
the mineral-resources in a surface mine overbur-
den and the location of any deep coal bed relative
to other mineral commodities above or below it.
An example of potential preemption by surface
mining operations can be illustrated by the
Wasatch and Fort Union Formations in the
Wyoming portion of the Powder River Coal
Region. Uranium and coal have both been found
in these formations. The stripping of overburden to
reach a coal seam would intermix any uranium
with the rest of the overburden and eliminate the
possibility of any future uranium extraction. The
uranium occuring under such conditions usually
consists of deposits that are presently uneconomi-
cal to recover. However, if future uranium market
conditions or uranium extraction technology were
to change to make recovery of this deposit
economically attractive, such recovery would have
been preempted by the intermixing with the rest of
the overburden. The extent to which this might
occur for uranium or other minerals cannot be
projected for any of the coal regions since it is
dependent on the specific mineral characteristics
of individual leaseholds. Mineral development
preemption could also occur with the development
of new communities or the expansion of existing
communities if such development were to occur
above mineral deposits so that they could not
feasibly be mined.
Coal mining operations could also conflict
with oil and gas recovery operations, either by
preempting development or by delaying develop-
ment for the life of the coal mining project. In a
few instances, coal deposits occur below or at the
same approximate level as a commercial oil or gas
deposit. Simultaneous operation of a coal mine
and a producing oil or gas field have presented
some difficulties. Regulations [30 CFR 211] have
been established by the Geological Survey to deal
with these situations. Standard drilling procedures
would not interfere with underground coal opera-
tions if coal seam intersections were properly
cased. Standard casing would seal underground
workings so that no hydrocarbon vapors could
enter the coal seam from the well to create safety
problems.
There is sometimes a particular sequence in
which the extraction of two resources from the
same area should occur. Where a mining operation
follows the extraction of petroleum products, for
example, the location of oil and gas wells would
have to be determined by the mining company in
order to leave safety pillars around the wells. It
should be noted that in cases of coal mining
requiring sequential extraction, it is generally more
prudent, for technological reasons, to extract the
coal resource before the oil and gas resource.
5-56
REGIONAL IMPACTS
5.3.2.5 Soils. Coal mining activities could cause soil
impacts ranging from minor, short-term distur-
bances to significantly adverse, long-term alter-
ation of soil characteristics. Stripping or grading
operations could drastically alter soil characteris-
tics through the mixing of the soil with the subsoil
and underlying rock material. However, distinct
strata of topsoil could be saved for use in
reclamation, thereby increasing the productivity
potential of mined lands in the postmining phase.
The natural soil structure would be broken up, soil
compaction would cause lower permeability, soil
microorganism would be buried, and nutrient
cycling and established soil climate relationship
could be completely altered. Overburden removal
could also bring to the surface and mix with the
soil those elements that are either toxic to plant
growth or toxic to animal life that feed on the
plants.
All land disturbances would result in the
exposure of a range of soil materials of varying
particle size to the action of wind and water. Soil
productivity, permeability, and rates at which
moisture infiltrates would be reduced, thereby
increasing runoff, soil erosion, and sedimentation.
Wind action, which is variable both among the
regions and within a single region, would cause
fine soil particles (silt and clay) to be lifted into the
atmosphere, reducing air quality and increasing
soil loss. However, estimates of impacts on soils
can only be made for each site on an individual
basis after haul roads, plant facilities, utility
corridors, and other mine development activities
have been identified.
Because of the provisions of Section 406(a) and
Section 508 (a)(5) of the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act that pertain specifically to
topsoil handling and restoration, potentially ad-
verse soil impacts such as removal of too much
topsoil and improper soil substitution and compac-
tion can be minimized. The mining and reclama-
tion plan for a particular leasehold must include
soil surveys provided by the lessee. Such surveys
would identify physical and chemical characteris-
tics together with the geographic extent of the
leasehold soils to provide the basis for an effective
reclamation plan. The wide variability of soil types
is well illustrated by the proposed mining and
reclamation plan for a Powder River Coal Region
mine. This plan included a soil survey that
identified 28 different soil types within a 5,800-acre
leasehold [22].
5.3.2.6 Water Impacts. Water requirements in the
12 coal regions reflect the degree of coal develop-
ment in each region. The total water withdrawal
required yearly under the no new leasing alterna-
tive would range (depending upon the level of
production assumed) from 3.1 million acre-feet to
3.7 million acre-feet in 1985. By 1990, the range
would be from 3.4 million to 4.8 million acre-feet
(Tables 5-25 and 5-26). Not all of this water would
be lost to further use; much of it would be returned
to the source, as, for example, after it had been
used in washing coal or for cooling purposes at a
power plant. The amount of water used up in coal-
related activities represents what is termed con-
sumptive-use and is shown for the 12 coal regions
under the no new leasing alternative in Table 5-28.
Both water availability and water quality
would be affected by a Federal coal management
program. Water to meet mining, cleaning, and
conversion needs would be drawn from available
surface water and groundwater sources. Depend-
ing on local conditions, these water sources may or
may not be adequate to support the increase in
coal development activities projected for 1985 and
1990. Following its use, some volume of water
would be discharged to the environment. The
quality of this fluid would have been changed
during its use. Such quality changes may include
the addition of total dissolved solids, including
heavy and trace metals as well as the more
common cations and anions (electrically charged
particles in solution), the lowering of pH (i.e., of
alkalinity so as to make the water more acidic),
and the addition of heat. Even with controls, some
release of these substances would occur either
directly into surface or ground waters or indirectly
by being leached from solid waste or disposal sites.
Use of water could also increase salinity and
concentrations of pollutants downstream from the
point of where the water was diverted for use.
Additional water degradation may occur as a
result of mine drainage and runoff from storage,
overburden, and spoil piles.
Coal seams are frequently found in close
proximity to usable aquifers. In some cases, the
coal beds themselves may constitute an aquifer.
Disruption of rock strata during mining may
therefore cause substantial changes in groundwater
5-57
TABLE. 5-25
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
WATER MAKEUP (WITHDRAWAL) REQUIREMENTS
(EASTERN COAL REGIONS)
(1000 acre-feet per year)
COAL
1985
1990
REGION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Northern Appalachian
566.2
563.8
565.1
559.4
651.0
663.0
Central Appalachian
136. 9
212.1
211.0
242.5
309.7
309.3
Southern Appalachian
265.6
355.1
352.7
264.3
392.3
397.1
Eastern Interior
497.9
516.6
542.2
554,6
582.0
558.7
Western Interior
286.0
367.4
378.0
310.2
597.0
586.4
Texas
310.7
471.0
474.0
397.0
864.0
840.6
TABLE 5-26
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
WATER MAKEUP (WITHDRAWAL) REQUIREMENTS
(WESTERN COAL REGIONS)
(1000 acre-feet per year)
COAL
REGION
San Juan River
Uinta-
Southwestern Utah
Green River-
Hams Fork
Powder River
Fort Union
Denver-Raton Mesa
Others
1935
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
30.7 32.6 51.6
67.7
58.8 61.8 70.9
55.2 66.7 68.2
71.6 84.4
61.9 55.5 114.9
54.3 67.0 75.7
556.3 600.4 680.
1990
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
38.4 42.1 52.4
76.4 74.7 76.6
66.2 64.4 70.4
92.4 91.6 110. 0
93.5 138.2 154.9
78.3 101.5 92. i
631.2 906.
57.1
5-5S
REGIONAL IMPACTS
flow conditions with potentially important impacts
on drinking water supplies and receiving surface
water bodies.
An increased population and industrial growth
associated with coal development would exert
additional water demands and would introduce
quantities of salts, nutrients, organic materials,
bacteria, pesticides, trace elements, heavy metals,
etc. into surface waters, and could overtax existing
sewage treatment facilities. Actual impacts on both
water supply and quality would depend on features
of the individual situation, such as streamflow
characteristics and present water quality. Depend-
ing on the local characteristics, the impacts at a
specific site where water is used may be more or
less severe than the effects on the region as a
whole, which reflect usage at many different
locations. For conversion facilities and mines
located near the upper reaches of streams where
the flow is low, impacts on water quality could be
significant.
This analysis of water availability is based on
preliminary data on water flow and consumptive
water use compiled by the U.S. Water Resources
Council [23].
Each water system, consisting of a major river
and its tributaries, drains a particular area of the
United States. The runoff from rainfall and
melting snow, as well as the streamflow from
smaller moving bodies of water such as those fed
from underground springs, finds its way into the
river as it moves through that area. This drainage
area is termed a watershed (sometimes also called
a "basin"), usually named for the principal body of
water draining it. Examples of major watersheds
include the upper Missouri River Basin in the
Northern Plains states and the Ohio River Basin in
the East. Watersheds are defined by the conditions
of stream flow, which in turn reflect geologic and
topographic features of the land, and do not
correspond to the coal regions into which the
country has been divided for purposes of this
statement. Data of the Water Resources Council
(WRC), like most information on water availabili-
ty and use, are organized in terms of watersheds.
Each major watershed in the United States is
divided into subunits, called aggregated subregions
(ASR). The ASRs are listed in Appendix E. These
are, in general, smaller than the coal regions and
provide the best basis for relating water data to the
regions, through the ASRs which most nearly
match or overlap with the latter. For example, the
Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region spans both
ASRs 1401 and 1402. The amount of water
available to that region can be obtained by
summing the data from these two ASRs.
Since water supply and water quality in a
region is affected by all upstream uses, it is also
necessary to identify the regions which are located
in the lower or central areas of watersheds. In
order to obtain a realistic analysis of future water
supply in such regions, the future upstream
consumptive demands must also be determined.
For instance, the Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Region is also contained in ASR 1401, upstream
from the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region.
Therefore, any future increases of consumptive
water requirements in the Green River-Hams Fork
Coal Region (including coal development under
any of the alternatives) would deplete the water
supply flowing through the Uinta-Southwestern
Utah Coal Region. Additionally, parts of the San
Juan River Coal Region (contained in ASR 1403)
are downstream from both the Green River- Hams
Fork and Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Regions.
As a result, any future increases of consumptive
water requirements in ASRs 1401 and 1402 would
decrease the water flow, and hence, availability, to
those parts of the San Juan River Coal Region.
This means that water consumption for coal
development and for nonenergy-related develop-
ments in the Green River-Hams Fork and Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Regions must be deduct-
ed from future supplies in the San Juan River Coal
Region. The ASRs used in the analysis of each
coal region are listed in Table 5-27. The points in
the ASRs at which the flows are measured are
shown in Figure 5-2 and are listed in Appendix E.
The total stream flow, estimated present and
future water requirements (without coal develop-
ment), and the description of the ASRs used in this
analysis are contained in Appendix E. The water
flows that are shown in the tables of Appendix E
are not necessarily readily available for consump-
tion. Much of it must remain available for
supporting fish and wildlife habitats, insuring
navigability, and maintaining water quality. Addi-
tional amounts are held in reserve under the
separate systems of water rights law within each
state and within appropriate interstate water
compacts. In addition, the location of the point at
which water is required within a basin may affect
5-59
TABLE 5-27
COAL REGIONS AND CORRESPONDING AGGREGATED SUBREGIONS
(a)
Coal Region
Northern, Central, and
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior and
Appalachian
Western Interior, Pow-
der River, and Fort
Union
Texas
Powder River
Powder River and Fort
Union
Green River-Hams Fork
Green River-Hams Fork
and Uinta-Southwestern
Utah
Green River-Hams Fork,
Uinta-Southwestern Utah,
and San Juan River
Denver-Raton Mesa
ASR
502 plus 601
505 plus 705 minus
507, 602, and 1011
Watershed
1011 plus 1104
1107 plus 1201, 1202,
1203, 1204, and
1205
1004
1005
1401
1401 plus 1402
1403
1007 plus 1102
Upper Ohio and Upper
Tennessee Rivers
Upper Mississippi and
Ohio Rivers at St.
Louis, Mo., but ex-
cluding the Missouri,
Tennessee, and Cum-
berland Basins
Missouri and Arkansas
Rivers
Texas Gulf and Red
River
Yellowstone River
Upper Missouri River
Green River
Green River and Upper
Mainstem Colorado
River
Upper Colorado River
at Lee's Ferry,
Arizona
Upper Platte and Upper
Arkansas Rivers
(a) Source: Derived from Reference Number 23,
5-60
CM
I
m
a
5
H
GO
I-
O
0.
a
z
cc
o
<
cc
5-61
REGIONAL IMPACTS
the water availability. Even though there may be a
net water surplus in the basin as a whole, local
areas within the basin may experience water
shortages while others have surplus supplies.
Some of the most important limiting factors on
water use in western states are legal constraints.
Since water is relatively scarce in these western
states, an intricate system of compacts and water
laws has been developed to divide the existing
water both between states and within states. This
system is quite complex and subject to many
interpretations of key issues [24,25,26,27,28,29].
Major issues include the extent of Indian and
Federal water rights,1 the amount of water
available for division among the states, and the
ease with which water rights may be changed from
one use to another.
Indian water rights represent a particularly
complex issue which in some coal regions could
play a critical role. Indian claims of title to
groundwater should be noted as representing an
issue which affects coal development, in particular
in the San Juan River Coal Region. In general,
water rights in the western states are governed by
the doctrine of prior appropriation, in which the
first water user in a basin has the first right to use
the water during periods of shortage. Many of the
streams in the West are already over-appropriated,
or appropriated to the extent that users with new
rights are not guaranteed a water supply during
periods of low flow. Procedures for transferring
water rights with early priority dates vary in
complexity from state to state. In many cases the
rights may be transferred without excessive diffi-
culty as long as all parties are willing [25].
However, most western states have provisions
designed to protect the rights of other water users
which could complicate transfer proceedings if
another appropriator in the basin objects to the
transfer [30].
One other consideration in the evaluation of
water availability is that the calculated future flows
determined by the Water Resources Council
(WRC) are based on historical flows and, there-
fore, contain the implicit assumption that the
amounts available would continue in the same
pattern as they did during the period of record
upon which the total stream flows are derived. As
'The Indian tribes of the Northern Great Plains have claimed prior and
paramount rights to all waters which flow through, arise on, or border their
reservations. These claims are based on the United States Supreme Court
water supply needs change, reservoir operations
would likely be modified to meet these needs.
Maintenance of in-stream flow requirements could
also necessitate changes in current operating
patterns. New reservoirs may be built in an
attempt to ensure more constant water supplies for
coal or other developments, although it should be
noted that proposals to build new reservoirs often
produce extensive opposition on environmental
grounds. In addition, some existing reservoirs in
the coal regions already have significant amounts
of unused water storage reserved for industrial
purposes. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Recla-
mation has approximately 650,000 acre-feet in the
Yellowtail Reservoir (Big Horn Lake) adjacent to
the Powder River Coal Region that are reserved
for industrial options, but are not currently used
[31]. Although optional management of existing
reservoirs or additions of new reservoirs should
allow more even distribution of runoff through the
year, no new water is "created." In semi-arid
regions open water evaporation may dramatically
decrease total supplies, but the water that remains
can be used more efficiently, due to the water
containment and storage structures.
In order to compare the regional amounts of
water that will be used up in coal-related activities
with the available supply, the estimates of regional
consumptive requirements (as given in Table 5-28)
have been converted to requirements in each of the
watersheds which will furnish the water. Table 5-29
expresses these requirements for the no new leasing
alternative. The interrelationships between coal
regions and watersheds shown in Table 5-27 were
used to provide estimated requirements at each
level of production. The results in Table 5-29 were
then compared with estimates from the WRC as to
water availability in 1985. However, there was a
complication in using WRC data as is discussed
next.
The future flows calculated by the WRC
represent the amount of water that will discharge
from the watersheds in 1985 after all consumptive
uses have been accounted for. The Council's
figures on consumption already include estimates
of water used in the production of energy,
including the mining and utilization of 1.1 billion
tons of coal in 1985. This independent estimate for
decision in the case, Winters vs. United Slates, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) The claims
and similar competing interests between the state and Indian water rights in
other regions will have to be resolved in the courts.
5-62
TABLE 5-28
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
CONSUMPTIVE WATER REQUIREMENTS BY COAL REGION
(1,000' s of acre-feet)
(a)
COAL
REGION
(b)
Northern
Appalachian
Central
Appalachian
Southern
Appalachian
Eastern
Interior
Western
Interior
Texas
San Juan
River
Uinta -
Southwestern
Utah
Green River -
Hams Fork
Powder
River
Fort
Union
Denver -
Raton Mesa
Others
1985
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
566.2 563.8 565.1
186.9 212.1 211.0
265.6 355.1 352.7
497.9 516.6 542.2
286.0 367.4 378.1
310.7 471.0 474.0
30.7 32.6 51.6
58.8 61.8 70.9
55.2 66.7 68.2
67.7 71.6 84.4
61.9 55.5 114.9
54.3 67.0 75.7
556.3 600.4 680.8
1990
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
(a)
Coal-related activities only.
559.4 651.1 962.0
242.5 309.8 351.2
264.3 392.6 489.2
544.6 578.6 659.7
310.2 580.2 643.9
397.1 850.7 917.9
38.9 41.6 90.7
77.9 70.8 95.4
66.0 58.6 65.1
92.4 90.1 99.6
93.2 141.7 149.2
78.3 99.2 103.4
630.8 879.2 1,181.5
^ In regions where water deficits occur, application of best
available water recycling technology could result in savings
of up to 50% of the amount shown.
5-63
TABLE 5-29
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
CONSUMPTIVE WATER REQUIREMENTS BY WATERSHED (a)
(1000 acre-feet per year)
WATERSHED (S)
(b)
Upper Ohio & Upper
Tennessee Rivers
LOW
826
Upper Mississippi
(above St. Louis)
& Ohio River
Missouri &
Arkansas Rivers
1238
419
Texas Gulf &
Red River
277
Yellowstone River
Upper Missouri
River
Green River
60
115
Green River &
Upper Mainstem
Colorado River
Upper Colorado
River at Lee's
Ferry, Arizona
Upper Platte &
Upper Arkansas
Rivers
49
102
129
1985
MEDIUM
920
1349
499
421
63
111
60
113
47
142
58
(a)
(b)
HIGH
927
1380
1990
LOW
MEDIUM
871
1328
582
424
1120
1597
511
355
74
175
61
120
■82
822
775
165
59
77
198
56
166
127
161
118
65
68
154
HIGH
1150
1609
837
753
96
232
63
127
173
79
Aggregated from Table 5-28 using regional watersheds in Table
5-Z/; coal-related activities only.
See Appendix E.
5-64
REGIONAL IMPACTS
coal use is close to that projected for the no new
leasing alternative at the medium level of produc-
tion. An attempt was therefore made to use the
WRC watershed data as surrogates for assessing
the impact of this alternative.
In seven of the 10 watersheds and watershed
combinations, estimates by WRC, as shown in
Table 5-30, for all energy-related activities exceed
the projections in Table 5-29 for coal-related
activities alone. Therefore, the WRC estimates for
these watersheds may reasonably be assumed to
encompass the consumptive water requirements in
1985 for coal development under the alternative of
no new leasing at the medium level of production.
The results are shown in Tables 5-33 through 5-38
and in Table 5-40.
For three of the watershed combinations,
however, the demand calculated for coal alone (as
given in Table 5-29) exceeds WRC estimates of
demand for all energy-related activities. These
three watershed combinations are the Upper Ohio
and Upper Tennessee, the Upper Mississippi and
Ohio, and the Green River and Upper Mainstem
Colorado River. Several options for dealing with
this problem exist. The safest approach, in that it
minimizes the danger of underestimation, is to add
the consumptive requirements projected for coal
alone (as given in Table 5-28 and 5-29) under the
no new leasing alternative to those calculated by
WRC for all energy sources. This approach will
overstate the total water requirements by an
unknown amount, because the WRC estimates
have already included some requirements related
to coal. The actual amount overestimated is
unknown, however, and cannot be subtracted out.
The comparision of water needs with water
availability will represent, therefore, a worst-case
estimate.
The results of using this approach are shown
for the three combined watersheds in Tables 5-31,
5-32 and 5-39. In these tables, estimates of annual
water production, based on the no new leasing
alternative at the medium level of production, were
divided by 12 to obtain average monthly values.
It will be noted in Tables 5-31 through 5-40
that monthly predictions of water flow (after
accounting for all consumptive uses) are given in
terms of both the mean or average level and the 95
percent level. The latter figure is based on the
estimated 20-year low flow and represents the
volume of water that is expected to be exceeded
during the specified month in 19 years out of 20. It
is, of course, not possible to predict from past
records in what year the low flow would occcur
nor to guarantee that values below the 95 percent
level would occur only at 20-year intervals.
As can be seen from the tables, demand
exceeds supply for six of the ten combined
watersheds. All of these are west of the Mississippi
River. The only western watersheds for which
deficits are not predicted are the Upper Missouri
and the Green River and Upper Mainstem
Colorado (already noted). These deficits would
occur during the summer months when the
patterns of precipitation and runoff result in
minimum stream flow. While many Western
streams also experience low flows in the winter,
this condition apparently does not result in as
severe a regional depletion of supplies as low flows
in the summer. Except in the Texas and Denver-
Raton Mesa Coal Regions (Tables 5-18 and 5-40),
these deficits would occur only at the 95 percent
level and would not exist during most years. The
deficits would not be eliminated under any of the
alternatives which call for less consumptive use of
water in some of the regions, as shown in Table 5-
41. On a monthly basis, none of the reductions
from the no new leasing alternative are enough to
offset the deficit. Indeed, the water impact expect-
ed under any given alternative (at the medium
level of production) are not appreciably different
from those expected under any other.
Before discussing impacts on a geographical
basis, several of the uncertainties inherent to the
methodologies should be highlighted. One of the
most important is the lack of information on the
probable margin of error in WRC estimates. The
percent change in water consumption from one
alternative to another, which can be considered as
statistically significant, is therefore difficult to
address. As stated earlier, while a deficit may not
be predicted for a given watershed (therefore,
water should still physically flow in the major
streams) under coal development, other constraints
may affect water availability. Legislatively man-
dated flow requirements for pollution control and
conservation needs, interbasin allocation agree-
ments, and recreational considerations will all
affect how much water can be taken from the
streams and consumed for coal development.
These constraints are exceedingly difficult to
address on a region basis; however, other supplies
5-65
TABLE 5-30
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL PROJECTED CONSUMPTIVE WATER REQUIREMENTS IN 1.985
(1000 acre-feet/year)
Watershed ^
Fuels
Mining
Petroleum
Refining
Steam Electric
Generation
Total(b)
Upper Ohio and Upper
Tennessee Rivers
74
18
435
528
Upper Mississippi and
Ohio Rivers
96
52
1040
1190
Missouri and Arkansas
Rivers
215
73
463
751
Texas Gulf and Red
Rivers
697
257
373
1330
Yellowstone River
38
6
38
82
Upper Missouri River
67
7
62
136
Green River
31
0
54
85
Green River and Upper
Mainstem Colorado
River
36
0
54
90
Upper Colorado River
63
0
119
182
Upper Platte and
Upper Arkansas Rivers
48
8
89
146
(a) These watersheds correspond to those listed in Table 5-27.
See Appendix E.
(b) Totals may not add due to rounding. Water use for synthetic fuel
production and irrigation is not included.
5-66
TABLE 5-31
PREDICTED WATER FLOW IN THE UPPER OHIO
AND UPPER TENNESSEE RIVER BASINS*,
CONTAINING THE NORTHERN, CENTRAL
AND SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN COAL REGIONS, 1985
(1000s of acre-feet)
PERIOD
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
CALCULATED FLOW
(a)
MEAN
Annual
(b)
11,500
13,700
15,800
12,800
8,900
6,350
4,540
3,960
3,160
3,200
4,640
8,020
96,500
95%
3,340
5,660
7,260
6,500
4,010
2,890
2,220
1,840
1,520
1,420
1,780
2,190
62,800
(a)
(b)
* See Appendix E.
Note: Flow after all uses including irrigation.
Calculated flow is the difference between the water entering
and the total water depletions in the watershed (s) that contain
the region. It is the estimated amount of water that would
flow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharge.
Negative values indicate water deficits which would necessitate
at least temporary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily imply that the water is available for
use, since water availability also depends on such factors as
minimum in-stream requirements; water quality; and water law
as determined by each state and by compacts between the states
(see text).
Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent flow does
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow.
Source: Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-67
TABLE 5-32
PREDICTED WATER FLOW IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI
AND OHIO RIVER BASINS*,
CONTAINING THE EASTERN INTERIOR
AND APPALACHIAN COAL REGIONS, 1985
(1000s. of acre*feet)
PERIOD
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
CALCULATED FLOW
(a)
MEAN
21,650
29,250
32,400
34,900
23,200
18,100
13,100
95%
5,550
10,850
15,600
21,500
12,200
9,690
August
7,520
U,iOU
3,650
September
6,510
3,580
October
6,580
2,110
November
9,250
2,310
December
13,150
3,620
Annual
214,400
121,400
*ASRs 505 plus 705 minus 507, 602, and 1011. (See Appendix E.)
Note: Flow after all uses Including irrigation.
(a)
(b)
Calculated flow is the difference between the water entering
and the total water depletions in the watershed (s) that contain
the region. It is the estimated amount of water that would
flow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharge
Negative values indicate water deficits which would necessitate
at least temporary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily imply that the water is available for
use, since water availability also depends on such factors as
minimum in-stream requirements; water quality; and water law
as determined by each state and by compacts between the states
(see text).
Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent flow does
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow.
Source: Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-6!
TABLE 5-33
PREDICTED WATER FLOW IN THE MISSOURI
AND ARKANSAS RIVER BASINS*,
CONTAINING THE WESTERN INTERIOR, POWDER RIVER,
AND FORT UNION COAL REGIONS, 1985
(1000s of acre-feet)
*ASRs 1011 and 1104. (See Appendix E.)
Note: Flow after all uses including irrigation.
^'Calculated flow is the difference between the water entering
and the total water depletions in the watershed (s) that contain
the region. It is the estimated amount of water that would
flow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharge.
Negative values indicate water deficits which would necessitate
at least temporary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily imply that the water is available for
use, since water availability also depends on such factors as
minimum in-stream requirements; water quality; and water law
as determined by each state and by compacts between the states
(see text) .
Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent flow does
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow.
Source: Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-69
TABLE 5-34
PREDICTED WATER FLOW IN THE LOWER RED, SABINE, NECHES
TRINITY, BRAZOS, COLORADO AND NUECES RIVER BASINS*
CONTAINING THE TEXAS COAL REGION, 1985
(1000s of acre-feet)
PERIOD
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
CALCULATED FLOW
(a)
MEAN
Annual
(b)
4,460
5,970
5,830
6,170
8,480
5,030
1,850
- 879
876
2,010
2,530
3,650
46,700
95%
706
1,060
1,205
1,040
940
240
- 460
-1,840
-2,520
11
185
362
9,040
*ASRs 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, and 1107 (See Appendix E)
Note: Flow after all uses including irrigation.
(a)
(b)
Calculated flow is the difference between the water entering
the region It is the estimated amount of water that would
flow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharge
z?w rJr indicr water deficits ^ ^ ~^s;.t.
tlttT a temp°rary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily imply that the water L available for
use, since water availability also depends on such factors as
as Stli?:* Irr rTirementS; Water *>***l «d water law
(see te™) * ^^ "* by comPact« between the states
Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent fW does
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow.
Source: Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-70
TABLE 5-35
PREDICTED WATER FLOW IN THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER BASINS*,
CONTAINING THE POWDER RIVER COAL REGION, 1985
(1000s of acre-feet)
_
CALCULATED(a)
PERIOD
MEAN
95%
January
297
159
February
387
182
March
658
296
April
527
214
May
945
490
June
2,100
973
July
1,100
165
August
164
-114
September
167
- 62
October
372
185
November
422
283
December
315
188
Annual
7,430
3,670
*ASR 1004 (See
Appendix
E)
(a)
Note: Flow after all uses including irrigation.
Calculated flow is the difference between the water entering
and the total water depletions in the watershed (s) that contain
the region. It is the estimated amount of water that would
flow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharge..
Negative values indicate water deficits which would necessitate
at least temporary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily imply that the water is available for
use, since water availability also depends on such factors as
minimum in-stream requirements; water quality; and water law
as determined by each state and by compacts between the states
(see text) .
(b)
Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent flow does
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow.
Source: Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-71
TABLE 5-36
PREDICTED WATER FLOW IN THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BASIN*
CONTAINING THE POWDER RIVER AND FORT UNION COAL REGIONS, 'l985
(1000s of acre-feet)
PERIOD
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
Cb)
(a),
*ASR 1005 (See Appendix E)
Note: Flow after all uses including irrigation.
'Calculated flow is the difference between the water entering
and the total water depletions in the watershed (s) that contain
the region. It is the estimated amount of water that would
flow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharge
Negative values indicate water deficits which would necessitate
at least temporary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily imply that the water is available for
use, since water availability also depends on such factors as
minimum in-stream requirements; water quality; and water law
as determined by each state and by compacts between the states
(see text),
(b)
Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent flow does
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow.
Source: Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-72
TABLE 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, 1985
(1000s of acre-feet)
1 CALCULATED FLOW*'3''
PERIOD
MEAN
95%
January
712
136
February
744
477
March
778
342
April
1,235
17 6
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
(b)
-114
16
14
-105
- 54
131
166
145
3,510
(a)
*ASR 1403 (See Appendix E)
Note: Flow after all uses including irrigation.
Calculated flow is the difference between the water entering
and the total water depletions in the watershed (s) that contain
the region. It is the estimated amount of water that would
flow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharge.
Negative values indicate water deficits which would necessitate
at least temporary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily imply that the water is available for
use, since water availability also depends on such factors as
minimum in-stream requirements; water quality; and water law
as determined by each state and by compacts between the states
(see text).
(b) Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent flow does
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow.
Source: Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-73
TABLE 5-38
PREDICTED WATER FLOW IN THE GREEN RIVER BASIN*
CONTAINING THE GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK COAL REGION, 1985
(1000s of acre-feet)
PERIOD
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
(b)
*ASR 1401 (See Appendix E) .
Note: Flow after all uses including irrigation.
3 Calculated flow is the difference between the water entering
and the total water depletions in the watershed (s) that contain
the region. It is the estimated amount of water that would
flow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharge
Negative values indicate water deficits which would necessitate
at least temporary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily imply that the water is available for
use, since water availability also depends on such factors as
minimum m-stream requirements; water quality; and water law
as determined by each state and by compacts between the states
(see text).
(b)
Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent flow does
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow.
Source: Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-74
TABLE 5-39
PREDICTED WATER FLOW IN THE
UPPER COLORADO MAINSTEM AND GREEN RIVER BASINS*,
CONTAINING THE GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK AND
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH COAL REGION, 1985
(1000s of acre-feet)
(a)
CALCULATED FLOW'
PERIOD
MEAN
95%
January
351
218
February
410
260
March
467
288
April
936
533
May
1,960
1,370
June
2,260
1,450
July
877
460
August
313
140
September
262
135
October
408
247
November
394
277
December
361
222
Annual
9,050
3,930
*ASRs 1401 and 1402 (See Ap]
sendix E)
(a)
Note: Flow after all uses Including irrigation.
Calculated flow is the difference between the water entering
and the total water depletions in the watershed (s) that contain
the region. It is the estimated amount of water that would
flow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharge.
Negative values indicate water deficits which would necessitate
at least temporary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily imply that the water is available for
use, since water availability also depends on such factors as
minimum in-stream requirements; water quality; and water law
as determined by each state and by compacts between the states
(see text).
(b)Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent flow does
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow.
Source: Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-75
TABLE 5-40
PREDICTED WATER FLOW IN THE UPPER ARKANSAS
AND UPPER PLATTE RIVER BASINS*
CONTAINING THE DENVER-RATON MESA COAL REGION, 1985
(1000s of acre-feet)
*ASRs 1007 and 1102 (See Appendix E)
(a) Note: Flow after all uses including irrigation.
Calculated flow is the difference between the water enterine
the Z±tT\Tl:\iePlel-0nS ? "" «t«^- t St contain
flow out of the H eSt2Jnated amount of water that would
tiow out of the basin as measured at the point of discharee
«8w Hit indlcr water deficits ^ ^r^z^
™i,,« J temP°rary reduction in upstream consumption. Positive
values do not necessarily i.nplv that the water L a il for
use since water availability also depends on such factors as
rd™rmWdtrbam rTirementS; ^e/quallty;^^".:8
(see te™)? * ^^ "** by comPacts between the states
(b)
Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due
to accumulated round-off error. The annual 95 percent flow doe!
not equal the sum of the monthly 95 percent flow
Source:
Adapted from Reference Number 23.
5-76
REGIONAL IMPACTS
may become available in the future through
conservation efforts in the highly consumptive
irrigation sector, properly managed lease sale
groundwater developments, and through effective
surface water storage systems.
Impacts - No New Leasing Alternative. The total
regional water requirements reflect the degree to
which coal development is supported by each
region. The 1985 consumptive water requirements
for the no new leasing alternative high option
range from a low of 59,000 acre-feet per year in the
San Juan River Coal Region to a high of 453,000
acre-feet per year in the Eastern Interior Coal
Region (see Table 5-28). The requirement for
588,000 acre-feet shown for other areas is due to
coal consumption in nonproducing areas and is
distributed throughout the remaining areas of the
United States.
Based upon predicted water flow data in Table
5-31, the water supply in the Northern, Central,
and Southern Appalachian Coal Regions (the
Upper Ohio and Upper Tennessee River Basin) is
more than sufficient to support projected coal
related development. The yearly requirement in
1985 for the high option (about 927 thousand acre-
feet, see Table 5-12) is less than two percent of the
extreme low flow (95 percent low flow or the flow
which is exceeded during 19 out of every 20 years,
on the average) for the watershed (about 63 million
acre-feet). The 20-year low flow for October is
about 1.4 million acre-feet and the average
monthly requirement is about 8,000 acre-feet. Even
under such low-flow conditions, the monthly flow
is not expected to go below 1.3 million acre-feet
per month. In addition, the Southern Appalachian
Coal Region may be able to obtain water from the
Black Warrior and Coosa River systems and the
Northern Appalachian Coal Region may obtain
some water from the Susquehanna River, none of
which has been included in this analysis. Although
estimates of water flow in 1990 are not available, it
appears that the additional requirements for the no
new leasing alternative (as shown in Table 5-29)
would not present any significant problems at the
regional level. About 80 percent of the water
withdrawals in the Appalachian Regions would be
consumptively used (Tables 5-26 and 5-28). The
remainder (between 190 and 210 thousand acre-
feet) would be discharged as waste fluid to surface
water. Even if discharges would meet Federal and
state regulations, local pollution problems may
develop. These could be of particular concern
when summer low flows are insufficient for waste
assimilation. Additional controls may then be
required to maintain ecosystem health and produc-
tivity during times of critical flow.
The situation is similar for the water require-
ments of the Eastern Interior Coal Region, which
is supported by the Upper Mississippi and Ohio
River Basins (see Table 5-32). Since the Ohio River
Basin also supports the water requirements for a
large portion of the Appalachian Coal Regions, the
water requirements for all three Appalachian Coal
Regions were, combined with those of the Eastern
Interior Coal Region in Table 5-32. This results in
the presentation of a worst-case situation since at
least some of the water supply for the Northern
and Southern Appalachian Coal Regions would be
developed from sources not included in the table.
However, even this extra demand could be
supplied. The 1985 annual requirement for the
combined regions is estimated to be 1.4 million
acre-feet for the high option. This is less than 1.2
percent of the calculated 20-year low flow of the
two basins (about 121 million acre-feet). In no case
would the monthly requirement exceed 10 percent
of the monthly low flow. Some local problems,
however, may occur where stream flow of individ-
ual rivers may not be able to support the coal
mining demands. Large supplies of groundwater
are available to meet these localized demands
[32,33], though groundwater quality may not be
adequate for some uses, such as steam conversion.
High consumptive use of the water (over 80
percent) will result in relatively low effluent
discharge. Some pollution problems may, however,
exist in smaller streams.
The Missouri and Arkansas River Basins
support the water requirements of the Western
Interior, Denver-Raton Mesa, Powder River, and
Fort Union Coal Regions. Table 5-33 summarizes
the impact of coal development in these regions on
the Missouri and Arkansas River Basins. There is
one month (August) during which water demand
may exceed surface water supplies in the Arkansas
River Basin based on a 20-year low flow. At
present, this demand is met by extensive ground
water mining, and by flow averaging using the
numerous reservoirs contained in the region.
Additional coal development such as is predicted
with the high production projections would further
add to these deficiencies; however, even the
5-77
REGIONAL IMPACTS
expected water requirements in 1990 would not
cause net regional deficits in other months. On a
local level, surface supplies from smaller subwat-
ersheds may be insufficient to meet the seasonal
needs of coal mining and utilization facilities. This
maximum demand would equal less than 20
percent of the unused mean monthly flow in all
months except August. On an annual basis, less
than one percent of the average flow and less than
three percent of the 20-year low flow would be
required for the high option in 1985.
Consumptive use of water withdrawals for the
no new leasing alternative is close to 90 percent in
the Missouri and Arkansas River Basins (as can be
seen by Tables 5-26 and 5-28 for the regions
affected). During periods of low flow, local streams
may not be able to provide sufficient flow to dilute
the effluent discharges to meet water quality
standards in many local areas.
Several rivers, including the Lower Red,
Sabine, Neches, Trinity, Brazos, Colorado, and
Nueces Rivers can be used to support the water
demands of the Texas Region. Even though the
mean annual flow of these rivers (46.7 million acre-
feet) is sufficient to meet the yearly 1985 water
demand of 474 thousand acre-feet (high option
1985 withdrawal), as shown in Table 5-34, the 20-
year monthly low flows would not be able to
support the mean monthly water consumption
(35,000 acre-feet) during four months of the year.
Increasing water consumption by up to 85
percent in 1990 would exacerbate the water deficit,
though it will not increase the number of months
with net water deficits. Tables in this analysis do
not reflect water supplies derived from ground-
water. The WRC estimates that groundwater
reservoirs currently supply about 7.7 million acre-
feet per year to the watersheds aggregated in Table
5-34. Baker and Wall [34] report that the three
principal aquifers underlying the Texas Coal
Region are the Sparta, Queen City, and Carrizo-
Wilcox aquifers, and that these reservoirs could
supply a steady-state yield of 130, 120, and 560
thousand acre-feet per year, respectively. (In some
places, these formations overlap or are contained
within the lignite deposits and may be locally
removed or dewatered during surface mining.) The
impact on surface water supplies from aquifer
alteration and intensive use is therefore an impor-
tant issue. Additionally, this region contains
numerous large surface reservoirs which help
distribute the water flows more evenly throughout
the year. As with most surface mining projects,
water quality impacts from sediment erosion will
have to be addressed on a site by site basis.
The Yellowstone River Basin would provide
water for the coal mining and processing facilities
located in the Powder River Coal Region. Table 5-
35 summarizes the impacts of the Powder River
Coal Region requirements on the water supply in
the Yellowstone River Basin. The high develop-
ment option would require one percent of the
average annual flow, and about two percent of the
20-year low annual flow of the Yellowstone River.
Deficiencies are expected to occur during August
and September at the 95 percent low-flow level. No
additional months would experience net deficits
due to coal development at any level, though
existing deficits would be exacerbated. The month-
ly demand under this high option in 1985 would
equal less than four percent of the unused regional
flow in aU months other than August and Septem-
ber. This demand would increase to five percent in
1990, assuming other water requirements remain
constant.
Several additional constraints affect water
availability in the Powder River Coal Region,
some of which have implications affecting the
other western regions as well. The Montana Water
Use Act of 1973 amended the State of Montana
water law structure to allow the designation of
water reservation for maintenance of in-stream
flow. In 1974, the State enacted "the Yellowstone
Moratorium," suspending action on all applica-
tions for changes in beneficial use of existing water
rights, as well as all applications for new water
rights for the appropriation of more than 14 cfs or
14,000 acre-feet in the Yellowstone Basin.
The Moratorium was lifted upon the Decem-
ber 15, 1978 issuance of an "Order of Board of
Natural Resources establishing Water Reserva-
tions." A principal result of the Order is the
recognition that instream reservations for main-
taining water quality and aquatic life are beneficial
uses of water. The largest applications during the
Moratorium under this category were submitted
by the Montana Fish and Game Commission. The
Order accepted portions of their applications.
These included reservations of Yellowstone River
water at Miles City and Sidney, Montana tied to
the 80th percentile flow (minus other consumptive
reservations). This category of flow is approxi-
5-78
REGIONAL IMPACTS
mately equal to 5,578,900 and 5,492,300 acre feet
per year at the respective locations. The reserva-
tions are less than the mean flow of the Yellow-
stone River, projected for 1985 and 2000 (see
Appendix E). The reservations are greater than the
95% projected flow. However, as a result obtaining
new water rights for coal mining and utilization
facilities may be difficult. Insuring adequate
supplies for drier years will likely foster competi-
tion between water users for older, established
water rights. The December 15th Order also set
down numerous other reservations which will
affect available water supplies on a site-specific
basis. Following the President's National Water
Policy, water conservation in non- energy- related
activities could make water available for energy
users.
As mentioned previously, the Yellowtail Reser-
voir has a large, presently unused storage reserved
for industrial uses [31]. Use of this water in the
Powder River Coal Region would require pipelines
or some other form of transport. The Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conserva-
tion has an application pending to increase the
dam height on the Tongue River Reservoir (in
eastern Big Horn County, in the middle of the coal
region) to provide more storage for both irrigation
and industry [36]. This application is also pending
approval by the State Water Board. Approval of
the full reservation would provide about 29,000
acre-feet per year for industrial use. This applica-
tion conflicts in part with the application of the
Montana Fish and Game Commission.
The Yellowstone River Compact of 1950
divided the waters of the Yellowstone River and its
interstate tributaries (Clarks Fork, Big Horn River,
Tongue River, and Powder River) between Mon-
tana and Wyoming. The compact applied only to
those waters not appropriated at that time. Fur-
ther, it contained a provision specifically prohibit-
ing export of water from the basin without the
unanimous consent of all signatory states, includ-
ing North Dakota. Wyoming's share of this water
could range from about 2.4 to 2.9 million acre-feet
(mostly from the Big Horn Basin, which contains
only marginal coal supplies), depending on the
exact interpretation of the compact provisions.
This compact could therefore affect the distribu-
tion of development within both the Powder River
and Fort Union Coal Regions and could also
affect the feasibility of coal slurry pipelines, though
they might be more allowable if supplied by
groundwater.
Groundwater is available in the Powder River
Coal Region both from shallow aquifers (ranging
in depth to several hundred feet) and from the
deeper Madison aquifer system. The Madison has
lately been the subject of much interest and is
currently being studied by the U.S. Geological
Survey [38] to determine its potential as a water
source for coal development in the Powder River
Basin. It has been estimated that large diameter
wells drilled to depths of 1,000 to 5,000 feet and
open to all aquifers through which they pass could
yield up to 500 gpm [37]. However, available
information is not sufficient to determine the
ability of the shallow aquifers to support large well
fields at this rate without causing excessive
drawdowns and local depletions. In addition, the
mixing of overlying aquifers could adversely affect
both water levels (requiring deeper wells) and
water quality. The inadvertent mixing of saline and
fresh water aquifers is an issue of particular
importance. Due to the low permeabilities of many
bedrock aquifers, well fields producing significant
amounts of groundwater would have to spread out
over tens of square miles. Potential for high yield
wells does exist in some areas of secondary
porosity, where partings or small faults induced in
the rock strata provide paths along which the water
could move with less resistance. Wells placed to
take advantage of these underground patterns
might produce quite high sustained yields. These
concepts are presently being tested by the U.S.
Geological Survey [38]. Even so, it is possible that
withdrawal rates on the order of 20,000 acre-feet
per year from one well field would greatly exceed
the rate at which groundwater is recharged. An
overall loss in the resource would then occur. Land
subsidence might also develop at depths which
could hinder aquifer recharge and recovery.
Excessive groundwater withdrawals and con-
sumption may also affect the flow of surface water
bodies and springs which are supported by
groundwater discharge. During times of low
surface water flow, groundwater may be the
primary water source. Disruption of aquifers may
therefore cause ecologic as well as water supply
impacts. While this condition is obviously a
concern for shallow aquifers, modifications to
deeper groundwater zones could foster adverse
5-79
REGIONAL IMPACTS
surface water impacts at considerable distances
from the point of groundwater use.
The Fort Union Coal Region has the advan-
tage of being able to draw on the supplies of the
upper mainstem of the Missouri River as well as
water from the Yellowstone River system. Also,
two large reservoirs, Fort Peck Lake and Lake
Sakakawea, located on the Missouri River have
combined active storage in excess of 24 million
acre-feet [37] and can help distribute the water
flow more evenly through time, saving the peak
flows for release during dry periods. With proper
planning, the reservoirs of the region would be able
to reduce or prevent low-flow problems in the
future. The aquatic life of the reservoirs could be
affected during irregular fluctuations of the water
level. Comparison of Table 5-20 with Table 5-13
shows that even at the high production level less
than four percent of the annual 20-year low flow is
required. The average monthly requirement for the
high option (about 15 thousand acre-feet) amounts
to 10.5 percent of the lowest monthly low flow
(February). As previously discussed, these calcula-
tions apply only to the net water balance in the
basin. Shortages could occur locally that would not
be reflected by the stream flows out of the basin.
Additionally, water rights and other legal consider-
ations could affect actual water availability.
The Upper Colorado River Basin would be the
primary source of supply for the Green River-
Hams Fork, Uinta-Southwestern Utah, and San
Juan River Coal Regions. The supply and demand
estimates for this basin are summarized in Table 5-
37. This basin along with several others in the
western states has been extensively studied from
both water quantity and quality standpoints.
Significant contributions to resource knowledge
emerged from Federal and state efforts in the
Water for Energy Management Program [26,37].
Numerous laws and agreements are of particular
importance to the Colorado River Basin. Accord-
ing to the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the
states of the Upper Colorado River Basin must
supply an average flow over any consecutive 10-
year period of 7.5 million acre-feet per year to the
Lower Basin at Lee's Ferry, Arizona. In addition,
the states are obligated to support the U.S.
agreement to release 1 .5 million acre-feet per year
to Mexico, though the exact extent of their
obligation is a point of dispute between the states
in the Upper and Lower Basins. Assuming the
Upper Basin states contribute one half of the water
for Mexico (a maximum case), they would be
required to release a mean flow of 8.25 million
acre-feet per year to the Lower Basin. The
estimated mean total stream flow for the Upper
Basin is 13.93 million acre-feet per year (including
evaporation, see Appendix E). Therefore, the
amount of water available for use in the Upper
Basin averages at most 5.68 million acre-feet per
year. The estimated consumptive requirement in
the basin by the year 2000 is nearly four million
acre- feet. Based on a supply of 5.7 million acre-
feet, a maximum of approximately 1.7 million acre-
feet would remain for additional development.
Meeting required releases to the Lower Colora-
do Basin may be difficult during low flow
conditions, due to excessive demand and limited
supplies. According to Table 5-37, projected
demands would exceed supply for three months
and be only marginally below demand for an
additional two months.
Several large reservoirs and numerous smaller
ones are currently in operation in the Upper
Colorado Basin. The Flaming Gorge Reservoir is
located in the Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Region and its releases affect stream flow in the
northern portion of the Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Coal Region. Its active storage is about 3.7 million
acre-feet. The Blue Mesa Reservoir, just east of the
Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region, has an
active storage of 830,000 acre-feet. The San Juan
River Coal Region contains the Navajo Reservoir,
with an active storage of about 1.7 million acre-
feet, much of which is committed to a Navajo
Indian irrigation project [39]. Under appropriate
circumstances, some of the water demands for coal
development could be supplied from these reser-
voirs, even though they distribute flows only and,
due to evaporation, could decrease the total water
supply.
Groundwater is available in the Upper Colora-
do Basin (Green River-Hams Fork and Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Regions), though not to
the extent it is in the Eastern Interior and
Appalachian Coal Regions. It has been estimated
that the Upper Colorado Basin contains between
50 and 115 million acre-feet of recoverable
groundwater in storage in the upper 100 feet of
saturated rocks. The cost of pumping deeper
aquifers and mitigating such potential impacts as
subsidence may be considerable, however. Rec-
5-80
REGIONAL IMPACTS
harge rates are believed to be about four million
acre-feet per year [40]. Any long-term diversion of
groundwater, over and above natural recharge,
could cause a proportionate decrease in the
groundwater influx to streams. In addition, al-
though the total volume of groundwater in storage
is rather large, about 85 percent of it occurs in
sedimentary rocks characterized by low permeabil-
ity which yield water to wells quite slowly. Well
yields in the vicinity of the San Juan River Coal
Region rarely exceed 50 gallons per minute. In
places, especially around the San Juan River Coal
Region, groundwater levels may be more than
1,000 feet below the land surface [40]. Indian
claims to groundwater in the San Juan River Coal
Region have already been noted. No final determi-
nations have been made as to who owns the water
underlying much of this coal. Disposition of the
issue will critically affect the development of the
coal in the San Juan River Region. In some areas
of Arizona and New Mexico, notably near urban
areas south of the San Juan River Coal Region
(such as Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona), ground-
water withdrawals are causing large drawdowns of
the water table. It is estimated that the ground-
water overdraft in Arizona is about two million
acre-feet per year [41]. Such overdrafts can lead to
land subsidence as the pore spaces in the rock
which were formerly filled with water collapse. It
may be concluded that, although groundwater
supplies may be sufficient to support individual
plants, depending on their location, groundwater
reservoirs are not in themselves sufficient to supply
the additional water to support the commitment to
the Lower Basin.
The 1985 discharge of about 25,000 acre-feet of
effluent from the Green River-Hams Fork, Uinta-
Southwestern Utah, and San Juan River Coal
Regions in the Colorado River Basin may result in
regional as well as local water quality impacts. The
Colorado River Basin is already characterized by
high salinity. To minimize the deleterious impacts
on the Colorado River of saline drainage waters
resulting from operation of mines and coal-using
facilities, these facilities should operate in accor-
dance with the policy, adopted by the seven-state
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and
the states of the Colorado River Basin, of no-salt
returns in industrial discharges, wherever practica-
ble. This policy has been followed by the states
and the Environmental Protection Agency in the
issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimina-
tion System permits in the Colorado River Basin.
Adherence to this policy will minimize the salinity
deterioration below Hoover Dam.
The water requirements for the Green River-
Hams Fork and Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal
Regions can also be examined based on smaller
sub-basins contained within the Upper Colorado
River Basin. The Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Region is contained entirely within the Green
River Basin (ASR 1401). The Uinta-Southwestern
Utah Coal Region spans the lower part of the
Green River Basin, as well as a large fraction of the
Upper Colorado River Mainstem (ASR 1402).
Table 5-38 compares water supply data for the
Green River with the water requirements for coal
development in the Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Region alone.
Table 5-38 summarizes the impact of coal
development in the Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Region on the predicted water flow in the Green
River Basin. Coal development in this region
would require up to 61 thousand acre-feet of water
annually by 1985, and 63 thousand acre-feet
annually by 1990. Even at the high option, this is
less than two percent of the mean annual water
flow and less than four percent of the 20-year low
flow in the Green River. On a monthly low-flow
basis, it is estimated that water demand during one
month (August) would exceed supply by the year
1985 even without coal development. No addition-
al months would experience net deficits as a result
of coal development at any of the options
presented here, and except for that one month, the
high option water consumption would be less than
15 percent of the unused stream flow during any
monthly low flow.
Table 5-39 compares the combined supply data
for the Green and Upper Colorado Mainstem
Systems with the requirements for coal develop-
ment in both the Green River-Hams Fork and the
Unita-Southwestern Utah Coal Regions. The
extent to which these sub-basins would be required
to support the Colorado River Compact and
associated commitments is not clear. Although the
water in the Upper Basin as a whole is divided
between the states, it is not divided according to
watershed, so neither coal region's share of the
commitment can readily be estimated. However,
the total mean annual stream flow of the Green
River alone (as shown in Appendix E) constitutes
5-81
REGIONAL IMPACTS
38 percent of the total flow in the Upper Basin,
and the combined flows of the Upper Colorado
Mainstem and Green River constitute 84 percent
of the total mean flow of the Upper Colorado
River at Lee's Ferry, Arizona. It can therefore be
assumed that the Green River-Hams Fork and
Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Regions' share of
Upper Basin commitments are significant. In
addition, the water rights to most free-flowing
water in the Upper Colorado Basin are already
allocated and could have to be transferred in order
to support additional development with assured
water supplies. As discussed for the other regions,
future minimum flow requirements for insuring
fish and wildlife productivity may add other
surface water supply constraints.
Table 5-39 summarizes the impact of coal
development in both the Unita-Southwestern Utah
and Green River-Hams Fork Coal Regions on the
projected combined waterflows in the Upper
Colorado Mainstem and Green River. Coal devel-
opment in both of the aforementioned regions
would require up to 120 thousand acre-feet of
water each year by 1985, and up to 127 thousand
acre-feet by 1990. At the high option level, this is
about 1.3 and 3.0 percent of the mean and 20-year
low annual flows (respectively) of the combined
river systems. Even on a monthly low-flow basis, it
is estimated that the water flow in the basin would
be sufficient to supply the water requirements for
both coal development and all other users by
drawing heavily on the Upper Colorado Mainstem
during periods of drought. Coal development
would require up to about 7.5 percent of the lowest
20-year monthly flow in 1985.
However, in order to obtain sufficient and
reliable water supplies to support normal regional
development, the compact commitments, and coal
developments in the Upper Colorado Basin, it
would probably be necessary to obtain existing
water rights and transfer them to industrial
purposes. Such procedures would be significantly
affected by the disposition of existing and future
court cases involving the extent of Indian and
Federal water rights. The ability to acquire and
transfer existing water rights is governed by state
law and varies with each state in the region.
Although such transfers may be somewhat compli-
cated, they are generally possible in all the Upper
Basin states [30]. Such transfers would decrease the
amount of water used for other purposes, notably
irrigation, and could have considerable socioeco-
nomic impacts.
The Upper Platte and Upper Arkansas River
Basins would be the source of water supply for
future development in the Denver-Raton Mesa
Coal Region. Coal development at the high option
level would require 65 and 79 thousand acre-feet of
water per year in 1985 and 1990, respectively.
Table 5-40 indicates that even without additional
demands for coal development, the projected
monthly mean flow during July and August would
not meet the normal water requirements of the two
basins. At the low flow level, net deficiencies
would occur during September as well, and local
deficiencies would probably occur during other
months. With limited available stream flow for
assimilation, point source discharges from coal
utilization facilities and non-point pollution from
coal mining operations may develop as important
water quality constraints.
The water shortages of this region are com-
pounded by its rapid rate of urbanization. In a
situation similar to that discussed for the Upper
Colorado and Upper Missouri River Basins,
virtually all dependable natural water supplies of
the region were claimed long ago under the
doctrine of prior appropriation [42]. Rapid urbani-
zation on the eastern slopes of the front range of
the Rocky Mountains has resulted in intense
competition for existing water rights and has led to
several condemnation proceedings being brought
against irrigation companies to secure agricultural
water rights for municipal use [43]. The prospects
of developing new water rights for coal develop-
ment in the prevailing political climate of this
region are not good.
Impacts of Other Alternatives. Table 5-41
presents the relative water consumption of the
other alternatives, as compared to the no new
leasing alternative. The information is presented in
acre-feet per year, and aggregated in the same
watersheds used in the preceding analysis. In order
to compare these estimates with the expected water
flows in Tables 5-31 through 5-40, the numbers
must be divided by 12 to yield monthly consump-
tion. Even considering the annual values, most of
the differences are small, and many are almost
negligible.
Preferred Program. In 1985, the consumptive
water requirements for the low option of the
5-82
TABLE 5-41
WATER CONSUMPTION (EVAPORATIVE)
IMPACTS, COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
(1000 ac-ft/vr)
Program Al rprnativp.s _ _
WATERSHED
SO NEW, ..
LEASIMCV"^
PREFERRED
HMMM
PRLA's
OHLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOU
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
|
1985 PROJECTIONS
Upper Ohio a Upper Term.
826.4
919.7
927.4
0
-7.2
-1.8
-21.7
-22.7
-24.0
0
-22.9
Upper Mlas. 4 Ohio Rivers
1,238.4
1,349.0
1,380.4
0
-7.9
0.2
-22.0;
-23.8
-22.9
0
-25.4
Missouri & Arkansas Rivera
418.6
499.2
591.8
6.6
-3.3
28.8
-8.2
-6.7
-14.3
0
-21.4
Texas Culf i Red River
277.4
421.4
424.4
0.3
1.9
18.4
-3.4
-1.8 .
-6.3
0
9.5
Yellowstone River
60.1
63.3
73.8
0
0
2.4
-0.02
0.02
2.6
0
-2.2
Upper Missouri River
114.5
110.6
175.4
6.6
7.1
3.4
7.1
7.2
16.8
0
9.2
Green River
49.3
59.5
60.7
0
1.7
2.8
-0.4
0.2
5.2
0
0.4
Green River & Upper Colo.
101.8
112.8
119.8
0
3.2
3.9
0.2
0.8
7.4
0
0.04
Upper Colo- at Tree's Ferry
129.3
i41.9
165.9
0
3.2
3.8
0.4
-0.6
7.6
0
0.4
Upper Platte & Upper Ark.
46.7
58.3
65.4
0
2.9
1.4
2.7-
2.7
5.7
0
-0.4
1990 PROJECTIONS
Upper Ohio & Upper Tenn.
807.7
1,118.8
1,150.8
8.4
0.3
422.1
15.7
-2.2
3.7
-1.0
7.6
Upper Miss. & Ohio Rivers
1,327.9
1,596.9
1,609.3
8.9
-0.3
544.4
15.5
-5.7
3.6
-0.3
5.1
Missouri & Arkansas Rivers
511.3
821.9
836.5
0.9
4.6
112.4
-13.9
-11.0
32.7
3.5
-35.6
Texas Gulf & Red River
354.6
775.3
753.1
-1.0
-1.6
73.0
-12.6
-10.7
-13.7
-5.8
-10.6
Yellowstone River
82.3
76.6
96.0
0.3
5.6
15.8
2.6
-0.4
9.4
5.4
-4.1
Upper Missouri River
164.5
198.1
231.9
0.3
5.0
9.9
4.7
2.9
17.9
-10.6
0.7
Green River
58.9
55.5
62.6
0.5
1.4
5.9
-4.0
-4.2
4.4
2.9
-6.3
Green River & Upper Colo.
127.0
118.0
126.8
2.3
1.5
27.2
-7.4
-7.1
5.5
2.4
-8.9
Upper Colo, at Lee's Ferry
161.2
153.6
173.1
2.9
1.2
62.0
-7.6
-7.5
5.6
-4.1
-9.4
Upper Platte & Upper Ark.
! 68. C
87.9
79.2
0
0
21.6
-2.1
-1.6
2.4
2.6-
--6.3
^Represents absolute water consumption under the no new leasing alternative
production projections. All other columns represent changes from the no
new leasing base case. Refers to coal-related activities only.
5-83
REGIONAL IMPACTS
preferred program are practically indistinguishable
from those of the low option of the no new leasing
alternative. The only difference is an additional
demand for about 550 acre-feet per month in the
Fort Union Coal Region. This could result in a
slight increase in local shortages in that region
during times of drought. However, due to the large
reservoir storage capacity in the region, the
significance of this increased demand is minor.
Similarly, all other options for this alternative
in both 1985 and 1990 would not greatly increase
the water demands over those discussed with
respect to the no new leasing alternative. Except
for a few regions in the case of the 1990 high
option, consumptive water demands would not
increase more than 2,000 acre-feet per month.
In 1990 the high option for the preferred
program would increase the consumptive water
demand in the Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee
River Basins by a total of 544 thousand acre-feet
per year. This increased demand can be supplied
relatively easily in the Appalachian, Eastern
Interior, and Western Interior Coal Regions,
although the associated effluents could somewhat
decrease local water quality. The increased de-
mand of about 10,000 acre-feet per month in the
Western Interior Coal Region for this option
represents a 13 percent increase over the no new
leasing alternative, and could exacerbate the
supply problems in that region accordingly. Simi-
larly, the 36 percent increase projected for the coal
regions of the Upper Colorado River Basin (Green
River-Hams Fork and Uinta-Southwestern Utah)
would serve to increase competition for water.
Although, subject to the constraints discussed
previously, this increase could be met on an annual
basis without violating any of the regional water
compacts. Local shortages would probably be an
important constraint on this option.
PRLAs Only Alternative. In 1985, the water
requirements for this alternative would decrease
water consumption by less than as 2,000 acre-feet
per month (relative to the no new leasing alterna-
tive) in any of the watersheds addressed in this
analysis. In 1990, relative water consumption
would change by as much as 1,000 acre-feet per
month in four of the watersheds addressed in this
analysis. The effects of this alternative would,
therefore, closely parallel those discussed for the
no new leasing alternative.
Emergency Leasing Only Alternative. The 1985
consumptive water requirements for this alterna-
tive are nearly identical to those of the PRLAs
only alternative. The 1990 water consumption
would decrease relative to the no new leasing
alternative in all but one watershed (Upper
Missouri River) by less than 1,000 acre-feet per
month. This alternative thus represents a slight
improvement in most watersheds relative to the
• impacts described previously for the no new
leasing alternative. However, due to the small
differences, the improvements would be minor.
Meet Industry Needs Alternative. The net effect
of this alternative would be to slightly increase
western water consumption (relative to the no new
leasing alternative) in both 1985 and 1990. The
maximum increase would be 3,000 acre-feet per
month in the Missouri and Arkansas River Basins
(Western Interior, Denver-Raton-Mesa and Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Regions). Water demand
in the East would be less than that of the no new
leasing alternative in 1985, and greater in 1990.
Water shortages and pollution problems in the
West would be slightly increased by this alterna-
tive, relative to those discussed previously.
Meet DOE Goals Alternative. The 1985 water
demands for this alternative are identical to those
of the no new leasing alternative. The 1990
demands differ by less than 500 acre-feet per
month in all watersheds except the Upper Missouri
(Western Interior Coal Region), which decreases
by about 900 acre-feet per month. Thus, the
impacts of this alternative would be very close to
those of the no new leasing alternative. Shortages
would be somewhat exacerbated in the Yellow-
stone, Green, Upper Colorado Mainstem, Upper
Platte, and Upper Arkansas River Basins in 1990.
State Determination of Leasing Levels Alterna-
tive. The results of this alternative would be to
decrease 1985 water consumption in the Appala-
chian, and Eastern and Western Interior Coal
Regions, and increase consumption in the Fort
Union and Texas Coal Regions, relative to the no
new leasing alternative. Changes in these regions
would be less than 2,000 acre-feet per month, while
consumption in other regions would be changed by
less than 2,000 acre-feet per year. The 1990
demands for this alternative would be slightly
greater than those of the no new leasing alternative
5-84
REGIONAL IMPACTS
in the Appalachian and Fort Union Coal Regions,
and less in all others. The reservoirs of the Texas
and Fort Union Coal Regions should be sufficient
to supply the additional demands in both years,
though local shortages may occur. More extensive
aquifer disruption in these regions may create
additional problems. Otherwise, the impacts of this
alternative would be similar to those discussed
previously. The water availability problems pro-
jected for the Western Interior Coal Region, and to
a lesser extent in the Denver-Raton Mesa Coal
Region, would be somewhat reduced.
5.3.2.7 Air Quality. This section addresses air
emissions so as to compare the region by region
totals, as well as the emissions associated with the
Federal coal management program alternatives
against the no new leasing base case. This section
begins with a discussion of the sources of air
emissions associated with the entire coal develop-
ment cycle. Next, the legislative status of the
control of air emissions is addressed. Finally, the
data associated with total emissions for each coal
region and for each alternative is presented and
discussed.
The regional emissions for each alternative
represent the aggregated emissions from coal
mining, transportation, and conversion and utiliza-
tion. Gaseous streams, composed primarily of
carbon dioxide (C02), oxides of sulfur (S02),
oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulate matter,
would be emitted to the environment because of
coal development even though best available
emission control technologies (BACT) were em-
ployed and air quality standards were enforced.
Hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and
trace elements are also emitted, although in smaller
quantities. Coal conversion and utilization would
contribute the largest single amount to the totals;
however, significant amounts of particulates would
be emitted by coal mining.
The aggregated emissions do not directly
represent measures of air quality degradation. The
quality of the air is measured by the concentration
of pollutants in the atmosphere, typically ex-
pressed in micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3).
Models of varying degrees of sophistication are
available that convert, under specified circum-
stances, the point or area source emissions into
estimates of ambient air concentrations. The use of
these models requires detailed information regard-
ing the nature of the source as well as meteorologi-
cal and geographic characteristics of the surround-
ing area. The alternatives for a Federal coal
management program cannot be compared on the
basis of ambient concentrations because there is
not enough specific data available from which to
make the model calculations. A comparison of the
total emissions for each alternative is the most
meaningful measure of relative air quality impact
available.
Potential Air Quality Impacts. In estimating the
total dust emissions from a coal mine, it is
preferable to identify the dust-producing activities
present and estimate emissions from each activity
separately rather than to use a single emission
factor for the entire mine. This allows direct
determination of the major emission sources and
their contribution to the overall emissions from the
mine.
Potential sources of dust associated with coal
mines are as follows:
Haul roads.
Access roads.
Topsoil removal.
Overburden removal.
Reclamation.
Drilling.
Blasting.
Shovel/truck loading.
Transfer and conveying.
Front-end loading.
Truck dumping.
Open storage.
Coal crushing (after truck dumping).
Coal cleaning.
Train loading.
Waste disposal.
Fly-ash dump at mine mouth plants.
Coal fires.
Wind erosion of exposed areas.
These sources are not always noticeable at
every mine site. For example, only the transfer,
conveying, and access road sources are normally
found at underground mines. Recent studies have
shown that of the sources listed above, haul roads
and access roads are most often the largest
contributors to ambient particulate concentrations
at and near the mine sites [44]. Other major sources
of particulates are wind erosion from exposed
areas and topsoil and overburden removal.
5-85
REGIONAL IMPACTS
The impact of mining operations on existing
particulate air quality at and in the vicinity of an
active mine would depend on a number of
variables: climatology, type of dust-producing
operations, and size of the mine. Any one of these
factors could greatly add to or reduce emissions
from a mine site. For example, a small under-
ground mine could contribute greatly to the
ambient particulate concentration in the surround-
ing area because of an extremely long unpaved
access road leading to the mine which mine
employees travel every day.
The impacts on air quality would be greatest at
the mine site where generation of airborne particu-
lates would take place and at areas closely
surrounding the mine site. Air quality impacts
from mining operations generally would decrease
markedly with respect to distance from the site.
The addition of particulates to the atmosphere
could also reduce visibility at the mine site and in
surrounding areas. Table 5-42 presents four exam-
ples of visibility reduction that could happen as a
result of increased atmospheric total suspended
particulates.
Another air pollution source at coal mines is
exhaust emissions from employees' motor vehicles
and diesel-powered haul trucks and equipment.
The major gaseous emissions from these sources
are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocar-
bons, nitrogen oxides, and water vapor. The
amount of these pollutants generated at even the
larger coal mines would not be significant, as
indicated by recent studies of the impact of vehicle
emissions associated with western coal mines. [16].
Air pollutants associated with transportation
of coal by rail or barge would result primarily from
coal cars and barges and from the exhaust of train
and tug engines. Estimates of wind blown coal dust
range from 0.2 to two percent of the volume of coal
transported [2]. These estimates assume that the
coal is transported dry. If transported wet, dust
emissions could be reduced to negligible amounts.
Any large-scale construction activity would
generate essentially the same types of air pollu-
tants. The major emissions would include fugitive
dust, exhausts from motor vehicles and construc-
tion equipment (primarily carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and
water vapor), and smoke from the burning of
cleared vegetation. The magnitude of the emissions
would depend on the size of the construction area,
the method of construction, the project duration,
the type of terrain, and the type of control
measures employed. In low areas in narrow, steep-
sided valleys, where the build-up of polluted air
would be greater than in surrounding areas,
concentrations of nitrogen oxides from construc-
tion equipment could exceed the National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Secondary Standards. The actual
concentrations would depend upon such factors as
wind and temperature conditions, atmospheric
mixing conditions, pollutant production rates, and
duration of operations.
Coal combustion to generate steam and elec-
tric power for internal use by synthetic fuel plants
and electric power plants would release both
gaseous and solid (particulate matter) pollutants.
The chemical and physical characteristics of the
gases leaving the boiler primarily are a function of
the fuel composition and boiler design. The major
gaseous pollutants produced during fossil fuel
combustion would be sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and
aldehydes. The particulate matter produced during
combustion would leave the boiler as fly ash.
Sulfur oxides would be produced in the
greatest quantity during coal combustion. About
95 percent of the sulfur in the coal would be
converted to gaseous sulfur oxides; the balance
would remain in the fly and bottom ash, or slag.
The weight of the sulfur dioxide is essentially twice
the weight of the sulfur in the gas. For coal with a
sulfur content of two percent (by weight), approxi-
mately 76 pounds of sulfur dioxide would be
produced for each ton of coal combusted.
Nitrogen oxides are produced from high
temperature reactions of nitrogen and oxygen
present in the combustion atmosphere and the
combustion of nitrogen-containing compounds in
the fuel. The concentration of nitrogen oxides in
the exhaust during coal combustion would be
affected by the amount of nitrogen in the coal, the
air-to-fuel ratio, and the way the temperature of
the combustion gases changes with time as the
gases pass through the boiler. Dry bottom pulver-
ized coal-fired units would emit about 18 pounds
of nitrogen oxides for each ton of coal fired, wet
bottom pulverized coal units (operating at higher
temperatures) would emit 30 pounds, and wet
bottom cyclone units would emit 55 pounds [45].
Presently there are no national primary or
secondary standards or new source performance
5-86
TABLE 5-42
i
oo
EXPECTED VISIBILITY AT FOUR DIFFERENT TOTAL
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS (a)
EXAMPLE
BACKGROUND (b)
TSP
CONCENTRATION
(ug/m3)
BACKGROUND (c)
VISIBILITY
(miles)
1
2
3
4
25
25
25
25
45
45
45
45
ADDITIONAL (d)
PARTICULATES
FROM THE MINE
(yg/m3)
5
15
30
60
RESULTANT (e)
AMBIENT
CONCENTRATION
(yg/m3)
RESULTANT (f)
VISIBILITY
(miles)
30
40
55
85
REDUCTION (g)
IN AVERAGE
VISIBILITY
(miles)
40
32
25
18
5
13
20
27
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Expected visibility for tbe hypothetical situations presented in this table were calculated
Repr^: IC^ — ^"aS particulate concentration that would exist
ReS^^s^h^thlticarann^al average visibility that would exist without the mining
the mining activity.
REGIONAL IMPACTS
standards for carbon dioxide. In fact, general
practice currently is to convert pollutants such as
HC and CO to COz and H2O and discharge
them to the atmosphere. However, there are
indications that the rising CO2 levels in the
atmosphere could pose a serious problem, com-
monly referred to as the greenhouse effect1
Therefore, CO2 is addressed here as a potential
pollutant.
Carbon dioxide is produced from complete
combustion of carbon or carbon-containing com-
pounds. During coal production, CO2 is generat-
ed from the burning of coal at the mine site for
power as in well as in the combustion of diesel fuel
needed to run mining equipment. During the
cleaning of coal, CO2 is emitted from thermal
dryers, while, during transportation, CO2 is emit-
ted from the combustion of liquid fuel used by the
transportation facility. Finally, coal conversion
and combustion would result in large quantities of
CO2 emissions. The combustion of one ton of
carbon would produce about 3.67 tons of CO2 .
The National Research Council [112] concluded
that the primary limit on energy production from
fossil fuels during the next few centuries may be
the climatic effects associated with the release of
carbon dioxide. Generally there are uncertainties
about the carbon cycle, the net sources of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, and the net effects of
carbon dioxide on temperature and climate.
Generally, about 40 percent of the carbon dioxide
released to the air is absorbed by the land organic
pool, about 20 percent is absorbed by the oceans,
and about 40 percent remains in the air. Some
experts feel that a doubling of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere will cause about a 2° to 3° C rise in
the average temperature of the lower atmosphere
at middle latitudes.
Other gaseous pollutants such as carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, and aldehydes would
occur in relatively small quantities during fuel
combustion. They would result from incomplete
combustion of the organic portion of the coal.
Careful control of excess air rates, the use of high
combustion temperature, and provisions for more
'Carbon dioxide, although transparent to shortwave solar radiation
(visible light), strongly absorbs the earth's long-wave radiation (heat) at certain
wavelengths. Carbon dioxide molecules absorb infrared radiation emitted by the
earth's surface that otherwise would excape into space. Just as glass in a
greenhouse traps the sun's heat, so also CO2 absorbs heat (the long-wave
complete fuel-air contact could minimize these
emissions.
The particulates in the exhaust gases of coal
combustion would be composed primarily of silica,
alumina, and iron present in the inorganic portion
of the coal or ash. The size distribution of particles
leaving the unit would primarily be a function of
unit type. Particulates from a pulverized coal unit
would generally be larger than those from a
cyclone unit. Particle size distribution would vary
from one boiler to the next. These variations are
important as they affect the formation of fine
particulates that are not only more difficult to
control but also considered a greater risk to health.
In addition to the major gaseous and particu-
late pollutants of concern, coal combustion would
also result in emissions of a variety of toxic trace
elements which, in sufficient quantity, could cause
adverse environmental and health effects. During
combustion, these trace elements could vaporize to
exit the boiler in a gaseous state, or they could
form particulates that would be entrained in the
exhaust. High efficiency particulate control could
greatly reduce these emissions. However, despite
the low concentrations of these pollutants in coal
and the high efficiency of present particulate
control systems, the sheer volume of coal con-
sumed in the United States makes coal combustion
a major air emission source of these pollutants.
The Environmental Protection Agency [45] has
estimated the average trace element emissions
associated with coal combustion in domestic utility
boilers. These estimates and the assumed emission
factors are presented in Table 5-43. The atmo-
spheric concentration of each element is shown in
parts per million (ppm) whereas the emission
factor is expresed as grams per million Btu
consumed. (Approximately 453 grams equal one
pound).
Coal also contains traces of uranium, thorium,
and radium; consequently, during combustion,
low levels of radionuclides would be emitted from
coal-burning facilities. Studies of radioactive re-
leases from 1,000-megawatt electric power plants
employing eastern coals have indicated that the
observed levels of radioactive releases did not
radiation from the earth's surface) and produces what is known as the
greenhouse effect. Thus, high levels of carbon dioxide could upset the balance of
incoming solar radiation and outgoing heat from the earth causing a net
increase in temperature on the earth's surface. This increase may cause climatic
changes.
5-c
I
CO
TABLE 5-43
TRACE ELEMENTS AND EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUELS
ELEMENT
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluorine
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Tellurium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
COAL
CONCENTRATION
(ppm)
5.0
32.0
500.0
2.44
61.0
0.03
160.0
15.4
4.8
13.5
82.0
9.5
50.0
0.15
14.8
2.2
1.0
0.3
0.9
385.0
26.4
12.0
EMISSION FACTOR
(g/106 Btu) (a)
0.20
1.3
20.2
0.099
2.47
0.001
6.48
0.624
0.194
0.547
3.32
0.38
2.02
0.0061
0.599
0.089
0.04
0.01
0.036
15.6
1.07
0.49
OIL
CONCENTRATION EMISSION FACTOR
(ppm) (g/106 Btu) (b)
<0.04
16
<0.8
9.0
<0.024
0.0059
<0.08
0.002
<0.11
0.003
0.001
0.39
0.02
0.22
(a) Based on heating value of 11,200 Btu/lb for coal as burned.
(b) Based on heating value of 18,400 Btu/lb for residual oil as burned.
Source: Reference Number 45,
REGIONAL IMPACTS
constitute a public health problem [46,47]. It is not
known how radioactive releases from coal gasifica-
tion or liquefaction plants would compare with
those from fossil fuel power plants. Futhermore, a
recent Environmental Protection Agency study has
indicated that the lung dose from a 1,000-mega-
watt electric power plant employing western coal
could be significant (see U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency comments in Appendix E of
Reference 39).
In general, because of the dispersion of coal
combustion throughout the United States, air
concentrations of trace elements from coal firing
should not accumulate to levels likely to be
associated with known adverse health effects.
However, the long-term health effects of these
emissions and their overall impact on the environ-
ment have not been well defined.
Emission Control Standards. Application of
fugitive-dust control measures as required by
OSM's proposed regulations will contribute to the
achievement and maintenance of National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Standards and other applicable
Federal and state air quality standards. Production
facilities using fossil-fuel steam generators must
meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
new source performance standards (NSPS). The
baseline regulation is summarized in Table 5-44.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require
EPA to revise the current standards of perfor-
mance for fossil fuel-fired stationary sources. The
intended effect of recent EPA proposed standards
is to require new, modified, and reconstructed
electric utility steam generating units to use the
best demonstrated systems of continuous emission
reduction and to satisfy the requirements of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
The principal issue associated with the pro-
posed standards is whether electric utility steam
generating units firing low-sulfur coal should be
required to achieve the same percentage reduction
in potential sulfur dioxide emissions as those
burning higher sulfur content coal. Resolving this
question of full versus partial control is difficult
because of the significant environmental, energy,
and economic implications associated with each
alternative. The Administrator of EPA has not
made a decision on which of the alternatives
should be adopted in the final standard.
The proposed standards would apply to elec-
tric utility steam generating units that are capable
of firing more than 73 megawatts (250 million
Btu/hour heat input of fossil fuel) and for which
construction is commenced after September 18,
1978.
The proposed sulfur dioxide (S02) standards
would limit emissions to 1.2 lb/million Btu heat
input for solid fuel (except for three days per
month) and 0.80 lb/million Btu for liquid and
gaseous fuel (except for three days per month).
Also, uncontrolled S02 emissions from solid,
liquid, and gaseous fuel would be required to be
reduced by 85 percent regardless of the sulfur
content of the fuel burned. Credit would be given,
however, for sulfur removed in fuel pretreatment
or removed in bottom ash. The percent reduction
requirement would not apply if S02 emissions into
the atmosphere would be less than 0.20 lb/million
Btu heat input without pollution controls.
The proposed particulate matter emission
standard would limit emissions to 0.03 lb/million
Btu heat input. The proposed opacity standard
would limit the opacity of emissions to 20 percent
(six-minute average).
The proposed N02 emission standards vary
according to fuel characteristics as follows:
* 0.50 lb/million Btu heat input from the
combustion of subbituminous coal, shale
oil, or any solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel
derived from coal.
• 0.60 lb/million Btu heat input from the
combustion of bituminous coal.
Several states within the coal regions have
promulgated sulfur oxide and particulate emissions
limitations for the combustion of coal that are
stricter than the proposed Federal standards. The
stricter standards are noted in Table 5-45.
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, EPA was
directed to establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health
(primary standards) and public welfare (secondary
standards). As of October 1978, EPA has establish-
ed NAAQS for specified pollutants at particular
levels determined by what are termed "episode
criteria." These pollutants are known as criteria
pollutants and are sulfur oxides, particulates,
carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, nitro-
gen oxides, and hydrocarbons. The NAAQS and
the recommended Federal episode criteria estab-
lished by the EPA are given in Table 5-46.
5-90
TABLE
-44
SELECTED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
FOR AIR POLLUTANT SOURCES
SOURCE
Fossil-Fuel Steam
Generators
(>250 x 106 Btu/hr input)
POLLUTANT
Particulate
Matter
Opacity
Oxides of
Sulfur
(as S02)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(as N02)
EMISSIONS NOT TO EXCEED
0.10 lb/106 Btu input
20 percent
Opacity except for one
two-minute period per hour
of not more than 40 percent
Opacity
1.2 lb/10G Btu input
(solid fuel)
0.8 lbs/10G Btu input
(liquid fuel)
0.70 lb/106 Btu input
(solid fuel except lignite
or fuel containing more
than 25 percent by weight
of coal refuse)
0.20 lb/106 Btu input
(gaseous fuel)
0.30 lb/106 Btu input
(liquid fuel)
Source: 40 CFR 60.40
5-91
TABLE 5-45
STATE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR COAL COMBUSTION
STATE
TSP
(lbs/MM Btu)
. SOx
(lbs/MM Btu)
N0X
(lbs/MM Btu)
Arizona
ft
0.8(a)
ft
Colorado
*
5 tons/day
•k
New Mexico
0.05; 0.02 fine
0.34(C)
0.45(C)
Pennsylvania
*
0.6(d)
*
Wyoming
*
0.2(e)
ft
Ohio
*
i.o(f)
*
Equal to or less stringent than Federal NSPS.
Sources :
(a) Reference Number 78.
(b) Reference Number 79.
(c) Reference Number 80, for some areas.
(d) Reference Number 81, for Southeast Pennsylvania air basin
inner zone (general provisions only) .
(e) Reference Number 82.
(f) Reference Number 83, for fuel with sulfur content 1%.
Note: State New Source Performance Standards are more complex.
For more details, see references.
5-92
TABLE 5-46
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AND RECOMMENDED FEDERAL EPISODE CRITERIA
(at 25°C and 760 mm pressure)
POLLUTANTS UNITS
AVERAGING TIME (a)
SECONDARY (b)
PRIMARY(C)
ALERT ^d)
WARNING(d)
EMERGENCY (d)
SIGNIFICANT
HARM
Sulfur dioxide
Ug/m3
1 year
24 hours (e)
3 hours (e)
1,300
80
365
800
1,600
2,100
2,620
Particulate Matter
60
150
75
260
375
625
875
Ug/m3
1 year
24 hours (e)
1,000
Product of
Sulfur dioxide and
6.5x10"*
2 . 61xl05
3.93xl05
Particulate Matter
[ug/m3]2
Carbon monoxide
mg/m3
8 hours (e)
1 hour(e)
10
40
10
40
17
34
46
57.5
Oxidants
Ug/m3
1 hour
160
160
400
800
1,000
1,200
Nitrogen dioxide
Ug/m3
1 year
24 hours
1 hour
100
100
282
1,130
565
2,260
750
3,000
3,750
Hydrocarbons
Ug/m3
3 hours (e)
160
(6-9 a.m.)
(a) ug/m3 - micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter of air.
ma/m3 - milligrams of pollutant per cubic meter of air.
[?J/^]2 - product of the concentration of one pollutant measured in micrograms per cubic
meter and the concentration of a second pollutant measured in micrograms per
(b) National secondary^bient air quality standards are, in the judgment of the EPA Adminis-
trator, requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects associated with the presence of pollutants in the ambient air Admlnlstra.
(c) National primary ambient air quality standards are, in the judgment of the EPA Administra
tor. requisite to protect the public health. .„„_»
(d) The Federal Episode Criteria specify that meteorological conditions are such that pollutant
concentrations can be expected to remain at these levels for 12 or more hours or
increase; or, in the case of oxidants, the situation is likely to reoccur within the
next 24 hours unless control actions are taken.
(e) Maximum concentration allowed once yearly.
Source: 40 CFR 50-99.
5-93
REGIONAL IMPACTS
By August 7, 1977, EPA was required to
identify those portions of the country that were not
meeting the primary or secondary NAAQS for
particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydro-
carbons, photochemical oxidants, or carbon mon-
oxide. Areas for which sufficient data existed to
permit their being identified as exceeding stan-
dards were designated as nonattainment areas for
the pollutant(s) considered. Other areas were
designated as attainment areas. Under the 1970
legislation, all states were to have attained the
NAAQS by mid- 1977. Under the 1977 amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act, all NAAQSs must be
attained by 1983, with special provisions for
extending the primary NAAQS attainment dates
for photochemical oxidants and carbon monoxide
until 1987 at the latest. Thus, according to plan, all
areas of the country should be attainment areas by
1987. Table 5-47 shows the number of Air Quality
Control Regions (AQCR) that lie wholly or
partially in each coal region and the number that
are designated as nonattainment areas.
Under the amendments to the Clean Air Act,
unless a state implementation plan (SIP) is ap-
proved, EPA is empowered to prevent or halt the
construction of any new emission source which
would seek to locate either in a nonattainment area
or in an area from which the source could
potentially exacerbate a NAAQS violation in a
nearby nonattainment area. At the present time,
EPA is moving to establish a uniform litigation-
oriented approach to enforcing the act. Violation
of the standards, criteria, or guidance of an EPA
approved SIP would be sufficient basis for Federal
(civil and criminal) enforcement. Inadequate ad-
ministration of a SIP would permit EPA to
displace the state authority and assume enforce-
ment responsibilities.
In attainment areas, a specific EPA program to
prevent significant deterioration of ambient air
quality is in effect. Under EPA's regulatory
scheme for prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD), areas of the Nation having attained both
primary and secondary NAAQS, which should
include all areas of the country by 1987 at the
latest, could be designated under any of three
"classes." Specified numerical "increments" of
particulate matter are permitted up to a level
considered to be significant for areas designated
within a particular class. The allowable PSD
increments are presented in Table 5-48. By August
7, 1979, EPA must promulgate PSD regulations for
hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, carbon
monoxide, and nitrogen oxides which would
become effective one year later. States must submit
SIP revisions within 21 months of EPA's promul-
gation of the increments. All areas subject to PSD
have been initially designated as Class II, with the
exception of certain Federal lands which are
mandatory Class I areas, such as national parks.
The highly restrictive Class I numerical increments
were designed to severely limit industry in order to
protect pristine areas. All sources must be analyzed
not only for air quality impact in their immediate
area, but also for their impact on neighboring
areas. In order to prevent deterioration of air
quality in areas in which the most restrictive PSD
numerical increments are applicable, it is necessary
to control emissions from sources both within the
geographic boundaries of the most restrictive areas
and from sources locating in less restrictive areas if
the sources in less restrictive areas could cause
significant air quality deterioration in the more
restrictive areas. For example, construction of a
power plant in a Class III PSD area could be
prohibited if an air quality analysis for the specific
facility found that emissions were sufficient to
violate the permitted increments of a Class II area
several miles away. The allowable PSD increments
are increases in pollutant levels over a baseline
concentration as of January 6, 1975. The baseline
concentrations represent a status quo point against
which air quality is measured. Regardless of the
allowable increments, the NAAQSs represent
ceilings above which ambient concentrations will
not be allowed to rise. All sources planning to
locate in a given area are required by EPA to
demonstrate that their emissions, in conjunction
with the effects of growth and emission reductions
occurring since the end of 1974, would not violate
the applicable NAAQS or the allowable PSD
increments in that area.
Although approval or disapproval of a source
permit would be based on the emissions directly
related to the source, the indirect or secondary
emissions resulting from growth associated with
the action, such as community expansion, must
also be considered in the PSD increments. Tempo-
rary emissions such as those associated with
construction are specifically exempt from consid-
eration even if they would contribute to air quality
5-94
t^r^
TABLE 5-47
STATUS OF ATTAINMENT FOR COAL REGION
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS <a)
I
PARTICULATES
SULFUR DIOXIDE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE
OXIDANTS
AREAS IN
AREAS WITH
VIOLATIONS
AREAS WITH
INADEQUATE DATA
AREAS IN
COMPLIANCE
AREAS WITH
VIOLATIONS
AREAS WITH
INDEQUATE DATA
AREAS IN
COMPLIANCE
AREAS WITE
VIOLATIONS
AREAS WITH
INADEQUATE DATA
AREAS IN
COMPLIANCE
AREAS WITH
VIOLATIONS
AREAS WITH
INADEQUATE "ATA
Northern Appalachian
1
1
11
8
-
6
7
4
2
2
4
1
11
5
1
5
1
7
7
Central Appalachian
3
1
1
—
3
-
1
3
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
1
11
—
4
8
-
11
-
1
3
5
4
Western Interior
1
15
-
14
1
1
6
—
10
2
3
3
6
—
—
5
—
1
Texas
4
4
_
1
1
—
4
—
San Juan River
1
1
1
2
1
—
3
-
1
3
Uinta-Southwestern
3
Utah
3
3
3
4
1
—
—
3
—
Green River-Hams Fork
Powder River
Fort Union
Denver-Raton Mesa
1
1
-
3
3
1
:
1
1
3
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
TOTAL
6
76
1
"
17
12
30
1
52
8
21
54
Total Regions » 83
(a) Source: Reference Number 84.
I
TABLE 5-48
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION INCREMENTS
APPLICABILITY
Class I Areas
(Restricted Development)
Class II Areas
(Modest Development)
Class III Areas
(Concentrated Development)
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEGRADATION
SULFUR DIOXIDE
2 ug/m3 (annual arith. mean)
5 yg/m3 (24-hour max.)
25 yg/m3 (3-hour max.)
20 yg/m3 (annual arlth. mean)
91 yg/m3 (24-hour max.)
512 yg/m3 (3-hour max.)
40 yg/m3 (annual arith. mean)
182 yg/m3 (24-hour max.)
700 yg/m3 (3-hour max.)
W Value not to be exceeded more than once per year.
Source: 42 U.S.C. 7401.
PARTICULATE MATTER
5 yg/m3 (annual geo. mean)
10 yg/m3 (24-hour max.)
19 yg/m3 (annual geo. mean)
37 yg/m3 (24-hour max.)
37 yg/m (annual geo. mean)
75 yg/m3 (24-hour max.)(a)
|MM>njAAMte|^MAMM^
REGIONAL IMPACTS
degradation in excess of an ambient air quality
standard.
Program Alternatives Analyses. The following
discussion addresses the aggregated air emissions
associated with each region and each alternative.
In order to put these estimates in perspective,
Table 5-49 contains the most recent EPA estimates
of criteria pollutant total emissions on a national
basis.
Tables 5-50 through 5-55 present data compar-
ing the emissions associated with the low, medium,
and high production projections of the no new
leasing alternative with current (1976) emissions.
The data represent estimates of emissions from all
sources associated with the coal cycle. The three
columns showing emissions at low, medium, and
high production for 1976-1985 represent increases
over the base case 1976 values. The three columns
showing emissions at low, medium, and high
production for 1990-1985 represent increases or in
a few cases decreases over 1985 estimates.
Although differences occur from region to
region and from pollutant to pollutant, the follow-
ing general and well established trends can be seen
from the totals for all regions for every pollutant:
• The 1985 emissions of any pollutant for the
low production level would be about 50
percent greater than the base case.
• The 1990 increases for the low production
level would only be from about one-third to
one-half of the 1985 increases.
• The total emissions associated with the
medium production projection in 1985
would be only slightly smaller than the
emissions for the high production projec-
tion in 1985. In both cases they represent
about a 75 percent increase over the 1976
base case.
• Relative to 1976 levels, total emissions by
1985 would increase by about 75 percent
and by 1990 would double or triple under
the high production projection.
• In general, this magnitude of increase could
conceivably be large enough to prevent
growth in the eastern or the western
regions. In the industrialized East, the
NAAQS could be exceeded and in the
pristine West, the PSD requirements could
be exceeded.
• On a percentage basis, the Texas Coal
Region would experience the greatest in-
crease. A tenfold increase would occur by
1990 in that region for all pollutants except
hydrocarbons where a fivefold increase
would occur over 1976 levels. The Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Region would
experience the next highest increase.
• The Central Appalachian, Eastern Interior,
Green River-Hams Fork, and Fort Union
Coal Regions would experience the smallest
increase, although, in general, a doubling
would still occur.
Tables 5-56 through 5-61 show, for 1985 and
1990, the total emissions which would result under
the no new leasing alternative together with the
incremental change of the other alternatives
measured against the no new leasing base case.
Negative values indicate smaller amounts of
emissions.
In the methodology employed to estimate
emissions (the Coal Impact Estimation Program),
power plant energy consumption on a Btu basis
did not change from alternative to alternative
within a given year and within the high, medium,
or low production projection. Therefore, any
differences in emissions would come from interre-
gional shifts in coal mining, beneficiation, and
transportation. Emissions from these sources
would be minor compared to those from coal
conversion or steam electric power plants and the
small differences between the numbers in the table
are to be expected.
Only two differences in sulfur oxides emissions
in 1985 and 1990 (Table 5-56) are significant; both
occur in the Western Interior Coal Region where
about a six percent increase is forecast under the
high case for the preferred program alternative and
about a five percent decrease is forecast for the
state determination of leasing levels alternative.
Particulates in 1985 and 1990 (Table 5-57)
would generally decrease in the eastern regions for
each alternative when compared with the no new
leasing base case. For the western regions these
values would generally increase. In both cases,
however, the changes would rarely be greater than
10 percent and never more than 15 percent above
the no new leasing alternative.
Since 1850, the amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere is estimated to have increased by
40 ppm from 290 ppm. A fourth of this total
5-97
TABLE 5-49
NATIONAL EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR 1975
3
(10 tons/year)
SOURCE
PARTICU-
LATES
SULFUR
OXIDES
NITROGEN
OXIDES
HYDRO-
CARBONS
CARBON
MONOXIDE
Fuel Combustion (Point
and Area)
5,800
22,900
12,500
1,500
1,300
Industrial (Point)
7,700
4,800
700
9,300
7,900
Solid Waste Disposal
(Point and Area)
500
50
200
900
3,100
Transportation (Area)
1,300
800
10,800
13,200
79,400
Miscellaneous (Area)
500
0
100
3,900
2,800
Total (Point and Area)
15,800
28,500
24,300
28,800
94,500
Source: Reference Number 85,
5-98
:;;i::::::
■
■
■■.■■■■
TABLE 5-50
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, SULFUR OXIDES AIR EMISSIONS
(Tons/yr)
Ul
i
19 76
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
REGIONS
BASE CASE
1985-1976
1990-1985
1985-1976
1990-1985
1985-1976
1990-1935
Northern Appalachian
198,312
21,124
- 1,027
15,350
41,688
22,502
178,663
Central Appalachian
107,946
179
34,946
16,173
61,568
12,520
84,912
Southern Appalachian
46,272
35,626
13
63,800
12,802
62,650
44,134
Eastern Interior
250,325
91,512
34,921
107,150
33,847
127,079
60,659
Western Interior
159,545
190,098
27,589
286,568
268,259
301,098
302,401
Texas
15,531
57,004
19,191
92,979
88,666
94,284
96,728
Powder River
5,950
6,636
3,645
7,397
3,824
9,034
4,520
Green River-Hams Fork
7,113
4,869
1,892
6,957
483
7,298
1,442
Fort Union
7,874
4,150
4.028
4.247
11.324
11.055
7,183
San Juan River
6,803
210
1,510
525
800
4,548
8,258
Uinta -Southwestern Utah
3,554
13,207
4,731
13,289
2,872
14,870
6,900
Denver-Raton Mesa
5,498
5,106
2,520
7,036
5,465
8,233
7,060
" TOTAL
814,723
429,721
133,959
621,471
531,598
679,721
802,815
TABLE 5-51
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, PARTICULATE AIR EMISSIONS
(Tons/yr)
i
H
O
c
REGIONS
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
"exas
Powder River
Green River-Hams Fork
Fort Union
San Juan River
Uinta -Southwestern Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
TOTAL
19 76
BASE CASE
119,933
60,609
33,677
99,797
45,025
14,655
10,275
7,448
9,083
7,432
3,646
4,084
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-1976
14,468
406
415,664
23,249
45,885
50,821
58,988
21,233
4,842
3,434
925
9,664
6,022
239,937
1990-1985
- 2,488
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-1976
9,115
408
22,097
7,384
19,071
7,981
4,312
5,246
4,419
5,308
5,379
11,786
5,679
43,830
50,374
76,546
92,631
27,901
10,313
2,939
2,460
11,778
8,596
37,416 344,833
1 .
1990-1985
21, 553
19,685
7,872
29,874
10,792
1,935
15,185
6,374
5,125
8,009
1,497
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1965-1976
16.217
1990-1985
.91,305
2,433
44,957
50,856
80,724
91,782
38,933
29,142
47,829
85,787
37,210
13,161
104,799
26,331
2,724
15,098
8,176
14,942
10,527
386,083
9,447
14,716
7,964
6,153
387,264
ha—ma*
SSSjS-SJifSSBK
mmmmm
TABLE 5-52
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, CARBON MONOXIDE AIR EMISSIONS
(Tons/yr)
I
H
o
1976
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
REGIONS
BASE CASE
1985-1976
1990-1985
1985-1976
1990-1985
1985-1976
1990-198
Northern Appalachian
99,891
14,366
- 286
18,259
16,675
16,459
67,727
Central Appalachian
36,740
2,688
9,125
8,220
19,706
9,333
28,636
Southern Appalachian
33,676
21,320
1,071
35,962
11,534
37,075
28,763
Eastern Interior
68,314
25,156
7,519
29,416
12,658
33,598
21,515
Western Interior
46,971
36,208
6,960
53,904
51,082
58,893
65,585
Texas
16,921
41,654
13,552
66,525
62,932
67,888
72,993
Powder River
10,670
11,016
4,837
13,687
6,748
17,017
9,460
Green River-Hams Fork
9,773
5,986
2,627
2,022
2,304
10,309
4,555
Fort Union
14,047
6,430
5,468
6,817
17,332
17,063
12,771
San Juan River 5 ,209
500
1,273
1,023
1,462
4,011
6,764
Uinta -Southwestern Utah
4,067
6,382
2,660
7,374
3,061
9,241
4,706
Denver-Raton Mesa
12,377
10,314
4,787
14,114
11,462
16,739
12,529
TOTAL
358,656
182,020
59,593
257,323
216,956
297,626
310,462
TABLE 5-53
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, NITROGEN OXIDES AIR EMISSIONS
(Tons/yr)
i
o
REGIONS
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
Powder River
Green River-Hams Fork
Fort Union
S an Juan Rive r
Uinta -Southwestern Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
TOTAL
19 76
BASE CASE
557,342
251,794
205,431
444,357
246,164
93,705
48,181
53,523
74,919
40,642
2,078,879
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-1976
63,464
7,414
156,558
162,571
245,588
338,468
59,925
37,117
31,313
1,427
63,976
60,988
1990-1985
- 1,080
76,981
9 70
58,207
40,246
112,956
33,633
14,902
40,661
9,175
22,566
34,364
1,228,839
443,581
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-1976
48,673
45,265-
280,109
191,927
367,907
550,885
65,910
53,613
20,018
3,536
64,074
83,585
1,775,502
1990-1985
126,677
142,809
59,649
66,742
346,502
526,988
10,033
- 4,664
120,199
1,979
13,5;
59,562
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-1976
73,066
49,938
276,037
226,529
392,599
558,723
77,402
1,470,064
56,291
103,707
27,662
71,040
96,816
1,617,211
1990-1985
497,565
199,388
197,290
119,259
410,192
585,698
33,364
8,681
54,842
49,886
33,695
52,120
2,241,980
ritanflB^ta^nttBi^tarttttt
TABLE 5-54
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, HYDROCARBON AIR EMISSIONS
(Tons/yr)
L/l
I
o
LO
1976
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
REGIONS
BASE CASE
1985-1976
1990-1985
1985-1976
1990-1985
1985-1976
1990-198
Northern Appalachian
122,251
18,442
-2,072
32,376
5,116
16,654
42,579
__
Central Appalachian
16,085
930
3,276
3,361
8,225
4,119
12,996
Southern Appalachian
26,661
11,504
1,432
15,222
9,314
17,882
15,856
Eastern Interior
52,913
22,655
5,440
23,982
11,517
26,796
19,957
Western Interior
26,244
16,040
4,416
24,288
24,947
26,771
36,851
Texas
9,359
15,769
5,463
24,732
20,427
25,361
27,650
Powder River
5,852
4,326
1,757
5,556
12,748
8,272
6,079
Green River-Hams Fork
4,983
2,919
1,052
3,969
5,856
4,522
3,361
Fort Union
7,461
6,282
3,482
9,716
7,913
11,508
10,322
San Juan River
1,809
206
392
453
4,049
1,348
2,195
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
5,405
- 1,505
860
1,044
3,938
4,468
1,783
Denver-Raton Mesa
9,862
6,232
2,159
7,921
7,795
10,070
11,834
TOTAL
288,885
103,860
27,657
152,620
121,845
157,771
191,463
TABLE 5-55
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, CARBON DIOXIDE AIR EMISSIONS
(million tons/yr)
U7
i
o
REGION
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
Powder River
Green River-Hams Fork
Fort Union
San Juan River
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
19 76
BASE CASE
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-
1976
374.5
40.0
168.5
278.0
106.9
37.8
18.4
23.4
27.7
21.1
9.8
11.9
-1.5
119.0 92.1
106.4
128.7
163.4
33.3
17
15.0
0.8
37.9
26.2
1990-
1985
-3,
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-
1976
47.3
-1.4
45.0
20.4
56.1
17.4
1.7
20.8
5.8
15.2
16.7
29.5
20.4
167.8
122.5
194.2
266.2
38.1
27.6
12.4
2.4
39.3
35.7
1990-
1985
82.2
84.6
30.2
51.9
173.5
245.6
18.6
-3.5
56.9
7.9
6.0
22.3
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-
1976
1990-
1985
44.2
19.2
165.0
372.9
141.9
278.6
143.9
203.7
243.0
422.6
267.8
49.6
29.3
50.7
16.0
45.1
557.4
63.1
28.9
76.2
43.9
65.6
41.5
63.7
gBdMAHMMM^^MMMriM^Mn
SBBI&^MnSBSBS
TABLE 5-56
SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS
(tons/year)
■
COAL
NO NKW
LEASING
Program Alternatives
PREFERRED '^v"
PROGRAM °"ut
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW •
MEDIUM
HICH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
VALUE
Northern Appalachian
219423
213649
220801
-26.3
-13.4
-223
-802?
-8015
-7765
13.0
-7962
Central Appalachian
168112
124106
125453
-254
-846
-1551
-622
-694
-506
-406
-720
Southern Appalachian
81885
110059
108909
-26.3
-1982
675
-135!
-1628
-1634
-3449
-1600
Eastern Interior
341824
357462
377391
-26.4
-734
2275
-98:
-999
1624
-10560
-2392
Western Interior
446072
460602
-82.4
-17226
31933
-23380 -21465..
-5536
12984
-22592
Texas
72524
108499
109804
52.1
416
-4331
-862 -459
-1191
-396
2231
Powder River
12576
13337
14974
-19.4
-9.09
330
-18.7 -4.3
454
-133
-172
Green River-Hams Fork
11974
14062
14404
-14.4
289
390
-97.
I 22.0
856
570
71.3
Fort Union
12013
12110
18918
799
862
256
R60 872
1559
172
1410
Ln
San Juan River
7327
11350
-2.0
-1
10.6
-39.
5 -38.5.
-6.26
-917
-16.1
1
I-1
o
Uinta-Southvestern Utah
16841
18421
446
341
51.
4 187
653
448
453
Ln
Denver-Raton Mesa
10590
12520
13717
-28.4
255
276
235 249
794
1088
7.43
1990
CHANGE
FROM NO
■JEW LEAS INC
VALUE
Northern Appalachian
218588
255337
399464
3931
350
9524
-2.
3 -46.3
228
268
-139
Central Appalachian
143242
185674
210365
19
91.3
8972
3279 58.8
1707
41.2
-4826
Southern Appalachian
153043
19.7
97.5
10789
1109 55.7
778
250
-1582
Eastern Interior
376037
391309
438050.
4980
86.5
19132
612 -2033
1030
1477
-4424
Western Interior
377788
714331
762603
859
294
43097
-15591 -15912
20500
16500
-39259
Texas
91879
197164
209532
-207
35.4
2006
-3082 -2621
-2587
-801
-264
1
Powder River
16362
1 9494
ft?
35*
?70ft
7S
8 -l«i
734-
l.f.1
_«u
Green River-Hams Fork
13970
14^45
1 5846
77.2
172
??fi3
-74« -R40
591
350
-995
Fort Union
16209
23435
26101
17.4
59.5
503
238 346
1251
-159S
42(
)
5
8
San Juan River
i
8127
1960S
154
59.3
151
-7.21 -87.2
27.4
-91.5
-17
Uinta-Southwesterr. Utah
21516
19713
25321
573
106
1591
-997 -890
313
124
-71
Denver-Ui'ton Mi^s3
i uir
I'X'HS
r,mi.
-H .3
1116
2651
-)
■) -20!
462
5 5/
-734
TABLE 5-57
I
o
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES EMISSIONS
(tons/year)
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
LEASING
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
Powder River
Green River-Haras Fork
MEDIUM
1985
134335
61009
56921
145676
95828
131713
66282
77501
150165
73638
31503
Fort Union
San Juan River
12287
12511
Uinta-Southvestern Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Powder River
8356
13368
121554
107280
38171
1361&4
136144
78629
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
MEDIUM
PRLA's
ONLY
MEDIUM
EMERCENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEDIUM
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEDIUM
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
MEET
DOE
GOALS
DLli.Fc-
MEDIUM
-JkS
-11.1
150647
125731
106432
17758
12017
989 L
15422
10100
12674
31495
20606
24176
.15607
18587
-11.5
-11.6
-52.4.
72.9
z2Li
-6.3
-16.4
-387
:L4_Z5_
-216
-809
237
■4581
_6Z3_
216
1174
-0..9,
14605
1990
131991
70205
153266
56596
167857
103473
92781
39546
Green River-HaraB Fork.
16644
Fort Union
San Juan River
j 17831
17787
Uinta-Southvestern Utah
85967
85373
180032.
-1.59
-=12+A_
679
1283
26.3
352
-1A1
-986
838?
-5783
.3333
3707
-3829
-182
OS25.
-1058
z25Q
-6173
=Mfi
11.?
235
44.6.
435
288
281.
173
1286
-291
-1107
-AR&
-5608
-3890
-1712
.18.1
-3888-
-357
459
zh!5
JLLL3
-367
86.1
135
--36.7
87,9
-402.
1291
-36.?
_L3i
^16
r1949
-2910
.2995
4647
2527
655
1216
-309?
-J.723.
-3873
-2CLL
301 &
-1151
-5696
3851
-39.0
-?4?8
4480
-2018
-662
-17?0.
2532
910
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
-1120.
JJ£_
1914
276
213
.227449
97211
107766
194025
196903
48963
19693
27832
18628
Denver-Raton Mesa
15570
20548
20683
198476
211518
211231
57826
23330
33623
869
-3-7
-£*£
JU
-325
472
Ml.
-557
3349
-94.2
I^5_=15^5_
-790
4063
111 11817
2541
JL£2fiA__3_0321
26551
20758
7.6
_31i
_556.
180
-830
-964
97.6
-41.6
jiia
6965
-3162
6526
-4923
34476
7544
-1129
-591
181
34.7
429
352
-2539
-30.4
-All
-45^2
-151
dtte.
429
694
-627
219
-4721
-3272
5772
-174
AM
-Ahl
-1175
1274 I -122
-1156
-4301
-2896
1223
108
_6-L4
-l&&
-601
-216
1018
-6425
3895
-9897
17959
6171
-Lfi.71
-32A.
635
-156?
-.?707
-1370
5832
?761
-9446
-5715
-3471
11404
-4153
5967
-5166...
-4631 _
117Q
-?346
570
278
-3522
-1439
-1135
-898
mm
REGIONAL IMPACTS
increase has occurred within the past 10 years
[109]. Most of the 40 ppm increase is attributed to
the increased use of fossil fuels as the result of the
industrial revolution. The impacts of increased
coal utilization should be studied on a world-wide
basis since even a 2° to 3°C global temperature
rise could have profound climatic effects. For
example, resultant warming of ocean waters could
disrupt marine life and ocean circulation. In
addition, changes in temperature distribution in
the atmosphere could cause changes in other
climate variables such as precipitation, cloud
cover, winds, and humidity [110]. World-wide
agriculture production and distribution could be
detrimentally affected. The accuracy of predicting
future carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is
limited by uncertainty about its final destination
(fate). The amount of carbon dioxide released to
the atmosphere each year is speculative on a global
basis because of uncertainties about factors like
the effects on carbon dioxide production of forest
clearing and the mechanisms for carbon dioxide
removal from the atmosphere. Predictions about
the extent to which greater utilization of fossil
fuels, especially coal, will contribute to atmospher-
ic carbon dioxide levels adds another factor of
uncertainty to the prediction process.
Table 5-55 shows that carbon dioxide emis-
sions in 1976 due to coal production totaled about
1,197 million tons (the sum of the 1976 base case
column). As shown in Table 5-61 for the no new
leasing medium level alternative, emissions are
projected to be about 2,152.7 million tons in 1985
and 2,929 million tons in 1990. These estimates
represent increases of 955.7 million tons and 1,732
million tons, respectively, over the 1976 base case.
The preferred medium level alternative is projected
to contribute 948.3 million tons and 1,768 million
tons in 1985 and 1990, respectively, over the 1976
base case. The preferred alternative for the
proposed Federal coal management program is
estimated to produce less carbon dioxide in 1985
than would be produced under the no new leasing
base case; in 1990, the preferred alternative
program is estimated to produce 36 million tons
(or 1.2 percent) more emissions than would be
produced under the no new leasing base case.
Presently, the atmosphere contains about 700
billion metric tons of carbon. Annual global
carbon dioxide emissions in 1976 were about 20
billion tons, primarily due to fossil fuel burning
[110]. The total carbon dioxide emissions estimated
for 1976 resulting from U.S. coal development
activities (1,197 million tons) represents about 5.9
percent of the 1976 global carbon dioxide emis-
sions. Assuming that the only contributions to
global carbon dioxide emissions were from coal
development activities, then the U.S. share of
these emissions would be about 9.6 percent and
12.8 percent for 1985 and 1990, respectively.
The 1985 and 1990 values for carbon monox-
ide emissions (Table 5-58) show a general decrease
for the eastern regions and a general increase for
the western regions under other alternatives.
Carbon dioxide in 1985 and 1990 (Table 5-61)
would generally decrease in the eastern regions for
each alternative when compared with the no new
leasing base case. For the western regions these
values would generally increase. For the eastern
regions the decrease is not more than six percent,
while for the western regions the increase is less
than 90 percent.
Increases in nitrous oxides in 1985 and 1990
(Table 5-59), would be generally less in the eastern
regions for the other alternatives than for the no
new leasing alternative although these other values
are still usually only a few percentage points below
the no new leasing base case. For the western
regions in 1985, no change larger than about two
percent is projected.
For hydrocarbons (Table 5-60) in 1985, only
two alternatives would lead to an increase of as
much as one percent over the no new leasing base
case; both increases would occur in the Denver-
Raton Mesa Coal Region. Similar results would be
obtained in 1990.
533 Ecological Impacts
Ecosystems in each coal region would experi-
ence a number of impacts from increased coal
development activity. These impacts would include
primary disturbance and destruction of vegetation
and wildlife populations and introduction of
hazards to biota.
Secondary impacts resulting from induced
growth, changes in plant and animal communities,
and adjustment of ecosystems would also occur.
Disturbances and modifications of habitats adja-
cent to the areas of principal impacts would
diminish with distances but this "area of influ-
ence" could encompass as much as five times the
5-107
TABLE 5-58
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
(tons/year)
I
O
00
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY MEET
LEASING INDUSTRY
ONLY NEEDS
MEET
DOE
. GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HI6B
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Northern Appalachian
114222
1985
118116
116315
68 1
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
VALUE
Central Appalachian
39399
44930
46043
-60.6
-242
114
-124
-OIJJ
-190
-51UU
-187
-4452
267
32.7
-91.6
-4966
-30.9
Southern Appalachian
54966
69607
70721
-60". 9
-1124
589
-790
-900
-401
-1759
-860
Eastern Interior
93438
97697
101880
-64.4
-126
647
-250
-205
797
-1894
-325
Western Interior
83084
100780
105770
-189
-2258
4896
-3073
-2734
817
1668
-2486
Texas
58547
83418
84781
-459
298
-2815
-595
-295
-595
-317
1769
Powder River
21663
24334
27664
-45.0
-17.8
963
-34.0
-6.54
1116
-132
-567
Green River-Hams Fork
15743
18884
20065
-32.8
320
1072
-67.3
33.5
1682
1255
-295
Fort Union
20450
20837
31084
1011
112.3
440
1115
1142
2365
41.9
2003
San Juan River
5706
6229
9217
-50.6
-0.109
29.5
-28.8
-26.3
137
-649
146
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
10445
11436
13303
-9.10
254
259
27.7
106
458
249
268
Denver-Raton Mesa
22658
26459
29084
-64.7
479
580
437
470
1632
2044
57.6
1990
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
114438
134791
184042
2 730
3620
5218
-30.8
-121.0
56=1
7i ■;
Central Appalachian
48963
64637
74679
44.7
190
3100
755
-89.6
833
/J.3
513
-1330
Southern Appalachian
56478
81141
99482
45.7
219
6251
586
-50.9
847
494
-1214
Eastern Interior
101423
110355
123395
140
135
38296
26.6
-600
289
627
-871
Western Interior
91409
151867
171357
235
585
8558
-2132
-2333
3848
'3626
-5739
Texas
72506
146350
157774
-121
-272
1469
-2099
-1855
-2193
-659
-2065
Powder River
26826
31081
37124
83.7
2401
8617
1134
48.3
3894
2591
-1352
Green River-Hams Fork.
18608
21189
24620
149
657
3230
-593
-622
1723
1555
-1697
Fort Union
26308
38168
43855
40.3
-12.2
826
274
466
1826
-2422
586
San Juan River
7016
7691
15981
104
-139
130
-98.6
-84
61.2
65 6
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
13170
14496
18009
308
71
1081
-614
-553
266
89.6
-496
Denver-Raton Mesa
27915
37921
41613
48.5 |
243
12713
-411
-400
989
1162
-1445
■• ■■•■ "-' • •■■■ -■•■■■• •■■■ ■•■ ■ ■■■■■• • '■- ■■•■"■■
nJfea
■MI
- -- • ■ ■
TABLE 5-59
NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS
(tons /year)
I
O
PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVES
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW 1 MEDIUM 1
HIGH
LOU
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIO!
1985
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
620720
605929
630322
-170
-87.9
-84.6
-21272
-21187
-19568
82.9
-20851
Central Appalachian
259125-.
296976
301650
-170
-1892
-2824
-1422
-1529
-231
-84£
-1289
Southern Appalachian
361904
485455
481383
-171
-8476
3128
-5826
-6947
-6356
-14865
-6766
Eastern Interior
606862
636198
670800
-172
-1212
4320
-1757
-1687
3818
-17856
-3703
Western Interior
£91489
61 3803
638495
-536
-19672
38232
-26719
-24323
-2378
147331
-24654
Texas
432099
644517
652354
295
2454
-25764
-5135
-2734
-7084
-2432
13338
Powder River
108043
114028
125519
-126
-55.3
2893
-132
-23.8
3968
-1295
-1942
Green River-Hams Fork
90594
107089
109768
-93.4
2345
3427
-729
192
7098
5021
249
Fort L'nlon
106157
94862
178551
9394
10275
2260
10282
10357
17334
194C
16495
San Juan River
40026
44171
68297
-13.1
-2.6
72. S
-235
-228
84.5
-547?
62.8
Uinta-Southuestern Utah
80836
50934
87900
-23.5
2097
1622
241
878
3155
2098
2140
Denver-Raton Mesa
106863
129460
142691
-184
4031
2963
3775
3867
9832
16675
-335
1990
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
620886
732606
1127887
10369
1337
27843
-58.2
-301
1432
1759
-837
1
Central Appalachian
337303
439785
501038
123.0
559
?n«"
6998
-78.9
4549
1134
-10798
Southern Appalachian
364113
545104
678673
128
625
47587
4685
133
3840
1521
-7162
Eastern Interior
666315
702940
790061
924
469
34216
853
-3702
2252
3292
-7556
Western Interior
535606
960305
104868"
1292
1805
57142
-17961
-18778
26499
2271C
-46422
Texas
546127
1171504
1243052
-1222
-162
__LL46J
-18265
-15«4
-15933
-509f -15812
Powder River
142589
124060
158883
545
4130
25219
1896
-737
7544
476( -4291
Green River-Hams Fork
106173
102426
11844'
641
1590
15022
-5333
-5913
4975
330S -7694
Fort Union
147909
215060
5 3469.
113
214
2197
3368
4996
134.50
-201 M 6562
San Juan River
51332
46151
11818
91C
156
868
-178
-537
160
52C -89(
Ulnta-Southvestern Utah
103573
9452?
12159
272f
513
7S7P
-4665
-4170
1537
597 -3411
l)£*nver-fc.uc<ii Mi-sa
142563
189022
19481
1 13?
691
85 3f
-3139
-2631
4993
5972 -999(
TABLE 5-60
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
(tons/year)
ur
I
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
LEASIJIG
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING
VALUE
Northern Appalachian
138671
152606
136883
-43.5
-22.0
-219
-9789
-9767
-9354
21.5
-9681
Central Appalachian
16994
19426
20183
-41.9
-86.4
88.9
-77.6
-64.0
315
-14 1
9 1 "}
Southern Appalachian
38144
41862
44521
-43.4
-80.6
469
-55 7
-631
-275
-704
-609
Eastern Interior
75547
76874
79687
-43.6
-102
437
-156
-132
533
-249
-225
Western Interior
42216
50464
52947
-136
-703
1864
-972
-831
1022
655
-612
Texas
25109
34072
34702
-18.4
141
-675
-159
-51.4
6.65
3T 1
Powder River
10162
11393
14109
-32
-151
401
-24.6
-7.10
454
-29.9
-84
Green River-Hams Fork
7891
8941
9494
-2.3.7 .
79.7
314
-34.6
4 ??
SA9
Fort Union
13724
17157
18949
340
326
291
318
337
901
49.2
bib
San Juan River
2073
2260
3156
-33.3
-1.22
17.4
-10.0
-8.33
44.2
-188
27 8
Uir.ta-Southwestern Utah
3836
6446
9870
-5.97
137
222
13.0
57.2
252
140
149
Denver-Raton Mesa
16070
17759
i , .
19909
-46.8
290
400
265
288
1055
1057
37.7
1990
CHANCE FROM NO NEW LEASING <
/ALUE
Northern Appalachian
136916
157722
179462
5476.3
272
5328
-14.4
-76.4
366
440
-220
Central Appalachian
20574
27652
33179
31.3
152
1639
225
-66.8
454
398.0
-547.0
Southern Appalachian
39890
51176
60377
32.5
161.0
2707
433.0
-33.9
588.0
417.0
-816.0
Eastern Interior
81307
88391
99654
86.8
144.0
114458
52.9
-487
256
698
-804
Western Interior
47616
75412
89798
131
487
4663
-717
-900
1904
1949
-22770
Texas
30844
54499
62352
-30.1
74.1
1017
-687
-631
-420
64.2
-730
Powder River
12152
24140
20188
39
547
3093
-70.7
-383
1119
730
-790
Green River-Hams Fork
9115
14796
12855
46.9
197
1176
-498
-566
658
477
-827
Fort Union
17483
25070
29271
28.6
102.0
1024
-73.5
-109.0
836
-451
240
San Juan River
2489
6309
5351
32.5
-10.4
83.7
20.3
-28.6
56 8
L~\ Q
UinLa-Southwestern Utah
4739
10384
11653
94.7
34.8
725
-451
-408
179
64.8
-348
Denver-Raton Mesa
18569
25555
31743
35.1
175
37135
-257
-253
652
782
-922
mam
mam
TABLE 5-61
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
(million tons/yr)
COAL
REGION
L
NO NEW
EASING
-
PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVE
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
S
PRLA ' s
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING |
ONLY
MEET MEET
INDUSTRY i "CF
NEEDS GOALS
1
DElT.Er j
| MISATj ON j
LOV
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOH j
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM MEDIUM
MEDIUM | MEDIUM
j
\
1985
CHANGE
FROM NO NEK LEASING .V
\LUE
|
1
Northern Appalachian
414.5
404.0
418.7
0
0
-0.6
-14.7 1 -14.7
. ' : 1
-14.7 ! 0
[-14.8 |
Central Appalachian
167.0
188.9
187.7
0
-1.2
-2.5
- 0.8 j - 1.0
- 2.1 ! -0.7
i
j- 0.4 j
Southerr. Appalachian
211.1
286.8
284.0
0
-5.5
1.3
- 3.7 | - 4.4
- 4.6 ! -10.0
|- 4.9 j
Extern Interior
384.4
400.5
421.9
0
-0.4
1.2
- 1.0 j - 0.9
0.6 j -11.3
[-1.9 !
Western Interior
235.6
301.1
310.6 j
-0.1
-11.8
21.8
-16.0 | -14.7
- 4.5 ! 8.6
-15.3 |
Texas
201.2
304.0
305.6 '
0.2
1.5
-13.8
- 2.4 - 1.2
- 5.0 1 - 1.6
1
7.5 )
Pevder River
51.7
56.5
68.0
0
0
2.9
0 0
2.8 [ - 0.7
; - 2.4 !
Green ?iver-Hans Fork
40.9
50.6
52.7
0
1.5
3.6
- 0.2 i 0.2
i
5.7 1 5.0
[-1.1 |
Fort Union
42.7
40.1
78.4
4.7
5.0
0.9
5.0 ! 5.0
i
8.1 ! 0.2
; 8.2 j
1
H
San Juan River
21.9
23.5
37.1
0
0
0
- 0.2 j - 0.2
j
0.3 j - 3.1
! 0.5 ,
i 1
Uiiita-Southvestern Utah
47.7
49.1
54.9
0
1.3
1.0
0.2 0.5
i
2.3 | 1.0
! 1-3 i
r-1
Derver-Raten Mesa
, 38.1
47.6
53.4
0
2.2
1.2
2.1 ! 2.1
4.5 8.8
j ,
J u—
- 0.2
1990
CHANG 1
FROM NO NIT.-: LEASING
; .\t,uE
I
Northern Appalachian
] 410.7
486.2
747.4
7.3
0.6
16.7
o j o
j 0 | 0.4
i "- j
Central Appalachian
214.3
273.5
310.4
0
- 0.5
10.2
4.5 j 0
1.4 j -0.7
1-5.2 t
Southern Appalachian
i 209.7
; 317.0
397.6
0.1
- 0.3
27.8
2.9 0.1
j 1-8 j -1.3
1 ~5-4 i
Eastern Interior
] 429.4
452.4
521.0
0.5
1.4
17.8
1,5 0
1 -1.2 j 2.3
2.9 1
Western Interior
1 256.0
474.6
529.5
0.4
12.7
25.4
2.1 | 2.4
1 26.0 | 23.1
1-12.7
Texas
| 257.3
549.6
595.2
-0.8
5.8
0.4
-0.6 j 0.8
-4.1 J 2.5
0.5 ,'
Powder River
69.1
75.1
81.5
0.3
9.1
29.5
4.9 | 1.1
14.0 ; 8.8
, — J. O !
j i
i 9 A i
Green River-Hams Fork
49.6
47.5
52.3
0.6
6.1
11.0
1.0
0.9
, 9.9 1 8.7
|" 2'6 j
Fort Union
63.5
96.7
103.9
0.1
-2.9
-0.6
- 1.0
0
i
4.0 j -14.5
i 1*1
:vm, Jii-n River
27.7
31.4
65.0
0.1
-0.2
0.2
1 °-1 1.
0.5 : 0.4
! 1
0.1
C in La -Son thwestem Utah
| 62.9
55.1
| 75.4
0.4
2.7
j 3.9
1-0.3 1 0.3
-i 1- - ^r
1 4.2 | 1.5
0.1
~7"-~3.3~~ '
Denver-'! lt.m Mesa
1 54.8
69.9
75.6
0.1
1.5
7.2
1-0.1 | 0.3
) 3.4 | 3.5
. — —
-i
REGIONAL IMPACTS
area directly disturbed, depending on species
affected and type of impact [48].
Since the specific tracts which might be leased
are presently unknown, it is not possible to
indicate exact habitats which would be lost.
Existing legislation and/or the criteria which
establish some land areas as unsuitable (see
Section 3.2.2 and Section 5.4.8), however, protect
sensitive habitats, such as endangered species
critical habitat, alluvial valley floor habitat, wet-
lands, National Wildlife Refuges, National Wilder-
ness Areas, Federally-designated wilderness study
areas, high priority migratory bird habitat, raptor
nests and roosts, and habitat for resident high
interest wildlife species.
The severity of impacts on regional ecosystems
under the program alternatives would be affected
by the frequency of disturbance, which depends in
part on the rate of growth in coal related activities
and whether the activities would be concentrated
or dispersed. In general, the ecologic harm done to
a region will increase under those alternatives
which involve the largest amounts of coal produc-
tion and coal consumption and the most land
disturbance.
Off-road vehicles (ORVs) would be frequently
used during the exploration phase of coal develop-
ment as well as for recreation. The immediate
impact of ORV travel would be to the surface
where low growing vegetation might be injured
and destroyed. Repeated travel over the same
route could result in soil compaction, decreased
water infiltration, and interference with root
growth [49]. Increased runoff resulting from a
reduced capacity of the compacted soils to absorb
rainfall could lead to erosion, the formation of
ruts, and increased sediment loadings in adjacent
waterways. Concentrated ORV travel and frequent
disturbances (noise and man's presence) in a given
area might affect wintering big game, upset
breeding behavior of animals and birds, and result
in direct loss of some wildlife.
Vegetation removed during site preparation
would result in loss of natural site productivity for
wildlife. Indirect or secondary impacts would
include an increase in the potential for site erosion,
sedimentation, and introduction of pollutants into
adjacent waterways, as well as disturbance of
adjacent vegetation, habitat, and wildlife. Animal
life would be adversely affected by losses of food,
cover, and habitat. The initial impact would be
greatest to soil micro- and macro-organisms,
arthropods, small burrowing mammals, ground
nesting birds, and slowly moving forms such as
amphibians and reptiles. However, due to their
relatively rapid population turnovers and high
reproductive rates, these same groups of animals
would likely be the first to repopulate reclaimed
areas. Insects and other arthropods would begin to
repopulate disturbed areas during and after re-
vegetation. Diversity, however, could be lower
than before development.
While direct mortality of larger, more mobile
wildlife species would be rare, loss or disturbance
of habitat would cause increased competition for
food, cover, nesting sites, and territory, thereby
potentially reducing wildlife populations over time.
Comparatively speaking, fewer numbers of preda-
tors and large game mammals would be affected
by habitat loss as both generally range over a
larger territory than do smaller creatures. The
losses which might occur, however, would tend to
be more long-term due to slower population
turnovers and lower reproductive rates.
Wildlife dependent upon specific seasonal
habitats would be affected by activities which
removed or reduced these habitats. If development
were to reduce habitats which presently limit the
size of a particular migratory wildlife population,
that population would also be reduced in other
habitat areas. Further secondary impacts could
then be felt by predators, prey, or other links in the
food chain of that species. Lands undergoing coal
development would decrease the total area avail-
able for wildlife and, initially, create increased
crowding of adjacent habitats. Populations in
excess of a habitat's carrying capacity would,
however, eventually diminish to a level equal to or
lower than that carrying capacity.
Ecosystems beyond the immediate develop-
ment area could be temporarily or permanently
disturbed by noise, air, and water emissions from
community expansion; increased human presence
and activity; and plant and mine operations. Most
species tolerate human intrusions only to a certain
point. Others, such as pronghorn antelope, are very
wary of human presence [50]. The extent of these
impacts would be dependent on the tolerance of a
given species.
Coal development would result in the introduc-
tion of additional hazards into the environment.
Fences constructed along rights-of-way, or around
5-112
REGIONAL IMPACTS
areas under construction and areas under rehabili-
tation, would reduce some populations such as
antelope [51]. Increased vehicular traffic would
result in higher numbers of roadkills of various
species. The presence of mining operations and
support facilities could change migration patterns
and grazing movements through changes in the
quantity and quality of forage and water, as well as
physically restricting movements by erecting im-
passable barriers, such as tall fences, deep ditches,
and heavily travelled roadways.
Factors which limit distribution of aquatic
organisms include temperature, turbidity, pH,
(acidity or alkalinity), water velocity, oxygen
supply, conductivity, and substratum. Any one of
these factors could be changed in adjacent streams
and downstream rivers by effluents, accidental
spills, impoundments, and/or erosion. Sufficient
amounts of leached substances and saline ground-
water released to surface waters from excavations
or overburden piles could cause a shift in pH and
conductivity into a range that would interfere with
the vital functions of aquatic organisms. Acid
drainage is a potential problem particularly in the
East, while salinity poses more of a problem in the
West.
Sediment introduced into surface waters by
runoff could affect aquatic life in many ways; it
could clog fish gills, bury eggs of both fish and
insects, bury food sources, smother aquatic vegeta-
tion, and alter habitat. In addition, there are many
indirect ways in which sediment could disrupt an
aquatic system. For example, turbidity would
decrease light penetration, thereby decreasing
photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants and
phytoplankton. This effect, in turn, could result in
a reduction of dissolved oxygen concentration.
Development activities near surface water
systems might also affect aquatic life through the
introduction of various materials into the water
body by overland runoff. Runoff frequently
contains inorganic and organic matter originating
from decayed vegetation and from the soil itself.
Overland runoff could also leach minerals from
exposed soils or might carry residues (oils, grease,
pesticides, etc.) which are used during the con-
struction period or which are present in the soil.
The exact quantities of various pollutants which
would enter a given water body would depend, to
some extent, on the care taken to minimize their
entry.
Any change in the physical characteristics of
the stream substratum could result in extensive
alteration in benthic composition (stream bottom
communities). Species dependent on running water
for food supply and on hard attachment surfaces
for maintaining their position could be replaced by
organisms which typically live in the substratum
rather than on it.
Alteration of benthic composition would affect
species dependent upon these organisms as a food
source. The number of different species of large
invertebrates and fish in an impounded pool is
usually substantially lower than in the pool's
former unimpounded, free-flowing status [52].
Game fish would be replaced by more tolerant
species, such as carp.
Large volumes of water would be required in
all of the regions for mining and reclamation
activities, coal conversion and use plants, conjunc-
tive developments, and population increases (see
Section 5.3.2.6). Water withdrawals could affect
aquatic systems by reducing habitats and by
changing the physical regimes (principally dis-
solved oxygen and temperature) of the remaining
water.
5.3.3.1 Productivity Loss. Table 5-62 presents
potential losses in thousands of tons of natural
primary production (biomass) for the no new
leasing alternative at low, medium, and high
production projections in 1985 and 1990. The table
also compares the no new leasing with the other
program alternatives. These potentials are based
on the product of unweighted averages of the
amount of material produced by acre (excluding
agriculture) for each region and the surface area
disturbed in each region. Potential losses weighted
by major natural vegetation types are given in
Appendix D, Tables D-4 through D-25. While such
actual productivity losses will vary, until specific
sites are determined this comparison provides the
most feasible way to indicate differences between
alternatives and between regions.
Comparison between the no new leasing and
the preferred alternatives at the medium coal
production projection in 1985 shows that coal
related development under the preferred program
would remove less natural productivity in the
Appalachian and Western Interior Coal Regions
and would remove up to eight percent more in the
Eastern Interior, Texas, and all western coal
5-113
TABLE 5-62
COMPARISONS OF POTENTIAL PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
I
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985
CHANGE FROM NO NEW
LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
250
246
254
0.04
- .05
- 0.6
- 6.8
- 6.9
- 7.3
- 0.1
- 7,1
Central Appalachian
140
150
140
0.0
- 1.1
- 2.3
- 0.4
- 0.7
- 5,9
- 1.2
- 1.8
Southern Appalachian
106
145
152
0.0
- 3.0
- 0.5
- 2.2
- 2.0
- 0,03
- 7.6
- 4.6
Eastern Interior
224
226
222
0.0
1.3
- 2.4
- 0.5
- 0.01
- 2.0
- 6.1
1.0
Western Interior
114
141
145
-0.05
- 5.8
9.5
- 7.4
- 6.4
- 8.4
0,06
21.0
Texas
140
194
186
0.11
1.4
- 9.6
- 0.9
- 0.2
- 7.0
- 3.0
8.1
Powder River
34
42
55
0.0
0.1
4.1
0.03
0.06
- 3.4
- 0.2
- 3.3
Green River-Hams Fork
16
27
33
0.0
1.2
8.0
0.4
0.3
9.8
9.7
- 4.8
Fort Union
19
23
42
1.6
1.7
0.3
1.7
1.7
4.1
- 2.6
4.3
San Juan River
4
5
8
0.0
0.03
0.05
- 0.02
- 0.02
1.3
- 1.1
1.8
Uir.ta— Southwestern Utah
11
13
15
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.3
3en ver-Raton Mesa
11
15
19
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.6
2.3
3.7
0.9
1990
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
232
267
388
3.4
0.3
5.5
- 0.07
- 0.1
- 0.5
1.1
1.6
Central Appalachian
147
177
201
-0.04
- 1.8
-1.6
1.8
- 0.4
- 0.7
- 2.2
2.1
Southern Appalachian
102
155
199
0.0
- 0.4
11.7
1.4
0.1
2.5
- 5.3
- 7.3
Eastern Interior
226
244
271
0.02
- 3.4
-0.05
- 2.8
2.0
-12.0
- 8.2
10.5
Western Interior
115-
224
266
-0.04
- 5.7
19.9
- 8.5
- 5.4
- 3.7
- 6.1
- 6.9
Texas
183
358
399
-0.6
-13.7
20.8
- 4.1
- 3.9
-27.5
-17.3
- 5.8
Powder River
. 46
69
73
0.09
14.5
42.7
7.3
1.3
22.3
13.9
- 5.8
Green River-Hams Fork
28
37
43
0.9
5.4
15.6
- 0.2
0.6
13.5
13.1
- 1.0
Fort Union
26
44
58
0.0
- 2.7
3.8
- 0.6
0.6
2.4
-12.0
2.0
San Juan River
6
11
16
0.1
- 2.3
0.5
- 1.1
- 0.3
0.2
- 0.8
0.9
Uinta-Southvestern Utah
14
14
19
0.4
- 0.2
- .7
- 0.8
- 0.6
0.5
- 1.4
- 4.4
Denver-Raton Mesa
21
28
33
0.06
0.4
2.6
- 0.4
- 0.4
1.5
0.1
- 1.3
__
-•-
AM
REGIONAL IMPACTS
regions. In 1990, medium level coal production
under the preferred program would result in a
lower loss in primary production in comparison to
the no new leasing alternative in all regions except
the Northern Appalachian, Powder River, Green
River-Hams Fork, and Denver-Raton Mesa Coal
Regions. The largest increase would be a 23
percent higher loss in the Powder River Coal
Region; the Fort Union Coal Region would lose
about 17 percent more primary production of
biomass.
Comparison of the lease PRLAs only and the
no new leasing alternatives at the medium produc-
tion levels in 1985 indicates that lower primary
productivity under the lease PLRAs only alterna-
tive would occur in the West except in the Powder
River and San Juan River Coal Regions; losses in
the East would be consistently lower. In 1990, all
regions except the Central and Southern Appala-
chian and Powder River Coal Regions would
experience lower losses in productivity than under
the no new leasing alternative; the loss in the
Powder River Coal Region would be about 12
percent higher.
Under the emergency leasing alternative in
1985, moderate increases in productivity lost
would result in the western coal regions compared
to the no new leasing alternative. In 1990, losses in
productivity would be lower or would increase
only slightly above those which would result under
the no new leasing alternative.
The leasing to meet industry needs alternative
would generally remove slightly less natural pro-
ductivity (on a percentage basis) in the East and
considerably more in the West during both time
periods. The lease to meet DOE production goals
alternative would cause considerably higher losses
in some of the western regions.
Under the state determination of leasing levels
alternative at the medium coal production projec-
tion, a general amelioration of the western impacts
would occur when compared to the lease to meet
industry needs or lease to meet DOE production
goals alternatives. In the near term, this alterna-
tive, however, would create higher losses in the
Fort Union and Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Regions than those which would occur under the
no new leasing alternative. Over the long term, no
significant differences would be noticed.
5.3.3.2 Habitat Losses.
Habitat losses are dependent on the amount of
land disturbed during program-related coal devel-
opment activities. The degree of surface mining in
a given region would be a major factor contribut-
ing to habitat loss. Land for community expansion,
rights-of-way, and conversion and consumption
plants would also reduce habitat.
Surface mining disturbances typically clear a
land tract of vegetation and remove the area of
overburden. The removal of vegetation with soils
causes a loss of food, cover, and breeding sites for
resident wildlife populations, as well as livestock
herds. This would ultimately result in net reduc-
tions of these populations in the affected coal
regions. Cattle and sheep herds would be removed
from western grazing lands or eastern pasture-
lands, where surface mining occurs. Populations of
burrowing mammals, ground nesting birds, rep-
tiles, and soil organisms would be reduced by the
elimination of both individuals and habitat due to
coal-related excavation. More mobile wildlife, such
as deer, songbirds, and predators, would flee to the
surrounding areas, where they would create addi-
tional interspecific competition for food, cover,
and nesting sites. Where such competition is at a
maximum, but the existing wildlife can still be
supported, the habitat is said to be at its carrying
capacity. If habitats in surrounding areas are
already at their carrying capacities, which is
generally the case with a stabilized ecosystem, the
habitat will not be able to sustain any long-term
population increases. Thus, in addition to losses on
lands directly disturbed, wildlife would also be
subject to losses on other lands which already
support populations at the carrying capacity. Table
5-63 presents estimates of potential big game
population reductions which would occur due to
habitat loss as a result of the no new Federal
leasing alternative at low, medium, and high
production projections. Table 5-63 also presents a
comparison of potential big game population
reductions of the no new Federal leasing versus
other program management alternatives. Carrying
capacity information for typical types of wildlife
common to the 12 coal regions is given in Table D-
1 of Appendix D. In addition, Appendix D
provides estimates of potential wildlife losses by
region per alternative that would occur as a result
of habitat losses.
5-115
REGIONAL IMPACTS
5.3.3.3 Endangered Species. Endangered and
threatened species and their habitat are protected
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 for their
aesthetic, ecological, historical, recreational, and
scientific value. Regardless of which coal manage-
ment alternative is adopted, any site selected for
mining would require specific analysis to deter-
mine the presence of protected species or their
habitat. If it is determined that such species or
habitat does occur, the surface area may be
designated as unsuitable for coal mining under
lands unsuitability criteria (see Sections 3.2.2 and
Section 5.4.8). (The unsuitability criteria proposed
in the preferred program (see Table 3-1) would
also protect threatened species designated under
the 1973 Act and state listed threatened or
endangered species).
Table 5-64 provides a summary list of endan-
gered species found within the coal regions
together with the developments that most severely
threaten their continued existence. Included in this
listing are animal and plant species with formal
endangered or threatened status as identified by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants,
January 17, 1979. Of the 22 plant species which
have been formally accepted as endangered or
threatened, only four (Texas wild rice, northern
wild monkshood, Rydberg milk-vetch, and Phace-
lia argillacea) have been reported to occur in the
coal regions. Proposed listings of plants such as the
Smithsonian listing of 1975 are not included. The
"Distribution" column lists general drainages or
states where the species occur. Where the species
occurs in several regions, these species are dis-
cussed once in the region most commonly inhabit-
ed. The major types of developments which
adversely impact these species are listed in the
"Most Serious Threat" column. However, as all
new construction and mining would affect habi-
tats, these also must be considered in planning for
coal related development.
Guidelines for Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 were issued to all Federal
agencies by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
April 22, 1976. On January 4, 1978 in 43 Feder-
al Register 870, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice issued final rules establishing the procedures
governing interagency consultation under Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Accord-
ingly, before the Bureau of Land Management
would consider a new coal lease, it would consult
with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding
potential impacts to endangered species or their
habitats.
The following is a brief discussion, by region,
of potential impacts on Federal endangered spe-
cies. The main problem in the future regarding
actions at specific sites would be determination of
whether or not an endangered species (either as a
resident or an occasional migrant) or its habitat is
present. Appendix Table D-3 lists the number of
species by major category (i.e., mammals, birds,
etc.) which occur on the state listings of protected
species. Site specific information would also be
required to determine their presence.
Northern Appalachian Coal Region. While
Appendix D lists 26 species of endangered animals
for the Appalachian Coal Region, few are actually
permanent residents in the Northern Appalachian
Coal Region. Much of this region is man-domi-
nated and many species have already been elimi-
nated. Reintroduction of the peregrine falcon is
occurring in the Northeast, and it is possible that it
could eventually spread to this region. Nesting
habitat which could be provided by rock outcrops
and cliffs would be impacted by mining in the
Northern Appalachian Coal Region. However,
released birds are known to nest on man-made
structures.
The gray and Indiana bats may be found in
limestone caves, which could be affected by
mining that removed the caves or impaired
entrances. An occasional eastern cougar could be
found in remote mountain areas. Because of the
large territories established by this predator, any
reduction of habitat either by mining, urbaniza-
tion, or other conjunctive development would
threaten the cougar.
No endangered plant species occur in the
Northern Appalachian Coal Region.
Central Appalachian Coal Region. The state-
ments for the Northern Appalachian Coal Region
also apply to the Central Appalachian Coal
Region. Since the Central Appalachian Coal
Region is more remote, the potential for impacts to
cougars and bald eagles would increase. As
mountain tracts are stripped or opened to urbani-
zation, these species might disappear. The gray and
Indiana bat are less rare in Central Appalachia.
5-116
TABLE 5-63
COMPARISON OF GAME ANIMAL LOSSES
I
H
-J
— — r
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM MEDIUM
1985
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
1,846
1,811
1,870
0
0
- 5
-50
-51
-51
*. 1
-52
Central Appalachian
1,030
1,060
1,033
0
-8
-17
- 3
- 5
-44
- 9
13
Southern Appalachian
781
1,071
1,118
0
-27
- 4
-17
-15
0
-50
-34
Eastern Interior
1,563
1,578
1,555
0
8
-15
- 3
0
-12
-39
6
Western Interior
398
492
504
0
-21
33
-26
-23
-30
0
72
Te::as
1,026
1,427
1,359
0
16
-111
-10
- 2
-80
-34
93
Powder River
274
341
442
0
0
34
0
0
27
-10
27
Green River-Hair.s Fork
101
165
205
0
8
49
4
13
61
60
-27
Fort Union
149
178
317
12
12
2
12
12
30
-21
33
San Juan River
4
5
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
26
28
32
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Denver-Raton Mesa
34
46
56
0
2
2
2
2
8
12
2
1990
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
1,711
1,969
2,856
1
2
41
- 1
0
- 4
8
12
Central Appalachian
1,086
1,306
1,480
1
-13
-11
14
2
- 5
-10
15
Southern Appalachian
750
1,142
1,464
0
- 4
86
10
1
18
-39
-54
Eastern Interior
1,575
1,704
1,893
0
-22
0
18
-13
-76
-52
66
Western Interior
402
616
927
0
-20
-70
-29
- 3
-13
-21
-24
Texas
1,291
2,621
2,921
7
-158
-240
-48
-45
-317
-200
-67
Powder River
342
506
535
0
118
345
60
12
22
114
46
Green River-Hatrs Fork
151
191
226
5
33
95
- 2
4
82
81
-63
Fort Union
216
361
478
0
21
28
- 5
4
17
- 93
14
San Juan River
6
10
15
0
- 1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
35
35
45
0
- 1
2
-14
- 2
0
1
- 2
Denver-Raton Mesa
54
72
82
0
0
8
2
- 2
4 0
- 4
TABLE 5-64
POTENTIAL THREATS TO ENDANGERED SPECIES OF COAL REGION
Common Name
Scientific Name
Distribution
Habitat
FISHES
Woundfin
Plagopterus
argentissimus
Greenback
cutthroat trout
Salmo clarki
stomias
Arizona (apache)
trout
Salmo apache
Humpback chub
Gila cypha
Colorado squawfish
Kendall Warm
Springs dace
Fountain darter
Watercress darter
Ptychocheilus lucius
HERPTILES
Texas blind
salamander
Houston toad
American
Alligator
Rhinicthys osculus
thermalis
Etheostoma fonticola
Etheostoma nuchale
Typhlomolge rathbuni
BIRDS
Eskimo curlew
Bufo houstonensis
Alligator
mississippiensis
Numenius borealis
Virgin River below
Hurricane', Utah
Blackhollow Creek
Cache la Poudre River,
few possible streams
in Boulder & Larimer
counties, Colorado
Arizona
Green & Colorado
Rivers, from Grand
Canyon Area Northward
to vicinity of Flaming
Gorge Dam on Utah-
Wyoming border
middle and lower Green
River, main Colorado
River above Lake
Powell, and Salt River;
spawning in Yampa and
and Green River
Kendall Warm Springs,
tributary to the Green
River in Wyoming
Comal & San Marcos
Springs in Hays and
Comal Counties Texas
Glen Springs at
Bessemer, Jefferson
County, Alabama (Black
Warrior River drainage)
Hays County Texas
southcentral Texas
North Carolina, South
to Texas, Florida,
Louisiana, Georgia,
Arkansas, Southeast
Oklahoma
Alaska, migratory
through Central U.S.
Most Serious Threat
swift rivers
fresh, cold
streams &
rivers
streams
flowing
streams &
rivers
turbid, swift
warm rivers
warm springs
fed streams
spring out-
flow
springs with
watercress
deep wells,
underground
streams
loblolly pine
forests
fresh wet-
lands,
salty
estuaries
grasslands
and tundra
reservoirs
reservoirs
reservoirs
reservoirs
reservoirs
reservoirs
habitat change
habitat change
probably none
habitat loss
habitat loss
habitat loss
5-118
:: : : . ;:^y :: ::
TABLE 5-64 (continued)
Common Name
Whooping crane
Attwater's greater
prairie chicken
Artie peregrine
falcon
American peregrine
Bald eagle
Scientific Name
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
Ivory-billed
woodpecker
Bachman's warbler
Thick-billed
parrot
KirtlandTs warbler
MAMMALS
Gray bat
Indiana bat
Grus americana
Tympanuchus cupido
attwateri
Falco peregrinus
tundrius
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Pico ides borealis
Campehilus p_.
principalis
Vermivora backmanii
Rhynchopsitta
pachyrhyncha
Dendroica kirtlandii
Myotls grisenscens
Myotis sodalis
Distribution
winters on Gulf Coast,
Texas; migrates through
westcentral U.S. from
Canada to Texas
coastal prairie
counties, Texas
(primarily Refugio and
Colorado Counties)
migrates through east-
ern and middle North
America to Gulf
Habitat
Most Serious Threat
breeds Alaska south to
Baja Calif. , Arizona to
Rocky Mts. (most west-
ern states)
Atlantic & Gulf coasts,
resident of Florida,
may be found all over
U.S. wandering
Oklahoma, Arkansas,
Kentucky, Virginia-
South to Gulf of
Florida
Texas, Louisiana
Virginia, South
Carolina, Alabama
Arizona & New Mexico
breeding area — lower
Michigan, migrates
south to Bahamas
wetlands,
coast, grain
farmlands
prairie,
grasslands
breeds in
treeless
tundra; mi-
grates along
coasts and
waterways ,
feeds in
marshes
coniferous
forests and
wetlands and
along rivers
wetlands,
cliffs,
forests,
estuaries,
freshwater
lakes
mature pine
forests
mature
hardwoods
swamp forests
bottomlands
mountains
Jack pines
brushy under-
growth
probably none
habitat loss
habitat and wetland
removal
ral, southeastern,
and eastern
cent
midwestern,
states.
central and southeast-
ern states
limestone
caves
limestone
caves
habitat and wetland
removal
transmission lines,
habitat removal
habitat removal
habitat removal
habitat removal
probably none
probably none
habitat loss
habitat loss
5-119
TABLE 5-64 (continued)
Common Name
Black- footed
ferret
Utah prairie dog
Eastern cougar
Red wolf
Scientific Name
Mustela nigripes
Cynomys parvidens
Fells concolor cougar
Canis rufus
Distribution
Gray wolf
CLAMS
Birdwing pearly
mussel
Dromedary pearly
mussell
Green-blossom
pearly mussel
Tuberculed-blossom
pearly mussel
Fine-rayed pigtoe
pearly mussel
Shiny pigtoe
pearly mussel
Canis lupus
Conradilla caelata
Dromus dromas
Epioblasma torulosa
gubernaculum
Epioblasma torulosa
torulosa
Fusconaia cuneolus
Fusconaia edgarlana
Western United States
and Canada
Utah
Eastern United States
(Canada to Carolinas)
Texas, Louisiana
(Gulf regions)
Texas, New Mexico,
Mexico, Wyoming,
Montana, South Dakota
(Black Hills), Idaho,
Oregon and Washington
Powell & Clinch Rivers
in Virginia and
Tennessee; Duck River
in Tennessee
Powell & Clinch Rivers
in Virginia and
Tennessee
Clinch River in
Virginia and Tennessee
Lower Ohio River in
Kentucky and Illinois,
Nolichucky River in
Tennessee and Kanawha
River in West Virginia
Clinch River in
Virginia and Tennessee,
Powell River in
Virginia and Tennessee,
and Paint Rock River in
northern Alabama
Powell and Clinch
Rivers in Virginia and
Tennessee, Paint Rock
River in Alabama and
Ho Is ton River in
Virginia
Habitat
shortgrass
prairie
grassland &
cropland
remote wood-
lands and
mountains
coastal
prairie mar-
shes , swamp-
lands
remote arid
prairies;
remote moun-
tain regions
& open lands
& forests
Most Serious Threat
habitat loss
habitat loss
community expansion
community expansion
community expansion
river
river
river
river
river
river
reservoirs
reservoirs
reservoirs
acid drainage,
reservoirs
reservoirs
reservoirs
5-120
TABLE 5-64 (concluded)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Distribution
Habitat
Most Serious Threat
Pink mucket pearly
Lampsilis orbiculata
Green River, Kentucky
Kanawha River in West
Virginia, Tennessee
River (Tennessee and
Alabama) ; Muskingum
River, Ohio
river
acid drainage,
mussel
orbiculata
reservoirs
Alabama lamp
Lampsilis vir-escens
Paint Rock River System
in Alabama
river
reservoirs
pearly mussel
White warty-back
Plethobasis
Tennessee River in
Tenaessee and Alabama
river
reservoirs
pearly mussel
cicatricosus
Orange-footed
Plethobasis
Tennessee River in
Tennessee and Alabama,
Duck River in Tennessee
river
reservoirs
pearly mussel
cooperianus
Rough pigtoe
Pleurobema plenum
Tennessee River,
Tennessee, Green River,
Kentucky; Clinch River,
Virginia and Tennessee
river
acid drainage,
pearly mussel
reservoirs
Cumberland monkey-
Quadrula intermedia
Powell and Clinch Rivers
in Virginia and
Tennessee Duck River,
Tennessee
river
reservoirs
face pearly
mussel
Appalachian
monkeyface
pearly mussel
Quadrula sparsa
Powell and Clinch Rivers
in Virginia and Tennes-
see; Duck River,
Tennessee
river
reservoirs
Pale lilliput
Toxolasma cylindrella
Duck river, Tennessee;
Paint Rock River,
Alabama
river
reservoirs
pearly mussel
Cumberland bean
pearly mussel
Villosa trabilia
Cumberland and Rock-
castle Rivers, Kentucky
river
acid drainage,
reservoirs
Yellow-blossom
pearly mussel
Epioblasma florentina
florentina
Duck River, Tennessee
river
acid drainage,
reservoirs
Turgid-blossom
pearly mussel
Epioblasma turqidula
Duck River, Tennessee
river
acid drainage,
reservoirs
Endangered Plants
Texas vild rice
Zizania texana
San Marcos River, Texas
warm spring-
fed waters
habitat loss
Rydberg milk-
vetch
Astragalus perianus
Utah
grasslands
habitat loss
Northern wild
monkshood
Aconitum
novehoracense
Iowa
moist
woodlands
habitat loss
Unnamed
phacelia
Phacelia
argillacea
Utah
wetlands
habitat loss
5-121
REGIONAL IMPACTS
The rivers of the Central Appalachian Coal
Region support 16 endangered mussels. These
species could be threatened by mining which adds
acid mine drainage or sediment to regional
streams. In addition, reservoirs which change river
habitat to lake habitat would eliminate some
populations. The species residing in the following
rivers would be most impacted by coal develop-
ments and industrialization: Powell, Clinch, Duck,
Lower Ohio, Nolichucky, Kanawha, Holston,'
Muskingum, Green, Tennessee, Cumberland, and
Rockcastle Rivers.
No endangered or threatened plant species are
known to occur in this coal region.
Southern Appalachian Coal Region. Three
endangered bird species are found in the Southern
Appalachian Coal Region. The bald eagle nests
there, as well as the red-cockaded woodpecker and
Bachman's warbler. All of these species are found
in other southern states where coal development
would not occur, so extinction would not occur if
the habitats in this coal region were removed.
Conjunctive developments, such as roads,
pipelines, plant construction, and urbanization,
and sediment from land clearing, could reduce
watercress darter populations. If Glenn Springs
(Jefferson County, Alabama) were to be affected
drastically as well, this species could become
extinct.
The Paint Rock and lower Tennessee River
systems support seven endangered clams. Sedi-
ment and reservoirs would reduce certain popula-
tions of these mussels.
No endangered or threatened plant species are
known to occur in this coal region.
Eastern Interior Coal Region. At least eight
species of endangered animals are found in the
Eastern Interior Coal Region. Few of these are
permanent residents. The peregrine falcon mi-
grates through this coal region along waterways.
Bald eagles are found along the Mississippi River.
The gray and Indiana bats are residents of
limestone cave areas, which could be adversely
affected by mining. Modification of caves would
eliminate critical habitat.
Two endangered species of mussels which are
distributed in Eastern Interior Coal Region rivers
would be affected by acid mine drainage and
sedimentation.
No endangered or threatened plant species are
known to occur in this coal region.
Western Interior Coal Region. At least 10
endangered animal species are found within this
region, and many more are unique to the Ozarks.
Bald eagles, whooping cranes, peregrine falcons,
eskimo curlews, and Bachman's warblers are all
migrants of this region. The red-cockaded wood-
pecker is a probable permanent resident in mature
pine forests, particularly where suitable cavity trees
exist (generally overmature pines infected with red
heart disease). While development would not likely
eliminate the species, population within this region
would be reduced where development removed
these forests.
Northern wild monkshood (a threatened plant)
occurs in moist woodlands in Iowa, and would be
adversely affected if coal development removed or
encroached on its habitat.
Texas Coal Region. The Texas Coal Region
provides habitat for 12 endangered species. The
fountain darter in Hays and Comal Counties,
Texas, could be affected by water withdrawals and
water disturbances due to developments associated
with coal production. If Comal and San Marcos
Springs were to be eliminated, the fountain darter
could become extinct.
The Houston toad could be eliminated from
central Texas if pine forest were cleared and
surface mined. The ivory-billed woodpecker may
occur in mature bottomlands such as the Big
Thicket. This bird and the red wolf would be
affected if remote woodlands were altered.
Wetlands for the whooping crane are well
protected. Drier prairie sites, which could be used
for coal conversion and utilization plant sites or for
strip mining, provide habitat for Attwater's greater
prairie chicken.
The San Marcos River provides habitat for
Texas wild rice. Water withdrawals, sedimentation,
and water pollution would adversely affect this
plant species.
Powder River Coal Region. At least four
endangered species occur in this region. The
whooping crane, bald eagle, and American pereg-
rine falcon are all migrants of the region. Wherever
prairie dog towns and resident black-footed ferrets
are found, surface mining, industrial development,
5-122
REGIONAL IMPACTS
or urbanization would lower or possibly cause loss
of the ferret population.
No endangered or threatened plant species are
known to occur in this coal region.
Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region. At least
six endangered animal species are present in this
coal region. The Kendall Warm Springs dace
occurs in Kendall Warm Springs Creek, a tributary
of the Green River. The black-footed ferret occurs
in the Green River - Hams Fork Coal Region. As
prairies are surface-mined and communities ex-
pand into remote areas, animal numbers would be
reduced.
No endangered or threatened plant species are
known to occur in this coal region.
Fort Union Coal Region. In addition to species
mentioned for the Powder River Coal Region, the
Tule white-fronted goose is a potential migrant
into the Fort Union Coal Region. This species
would be impacted if development adversely
affected critical lake or wetland habitats. The
northern kit fox is an occasional wanderer into the
region from Canada.
No endangered or threatened plant species are
known to occur in this coal region.
San Juan River Coal Region. In this coal region,
the Arizona (Apache) trout would be affected by
any water development, water withdrawals, reser-
voirs, or water pollution. The American peregrine
falcon is more dependent upon upland habitats
which could be strip mined or subject to urbaniza-
tion. The thick-billed parrot would probably
remain unaffected by coal development since it
exists principally south of the coal fields.
No endangered or threatened plant species are
known to occur in this coal region.
Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region. This
region has at least 10 threatened or endangered
species. The woundfin, humpback chub, and
Colorado squawfish are all associated with flowing
river habitat and would be affected by reservoir
construction, mining pollution, and water with-
drawal.
Rydberg milk-vetch (a threatened plant) and
Phacelia argillacea (an endangered species of the
waterleaf family) would be adversely affected by
strip mining, urbanization, and other land clearing
activities.
Nesting areas for golden eagles and winter
roosting concentration areas for bald eagles would
also be potentially affected.
Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region. At least five
endangered species occur in this region. Whooping
cranes, peregrine falcons, and bald eagles are
migrants through the region. The black-footed
ferret would be affected where strip mining and
urbanization removed habitat or reduced prairie
dog populations. A small population of the
greenback cutthroat trout also remains within this
coal region.
No endangered or threatened plant species are
known from this coal region.
5.3.4 Socioeconomic Impacts
The purpose of this section is to assess
socioeconomic impacts which are likely to occur
within each coal production region due to produc-
tion activities under a Federal coal management
program. Community impacts can be anticipated
within broad geographic areas by quantitative
analysis of inter-regional population changes
induced by coal-related activities. Program deci-
sions would have consequences for:
• Population and lifestyle
• Employment opportunities
• Agricultural productivity
• Public services and community fiscal stabil-
ity
• Tax revenue time lag
• Coal development cycle accidents and
fatalities
• Cultural resources
• Recreation resources
The following section reviews what can be
determined for each of these areas of impact using
regional data. The location and intensity of
impacts with respect to specific communities is
dependent upon the form taken by the Federal
coal management program which is finally adopt-
ed.
One purpose of the Federal coal program is to
delineate tracts, if necessary, for coal leasing. The
size and location of these tracts will be determined
under an approved program through a land-use
planning process, by application of suitability
criteria after consultation with state and local
government, industry, and the public. In the
future, after tracts have been delineated, the
5-123
REGIONAL IMPACTS
impacts associated with leasing and mining will be
the subject of intra-regional impact assessments.
Decisions on the tracts and on regional assess-
ments will not be made until after adoption of a
Federal coal management program. The regional
assessments will include:
• Cumulative site-specific analysis of all
impacts for each tract within a given region.
• Site-specific urban impact analysis and
assessment of effects on rural and commu-
nity development. A special situation may
exist in some western localities where
population increases occur adjacent to
Indian communities in which English is not
spoken and traditional life styles of the
inhabitants predominate. The problem of
expanding educational facilities would be
complicated, particularly because of the
linguistic difference and because children of
the newcomers would have different school
needs from those of the native pupils. The
situation would be the reverse of that
encountered in other parts of the country,
where it has been necessary to establish
bilingual instruction to serve non-English
speaking groups that move in. As means
have been found to meet the educational
needs in this latter situation, it can be
assumed that satisfactory provision will also
be made in communities where children of
both Indian and non-Indian parents will
require instruction.
The difficulties inherent in a potential conflict
of traditional and transplanted lifestyles are more
difficult to predict, however, both as to the form
they will take and as to the means that could
prevent or mitigate them. The problems discussed
above in regard to impacts on existing social
patterns could be aggravated by the language
barrier to communications. As a minimum, careful
advanced planning will be required, initiated by
state and local government authority and support-
ed by the industry involved. Within this planning
framework, it will be essential for leaders of both
existing and incoming elements of the community
to hold a continuing series of meetings with a view
to anticipating and averting potential problems,
providing the necessary expanded or additional
community services, and establishing the mutual
cooperation necessary for different lifestyles to
exist harmoniously in close contact.
5.3.4.1 Population. Socioeconomic impacts are
addressed in this section by analyzing the relation-
ships between population changes that might be
stimulated by coal management decisions and the
baseline population data presented in the regional
descriptions in Chapter 4. Population change is
emphasized because it is one of the most important
indicators of other kinds of change which often
result in social and economic problems in commu-
nities affected by sudden increases or decreases in
coal production. The Department recognizes that
the real impacts of Federal coal management
decisions are felt directly by individuals and
families. It also recognizes that some impacts are
easier to measure than others. The change from a
stable rural environment to a more diverse and
unpredictable setting, which combines both rural
and urban activity, creates losses for some individ-
uals which are real but difficult to quantify. Such
changes may also intensify social tensions, such as
those between Indians and non-Indians where coal
development occurs near Indian reservations and
between the resident ranchers and farmers and the
new families attracted by the coal development
employment opportunities. These losses and ten-
sions are also the least likely to be avoided or
minimized through mitigation efforts.
Quantitative analysis can help predict the
needs for housing, education, health care, utilities,
public safety, recreational facilities, and other
services and facilities required to assure that a
population of a certain size can be accomodated in
a specific area without causing overcrowded
schools, inadequate health care, substandard living
conditions from housing shortages, or similar
problems. The cost of providing facilities and
services can also be measured. This means that by
analyzing the probable population impacts of the
Federal coal management alternatives, the state
and local governments in impacted regions can
work with local citizens, Federal agencies, and the
coal industry to determine what kinds of facilities
and services will be needed, where such facilities
and services should be located, when they are
needed, and who should pay for them.
Where data in this section indicate large
population changes or rapid population growth
rates, social and economic problems would likely
result unless corrective actions are planned in
advance by responsible state and local govern-
ments. The possible impacts of such changes can
5-124
REGIONAL IMPACTS
be further measured by comparing the socioeco-
nomic data in Appendix G with the regional
descriptions in Chapter 4. The comparison will
illustrate the range of facility and service demands
which could be generated by population changes.
Population changes might occur in any of
several specific locations within a broad geograph-
ic area, and regional data can not be used to
predict impacts on an individual community or
locale. Only a more project-specific and site-
specific analysis could provide information of
meaningful value to local planners. The impact of
rapid increases in coal-related employment will
also vary greatly from community to community,
depending on the level of existing services and
facilities in specific areas. A given amount or rate
of coal development-induced demand for services
would have one effect in an area that is already
relatively industrialized as compared to the impact
of introducing the same demand in a predominant-
ly agricultural area. For this reason, increases in
demand for specific facilities and services can not
necessarily be considered as an economic threat, or
an economic benefit, without more specific analy-
sis of local conditions and capabilities. It should be
noted in those areas with high rates of unemploy-
ment, such as Indian reservations, energy develop-
ment will have both positive and negative effects.
As noted above, the probability of social and
cultural conflicts is high. Further, seemingly
impossible demands upon existing infrastructures
will strain the ability of local communities to
deliver essential services. Positive effects will
include substantial increases in the demand for
labor, and, over time, generation of significant
levels of public revenues derived from energy
resources.
In general, social and economic change can be
projected to have different impacts, requiring
consideration of different mitigation measures, in
three broad categories of impacted communities.
In areas that have previously experienced industri-
al development, and that have both private and
public facilities and services in place to support an
existing urban or industrial population, an increase
in mining and related activities may lead to
increased occupancy of existing housing, increased
employment among existing local or area workers,
higher enrollment in existing schools, and corre-
sponding increases in the use of other facilities and
services. Population changes resulting from the
increased activities, in terms of both the absolute
numbers and the numbers relative to the commu-
nity's existing population, may be minimal. Where
changes would take place, local and state govern-
ment agencies with existing budgets and staffs
designed to deal with social services, planning, and
land use can address the population-related prob-
lems; in these cases, the need to increase the size
and complexity of local government might be
minimal.
However, where neither the private economy
nor local governments have previously been
required to respond to needs created by relatively
large numbers of industrial workers, the changes
required may seriously conflict with existing
patterns of residential and commercial develop-
ment, transportation systems, and priorities for
government activity and spending. Some problems
would be physical and financial, others more social
and political.
Housing shortages could be severe, resulting in
the rapid establishment of mobile home parks in
areas with inadequate zoning regulations. This
development often leads to haphazard growth,
substandard living conditions, and a general
deterioration of the social structure. In more severe
situations, there could be an increase in violent
and property crimes, alcoholism, prostitution, and
drug abuse. Lack of a full array of recreational,
education, social services, and cultural opportuni-
ties for personal enrichment might become evi-
dent. A sharp increase in demand for building
sites, construction materials, and other goods and
services could cause serious local inflation. New
employees in coal development-related industries
would usually be more highly paid than the
established residents who work in other enter-
prises, with the result that people who have lived in
a community for years may find themselves paying
more to live, without a commensurate increase in
personal income. The need to decide where to
develop new housing, to protect community health
and safety by building new sewage treatment
plants and hiring more police and fire employees,
and to build new schools and employ more
teachers could put strains and pressures on the
resources of a small community. Divisive political
struggles for control of local government and the
feeling of loss of community control could devel-
op.
5-125
REGIONAL IMPACTS
Long term planning problems are also likely in
the public sector. Demand for public facilities and
services would rise rapidly once development
began. The need to find public funds to pay for
roads, sewers, schools, and other government
services might also increase the tax burden for all
local residents, particularly where tax collections
from the new industry and its workers would not
bring in new revenues fast enough to finance the
new services and facilities needed. Repair and
maintenance costs for old facilities would also
increase. For example, increased use of public
roads by mining or industrial equipment would
shorten repair and maintenance intervals.
A municipal or county government which has
not previously had to address such questions may
be forced to consider substantial changes in
budget, structure, and priorities. In summary, the
process of considering serious changes in the size,
cost, and authority of local government may cause
considerable social and political conflict within a
community.
The third category of impacted communities
includes those areas so far removed from existing
communities that, with the exception of often
unsurfaced rural roads and occasional general
stores, only the most minimal commercial or
government facilities and services exist. Residents
make infrequent trips to distant urban centers for
most supplies and materials. Medical care, com-
mercial entertainment, and other services available
only in larger communities are equally distant.
Self-reliance and interdependence among neigh-
boring families establish community relationships
which provide cooperative approaches to dealing
with common problems. Rather than feeling
isolated or deprived, many residents of such rural
areas are satisfied with the quality of their lives and
feel threatened by changes that would result from
the introduction of mining and industrial develop-
ment in their areas. Others who welcome employ-
ment and other economic opportunities that could
be generated by coal development retain, at the
same time, a strong interest in maintaining what
they consider to be the benefits of life in a rural,
agricultureal area. Few residents of these rural
areas, even among that segment of the population
which favors coal development, want development
to take place in a manner which would seriously
disrupt traditional community values and patterns.
On Indian reservations these feelings are augment-
ed by the desire to maintain unique cultural values.
Introduction of coal development-induced
populations into such areas would have significant
social and economic consequences. The goal of
maintaining a physical and social environment
consistent with tradition or culture would not be
realistic. Residents who cherish this way of life
would be forced to tolerate changes. At the same
time, because there are few existing financial and
institutional committments to housing, transporta-
tion, and government services, these facilities and
services could be designed and installed without
causing the conflicts and disruption which could
result from trying to match the new needs to
existing private and public support existing in an
established community. The benefit of being able
to avoid such temporary social and financial
conflict by locating new communities in undevel-
oped areas may be offset, however, by the higher
economic costs of building a complete new
community in a remote and undeveloped area.
Basically, the degree of impact in any region
would be directly related to the incremental
growth of the area. Communities in semirural
areas could generally absorb a five percent annual
growth rate without experiencing severe strain.
However, rapid urban growth or "hyperurbaniza-
tion" could occur if average annual increases
approached the seven to 10 percent range, i.e.,
boom-town development. Population growth rates
above 10 percent would require detailed advance
planning and possible considerations of new town
designs. If growth rates exceed the hyperurbaniza-
tion levels, (i.e., were much above 10 percent),
many of the impacts discussed above would likely
intensify. Quantification of population change in
the following discussion should, therefore, be
related to these ranges of growth. It should be
noted, however, that the following analysis as-
sumes that total population would grow at a
constant rate. It does not reflect the specific
variations between types of coal related activities
nor does it reflect short-term growth fluctuations.
For example, the different impacts which would
result from the rapid rise and fall of a labor force
required for the construction of a steam electric
power plant as opposed to the long-term build-up
of operational-related populations are not ad-
dressed separately. The total population discussed
in the remainder of this section is derived from
5-126
REGIONAL IMPACTS
both the construction and operational workers for
all activities in the coal development cycle. The
workers directly employed in coal development
activities and their families are included as well as
the indirect or service sector related population.
The latter reflects the fact that additional goods
and services required to meet the needs of the
direct workers and their families will create new
business opportunities, which attract additional
people to the vicinity.
The total population related to the no new
leasing alternative is presented in Table 5-65 for
the low, medium, and high coal production
projections. Data shown for 1985 represent the
change in coal related population that could occur
between 1976 and 1985. More specifically, it is the
difference between the population which existed as
a result of coal related activity in 1976 and the
population related to coal production and con-
sumption levels projected for 1985. It is this change
in coal related population over time, compared to
the regional baseline populations shown in Table
5-65, that provides the basis for addressing
population growth rates and the significance of
socioeconomic impacts. Similarly, the 1990 num-
bers represent coal related population changes that
could take place between 1986 and 1990. The
numbers do not necessarily mean that regional
populations would increase or decrease by these
magnitudes. The numbers are directly related to
employment associated with coal development
cycle increases and represent positions which
might be filled by unemployed or underemployed
workers within the region or new local entries into
the labor market. In situations of this type, little if
any population influx would occur. This is the
probable case in Appalachian regions where coal
related population increases would comprise a very
small part of the total regional population base.
Conversely, when these increases would be signifi-
cantly greater than the baseline population, as in
the Powder River Coal Region, considerable in-
migration of workers and their families would be
expected. While detailed socioeconomic impact
analysis must be conducted on a more site-specific
level, the relative magnitudes of the coal-related
populations and regional baseline populations
presented here are indicative of potential impacts
at the regional level.
On this basis, socioeconomic impacts of the no
new leasing alternative would be greatest in the
Powder River Coal Region for the low, medium,
and high production projections for both time
periods. Population related to the 1985 production
level would range from approximately 80,000 for
the low projection to about 157,000 for the high
projection (see Table 5-65). This represents 35 to
69 percent of the 1975 regional baseline population
of about 228,000. Comparable numbers for the
1990 time period for the medium production
projection are approximately 91,000, or about 40
percent of baseline. A total change of 89 percent
over the 15-year period from 1975 to 1990 would
result for the medium production projection.
Associated with these population data are
comparable impacts on other socioeconomic char-
acteristics as shown in Appendix G. For example,
the 157,000 people at the 1985 high production
projection in the Powder River Coal Region relate
to approximately 35,000 public school children
and 52,000 housing units. These compare to
baseline figures of 54,000 enrollments and 82,000
year-round dwellings; this is about a 65 percent
increase over baseline for the same time period.
Also, while there were only an estimated 257
patient care physicians in the entire Powder River
Coal Region in the base year, coal-related demand
for doctors would reach approximately 160 at the
1985 high production projection. Requirements for
330 law enforcement officers compare to a base
force of about 550.
It is apparent that coal related population in
the Powder River Coal Region would reach levels
at which rapid growth would be likely to occur
during both time periods under the no new leasing
alternative.
Although some of the absolute population
figures ihown in Table 5-65 would reach consider-
able levels in other regions under the no new
leasing alternative, their relative magnitudes are
much less significant when compared to baseline
populations. The projected growth rate in the
Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region in 1985,
however, ranges from just under 20 to nearly 40
percent of the 1976 baseline. There are also
significant differences between the program alter-
natives which cannot be analyzed quantitatively at
this level of aggregation. For example, although
the no new leasing alternative data may in some
cases suggest lower levels of impact when com-
pared to other alternatives, the distribution and
timing of related population influx within the
5-127
TABLE 5-65
COAL RELATED POPULATION ASSOCIATED WITH NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
(thousands)
I
H
N3
co
COAL
REGION
1975 ,
(a
BASE CASE
LOW PRODUCTION
\ LEVEL
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985 Cb)
1990 (c)
1985 (b)
1990 Ce^
1985*'
' 1990 (c
Northern Appalachian
8,019.5
123.6
-12.6
137.3
108.4
149.2
374.2
Central Appalachian
2,070.0
14.9
18.3
30.5
76.9
-6.8
193.4
Southern Appalachian
2,289.6
37.7
-2.2
88.0
26.7
116.7
87.4
Eastern Interior
5,191.7
176.2
158.8
185.0
263.6
157.3
392.7
Western Interior
5,883.1
65.8
16.2
99.8
150.4
106.1
216.5
Texas
2,526.6
121.8
57.2
182.3
259.4
176.7
328.1
Powder River
228.4
79.7
31.7
112.3
91.1
157.4
56.3
Green River-Hams Fork
_
126.9
21.1
25.1
45.4
24.0
58.6
19.4
Fort Union
324.4
14.7
21.8
22.4
60.2
51.8
51.9
San Juan River
351.1
5.9
18.6
12.8
44.3
30.3
59.2
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
406.6
21.2
22.3
42.2
37.1
66.0
49.4
Denver-Raton Mesa
1,854.2 I
16.0
23.9
25.6
38.7
36.1
37.4
(a) 1975 base case population from regional description in Chapter 4.
(b) Change in coal related population between 1976 and 1985.
(c) Change in coal related population between 1985 and 1990.'
REGIONAL IMPACTS
region could result in more severe problems that
are not apparent in the numbers. Demand for coal
would require significant levels of production and
consumption even without additional Federal coal
leasing. Leasing might encourage changes in the
rate and location of this activity away from areas
least capable of accommodating the development.
For example, under the no new leasing alterna-
tive, the future unavailability of new Federal coal
would accelerate development of other coal re-
serves in a region. As a general proposition, a coal
company develops its resources by choosing to
mine the most profitable reserves it owns. The
Federal government, on the other hand, directly
and indirectly controls vast amounts of western
coal reserves. In developing future regional pro-
duction targets and in acting on mine plans for
existing leases, the Department of the Interior has
the ability to encourage the development of those
reserves which best balance energy needs with
other social, environmental, and economic values
and objectives.
Another consideration is the degree to which
the ability of local communities to react to
infrastructure demands related to accelerated coal
development is considered in future coal manage-
ment decisions. The preferred program would
include establishment of formal procedures for the
exchange of information, concerns, and desires
between the Department of the Interior and state
and local agencies. The planning elements of the
preferred program are also incorporated into the
lease PRLAs only, emergency leasing, and lease to
meet DOE production goals alternatives. While the
extent of any new Federal leasing would vary
among these alternatives, the ability to recognize
and minimize associated economic dislocations
could be assured. The state determination of
leasing levels alternative would achieve similar
results, but with many management responsibili-
ties transferred from the Federal Government to
the states.
Comparing the no new leasing alternative to
the other six alternatives provides insight into the
relative magnitude of expected impacts between
alternatives. Data in Table 5-66 show the coal-
related population increase related to the no new
leasing alternative and compare the increases
which would result under the other alternatives to
that level. Positive numbers shown for the other
alternatives indicate a higher level of coal-related
population change than under the no new leasing
alternative; negative numbers indicate a lower
level.
The preferred program medium level in the
Powder River Coal Region reflects a population
change of approximately 71,000 over the no new
leasing alternative by 1990. This amounts to an
increase of about 162,000 people over the baseline
population of 228,000 or an annual growth rate of
approximately 14.2 percent. While adverse socio-
economic impacts would arise if there were no new
leasing, they would be more severe under alterna-
tives in which coal production in that region
significantly increases.
There are also several other alternatives which
suggest severe problems in the Powder River Coal
Region under the 1990 projections. While the no
new leasing alternative reflects an annual growth
rate of about eight percent, the lease PRLAs only,
lease to meet industry needs, and lease to meet
DOE production goals alternatives would each
stimulate growth above that level. These alterna-
tives would result in annual population growth
rates of approximately 11 percent, 16 percent, and
14 percent, respectively. Population changes relat-
ed to these alternatives would be considerably
higher than for the no new leasing alternative.
In summary, the Powder River Coal Region
would experience the greatest socioeconomic
impacts for the no new leasing alternative for both
the 1985 and 1990 forecasts. These impacts would
be even more severe in 1990 if production is
increased to levels projected for the preferred
programs, the lease PRLAs only, lease to meet
industry needs, and lease to meet DOE production
goals alternatives. Data indicate that population
growth rates in the Powder River Coal Region
would probably be excessive and result in too
rapid urban development or "hyperurbanization";
the occurrence of the variety of adverse socioeco-
nomic impacts discussed earlier would be likely.
While growth rates in other regions appear to be
within manageable levels, any concentration of
population change in the more sparsely populated
areas of the western regions would have the
potential for similar adverse impacts.
5.3.4.2 Employment Impacts. The increased produc-
tion and use of coal would create more jobs. The
rate of increase in coal-related employment would
depend on the level of total energy demand and
5-129
TA5LE 5-66
COAL RELATED POPULATION, COMPARISON OF
COAL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
(thousands)
COAL
REGION
NO NEV
LEASING
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
-121JL
14.9
137.6
30.5
37.7
176.2
Powder River
Green River-Haras Fork
San Juan River
Uinta-Southvestern Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
65.8
121.8
79.7
21.1
14.7
Jul
88.0
149,2
6.8
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
MEDIUM
HIGH
PRLA's
ONLY
MEDIUM
EMERCENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEDIUM
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEDIUM
185.0
99.8
182.3
112.3
45.4
22.4
21.2
16.0
12.8
42.2
25.6
11.7
157.3
106.1
176.7
175.4
58.6
51.8
30.3
6.0
36,1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0.1
-0.2
-2.0
-4.2
3.9
-5.9
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE (a)
MEET
DOE
COALS
MEDIUM
STA1 E
DETER-
xisatio::
MEDIUM
,-1-P
4.6
-3.0
-13.5
2.0
0.6
IJl.
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Powder River
Green River-Hans Fork
02^L
18.3
-2.2
108.4.
76.9
158.8
16.2
57.2
31.7
Fort Union
San Juan River
Uinta-Southveatem Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
25.1
21.8
18.6
26.7
374.2
193.4
263.6
150.4
259.4
91.1
24.0
60.2
44.3
22.3
23.9
37.1
87.4
392.7
3.3
2.7
JL2_
J^iL
J^2_
10.3
-14.0
15.5
18.2
.0.7.
-10-0
-0.3
"3.6
-0.7
rlO.O
-1.3
-2.0
-7.6
-1.5
0.1
1.3
2.8
JLi
1.1
JLS_
_-JLT
-Q^i.
-U.
0.7
-6.5
-0.4
0.3
0.7
2.8
-0-1
0.4
-10.6
-18.1
5.7
-12.1
-6.5
-9.1
13.1
22.3
_7_^L
-Ul
r0.2
-3.1
-10.7
7.6
-13.9
-8.0
0.7
"4.1
0.1
21.8
-4.1
8.1
1.1 I 3.0
t3-5
r8.4,
0.7
-0.4
216.5
328.1
56.3
13.4
51.9
59.2
38.7
49.4
37.4
-0.3
1.2
-0.7
0.7
3.4
-3.6
1.1
2.0
-5.4
3.7
■22.2
-0.5
■26.4
71.3
JJLJL
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE (a)
-1.9
5.0
-17.4
17.3
-40.5
-45.5
-13.2
186.7
-9.6
_2^L
1.0
"7.0
^lIL
-2.2
23.9
-7.7
-0.9
-5.7
13.0
2.2
6.7
-27.2
-2.9
-7.4
35.6
13.4
^0.3
3.1
-7.7
12^2 6J.
8.6
1.0
-8.4
6.9
-1,6
-5.3
:2.7
22.5
-JL±
-2.5
JL2.
-2.8
-0.7
zUl
"2.7
4.9
-57.6
1.6
-37.0
93.3
-5.0
-8.7
-11.0
-11.5
-24.8
10.7
-3.8
-2.8
-AJt
-6.0
69.5
10.0
-20.2
-5.1
26.7
-18.4
-10.5
7.5
21.4
11.9
-11.7
-9.8
-7.0
4.5
0.4
2.1
25.3
10.5
-17.4
66.4
-0.1
-28.8
-11.4
-15,6.
-5.7
-2.4
-13.2
-6.7
(a) Represents change in coal related population between 1975 and 1985 and between 1985 and 1990.
5-130
REGIONAL IMPACTS
the precentage of that demand supplied by coal-
using facilities. Increases would be for jobs needed
to mine, beneficiate (crush, grind, wash, and
otherwise treat coal to make it usable), transport,
and use coal.
Whether from surface or underground mining,
increased coal production would result in signifi-
cant new demands for labor. While all coal mining
creates jobs, fewer jobs are created by surface
mining than by underground mining, because the
massive draglines and shovels used in surface
mining require much less labor for each ton of coal
recovered than do the smaller and relatively less
productive machines used in underground mining.
Although demand for labor would increase in all
parts of the country where coal is mined, and the
greatest growth rate in the coal mining industry is
expected to take place in the western states (where
coal mining now occurs at a relatively low level),
the resultant increase in western demand for coal
miners is not expected to cause a significant
westward migration of mine workers. Increasing
employment opportunities in eastern and midwest-
em mines, the high percentage of eastern miners
trained in underground mining skills different
from those required in those western surface
mining regions experiencing high growth rates, and
reluctance to give up established homes and living
patterns in the East for difficult new living
conditions in western coal "boom towns," would
cause many eastern miners, even underemployed
or unemployed mine workers, to remain in their
established communities.
The principal source of labor for western coal
production would be western workers in agricul-
ture, and, to some degree, in the construction
industry. Workers skilled in heavy equipment
operation could easily transfer their skills to
surface mining. Operators of small farms and
ranches may supplement their incomes by working
part time in the mining industry. It is expected that
many agricultural workers would respond to the
higher income opportunities created by coal
mining, and so reduce the supply and increase the
cost of agricultural labor. However, the severity of
economic conflicts between the needs of agricul-
ture and the needs of coal-related employers
cannot be accurately predicted without more
specific information about individual projects,
rates of growth, and whether jobs are filled by
local workers or by workers who have migrated
into the region to seek employment in the coal
industry.
Impacts of the high employment demands of
coal-using facilities would vary according to the
location of the power plants, gasification or
liquefaction plants, and other facilities. For several
reasons, it cannot be assumed that coal-based
energy facilities would be located near the mines
which supply them. Utilities which once planned
to build mine-mouth power plants in the inter-
mountain West to provide electricity for distant
consumers are now considering other more ad-
vanced technologies. These could result in coal
being transported by rail or slurry pipeline to
conversion plants located in or near the major
energy consumption centers. The relative scarcity
of water in those western states with abundant coal
supplies, and the desire of those states to ensure
that their own industrial growth potential is not
limited by pollution from plants which export
power elsewhere, are stimulating more interest in
techniques for converting coal in plants close to
the industries and the consumers who use the coal-
based energy. These factors and uncertainty about
which new technologies and which coal feedstocks
would be used in the manufacture of coal-based
synthetic fuels mean that assumptions of national
demand for those products cannot be translated
into specific projections showing where the conver-
sion plants and resulting employment demand
would be located. Because of the specialized
construction and operational skills required, it can
be expected that to the degree conversion plants
are located in remote rural areas or near communi-
ties without existing industrial workforces, signifi-
cant interregional population movement would
occur, as discussed in Section 5.3.4.1.
Because coal transportation systems are not
labor intensive, the growth in employment re-
quired to transport coal would not be as dramatic
as for the mining or use of coal. Overall numbers
of coal transportation jobs are not likely to be
changed by alternatives, although the selection of
rail, slurry, or waterway transport could affect the
location of job opportunities. A secondary conse-
quence of transporting coal by truck, the need for
significant increases in road repair, may create
substantial localized demands for public works
maintenance workers.
Projected employment increases in 1985 and
1990 under the no new leasing and other coal
5-131
REGIONAL IMPACTS
management alternatives are presented in Tables
5-67 through 5-72 on the basis of employment type
(construction or operation), and by major activity
area of the coal development cycle (mining,
beneficiation, conversion, or use).
Estimates for construction employment in the
coal mining and beneficiation activity area are
presented in Table 5-67 for the low, medium, and
high production projections in 1985 and 1990 for
the no new leasing alternative. Current (1976) coal-
related employment is also presented. In 1985,
employment in this component of the coal devel-
opment cycle is projected to increase by 21 to 33
percent (low to high production projections) over
1976 levels. Major increases in the eastern regions
are projected to occur in the Eastern Interior Coal
Region (26 to 41 percent increase over 1976 levels)
and in the Texas Coal Region (108 to 156 percent
increase over 1976 levels). In the western regions, a
substantial increase in construction employment is
projected in the Powder River Coal Region for all
production levels. Medium and high production
projections would cause substantial construction
employment increases in the Green River-Hams
Fork Coal Region (85 to 123 percent), San Juan
River Coal Region (82 to 158 percent), and Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Region (84 to 149
percent).
By 1990, the high growth rates observed in the
earlier periods would generally decrease. Western
coal mine and beneficiation plant construction is
projected to provide an additional 21,000 to 42,000
jobs over the number estimated for 1985. This
represents a national increase in construction
employment in the mining and beneficiation sector
of approximately 10 percent. The primary reason
for the decline in the demand for construction
workers is that the rate of growth of coal
production would be generally higher between
1976 and 1985 than it would be between 1986 and
1990. By 1990, western coal demand would reach
high levels but the relative increases would be
small.
Projected levels of construction employment in
the mining and beneficiation sector for all other
program alternatives are presented in Table 5-68.
In 1985, major variations from employment levels
for the no new leasing alternative are projected in
the Eastern Interior, Powder River, Green River-
Hams Fork, and San Juan River Coal Regions. By
1990, major changes from the no new leasing
alternative are predicted for several alternatives.
For the Powder River Coal Region, a decrease is
projected under the state determination of leasing
levels alternative. In all other other alternatives,
increases are estimated for this region which
ranges from a low of 2,889 (about four percent)
under emergency leasing to a high of about 38,000
(nearly 49 percent) for the leasing to meet industry
needs alternative. These increases are at the
medium level of production. Under the projection
of high coal production, the increase in the Powder
River Coal Region would exceed 80 percent of the
corresponding baseline employment estimate. The
Green River - Hams Fork Coal Region would also
experience significant increases over the no new
leasing alternative of from 5,452 to 12,965 (from
about 20 to 50 percent) under the preferred
program, and under the alternatives of lease to
meet industry needs, and lease to meet DOE
production goals. In other western regions, em-
ployment in 1990 is projected under other alterna-
tives to be less than that estimated for the no new
lease alternative or to show relative increases well
under 10 percent. Projected relative decreases are
especially striking for the Texas Coal Region,
where employment under the lease to meet
industry needs alternative would be less than half
that estimated for the baseline level of employ-
ment.
One of the largest increments in actual num-
bers (19,514) is projected for the Eastern Interior
Coal Region under the state determination of
leasing levels alternatives. This increase represents
over 15 percent of the baseline employment level.
This alternative is also associated with an incre-
ment in the Western Interior Coal Region which is
about one-third of the employment projected with
no new leasing. Under most alternatives, employ-
ment in the East would in 1990 show little change
from the baseline or would decrease relative to it.
These relative decreases may exceed 45 percent for
the Southern Appalachian Coal Region and 59
percent in the Western Interior Coal Region, both
regions where comparatively small amounts of
coal are projected to be mined.
Employment projections for the operation of
coal mining and beneficiation facilities are present-
ed in Table 5-69. The data indicate the additional
employment (in excess of 1976 baseline estimates)
projected under the various no new leasing
production levels for 1985 and 1990. Major
5-132
mm
I
l-1
TABLE 5-67
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, COAL MINING AND BENEEICIATION EMPLOYMENT
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
TABLE 5-68
COMPARATIVE PROJECTIONS
COAL MINING AND BENEFICIATION CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT
I
H
Co
■P-
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA'g
ONLY
"EEEKEEBC5
LEASING
ONLY
1 MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
UoALB 1
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
73,923
75,122
77,153
31
-30
-278
24
-9
-449
-64
-211
Central Appalachian
71,523
72,260
62,492
0
-331
-921
28
-202
-4169
-615
1771
Southern Appalachian
6,221
9,720
15,214
0
-329
-747
-359
6
1442
-1869
-1625
Eastern Interior
84,683
83,529
69,160
0
1256
-4622
-59
346
-4426
-1000
2595
Western Interior
3,799
4,208
4,379
-37
-209
17
-170
-27
-1691
-988
439
Texas
16,207
16,623
12,624
26
598
-3456
-79
146
-3583
-1637
3785
Powder River
38,268
■ —
52,165
70,085
0
345
6593
52
148
5470
•247
-4987
Green River-Hams Fork
10,742
19,912
25,851
0
1078
7692
551
272
9094
9094
-4556
Fort Union
3,447
6,728
11,097
0
0
0
0
0
1092
-2186
1203
San Juan River
; —
4,363
7,173
11,515
0
65
96
0
0
1481
-797
2037
Ulnta-Southwestern Utah
5,718
11,268
16,954
0
129
163
119
33
2032
-1237
-66
Denver-Raton Mesa
640
1,599
3,198
• °
0
0
0
0
312
312
636
1990
CHANGE
FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
69,104
79,402
95,410
0
144
-3276
-108
26
Central Appalachian
67,540
74,055
83,263
-34
-1581
-6576
-223
-380
biz
-2772
851
-1779
2045
4534
Southern Appalachian
5,600
9,521
15,417
0
-359
-835
-16'
-6
1433
-4325
-4395
Eastern Interior
115,816
137,194
1*8,821
-437
-4354
-30310
-7318
-1287
-18151
5055
Western Interior
3,830
7,567
17,925
-122
-2470
-13473
-1774
-365
-4342
-4510
2558
Texas
19,219
31,015
SO, 008
-259
-8650
-14033
-777
-936
-15705
-10339
Powder River
44,705
77,871
85,519
48
15110
69390 12519
2889
37981
24106
Green River-Hams Fork
17,590
26,091
31,089
960
5452
14143
705 :
1411
12965
12838
-8868
Fort Dnlon
4,541
10,911
20,603
0
-1997
-2931
-796
-89
188
-6238
735
San Juan River
10,207
20,911
26,028
295
-2343
-282
-879
-173
581
-4320
1454
Ulnta-Southwestern Utah
10,003
18,987
25,468
317
-1817
-1740
1322 ■
-49
1321
-8369 -
-2165
Denver-Raton Mesa
4,153
6,240
6,936
295
158
410
343
81
-667
3818
TABLE 5-69
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
COAL MINING AND BENEFICIATION EMPLOYMENT
OPERATIONAL WORKERS
i
19 76
BASE CASE
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
REGION
1985-
1976
1990-
1985
1985-
1976
1990-
1985
1985- 1
1976
1990-
1985
Northern Appalachian
mi i 84
37,332
-2,415
40,335
16,975
44,291
46,860_
Central Appalachian
1 05 .054
4.315
-3.616
5,909
6,195
-8,359
35,148
Southern Appalachian
14.932
-2,131
-749
4,767
738
15,871
2,333
Eastern Interior
51,337
38,112
37,236
37,743
63,784
24,182
87,747
Western Interior
3.994
382
81
892
3,768
965
14,878
Texas
2.092
7.200
1.728
7.437
8,252
5,143
15,701
Powder River
p, nns
17,849
1,998
?6r515
15,986
37.696
9,588
Green River-Hams Fork
L. 180
1,689
L 961
9,269
5,51.6
17.720
4.928
Fort Union
1.462
612
638
2,524
2,441
5,078
5,528
San Juan River
1.565
1,658
2.412
3,349
7,165
6,649
7,130
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
5.249
1.743
2,664
8,526
7,958
15,550
10,111
Denver-Raton Mesa
11,128
-143
2,059
1,322
4,133
3,773
3,523
TABLE 5-7Q
COMPARATIVE PROJECTIONS
COAL MINING AND BENEFICIATION OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
I
H
ON
■ _ —
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
COAL
REGION
LOW
NO NEW
-EASING
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
MEDIUM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DET'iK-
MIN'AflO-;
1
1985
141,513
145,474
58
-55
CHANGE FROM NO K
EW LEASING
-16
MEDIUM
VALUE
-849
MEDIUM MEDIUM
-122 | -407
Northern Appalachian | 138,517
526
41
Central Appalachian
10y,367
110,965
96,695
0
-574
-1534
45
-341
-6900
-1092
2911
Southern Appalachian
12,802
19,704
30,804
0
-661
-1512
-727
19
2921
-2814
-3278
Eastern Interior
89,441
89,076
75,517
0
1485
-5062
-59
418
-4510
-1169
2827
Western Interior
4,377
4,855
4,956
-37
-209
74
-189
-19
-2019
-1153
554
Texas
9,292
9,533
7,238
17
343
-1983
-45
86
-2052
-939
2172
PovJer River
23,852
32,532
43,699
0
144
4058
31
69
3333
82
-3204
Creen River-Haras Fork.
8,066
13,654
17,105
0
780
4909
449
196
5809
5809
-2757
Fort L'nlon
2,073
3,989
6,542
0
0
0
0
0
638
-1277
700
San Jusil River 1 ■ 3,224
4,910
8,217
0
70
98
0
0
910
-626
1210
Li3ta-5oUthvestern L'tah ' 6 "02
i ■ — ■ — -
13,774
20,798
0
155
198
115
38
2474
-1518
-77
!lenver-P,.aton Mesa
1
986
2,448
4,901
0
0
0
0
0
14
14
737
1990
CHARGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
136,099
158,495
192,333
0
279
-6518
-216
-52 -1340
1608
3952
Central Appalachian
105,754
32,139
133,843
-55
-2738
-11057
-379
-645
-4798
-3115
7791
Southern Appalachian
12,051
23,444
33,137
0
-775
-1836
-40
-23
3064
Eastern Interior
126,676
152,861
163,264
-463
-5299
-33176
-8013
-1556
-21264
-7872
22576
Western Interior
4,454
8,656
19,838
-136
-2846
-14974
-2101
-425
-5114
-5223
3097
Texas
11,021
17,781
22,941
-148
-4961
-8047
-446
-538
-9007
-5928
-1258
Povdex River
27,850
48,521
53,290
19
15439
42999
7860
1780
23433
14815
-5450
Green River-Hams Fork
12,331
19,168
22,033
718
3679
9115
713
960
8394
8315
-5314
Fort Union
2,712
6,429
12,070
0
-1164
-1690
-464
-50
113
-3641
430
San Juan River
5,633
12,072
15,345
67
-1577
-294
-722
-157
178
-1222
701
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
9,658
21,731
30,910
144
-2450
-2361
-1466.
-89
2229
-8367
-3665
Denver-Raton Mesa
3.041
6,580
8,424
67 -421
94
-50
52
-1639
-3026
-300
j ;;;>.■ ..--■■ ■■»««—-*,-»■-
TABLE 5-71
I
•^1
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
COAL CONVERSION AND UTILIZATION EMPLOYMENT
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
19 76
\
BASE CASE
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
REGION
1985-
1976
1990-
1985
1985-
1976
1990-
1985
1985-
1976
1990-
1985
Northern Appalachian
1 23.485
5,979
-874
4,553
20,040
6,106
86,028
Central Appalachian
L(\ 1 16
-411
12.667
2,945
21.737
3,141
30,092
Southern Appalachian
38.995
14,995
-341
27,014
7,907
26,337
30,166
Eastern Interior
89,842
16,310
10,697
18,975
11,252
23,036
21,485
Western Interior
34,090
21,262
5,366
32,133
51,099
33,612
58,371
Texas
14,854
33.581
19,131
55,092
87,312
55,638
97,848
Powder River
5,741
4,778
5,146
4,778
2,445
5,786
2,400
Green River-Hams Fork
7,935
3,089
2,057
4,330
-993
4,330
-960
Fort Union
10,678
2,729
6,924
1,642
18,166
9,473
6,795
San Juan River
7.860
34
1.459
170
1.236
2,568
7,949
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
3.389
6.180
3.763
_6i221_
2,160
7,028
5,148
Denver-Raton Mesa
4,171
4,970
5,244
6,684
7,292
7,221
5,908
TABLE 5-72
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
COAL CONVERSION AND UTILIZATION EMPLOYMENT
OPERATIONAL WORKERS
On
I
CO
COAL
REGION
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
Powder River
Green River-Hams Fork
Fort Union
San Juan River
Uinta - Southwestern UT
Denver-Raton Mesa
1976
BASE CASE
29.422
5.594
6.718
15.381
3.967
1,91.3.
^55_
-2UL
1,217.
898
1.039
842
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-
1976
3.657
"400
4.030
6.338
4,769
8,014
1.090
737
1.706
7
727
1,353
1990-
1985
-579
1.735
65
2,657
1,013
3.024
703
291
1.493.
199
516
751
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-
1976
5,551
372
6,509
7,092
7,342
13.298
1.090
977
2.494
38
1,148
1990-
1985
3,264
2.976
1,851
4,164
7,755
11.914
3,893
1,366
2,736
1,534
797
1,694 1,318
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
1985-
1976
3,271
408
1990-
1985
18,122
6,701
9,011
7,587
13.382
4,399
5,082
8,278
10,027
1,920
977
3,645
586
1,845
15,546
591
-132
2,229
1,087
2,0861 2,461
■ ■■■ . ■' .■■ ..: ■:■■■.. ; ..■■■■■.,' ..■..'■■■■ ■
REGIONAL IMPACTS
increases are projected to occur in the Northern
Appalachian, Eastern Interior, Texas, Powder
River, Green River-Hams Fork, and Uinta-South-
western Utah Coal Regions. The number of
workers needed in the western regions would be
fewer than those required for the labor intensive
eastern mines, but the socioeconomic changes
caused by the new western coal-related employ-
ment would be more significant. This would occur
both because the relative the labor force required
here generally exceeds the 1976 level and because
there is a shortage of industrial workers in western
mining regions.
Table 5-70 presents the level of projected
increase or decrease from baseline conditions for
each of the other program alternatives analyzed.
As with the level of construction workers projected
to accompany each alternative, the number of
additional operational workers projected is depen-
dent on both the baseline level of coal develop-
ment cycle employment and the rate of projected
coal production increases.
Estimates of the 1976 construction employ-
ment in coal-using facilities indicate approximately
387,000 workers are employed in this activity of
the coal development cycle. By 1985, demand for
an additional 230,000 workers is projected. Projec-
tions of construction employment, in 1985 and
1990, at the low, medium, and high production
levels for the no new leasing alternative are
presented in Table 5-71. Analysis of projected
construction employment in this activity of the
coal development cycle for other program alterna-
tives indicates that no substantial variations from
the no new leasing alternative are projected to
occur by either 1985 or 1990.
As shown by Table 5-72, development of new
coal-using facilities and an increase in the number
of workers employed in such facilities would occur,
even if no additional Federal coal reserves are
leased. The 69 percent increase shown for 1985
reflects a nationwide surge in construction of new
combustion facilities, and the data assumes the
possibility of subsequent development of signifi-
cant numbers of coal-based synthetic fuels plants
by 1990. As noted earlier, neither the number nor
the geographic distribution of synthetic fuels
plants can be reliably projected, principally be-
cause of uncertainties about economic and techno-
logical factors which would influence the develop-
ment of the synthetic fuels industry.
5.3.4.3 Agriculture. The adoption of any of the
program alternatives would impact lands which
are presently used for agricultural purposes.
Surface mining, right-of-way construction, and
power plant construction are coal-related activities
that could require the use of agricultural lands.
Without knowing the specific agricultural lands
which may be disrupted by program-related coal
development, this agricultural impact analysis is
necessarily limited to a general discussion.
Table 5-73 provides an interregional compari-
son of agricultural values using the no new leasing
alternative as a basis. Dollar values were deter-
mined from the average value of all crops per acre
times the estimates of potential cropland for each
region. While actual values and acres may vary,
Table 5-73 provides a means for comparing
agricultural impacts among the regions on a
general basis. In addition, estimates of potential
agricultural production loss for the program
alternatives are presented in Appendix D, Tables
D-5 through D-26.
In general, the relatively larger impacts in the
Applachian, Eastern Interior, Western Interior,
and Texas Coal Regions reflect more eastern land
being devoted to cropland with a higher productiv-
ity value per acre than in the western regions.
The amount of land allocated to cropland for
regional comparative purposes does not necessari-
ly imply that a similar amount of prime farmland
exists. This can only be determined after the
completion of soil surveys for the designation of
prime farmlands are completed. Once actual
mining sites are identified and surveyed for prime
farmland, specific options for mining would be
available. Impacts on prime farmland would be
minimized pursuant to the prime farmland and
alluvial valley floor provisions of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA) and the land unsuitability criteria (see
Table 3-1 and Section 5.4.8). Section 5.10(B)5A of
SMCRA includes provisions for the protection of
alluvial valley floors.
5.3.4.4 Fiscal Impacts. Coal-induced population
shifts would change the level of demand for public
services provided by states and local governments.
The services required would include education,
health care, welfare services, police protection, fire
5-139
TABLE 5-73
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY VALUES, COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
(thousands of 1974 dollars)
(a)
Ui
I
4>
o
. .__
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA'b
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985 PROJECTIONS
Northern Appalachian
517.0
507.3
523.8
0.1
-0.1
-1.2
-14.1
-14.2
-15.1
-0.2
-14.6
Central Appalachian
101.2
108.6
101.4
0.0
-0.7
-1.6
-0.3
-0.5
-4.3
-0.9
-1.3
Southern Appalachian
124.9
171.2
178.7
0.0
-3.5
-0.6
-2.8
-2.4
-4.8
-9.0
-5.4
Eastern Interior
2080.6
2099.7
2063.0
0.0
10.8
-19.9
-4.2
-0.1
-16.1
-51.1
8.7
Western Interior
538.9
664.8
682.2
-0.3
-27.2
45.0
-35.1
-30.4
-39.8
-0.2
97.8
Texas
165.2
228.9
218.6
0.2
2.5
-17.9
-1.7
-0.3
-13.0
-5.5
15.0
Powder River
1.9
2.3
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
Creen River-Hams Fork
3.5
5.8
7.1
0.0
0.3
1.7
0.1
0.1
2.1
2.1
-1.0
Fort Union
22.1
26.5
47.3
1.9
2.0
0.3
2.0
2.0
4.7
-3.0
5.0
San Juan River
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Denver-Raton Mesa
17.1
22.8
27.9
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.9
5.5
1.4
1990 PROJECTIONS
Northern Appalachian
479.4
551.6
800.0
7.0
0.8
11.4
-0.2
0.0
-1.0
2.2
3.4
Central Appalachian
107.2
128.4
145.4
0.0
-1.2
-1.2
1.4
-0.2
-0.6
-1.6
1.4
Southern Appalachian
119.8
182.6
234.0
0.0
-0.6
13.8
1.6
0.2
3.0
-6.2
-8.6
Eastern Interior
2096.4
2267.2
2519.6
0.0
-28.2
0.4
-23.2
-17.0
-30.0
-68.8
87.8
Western Interior
543.4
1049.8
1253.0
-0.2
-26.8
-94.2
40.2
-25.6
-17.6
-29.0
-32.4
7v Ka s
207.8
421.8
470.0
-1.2
-25.4
-38.6
-7.6
1.6
-51.0
-32.2
-10.8
Puwdttr River
2.4
3.6
3.6
0.0
0.8
2.4
0.4
0.0
1.2
0.8
-0.4
Creen River-Hams Fork
5.2
7.0
8.0
0.2
1.2
3.4
0.0
0.2
2.8
2.8
-0.2
Fort Union
32.4
53.8
71.2
0.0
-3.2
0.0
-0.6
0.6
2.8
-13.8
2.2
San Juan River
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Uinta-Southvestern Utah
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Denver-Raton Mesa
26.8
35.4
40.8
0.0
0.0
3.8
-0.6
-0.6
2.2
0.2
-2.0
(a) Agricultural productivity values were calculated by multiplying the percent of total Land Disturbed (Section
5.3.2.1) devoted to cropland times an average value of all agricultural products sold per acre of land
(Appendix H. Section H-6) . Positive numbers represent greater productivity loss compared to the No Leasing
Alternative.
mam
REGIONAL IMPACTS
protection, and the provision of water and sewage
systems, recreational facilities, libraries, and high-
ways. The fiscal impacts of the change in demand
would depend on the change in the size of the
population and of the levels and types of services
currently provided. Capital expenditures to pro-
vide the needed social service facilities as well as
funds to operate and maintain these facilities
would also be required.
No estimates of the magnitude of the capital
expenditures required are made in this statement
since capital costs are a function of specific
characteristics of the communities affected. For
example, a community may have under-utilized
school facilities and a part of the increase in the
student population may be readily absorbed, thus
reducing the per capita capital expenditure re-
quired. A public water system may require modifi-
cation for which the capital expenditure is not
proportional to the increase in population. On the
other hand, current per capita annual expenditures
are a measure of services provided and it is
assumed that the level of service they represent
would continue.
Estimates of additional "net" annual expendi-
tures that would be required in 1985 and 1990 of
the state and local government agencies in each
state have been prepared. These estimates have
been prepared on a "worst case" basis in the sense
that it has been assumed that all coal-induced
population shifts would represent migration be-
tween states. To the extent that population shifts
are intrastate movements of people from one
location to another or from one industry to
another, the estimates represent an overstatement
of additional state level expenditures. The esti-
mates represent the net effect in terms of govern-
ment revenues generated from sources within the
state and expenditures required. State population
changes would increase expenditures but would
also increase revenues from individual income
taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, various excise
taxes, etc. The estimates of net additional expendi-
tures and of the proportionate impact on total
expenditures for coal producing states are present-
ed in Tables 5-74 and 5-75. These data represent
ranges based on the population shifts projected for
the low and the high coal production projections
for the no new leasing and preferred program
alternatives. These options bound the upper and
lower limits of all other alternatives addressed in
this environmental impact statement.
Table 5-76 presents estimates for 1985 and
1990 of the changes which would occur in state
and local government expenditures in non-coal
producing regions. The magnitude of these
changes is relatively small, representing no more
than one percent of total expenditures and,
therefore, these changes have not been offset
against changes in revenue.
The difference between state and local expen-
ditures and internally generated income represents
that portion of revenue received from the Federal
government through revenue-sharing and Federal-
aid programs, such as Federal aid for highways or
urban renewal funds. The total of the net
changes— in the range of $153 to $445 million
under the no new leasing alternative and of $146 to
$655 million under the preferred program— repre-
sents the national increase in revenue sharing and
Federal aid associated with the coal-related popu-
lation. It does not represent an absolute increase in
these revenues as it has been assumed that Federal
policies in these areas would not change. The state-
by-state net changes shown in Tables 5-74 and 5-
75 may be construed as shifts in revenue sharing
and Federal aid funding. However, due to the
nature of the specific Federal programs, such
changes might not be wholly realized. Therefore,
the more severely impacted states such as Wyom-
ing and Montana could seek to raise revenue by
other means, for example, through the imposition
of an increased coal severance tax.
5.3.4.5 Tax Lead Time. The ability of a region to
absorb the impacts on the demand for public
facilities and services from interregional popula-
tion shifts depends on the size of the existing
infrastructure and the magnitude of the impacts.
Regardless of the Federal coal management
program alternative finally selected, many areas in
the western coal producing states would experience
substantial increases in coal-related activities
accompanied by significant increases in popula-
tion. As a result, state and local governments
having jurisdiction in these areas would experience
significant fiscal impacts where existing public
facilities and services systems are either currently
deficient or are already at capacity. In other words,
large highly developed infrastructures would be
5-141
TABLE 5-74
NET IMPACT ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EXPENDITURES IN COAL PRODUCING STATES
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
1985 AND 1990
(In 19 75 Dollars)
1985
1990
STATE
AMOUNT
PERCENT
AMOUNT
PERCENT
(million $)
IMPACT
(million $)
IMPACT
Alabama
2-17
*-l
4-18
*-l
Arizona
3-5
*
4
A
Arkansas
6-11
*-l
6-34
A_2
Colorado
5-10
a
10-12
A
Georgia
5-8
A
4-14
A
Idaho
2-3
A
3
A
Illinois
24-18
A
47-50
A
Indiana
2
A
3
A
Iowa
2-3
*
3-4
A
Kansas
1
A
a_i
A
Kentucky
3-5
A
5-14
A
Louisiana
A
A
A
A
Maryland
2-5
A
4-5
A
Missouri
1-2
A
2
A
Montana
8-14
1-2
12-24
2-3
Nebraska
5-8
&
7-10
*-l
New Mexico
1-6
*-l
3-13
A_l
North Dakota
1-5
*-l
3-8
A_l
Ohio
3
A
A_6
A
Oklahoma
(*)-l
A
(*)-3
A
Pennsylvania
2 7-29
A
25-28
A
South Dakota
1-3
A
2-7
*-l
Tennessee
(2)
A
2-12
A
Texas
17-24
A
26-38
A_l
Utah
6-17
1
10-23
1-2
Virginia
5-2
A
(D-l
A
West Virginia
7-1
A
4-22
A_l
Wyoming
21-52
4-10
33-66
6-13
*Value is less than 0.5.
( ) Decrease in net expenditures.
Sources: Derived from projections of coal- induced population shifts
(Section 5.2.4.1) and from Reference Number 86.
5-142
TABLE 5-75
NET IMPACT ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES IN
COAL PRODUCING STATES PREFERRED PROGRAM
1985 AND 1990
(In 19 75 Dollars)
STATE
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
1985
AMOUNT
(million $)
2-16
3-5
6-11
5-11
5-8
2-3
24-16
2
*-l
1
3-4
*
2-5
1-2
8-3
5-8
1-6
1-5
3
(*)-l
27-29
1-3
(2)-(l)
17-23
6-17
(5)-(2)
7-1
21-58
PERCENT
IMPACT
*-l
*-l
ft
*
ft
ft
*
ft
ft
ft
*
1-ft
ft_l
*-l
ft
ft
ft
*
ft
ft
ft
4-11
1990
AMOUNT
(million $)
4-26
4-13
6-19
16-33
4-22
3
47-71
3-4
1
ft- 2
5-7
*-l
6-7
2-3
13-64
7-16
3-17
3-8
3-32
(*)-3
25-49
2-6
2-5
25-65
10-26
(D-26
4-36
46-92
PERCENT
IMPACT
*-l
ft_l
ft_l
1
ft
*
ft_l
ft
ft
ft
«
ft
ft
2-8
ft_l
ft_l
*-l
ft
*
ft_l
ft
ft-1
1-2
(*)-l
ft_2
9-18
*Value is less than 0.5.
( ) Decrease in net expenditures.
Sources: Derived from projections of coal-induced population shifts-
section 5.2.4.1) and from Reference Number 86.
5-143
TABLE 5-76
IMPACT ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EXPENDITURES IN NON-COAL PRODUCING STATES
BY CONSUMING REGION
1985 and 1990
(in 1975 Dollars)
"
ALTER!
NATIVE
PREFERRED
1985
Dollars)
STATE
NO NEW
1985
LEASING
1990
(Million
PROGRAM
1990
California
5-12
6-22
5-12
6-61
Connecticut, Massachusetts,
and Rhode Island
6-8
6-15
6-8
6-46
Delaware & New Jersey-
(*)-l
(*>-l
(*)-l
(*)-9
Florida
2-5
13-49
2-5
13-62
Maine, New Hampshire
and Vermont
1
1-2
1
1-6
Michigan
10-18
19-39
10-19
20-92
Minnesota/Wisconsin
12-27
22-9
10-28
22-62
Mississippi
1
1
1
1-3
Nevada
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)-(5)
New York
10-13
9-83
10-13
9-30
North & South Carolina
5-9
4-(14)
5-9
4-25
Oregon & Washington
1-*
1-40
1
14-6
* Less than $0.5 million
( ) Decrease in expenditures.
Sources: Derived from projections of coal-induced population shifts
(.Section 5.2.4.1) and from Reference Number 86.
5-144
REGIONAL IMPACTS
better able to absorb a given level of development
than small underdeveloped infrastructures.
Overall estimates of fiscal impacts on a state-
by-state basis are presented in Section 5.3.4.4.
These estimates pertain to impacts on public
services. The extent to which an individual
community is impacted depends on the specific
conditions that characterize it. The acquisition of
funds to expand public service systems in order to
meet coal-induced population increases is a major
problem facing many communities. This problem
is the result of:
• Time lags between the identification of
specific public service needs and the opera-
tion of facilities to meet those needs, i.e., the
time required to plan, design, and construct
facilities.
• Time lags between the need to fund the
development of the infrastructure and the
generation of tax revenues from the addi-
tional population served.
• Geographic difference between the location
of coal development and the jurisdiction
receiving increased infrastructure demands.
Although prospective revenues (from royalties
or severance taxes) resulting from the Federal coal
management program may be more than adequate
to cover that portion of the costs of local
government operations not met through regular
tax revenue services, as well as to cover the
additional debt service and capital repayments for
infrastructure development, they are not likely to
be available when needed. This deficiency can be
met in a number of ways.
If revenues generated by energy development
are sufficient over the long run to meet the costs of
expanding public facilities and services, loans
provide a logical front-end funding mechanism.
Alternatives under this category include:
• Loans through the Federal government—
either in the form of a direct loan program
or a guaranteed loan program.
• Prepayment of taxes (severance, property,
income, sales, or use taxes) or royalties by
coal producers over a period, for example,
of two or three years before the intensive
coal production activity begins. These
prepayments would, in effect, be short-
term, no interest loans by industry to the
local or state governments.
Another revenue source involves direct financ-
ing assistance. This funding source presumes either
that energy development would not normally
provide sufficient long-term revenues to pay for
needed community facilities, or that impacted
communities should not have to pay, even if they
can afford to over the long-term. Alternatives
under this category include the following:
• Direct financial assistance from the Federal
government through new or existing pro-
grams. There are a number of existing
Federal grant programs of this type.
• Direct financing of needed community
facilities by coal developers, voluntarily or
as a condition for approval of state permit
applications. Such financing could be pro-
vided under lease-purchase or lease-with-
option-to-purchase agreements, under
which the coal developer finances construc-
tion and the local jurisdiction leases the
facilities with an option to purchase.
Various uncertainties plague coal develop-
ments. Stable and continued operation of mines
and associated facilities can be threatened by
contingencies over which neither the industry nor
state government has control. Plant production
could be cut-back or halted during the operation
phase causing layoffs, migration out of the region,
and loss of local and state government revenues.
Second, even after major project permits are
issued, legal, political, or financial contingencies
may make it difficult or impossible to predict
exactly when or whether plant production (and
revenue generation) would occur.
Assuming that the anticipated development of
coal results in a stable and continuing situation,
state and local governments would receive reve-
nues thrc ugh taxes from the increase in population
and through severence taxes or royalties. Revenue
from the latter source could be used for debt
repayment. Severence taxes, however, are not
imposed by every coal-producing state (for exam-
ple, Utah) and where they exist, the rate varies.
Table 5-77 presents the current levels of severence
taxes. These taxes apply to coal extracted from
non-Federal land. The comparable source of
revenue from coal extracted from Federal land is
coal royalties. In August 1976, an amendment to
the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act and
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
increased the state share of lease and royalty
5-145
TABLE 5-77
SEVERANCE TAXES - COAL PRODUCING STATES
STATE
Alabama
Colorado
Montana
New Mexico
North Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
SEVERANCE TAX
33.5<? per ton for all coal mined.
60c per ton on surface-mined coal.
30C per ton on underground-mined coal.
30 percent of gross value of coal produced.
38c per ton (steam coal).
18c per ton (metallurgical coal) .
60C per short-ton (current rate) ; to rise l<s per
ton for each one-point increase in Wholesale Price
Index using 1977 as the base year.
No severance tax. Several taxes have been pro-
posed; none have passed. The State now finances
coal development impacts from Federal leasing
royalties.
10.5 percent of gross value of coal produced.
Source: Reference Number 87.
5-146
REGIONAL IMPACTS
payments for minerals extracted from Federal
lands from 37.5 percent to 50 percent of total
royalties paid to the Federal government, and
relaxed restrictions on the use of these revenues,
providing that they be used as the state legislature
directs, giving priority to energy impacted commu-
nities.
Table 5-78 presents estimates of potential
levels of royalties and severence taxes that might
accrue to the various states under the Federal coal
management program. The precise mix of Federal
and non-Federal coal production for each of the
western states is not known. However, the range of
funds flowing to the states is calculated assuming
100 percent production on Federal lands (for
royalty payments) and 100 percent on non-Federal
lands (for severance tax payments). In this manner,
the range of severence tax and royalty funds is
effectively bracketed.
Mitigation of future tax lead time impacts can
only be achieved through implementation of
planning programs prior to energy resource devel-
opment. Because of the general nature of the tax
lead time problem, a concerted state and Federal
approach with private participation would be
required.
5.3.4.6 Coal Development Cycle Fatalities and
Disabling Accidents. Fatalities and accidents can
occur in all activities of the coal development
cycle. They are caused by human error, structural
and mechanical failures, and natural phenomena.
This discussion considers those fatalities and
accidents associated with coal mining, beneficia-
tion, conversion, transporation, and use.
A number of observations are useful to place
the discussion that follows in a proper perspective.
• Coal mining is a high-risk occupation. This
is especially true for underground mining
and, to a lesser degree, for surface mining.
• Due to these risks, increased coal produc-
tion, whether by underground, surface, or
some combination of the two mining
methods, would result in increased levels of
fatalities regardless of which Federal coal
management program alternative is adopt-
ed.
• Increased levels of coal production would
result in increased levels of disabling acci-
dents and fatalities related to the coal
development cycle. There would also be an
increase in man-days lost due to disabling
accidents.
Estimates of the fatalities associated with the
no new leasing and preferred program alternatives
(mid-level coal production) are presented in Table
5-79. The increases for the three regional groupings
in this table are a function of the level of coal
production and the method of mining. Thus, the
proportionately larger production effort in the
western regions results in a significant fatality
increases in 1985 despite the predominant use of
lower-risk surface mining techniques. The fatality
increase in the midwestern regions is not as great
as in the western regions because production is
less. However, the fact that about half the coal
produced is by underground mining tends to keep
the fatality level high.
Estimates of the level of disabling accidents
associated with the no new leasing and preferred
program alternatives (mid-level coal production)
are presented in Table 5-80. As with the level of
fatalities, the level of accidents and total man-days
lost are a function of the level of coal production
and the extraction technology used. Despite
generally lower accident rates associated with
surface mining, increases in western coal produc-
tion would be accompanied by substantial in-
creases in the level of disabling accidents.
In the Appalachian Coal Regions, the increase
in fatalities in 1985 over 1976 can be attributed
primarily to use of underground mining methods
(higher risks) with only a slight increase in
production.
With regard to the 1990 figures, analysis is
much more difficult. Although total coal produc-
tion is projected to increase by about 28 percent
over 1985 levels, the fatality level increases by over
60 percent. On a national basis, the same mix of
mining methods is used in both years i.e., about 27
percent more coal is mined by surface than
underground methods. The Appalachian Coal
Regions show little differences between the no new
leasing and preferred program alternatives, while
the midwestern and western coal regions indicate a
noticeable shift in fatality levels. Since the no new
leasing alternative compared to the preferred
program results in a greater emphasis on eastern
production over western production, and increases
in eastern production would cause a greater
dependence on underground mining than on
surface mining, it is probable that the fatality levels
5-147
TABLE 5-78
PROJECTED 1985 AND 1990 COAL ROYALTIES
AND SEVERANCE TAXES (a)
(million dollars)
1985
1990
STATE
PROJECTED
ROYALTIES
(b)
PROJECTED
SEVERANCE TAX
REVENUES
PROJECTED
ROYALTIES
(b)
PROJECTED
SEVERANCE TAX
REVENUES
Colorado
31.4
12.5
49.9
16.3
Montana
148.6
393
259.1
664
New Mexico
30.9
8.4
64.2
21
North Dakota
36.9
19.2
49.4
31.5
Utah
31.4
None('C')
36.4
None (c)
Wyoming
229.4
425
366
577
(a) Projected on the basis of the medium production of the medium pro-
duction level under the preferred coal management program alter-
native, assuming a value of $20 per ton at the mine.
(b) Represents the one-half share of Federal coal royalties occurring
in affected states.
(c)Utah has no severance tax on coal production (as of October 1978).
5-148
I
TABLE 5-79
COMPARISON OF FATALITIES FROM COAL MINING, BENEFICIATION,
AND CONVERSION UNDER THE NO NEW LEASING AND PREFERRED
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES (MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL)
REGIONAL GROUPINGS
APPALACHIAN REGIONS
(Northern, Central, Southern
Regions)
MIDWESTERN REGIONS
(Eastern Interior, Western
Interior, Texas)
WESTERN REGIONS
(Powder River, Fort Union
Green River - Hams Fork
Denver - Raton Mesa,
Uinta - Southwestern Utah
San Juan River)
1976
BASE CASE
TOTAL
113
36
167
1985
NO NEW
LEASING
143
77
61
281
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
142
78
58
278
1990
NO NEW
LEASING
192
162
104
458
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
183
120
141
444
TABLE 5-80
DISABLING ACCIDENTS
COAL MINING (SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND)
I
O
1976
1985
1990
NO NEW
PREFERRED
NO NEW
PREFERRED
REGION
BASE CASE
LEASING
PROGRAM
LEASING
PROGRAM
Appalachian
9,045
11,276
11,242
12,050
11,957
Midwest
1,558
3,290
3,337
6,111
6,018
West
407
1,349
1,319
2,092
2,067
Total
11,010
15,915
15,898
20,253
20,042
-'•-■■-••
mm
MMMM
REGIONAL IMPACTS
between eastern and western coal regions would
differ accordingly for the alternatives. A greater
fatality level is forecast under the no new leasing
alternative in the Midwest where the increase in
production is to occur (more underground mining)
whereas the preferred program, which results in
greater western production, forecasts just the
opposite.
The projected level of disabling accidents in
1990 is approximately 27 percent higher than the
projected 1985 level. This increase is attributable
to increased coal production in both the western
and midwestern coal regions. In 1990, only minor
variations (less than 1 1/2 percent) are projected
between the no new leasing alternative and the
preferred program. Mining sector disabling acci-
dent levels projected to accompany other leasing
alternatives are expected to vary in a similar
manner. A discussion of projected levels of
disabling accidents throughout the coal develop-
ment cycle is presented in Appendix H, Section
H.5.
Data for the other five program alternatives
considered are not shown. The significant varia-
tions in the levels of projected fatalities for 1985
were estimated compared to the no new leasing
alternative. In 1990, under the lease to meet
industry needs alternative, one significant shift in
fatalities was estimated, i.e., a decrease of 16
fatalities in the Eastern Interior Coal Region was
balanced by an increase of 16 fatalities in the
Powder River Coal Region. The probable explana-
tion for this relates to coal production shifts to the
West which tends to increase fatalities there, and a
de-emphasis of underground mining in the Mid-
west.
A measure of the overall impact of projected
fatalities and disabling accidents is the level of
man-days lost due to accidents. In 1975, an
average of 141 man-days were lost for every
disabling accident in the mining sector of the coal
development cycle. Fatalities in this sector are
equated to 6,000 man-days lost. Based upon these
assumptions of man-day losses per accident, Tab-
le 5-81 presents estimates of total man-day losses
associ ated with coal mining. An expanded discus-
sion of projected man-day losses throughout
the coal development cycle is presented in
Appendix H, Section H.5.
5.3.4.7 Cultural Resources. Due to the site-specific
nature of potential impacts, programmatic effects
on cultural resources can best be described
generically for the various activity sectors of coal
development.
Archaeological Resources. It is not possible, at
present, to estimate the extent of potential ar-
chaeological resource impacts due to various levels
of coal development. Present levels of archaeologi-
cal site information are based primarily on local-
ized general surveys or on surveys performed prior
to specific construction projects (e.g., mines,
highways, or power plants). The concept of
archaeological site density for a particular coal
region cannot be used to determine potential
impacts except in a very general sense, since
impacts depend on the exact location of a
particular leasehold and on the activities associ-
ated with coal development in the leasehold.
Coal development activities, particularly those
related to surface mining, produce surface distur-
bances which may affect archaeological resources.
In general, archaeological sites might be affected
by the disturbance of artifacts or other evidence of
a surface site, by grading or excavation that
destroys a subsurface site, by destruction of site
integrity through alteration of the adjacent land-
scape setting, or by the exposure of a site to
vandalism and unauthorized artifact collecting. It
is not only the comparatively massive excavations
associated with surface mining that could adverse-
ly affect an archaeological site, but even lesser
activities such as vehicle parking and open storage
of materials. Vehicle movement in an ungraded,
unsurfaced parking area could easily disturb
surface evidence or destroy a surface site. Similar-
ly, the excavation and reclamation of a 6,000-acre
surface mine may not encounter and thus not
disturb any archaeological sites while a cut for a
short section of 40-foot wide, employee-access
road leading to this mine could completely destroy
a site. A site-specific survey is absolutely necessary
to determine any potential archaeological impacts
due to coal development. Because of this variabili-
ty of potential impacts, there is no direct correla-
tion between interregional or intraregional coal
production levels and the extent of potential
archaeological site impacts.
A 1976 amendment to the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470) now
requires that a Federal agency take into account
5-151
1/1
I
COAL
REGION
Appalachian
Midwest
West
Total
TABLE 5-81
PROJECTED MAN DAY LOSSES^
(millions of man days)
1985
DISABLING c
ACCIDENTS* NATALITIES-
1.6
0.5
0.2
2.3
0.8
0.5
0.3
1.6
TOTAL
2.4
1.0
0.5
3.9
1990
DISABLING
ACCIDENTS
b FATALITIES'2 TOTAL
1.7
0.3
2.8
1.1
0.7
0.8
2.6
2.8
1.5
1.1
5.4
a - Preferred program midlevel production.
b - Assumed to equal 141 man days lost per disabling accident. Reference Number 106,
c - Assumed to equal 6,000 man days lost per fatality. Reference Number 107.
Source: From Tables 5-78 and 5-80.
REGIONAL IMPACTS
the potential impact of an undertaking not only on
sites included in the National Register of Historic
Places, but also on sites eligible for inclusion in the
Register, and an executive order of 1971 (E.O.
11593, 16 U.S.C. 470) directs Federal agencies to
locate, inventory, and nominate to the National
Register properties under their jurisdiction or
control. The National Register criterion used in
determining the eligibility of archaeological sites is
any site that has yielded or may be likely to yield
information important in prehistory or history (36
CFR 800.10). The Department of the Interior,
together with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, will take appropriate steps (site
survey, evaluation, elegibility determination, im-
pact analysis, etc.) to minimize potential archaeo-
logical disturbances.
Historical Resources. Although the number of
historical sites presently on the National Register
is far greater than the number of archaeological
sites, there is still a need to protect important
historical sites, particularly certain types of sites in
the western areas. Historical sites and certain
architectural styles are not as well represented in
the West as in the East, with ranches and
windmills particularly needing to be assured of
adequate representation [56].
Any urban changes that occur because of coal
development could affect the older, historic cores
of existing communities. Representative architec-
tural styles as well as buildings of local historical
significance could be lost to make room for new
structures. The historical integrity of a group of
structures could similarly be affected by new
construction. Although it can be postulated that
some adverse impacts to historical resources would
occur, it is not possible to estimate the extent or
magnitude of such potential impacts at the level of
this environmental impact statement or to deter-
mine how these impacts would differ among the
program alternatives. However, as is the case with
archaeological resources, the Department of the
Interior, together with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, will take appropriate steps
to minimize potential historic site disturbances.
5.3.4.8 Recreational Impacts. The greatest impact
on recreation facilities would be the increase in the
recreation demand caused by population increases.
In addition, the areas being mined would be
unavailable for any potential recreation activities
until after reclamation efforts have been initiated
or perhaps completed. Overcrowding and overuse
of existing facilities, a decrease in the quality of
recreation activities requiring facilities or solitude,
increased administrative costs, and increased
vandalism could result [57]. The increased demand
for recreation facilities would also cause more
conflicts between private land owners and people
desiring to use land for recreation. The increased
number of people going to the country for hiking,
camping, and other outdoor experiences could
reduce the quality of wilderness type recreation on
large areas of public lands, particularly in the
western coal regions.
While the Surface Mining Control and Recla-
mation Act of 1977 (Section 522(e)) prohibits new
surface mining on certain types of recreational
land systems, or within 300 feet of any public park,
these areas could still be adversely affected by
nearby mining operations.
Wildlife for viewing and hunting could be
reduced through displacement of species distressed
by noise, dust and human activities around mine
sites, loss of habitat due to surface mining and
pressure from increased urbanization. The in-
creased hunting pressure could necessitate reduc-
tions in hunting seasons and bag limits. Demand
already exceeds supply for deer and elk hunting
permits in parts of western Colorado, reducing
hunting opportunities in that portion of the Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Region [58]. Increased
fishing pressure could also reduce the present
capabilities of many areas to attract and sustain
recreational fishing.
Workers brought into expanding coal develop-
ment areas would tend to be younger and desire
more recreational opportunities than the perma-
nent residents. If long-term recreation facilities
were built for the peak coal-related population,
these facilities could become a tax burden when
the peak level changes.
Expansion of coal mining could also have
some beneficial impacts on recreation. Part of the
greater tax revenue generated by the increased
activities and population could be used to help
alleviate pressure on existing municipal facilities.
Mining operations could open up new roads and
trails to off-road-vehicle use [59]. Recontouring
and replanting of land during reclamation could
sometimes increase habitat for small game, water-
fowl, and migratory birds.
5-153
REGIONAL IMPACTS
A detailed determination of the extent of
potential coal-development-related recreation im-
pacts is highly dependent upon a variety of
regional and sub-regional specific recreation data.
These data from the regional, county, and munici-
pality level include the present use levels of all area
recreation facilities and an analysis of these use
levels in terms of capacity. This would provide the
basis for determining which facilities have excess
capacity, which are at capacity, and which are
overused. The recreation characteristics of project-
ed population increases would be needed to
indicate what types of facilities or activities would
be the focus of additional recreation pressures. The
location of new mines would have to be known
before the data required for such a recreation
impact determination could be meaningfully col-
lected. There cannot be at this time any substan-
tive determination of how potential management
program alternatives differ in this respect, except
to the extent that the alternatives emphasize
development of western region coal reserves
particularly in the Powder River and Green River-
Hams Fork Coal Regions. Accordingly, the lease
to meet industry needs alternative would create the
greatest stress on resident population lifestyles
while the no new leasing alternative would reduce
the stress. The determining factors are the poten-
tial changes in the coal-related population (see
Section 5.3.4.1).
5.3.5 Transportation System Impacts
This section identifies and discusses the major
impacts on the national transportation system due
to the increase in coal production anticipated in
the near-term (by 1985). For the purpose of
quantifying some of these impacts, the medium
level coal production projection has been used, i.e.,
1.1 billion tons in 1985 and 1.5 billion tons in 1990.
Production levels of this magnitude are substan-
tially higher than the current (1976) production
level of 674 million tons [59a]. Coal transportation
requirements would, proportionately, increase
even more as "coal from the West, where most
U.S. reserves are located, will become more
important ... the transportation system will be
required to accomodate both a substantial general
step-up in the quantity produced and a dramatical-
ly sharp increase in western production, with the
attendant longer hauls required" [60]. However,
the proportionately greater increase in transporta-
tion requirements would be mitigated to some
degree through an increase in intrastate move-
ments due to the shifts in population into coal
producing areas and to whatever extent the trend
in minemouth consumption (about 12 percent in
1976) continues. Interregional coal flows are
depicted in Figures 5-3 through 5-5.
The Department of the Interior was furnished
with DOE computer outputs of the National Coal
Model. These outputs were for the low, medium,
and high production levels of the lease to meet
DOE production goals alternative. Included in the
data was an origin-destination matrix which
formed the basis for identification of coal flows,
transport routes and estimates of gross transporta-
tion ton-mileage by state for mid-level production.
All other alternatives in this statement use this
matrix as a basis for distributing coal production
as no other comparable coal distribution patterns
were available. Accordingly, impacts quantified in
this section are generally presented in terms of
comparing the DOE production alternative to the
no new leasing alternative.
In terms of the modes of transportation used
for coal movements, the railroad industry would
have to assume the predominant burden of
increased transportation of coal. Factors influenc-
ing these increases are:
• The pattern of coal flows could substantial-
ly differ from the current pattern which
emphasizes flows from the western coal
regions eastward.
• Western coalfields would, for the most part,
be inaccessible to water transportation
although movements involving different
modes via the Great Lakes and the Missis-
sippi River system could increase.
• Truck transportation would be limited to
short-haul movements, generally move-
ments within a state of 50 to 75 miles [61].
• Slurry pipelines would increase in signifi-
cance as a coal transportation mode,
provided certain major issues such as water
availability and right-of-way access over
rail lines are resolved. (However, as a
transportation mode, they have limited
application in the near-term. Total thruput
capacity of all pipelines, operational or in
the developmental stage, would be limited
to 100-150 million tons per year in the
period 1985 to 1990).
5-154
U1
I
(J1
Source:
U. S. Department of the Interior, 1977.
Total Coal Movement, Map No. 5, National
Energy Transportation Systems. U.S.
Geological Survey. Reston, VA.
NOTE:
1\
This line thickness
approximates
40 million short
tons carried per
year.
FIGURE 5-3
1974 MAJOR INTERSTATE COAL FLOWS BY RAILROAD
FLOWS: EAST _
WEST -
VERTICAL SCALE:
100
MILLION
TONS
/
/
I
/
I
I /
Sm/ A
OTHER WEST
rSAW JUANinTEIT
DENVER-RATON MESA
UINTA AND GREEN RIVER
pnunrp, nrvm
FORT UNION
V''
/
CONSUMPTION IN WESTERN REGIONS
NOTE: ONLY INTERREGIONAL COAL FLOWS GREATER
THAN 10 MILLION TONS A VEAR ARE DEPICTED.
flTUFP
SAN JUAN RIVER
IDENVER-RATON MESA:
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH
GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK
POWDER RIVER
FORT UNION
TEXAS
WESTERN InTeMoTT
EASTERN INTERIOR
\ *
mVons^
NORTHERN, SOUTHERN, AND CENTRAL
APPALACHIAN
WESTERN INTERIOR
EASTERN INTERIOR
NORTHERN, CENTRAL, AND
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
CONSUMPTION IN EASTERN REGIONS
Source: Reference Number 2.
PRODUCTION
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION FLOWS - 1985
MILLIONS OF TONS (M)
5-156
OTHER WEST
AND
SAN JUAN RIVER
DENVER-RATON MESA
UINTA
GREEN RIVER
POWDER RIVER
FORT UNION
/,
w
*
<**#
» 33 M TONS .
CONSUMPTION IN WESTERN REGIONS
FLOWS: EAST
WEST
VERTICAL SCALE:
100
MILLION
TONS
NOTE: ONLY INTERREGIONAL COAL FLOWS GREATER
THAN 10 MILLION TONS A YEAR ARE DEPICTED.
"THFB
SAN JUAN RIVER '
^DENVER-RATON MESAC
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH
GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK
POWDER RIVER
FORT UNION
TEXAS
WESTERN INTERIOR
EASTERN INTERIOR
*.
\
\ n\ A
NORTHERN, SOUTHERN. AND CENTRAL
APPALACHIAN
\
234 M TONS
OTHER EAST
TEXAS
WESTERN INTERIOR
EASTERN INTERIOR
NORTHERN, CENTRAL, AND
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
CONSUMPTION IN EASTERN REGIONS
Source: Reference Number 2
PRODUCTION
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION FLOWS - 1990
MILLIONS OF TONS (M)
5-157
REGIONAL IMPACTS
©
o
o
In terms of net ton-miles of transportation
service, the division among different modes, across
all states, used in this analysis is as follows:
• Rail - 77 percent
Pipeline — 13 percent
Waterway — 9 percent
Trucks — 1 percent
This section, therefore, focuses on the railroad
industry and treats the other modes more briefly.
5.3.5.1 Railroads. As noted above, coal transporta-
tion by rail would increase due to both increased
tonnage to be moved and the greater distances
involved. Impacts on the railroads as an overall
system or institution will both depend on, and in
turn, be affected by:
• The physical capacity of the railroad
system. This includes rights-of-way, rail-
road plant, and railroad equipment (freight
cars and locomotives).
• The financial capability of the industry to
secure the investments required to expand
its physical capacity.
In addition, there are a number of operational
impacts to be considered; the more significant of
these include air emissions, operating energy
requirements, fatalities, and problems relating to
shipment by two or more transportation modes,
such as transferring coal from rail to barge or
truck.
For the purpose of considering institutional
impacts on a "worst case" basis, it has been
assumed that all interstate coal tonnage would be
moved by rail and that 75 percent of the intrastate
tonnage would move by rail, i.e., a total of 1,044
million tons of coal in 1985 and 1,456 million tons
in 1990. Industry-wide impacts are considered as
they affect the needs of the railroads to move all
freight, not just coal.
System Capacity. The capacity of a transporta-
tion system is a complex concept involving both
rights-of-way and transportation plant and equip-
ment. System capacity may be defined as the
volume of traffic that can be moved without undue
delay because of traffic congestion. In this sense,
capacity is a function of the type and condition of
the right-of-way available, equipment availability,
and operating conditions. Plant only affects capac-
ity indirectly in terms of equipment availability,
i.e., down time during car repairs, and operating
conditions, and is not considered further with
respect to the railroad industry.
In terms of rights-of-way, there are no compre-
hensive estimates of how much can be transported
by the railroad industry [62]. The amount depends
on miles of railroad lines (i.e. connection between
two locations), the number of tracks per line, the
length and spacing of sidings (to permit the passing
of trains on the same single-track line), the type of
signalling system and train control, and track
conditions. It is also affected by how well the
traffic load is distributed over time. When the
volume of traffic to go from one terminus to
another is fairly even, it moves much more easily
than when it alternately peaks and drops off,
especially if the occurrence of heavy traffic loads is
unpredictable [63]. The condition of the track is of
particular concern as this dictates the type of
equipment and the loads that could be hauled, and
influences capacity by affecting train speed.
Therefore, it is recognized that many rights-of-way
would have to be upgraded to accommodate major
increases in coal traffic [60]. Rails would need
upgrading to endure the heavier weight of coal
trains-not merely by laying heavier rail sections
but by concentrating on drainage, ballast, and ties
[64].
Other means of increasing capacity, and thus
eliminating potential bottlenecks, are available.
These means include:
• Double tracking of existing single track
line.
• Alternating single- and double-track.
• Increasing the length and frequency of
passing sidings.
• Upgrading traffic control systems to auto-
matic block signals or even to Centralized
Traffic Control (CTC).
Among these means, double tracking with
CTC would have the greatest effect on line
capacity— raising it to 125 trains per day on a
typical line [65]. Such measures could increase the
railroad's capacity to handle increased coal and
other traffic, and, in fact, extensive plans for
improving rights-of-way have been formulated by
some railroads concerned, e.g., the Burlington
Northern and the Seaboard Coast Line. It has
been stated that all required rights-of-way to
transport the increased coal traffic projected for
1985 are in place and that plans exist to construct
at least a further 300 miles of rail line to meet coal
5-158
REGIONAL IMPACTS
needs [60]. This construction is estimated to cost
$300 million.
Other estimates include 1,000 miles of new
construction contemplated in the western coal
regions. One estimate includes: 1) the completion
of the line connecting Gillette and Douglas,
Wyoming; 2) an extension of the existing Burling-
ton Northern (BN) Decker spur northwest to the
Colstrip, Montana spur and north along the
Tongue River to the BN and the Milwaukee
Railroad mainlines at Miles City, Montana; 3)
completion of the BN Gillette north spur; 4) two
extensions of the Sante Fe Railroad mainline north
to the Star Lake and the Four Corners, New
Mexico, area; and 5) an extension of the Union
Pacific Railroad mainline to the Kaiparowitz
Plateau [67].
Potential transportation impacts would be a
regional issue due to the shift in the pattern of coal
flows. Only 23,000 miles of railroad lines or 1 1
percent of the national totals (derived from
Reference 66) lie within the borders of seven
western states (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,
Montana, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming) in
which over half the recoverable coal reserves are
located; only 6,900 miles of railroad lines (three
percent) are in Montana and Wyoming which
contain the Powder River Coal Region (37 percent
of recoverable reserves) as well as portions of the
Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region.
The coal flows projected in this statement were
analyzed on a state-by-state basis and compared to
the capacities of the transportation system links
over which they would move. This analysis took
into account the increase in non-coal traffic
projected at a compound annual growth rate of
one percent. Based on assumed link capacities of
25 trains per day for single-track lines and 70 trains
per day for double-track lines, it was determined
that capacity would be exceeded in 1985 on five of
the 215 coal routes examined. The sections of the
rail network that may become overloaded are
presented in Table 5-82. Expected capacity short-
fall has been characterized as:
• Moderate — not more than 100 percent of
capacity
• Severe — over 100 percent of capacity.
Given the above factors, and the expressed
willingness of the railroad industry to expand line
capacity as evidenced by their current plans,
impacts on rights-of-way of projected increases in
coal traffic would either be relatively small or
could be mitigated through additions to or upgrad-
ing of the existing network.
Equipment needs to provide transportation
service depend on the ton-miles of freight move-
ments and the speed with which these movements
are completed, i.e., trip turnaround time. In 1976,
revenue freight movements of all Class I railroads
were approximately 791 billion ton-miles [66]. Coal
traffic is estimated to account for 15 percent of this
total or about 110 billion ton-miles based on
historical data [60., 68]. The average
haul distances (based on the medium production
projection for the lease to meet DOE production
goals alternitive) used are as follows:
• Interstate movements of coal — 700 miles
• Intrastate movements of coal — 75 miles.
• Movements of other freight — 700 miles
(derived from Reference 66).
Estimated freight transportation services
would be as follows:
• Interstate coal movements — 574 billion
ton-miles in 1985 and 854 billion ton-miles
in 1990.
• Intrastate coal movements — 17 billion
ton-miles in 1985 and 18 billion ton-miles in
1990.
• Noncoal movements — 738 billion ton-
miles in 1985 and 775 billion ton-miles in
1990.
• Total movements — 1,329 billion ton-miles
in 1985 and 1,647 billion ton-miles in 1990.
Freight transportation services of this order of
magnitude would be substantially higher than the
current level. Equipment requirements — hopper
and other freight cars and locomotives — have
been estimated for both coal and noncoal move-
ments. Freight cars were examined in terms of
hopper cars and other freight cars separately, as it
has been assumed that all hopper car movements
would be in unit trains. Freight car requirements
are expressed in 100- ton car equivalents and have
been estimated using assumptions with respect to
the number of car trips per year, thus taking into
account distance, average speed, and turnaround
requirements.
Annual freight car trip assumptions are listed
below:
• Interstate coal movements — 40 trips per
year.
5-159
State
Ln
O
Wyoming
Wyoming
Colorado
South Dakota
Tennessee
TABLE 5-82
POTENTIALLY CONSTRAINED RAIL LINKS
Route
East from Gillette to South Dakota
border (Clifton)
North to South through Wyoming from
Montana border (Frannie Jet.) to
Colorado border (Cheyenne)
East from Glenwood Springs to
Denver
North and South from North Dakota
border (Aberdeen) to Nebraska
border (Jefferson)
East from Nashville and Knoxville
to North Carolina border
Expected Capacity
Shortfall
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Road
Burlington Northern
Burlington Northern,
Colorado & Southern
Denver & Rio Grande
Chicago, Milwaukee,
St. Paul & Pacific
Southern, L&N
Source: Reference Number 77
::■ *
MM
REGIONAL IMPACTS
• Intrastate coal movements — 50 trips per
year.
• Noncoal hopper car movements — 40 trips
per year.
• Nonhopper car movements — 10 trips per
year.
Estimated freight car requirements are present-
ed in Table 5-83.
These estimates may be compared to the
current (1976) freight car fleet of Class I railroads
— 360,000 hopper cars and 1,330,000 other types
of freight cars [66]. The current hopper car fleet
(average car size - 80 tons) is sufficient in number
but insufficient in carrying capacity to accommo-
date the increase in coal and other bulk freight
assumed to be required by 1985. However, new
cars being built are generally of 100-ton capacity
and as old cars are retired the fleet carrying
capacity would be increased.
Current manufacturing capacity for all types of
freight cars is on the order of 80,000 cars per year
[69]. Assuming that freight cars are replaced at an
annual rate of four percent, the replacement of the
freight car fleet other than hopper cars would
require a production rate of 53,200 cars per year.
Further, assuming that new jumbo hopper cars
average 100- tons capacity per car, and that the
balance of manufacturing capacity was devoted to
the production of hopper cars, there would be a
shortage of about 5,000 hopper cars in 1985
needed to promote the necessary capability. This
shortfall is within the margin of error in the
estimates developed. However, within the period
1985 to 1990, an additional 106,400 hopper cars
would be required and the equivalent of 72,000
100-ton hopper cars would have to be replaced.
Existing manufacturing capacity is insufficient to
accommodate this requirement by 44,400 jumbo
hopper cars; if the needs are to be met, freight car
manufacturing capacity would have to expand at a
rate of approximately one percent per year through
1990.
To meet increased coal transportation needs,
the railroad industry would also have to expand its
fleet of locomotives. This fleet has consistently
been at a level of 27,000 to 28,000 units during the
last decade [66]. Given the above levels of freight
car requirements, locomotive requirements have
been estimated. Assuming that all interstate hop-
per car movements would be by unit train
operation and would require five locomotives per
unit train for a total of 15,000 horsepower [64] and
that all other movements would require compara-
ble locomotive power, locomotive requirements
would be approximately 27,800 units in 1985 and
33,700 units in 1990, of which 12,500 and 17,600
units respectively would be attributable to the
transportation of coal.
Locomotives are estimated to be manufactured
at a maximum of 1,700 units per year [69]. Taking
into account that the manufacturing industry also
produces 200 to 300 units for export annually, a
more conservative estimate of 1,500 units available
to the domestic market was used. Based on average
annual acquisitions of locomotives by Class I
railroads over the past decade, i.e., 1,050 per year
[66], current manufacturing capacity would be
sufficient to meet locomotive requirements
through 1985, but insufficient in the period 1985 to
1990. During this period, 4,800 units would have to
be replaced and an additional 5,700 units would be
needed due to increased coal transportation. To
meet this need, manufacturing capacity would
have to increase at an annual growth rate of
approximately 15 percent.
Financial Capability. The financial capability
of the railroad industry should be viewed in terms
of the total investment it might be required to
make in order to provide transportation services
both for coal and for other freight in terms of
rolling stock, trackage, and other railroad facilities.
Over the past decade (1968 to 1977), gross new
capital investment by Class I railroads has aver-
aged $1.8 billion per year. Of this amount, 75
percent has been invested in equipment (allowing
for the value of leased equipment) while the
balance has been invested in roadway and struc-
tures [70]. This may be compared with recent
estimate of capital requirements for increased
coal transportation through 1985. One study [60]
indicates that, between 1977 and 1985, $5 to $7
billion would be required to purchase and upgrade
hopper cars and locomotives and a further $4 to $5
billion would be required to upgrade and build
new track. In total, this would represent an annual
average of up to $1.5 billion (87.5 percent of the
level of investment in the last decade). Elsewhere,
it was stated that between 1978 and 1985, the
railroads would have to invest $6.4 to $8.8 billion
in rolling stock for coal traffic, (840 million tons in
1985) of which $3.7 to $6.1 billion would be
5-161
TABLE 5-83
FREIGHT CAR REQUIREMENTS
EQUIPMENT
Coal hopper cars
Noncoal hopper cars
Total hopper cars
Other freight cars
Total freight cars
1985
1990
Number in 100-ton Car Equivalents
249,800
81,500
311,300
728,000
1,059,300
352,200
85,500
437,700
766,000
1,203,700
Source: Reference Number 66
5-162
REGIONAL IMPACTS
attributable to new traffic [63]. In the same study,
it was also stated that even without allowing for
the projected surge in coal use, cumulative railroad
capital requirements in the period 1976 to 1985
had been estimated by the Interstate Commerce
Commission (in Ex Parte No. 271) at more than
$42 billion; of this amount, over $35 billion
represented equipment needs.
Estimates of this magnitude indicate the need
for railroad investment in the short-term consider-
ably in excess of the level in recent years. It is
unclear to what extent such investment could be
attributed to the anticipated increase in coal
transportation.
One indication of the magnitude of the
investment required to meet this increase is
provided by estimating the needs for capital
investment in equipment between 1978 and 1990.
Freight car requirements other than for hopper
cars are such that investment is required only for
normal replacement of equipment. Investment in
hopper cars, on the other hand, is required to
replace existing rolling stock with larger capacity
cars and to increase the size of the fleet due to
increased coal transportation. Assuming a unit
cost of $30,000 [61,64], this investment has been
estimated at $7.5 billion through 1990; of this
amount, $2.3 billion would be attributed to
increased coal traffic. Similarly, the increase in
investment required in locomotives is estimated at
$12.5 billion (based on a unit cost of $0.5 million
[64]) of which $2.8 billion would be attributed to
increase coal traffic. The total investment in
equipment through 1990 is estimated, therefore, at
$20 billion, of which $5.1 billion would be
attributed to increased coal traffic.
In addition, an investment would have to be
made in upgrading and constructing railroad lines.
The size of this investment can only be estimated
within a range of values. Currently there are
324,219 miles of railroad track comprising 199,411
roadway miles of line-haul railroads plus yard
trackage and sidings. Roadway mileage consists of
approximately 100,200 miles of branch lines and
99,200 miles of main lines. Assuming initially that
250 percent of main line roadway represents main
line trackage plus yard trackage and sidings, such
trackage would total 248,000 miles. However,
deducting branch line mileage from total trackage
results in a balance of 224,000 miles. It is assumed
that the difference, 24,000 track miles, represents
single-track main line. Therefore, an upper bound
of potential investment in upgrading single-track
main line can be estimated. Assuming that such
upgrading requires an addition of 150 percent of
track mileage, at a cost of $1 million per mile (60),
the potential investment to upgrade the national
rail transportation system would be $36 billion. A
lower bound may be established by assuming that
only main lines in the seven western coal-produc-
ing states would require such upgrading and that
all such lines are currently single-track. The latter
assumption is made to allow for the additional
investment in constructing new branch lines in
states as required. The lower bound is thus
established at approximately $19 billion (based on
12,400 miles of main lines). The investment in new
track is, therefore, estimated to be on the order of
$19-$36 billion.
In addition, upgrading existing trackage would
be required. At $0.5 million per mile for upgrading
the balance of railroad trackage, including yard
trackage and sidings, the investment required
would be on the order of $5- $150 billion. The
potential total investment in trackage would
therefore be from $24-$ 186 billion. The lower
bound of this order-of-magnitude estimate is more
properly associated with increased coal traffic in
the West through 1990. The upper bound repre-
sents potential investment in the railroad system
that could be made to accommodate future growth
in all railroad traffic, including further increases in
coal traffic beyond 1990.
However, even the smaller of the above
estimated investments, $24 billion, would increase
the investment required of the railroad industry by
approximately 80 percent over the level of the last
decade and would have even greater impact on the
specific railroad companies required to make the
investment.
Further, while the financial posture of individ-
ual railroads varies considerably, the industry's
current financial posture is relatively anemic.
Earnings have been inadequate— three percent of
operating revenues before payment of fixed
charges and an overall deficit after fixed charges—
and the rate of return on equity capital has been
low (about two percent in this decade [66]). The
shortage of internally generated funds has led to
the deferment of road maintenance and the delay
of road capital improvements by many railroads
[63], and an increased reliance on equipment debt
5-163
REGIONAL IMPACTS
and lease obligations [70]. Therefore, future invest-
ments of the magnitude indicated (approximately
$1 billion per year through 1990), would have to be
met through externally generated funds. While
equipment trust certificates could be the means to
acquire investment funds for freight cars and
locomotives, the yield required might have to rise
[61]. At the same time, the rate of return of railroad
companies would have to increase to attract funds
for investment in rights-of-way. Other sources of
funds to finance rail extensions and engine and
hopper car requirements are the coal companies
and electric utilities. With increasing frequency,
coal companies and utilities are constructing their
own local spur lines and providing dedicated unit
trains. This practice benefits the rail companies by
conserving limited current operating revenues.
However, in the longer term, total rail revenues
would reduce trackage rights charges for move-
ments over private spur lines and reduce rates for
volume coal shipments.
Environmental Impacts. The major impacts
resulting from the transportation of coal by rail
have been summarized in Table 5-84. These
impacts are shown for a base year (1976) and for
1985 and 1990 in terms of the production projec-
tions under the no new leasing (base case) and the
lease to meet DOE production goals alternatives.
The alternative of lease to meet DOE production
goals was used for comparative purposes due to
the extensive distribution information available for
this alternative. The second paragraph of Section
5.3.5 has additional information vis-a-vis the DOE
medium production level alternative. It should be
noted that increases in future years, under either
alternative, over the base year, would be directly
proportional to the projected increase in coal
traffic, i.e., about 70 percent in 1985 and about 140
percent in 1990. The other program alternatives
would have changes in levels of adverse effects
which are of the same order of magnitude, as
presented in Table 5-84.
For the purpose of this statement, however, the
differences in estimated impacts between the
above two alternatives considered is of particular
interest. In 1985, these differences would be less
than one percent and, therefore, negligible. In
1990, the proportionate increase would be higher—
on the order of three percent— for all aspects
considered, but it is still considered to be insignifi-
cant.
Non-quantifiable impacts of increased coal
transportation by rail are perhaps more severe.
These impacts relate to the movements of coal
trains through rural areas and communities along
rail rights-of-way. Historically, major extensions of
the rail network preceded the Nation's westward
expansion, with, many communities aggressively
competing for initial rail access and improved rail
service. In more recent years, however, there has
been growing public concern regarding projected
increases in coal movements, particularly in the
West.
Impacts of railroads on highway traffic relate
to both the length and the number of unit trains. A
100-car unit train averages about 1.6 miles in
length. Somewhat smaller volumes of rail traffic
are expected from Montana and Wyoming coal
fields southerly through the Colorado Front Range
to Texas. The volume of train movements, particu-
larly along the east-west lines through Montana
and Wyoming, could be 50 trains a day by 1985
and 75 trains a day by 1990. Unit trains normally
take about 3.5 minutes to pass a particular point at
20 miles per hour. If the speed slows to five miles
per hour, as it often does near inspection, mainte-
nance, and classification yards, the train takes
approximately 13 minutes to pass a point. Shorter
delays would occur in undeveloped areas where
the train's speed can increase. While the passage of
a single train may not create significant problems,
repeated passages may. Volumes of this magnitude
would block non-separated rail/highway crossings
(i.e., at grade level) for substantial portions of the
day. Queuing of vehicular traffic would increase,
thereby appreciably adding to the transit time
required to traverse those communities built up
along existing rail routes. Grade crossing fatalities
could also increase. Blockage of grade crossings
would also increasingly hinder the movement of
emergency fire, police, and health vehicles.
The extent of the rail/highway crossing im-
pacts would be highly site-specific, depending
on the location of the rail line, the volume of
rail and vehicular traffic, and the type of rail
crossing. Federal Railroad Adminstration
standards for rail crossing protection devices
are based in large part on rail and vehicular
traffic volumes. In smaller communities,
the local traffic volumes would be
5-164
TABLE 5-84
MAJOR RAIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESIDUALS MEDIUM COAL PRODUCTION LEVEL
I
H
Ln
AND ALTERNATIVE
AIR EMISSIONS
(Thousand Tons)
NUMBER
OF FATALITIES
OPERATING
ENERGY
(1012 Btu)
YEAR
TSP
HC
CO
so2
NO
X
1976 B
ase Case
21.3
81.0
112 . 5
49.2
320.3
132
231.8
1985:
No New Leasing Alternative
36.2
136.5
188.9
82.8
538.0
221
389.5
Meet DOE Goals
Alternative
36.3
137.0
189.3
82.9
539.1
222
390.2
Change in Residuals
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
1.1
1
0.7
1990:
No New Leasing Alternative
50.1
189.3
261.6
114.9
744.9
306
539.7
Meet DOE Goals
Alternative
51.8
194.5
269.4
118.1
766.8
317
554.4
Change in Residuals
1.7
5.2
7.8
3.2
1.9
11
14.7
REGIONAL IMPACTS
invariably too low to necessitate separated cross-
ings or, in many instances, even flashing warning
lights or crossing gates. Additionally, among small
communities traditionally developed around rail
main lines, the lines often cut the town into
segments. Even nominal increases in rail traffic
through these communities can create substantial
physical barriers to the free flow of commerce and
personal traffic. Communities desiring additional
safety devices usually would be required to fund
these improvements out of local and state tax
revenues, via a cooperative cost sharing with or
reimbursement by the railway company, or
through matching fund programs with the state
highway department or agency. Various cost
sharing programs are available such as the match-
ing fund provisions for rail/highway grade cross-
ing improvements from the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) under the Surface Trans-
portation Assistance Act of 1978 and the Highway
Safety Act of 1973. J
For new rail extensions, however, there is
greater flexibility for advance planning for sepa-
rated crossings. For example, the Interstate Com-
merce Commission certificate authorizing the
construction of the rail line connecting Gillette and
Douglas, Wyoming, required adequate access and
ease of movement for local residents. As a result,
more separated crossings are being constructed
than were contemplated in the initial engineering
plan. & &
Methods of expanding the rail network in the
western coal regions also would have the potential
to disrupt plans for the orderly development of
local coal resources envisioned under the Federal
coal management program alternatives. It is
possible to construct major new rail lines without
prior authorization from the Federal Government
[67]. This can be accomplished in a number of
ways:
• Aligning new rights-of-way to avoid Feder-
al lands.
• Constructing spur lines rather than branch
line extensions, thereby avoiding the certifi-
cation processes under the Interstate Com-
merce Act.
• Construction of new lines by coal compa-
nies rather than rail carriers (coal compa-
nies are not common carriers by rail subject
to the Interstate Commerce Act).
Once private rail lines are in place, there is
typically greater pressure to lease and develop
additional coal reserves in areas possessing ade-
quate rail access as opposed to reserves in areas
lacking such access. One coal management pro-
gram policy suboption (see Section 5.4) would limit
new Federal leases to areas with established
transportation access. However, this might have
limited utility as long as the industry can construct
private rail lines to private coal reserve areas The
option would thus tend merely to delay new
leasing in limited access areas for the one to two
years required to construct major rail extensions
It should be noted that the construction and
operation of additional rail lines can produce
beneficial as well as adverse impacts. Rail con-
struction generally requires a 100 foot wide right-
of-way. The flora on a right-of-way is eliminated
where the trackage is placed and it is altered on
either side of the trackage where rail right-of-way
maintenance is conducted. Any loss of vegetation
results m a concomitant loss of wildlife habitat
Alteration of right-of-way vegetation, however
often results m a linear strip of semi-maintained
native vegetation which adds to the ecological
diversity of the local area. This vegetative strip can
be especially valuable to wildlife in regions such as
the Eastern Interior and Western Interior Coal
Regions where intensive agricultural practices have
seriously reduced available wildlife cover. Other
less significant rail-oriented ecological effects
include rail kills of wildlife, right-of-way fires,
fugitive dust, air emissions, water pollution, and
wildlife restrictions due to right-of-way fencing
Rail kills are unusual and do not pose a serious
threat to any wildlife population. Right-of-way
fires do occur, particularly in regions with arid
climates, but they are generally small localized
brush fires which only cause temporary alterations
to adjoining ecosystems. Fugitive dust, air emis-
sions, and water pollution from train movements
and spills cause localized minor ecological im-
pacts. Lastly, fences along right-of-way generally
do not restrict smaller mammals and birds
Pronghorn antelope is the only species of wildlife
seriously restricted by fencing.
5.3.5.2 Waterways. During the last decade, ship-
ments of coal by water have been on the order of
70 million tons per year while movements involv-
ing the use of more than one mode have involved
5-166
REGIONAL IMPACTS
an additional 35 to 40 million tons [71]. The
greater part of these movements has involved the
transportation of Appalachian coal via the Ohio
and Mississippi River systems. It is anticipated
that coal movements by water would increase in
1985 though the market share of shipments by this
mode would decrease.
System Capacity. The carriage of coal by water
takes place primarily on the inland waterways
system developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The important segment of this system
for coal movement consists of the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers, constituting 9,000 miles of
waterways, more than half of which are nine feet
or deeper [61].
However, the annual capacity of this system is
not a function of mileage or of channel depth; it is
determined by the annual throughput of the locks
that form part of the waterway. Passage through
the locks may involve undue delay, causing
bottlenecks in the system. It has been stated that a
waterway reaches capacity when the average delay
time at a lock exceeds 150 minutes [72]. Certain
locks already exceed or are close to exceeding
design capacity [72]. These include the following
locks:
• Locks 50 to 53 on the Ohio River.
• Locks 26 and 27 on the Upper Mississippi.
• All locks on the Illinois River system.
• Lock No. 3 on the Monongahela River.
• Winfield lock on the Kanawha River.
These are potential congestion points that
would impede the flow of waterborne coal generat-
ed by increased production. In addition, while a
number of other points have been identified as
potential problems, they are amenable to nonstruc-
tural solutions such as improved scheduling or
helper boats [60,62]. The congestion points listed
above would require long-term structural solutions
through the modification or replacement of the
existing locks.
In terms of waterborne equipment for coal
transportation, i.e., barges and towboats, require-
ments for these additional vessels could be met as
coal traffic grows through 1985 and beyond [60].
Projected 1985 waterborne coal traffic is about the
current level and, therefore, equipment needs
would be limited to replacements. Increased
requirements through 1990 should pose no prob-
lem as sufficient shipbuilding capacity (1,400
barges per year and 40 towboats per year) can
produce coal-dedicated equipment with the capac-
ity to handle up to 250 million tons per year during
the next decade.
Environmental Impacts. As little movement of coal
by water is expected, the environmental impacts
are predicted to be negligible. However, some of
the likely effects are discussed below in qualitative
terms. These impacts would result from any
increase in waterborne traffic and are not specifi-
cally due to transporting coal.
There would be some increase in noise and in
air pollution. Oil discharges from tugs are a
potential source of water pollution. Increased
traffic might increase turbidity and barge wash
thus impacting aquatic and shoreline ecosystems.
The dredging of river channels and the disposal of
material therefrom may also impact these ecosys-
tems. Finally, increased barge traffic would induce
shoreline development to provide barge-related
services; such development could result in secon-
dary impacts on air and water quality and on noise
levels.
5.3.5.3 Highway Transportation. Coal transporta-
tion by highway would be limited to movements
within a state and to the movement of coal from
mine to rail tipple or barge-loading facility. In
either case, coal would move over short distances.
Historically, this movement has taken place pre-
dominantly in the Appalachian Coal Regions and,
to some degree, in the Eastern Interior Coal
Region. The impact of such movements, particu-
larly in Appalachia, has been a matter of concern
in the past, as coal trucks travel on local and
secondary road systems inadequate to withstand
repeated usage by heavy duty trucks, even where
the gross vehicle weights are within posted limits
[61]. A comprehensive study of highway needs
related to energy activities, undertaken under
Section 153 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act,
found that an estimated $4.1 billion was required
for the restoration of highways used for energy
resource handling in 1975. In the same study, 18 of
the 24 states in which coal resources are located
reported a total need for a further $3.2 billion
identified with increased coal production through
1985 [60]. If the preferred program and other
program alternatives result in decreased eastern
coal production, further impacts on local highway
systems, both in terms of roadway deterioration
5-167
REGIONAL IMPACTS
and traffic volume, would be mitigated. At the
same time, it is anticipated that a need for new
roadways to move coal and for the transportation
of people and goods would emerge in the western
coal producing states. The extent of this need
cannot be quantified as it is dependent on the
location of mines, transportation facilities, and
communities developed or impacted.
In terms of equipment, i.e., heavy duty trucks,
there would be no perceptible constraint on
availability. Manufacturers are currently operating
at 70 percent capacity, building just over 60,000
dump trucks annually [60]. Equipment require-
ments cannot be quantified as the extent of
movements involving more than one mode is
unknown.
Environmental Impacts. Social, environmental,
and safety impacts of highway movements of coal
are already being experienced— most severely in
Appalachia [60]. Such impacts could become more
severe with increased coal production, but are not
specifically attributable to any of the program
alternatives. Perhaps the most important impact
would be the perceived, rather than actual, impact
of truck traffic on a local community (i.e., the
residents would be aware of more traffic volume,
noise and vibrations, coal spillage, and visual
impacts). These impacts would be a consideration
in determining the need for highway improvements
and additions, together with such mitigating
measures as restricted routing of coal traffic.
Energy development impacts on transportation
systems are currently being assessed by the
National Energy Transportation Study Task Force
for the Departments of Energy and Transporta-
tion. Their study is to analyze energy-related
transportation problems and needs on a nation-
wide basis.
5.3.5.4 Coal Slurry Pipelines. The use of slurry
pipelines for the transportation of coal is still in its
infancy, although the technology is well developed.
Only one such pipeline system, the Black Mesa
slurry line with annual through-put of 4.8 million
tons, is currently operational. Additional pipeline
systems are in the process of being developed to
provide transportation capacity of about 140
million tons per year. Due to the time required to
plan, construct, and make coal slurry pipelines
operational, and to resolve the issues surrounding
the development of this industry, no significant
coal pipeline transportation capacity is contemp-
lated through 1990. One study suggests a total
capacity of 200 million tons by the year 2000 [73].
The rate at which the coal slurry pipeline
industry may develop is a matter of speculation
due to the constraints imposed by several issues,
primarily water availability and eminent domain!
Most of the proposed coal slurry pipelines origi-
nate in arid western states where water is already a
scarce resource. In these areas, about 90 percent of
the existing available water is used for agricultural
purposes and the developing energy-related indus-
tries have to compete for water with recreation,
domestic needs, and industrial activities, as well as
farming. The process of coal slurrying requires
approximately one ton of water for each ton of
coal. Based on the assumption that the slurry
pipelines currently under developmental study
become operational, there would be a need for
approximately 100,000 acre-feet of water per year.
While this quantity of water would be a small
portion of available surface water, and additional
water might be available from aquifers such as the
one underlying the Madison Formation, the
exporting of such a valuable resource has met with
a mixture of support and opposition from Western-
ers. On the other hand, the developers of one of the
larger proposed pipelines, Energy Transportation
Systems, Inc. (ETSI), have already been assured of
the availability of water by legislative action in
Wyoming; this suggests that this issue might be
resolved in the near future.
The question of eminent domain is equally
controversial. To obtain rights-of-way for the
proposed pipelines, proposals have been made at
both the state and Federal levels to grant pipeline
developers the right to exercise the power of
eminent domain. While this proposal was recently
rejected by the U.S. Congress, a number of western
states have legislation that would permit the
granting of such rights. Several proposed pipelines
companies are seeking rights-of-way without grant
or condemnation authority. ETSI appears to have
acquired virtually its entire right-of-way in this
manner.
Whether the above constraints on the develop-
ment of coal slurry transportation will be contin-
ued or resolved remains a matter of speculation;
therefore, the potential impacts of this mode of
transportation cannot be assessed at this time. It
can, however, be stated that the environmental
5-168
REGIONAL IMPACTS
impacts of slurry pipelines, with the exception of
water requirements, are generally of more concern
during the construction of the pipelines rather than
during operation. The impacts associated with
pipelines, both during construction and operation,
have been assessed generally in a recent study [73].
53.6 Operating Energy
It takes energy to produce energy. Thus, during
all phases of the coal development cycle, energy
would be expended. The energy expended in this
way, defined as operating energy, is in the form of
coal, oil (mainly diesel oil), gas, and electricity. In
order to determine how much operating energy
would be required, the heat content of these energy
forms is equated to the heat content of the coal
that would be recovered. To simplify the compari-
sons, operating energy is expressed in terms of its
heat equivalent in British thermal units (Btus).
Appendix H presents additional detail on how this
conversion is derived. The same amount of energy
(in terms of Btus derived from coal) is assumed for
all seven alternatives at an equivalent level of
production (i.e., high, medium, or low). Therefore,
that alternative which requires least operating
energy for all of the coal-related activities (all
phases of the coal development cycle) at the
medium level of production will obviously leave
the greatest amount of net energy for other useful
purposes, such as heat, light and power. The same
will be true at the other levels of production.
Conversely, the alternative which uses the most
operating energy at a given production level will
leave the smallest net energy balance.
The discussion that follows presents back-
ground material describing operating energy in
terms of phases of the coal development cycle,
followed by an analysis of operating energy
requirements on a regional basis for the seven
program alternatives.
5.3.6.1 Coal Extraction. During coal extraction,
energy is consumed by cutting and loading
devices, such as drills, mining machines, draglines,
crawler-type loaders, and shuttle cars. In under-
ground mining, greater use is being made of
continuous mining machines which can cut the
coal loose and load it in one operation. Mine cars,
conveyors, and shuttle cars are used to bring coal
to the surface. Strip mining operations employ
equipment such as shovels, dragline and wheel
excavators, scrapers, bulldozers, loaders, and drills.
In auger mining, giant coal augers are used to
reach coal that cannot be strip mined because
there is too much overburden. All mining methods
would use various forms of electric and diesel
engines to power equipment. The overall operating
energy that would be expended in this phase of the
coal development cycle is assumed to be four
percent of the Btu content of the coal in place
[71,74].
5.3.6.2 Beneficiation. Energy would also be con-
sumed in the refining and processing of coal. The
major operations involved are crushing, screening,
wet and dry washing, and thermal drying. The
overall operating energy expended for coal clean-
ing is assumed to be 0.7 percent for crushing and
screening and 4.6 percent for mechanically cleaned
and dried coal [71,75].
5.3.6.3 Coal Transport. Energy would be consumed
by trains, trucks, barges, and slurry pipelines to
move coal from the production and beneficiation
facilities to other locations. The operating energy
expended in the transportation of coal is measured
in Btus consumed per ton-mile transported. It is
quantified as a function of the mode of transport
as follows [76]:
• 670 Btus/ton-mile for rail transport,
• 680 Btus/ton-mile for barge transport in
small rivers,
• 2800 Btus/ton-mile for truck transport, and
• 450 Btus/ton-mile for slurry pipeline trans-
port.
5.3.6.4 Coal Conversion and Utilization. Energy
would be expended in coal conversion and utiliza-
tion facilities to operate equipment such as pumps,
cooling towers, and pollution control devices. The
operating energy required for these purposes is
assumeu to be as follows [39,45]:
• 3 percent for steam electric power plants,
• 2 percent for gasification plants,
• 0.9 percent for liquefaction plants, and
• 2.7 percent for coke plants.
5.3.6.5 Efficiency of the Coal Development Cycle.
Based on the above factors, operating energy can
be calculated for each phase of the coal develop-
ment cycle. For example, for every 100 Btus
present in the coal in the ground, four percent or
four Btus would be expended in extracting the
coal. Thus, a net of 96 Btus would be brought from
5-169
REGIONAL IMPACTS
the mine. During beneficiation, as much as 4.4
Btus would be expended (4.6 percent of 96 Btus
delivered for processing) resulting in a net of 91.6
Btus after this phase. Assuming that transportation
would take approximately another one Btu (one
percent of 98.6 Btus), of the original 100 Btus,
about 90.6 Btus would be available for conversion
and utilization. For example, in an electric power
plant, 2.7 Btus (or 3 percent of the plant input)
would be used to operate the plant and 88 Btus
would be the net feed to the plant to be converted
to electric power. The flow chart in Figure 5-6
summarizes this discussion.
It is important to note that the Btu loss due to
coal conversion into synthetic gas or liquid fuels,
or coal utilization to generate electric power, or to
make coke is distinct from the operating energies
considered in this section. For example, the
thermal efficiency of steam/electric power plants is
35 percent on the average; for every 100 Btus in
the coal, only about 35 Btus of electricity would be
generated. Similarly, the average thermal efficien-
cy of coke plants is 70 percent, of gasification
plants 65 percent, and of liquefaction plants 69
percent [1,39].
5.3.6.6 Operating Energy Requirements. Estimates
of operating energy expended during the coal
development cycle are presented in Table 5-85.
The table indicates energy that would be expended
at the low, medium, and high production projec-
tions for the years 1985 and 1990. These are shown
as the differences in operating energies between
the 1976 actual values and the expected values for
1985 and for 1990. Table 5-66 shows differences
between the no new leasing, alternative and the
other coal management program alternatives by
year and by region. Differences between regions
for a given alternative may vary substantially. For
example, in 1985 at the medium production
projection for the no new leasing alternative, the
range between the Northern Appalachian and
Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Regions is 415.8 trillion
Btus (TBtus). This is equivalent to the combustion
of about 19 million more tons of coal in the
Northern Appalachian Coal Region. As can be
seen below, greater levels of production and
consumption in the Northern Appalachian Coal
Region would result in higher operating energy
expenditures.
Northern
Appalachian
Coal
Region
Denver-
Raton Mesa
Coal
Region
1985 Production (tons)
1985 Consumption (tons)
211,700,000
182,900,000
5,000,000
20,100,000
In 1985, in the Green River- Hams Fork Coal
Region, the lease to meet industry needs alterna-
tive would have the greatest increase in operating
energy: 38.6 TBtus or about 1.75 million tons of
coal equivalent. This would be due in part to a 47
percent increase in coal production in that region
over the no new leasing baseline.
For the year 1990, the greatest increases in
operating energy are in the Powder River Coal
Region (for the preferred alternative medium
level), equivalent to about 4.5 million tons of coal.
This increase resulted from a 3 1 percent increase in
coal production. Overall, it can be seen from Table
5-86 that at the medium level of production, net
changes from the no new leasing alternative (as a
base level) would in 1985 be slight for most
options. Leasing to meet industry needs would pay
an energy premium of about 40 TBtu. The other
alternatives would either slightly decrease operat-
ing energy requirements or result in only negligible
increases. In 1990, at the medium production level,
the preferred alternative would increase operating
energy requirements by some 30 TBtu. An even
larger increase (70 TBtu) would occur under
leasing to meet energy needs, whereas leasing to
meet DOE production goals would increase oper-
ating energy about 7 TBtu and PLRAs by about 20
TBtu. State determination of leasing would show a
reduction of more than 10 TBtu from the no new
leasing alternative. At the projection of high coal
production, the preferred alternative would sub-
stantially increase the operating energy require-
ments in both years over those of the base case.
In summary, wherever coal production, con-
sumption, or transportation increases, operating
energy expended will increase. On the average,
about 10 percent of the energy in coal is consumed
during the coal development cycle as operating
energy.
5-170
Electric Power Plant
I
91.6
90.6
->
2.7
1
Coal
Resource
r -
Plant
Auxiliaries
Btus
88
Extraction
96 ^
Benef iciation
fe.
Transportation
to
100
| Btus
— ►
Btus
►
Btus
Btus
Btus
V
g»
Feed to
Main Plant
1 Btus
. J
FIGURE 5-6
OPERATING ENERGY IMPACTS ON THE COAL CYCLE
TABLE 5-85
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, OPERATING ENERGY IMPACTS
(trillion Btus)
I
1976 (a)
BASE CASE
ABSOLUTE
VALUES
LOW PRODUCTION
LEVEL
MEDIUM PRODUCTION
LEVEL
HIGH PRODUCTION
LEVEL
REGION
1985-
1976
1990-
1985
1985-
1976
1990-
1 985
1985-
1 97fi
1990-
1 Qft S
Northern Appalachian
384.0
73.0
-16.0
85.0
50.0
96.0
174.0
Central Appalachian
338.0
13.0
-1.0
26.0
41.0
-9.0
132.0
Southern Appalachian
82.8
23.2
1.0
23.2
19.0
82.2
46.0
Eastern Interior
289.0
183.0
130.0
188.0
231.0
140.0
350.0
Western Interior
104.0
65.0
16.0
96.0
100.0
106.0
173.0
Texas
52.6
111.4
34.0
149.4
150.0
138.4
220.0
Powder River
59.4
130.6
33.0
190.6
118.0
266.6
80.6
Green River-Hams Fork
44.8
25.6
31.6
67.2
32.0
93.2
31.4
Fort Union
36.6
18.3
14.5
35.9
46.5
69.4
67.0
San Juan River
17.1
7.9
17.6
19.6
48.1
40.2
56.9
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
20.4
16.5
14.4
38.4
28.8
61.8
36.9
Denver-Raton Mesa
25.7
17.3
15.9
27.5
30.9
37.7
35.4
(a) Represents absolute values; other columns represent differences from 1976 base
case levels,
MM
TABLE 5-86
OPERATING ENERGY, COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
(trillion Btu's)
PROGRAM
ALTERNATTV
:s
COAL
REGION
NO NEW
LEASING
PKEFEKKEl)
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASINC
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASINC VALUE
Northern Appalachian
457.0
469.0
480.0
0
-0.226
o.™
-5.76
-5.77
- 5.52
-0.157
- 6.18
Central Appalachian
351.0
364.0
329.0
-0.180
-1.66
3.25
-0.210
-1.07
-15.0
-2.48
7.04
Southern Appalachian
106.0
141.0
165.0
-0.131
-2.76
- 1.95
-2.47
-1.12
5.72
-9.73
- 7.45
Eastern Interior
472.0
477.0
429.0
-0.194
4.81
-16.60
-0.637
1.09
-14.9
-6.42
9.89
Western Interior
169.0
200.0
210.0
-0.585
-3.89
7.78
-4.88
-3.76
- 4.38
-1.90
-1.08
Texas
164.0
202.0
191.0
0
2.67
-16.6
-1.17
0.160
-13.7
-6.73
17 .'3
Powder River
190.0
250.0
326.0
-0.113
0.318
26.8
0.115
0.233
22.3
-0.179
-21.5
Green River-Hams Fork
70.4
112.0
138.0
0
4.65
32.1
2.04
1.10
38.6
37.8
-18.5
Fort Union
54.9
72.5
106.0
1.31
1.46
0.843
1.44
1.49
8.39
-9.57
8.04
San Juan River
25.0
36.7
■ ■
57.3
0
0.243
0.423
0
0
5.92
-3.92
8.06
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
36.9
36.8
82.2
0
0.814
0.982
0.520"
0.257
8.23
-4.27
0.116
Denver-Raton Mesa
43.0
53.2
63.4
-0.136
0.587
1.01
0,520
0.588
3.89
3.89
2.61
1990
CHANGE FROM NO NEW LEASING VALUE
Northern Appalachian
441.0
519.0
654.0
3.12
1.50
- 3.6
-0.54
- 0.478
- n.QRS
S 71
7 06
Central Appalachian
350.0
405.0
461.0
0
-5.52
19.2
0
- 1.71
- 8.67
-5.24
15.3
Southern Appalachian
107.0
160.0
221.0
0
-0.947
5.99
0.65
- 0.192
7.16
45.9
-19.1
Eastern Interior
602.0
708.0
779.0
-1.4
-16.5
-76.9
-2.81
-6.01
-69.4
49.2
74.2
Western Interior
185.0
300.0
383.0
0
-8.58
-40.0
-10.3
- 5.0
-11.5
-11.7
2.69
Texas
198.0
352.0
411.0
-1.09
-33.6
-50-4
-5.85
- 6.28
-63.1
-40.0
-11.8
Powder River
223.0
368.0
407.0
0.18
98 7
278.0
51.1
10.8
151.0
95.3
-37.7
Green River-Hams Fork
102.0
144.0
169.0
3.99
22.6
61.2
1.75
4.55
54.1
53.3
-37.9
Fort Union
69.4
119.0
173.0
0
- 8.63
-10.4
-3.22
0
3.72
-30.2
3.67
San Juan River
42.6
84.8
114.0
0.607
- 9.98
.- 1.69
-4.43
- 1.04
1.42
7.82
4.51
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
51.3
87.6
119.0
1.06
- 7.02
- 5.43
-5.63
- 0.998
6.20
-26.6
-10.6
Denver-Raton Mesa
58.9
84.1
98.8
0.57
0.330
14.5
-0.13
- 0.53S
0.831
-5.96
- 2.04
(a) Represent absolute values; other columns represent differences from the no new
leasing base case.
5-173
REGIONAL IMPACTS
5.4 IMPACTS RESULTING FROM
SUBALTERNATIVES AMONG OTHER
POLICY ISSUES
5.4.1 Introduction
Sections 5.1 through 5.3 of this statement
discuss the preferred Federal coal management
program and the major alternative programs.
Those sections assume that different leasing
strategies would cause different regional levels and
distributions of coal production. All alternatives
examined were designed to fully satisfy all require-
ments of existing Federal statutes.
A nationwide Federal coal management pro-
gram is not, however, something that can be
reduced to six or seven alternatives. At each stage
in the process of managing Federal coal resources
there are a variety of choices to be made—
subalternatives concerning a particular issue—
which usually are compatible with each of the
major program alternatives previously discussed.
Analysis of each combination of these various
issue subalternatives would require analysis of
thousands of alternatives. To make this task
manageable and, more importantly, useful to
decisionmakers and the public, Sections 5.4.2 to
5.4.10 analyze the subalternatives which, if adopt-
ed, could cause significant changes in the degree
and distribution of environmental damage from
the development of Federal coal. In most in-
stances, the issues and subalternatives discussed
here are those which the Department presented to
the Secretary and Under Secretary as part of the
process to designate the preferred program, and a
fuller discussion of these issues is included in the
papers presented to the Secretary and Under
Secretary and summarized in Tables 3-2 and 3-3.
Other subalternatives which have less impacts are
discussed in the background papers. (See Section
3.3 which describes these papers and explains how
copies can be obtained.)
Previously in this chapter, the Department
quantified, where possible, the adverse and benefi-
cial changes to the environment that the adoption
of the preferred program and each of the major
alternatives would cause, and described the quanti-
tative significance of these changes. This portion of
the chapter will consider qualitative effects for the
subalternatives. Wherever possible, repetition of
material presented elsewhere in this statement is
avoided and only information needed to under-
stand the subalternatives and their impacts is
presented. Accordingly, the discussion in the
following sections should be read in conjunction
with the material presented previously in this
statement. For each issue and its set of subalterna-
tives, the following factors are discussed, where
revelant.
• What environmental elements are most
likely to be affected by the subalternatives?
• Does the choice involved affect all regions
equally, or is one region more affected than
another?
5.4.2 Require Underground Mining
One issue evaluated was the effect of limiting
coal extraction on Federal leases to underground
mining only. To implement this policy, two
subalternatives could be adopted:
• Prohibit use of surface mining techniques
on new Federal coal leases.
• Make no rule blanket concerning mining
method except as required by the Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 and
the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977.
The western coal regions contain vast coal
reserves of both underground and surface mine-
able coal. Despite the large underground reserve
base, surface mining produces virtually all coal
output in the Fort Union, Powder River and San
Juan River Coal Regions. Underground mining
produces virtually all of the coal in the Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Region. Surface mining
accounts for approximately 30 to 60 percent of the
production in the remaining regions. In 1976, an
estimated 52 western underground coal mines
produced 12 million tons and 61 western surface
mines produced 97 million tons of coal. Table 5-87
presents projected percentage distributions of
surface and underground mining under the pre-
ferred program. In general, coal produced by
underground mining is more expensive and more
capital and labor intensive than that produced by
surface mining. Between 1950 and 1978, national
coal production has gone from mostly under-
ground to more than half surface mining. Industry
efforts to reclaim lands disturbed by surface
mining have also increased during this period. The
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
requires intensive regulation of both surface
mining and the surface effects of underground
5-174
TABLE
5-87
PERCENTAGES OF UNDERGROUND AND SURFACE MINING FOR 1976, 1985, AND 1990 PREFERRED PROGRAM:
MEDIUM PRODUCTION PROJECTIONS
I
1976
—
1985
1990
COAL
REGION
%
Surface
%
Underground
%
Surface
%
Underground
%
Surface
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
52
61
36
40
3
0
48
39
64
60
97
100
69
72
52
68
38
0
31
28
48
32
62
100
79
77
65
84
62
0
21
2 3
35
16
38
100
TOTAL EAST
50
50
62
38
72
28
Powder River
Fort Union
Green River-Hams Fork
Denver-Raton Mesa
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
San Juan River
0
0
1
78
100
0
100
100
99
22
0
100
0
0
5
56
84
5
100
100
95
44
16
95
0
0
7
67
86
3
100
100
93
33
14
97
TOTAL WEST
13
87
9
91
8
92
REGIONAL IMPACTS
mining. Under the permanent regulatory program
of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, no coal mining will be allowed
unless, among other things, the surface area
disturbed can be reclaimed to pre-mining produc-
tivity and approximate original contour.
Several other factors distinguish these two
mining methods. Deep mining is more hazardous
to the miners than is surface mining, both in terms
of fatalities and injuries. Mine safety is compre-
hensively regulated by the Coal Mine Health and
Safety Act, 30 U.S.C. Chapter 22. Surface mining
recovers a higher percentage of coal than does
underground mining. The degree of recovery
differs according to the area and type of mining
involved. Typically, the recovery rates are 70 to 90
percent for surface mining versus 29 to 85 percent
for underground mining. The Federal Coal Leas-
ing Amendments Act bars the Secretary from
approving a mining plan which does not use the
method of mining which achieves the greatest
recovery of coal. Where both surface and under-
ground mineable coal exist on a given lease, the
Secretary must require the lessee to use the method
which recovers the greatest amounts of coal.
Statutory changes may therefore be needed to
carry out a deep-mine only policy, although the
Office of the Solicitor has advised the Department
that it may authorize "single-seam" leasing which
would permit the leasing of only those seams
which are recoverable by underground mining
methods.
Surface mining usually causes greater surface
disturbance, sedimentation, erosion, wildlife loss,
and displacement of competing land uses and users
than does underground mining. The degree of
disturbance caused by surface mining itself varies
greatly depending on seam thickness. Table 5-88
shows that acreage disturbed is directly related to
seam thickness. Land disturbance from under-
ground mining in the form of subsidence is a
potential long-term problem, particularly in shal-
low underground mining.
Since new leasing would not result in signifi-
cant production until 1985 at the earliest, adopting
this policy would not cause any significant changes
to the environment prior to that time. Assuming
that a program is adopted which would resume
leasing, a limitation to underground mining pro-
duction from new Federal leases would lower new
production for the Fort Union, Powder River, San
Juan River and Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Regions (those which have mostly surface mining);
increases in production from new leases would be
most likely in those regions where Federal coal is
already produced by underground mining (Den-
ver-Raton Mesa and Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Coal Regions, and in the non-Federal areas in the
Midwest and East).
The reason for the effect is almost entirely
economic. The surface mineable coal in those
areas can be removed for as much as $8-$ 18 a ton
cheaper than underground coal. The added costs
are sufficient to have consumers seek coal else-
where. The potential effects on western coal
production from a restriction to deep mining could
vary from insignificant to critical, depending on
whether actual production reaches the low, medi-
um or high 1990 projections. Under the no new
leasing mid-level projection, surface mining is
expected to increase 50 percent in the six western
regions, from 339 million tons in 1985 to 514
million tons in 1990. (Refer to the no new leasing
alternative for an analysis of the maximum
restraint on new Federal coal leasing— a policy of
allowing underground mining only on new leases
can be expected to approximate that alternative in
those regions where underground mining is not
economically competitive with surface mining.)
Table 5-89 presents comparable estimates of
different effects produced through mining coal by
surface and underground methods in one region.
The same kinds of transfer of impacts from
unleased Federal lands to lands already under
Federal leases and non-Federal lands described
under the no leasing alternative would occur in the
Fort Union, San Juan River and Powder River and
Green River-Hams Fork Coal Regions. These
changes would not occur in the Uinta-Southwest-
ern Utah Coal Region or in areas of Colorado that
are suitable for underground mining. Some interre-
gional effects are also likely to take place with
production being ultimately lowered in the surface
mining regions and increased elsewhere.
A less likely, but still possible, effect is that a
deep-mining only policy would affect neither the
amount nor distribution of production to any great
extent, but would merely alter the method of
mining. Although the cost differences between
surface and deep mining of between $8 and $18
per ton do not readily suggest this will occur, the
possibility cannot be totally ruled out. The produc-
5-176
TABLE 5-88
RELATION BETWEEN THE AVERAGE SEAM THICKNESS AND THE ACRES DISTURBED
BY REGION
SEAM THICKNESS (ft.)
COAL REGION
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
San Juan River
SURFACE UNDERGROUND
6
5
5
6
3
8
8
4
3
3
6
3
ACRES DISTURBED/100,00 TONS
SURFACE
9.52
11.43
11.43
9.52
19.05
7.14
7.14
Uinta-Southwestern
Utah
11
8
5.19
Green River-Hams
Fork
8
-
7.14
Powder River
26
-
2.20
Fort Union
12
-
4.76
Denver-Raton Mesa
4
7
14.29
UNDERGROUND
14.29
19.05
19.05
9.52
19.05
9.52
7.14
8.16
aDerived assuming 1,750 tons of coal/a-.re-f t . of seam, 100 percent
recovery .
Source: Reference Number 71.
5-177
TABLE 5-89
ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH 10 MILLION
TONS OF COAL SURFACE MINED OR UNDERGROUND MINED IN THE
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH REGION (a)
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Land Disturbed
(acres)
Short
Term
0
5
520
Water
Make-Up
(acre-f t . )
Evaporative
184
551
Effluent
184
56
Air
HC
0
45
CO
0
234
Emissions
so2
0
30
NOx
0
385
(Tons)
TSP
0
40
Population - Total
12,497
4,699
E
Construction
Direct
480
321
L
Indirect
672
449
0
Y
Operation
Direct
1,970
600
M 1
E
N
T
Indirect
2,758
839
Accidents
312
5.3
Fatalities
4
1.1
Derived from the U.S. Department of the Interior Coal Impact
Estimation Program (see Appendix H) .
5-178
REGIONAL IMPACTS
tion cost difference could be reduced by a variety
of changes in current conditions, including new
technology and lowered Federal royalties and state
severance taxes.
If this were to occur, it would be expected that
the major effects of the deep-mining only policy
would be to exacerbate social costs in rural mining
areas, since more employees would be needed to
operate an underground mine rather than a surface
mine. Per capita miner fatalities and disabling
injuries would likely increase, and less coal
resource per acre would be recovered. A deep-
mine only policy would also require longer lead
time and greater investments prior to production,
in order to assure that the specialized training
needed to develop a work force capable of safe and
productive underground mining is accomplished.
Experience indicates that safety records may show
dramatic improvement where regulatory enforce-
ment, worker participation in decisions about
safety requirements, or company economic inter-
ests provide incentives for better safety efforts. Not
withstanding the strict requirements of SMCRA,
the deep-mine-only policy would also reduce
adverse effects to wildlife, preserve existing surface
environments, eliminate the risk of creating unre-
claimed lands, and reduce total suspended particu-
lates at or near the mine sites in the principal
western regions where surface mining is predomi-
nant (Powder River, Fort Union, Green River-
Hams Fork, and San Juan River Coal Regions). A
deep mine only policy might also significantly
undercut the policies expressed in Section 714 of
SMCRA (see Section 5.4.6) since qualified surface
owners have a right to withhold consent only for
surface mining not underground mining. Argu-
ments raised in the comment period on the draft
version of this statement against adopting the
underground mining only alternative include the
following:
1 . It would retard the mining of high quality,
low-cost coal.
2. It fails to give weight to improvement in
surface mining reclamation techniques
required by SMCRA.
3. Lack of new leasing for surface mining
may adversely affect ongoing mines that
run out of reserves causing severe social
disruptions.
4. The adverse social effects from increased
population required to operate an under-
ground mine exceed the harmful environ-
mental effects from surface mining.
These are all valid points which were raised in
the original discussion. The decision whether to
adopt a policy of this kind calls for a weighing of
these problems and benefits. The preferred alterna-
tive does not call for adoption of this policy.
The support for adoption of this policy in the
past came mostly from those who believe western
surface-mined lands cannot be adequately re-
claimed. This point should be significantly allayed
by the reclamation provisions in SMCRA.
5.43 End Use Considerations
Inclusion of limitations in new Federal leases
that constrain the end uses of coal produced from
those leases was another issue addressed in the
coal policy review. Four subalternatives were
evaluated:
• End-use considerations should be exercised
during the leasing process to satisfy envi-
ronmental goals and achieve energy policy
objectives.
• End-use considerations should be allowed
to enter the leasing process through special
leasing opportunities afforded other depart-
ments and agencies.
• End-use considerations should not be part
of a coal management program except as
mandated by the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1976 for "public
bodies".
• End-use considerations should not be im-
plemented, pending an opinion by the
Office of the Solicitor on limits of the
Secretary's authority.
The principal use of coal is electric power genera-
tion. The environmental impacts associated with
coal mining and power generation vary greatly,
depending on how and where the coal is con-
sumed. The major categories are: mine-mouth
power generation (at or near the mine), export
(outside the mine area, but inside the United
States), and foreign export (coal sent to another
country). Consumption of coal at or near the mine
site in the West tends to increase certain adverse
impacts of coal development. Coal consumption
requires large amounts of water, a resource which
is already scarce in most of the West, particularly
in the Colorado River Basin and in the Powder
River Basin. Air quality can also be adversely
5-179
REGIONAL IMPACTS
affected. Also, the construction of power plants
causes large numbers of workers to migrate
temporarily to rural areas, which may lead to
boom-town economic and social problems. In
some instances, coal that is exported from a state
may be used to replace mine mouth coal in the
destination area causing loss of employment and
tax revenue there.
The Department has not historically regulated
the way coal from Federal coal leases is consumed
(except for coal for railroad purposes under
Section 2(c) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920,
(30 U.S.C. 202), and coal for municipalities under
Section 8 of that Act (30 U.S.C. 208)) but Section
2 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of
1 976, (30U.S.C.20 1(a)), now requires it to do so for
"public bodies". The Solicitor is determining
whether the Department has legal authority to
regulate end-use for purposes other than use by
municipalities, public bodies, and railroads.
The Department of the Interior is not the only
agency which might have a role in deciding how
coal is to be used. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and state public service commissions
or siting agencies exercise considerable authority
over the location of new power plants. The
Interstate Commerce Commission's approval is
also necessary for rail lines and rates. The
Interstate Commerce Commission intends to pre-
pare an environmental impact statement in con-
nection with Ex Parte 347, an investigation into
western coal rail rates. The environmental impact
statement will identify, examine and analyze the
environmental consequences resulting from the use
of western coal or the substitution of other fuels as
well as the impacts associated with use of alterna-
tive kinds of transportation. Also, Section 125 of
the Clean Air Act establishes a process whereby
utilities can be barred from using other than local
coal. Proceedings to invoke this clause have begun
in Ohio and in Illinois.
Assuming that new leasing takes place, virtual-
ly every aspect of the environment could be
affected by the first subalternative (application of
end-use stipulations in leases).
The subalternative of controlling end-uses
through lease terms would not, however, necessari-
ly lead to a single policy objective. The following
sometimes mutually exclusive or conflicting con-
trols could either be adopted as a general rule, or
be applied in particular instances, possibly at the
request of a state governor. To prevent replace-
ment of eastern and mid-western coal by western
coal, a lease stipulation could prohibit a company
from shipping the coal more than a specified
distance or from selling it to be burned in certain
states. If other western coal were not available to
substitute for the use-restricted coal, this subalter-
native would lower western production and reduce
environmental impacts in the western regions.
Most likely to be affected by this subalternative
are the Powder River and Green River-Hams Fork
Coal Regions, which are the principal western
sources of export coal to eastern and midwestern
markets. Lesser effects would occur in the Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Region which now
supplies some coal to plants in states such as Ohio
and Indiana and in the San Juan River Coal
Region which supplies coal to Texas. As the high
moisture content of the lignite reserves of the Fort
Union Coal Region limits that coal's usefulness for
export, that region would be relatively unaffected.
This subalternative could have impacts in the
eastern and midwestern regions if it causes
production increases in those regions. Employment
and environmental impacts would increase. Final-
ly, it could also cause a shift in how western coal is
transported to other markets. The subalternative
only involves shipment of the coal. It could cause
companies to mine and burn the coal in the West
and transmit the power to eastern and midwestern
markets. Because of the energy loss in power
transmission, more coal production would be
needed to produce the same amount of electricity
to consumers than would be needed if the coal
were shipped by rail. The subalternative might also
create new markets for coal gasification and
liquefaction.
To minimize use of water, reduce coal-related
population increases, and protect air quality in the
producing regions, a lease stipulation could pro-
hibit the consumption of the coal from a Federal
lease in, for example, the state where it is mined,
unless a specified percentage of the power would
be used by customers in that state. Again,
assuming that this subalternative is effective and
that it changes the locus of power production
facilities, adoption of this stipulation would retain
water for agriculture, grazing, wildlife, and other
competing industrial uses to a larger extent than
would the absence of any end-use controls. It
would also hold down population increases in
5-180
REGIONAL IMPACTS
areas with small baseline populations, and would
relieve concomitant adverse social and economic
impacts, including those on housing, law enforce-
ment, schools, sewage treatment, and the like.
If the lease stipulation applies to coal shipped
to the West, as well as to the East, it could affect
rather severely power production plans in Wash-
ington, Oregon, and, to some extent, California,
since only western coal is a reasonable, cost-
effective source of coal supply for these states.
The subalternative would also shift pollution
and water use problems associated with coal
conversion closer to areas where electricity would
be used, and would require more costly long
distance transportation. On the other hand, it
would reduce the adverse environmental impacts
which result from extensive power transmission
lines through sparsely populated areas. It trades
savings of social impacts, water use, and loss of
power from transmission lines for impacts associ-
ated with rail transportation.
It is difficult to forecast with any reasonable
precision how significantly the Department could
affect utility plans to site power plants on the basis
of stipulations in new leases. Depending on a
variety of other factors, the actual change in power
production patterns could be insignificant. The
Department's ability to carry out these policies
independently of other agencies varies from region
to region. It is the highest in the Uinta-Southwest-
ern Utah Coal Region because of very high
Federal ownership of the coal resource and the
land over which powerlines must be located (to
remedy the lack of an adequate existing rail
transportation and power transmission infrastruc-
ture). To a similar but lesser degree, the same
conditions prevail in the San Juan River Coal
Region. The Department has less control through
this kind of stipulation in the Fort Union, Powder
River, Green River-Hams Fork and Denver-Raton
Mesa Coal Regions because the Federal share of
both the coal and surface resources is less.
The Department could also decide to combine
the previously discussed lease stipulations, and
prohibit both long distance rail transportation and
mine-mouth power generation for out-of-state
consumption. The combined alternative would be
the most restrictive approach possible and, if
applied to all new Federal leases, would greatly
limit new leasing.
Cooperative efforts to optimize power plant
siting decisions offer a less direct, but potentially
an equally effective way to deal with power plant
siting problems. For example, Utah is rich in
relatively high Btu, low sulphur underground coal
that can often be mined with a comparatively
small amount of environmental disturbance. It is
equally rich in recreational resources, including a
variety of national parks and wilderness areas.
Utah is receptive to industrial development and
employment opportunities, if they can occur
without undue adverse environmental changes.
How to transport and burn this highly desirable
coal resource without destroying the natural
features of the State is a highly complex problem.
The Department of the Interior and the State of
Utah have been closely cooperating to find
appropriate sites for plants that will minimize
employment, air, and water problems. A decision
not to adopt an end-use stipulation is not,
therefore, a commitment to unrestricted, deleteri-
ous coal development. Formal and informal
cooperative efforts can accomplish many of the
same results.
To encourage development of new technology,
either for DOE projects under Section 908 of the
DOE Act, or for privately financed projects, a
lease stipulation could require the coal in the lease
to be developed by a particular mining method
(such as in-situ gasification) to protect lands that
offer high potential for a new technology.
Although the Department has not made a
detailed investigation of lands potentially suitable
for new technologies, there may be lands, because
of economic or environmental conditions, that can
be mined not only by conventional methods, but
also by new mining techniques including in-situ
gasification or hydraulic mining of steeply pitched
coal s'ams. Unless a lease stipulation requires a
particular form of development, the opportunity to
use such techniques could be lost. Opportunities
for use of this stipulation are, like many of the
technologies it may foster, largely speculative.
Controlling end-use as a consistent policy
would cause fundamental changes in how the
Department leases coal. The Department does not
now "package" its coal leases for any particular
buyer or purpose. It offers the coal, and whoever is
the high bidder receives the lease. Consider a lease
sale for a tract in Wyoming, for example. One
bidder may want to mine the coal to sell it for
5-133.
REGIONAL IMPACTS
power generation in the same state. Another
bidder may prefer to export the coal to Texas.
Other bidders may have buyers in Minnesota and
Illinois. As it is often difficult for a mining
company to sell coal before it has the right to
develop it, still other bidders may not have any
customer under contract, but will want to obtain
reserves to begin negotiations for customers. As a
result of this, under the current policy, the
Department's main role is to examine the impacts
of coal development at or near the mine site and,
for analytical purposes only, to hypothesize where
and how the coal might be consumed. This
market-oriented system is compatible with the
competitive bidding aspects of the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. A change in
this system to accomodate end-use requirements
might have significant effects on competition by
limiting the numbers of bidders in a sale. This
could cause changes in energy costs to consumers.
In the extreme case, under an end-use control
policy, the Department would match a particular
parcel of land with a particular project. The
moving force for coal lease sales would be the
company that would use the coal, not the company
that would mine it. The Department would
attempt to assist the user company to put together
all the factors — obtaining a source of water,
gaining access rights, acquiring of surface owner
consent, ensuring availability of transportation —
necessary to bid for and to develop a lease. This
would, of course, eliminate much of the uncertain-
ty which exists in a competitive bidding system; it
would allow the Department to be confident that
the coal it leases would be developed, and that the
environmental effects of the entire coal develop-
ment cycle would be scrutinized. It would also
require the Department to acquire planning capa-
bility on a scale far in excess of that which it
presently possesses. Substitution of Federal au-
thority and decision-making for choices and plans
now made by industry and by State and local
governments would be a substantial change in
traditional Federal responsibility. The conse-
quences of such an increased Federal role would
likely be more significant to political and economic
relationships in our society, than to the environ-
mental values and standards which are within the
scope of this statement.
Some comments raised during the comment
period on the draft version of this statement
concurred with the Department's evaluation that
adopting this policy would be a departure from
past practice. Arguments against adopting an end-
use alternative suggested that end-use controls
would increase administrative costs and lower
competition for coal, and that increased control
would not have more desirable results. The
administrative cost point is almost certainly cor-
rect. The assertions that competition would decline
raising the cost of coal to consumers is clear in
most, but not all, situations. Some of the end-use
alternatives (such as restricting where coal could
be burned or how far it could be transported)
would be expected to raise fuel costs to some
degree, if the restrictions affected distribution to
points of consumption that were economic and if
the remaining coal available to meet that demand
was limited. Some end-use alternatives could have
the reverse effect. One comment suggested that the
current system raised coal prices to the consumer
where (1) a single company was likely to be able to
economically use coal from a particular area and
(2) there was a lack of competing coal. For
example, assume a situation where coal could be
supplied to Utility X from area A for 10 dollars a
ton but from all other areas for 15 dollars a ton.
Under the current leasing system a utility might
expect to pay just under 15 dollars for coal from
area A. The comment suggested that if the
Department leased the coal from area A and
specified that Utility X would have a right of first
refusal to purchase the coal from the lessee, the
price that the utility could obtain might be
significantly lower.
In weighing the advantages of this policy, it
must be remembered that the same kinds of
stresses on social, economic, and government
systems that occur in the West, and that might be
alleviated by end-use controls, also take place in
the East. Prior to adopting a general end-use policy
of exercising end-use control in a specific case, the
Secretary would have to weigh competing values
such as this. Finally, we note that the Department
cannot unilaterally decide power plant location.
The Congress has given the Department the duty
to respond to applications to use particular BLM-
administered lands for power plants. If the plants
do not meet the standards set by the Congress, or
the regulations adopted by the Department, the
plant cannot be located on BLM lands. A
company is always free to seek to locate its plant
REGIONAL IMPACTS
on non-Federal lands. As previously noted in the
text above, the Department lacks direct control
over this issue. Private landowners, state regulatory
agencies, and other groups must continue to make
these decisions.
5.4.4. Concentration of Federal Leases
In the past, the Department has made little, if
any, effort to examine current production patterns
prior to leasing, even though decisions about the
distribution of production within a region can.
influence overall effects almost as much as deci-
sions on quantities of production. Similarly, no
state or region has had an effective government
planning organization that has long-range plans to
optimize location of new mines, although some
states have recently passed siting laws for mining
activities on private lands. Although coal compa-
nies have obtained coal development rights,
including Federal leases in a wide variety of areas
throughout the West, primarily because of eco-
nomic considerations (including those related to
coal resource quality and transportation availabili-
ty), western coal development has tended to
concentrate in a few areas. Development is now
concentrated in the Colstrip and Decker areas in
Montana, in the Gillette to Douglas corridor in
eastern Wyoming, in south central and southwest
Wyoming, in parts of Emery and Carbon Counties
in Utah, near Farmington in New Mexico, and
near Craig and Delta in Colorado.
In addition, because of the new requirements
of Federal laws, the Department must have a
reasonably high degree of data collected, rehabili-
tation considered, and land-use planning done
before it can lease. One consequence of the
existing development pattern is that the needed
information tends to be most complete and
accurate in areas where development has taken
place in the past. The Department is better
prepared to lease in those areas, without requiring
new data to be gathered and analyzed.
Another set of subalternatives concerns the
limitation of new leasing to areas already produc-
ing coal. Specific subalternatives which could
achieve such concentration include:
• Adopt a preference prior to planning that
(1) new leases be issued only near existing
production (concentration), or (2) new
leases be issued in areas which would not
have such concentration (dispersal)
• Adopt no preference but take these factors
into consideration in the tract selection
process.
The principal benefits that could occur in
terms of the major areas of environmental consid-
eration are associated with the socioeconomic
aspects of a particular area, rather than the
physical or biological aspects. Concentrated devel-
opment could allow for centralization of requisite
planning efforts within a single county or small
number of counties in a region. This could in turn
allow for uniformity in regional planning that
would not necessarily occur with random disper-
sion of development. Planning efforts could be
directed toward a new community or the expan-
sion of an existing community, which would be the
focal point of support for the concentrated devel-
opment. Housing and community services would
be centralized and could potentially benefit from
the economies of scale of a single larger communi-
ty, as opposed to a scattering of smaller communi-
ties. Services such as schools, police and fire
protection, and waste handling could potentially
be provided at a greater level of efficiency and
effectiveness through centralization of efforts.
Concentration can also reduce costs for agencies
which enforce environmental standards on leases,
and costs for monitoring compliance with air
quality standards. Beyond certain levels, however,
the effects of concentration could bring significant
disadvantages to a community as discussed in
Sections 5.3.4 and 6.3.1 of this statement.
Development in existing areas will be acceler-
ated if new leasing is needed and current nonpro-
ducing areas are not available for development.
Concentrating leasing could eliminate the need for,
and perhaps the economic viability of, new
transportation systems. Assuming the policy is
coupled with new leasing of any magnitude, it
could worsen problems in some areas which have
been experiencing recent rapid development. In
other areas, concentrated development could take
advantage of, and even provide economic rein-
forcement to, those public and private investments
that have been made to accomodate demands
caused by initial coal developments.
The effects of development concentration on
the physical and biological facets of environmental
resources would depend on specific circumstances.
The amount of land disturbed within a region as a
result of adopting the concentrated development
5-183
REGIONAL IMPACTS
subalternative would generally be less because
transportation and other supporting or ancillary
facilities would tend to be fewer. Rail lines, haul
roads, power lines, borrow pits, and other facilities
could serve multiple mines. Concentrated develop-
ment, however, could produce levels of impacts
which could seriously affect air or water quality or
could add significantly to the water demand within
a local area. The levels of air pollutants associated
with concentrated development could lead to the
violation of air quality standards within a region.
This has been the case in the Colstrip area of
Montana, where concentrated development has
produced particulate levels that exceed national
primary air quality standards. Similarly, potential
water pollutants would more likely be directed
toward a single water system with concentrated
development, thereby increasing the probability of
producing significant adverse impacts on water
quality, or requiring significant treatment costs.
The increase in water demand associated with such
development could potentially exceed the develop-
ment area's supply, or could preempt development
associated with other water uses within the area
due to the water requirements of concentrated coal
development. The potential for effects on biologi-
cal resources is basically dependent on habitat
disturbance, and the amount or area of such
disturbance would be approximately the same with
concentrated development as with dispersed devel-
opment. In areas lacking an established rail
transportation network, a scattered development
policy may actually preclude development of coal
resources for other than mine-mouth conversion.
Major rail extensions typically cost in excess of $1
million a mile to build [63]. Revenues generated
from transporting coal from a single, moderately-
sized mine may be insufficient to amortize the
extensive cost of a major rail extension. Should the
extension be financed by a coal company rather
than a rail common carrier, the added expense
may make the coal uneconomical to a distant
electric utility or other consumer.
The advantages and disadvantages of this
subalternative are somewhat subjective. While the
issue has been extensively discussed outside the
Department, its resolution is unclear. The Secre-
tary preferred assessing the social and environmen-
tal effects of locating a mine when selecting each
tract for a lease sale, without establishing a
locational policy which automatically favors con-
centration or dispersal. This assessment would be
made in the tract-ranking process in the preferred
program.
5.4.5 Due Diligence
Diligent development and continuous opera-
tion regulations discourage companies from failing
to develop Federal coal leases, minimize inefficien-
cy and wasted effort in planning for coal leasing
and production, and help ensure that the govern-
ment will receive fair market value for leases. In
the past, the Department included in leases
minimal diligence and continuous operations
requirements, but did not exercise stringent en-
forcement. Due to this policy, economic and other
conditions affecting western coal development
have resulted in the vast majority of Federal coal
leases not producing any coal until very recently.
The Congress, in the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1976, strongly affirmed that
diligence is to be a major factor in any Federal
coal management program by mandating the strict
application of diligence standards.
In May 1976, the Department adopted new
diligent development and continuous operation
regulations which require all existing leases to
produce at least 2-1/2 percent of the lease reserves
by 1986 (with an extension possible for an
additional five years under limited circumstances).
New leases are required to produce 1 percent of
the deposits within 10 years after lease issuance. By
statute, a company that receives a new lease must
also submit a mining plan within three years from
lease issuance. Since those regulations were enact-
ed, there has been significant movement toward
activity on these leases (see Section 2.7, which
describes likely production from existing leases).
The Department considered several due dili-
gence subalternatives; however, it no longer has
the authority to revise diligent development and
continuous operation regulations. The Congress
transferred that authority to the Department of
Energy in the Department of Energy Organization
Act.
The specific due diligence subalternatives
considered by the Department include:
• Continue existing standard of producing
one percent of reserves by the end of the
first 10 years, a minimum of one percent
each year thereafter, and total exhaustion
5-134
REGIONAL IMPACTS
of all reserves in 40 years after a mine plan
is approved.
• Raise or lower initial 10 year production
period.
• Raise or lower total 40 year production
time.
Major coal mines in the West require at least
three years after lease issuance to be in production
under the best of circumstances; five to seven
years is not unusual. Any effort to reduce diligence
below these time frames would create management
problems which could frustrate a situation totally
unrelated to the purpose of diligence. In addition,
coal companies, like other mining companies, have
some need to maintain an "inventory" of uncom-
mitted coal reserves. This inventory serves as
protection against rising resource costs and gives
the companies assurance that they have the
resources to enter markets as they develop. To
some extent, the long-term coal market, particular-
ly in times of high demand, dictates that a supplier
have assured reserves before a customer will
commit itself to a binding contract.
The effect of different diligence standards
could make a short period for initial development
an impediment to effective planning and commu-
nity capital construction. A significant shortening
of the initial diligence period (say to five years)
would probably make it very difficult for many
operations to commence. Companies may only
have time to do initial site preparation before the
lease would terminate. This would cause the
companies to layoff the initial work force; and
preparation for development, such as new roads,
housing, school construction, sewage facilities, etc.,
would be wasted. If the time period were too short,
the risk of development might be so great as to
discourage otherwise reasonable development.
A significant lengthening of the time for initial
production (say to 20 years) would ensure that all
planned production would have adequate time to
take place in an orderly fashion. If all production
tended to be initiated toward the end of this
extended period, it could also facilitate community
planning by increasing the time from lease is-
suance to land disturbance. In this longer time
period, more capital construction could take place,
workers could be trained, and similar pre-mining
activity could commence. There is no guarantee,
however, that this would actually happen, and, in
fact, all production might still occur within 10
years of lease issuance. Expanding the period
would also give companies more time to develop
complex or new projects. It has been suggested for
example, that a 10 year initial production period is
insufficient for the development of a lease by a
synthetic fuels firm. Any extension of the 10 year
period for new leases would require legislation.
A significant increase in the continuous opera-
tion rates (i.e., to require total extraction in 25
years) would have two tendencies: either the
production rate from each lease would tend to be
increased, thereby lowering the total number of
producing leases and concentrating the effects of
development in a smaller area (i.e., a 100 million
ton deposit would be mined at a four million ton
per year rate instead of a 2.5 million ton per year
rate); or the total number of mines would remain
the same, but the period of mining would be
shortened by 15 years. The Department can
control which alternative results through its tract
selection policies. In the preceding example, if the
Department wished to see accelerated develop-
ment on a single lease, it would lease to set up a
logical mining unit of 100 million tons; for a lower
rate of development, it would lease to set up a
logical mining unit of 62.5 million tons. If the 40-
year period were reduced to a 25- year period of
coal development, this would reduce the number
of years for which a commitment to development
was made. With this more limited commitment,
the Department could reevaluate whether, at an
earlier time, it wished to continue the pattern of
development. It would give the Department great-
er ability to respond to changes in demand for
Federal coal. The impacts of this earlier revalua-
tion (25 years rather than 40 years after lease
issuance) are entirely speculative at this time.
Policies of periodic leasing tend to diminish any
benefits. If the subalternative were carried out to
change the yearly development rate, environmen-
tal impacts on a particular parcel of land would be
concentrated. More acres would be disturbed on
the leasehold in any particular year. This might
increase problems for effective wildlife manage-
ment, dust control, rehabilitation, erosion, and
sediment loading in streams. On the other hand if
few leases were needed, the adverse effects of
dispersed leasing might be lessened.
The effects of these possible changes in the
diligence policy will be most clearly felt in the coal
regions most likely to require more leasing:
5-18.5
REGIONAL IMPACTS
Powder River, Green River-Hams Fork, and San
Juan River.
5.4.6 Land Ownership Patterns
Land ownership patterns are very complicated
in both the West and the East. In the West, vast
amounts of land are owned by private, Federal,
state and Indian interests. Over six million acres
are privately owned, with the mineral estate
Federally-owned. Table 2-5 summarizes ownership
figures in the KRCRAs.
Because of railroad grants, large amounts of
land, including land which is valuable for coal, is
held in checkerboard patterns, with alternate
sections owned by the United States and private
owners. This checkerboard pattern is most preva-
lent in the Fort Union and Green River-Hams
Fork Coal Regions and in the northern portion of
the Powder River Coal Region. Small checker-
board areas also exist in the San Juan River Coal
Region. It has been estimated that over 300,000
acres of the privately owned portion of the
checkerboarded lands have been committed for
coal development.
In a very large number of townships in the
West, states own sections 16 and 36. The United
States transferred this land under the school lands
grant programs established in the Statehood Acts.
Both the checkerboard patterns and the school
land patterns are in 640-acre units. Coal in these
areas, however, can rarely be mined in contiguous
areas of less than 2,000 acres. Consequently, areas
with these ownership patterns cannot be mined
efficiently, if at all, without approval from more
than one entity.
The Congress, in Section 714 of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, has
given farmers and ranchers who own land situated
over Federally-owned coal deposits a veto power
over leasing for surface mining if they meet certain
qualifications and have not previously consented
to surface mining (see Sections 1.3 and 3.2.5.1).
Split-estate land owned by persons who do not
meet the standards in Section 714 may be leased
for surface mining; and all split-estate land may be
leased for underground mining without the surface
owner's consent, if a bond is posted to cover the
cost of damages to crops and improvements,
among other things, in accordance with the law
under which the United States sold the surface
estate (see Section 3.2.5.1).
The various owners of tracts in checkerboard
areas have not only direct but also indirect, veto
power over coal development by their ability to
affect access, water rights and other elements
needed to develop a coal lease. The control or
ownership of adjacent, privately owned properties
is also important because it often gives the
controlling company some advantage in the
competitive coal lease sale. The advantage stems
from better resource knowledge, coupled with the
certainty of cooperation from the surface owner.
This problem is minimized where the mineral
owner is willing to share resource information with
others, or engage in joint ventures with the
development of Federal lands.
Leasing decisions based on surface ownership
patterns could produce significant variations in
environmental impacts. Specific subalternatives
considered in this context include:
• Do not take surface ownership into consid-
eration when leasing, except as required by
the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act.
• Do not lease unless the Federal Govern-
ment owns both the coal and the surface
estate.
• Do not lease in "checkerboard" areas.
The subalternative of not leasing unless the
Federal government owns both the coal and the
surface estate (an alternative which was considered
during the development of SMCRA) would not be
likely to change significantly development patterns
in either the Uinta-Southwestern Utah or San Juan
River Coal Regions, since approximately 85
percent of all coal in KRCRAs in those regions is
overlain by Federal surface. The subalternative has
the potential for significant change in the Green
River-Hams Fork Coal Region since over 60
percent of the coal there is privately owned. The
subalternative would have its greatest effect in the
Fort Union Coal Region, where 99.8 percent of all
Federally-owned acreage in North Dakota and 87
percent in Montana is overlain by private surface.
The Powder River Coal Region would be similarly
restricted.
If new coal leasing is needed to meet demand
in these regions with significant split estate land
patterns, this subalternative could limit the ability
of the government to meet this need. The Depart-
ment specifically studied this question in two
areas. (It should be emphasized that these studies
J-lOu
REGIONAL IMPACTS
did not measure the impact of providing surface
owner consent to that limited number of ranchers
and farmers protected under Section 714 of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, but
dealt instead with the much broader question of
foregoing leasing under all non-Federal surface.)
For southern Campbell County, Wyoming, this
subalternative would eliminate from consideration
for leasing over 1 1 billion tons of Federally-owned
coal, leaving only 2.6 billion tons available (Figure
5-7). These 2.6 billion tons could be further
reduced by the application of unsuitability criteria
or other environmental restrictions. Figure 5-7
indicates that the maximum yearly production
rate, assuming a 40 year mine life and annual
production of five million tons a year, from this
reserve would be 51 million tons per year. To the
extent this is not sufficient to meet the demand,
production above that level would either be
transferred to existing Federal leases or to private
lands, either within or outside the region. Since the
coal in this area has the thickest seams in the
United States, and a well-developed transportation
network, the net effect of this policy could be to
increase the total acres of land disturbed by
mining, and to create pressure for construction of
new coal transportation networks elsewhere in the
West.
The Department also estimated that this
subalternative could constrain development in the
Decker-Birney Planning Unit in Montana in the
northern part of the Powder River Coal Region.
Again, as in the Campbell County, Wyoming, area,
the Decker-Birney Unit has vast coal reserves, and,
in parts, a developed rail system. It is the site of
ongoing coal development. As part of the Depart-
ment's task force on developing land unsuitability
critera, a field test was done in the Decker-Birney
Unit to determine how much coal would be
available for leasing. Figures 5-8 and 5-9 present
estimates of the amount of Federally-owned
strippable coal deposits in the Decker-Birney
Planning Unit. Lands potentially available for
lease were identified after applying the most
stringent of the alternative suitability standards
(including some which the Department later
modified to be less stringent) in two ways: (1)
without regard to surface ownership and (2)
excluding all coal underlying non-Federal surface.
Under the first assumption, eight deposits of 400
million tons or more, two deposits of 150 to 400
million tons, and nine deposits of 20 to 150 million
tons were identified as potentially available for
leasing. Under the second assumption, only one
deposit of 400 million tons, none from 150 to 400
million tons, and eight from 20 to 150 million tons
remained. As in the Campbell County, Wyoming,
example, the amount of land available for coal
leasing would be significantly reduced under this
subalternative.
The work done in these two areas appears to be
transferable to areas with similar surface owner-
ship characteristics. The studies did not attempt to
make any specific findings as to whether the
overall impacts of developing the Federal surface
versus private surface lands were significantly
different in these areas.
The exact effect of shifting leasing to land
where both the coal and the surface estate are
Federally-owned, compared to land with Federal
coal and private surface, or private surface and
private coal, is unclear at a general level such as
this. Totally private surface and mineral estates,
particularly in Wyoming and Montana, tend to
concentrate in river and stream valleys and along
major highways as compared to estates having
whole or partial Federal interests. Similarly private
surface estates overlying Federal coal tend to be in
these same areas as compared to Federal surface.
Except for areas such as southern Campbell
County, Wyoming, Federal surface lands and
Federal coal would then tend to be in areas further
from existing transportation, in rougher topogra-
phy, less intensively used, not in alluvial valleys or
flood plains, and the like. Private lands, including
railroad lands, also tend to be closer to towns and
roads. Development in all Federal areas would
tend to increase the need for new infrastructures.
More detailed information on these issues is
available in several recent coal studies, including
those listed in Table 1-1, and the Northern Great
Plains Resource Program.
In the long run, this subalternative would also
tend to distribute coal development more exten-
sively in areas where the land and coal are entirely
Federally owned. The social and economic conse-
quences of a subalternative that prohibits leasing
under non-Federal surface would be substantial.
Such a subalternative would not give significant
additional protection to those ranchers and farm-
ers whose property rights are already safeguarded
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
187
RESERVES CLASSED BY
SURFACE OWNERSHIP STATUS: SOUTHERN CAMPBELL COUNTY
(Unleased Federal Coal)
13.8 Billion Tons Total
MAXIMUM ANNUAL PRODUCTION POTENTIAL: CONTIGUOUS BLOCKS
OF 100 MILLION TONS OR MORE
150"
100-
50'
(Forty-Year Mine Life)
1A5
Federal
Federal
Coal -
Private
Surface
Coal -
Federal
Surface
r
IGU
RE
5-7
51
Federal
Coal -
Coal Company
Surface
RESERVES CLASSED BY SURFACE OWNERSHIP STATUS AND
MAXIMUM ANNUAL PRODUCTION POTENTIAL
5-is.:
I
oo
«3
miles
A""t""fti
\
s
FIGURE 5-8
FEDERAL STRIPPABLE COAL DEPOSITS: DECKER BIRNEY PLANNING UNIT
^ ALL TESTED SUITABILITY CRITERIA INCLUDING SURFACE OWNERSHIP
o
FIGURE 5-9
FEDERAL STRIPPABLE COAL DEPOSITS: DECKER BIRNEY PLANNING UNIT
ALL TESTED SUITABILITY CRITERIA EXCEPT SURFACE OWNERSHIP
REGIONAL IMPACTS
tion Act, and would eliminate the prospect of
cooperation by any non-Federal landowners,
including those protected under that Act, and all
others who are willing to assist in the development
of Federal coal under their lands. In some areas,
coal production would not be possible, and those
residents who anticipate increased employment
opportunities and the other economic changes
associated with coal development would not
experience such changes.
In other areas, mining on Federal surface
could cause social and economic changes that
would be experienced by all residents, and the ban
on mining of private surface would simply deny
some landowners the opportunity to participate in
personal economic benefits from Federal coal
development in their area.
A less extreme version of this policy - - to allow
leasing if the surface were owned by a coal
company or a party who did not farm or manage
the land for grazing - - would nearly double the
southern Campbell County, Wyoming lands avail-
able for leasing. This dramatic increase in land
availability might not occur in other areas of
significant private ownership, since coal companies
and investors have long recognized Campbell
County as a prime coal area. The Department does
not have accurate figures at this time for other
areas. Purchases and other ways to control the
surface are likely to be more prevalent in Campbell
County than in other parts of the West.
The subalternative of not leasing in checker-
board areas presents similar problems. The princi-
pal effect of this subalternative would be to
forestall development of the coal lands in both the
Federal and non-Federal portions of the checker-
board areas where the Federal coal is now
unleased. Department estimates indicate that 42
percent of the total coal reserves (Federal and non-
Federal) in the Fort Union Coal Region, 16
percent in the Powder River Coal Region, and 27
percent in the Green River-Hams Fork Coal
Region would likely be incapable of development
without Federal leasing. Other regions have few or
no checkerboard areas and would not be changed
by this subalternative. The subalternative would
eliminate mining in checkerboard areas since
relatively little Federal coal has been leased in
those areas. Some coal in checkerboard areas may
be developed in conjunction with state lands but,
in general, mining of coal in the checkerboard
areas would be greatly limited. With the exception
of the Fort Union Coal Region and possibly in the
Wyoming portion of the Green River-Hams Fork
Coal Region, there is probably sufficient coal in
non-checkerboard areas to meet foreseeable coal
needs from Federal reserves and non-checker-
board private reserves.
The environmental effects of this subalterna-
tive are difficult to estimate. The checkerboard
areas tend to have better transportation access to
rail lines than non-checkerboard areas. The effect
of this subalternative may be increased environ-
mental disturbance to build new transportation
facilities. Similarly, vegetation distribution and
wildlife habitats may vary from checkerboard
areas to non-checkerboard areas. The overall
environmental impact on these lands as compared
to Federal surface or other private surface is not
clear. Particularly at low leasing levels, it is likely
that equally attractive tracts could be found in
both types of land-ownership areas.
The adoption of this subalternative would also
have competitive implications. The Justice Depart-
ment has recommended that the Department of
the Interior proceed to ensure that the railroads'
control of these lands will not have anticompetitive
effects. Further discussion of this aspect of the
land ownership subalternative may be found in the
May 1978 Annual Report of the Justice Depart-
ment.
Failure to adopt either of the subalternatives
on a program-wide basis would not foreclose the
Department from adopting them on either a
regional or lease-by-lease basis. Land ownership
could, and would in the preferred program, be a
factor in tract ranking. Both the land use planning
process and the tract delineation and ranking
process in the preferred program will give the
Department the opportunity to compare the
environmental impacts of developing lands with
different surface owners.
5.4.7 Maximum Economic Recovery.
Prior to the enactment of the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, the Department
did not have either a statutory mandate or
extensive formal guidelines or regulations to assure
that coal reserves would not be lost as part of a
mining operation, particularly for surface mining
operations. The Geological Survey has enforced
standard principles of resource conservation as
5-191
REGIONAL IMPACTS
part of its oversight responsibilities on Federal coal
leases. The Congress, in the 1976 Act, added two
specific requirements to improve coal resource
recovery. First, prior to issuance of a lease, the
Secretary is directed to consider and compare
which method or methods of mining will result in
the "maximum economic recovery of the coal in
the proposed lease tract". This determination is
not binding upon the Secretary or the lessee.
Second, the Secretary is prohibited from approving
a mining plan which does not achieve the maxi-
mum economic recovery of the coal in the leased
tract. Congress' goals in enacting this provision
were to prevent waste of coal resources and to
minimize environmental damage from mining by
assuring that all economically recoverable coal
would be mined so that a second mining operation
at some later date would not be necessary. Three
subalternatives concerning Maximum Economic
Recovery (MER) have been considered.
• MER is evaluated seam-by-seam. (The
lessee must mine and recover coal from
each profitable seam.)
• MER is evaluated on all seams. (The lessee
must mine and recover coal from all seams
which are collectively profitable excluding
seams technically or environmentally unre-
coverable.)
• MER is limited to a decision only on what
mining method or methods are to be used,
and the decision on which seams are to be
mined and recovered is one based on sound
resource conservation principles.
The subalternative the Department chooses
will affect recovery in both surface and under-
ground mines. In surface mining, it could affect the
stripping ratio to which a company will have to
mine; companies may be required to recover coal
under greater depths of overburden. Companies
may also have to mine deeper seams than would
otherwise be done in surface mines. In under-
ground mines, it may affect the number of seams
to be mined, the equipment to be used, the depth
of mining, and the amount of coal in each seam
that is mined. In all instances, the most likely effect
of a decision to apply a strict MER standard is to
prolong existing mining operations or increase
yearly production rates of those operations, or a
combination of the two. This should, to some
extent, increase the production from already
opened mines and diminish the need to open other
mines.
< The first two subalternatives considered for
MER, which involve the economics of an opera-
tion, impose additional government administrative
costs and inject the government more deeply into
the mining process than was true in the past. The
more stringently the Federal government defines
MER, the less value it will receive for leases
offered by a competitive bonus system since the
increased cost of mining the last, more costly unit
of coal lowers the economic rent to the govern-
ment. Costs to consumers could tend to increase as
lower grade (more costly) coal is recovered.
In addition to potential reductions in the lease
bonus payments by mining companies, there are
several other potential impacts that could result
from strict interpretation of the MER authority.
These impacts include:
• Shifts from Federal coal to non-Federal
coal.
• Increased levels of severance tax revenues.
• Possible reductions in acreage disturbed.
There is the possibility that the rigorous
application of the first two MER subalternatives
would diminish the competitiveness of Federal
coal leases as compared to non-Federal lands. To
the extent that is true, it would reduce production
from Federal lands, and cause production shifts to
state and private lands.
Any shifts from Federal coal lands to non-
Federal coal lands would result in decreased bonus
payments to the Federal Government. As produc-
tion commences, however, there will be increased
levels of severance tax revenues to the state
governments.
Acreage disturbed by mining may be reduced
through a strict interpretation of the MER authori-
ty. This could occur as a result of surface mining
and subsequent deep mining of specific tracts. In
this fashion previously foregone coal resources
would be extracted and less land would be
disturbed per tonnage mined.
The first two MER subalternatives might also
prevent certain lands from being developed for
gasification or other in-situ processes if these
methods were not the method that achieved the
maximum economic recovery of the coal resource.
This would both reduce the potential supply of
natural gas and change the environmental impacts
of the mine site, from those associated with a
5-192
REGIONAL IMPACTS
gasification plant to those associated with other
forms of coal development.
Finally, these subalternatives may cause con-
flicts with other laws. For a particular coal deposit
one portion may be amenable to being economi-
cally mined both underground mining methods
and the other portion by surface mining methods;
the application of MER would require the mine
plan to show the recovery of both of these
economically viable reserves. Over the course of a
long-term coal management program, some of
these joint mining tracts may present situations
where only one type of mining is desirable. This
could arise from a variety of situations including
failure to obtain surface owner consent, land
suitability determinations, hydrologic concerns,
and other problems. If no discretion were available
to exclude undesirable seams, mining of the entire
property might not take place. Although it could
be argued that new legislation is needed, the
Department believes that MER does not apply to
coal which cannot be lawfully mined and, in
addition, that the Department retains the authority
to do separate seam leasing, i.e., issue a lease which
would grant the right to mine only specified coal
seams. This latter authority, implicit in section 714
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act, has been used in several short-term leasing
situations since Congress passed the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act.
5.4.8 Unsuitability Criteria
Until very recently, the Department issued
coal leases for lands without specified standards
for excluding lands from leasing. Local BLM
managers had little incentive to seek out the best
coal lands, or even to avoid the worst lands, and
the tendency was to lease lands without careful
pre-lease consideration of environmental impacts.
In the past 10 to 15 years, and particularly in the
last three years, new laws affecting coal develop-
ment have been enacted including those which
prohibit or greatly limit coal leasing or develop-
ment on some Federal lands.
The Department is now required to take steps
to ensure that unsuitable lands are not mined.
Section 523 of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C 1273, requires the
Secretary to establish a Federal Lands Program to
govern surface and underground coal mining
operations on Federal lands. One duty under that
program is to carry out the Federal lands review
required by Section 522 of SMCRA. Section 522 of
SMCRA requires the Department to conduct a
Federal lands review to assess if certain classes of
Federal lands are unsuitable for all or certain types
of coal mining operations, and to establish a
process by which the public may petition to have
Federal lands designated unsuitable for all or
certain types of coal mining operations. The
Department may continue to lease coal even in
those lands where no Federal lands review has
been done.
In November 1977, a task force composed of
representatives from seven agencies and offices in
the Department of the Interior (the Bureau of
Land Management, the U.S. Geological Survey,
the Office of Surface Mining, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of
Economic Analysis, and the Office of the Assistant
Secretary - Land and Water Resources) and the
Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture
began to formulate draft criteria to designate lands
unsuitable for coal mining. The task force original-
ly considered 44 criteria, but deleted or combined
21 of them. In late May and early June of 1978,
teams drawn from the task force field tested the
remaining draft criteria in four areas in the West.
The task force's final report of the field tests was
filed on September 1 1, 1978 [111].
The criteria drafted by the task force incorpo-
rated the requirements of many laws affecting coal
not just those mandated by SMCRA.
The term "unsuitability" has statutory signifi-
cance only with respect to standards arising under
Section 522(a) of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The legal basis for the
unsuitability criteria which will be described below
is not i niform. Three different classes of sources of
authority are involved, and each authority has
different implications.
Section 522(a) of SMCRA. This section re-
quires mandatory designation of lands as unsuit-
able for surface mining if reclamation is not
technologically and economically feasible and
allows discretionary designation of lands as unsuit-
able for surface mining if operations will:
• Be incompatible with land-use plans;
• Cause significant damage to important
historic, cultural, scientific, and esthetic
values and natural systems in fragile or
historic lands;
5-193
REGIONAL IMPACTS
• Cause a substantial loss or reduction of
long-range productivity of water supply or
food or fiber products in renewable re-
source lands, including aquifers and aquifer
recharge areas; or
• Substantially endanger life and property on
natural hazard lands, including areas sub-
ject to frequent flooding and areas of
unstable geology. Section 522(a) does not
apply to:
• Lands on which surface mining was being
conducted on August 3, 1977.
• Lands for which substantial legal and
financial commitments were made prior to
January 4, 1977.
Section 522(e) ofSMCRA. This section prohib-
its surface coal mining:
• In units in various named Federal land
systems such as the National Park System;
• That will adversely affect any publicly-
owned park or places in the National
Register of Historic Sites;
• Within 100 feet of the right-of-way line of a
public road; and
• Within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling or
public building, school, church, communi-
ty, or institutional building, public park, or
within 100 feet of a cemetery.
Section 522 (e) does not affect:
• Operations that existed on August 3, 1977;
or
• "Valid existing rights".
Statutes other than SMCRA (including the
Endangered Species Act, the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act, the Wilderness Act, the
Bald Eagle Protection Act) also require or author-
ize certain resource protection. Their application
through the unsuitability criteria is discretionary
on the part of the Secretary. Each statute must be
examined to determine how it applies to existing
leases.
Although the Federal Lands Program (includ-
ing the Federal lands review) is exempt from the
requirements of the National Environmental Poli-
cy Act (NEPA) for preparation of an environmen-
tal impact statement, 30 U.S.C. § 1292(d), the
Department has decided to include in this state-
ment an analysis of the environmental impacts of
the unsuitability criteria to give the public and the
Department a better opportunity to evaluate these
criteria before they are finally adopted.
Field tests of the proposed unsuitability criteria
were held in late May and early June 1978 in four
western coal areas to determine what impact on
areas with potential for coal leasing would result
from application of the unsuitability criteria. The
criteria tested in June 1978 are, in some instances
more stringent than the criteria selected for the
preferred program (see Table 3-1 ). The following
section describes the four test areas and the
specific criteria utilized in the evaluation of areas
unsuitable for coal mining.
The four units involved were the Wattis
Planning Unit in Utah, the Decker-Birney Plan-
ning Unit in Montana, and the Campbell and
Converse Planning Units both in Wyoming. The
Wattis Plannning Unit covers about 439 thousand
acres and lies on the eastern flank on the Wahsatch
Plateau in Carbon and Emery Counties, Utah.
Approximately 250 thousand acres of coal lands
were examined in the field test. The Campbell and
Converse Planning Units are in northeastern
Wyoming, encompassing about 2.3 million acres in
Campbell County and 1.4 million acres in that part
of Converse County north of the North Platte
River. The effects of the unsuitability criteria were
examined on about 500 thousand acres of coal
lands, estimated to contain 67 billion tons of
Federal coal resources. The Decker-Birney Plan-
ning Unit lies in Rosebud and Big Horn Counties
in southeastern Montana, just north of the Wyom-
ing border. The area covers about 900 thousand
acres of which slightly more than 250 thousand
acres of coal lands were examined in field testing
of the criteria. The Federal coal lands in the area
examined are estimated to contain about 13 billion
tons of Federal coal resources.
The Decker-Birney and Campbell-Converse
Planning Units lie in the Powder River Coal
Region. The Wattis area is in the Uinta-Southwest-
ern Utah Coal Region.
The various criteria and, in some instances,
alternative criteria which were the subject of the
field tests are set forth in Table 5-90. This Table is
also found in the September 11, 1978, final report
of the Task Force.
Table 5-91 indicates the tonnage of federal
coal, acres of Federal coal lands, and percentages
of both affected by application of the draft criteria
to the field test areas. Based on overlay mapping of
the areas affected by the several criteria, their
cumulative application in the Decker-Birney Plan-
5-194
masfflB«MB«rov ■ ;. , _
TABLE 5-90
DRAFT UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FIELD TESTED IN 1978
CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES
CRITERION I-LEASING EXCLUSIONS
(1) All Federal lands Included in or candidates for Inclusion in
the following land systems or categories are not available
for coal leasing: National System of Trails, National
Wilderness Preservation System, Wild and Scenic Rivers
System, National Recreation Areas, Custer National Forest
(exclude surface mining only) and Federal lands in
Incorporated cities, towns, and villages.
CRITERION 2-RIGHTS-0F-WAY MP EASEMENTS
Federal lands that are within rights-of-way or easements for
residential, commercial, industrial, public purposes and
agricultural crop orudction shall be excluded from coal
leasing. Whenever possible, Federal leases should exclude
areas identified In section 522(e) of SHCRA (lands within
100' outside of ROW of public highway or within 100' of
cemetery, and within 300' of occupied building, school,
church, community or institutional building or public park
or within 300' of an occupied dwelling unless waived by the
owner thereof.)
CRITERION 3-R0ADLESS AREAS - ALTERNATIVE 1
(3) (a)
Federal lands designated as roadless or under review as
candidate roadless areas are unsuitable for surface mining
and shall be excluded from coal leasing until the Congress
determines which portions of the roadless lands will be
Included within the Wilderness System.
CRITERION 3 - ALTERNATIVE 2
H)(b) BLM administered lands designated as roadless and under
review for wilderness values will be excluded from coal
leasing until such time as the wilderness study areas have
been identified. At that time lands within the roadless
areas but outside the wilderness study areas may be con-
sidered for coal leasing. The areas remaining within the
wilderness study areas will be excluded from competitive
coal leasing until the Congress determines which portions
of such lands will be Included within the Wilderness System.
At that time lands outside of the designated wilderness
areas may be considered for leasing on a case-by-case basis
with a. suitable buffer zone around the designated wilderness
areas.
Forest Service administered lands designated as roadless
and under review for wilderness values will be excluded
from coal leasing until such time as the Congress deter-
mines which portions of such lands will be included within
the Wilderness System.
DATA NEEDED
INFORMATION PROCESS
A lease may be issued for underground
coal mining within the Custer National
Forest with the consent of the
Department of Agriculture.
A lease may include such areas if:
(a) it is determined that coal devel-
opment (e.g. underground mining)
will not interfere with the purpose
of the right-of-way or easement, or
(b) the ROW or easement was granted
for raining purposes, or (c) the
ROW or easement was issued for a
purpose for which it Is not being
used, or (d) where the partieB
involved agree to leasing or (e) if
It is impractical to exclude such
areas due to location of coal and
method of mining and such areas can
be protected through use of appro-
priate stipulations .
No exceptions except valid existing
rights will be honored. Where valid
coal PRLAs are within roadless or
wilderness study areas, no leases
will be granted until wilderness
review is completed. For valid PRLAs
option of exchange should be con-
sidered .
SMCRA,
Sec 522(e)
P.L. 95-87
Section 16 of
P.L. 94-377
1. Departmental
Policy
2. Section 522(e)
of P.L. 95-87
SMCRA
Maps of existing Federal
lands within the various
land systems. Haps of
potential additions to
these systems from
appropriate agencies.
BLM Laster Title Plats.
This determination
would be made on a
case-by-case basis
using available plat
data, country road
maps, etc.
1. P.L. 88-577
(1964
Wilderness
Act) 6USC
1133
2. FLPMA, 43USC
1702 and
1782
3. Forest Service
Rare II in
Nov. 19, 1977
F.R.
Maps showing roadless,
wilderness study and
wilderness areas from
BLM, FWS, NFS, and
Park Service .
5-195
TABLE 5-90 (Continued)
DRAFT UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FIELD TESTED IN 1978
CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES
DATA DEEDED OR
INFORMATION PROCESS
CRITERION 3 - ALTERNATIVE 3
(3)(c) BLM administered lands designated as roadless are unsuitable
for mining and shall be excluded from coal leasing.
CRITERION 4-SCENIC AREAS - ALTERNATIVE I
(4) (a) Scenic Federal lands designated by visual resource
management analysis as Class I or II (areas of
outstanding scenic quality and/or high visual sensitivity)
but not currently on the National Register of Natural
Landmarks, shall be excluded from coal leasing.
CRITERION 4 - ALTERNATIVE 2
(4)(b) Scenic Federal lands designated by visual resource
management analysis as Class I (areas of outstanding
scenic quality) but not currently on the National
Register of Natural Landmarks, shall be excluded
from coal leasing.
CRITERION 5-LANDS USED FOR SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
(5) Federal lands being used for scientific studies
involving food and fiber production, natural
resources, or technology demonstrations and
experiments are unsuitable for mining and shall
be excluded from coal leasing.
An exception may be granted if it
can be determined that coal mining
will not diminish or adversely affect
the scenic quality of the designated
area.
P.L. 94-579,
sections 201
and 202.
Departmental
Policy
CRITERION 6-STATE UNSUITABLE LANDS - ALTERNATIVE 1
(6) (a) Under the provisions of Section 522 of the SMCRA where
States have designated non-Federal lands to be unsuit-
able for surface mining and such non-Federal lands are
contiguous to or cornering on Federal lands, a buffer
zone of Federal lands of (1) mile from the boundary of
the designated non-Federal lands shall be unsuitable
for surface coal mining and unavailable for Federal
leasing. In no case should the area of the buffer
zone exceed the area of the State lands designated
as unsuitable.
A coal lease may be issued: (1) with
the concurrence of the principal
scientific user or agency, or (2)
where the mining could be done in
such a way as to not jeopardize the
purpose of the study.
CRITERION 6 - ALTERNATIVE 2
(6)(b) Eliminate this criteria and direct Departmental land
managing agencies to determine buffer zones around State
designated unsuitable lands on a case-by-case basis.
Any exceptions applicable to the
State lands should also be applied
to this Federal buffer zone.
Federal land management agencies
may modify or eliminate buffer
zones as necessary to maintain
consistency with the purpose of
the State designation or States
may petition for changes In buf-
fer zones. States must concur
with changes in Federal buffer
zone.
Leasing may be allowed within
the buffer zones if the coal
would be mined by underground
mining methods and would not
affect the State designated
lands.
1. Departmental
Policy
2. SMCRA
3. FLPMA
P.L. 95-87,
Sec. 522
SMCRA
Departmental
Policy
Class I or II according
to BLM classification
system. The criterion
should also apply to
comparable rankings of
scenic values by other
land managing agencies:
e.g., FS.
Information on such
agreements and the
location of such sites
are maintained by the
surface managing
agencies.
CRITERION 7-HISTORIC LAUDS AND SITES
(7) (a)
_ALTERNATIVE I
Sites on Federal lands which are on or eligible for the
National Registry of Historic Places (historic, archeo-
logical, architectural, and cultural) and an appropriate
buffer zone around the outside boundary of the property
are unsuitable for coal mining and shall be excluded from
leasing when such areas or places are of national signifi-
cance.
Leasing may be allowed where:
1. Areas or sites are of regional o
local significance and with the
concurrence of the State govern-
ment.
Assume existing State
recreation and preser-
vation areas will be
designated unsuitable
by States. Also muni -
cipal water supply
sources and habitat
identified by the
State as critical to
State designated
species.
National His-
toric Preser-
vation Act of
1966, (16
U.S.C. 470 et.
seq.)
Listing of the Natio:
Registry of Historic
Places from the Heritage
Conservation and Recrea-
tion Service and listing
of properties eligible
for the Registry from
appropriate State, local
and Federal agencies.
5-196
CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES
TABLE 5-90 (Continued)
DRAFT UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FIELD TESTED IN 1978
EXCEPTIONS
CRITERION 7 - ALTERNATIVE 2
(7)(b) Same as above except eliminate condition of "national
significance" in order to be excluded from consideration
for Federal coal leasing
CRITERION 8-NATURAL AREAS
(8)
Federal lands designated as natural areas or as National
natural lankmarks, and Federal lands which will be on or
eligible for the National Registry of Natural Areas
(ecologic, geologic, scenic, and lands with wild or
scenic significance) are unsuitable for surface coal
mining and shall be excluded from coal leasing when
such areas are of national significance.
DATA NEEDED OR
INFORMATION PROCESS
The effects of coal mining can be
satisfactorily mitigated through
use of mining technology and the
Advisory Council and State His-
toric Preservation Officer have
consented to raining. If the site
or property is on the National
Registry.
The cultural resource areas can
be studied and recovered or they
contain items that can be moved
or restored without any loss of
significance.
CRITERION 9-ENDANGERED SPECIES
(9) (a) Legally designated critical habitat for Federal threatened/
endangered (T/E) plant and animal species are unsuitable
for coal mining and shall be exlucded from coal leasing.
(9)(b) Crucial value habitat for Federal T/E species as deter-
mined by the FWS and the land management agency where
the presence of T/E species has been scientifically
documented are areas of critical environmental concern
and are excluded from coal leasing.
(9)(c) High value habitats for Federal T/E species, as deter-
mined by FWS and the land management agency, shall be
considered for leasing only after it is scientifically
determined that the area is not a critical or crucial
habitat.
2. Archaeological
and Historic
Preservation
Act Amendments
of 1976 (16
U.S.C. 470(b)
et. seq.)
3. Historic Sites
Buildings and
Antiquities Act
of 1935 (16
U.S.C. 461-467)
4. Archaeological
and Historic
Preservation
Act of 1974
(16 U.S.C. 469)
Leasing may be allowed in these ares if
L. Such areas or sites are of regional
or local significance and with the
concurrence of the State government
and, where appropriate, the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service
2. It can be determined that the ef-
fects of mining will be mitigated
through the use of appropriate
mining technology and with the
concurrence of HCRS.
The mining of the coal resource
will enhance information re-
covery (e.g. , paleontological
sites).
Leasing may be allowed if after con-
sultation with FWS it can be deter-
mined that the species habitat will
not be adversely affected by coal
development or that complete mitiga-
tion is possible.
Departmental ;
Policy
Legislation
dealing with
the establish-
ment of a
National Heri-
tage Program
has been pro-
posed which
will establish
a National Re-
gister of Na-
tural Areas.
S.O. 3017
which estab-
lishes the
Heritage Con-
servation and
Recreation Ser-
vice (HCRS).
Listing of any
natural areas de-
signated by Federal
agencies. Park Ser-
vice and HCRS may also
have Identified some
natural areas.
Endangered
Species Act of
1975, (30 U.S.
C. 181, et.
seq.)
Departmental
Policy
Authority for
ACEC in FLPMA,
(43 U.S.C.
1702).
Haps of critical habitat
for endangered and
threatened species from
land management agencies
and FWS.
Maps showing suspected
(documented) T/E
species presence. In-
formation on high value
habitat from wildlife
inventories and land
management planning
documents.
For brief definitions
of critical, crucial,
and high value habi-
tats see page 37 of
March 1, 1978 draft
criteria of Coal Task
Force 2.
5-197
TABLE 5-90 (Continued)
DRAFT UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FIELD TESTED IN 197S
CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES
DATA NEEDED OR
INFORMATION PROCESS
CRITERION 10-STATE LISTED ENDANGERED SPECIES
(10) Habitats deemed critical or crucial for State listed endan-
gered or threatened plant and animal species as determined
by the land management agency in coordination with the
States and the FWS are unsuitable for mining and shall be
excluded from coal leasing.
CRITERION I I-BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE NESTS
(ID
Bald and Golden Eagle nests that are determined to be active
and a buffer zone of land included in a h mile radius from
the nest are areas which shall be excluded from coal leasing.
CRITERION 12-EAGLE RQQST AND CONCENTRATION AREAS
(12)
Bald and Golden Eagle roost and concentration areas used
during migration and wintering are areas of critical
environmental concern and shall be excluded from coal
leasing. Where such areas have been designated as
critical or crucial habitat for Bald Eagles, coal leasing
shall be excluded.
CRITERION 13-RAPTOR CLIFF NESTING SITES
(13)
Federal lands containing raptor cliff nesting sites with
active nests and a buffer zone of Federal lands h. mile
radius from the next site are areas which shall be ex-
cluded from competitive leasing.
CRITERION 14-MIGRATORY BIRDS
(14)
Federal lands which are habitat for migratory bird
species of high Federal Interest (as determined by
the FWS) that are determined to be critical or high
priority habitat by the land management agency in
consultation with FWS are areas of critical envir-
onmental concern and shall be excluded from coal
leasing.
Leasing may be allowed If after
consultation with the State, It
can be determined that species
habitat will not be adversely
affected by the coal development
or that complete mitigation is
possible.
A lease may be issued if:
1. Mining can be conducted in such
a way and during periods of
time that eagles will not be
disturbed during breeding season.
2.
A permit or special approval is
granted by the FWS to allow the
eagle nest to be moved. (Permit
regulations are currently under-
going review by FWS.)
A lease may be issued:
1. If mining can be conducted In such .
way and during periods of time that
eagles will not be adversely
disturbed or
2. For Hald Eagles where such areas
are designated as critical or
crucial habitat if the exception
under endangered species cri-
teria are met.
FLPMA (94-579)
Sikes Act
Sec. 204
Bald Eagle
Protection Act
(16 U.S.C.
668) , includes
all eagles.
Endangered
Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531). (Bald
eagles are
listed as en-
dangered specie
in all States
except 3 where
they are listed
as threatened.)
Information on State
species from appro-
priate State agency
and the FWS,
Location of active
eagle nests. Use
definition of active
provided on page 39
f Marcn 1 draft
criteria.
Additional Information
on inventoried active
eagle nests available
from the FWS and land
Jianagement agencies.
A lease may be issued:
1. Where it can be determined that
coal mining will not adversely
Impact the nesting sites during
the breeding season.
2. Where nest sites may be moved
with concurrence of the FWS.
Bald Eagle
Protection Act
(16 U.S.C.
668).
2. Endangerec
Species Act
of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531).
3. Authority
for ACEC in
FLPMA (43
U.S.C. 1702).
A lease may be issued:
1- Where it ia determined by the land
management agency in consultation
with FWS that coal mining will not
adversely impact the migratory bird
habitat during periods when such
habitat is used by the species.
2. Where the land management agency in
consultation with the FWS determines
that the Impact on the habitat can
be mitigated through use of appro-
priate mining and reclamation
technology and lease stipulations.
1. Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
Departmental
Policy.
1. Migratory Bird
Treaty Act .
:- Fish and Wild-
life Act.
, Departmental
Policy.
Use existing inven-
tory data of roost
and concentration
areas from BLM FWS,
and FS.
Definitions of
"roosting and concentra-
tion" areas from page
40 of March 1 draft
criteria.
Use existing inventory
data and any additional
Inventory data from
the FWS. Definitions
of active nests from
page of March 1 draft
criteria.
For definition of
criteria and high
priority habitat
values see page 44
of March 1 Task
Force draft.
5-198
TABLE 5-90 (Continued)
DRAFT UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FIELD TESTED IN 1978
CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES
DATA NEEDED OR
INFORMATION PROCESS
CRITERION 15-CRUCIAL HABITAT FOR HIGH INTEREST FISH AND
WILDLIFE SPECIES - ALTERNATIVE \
(151(a) Federal lands that have critical or high priority
fish and wildlife values for species of high State
or Federal Interest are areas of critical environ-
mental concern and shall be excluded from leasing.
CRITERION 15 - ALTERNATIVE 2
(15) (b) No specific a priori criteria for this topic; areas
containing high fish and wildlife values protected
on a case-by-case basis based on resource values
and mitigation potential.
A lease may be leased where:
1. It can be determined that the coal mining Im-
pacts on the habitat will not adversely af-
fect the species during critical periods for
breeding, migrating, feeding, or wintering.
2. It can be determined that the impacts of
coal mining can be mitigated through use
of appropriate mining and reclamation
technology .
CRITERION 16-WETLANPS
(16) Federal lands containing: (1) inland lakes, im-
poundments, and associated wetlands, (2) inland
shallow predominantly vegetated wetlands, (3)
rivering wetland systems, lower perennial and
upper perennial systems with flow greater than
5 cubic feet per second and riparian zones in
a "relatively undisturbed" state that are lar-
ger than 1 linear mile along a riverine system
are critical environmental areas and shall be
excluded from coal leasing.
CRITERION 17-RARE VEGETATIVE SPECIES AND COMMUNITIES
(17) Federal lands that contain rare plant species,
species with unusual vegetative form, rare
climate and native communities, or relic
communities as determined by the land manage-
ment agencies are areas of critical environ-
mental concern and shall be excluded from
coal leasing.
A lease may be issued where:
1. The use of appropriate mining or reclamation
technology will not significantly affect
the wetlands or will provide for complete
restoration and mitigation.
2. Where the wetlands contain no significant
values for ground-water recharge, fish
and wildlife habitat, recreation or
scientific study.
CRITERION 18-ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS
(18) To be provided by OSM Task Force.
Leasing may occur where:
1. Mining can be conducted in such a way as to
not impact the plant species.
2. Coal development will improve the habitat
for the plant species.
3. it is demonstrated that complete mitigation
is possible by use of reclamation technology.
Fish and Wild-
life Coordina-
tion Act (16
U.S.C. 661-
667(e)).
(particularly
where leasing
could result
in diversion
or modifica-
tion of streams
or other bodies
of water) .
Wild Freeroam-
ing Horses and
Burros Act (16
U.S.C. 1331-
1340) (where
leasing would
impact such
habitat.)
Anadromous Fish
Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C.
757(a)-757(b).
Departmental
Policy.
Various inventories
of fish and wild-
life habitats from
BLM, States, FWS ,
etc.
For definitions of
"critical and high
priority" fish and
wildlife values see
page 44 of March 1
draft task force
criteria.
1. E.O. 11990,
May 1977
(Wetlands
Executive Or-
der.)
2.
Fish and
Wildlife Coor-
dination Act
(16 U.S.C. A.
661).
Departmental
Policy.
Use wetland in-
ventory data
from land manag
ment agencies,
FWS and SCS.
1 . Departmental
Policy on
natural diver-
sity.
List of rare specif
by ecoregions-
identification of
habitat types .
5-199
TABLE 5-90 (Concluded)
DRAFT UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA FIELD TESTED IN 1978
CRITERIA AND ALTERNATIVES
DATA NEEDED OR
INFORMATION PROCESS
CRITERION 19-FLOODPLAINS - ALTERNATIVE 1
(19) (a) Riverine, coastal, and special floodplains (100-
year recurrence interval) are natural hazard lands
and shall be excluded from coal Leasing.
CRITERION 19-FLOODPLAINS - ALTERNATIVE 2
(19) (b) Same as above except 100-year recurrence interval
is replaced by a 500-year interval.
CRITERION 20-MUNICIPAL WATERSHEDS
(20) Federal lands which have been committed to use as
municipal watersheds are unsuitable for mining
and should be excluded from coal leasing.
Leasing may be allowed where (1) leasing a particular
tract is the only practical alternative and (2) poten-
tial for harm to people or property and natural and
beneficial values of floodplains can be minimized
through use of demonstrated and available mining
and mitigation measures.
CRITERION 21-NATIQNAL RESOURCE WATERS
(21) Federal lands with National Resource Waters, as
identified by States in their water quality manage-
ment plans and a buffer zone of Federal lands %
mile from the outer edge of the far banks of the
water, are unsuitable for mining and shall be ex-
cluded from coal leasing.
CRITERION 22-PRIVATE SURFACE-FEDERAL COAL
(22) Federally owned coal resources that are overlain
by non-Federal surface ownership should be ex-
cluded from future coal leasing.
Leasing may be allowed:
1 . Where it can be determined that raining will not
adversely affect the watershed to any signifi-
cant degree, or
2. Where the municipality or water users concur in
the issuance of the lease.
. The buffer zone may be elimiated or reduced in
size where it can be determined that It is not
necessary to protect the National Waters.
A lease may be issued in such areas where:
The surface was owned in fee by a coal com-
pany on August 3, 1977 (date of SMCRA) . A
company which has a lease for the surface
or some other arrangement other than fee
ownership does not qualify as a surface
owner. Coal Company is defined as any
corporation, partnership, association,
or company which has mined or is mining
coal resources.
Executive Or-
der 11988,
Kay 24, 1977,
Flo odp lain
Management.
Guidelines
for Imple-
menting
Executive
Order 11988-
Water Resources
Council, Feb.
10, 1978.
Policy from
Safe Drinking
Hater Act.
Departmental
Policy.
For description
of E.O. and
guidelines see
paper entitled
"Floodplains"
attached to
March 1 Task
Force draft.
HUD/Corps of
Engineers flood-
plain maps.'
Historical re-
cords, USGS
modeling .
1. Water Pollution
Control Act.
2. Departmental
Policy.
1. Departmental
Policy.
5-200
Mi
SUMHARY OF RESULTS OF 1978 FIELD TEST
OF DRAFT UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA
Ul
I
O
CRITERIA
FEDERAL COAL
ACRES AFFECTED
FEDERAL
COAL RESERVES AFFECTED
ACRES
PERCENT
TONS (nillion)
PERCENT
WYOMING
MONTANA
UTAH
WYOMING
MONTANA
UTAH
WYOMING
HONTANA
UTAH
WYOMING
MONTANA
1.
Leasing Exclusions
360
33,485
1.B00
0.08
11.8
0.36
45
1,486.4
14
0.1
10.3
0.4
2.
RightB-of-Way
1,965
22,518
27,000
0.45
9.0
5.44
248
1,105.1
203
0.7
8.5
5.4
3.
Roadless Areas
980
5,960
325,000
0.2
2.4
65.52
120
211
4,890
~ ~
1.6
4.
Scenic Areaa (Class I and II)
0
9,558
30,200
0.0
3.8
6.09
0
704.7
227
0.0
5.4
6.1
5.
Scientific Study Lands
970
0
6,100
0.02
0.0
1.23
120
0
46
0.2
0.0
1.2
6.
Scats Unsuitable Lands
No states have yet Identified areas
No states have ye
t identified areas.
7.
Historic Lands of National Significance
460
3,456
3,000
0.04
1.4
0.61
60
314.3
23
0.1
2.4
0.62
8.
Natural Areas
0
3,420
3,700
0.0
1.4
0.75
0
101.8
28
0.0
0.3
0.75
9.
Endangered Species
5,130
880
144,000
1.41
0.3
29.03
642
23.2
1,100
1.0
0.2
29.7
10.
State Endangered Sr'~"eB
0
0
144,000
0.0
0.0
29,03
0
0
1,100
0.0
0.0
29.7
11.
Said and Golden Eagle Nests
0
1,265
0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0
58.9
0
0.0
0.5
0.0
12.
Eagle RooB't Concentration Areas
0
0
10,400
0.0
0.0
2.1
0
0
78
0.0
0.0
2.1
13.
Raptor Cliff Nesting Sites
1,890
3,754
0
0.5
1.5
0.0
237
203.8
0
0.4
1.6
0.0
14.
Migratory Birds
0
310
2,100
0.0
0.1
0.42
0
12.3
15
0.0
<1.0
<1.0
IS.
Resident Fish and Wildlife
185,200
244,072
322,000
55.7
97.6
64.92
23,435
12,755.8
2,400
34.9
98.2
64.8
0
1.
7 0
0.0
0
210
0
0.0
0.08
0.0
16.
Wetlands
17.
Rare Vegetative Conmunities
0
0
28
0.0
0.0
0.8
0
0
3,700
0.0
0.0
0.75
18.
Alluvial Valley Floors
3,700
0
0
4.6
0.0
0.0
27,500*
0
0
5.0
0.0
0.0
19.
Floodplains
2,550
432
6 35
3.8
3.7
0.9
21,400
8,569
4,600
8.0
3.4
0.93
20.
Municipal Watersheds
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.
National Resource Waters
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
Private Surface/Federal Coal
55,000
11,676
N.R.
82.0
89.9
N.R.
116,000
222,147
N.R.
78.5
88.8
N.R.
*Haxiau» of • range that varied depending on AVF definition.
REGIONAL IMPACTS
ning Unit excluded about 4.1 billion tons of coal or
about one-third of the Federal coal resource. The
draft criteria excluded 341,000 acres; 72 percent
was caused by draft criteria 15. In the Campbell-
Converse Planning Unit, slightly less than half of
the Federal coal resource (32 billion tons or
256,000 acres) was pre-empted by application of
the criteria. In both areas the single criterion which
excluded the most coal was criterion 15, fish and
wildlife habitat of high state interest.
Insufficient data limited the testing of four
criteria (state unsuitable lands, state-listed endan-
gered species, national resource waters, and migra-
tory bird habitat) in both the Wyoming and
Montana test areas. Additionally, data were
lacking for alluvial valley floors in the Decker-
Birney test area and for eagle nest sites and eagle
concentration areas in the Campbell-Converse test
area. If data were available for these criteria,
additional Federal coal lands would likely be
excluded from further consideration for coal
leasing in both areas.
The field test of the criteria in the Utah area
showed little affect on Federal coal availability
because the vast majority of the coal in the area is
accessable only by underground methods and the
criteria are principally oriented to the exclusion of
surface mineable coal.
These field tests examined the draft criteria in
Table 5-90. As a result of these tests, the Task
Force recommended deletion of three draft criteria
(private surface Federal coal, alluvial valley floors,
and state lands unsuitable), and modifications in
virtually all other draft criteria. The Under
Secretary made additional alterations in the Task
Force's proposals, deleted another criterion, and
added five new criteria when, on October 3 and
November 2, 1978, he expressed a preference for
the 24 unsuitability criteria for the preferred
program (see Table 3-3 and the proposed regula-
tions in Appendix A).
As an example of the manner in which changes
were made consider the preferred program criteria
15 (State Resident Fish and Wildlife) and 9
(Federally-Listed Endangered Species).
The draft version of criterion 15 first field-
tested in the summer of 1978 specified that, ". . .
lands that have critical fish and wildlife values for
species of high state and federal interest ..." were
to be set aside from coal leasing. In making this
determination the field test teams relied on a series
of wildlife habitat atlases prepared for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service by the various state game
and fish agencies or by contractors working with
state data. These field tests showed that criterion
15 was excluding up to 90 percent of potential coal
land. In part, this was because some portions of
deer and antelope winter ranges cover most of the
coal-bearing areas. The unsuitability criteria are
meant to narrow down to the most critical areas
the land that must be set aside from potential coal
mining to preserve the resource values they cover.
The earlier form of criterion 15 was not doing this.
As a result of these tests, Criterion 15 was
rewritten and retested with a new, narrower
wording: ". . . lands which the land management
agency and the State jointly agree are fish and
wildlife habitat and which are essential
for maintaining these priority wildlife species
The revised wording signals the local land manager
and the States that only the habitat most critical to
the existence of a viable population of high interest
species in an area (e.g., most critical deer and
antelope winter range) should be found unsuitable.
The draft version of criterion 9 also field tested
in the summer of 1978, specified three levels of
threatened or endangered species habitat protec-
tion: (a) legally designated; (b) crucial (where the
presence of threatened or endangered species had
been scientifically documented); and (c) high value
(where there was a presumption of presence unless
proven otherwise). In applying this three-level
criterion, the Wattis, Utah team removed an
unusually large area of land from consideration
because of the assumed relationship between
prairie dog towns and black-footed ferrets. As a
result of this test, the Department's Unsuitability
Task Force, in redrafting criterion 9 for its final
recommendations, dropped the third level of
endangered species habitat protection from the
criterion. When the habitat is not legally designat-
ed as critical habitat, the application of the
criterion requires two determinations. First, the
determination that the presence of the species is
scientifically documented (e.g. actual sighting or
identification of tracks, scat, etc. by a knowledga-
ble observer in recent years). The second determi-
nation, which must be made, is that the habitat is
essential to the maintenance of the species.
Thus, while the local land manager would
certainly be careful in making determinations in
5-202
REGIONAL IMPACTS
areas of prairie dog towns and would consult with
anyone likely to have documentation of the black-
footed ferret's presence, he would not rule prairie
dog towns unsuitable a priori. He would have to
apply the two part test of scientific documentation
and essential habitat.
The five criteria added by the Under Secretary
to those recommendations by the Task Force were
the reclaimability, alluvial valley floors, prime
farm lands, state lands unsuitable, and state-
proposed criteria. The Secretary deleted the Task
Force-proposed rare vegetation criterion.
The 24 criteria selected for the preferred
program are presently being applied on an interim
basis in certain land use plan areas in accordance
with the procedures, and for the purposes, set out
in 43 Federal Register 57662-57670 (December 8,
1978).
Any land-use plans which are affected by this
round of field tests will be changed to conform to
the Department's final criteria.
5.4.9 Role of Industry Nominations
Until the early to middle 1960's, the Depart-
ment did not coordinate the issuance of coal leases
on public lands with any sort of a planning system.
Starting in the 1960's, the Bureau of Land
Management began to bring its lands under the
control of plans that identified land-use capabili-
ties and demands. In 1976, Congress expressly
required that land-use planning be done for all
BLM-managed lands. Under the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, planning is
specifically required for coal and the Department
may not issue a lease unless the mining is
compatible with a plan (or the equivalent of a plan
for certain lands where the Federal government
has only minor interests).
One key question has been to decide the proper
role for industry nominations in a land-use
planning oriented leasing system. This involves
considerations of how nominations affect the
amount and location of coal to be offered for lease.
Three major sub-alternatives exist. First, the
planning system would evaluate the coal resource
and any environmental impacts after individual
firms express their need for new coal leases. These
expressions could either be by application or
nomination. The land-use planners would examine
these expressions in light of the plan and would
decide whether mining would be "compatible"
with other uses. Lands not identified by industry
would not be considered for leasing. This alterna-
tive could be used both as part of systems where
industry also controls the overall leasing rate and
those where it does not. The EMARS II program
followed this pattern and both the rate and
location of leases was dependent on industry
nominations.
The second sub-alternative is to have a formal
industry role after the government has identified
through land use planning what areas are unsuit-
able for mining and what areas are acceptable for
further considerations for leasing. Prior to the
formal role, industry, like other potential users of
the public lands, would be encouraged to partici-
pate in the planning process. This is the sub-
alternative used in the preferred program, coupled
with a policy of government control of the overall
leasing rate.
The third sub-alternative is to have no formal
industry role until the time a lease sale is held.
Under this approach government planners would
have the responsibility to determine both rates and
location of leasing.
The only practical experience with these
subalternatives is that gained under the EMARS II
program.
Under EMARS II, industry nominated land it
wanted the Department to offer for leasing.
Persons opposed to leasing nominated tracts where
leasing should not take place. Nominators were
requested to rank their tracts in order of prefer-
ence. Nominated lands were to be reviewed for
environmental considerations and lands without
significant problems would normally be offered for
leasing, and leased if the high bid equaled or
exceeded fair market value. "Highly ranked" tracts
(those nominated by more than one company or
tracts highly ranked by a company) were to be
offered first. Diligent development and advance
royalty provisions were intended to limit specula-
tive holdings of leases.
As part of EMARS II, the Department issued a
formal request for nominations on June 1, 1976.
The nominations process was boycotted by a large
number of western environmental groups. The
results of those who did nominate can be summa-
rized as follows:
Nominations in favor of leasing were received
from approximately 300 sources, including coal
5-203
REGIONAL IMPACTS
companies, and from private citizens, many of
whom own land over Federal coal deposits.
These nominators identified about 1,000 sepa-
rate areas covering more than three million acres
they would like to see offered in the event of a
Federal coal lease sale. Some 75 nominations of
200 tracts covering more than three million acres
were registered against leasing. By state, the results
of the nominations were:
• Wyoming - 86 nominators favored coal
leasing on 300 tracts totaling 578,000 acres,
with four nominations registered against
leasing on 44 tracts involving several mil-
lion acres.
• Utah - 37 nominators favored leasing on
110 tracts comprising 292,000 acres; there
were no nominations against leasing.
• Colorado - 68 nominators identified 190
tracts totaling 483,000 acres; there were no
nominations against leasing.
• New Mexico - 19 nominators favored
leasing on 66 tracts totaling 298,000 acres;
one nominator listed one tract comprising
3,300 acres on which leasing should not be
considered.
• Oklahoma - 15 nominators identified 20
tracts, totaling 44,000 acres; there were no
nominations against leasing.
• Montana - 48 nominators favored leasing
187 tracts totaling 989,000 acres; 27 nomi-
nators identified 28 tracts comprising
80,000 acres as unsuitable for leasing.
• North Dakota - nine nominators favored
leasing on 39 tracts totaling 428,000 acres;
39 nominators identified 39 tracts covering
16,000 acres as unsuitable for leasing.
• Alabama - 11 nominators favored leasing
on 24 tracts covering 37,000 acres; one
nomination, signed by 150 individuals who
opposed coal leasing in the Bankhead
National Forest in Northern Alabama,
listed 81 tracts comprising 146,000 acres
considered unsuitable for leasing.
The Department's analysis of these nomina-
tions suggests that the nominations process was
less useful than might have been desired. First,
significant numbers of people (both industry and
other groups) did not participate because of lack of
sufficient time. Second, many nominations were
unsupported by data or other evidence to show
why the tract should be leased. Third, some
companies nominated significantly more coal than
they (or perhaps the whole coal industry) could
reasonably be expected to produce. For example,
in at least thirteen instances a company nominated
more lands than it would be allowed to hold under
the acreage limitations in the Mineral Leasing Act
of 1920. Others nominated lands which clearly do
not contain any coal. The following limited
conclusions can be drawn from the nominations:
• Competitive interest was highest in South-
ern Campbell County, Wyoming, where at
least 10 companies nominated overlapping
tracts.
• Greatest overall interest for coal was shown
in Montana (where virtually all known coal
areas were nominated) and in Wyoming
(where nearly 600,000 acres were nominat-
ed).
• In Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma,
utility companies rather than coal compa-
nies, showed the highest interest.
Criticisms of EMARS II focused on two areas:
(1) land-use planning followed industry nomina-
tions; and (2) the system minimized the opportuni-
ty for control over development-related social and
economic problems, since the location and rate of
leasing were controlled by industry. With respect
to nominations against leasing, many people
objected that it was unduly burdensome to force
them to express their views for the entire Nation
and to do so prior to seeing what lands industry
was interested in developing.
The previous sections of this chapter analyze
the differences in the amount of lands to be leased
that might occur under a lease to meet industry
indications of need alternative and other alterna-
tives calling for greater degrees of government
planning of when and where leasing will occur.
Since the BLM has not completed revising existing
land use plans to conform to new statutory
requirements such as unsuitability criteria, it is not
possible to directly compare the locational effects
of these three subalternatives. The discussion
which follows analyzes potential differences on a
general level.
In comparison to the situation which existed in
1970, (the last year before the moratorium on
Federal coal leasing), the Congress has now passed
extensive laws governing coal mining and develop-
ment. All coal development must comply with
these laws The requirements of these laws include:
5-204
REGIONAL IMPACTS
• Emissions standards for coal burning.
• Water quality standards.
• Revegetation and reclamation standards.
• Rents and royalties for Federal coal.
• Mine health and safety.
• Transportation costs.
• Land-use planning.
Since many major elements of the coal produc-
tion cycle are regulated and will be constant under
any Federal coal management system, the analysis
of the relative impacts of these subalternatives
must focus on the unregulated aspects of coal
development that they might effect. With respect
to location of leases, the primary elements are
social and economic impacts. Current laws do not
impose any obligations on a company to avoid
triggering growth in an area in excess of the rate
that can be absorbed by the affected communities.
There is no obligation to build schools, roads,
sewage facilities, or homes. A great many compa-
nies have assumed the burden of assisting commu-
nities in preparing for the new development, but it
is well documented that coal development has
created boom-town conditions in several towns in
the West. The current pattern of leased tracts
developed from a regulatory framework where
industry had a free hand. Continued industry
control over tract selection is likely to result in
similar future effects.
The one important environmental impact of
giving greater control over location of future
Federal coal leases to industry is a loss of the
opportunity to control social and economic costs
associated with rapid growth in rural areas. The
converse of this is that the impact of more
government control may be to increase coal costs
if it discourages development in least costly coal
areas to avoid adverse social impacts. It is not
certain that greater government control in tract
selection will necessarily lead to higher costs. Coal
companies which have tried to anticipate coal
development have sought to gain competitive
advantage by purchasing surface estates over
Federal coal or by buying private coal adjacent to
Federal coal. Their choices of properties could be
based as much on a reliable supply of coal as
obtaining the least cost coal. They may have also
focused on areas that were easy to explore. The
government may be able to find equally low-cost
coal in areas which offer less opportunity for
control by a single company. The degree to which
this trade-off is made is impossible to quantify. It
does seem very likely, on the other hand, that
greater government control will reduce social
impacts. The preferred program will assist in:
• Predicting future development so that
planning and capital construction can
precede coal development.
• Consulting with state and local officials to
determine where in the state coal develop-
ment can be accommodated with fewest
adverse social impacts.
• Using regional tract ranking to ensure that
tracts offered for lease offer the combina-
tion of least social cost and highest econom-
ic efficiency.
Greater government control over the location
of coal lease tracts should lessen the environmental
effects of coal development by reducing develop-
ment in areas which are unable to absorb addition-
al impacts and by encouraging properly-paced
development in other areas. Table 5-92 summa-
rizes the effects of the three subalternatives.
5.4.10 Land-use Planning Alternatives
One of the key elements of the preferred coal
management program is its reliance on the land-
use planning systems of the BLM and the Forest
Service to identify areas acceptable for further
consideration for coal leasing.
During the draft environmental impact state-
ment comment period, major disagreements sur-
faced over how the Department should conduct
comprehensive planning during the transition
period to a fully operational, mature coal manage-
ment program. Should it: (1) use existing land use
plans; (2) supplement existing plans as set out in
the proposed program; or (3) wait until new land
use plans are prepared fully in accordance with
whatever final regulations evolve from the pro-
posed planning regulations?
BLM began land use planning in 1969. Such
planning was initiated when the pressures from
individual resource users began to intensify to a
point where serious conflicts arose over the proper
uses for specific land areas and the need to balance
and coordinate user needs became apparent. Land
use planning for multi-resource use (multiple-use
planning) was adopted as a device to balance and
coordinate use of BLM-managed lands. It was to
consider both long-term and short-term resource
development and conservation requirements, and
5-205
TABLE 5-92
COMPARISON OF SUBALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED IN SECTION 5.4.9
SUBALTERNATIVE 1 SUBALTERNATIVE 2
(Maximum Industry (Preferred Pro-
Role) gram Model)
A. Who is primarily responsible for key actions?
1. Determination of
Production Goals Industry
2. Identifies areas for
leasing Industry
3. Identifies tracts for
leasing Industry
4. Defines areas for
Environmental Planning Industry
Government
Government
Industry
Government
B. What are the effects of choosing a subalternative?
1. Cost of Planning
and Administration
2. Chances for Environ-
mental Mistakes
3. Chances for Produc-
tion Shortages
4. Consideration of
socioeconomic
concerns
-INCREASING-
-DECREASING-
-INCREASING-
SUBALTERNATIVE 3
(Maximum Govern-
ment Role)
Government
Government
Government
Government
-►
-INCREASING-
5-2 06
REGIONAL IMPACTS
to incorporate statutory and Departmental policies
into the decisions on allotting lands to particular
users. As BLM's determination to plan for future
uses of public lands increased, it began to
formalize its procedures through the adoption of
standardized manual provisions that set out what a
land use plan should contain and how it should be
developed. The resulting plans were called Man-
agement Framework Plans (MFPs). During this
initial period of BLM development of its land use
planning process, the BLM had no direct Congres-
sional sanction or policy direction for such action.
When the Congress passed FLPMA, it gave BLM
express statutory authority to conduct land use
planning and prescribed the basic requirements for
a planning process.
The Congress was also sensitive to the need for
a transition period until land use plans could be
revised in accordance with its express directions; it
provided that passage of FLPMA was not to grind
the management of public lands to a halt while a
new planning process was being established and
implemented. The Congress intended, and the
Department has consistently interpreted FLPMA
to allow, BLM to use plans prepared before
FLPMA, or prepared after FLPMA without the
benefit of formally-adopted regulations, to make
decisions for all activities which ultimately look to
a land-use plan for guidance. The House Commit-
tee Report on FLPMA says, "The Committee is
well acquainted with both the land use planning
systems of The Bureau of Land Management and
The Forest Service and has found them to be
consistent in general principles and practices with
the objectives of [FLPMA]" H.R. Rep. No. 94-
1163, 94th Cong., 2nd sess. 5(1976). The Depart-
ment has also, where required and appropriate,
revised or supplemented old plans in response to a
specific need to analyze a particular resource use.
The Department has prepared supplements with
respect to timber, grazing, wilderness, and wildlife
management, as well as coal. The Department
views any of the three subalternative that are set
out in this subsection as being legally adequate.
(Note: Although the Forest Service began plan-
ning much earlier as a result of greater pressure on
its lands and with the advantage of the Organic
Administration Act of 1897 and the Multiple Use-
Sustained Yield Act of 1960, enacted 16 years
before the enactment of FLPMA (BLM's Organic
Act) the issues remain the same. The National
Forest Management Act, enacted in 1976 (the
same year as FLPMA), also provides new planning
directions to the Forest Service similar to those
provided to the BLM by FLPMA. The National
Forest Management Act also comtemplated the
use of existing Forest Service land use plans for
resource decisionmaking until new plans could
eventually be developed under new planning
regulations. The Forest Service, as the BLM, does
in fact continue to make resource decisions on
existing land use plans.)
As of 1979, over 80 percent of all BLM-
managed lands were covered by a Management
Framework Plan. The areas recommended for coal
development in these plans, plus some adjacent
high value coal lands, are now being reviewed as
part of an extensive field test of proposed unsuita-
bility criteria. If new BLM planning regulations
are adopted as scheduled (by mid- 1979), new land
use plans could not be put into effect in accor-
dance with those regulations for some time. It
normally takes up to four years to inventory
resources and complete the plan preparation and
approval process for a large (e.g., one million acre)
planning area. Therefore, it is likely to be late 1984
before totally new plans in coal areas are available,
and several more years before a sufficient number
of such plans are available to be used as a basis for
a fully operational coal management program. The
rate at which coal areas are covered in new plans
will depend on planning priorities and budget
capabilities existing during the mid-1980s, which
cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.
Until the new regulations are adopted it is
somewhat speculative to say how the new plans
will differ from the old ones. New land use plans
(called Resource Management Plans) will address
specific program issues or problems. Current
Management Framework Plans attempt to address
all existing resources. The latter plans require a
tremendous amount of inventory data. The re-
quirement for inventory data in the Resource
Management Plans may not be as great. It is likely,
also, that there will have been more effective
opportunity for public participation under the new
planning regulations. Inadequate data and lack of
meaningful public participation have been the
principal arguments raised by commenters urging
the Department to disavow the use of old plans in
coal management decisionmaking. A critical dif-
ference in the new planning regulations will be the
5-207
REGIONAL IMPACTS
importance of full environmental analysis of the
proposed alternatives in the planning process and
the filing of the environmental impact statement
with the plan as the environmental impact state-
ment (see 43 Federal Register 58764-58774 (De-
cember 15, 1978)).
Finally, before discussing the effects of the
three subalternatives, it should be noted that the
conclusions reached in the land use planning
process concerning the potential for coal leasing
are not a commitment by the Department that
leasing will take place and do not end the process
of evaluation under any of the coal management
program alternatives. At a minimum, a potential
lease area will still be evaluated as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act and no mining
will be allowed except as authorized by the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1976.
Under the preferred program, even more would be
done, through the tract delineation, ranking,
selection, and scheduling processes and the region-
al sale environmental statement. The benefits of
each subalternative must be examined in light of
its role in an overall management program, not in
isolation from proceeding and subsequent activity.
One subalternative is to allow no new coal
leasing and to curtail other coal management
actions in any area until a land use plan has been
prepared for that area in accordance with new
final planning regulations. This subalternative
would greatly delay the time the Department
could, for any reason, first engage in any substan-
tial amounts of leasing. Assuming that the plan-
ning regulations are adopted by mid- 1979, the
planning precedures will not be available until late
1979. They will be tested during 1980 and
implemented in 1981. The first totally new plans
prepared under these regulations might not be
available until late 1984. It is likely that several
more years would elapse before a significant
number of new plans would be available upon
which a mature leasing program could be based.
Under this subalternative, delay in being able to
resume leasing can be expected to be both lengthy
and unpredictable.
This subalternative would have the same effect
as the no new leasing management program
alternative. If no new leasing is needed until after
1984, at the earliest, this sub-alternative could be
adopted without any significant adverse effect.
The sub-alternative would be likely to result in
better quality land use plans before leasing would
resume. Improvements might include better identi-
fication of coal potential and of conflicting
resource uses and more detailed evaluation of
social and economic goals and issues. It might also
result in fuller responsiveness to public demands
because of greater opportunity for public partici-
pation through the planning process. It is impossi-
ble to predict how much the activity that finally
takes place under this subalternative would be
improved, e.g., would the plans more effectively
guide subsequent decisions whether to lease coal
than would occur under the proposed program
resources? It must be expected that at least some
overall improvement would occur, although the
improvement may be small. This is particularly
true in view of the proposed program's emphasis
on tract ranking and regional leasing environmen-
tal statements. This subalternative is not compat-
ible with any program management alternative, or
choice of policy under any alternative, that
involves new leasing before the necessary new
plans can be prepared. Depending on why the
Department would decide to lease before 1984, a
variety of adverse effects might occur, including:
coal costs could rise; competition could decline;
less environmentally sound tracts already leased
might be mined; certain coal users might experi-
ence shortages; and state and local economies
might be depressed by lack of development and
mineral revenues. Whether these adverse effects
would be compensated for by the benefits from
leasing on the basis of new plans depends on how
severe the Nation's need for coal becomes and how
much the plans improve. Changes in the economy,
the oil import situation, conservation effects, and
new laws may affect from year to year the merits of
this approach.
The preferred subalternative is to issue land
use plans to the new standards as quickly as time
and personnel permit, but in the interim, to retain
the capability to lease in those areas where the coal
land portions of an existing land use plan have
been supplemented to take into account the major
environmental protection standards for coal opera-
tions that the Congress has enacted and the
Secretary has adopted. These land use plan
supplements, since they apply only to areas where
coal is found can, generally, be completed in a
fairly short time. (There is no need to apply the
5-208
REGIONAL IMPACTS
new standards to lands outside of Known Recover-
able Coal Resource Areas since those lands cannot
be leased). In December 1978, the BLM instructed
its field personnel to begin applying (and field
testing) the unsuitability criteria by supplementing
certain land use plans for areas where extensive
coal is found and which the BLM State Offices felt
might eventually provide tracts for lease sales or
exchanges if the Secretary determines a need for
leasing. As explained more fully in the Federal
Register notice (43 Federal Register 57662-57670)
setting out why and how the field test would be
conducted, and the criteria applied, the application
process serves three purposes: (1) to see if the
Department's proposed unsuitablity criteria are
well drafted, are easy to administer, and effectively
identify those lands where additional resource
protection is necessary; (2) to begin the Federal
lands review required by Section 522 of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act; and (3) to
ensure that some plans are improved to provide a
better basis for any new coal management pro-
gram actions which are required in the near term.
One benefit from this subalternative is that, if
leasing is needed, the interim supplementing of the
plans would address all but the least obvious
environmental problems and resource limitations.
Environmental assessments in the tract ranking,
selection, and scheduling permit approval pro-
cesses would identify the remaining resource use
conflicts and environmental problems. As com-
pared with the subalternative of waiting for new
land use plans, this subalternative has much
greater flexibility to allow whatever development
may be needed. It also has the advantage of
beginning the Federal lands review as required by
Section 522 of SMCRA in the places where it will
do the most good-lands likely to be leased if the
Secretary decides to resume leasing. If no new
leasing is needed before new plans can be done,
this subalternative would divert time and person-
nel away from the longer-term work.
The third subalternative is to proceed with
leasing, if the Secretary decides it is needed,
without doing additional planning work in the coal
areas shown in existing land use plans either for
new unsuitability criteria, or for new planning
regulations, and to prepare new plans as time and
money permit. Reliance would be put on the
safeguards processes built into the activity plan-
ning and mine plan approval processes to uncover
all tract problems. The principal benefit from this
subalternative would be to save the government
the expense of an interim supplement to, or
additional planning work on, the plan and the
diversion of resources from new plans. Under this
subalternative, the review for lands unsuitability
criteria would be postponed until after a lease had
been issued; no work would have to be done on
unleased land, and the cost and time saving might
be significant.
The principal problem with this subalternative
is that the Department (along with the lessee) may
find itself in the position of spending several
hundred thousand dollars or more on a tract only
to find out two to three years after leasing that a
major problem exists that makes its development
undesirable. The risk of this happening is much
greater than under both of the previous subalterna-
tives. If no new leasing were needed, this subalter-
native would have no adverse effects as long as the
preparation of new plans occurred as rapidly as
under the previous two subalternatives.
5.5 REFERENCES
1. Westerstrom, L.W., and R.E. Harris, 1975.
Coal-Bituminous and Lignite, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook,
Washington, D.C.
2. U.S. Department of Energy, 1978. Draft
Federal Coal Leasing and 1985 and 1990 Regional
Coal Production Forecasts, Leasing Policy Devel-
opment Office, Washington, D.C.
3. Leathers, K.L., 1977. The Economics of Land
Reclamation in the Surface Mining of Coal: A
Case Study of the Western Region of the U.S., U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, Washington, D.C.
4. Packer, P.E., 1974. Rehabilitation Potentials
and Limitations of Surface-Mined Land in the
Northern Great Plains, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.
5. Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals,
1976. Annual Report: Surface- Mined Land Con-
servation and Reclamation, Division of Land
Reclamation, Springfield, Illinois.
6. Zellmer, S.D., 1978. Personal communication,
Agronomist, Argonne National Laboratory, Ar-
gonne, Illinois.
5-209
REGIONAL IMPACTS
7. Ross, L., 1978. Personal communication, Iowa
Department of Soil Conservation, Division of
Mines and Minerals.
8. Payne, R., 1978. Personal communication,
Railroad Commission of Texas, Surface Mining
Department.
9. Odum, E.P., 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology
(Third Edition), W.B. Saunders Company, Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania.
10. Curtis, W., 1978. Personal communication,
Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Berea, Ken-
tucky.
11. Carter, R.P., R.E. Zimmerman, and A.S.
Kennedy, 1973. Strip Mine Reclamation in Illinois,
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.
12. Kennedy, A.S., R.E. Zimmerman, and R.
Carter, 1977. Surface-Mined Land Reclamation
Methods. In: Thames, J.L., ed., Reclamation and
Use of Disturbed Land in the Southwest. Universi-
ty of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
13. Guernsey, J.L., M.E. Tiller, and J.R. LaFev-
ers, 1977. Integrated Mined- Area Reclamation and
Land Use Planning, Vol. 3D, A Case Study of
Surface Mining and Reclamation Planning: Area
Strip Coal Mining, Peabody Universal Mine,
Universal, Indiana. Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Illinois.
14. National Academy of Sciences, 1974. Reha-
bilitation Potential of Western Coal Lands. Bal-
linger, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
15. Argonne National Laboratory, 1977. Recla-
mation (Draft). Prepared for: Special Committee
to Study Health and Environmental Effects of
Increased Coal Production. Prepared by: Coal
Extraction and Land Reclamation Group, Ar-
gonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.
16. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976. Coal
Project - Executive Summary, Five Year Frame-
work and Background Information. Upland Eco-
systems Biological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, Washington, D.C.
17. Dunrud, C.R., 1976. Some Engineering
Geologic Factors Controlling Coal Mine Subsi-
dence in Utah and Colorado, Geological Survey
Professional Paper 969. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
18. Rinkenberger, R.K., 1978. Remote Sensing
Applied to the Prediction of Mine Ground Stabili-
ty Problem Areas (abstract). Abstracts of the
Geological Society of America 1978 Joint Annual
Meeting (Oct. 23-26), Toronto, Canada.
19. Sullivan, A.M., 1978. Satellite Photos Trace
Unstable Mine Roof, Coal Age 83(9): 60-69.
20. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978.
National Registry of Natural Landmarks, Revision
of List, Federal Register 43FR82: 18049-18055.
21. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978.
Interior Secretary Andrus Reports Threats to
Landmark Preservation Posed by Mining. (News
Release of March 27, 1978), Office of the Secre-
tary, Washington, D.C.
22. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Enviromental Statement for the Proposed Mining
and Reclamation Plan, Coal Creek Mine, Camp-
bell County, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, Virginia.
23. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978. The
Nation's Water Resources - The Second National
Water Assessment, (Preliminary Review Copy).
Washington, D.C.
24. Stroup, R.L. and S.B. Townsend, 1974.
Water Use and Coal Development in Eastern
Montana: Water Availability and Demands. Mon-
tana University Joint Water Resources Research
Center, Bozeman, Montana.
25. Goslin, I., 1976. Personal communication.
Upper Colorado River Commission, Salt Lake
City, Utah.
26. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974.
Report on Water for Energy in the Upper
Colorado River Basin, Water for Energy Manage-
ment Team, Washington, D.C.
27. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1975.
Critical Water Problems Facing the Eleven West-
ern States-Westside Study, Bureau of Reclama-
tion, Washington, D.C.
28. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1974. Water
for Energy Self-Sufficiency. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
29. Lower Colorado Region State-Federal Inter-
agency Group for the Pacific Southwest Interagen-
5-210
REGIONAL IMPACTS
cy Committee, 1971. Lower Colorado Region
Comprehensive Framework Study, Appendix III,
Legal and Institutional Environment.
30. National Water Commission, 1973. A Sum-
mary-Digest of State Water Laws, R.L. Dewsnut
and D.W. Jensen, ed., Arlington, Virginia.
31. Fritz, G., 1978. Personal communications,
Montana Department of Natural Resources, Hele-
na, Montana.
32. Bloyd, R.M., Jr., 1974. Summary Appraisals
of the Nation's Ground-Water Resources - Ohio
Region, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, D.C.
33. Bloyd, R.M., Jr., 1975. Summary Appraisals
of the Nation's Ground-Water Resources-Upper
Mississippi Region, U.S. Department of Interior,
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
34. Baker, E.T., Jr., and J.R. Wall, 1976. Sum-
mary Appraisals of the Nation's Ground-Water
Resources-Texas Gulf Region, U.S. Department
of Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
35. Spence, L., 1978. Personal communication.
Montana Fish and Game Commission, Helena,
Montana.
36. Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation, 1978. Yellowstone Basin Water
Reservations - Proposed Opinion, Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Submitted
by the Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation, Helena, Montana.
37. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1975.
Report on Water for Energy in the Northern Great
Plains Area with Emphasis on the Yellowstone
River Basin, Water for Energy Management
Team, Washington, D.C.
38. Cushing, E., 1978. Personal communication,
Director, U.S. Geological Survey, Madison Aqui-
fer Project, Lakeland, Colorado.
39. U.S. Energy, Research & Development
Administration, 1977. Draft Environmental Im-
pact Statement-Coal Research, Development and
Demonstration Program, Washington, D.C.
40. Price, D. and T. Arnow, 1974. Summary
Appraisals of the Nation's Ground-Water Re-
sources-Upper Colorado Region. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washing-
ton, D.C.
41. Fairer, L., 1976. Personal communication,
Arizona Water Commission, Phoenix, Arizona.
42. Peak, W., 1977. Institutionalized Ineffecien-
cy: The Unfortunate Structure of Colorado's
Water Resource Management System, Paper No.
77006, Water Resources Bulletin 13(3).
43. Anderson, R.L., and N.I. Wengert, 1977.
Developing Competition for Water in the Urbaniz-
ing Areas of Colorado, Paper No. 77004, Water
Resources Bulletin 13(4).
44. PEDCo Environmental, Inc., 1978. Survey of
Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines, EPA Publication
908/1-78-003. Denver, Colorado.
45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1974. Development Document for Effluent Limita-
tions Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generat-
ing Point Source Category, Report EPA-440/1-74-
029-a, Washington, D.C.
46. Eisenbud, M., and H.G. Petrov, 1964. Radio-
activity in the Atmospheric Effluents of Power
Plants that Use Coal, Science 14: 288-289.
47. Martin, J.E., E.D. Harward, and D.T. Oak-
ley, 1969. Comparison of Radioactivity from Fossil
Fuel and Nuclear Power Plants, In: Environmen-
tal Effects of Producing Electric Power, Hearings
before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy 91st
Congress, pp. 773-809.
48. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Environmental Statement - Development of Coal
Resources in Southwestern Wyoming, 3 Vols,
Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
49. Geological Society of America, 1977. Im-
pacts and Management of Off-Road Vehicles:
Report of the Committee on Environment and
Public Policy, Boulder, Colorado.
50. Rickard, W.H., 1977. Big Game Resource in
the Powder River Region, Montana-Wyoming,
Battle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
Washington.
51. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974. Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed De-
velopment of Coal Resources in the Eastern
5-211
REGIONAL IMPACTS
Powder River Coal Basin of Wyoming, Bureau of
Land Management, Washington, D.C.
52. Warner, M.L., et al., 1974. An Assessment
Methodology for the Environmental Impact of
Water Resource Projects. EPA-600/5-74-016, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washigton,
53. Stuart, G.E., 1978. Personal communication,
Committee for Research and Exploration, Nation-
al Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
54. Bridges, S., 1978. Personal communication,
Archaeologist, National Register Office, Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. De-
partment of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
55. Reeves, R., 1978. Personal communication,
Interagency Archaeological Services, U.S. Depart-
ment of The Interior, Washington, D.C.
56. Luce, R., 1978. Personal communication,
Historian, National Register Office, Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. De-
partment of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
57. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
West-Central North Dakota Regional Environ-
mental Impact Study on Energy Development,
Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana.
58. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
West-Central Colorado Coal Environmental State-
ment, Bureau of Land Management, Washington,
59. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement-Northwest Col-
orado Coal, Bureau of Land Management, Wash-
ington, D.C.
59a. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Coal
- Bituminous and Lignite (Reprint), Bureau of
Mines, Washington D.C.
60. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1978.
Transporting the Nation's Coal - A Preliminary
Assessment, Washington, D.C.
61. Congressional Research Service, 1978. Na-
tional Energy Transportation, Volume III - Issues
and Problems, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C.
62. Manalytics, Inc., 1976. Coal Transportation
Capability of the Existing Rail and Barge Net-
work, 1985 and Beyond, Final Report, Prepared
for Electric Power Research Institute, San Francis-
co, California.
63. Richard J. Barber Associates, Inc., 1977. The
Railroads, Coal and the National Energy Plan: An
Assessment of the Issues. Washington, D.C.
64. Rieber, M., and S.L. Soo, 1977. Comparative
Coal Transportation Costs: An Economic and
Engineering Analysis of Truck, Belt, Rail, Barge
and Coal Slurry and Pneumatic Pipelines; Volume
1, Summary and Conclusions; Volume 2, Unit
Trains; Volume 3, Coal Slurry Pipeline; Volume 4,
Barge Transport; Volume 5, Conveyor Belts;
Volume 6, Truck Haulage; Volume 7, Pneumatic
Transport; Volume 8, Yellow Ball Rail. Prepared
for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
the Mines, Washington, D.C.
65. Gleason, R.M., 1977. Letter of 17 March
1977 to Interstate Commerce Commission, the
Federal Energy Administration, and the U.S.
Geological Survey, Burlington Northern Railroad.
66. American Association of Railroads, 1978.
Yearbook of Railroad Facts - 1977 Edition
Washington, D.C.
67. Falk, M.J., and R.I. Chais, 1978. The
Applicability of Section 1 (18) of the Interstate
Commerce Act to Rail Line Construction in
Western Coal Regions, ICC Practitioners' Journal
45 (2): 175-194.
68. Larwood, G.M., and D.C. Benson, 1976.
Coal Transportation Practices and Equipment
Requirements to 1985, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
69. Leilich, R.H., and J. Williams, 1974. Freight
Car Requirements to Transport Energy 1974-1985,
Peat, Marwick and Mitchell and Co., Prepared for
Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D.C.
70. Briggs, R.E., 1978. Verified Statement No. 1,
Before the Interstate Commerce Commission, In
Support of Petition of United States Railroads for
Authority to Increase Freight Rates and Charges
by 4 Percent in the East and West and 2 Percent in
the South, Washington, D.C.
71. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977.
Minerals Yearbook 1975, Volume I: Metals,
5-212
REGIONAL IMPACTS
Minerals, and Fuels. Prepared by Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D.C.
72. U.S. General Accounting Office, 1975. Fac-
tors to be Considered in Setting Future Policy for
Use of Inland Waterways, Washington, D.C.
73. Office of Technology Assessment, 1978. A
Technology Assessment of Coal Slurry Pipelines,
Washington, D.C.
74. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality.
1973. Energy and the Environment - Electric
Power, Washington, D.C.
75. Nunenkamp, D.C, 1976. Coal Preparation
Enviromental Engineering Manual, Prepared by
J.J. Davis Associates, McLean, Va., Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C.
76. Browne, T.D., and E.F. Harvey, 1975.
Wyoming Energy Consumption-Minerals, Fuels,
Electrical Generation and Agricultural Sectors,
Bickert, Browne, Coddington and Associates, Inc.,
Denver, Colorado, Prepared for Dept. of Econom-
ic Planning and Development, State of Wyoming.
77. Ettinger, H. J. and G. W. Royer, 1972.
Visibility and Mass Concentration in a Nonurban
Environment, Journal of -the Air Pollution Control
Association 22(2): 108-1 11.
78. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1978.
Environmental Reporter, Arizona Rules and Reg-
ulations for Air Pollution Control, effective 1/77,
page 311:0514, Washington, D.C.
79. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1978.
Environmental Reporter, Colorado Air Pollution
Control Regulations, effective 10/77, page
326:0512, Washington, D.C.
80. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1977.
Environmental Reporter, New Mexico Air Quality
Standards and Regulations, effective 12/76, page
456:0501, Washington, D.C.
81. Bureau of National Affairs Inc., 1978.
Environmental Reporter, Pennsylvania Standards
for Contaminants, effective 8/77, page 491:0583,
Washington, D.C.
82. Bureau of National Affairs Inc., 1977.
Environmental Reporter, Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations, effective 11/76, page
556:0503, Washington, D.C.
83. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1978.
Environmental Reporter, Ohio Particulate Matter
and Sulfur Oxide Standards, effective 1/77, page
476:0549, Washington, D.C.
84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1978. National Ambient Air Quality Standards -
States Attainment Status, Federal Register 43FR
56:8961-9059.
85. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1978. 1975 National Emissions Report, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
86. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977. Statis-
tical Abstract of the United States, Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C.
87. University of Denver Research Institute,
1978. Factors Influencing an Area's Ability to
Absorb a Large-Scale Commercial Coal-Process-
ing Complex - A Case Study of the Fort Union
Lignite Region, Assisted by Bickert, Browne,
Coddington & Associates and THK Associates,
Denver, Colorado, Prepared for the U.S. Energy
Research and Development Administration,
Washington, D.C.
88. National Coal Policy Project, 1978. Where
We Agree, Georgetown University, Washington,
D.C.
89. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1977.
Final Standards Classification and Designation of
Lines of Class 1 Railroads in the U.S, Washington,
D.C.
90. U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission,
1976. 1975 Transportation Statistics, Washington,
D.C.
91. American Association of Railroads, 1976.
Yearbook of Railroad Facts - 1975 Edition,
Washington, D.C.
92. Ernst and Ernst, 1978. Transportation of
Energy Commodities for the Appalachian Region,
Washington, D.C.
93. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976. U.S.
Transportation Zone Maps Prepared for the
Federal Railroad Administration, Geological Sur-
vey, Washington, D.C.
5-213
REGIONAL IMPACTS
94. U.S. Railway Association, 1975. Preliminary
System Plan, Washington, D.C.
95. "Water Conservation in Industry." Journal
American Water Works Association, 1953. Task
Group Report, JAWWA, Vol. 45, p. 1249
96. Power, J.F, R.E Ries, and F.M. Sandoval
1978. Reclamation of Coal-mined Land in the
Northern Great Plains. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation Vol. 33 No 2.
97. Plass, W.T., 1978. Reclamation of coal-
mined land in Appalachia, Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation Vol. 33 No. 2
98. Sandoval, F.M., J.J. Bond, J.F. Power, and
W.O. Willis, 1973. Lignite Mine Spoils in the
Northern Great Plains-Characteristic and Poten-
tial for Reclamation. In Proc, Res. and Applied
Tech. Symp. on Mined-land Reclamation. Natl.
Coal Assn., Wasington, D.C.
99. Ruffner, J.D. and W.W. Steiner. 1973. Evalu-
ation of Plants for Use on Critical Sites, (in)
Ecology and Reclamation of Devastated Lands,
Volume 2. Gordon and Breach, New York
100. Cook, C.W., R.M. Hyde, and P.L. Simms,
1974 Guidelines for Revegetation and Stabilization
of Surface Mined Areas in the Western States.
Range Science Series No. 16
101. Rafaill, B.L. and W.G. Vogel, 1978. A
Guide for Vegetating Surface-mined Lands for
Wildlife in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior
102. Barth, R.C., 1976. Saline and Sodic Spoils-
What are They and How are They Reclaimed.
Mining Congress Journal, July, 1977
103. Chironis, N.P. 1977. Guide to Plants for
Mine Spoils. Coal Age, July, 1977
104. Anonymous, 1978. Alternative Reclamation
Methods Hold Promise for the West. Society of
Mining Engineers, December, 1978.
105. Green, B.B., 1977. Biological Aspects of
Surface Coal Mine Reclamation, Black Mesa and
San Juan Basin. NTIS, Springfield, Virginia.
106. Bliss, C, P. Clifford, G. Goldgraben, E.
Graf-Webster, K. Krickenberger, H. Mahar, and
N. Zimmerman, 1976. Accidents and Unscheduled
Events Associated with Non-Nuclear Energy
Resources, and Technology. The MITRE Corpo-
ration M76-68, McLean, Virginia.
107. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. IR-
1077 - Injury Experience in Coal Mining, 1975,
Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration,
Denver, Colorado.
108. House of Representatives Report No. 94-
1 163, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976.
109. Woodwell, M., 1978. The Carbon Dioxide
Question. Scientific American, New York, New
York.
1 10. Rotty, R.M. and J.M. Mitchell, 1976. Man's
Energy and the World's Climate. AICHE Sympo-
sium Series 72(1 56): 3 80.
111. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978.
Draft Unsuitability Criteria-Field Test Final Re-
port. Bureau of Land Management, Washington,
D.C.
112. National Research Council, 1977. Energy
and Climate. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.
5-214
CHAPTER 6
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS OF
A FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 6
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
OF A
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In this environmental impact statement, miti-
gation means a policy, procedure, or action
intended to avoid, minimize, or help compensate
for damage that could be caused by decisions
made by the Department of the Interior about the
management of Federal coal. Mitigation is intend-
ed to help protect individuals and communities
from adverse social and economic impacts, as well
as to protect the physical environment. This
chapter recapitulates those aspects of any of the
alternatives for a Federal coal management pro-
gram, and discusses other discretionary measures,
which would tend to lessen adverse environmental
impacts. The impact analysis in the previous
chapter (Chapter 5) includes those mitigating
measures required by law or regulation.
The preferred alternative Federal coal manage-
ment program described in Chapter 3 of this
statement requires that, in deciding whether to
lease or not to lease, and in deciding where, in
what amounts, and under what circumstances
leasing might take place, decisions about the
management of Federal coal must assure that the
environment be protected and that the interests of
individuals and communities be considered. These
mitigation measures are a direct consequence of
decisions by the Secretary, instructions from the
President, and requirements included in laws
recently enacted by the Congress.
The President, by memorandum of May 24,
1977, instructed the Secretary 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 Presi-
dent further directed that the Department "scruti-
nize existing Federal coal leases (and applications
for preference right leases) to determine 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 applica-
tions."
In response to these directives, the Department
has set as one of its primary goals the "use of land
use planning and effective enforcement of environ-
mental laws to assure that Federal coal is produced
in an environmentally acceptable manner and in a
way that is responsive to local communities and
private landowners affected by Federal coal
development." Of equal importance is the Depart-
ment's emphasis on consultation and cooperation
with state governments, because only through such
a cooperative effort could the Department be
assured of the effectiveness of mitigation measures
designed to protect against adverse social and
economic impacts of Federal coal management
decisions.
In developing and analyzing the preferred
program and alternatives described in this state-
ment, the Department was able to act in response
to definitions of environmental acceptability and
social and economic responsibility which were not
available when the enjoined EMARS II leasing
program was developed (see Section 1.2.4). During
the development of the previous program, contro-
versy about what constituted acceptable environ-
mental and socioeconomic mitigation created an
atmosphere of uncertainty, which prevented all
parties interested in Federal coal management
from making secure assumptions about the mitiga-
tion measures which might accompany Federal
coal management decisions.
Enactment of the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1976, the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976, and the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
established, after several years of Congressional
debate, specific goals and standards for mitigation,
and specific procedures to assure that the goals are
achieved and the standards are met. These laws
6-1
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
ended the uncertainty about the legal and policy
framework and provided rules for the management
of Federally owned coal, the planning and man-
agement of the public lands and other Federally
managed natural resources, and the regulation of
the environmental effects of coal mining. As a
result, the uncertainty about the environmental,
social, and economic consequences of Federal coal
management decisions have been minimized, and
the effectiveness of mitigating measures are now
more predictable.
In addition to the laws already referred to,
many other laws provide standards and procedures
requiring avoidance of, or recovery from, damage
to the environment and disruption of local com-
munities. Any Federal coal management program
that might be adopted by the Secretary would
recognize and include the responsibility for com-
pliance with these laws. Statutory standards and
procedures would be applied throughout the
program; in the land use planning process; in the
ranking, selection, and sale of specific tracts; and
in stipulations attached to leases and mining plans.
The Department also recognizes its responsi-
bility to use its discretion in the application of
additional measures which would further minimize
environmental and community disturbance. Cer-
tain of these discretionary measures, particularly
the additional standards and procedures that will
help give direction to the judgement exercised by
the Department's resource managers in the field,
are integrated into the preferred program and
several of the alternatives. Any program imple-
mented by the Secretary would require that other
standards and procedures, if warranted, be identi-
fied and applied to supplement those described in
this statement.
The discretionary measures for environmental
impact mitigation are discussed in Section 6.2. The
site-specific nature of the data required to apply
these mitigating measures and assess their effec-
tiveness significantly diminishes the opportunity to
fully address such measures in this broad-based
statement. The social and economic impacts of
coal development and their mitigation are ad-
dressed in Section 6.3.
Throughout the discussion in the following
sections, it is assumed that mitigation measures not
only provide direct protection of people, communi-
ties, and resources, but also produce, as a secon-
dary consequence, a reduction in conflict and an
increase in acceptance of individual resource
management decisions. Financial and administra-
tive burdens for the government, prospective
lessees, and all interests affected by leasing, will be
reduced because the emphasis on early application
of protective and mitigative measures will identify,
resolve, or avoid conflicts. This, in turn, will
provide assurance that the Federal coal develop-
ment decisions which are made will be subject to
less delay and uncertainty. A successful mitigation
program, while aimed at minimizing environmen-
tal, social, and economic damage to individuals,
communities, and natural resources, will also allow
coal producers and users to make more timely and
secure development plans. The producers' interest
in the success of the mitigation efforts is evident
and will serve to reinforce the effectiveness of
mitigation elements of the Federal coal manage-
ment program.
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
STRUCTURE OF THE PREFERRED
PROGRAM AND CERTAIN OF THE
ALTERNATIVES
The preferred program and several other
alternatives contain many structural environmen-
tal decision points. The key mitigation elements of
the preferred program and the alternatives are
described in Chapter 3, but are reviewed briefly in
the following paragraphs from the viewpoint of
opportunities they provide to protect environmen-
tal values.
The most important of the structural environ-
mental features of the preferred program and
several of the alternatives is the use of unsuitability
criteria to identify and protect resources of major
importance. The need to review Federal coal lands
and make unsuitability determinations is set out in
Section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977. The use of criteria to
establish a standard list of resource values which
must be considered by the land manager is based
on the preference expressed by the Secretary. The
Secretary recognized the need to ensure both
uniformity and consistency in the manner in which
the decisions on unsuitability for coal mining are
made. The application procedure accompanying
the criteria ensures that each potential resource
conflict will receive careful, individual consider-
ation before the land manager decides whether to
exclude an area from all or certain types of coal
6-2
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
mining, or whether to require mitigation measures
that would allow mining. The application of these
criteria, based on a comprehensive review and,
where needed, on an inventory of an area's
resources, would provide a threshold of protection
of those resources and interests which could be
affected by Federal coal development.
By incorporating unsuitability criteria proce-
dures in the land use planning process, the
Department would not abandon its basic multiple-
use resource management system. Decisions which
determine the best combination of uses for all the
resources under the jurisdiction of the Federal
resource manager would still be made after
application of unsuitability criteria. Coal leasing
could be prohibited, or allowed to proceed under
special conditions, on lands where the land
manager determines that coal mining would
seriously conflict with other important resources.
In situations where the land manager wants to
protect a conflicting resource at or above a
desirable level, he could turn to the use of
threshold levels. These levels are inherenty adap-
tive to the actual future course of coal impacts (see
Section 3.2.2.5). The key decision is the selection of
alternative uses best suited to the planning area.
The land use planning system, thus, inherently
identifies activities which may minimize undesir-
able impacts and, consequently, reduces the need
for additional mitigating measures.
These field level land use planning procedures
present a key opportunity for recognizing needed
local constraints on coal leasing. The public would
have an opportunity to comment on the lands
identified as acceptable for consideration for
leasing, and participate in the resources trade-off
decisions.
In addition to the incorporation of specific
criteria as guidance for individual land use
planning decisions, the preferred program includes
another new and major mitigation element, which
assures that mitigation is a priority element in final
tract selection decisions. This process requires the
ranking of those tracts which could be leased
within a region so that the consequences of
selecting specific tracts for development can be
compared, both within a particular region and
among regions.
The process recognizes that, because or the
probability that, in many regions, there will be
more Federal coal that could be leased than would
be necessary to lease, the Department has a
responsibility to select, from among those coal
lands which are not excluded from leasing through
application of unsuitability criteria or other re-
source management decisions, those tracts whose
development would cause the least environmental,
social, and economic damage. This means that
mitigation will take place even in those areas where
both the application of laws and standards and the
exercise of the resource manager's judgement have
led to decisions that other resource values must be
subordinated to the need for the leasing and
mining of Federally owned coal.
The regional tract ranking process also pro-
vides the most effective opportunity for consider-
ation of social and economic consequences of
Federal coal management. The Department, while
recognizing its responsibility in this important
area, also recognizes that social and economic
values, problems, and mitigation measures can not
be categorized, evaluated, and implemented
through a process of criteria and standards in a
Federal resource management program. Because
the ranking process is less a reflection of law and
standards, and more a reflection of judgement and
discretion, it is better suited to the evaluation of
local and regional social and economic consider-
ations. These considerations are to receive priority,
along with identification of environmental conse-
quences, in the ranking process included in the
preferred Federal coal management program and
several other alternatives.
The impacts of developing a specific tract, and
the cumulative and interdependent impacts which
would result from developing groups of tracts,
would be considered in selecting those tracts to be
offered for sale. By ranking and comparing all
tracts within a region, rather than ranking only
those tracts in geographically smaller individual
planning areas, and by considering how the timing
of tract development could influence the amount
or kind of impacts, the Department would be able
to select for leasing those tracts which have the
least adverse cumulative environmental, social,
and economic impacts.
Other significant mitigation measures in the
preferred program and several of the alternatives
are set out below:
• By providing for extensive public participa-
tion and special opportunities for the states
to take part in the leasing process from land
6-3
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
use planning through lease sale and be-
yond, the Department would seek to ensure
that the local and regional publics and their
representatives— those most knowledgeable
about local and regional conditions— will
always be well represented in leasing
decisions. The careful consideration of the
views of the states and the comments of the
public before major leasing decisions are
made would serve to mitigate adverse local
and regional impacts of coal development.
• The procedure for setting regional produc-
tion goals and leasing targets ensures that
the need for coal leasing would be continu-
ally reassessed, thus avoiding the leasing of
an unnecessarily large number of tracts.
Too large a number of leased tracts would
diminish the ability of state and local
governments to plan with an adequate
degree of accuracy to mitigate social and
economic impacts of coal development. The
leasing of an excess number of tracts also
would diminish the effectiveness of the
ranking process, require the selection of
additional less desirable tracts, and increase
local uncertainty about the potential envi-
ronmental consequences of leasing.
• The manner in which requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
would be complied with in the preferred
program and several other alternatives
would further serve to identify adverse
impacts and the opportunities for mitiga-
tion. National and interregional impacts of
Federal coal management decisions, de-
scribed in this statement, would be carefully
monitored by the Department and consid-
ered in supplements to this statement, if
required. Environmental impact statements
considering the impacts of proposed lease
sales for four-year periods within specific
coal regions would be prepared. These
statements would examine the cumulative
environmental impacts of coal development
on a region-wide basis, as well as consider
the site-specific impacts of each tract to be
offered for lease. The public participation
opportunities provided during the environ-
mental impact statement process would
provide additional extensive opportunity
for the public to assist the Department in
6-4
assuring that decisions at every level of a
Federal coal management program would
fully consider environmental impacts and
mitigation measures.
• The preferred definition of maximum eco-
nomic recovery (MER) seeks to encourage
the aggressive removal of coal from Federal
leases. Coal which is considered marginally
subeconomic under current practices
would, under the preferred program, likely
be included in coal production from the
lease. To make removal of these deposits
possible without unfair economic hardships
on the mine operator, the Department
would give up some of the bonus bid it
might otherwise require for a lease where
the MER determination indicates that the
trade-off is for the long-term benefit of the
public, considering all environmental and
social factors bearing on the tract. This
approach to MER would in the long run
lessen the area disturbed by mining and
decrease the possibility of second mine
openings over the same area.
• The Secretary has also indicated that the
Department should be responsible for
determining, with reasonable certainty, that
a specific tract can be developed without
severe or permanent harm to the environ-
ment and for determining the stipulations
needed to ensure this protection prior to the
lease sale, rather than waiting to make this
determination at the mining plan stage.
This requires that the Federal coal manage-
ment program have adequate environmen-
tal data available for tract ranking and
selection prior to the decision to lease. Site-
specific analysis of each tract would be
conducted prior to ranking and an exami-
nation would be made for each selected
tract to develop lease stipulations, if neces-
sary. Where appropriate, additional de-
tailed, site-specific conditions would be
imposed in the mining permit issued upon
approval of the mining plan.
• The Secretary would require, under the
preferred program and several other alter-
natives, that unsuitability criteria and gen-
eral land use trade-off decisions be applied
not only to new competitive leasing, but
also to existing, nonproducing leases, emer-
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
gency leases, and noncompetitive leases.
Appropriate action would be taken where
noncompliance is found. This element of
the program would help bring consistent
mitigation to those lands which could be
affected by development of the more than
500 outstanding leases and more than 200
preference right lease applications.
• The Department's Energy Minerals Reha-
bilitation Inventory and Analysis Program
(EMRIA) would provide site-specific recla-
mation data for use at the several decision
points in the preferred program and several
other alternatives. EMRIA, begun in 1975,
entails inventory and analysis of rehabilita-
tion capability of lands having potential for
Federal coal development. Soils, overbur-
den, surface and ground water, as well as
revegetation characteristics are analyzed so
that prescriptions for reclamation can be
developed.
While this discussion has given emphasis to
those mitigation measures which prevent or mini-
mize damage by prohibiting, restricting, or direct-
ing the relocation of prospective Federal coal
leasing, it should be noted that most of the
mitigation measures built into the preferred pro-
gram and several other alternatives are designed to
assure that when Federal coal leasing and resultant
mining take place, both the damage and the
benefits from coal development are considered and
are managed in a way that will minimize environ-
mental and social disruption.
The key measures mitigating the physical
environmental consequences of coal mining are
contained in the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977. In general, the law
requires premining permit application and recla-
mation planning; the application of standards for
the conduct of mining which relate to the environ-
mental effects of the mine operation, on and off
the mine site, as well as to public health and safety;
state or Federal processes for designating lands as
unsuitable for mining; and adoption of state laws
and regulations for enforcement of regulatory
programs which meet minimum Federal standards.
The act also applies these standards and processes
to the surface effects of underground mining.
These mitigation measures are described in
detail in the Final Environmental Statement on the
Proposed Final Regulations of the Office of
Surface Mining [1].
63 MITIGATION OF SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS
Many of the most serious problems associated
with coal leasing involve the ancillary social and
economic effects of development. In rural areas,
coal development has induced wholesale change in
the social and economic structures of numerous
isolated communities. While the change offers
possible long-term benefits for the communities in
question, short-term distress has too often been the
more visible result. The mitigation of the socioeco-
nomic impacts of coal development presents
special problems for the Department, since its
statutory authorities and responsibilities are far
more limited than the scope of the problems. For
the time being, the Department's chief response
must be improved coordination and consultation
with local and state governments, as provided in
the preferred program and several other alterna-
tives.
63.1 General Socioeconomic Impact Mitigation
Impact assistance is a policy question of
independent national significance. In March 1978,
an intergovernmental Energy Impact Assistance
Steering Group completed a report to the President
which examined the nature of adverse social and
economic impacts from energy development, gaps
in existing mitigation mechanisms, and a broad
range of program energy impact assistance options
[2]. The report's treatment of these problems is
instructive for this statement and recommended
generally as a reference.
According to the report, the fundamental cause
of social and economic impacts is rapid economic
growth. While the dimensions of growth problems
in a given locale vary substantially (see Section
6.3.2), a number of problems seem to recur
frequently. The location of most Federal coal is in
isolated rural areas of the West. Since the location
of the coal resource determines the sites of the
economic activity, once a development site has
been chosen, there is commonly little choice but to
stimulate rapid growth in isolated rural areas,
where the new activity is disproportionately large
in relation to the existing economic base. There are
frequently difficulties with taxation systems which
do not target tax resources to impacts, which were
6-5
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
designed to suit an agricultural economy, or which
do not coincide with the boundaries of economic
activity. Much of the labor force for the Decker
mine in Montana, for example, lives in Sheridan,
Wyoming, even though the mine produces reve-
nues for Montana. Finally, all of -the impact
problems are exacerbated by uncertainty, which
weakens both individual and institutional accom-
modations to change.
The report found five leading categories of
impacts:
• Public facility and service deficiencies or
shortages.
• Commercial facility and professional ser-
vices deficiencies and shortages.
• Housing shortages and housing price infla-
tion.
• Social disruption.
• Transportation impacts.
The report focused its analysis on five specific
categories of gaps in existing mitigation mecha-
nisms:
• Information - timely and accurate informa-
tion regarding the development is common-
ly unavailable.
• State/local/tribal participation in the deci-
sion-making process— the inability of these
institutions to participate early on in deci-
sions regarding timing, location, and scope
of development.
• Planning and management - inadequate
state, local, and area-wide institutional
capacity.
• Coordination of assistance mechanisms -
the imprecise targeting of existing Federal
programs to impact problems.
• Financing - the difficulty that impacted
communities have in securing access to
normal financing mechanisms.
The preferred program and several alternatives
would attempt to close the first two of these five
gaps. The others are not within the Department's
direct jurisdiction, but, through cooperation with
other Federal agencies and state and local govern-
ments, the Department can help make the total
effort to mitigate social and economic impacts
more effective.
In addition to mitigation of social and eco-
nomic problems common to all rural areas affected
by sudden and large-scale industrial growth,
priority is given in the Department's preferred
program and several other alternatives for mitiga-
tion to protect those agricultural communities
which, in the western states where Federal coal is
most abundant, are dependent on sound manage-
ment of grasslands, watersheds, and other re-
sources which serve as the foundation for extensive
livestock grazing and other agricultural enterprises.
Mitigation of impacts on agricultural economies is
not limited to management measures designed to
permit livestock and crop production to continue
at existing levels or expand while coal production
increases. A principal element of the preferred
program and several other alternatives is consider-
ation, throughout the decision process, of measures
to assure that those individuals and families who
are on ranches and farms, as well as the communi-
ties and the resources which support individual
agricultural enterprises, are not damaged or dis-
rupted.
It should be emphasized that mitigation also
includes measures to assure that the potential
benefits of coal development are recognized, and
the effect of the distribution of these benefits
considered, when decisions are made about man-
agement of Federal coal. So, while the preferred
program and several other alternatives would
operate to protect resources and people from
damage, they would also be capable of determin-
ing how the distribution of benefits would affect
those same people and resources. With informa-
tion made available from community leaders,
tribal officials, state and local governments, and
individuals, Federal coal management decisions
can reinforce the community development and
economic plans of citizens in those areas where
Federal coal is located.
Guidance provided to the Department's re-
source managers and other planners by the report
includes identification of nine principal factors
that should be considered when evaluating the
impacts of proposed decisions:
9 Avoidance - the extent to which the
occurrence of adverse socioeconomic im-
pacts due to energy development can be
minimized, if not averted altogether, in the
early stages of the energy development
process.
• Closing Policy Gaps - the degree to which
the process for formulating energy develop-
ment policy and making key energy facility
siting decisions provides adequate opportu-
6-6
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
nity for participation by appropriate state,
local, and tribal governments; also, the
extent to which provisions exist for the
preparation and early consideration of
impact assessment data.
• Closing Resource Gaps - the degree to
which proposed policies or program strate-
gies reduce the inadequacies found to exist
among existing Federal, state, local, and
industry financial assistance mechanisms
available to impacted areas.
• Barriers to Implementation - special organi-
zational, administrative, or legislative steps
which must be taken and the time required
to effect proposed actions.
• Risk Sharing - the manner in which the
consequences (e.g., higher costs, potential
loss of sunk costs and future revenues from
project failure, high interest payments, and
other costs) of uncertainty characteristic of
energy-related growth are borne by the
participants in the energy development
process - i.e., Federal, state, local, and
tribal governments and industry.
• Cost Internalization - the extent to which
the costs of addressing adverse impacts
resulting from energy development are
borne by the producing company or passed
through in energy product processes to
energy consumers.
• Impact on Federal, State, Local, and Tribal
Budgets - the degree to which proposed
policies and actions will increase or de-
crease the amount of Federal, state, local,
and/or tribal funds required for impact
assistance programs.
• Enhanced State, Local, and Tribal Capacity
- the manner in which authorities, re-
sources, and capabilities of state, local, and
tribal governments for addressing the prob-
lems faced by energy-impacted communi-
ties are increased.
• Leverage on Industry Participation and
Mitigation - the degree to which the role of
industry as a participant in avoiding and/or
ameliorating the adverse socioeconomic
effects resulting from its energy develop-
ment activities is increased.
The program recommendations of the report
led to modifications in Senator Gary Hart's S.
1493, a broad-based inland energy impact assis-
tance bill. This proposal did not pass in the 95th
Congress.
Legislation providing a more modest impact
authority for the Farmer's Home Administration
did pass, as section 601 of the Powerplant and
Industrial Fuels Use Act of 1978. This authority
for both planning and construction assistance will
be implemented by the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Secretaries of Energy and
Labor. Funds, in the form of grants to the states,
local governments, and tribal councils, are avail-
able under the program to support planning, land
acquisition, and development. Coal companies
within designated impact areas will be required to
report to the Secretary of Energy on request by the
state Governor on mine employment and related
matters for the coming three years.
The Secretary of the Interior is a member of
the interagency committee created by Section 746
of the Act. The function of the committee is to
conduct a study of the socioeconomic impacts of
expanded coal production and rapid energy
development in general, on states, including local
communities, and on the public. The committee is
required to study the adequacy of housing and
public recreational and cultural facilities for coal
miners and their families, and the effect of any
Federal and state laws or regulations on providing
such housing and facilities.
The Secretary of the Interior also participates
in another study required by the Act (Section 742
(c)), which is required to evaluate the economic
and social impacts on coal-producing counties and
states of present and prospective land ownership
patterns and levels of income, property, severance,
and other taxes paid by coal producers.
63.2 Piogram Socioeconomic Impact Mitigation
One effect of the preferred program and
several other alternatives will be to decentralize
decisions regarding social and economic impacts.
Because of regional and local variations in these
impact problems, an aggregate estimate of impacts
is inherently misleading, since the mitigation
response must take place on a decentralized basis,
taking into account the unique aspects of each
impact situation. The aggregate perspective is,
therefore, not as important as a consideration of
the range of potential problems. For this reason,
this section addresses eight factors which illustrate
the dimensions of impact variation and, hence, the
6-7
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
varying requirements for mitigation which a
Federal coal management program must face.
6.3.2.1 Physical Characteristics. The physical char-
acteristics of the impacted areas-topography,
quantity and quality of available water, soil, and
climate-have an important effect on the cost of
both public infrastructure (water and sewer sys-
tems, streets) and private infrastructure (residential
and commercial construction). For example, site
preparation costs in West Virginia typically run
much higher than in the West, due to the terrain.
The steep slopes and narrow valleys in much of
West Virginia also increase the problems of
environmental hazards from siltation, slides, and
flooding, and so require special mitigation mea-
sures that would not be so important in flatter
country. Gillette, Wyoming, has different problems
resulting from physical characteristics of its area.
The sources of available potable surface and
groundwater are many miles away from town, and
the nearby groundwater requires extensive treat-
ment before it can be used for municipal purposes.
Either way, the cost of providing water in Gillette
significantly exceeds the national average for per
capita expenditures.
6.3.2.2 Economic Structure. Pre-existing economic
conditions influence the path of the new economic
stimulus provided by energy development. One
such condition is the local labor market. If the
local economy has a surplus of labor prior to the
onset of development, the development will tend to
absorb local workers and the change in population
will be less than where no surplus exists. Research
in the West has shown that the population change
attributable to similar energy projects can vary by
as much as 50 percent. At the same time, labor
market conditions shift rapidly. For example,
many of the high unemployment conditions that
existed in southern West Virginia no longer
prevail, and there are thousands of new jobs to be
created in the near future. Finally, since the
unemployment rate is no indicator of the availabil-
ity of specialized labor, a thorough knowledge of
an incoming industry's requirements may be
necessary to accurately predict local population
growth.
A second significant pre-existing condition is
the pattern of population and service centers.
Isolated communities are more likely to feel the
effects of impacts than communities with services
available nearby.
Finally, the nature and extent of local impacts
will be affected by conditions in other local base
industries. For example, the mid-1970s boom of
Rock Springs, Wyoming, was caused by a combi-
nation of energy and nonenergy projects increas-
ing their employment at the same time. Oil and gas
development and increased uranium mining will
cause similar additional boom pressures on several
western coal regions in the 1980s.
6.3.2.3 Legal Framework. The legal framework
within which local governments operate also
affects the role that they can play in solving impact
problems. Local governments are the legal entities
of the states in which they are located, and the
powers given them to raise and spend revenue, as
well as to regulate land use and other matters, vary
significantly from one state to another. Similarly,
the state resources available to solve impact
problems differ significantly from one state to
another. Most western states now have some form
of state funding available for impacts.
6.3.2.4 The Project. Different types of projects
produce significantly different sorts of stresses on
the impacted community. The labor requirements
associated with the construction and extraction
phases of individual technologies vary markedly,
and are the chief cause of these differences.
The policies of contractors or subcontractors
regarding rotations and the provision of housing
facilities may also affect impacts. Experience with
the Alaska pipeline demonstrated that a 30-day
work rotation attracted workers from the lower 48
states; a 10-day work rotation attracted Alaskans
from Fairbanks; and a five to seven-day work
rotation attracted Alaska Natives to the work
force.
6.3.2.5 Community Attitudes. A community's values
and goals affect the nature of impacts by setting
priorities for the provision of public services. It is
not uncommon to find a community insisting on
an increase in medical services when other de-
mands are more immediate. The attitudes of the
community also affect impacts by influencing the
political choices that an impacted community
makes. One example is the exercise of the police
power; certain kinds of land use control may not
be acceptable in a rural community.
6-8
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
6.3.2.6 Pace of Development. The faster the growth
rate, the more likely the growth will produce
stresses which generate impacts. Clearly, 1,000 new
jobs introduced into a small community over five
years will have a less damaging effect on that
community than would the introduction of the
same number of new jobs within a six-month
period. The pace of development is similar to
uncertainy, in that it tends to aggravate other
difficulties.
6.3.2. 7 Existing Infrastructure Commitments. Excess
capacity in a specific category of public facilities
will clearly aid a community in meeting develop-
ment impacts, and may naturally affect the
community's overall perception of the impact
problem. This excess or flexible capacity may
include administrative services as well as public
facilities. Appalachian communities, served by
substate planning districts supported for years by
the Economic Development Administration and
the Appalachian Regional Commission, will be less
likely to need certain kinds of rudimentary
technical support than western communities. The
demand for this technical support has in fact been
far greater in the West than in the East or in the
coastal zone.
Infrastructure commitments may also have a
negative side. For example, water and sewer
projects proposed in Raleigh County, West Virgin-
ia, provoked unfavorable reactions from pension-
ers already served by septic tanks. A new water
and sewer network might only be financially
feasible if it serves all, but user charges impose
substantial hardships on established residents with
fixed incomes.
6.3.2.8 Overall Population Density. Population
density affects the choices available for mitigaton
measures. Sweetwater County, Wyoming, is sub-
stantially larger than New Jersey and, prior to
impact, was populated by approximately two
persons per square mile; its population has now
doubled. This will affect the design of a long-term
approach to impact problems.
A sparse population may also affect the share
of state and Federal resources directed to a
locality, due to formula allocations and lack of
political strength.
Providing an appropriate mitigation response
to social and economic impacts is a complex
institutional problem. Local governments address
impact problems with choices to regulate or to
finance improvements and operations, although
these choices may be legally or practically limited.
State governments affect impact problems through
regulatory agencies (land use, facility siting, envi-
ronmental control, etc.), through state-financed
impact relief, and through Federal programs
administered by the states. The Federal govern-
ment offers an additional structure of regulation
and financial support, and the private sector may
provide its own resources to address certain impact
problems.
The Department's role in this complex picture
is, of necessity, limited. The most profound
limitation is on its capacity to target direct
financial assistance for planning, strengthening
institutional capacity, operations, or capital im-
provements. Under Section 35 of the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by Section 317(a)
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976, 50 percent of mineral leasing royalties,
rentals, bonuses, and fee sales are returned directly
to the states to be distributed according to state
law. In spending those funds, the states are
directed to give priority to those subdivisions of
the state socially or economically impacted by
development of minerals under the Mineral Leas-
ing Act. The funds are to be used for planning,
construction and maintenance of public facilities,
and provision of public service.
A loan program for impacted areas, secured by
future royalties, has not been implemented. This
program was established under Section 317(c) of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. All
loans would bear an interest rate comparable to
the best rates available in the municipal bond
market. The loans are limited to 55 percent of the
anticipated mineral revenues due a state for the
following 10-year period. The Department has
circulated proposed regulations for this loan
program (43 CFR 1880) setting out procedures
under which the loans may be made. Thus far,
funds have not been appropriated for this pro-
gram.
An important social and economic impact
mitigation feature of the Department's preferred
program and several other alternatives is the
emergency leasing program. This program is
provided in large part specifically to avoid the
hardships of sudden mine closings. Of concern is
not only the unemployment caused directly by
6-9
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
such closings, and the consequent disruption of
lives, but also the underemployment of still usable
community facilities and services that might have
to be replaced elsewhere if production were
satisfied through development of new mines in
previously undeveloped areas.
The Department does not have the authority to
directly influence the decisions of the Federal,
state, local, or private entities that might provide
impact funding. The Department cannot, for
example, significantly affect use of the Economic
Development Administration's Title IX program.
The Department cannot dictate priorities to state
agencies such as Montana's Coal Board. Nor can
the Department appropriately play a role in
persuading a local government to pass a bond issue
for needed improvements. Finally, it does not
appear to be legally possible for the Department to
require private financial assistance through re-
quirements in lease stipulations. The task of
providing mitigation rests primarily with the states.
Indeed, the Department is not in a strong
position to substantially affect most of the factors
discussed in Section 6.3.2— physical characteris-
tics, economic structure, local leadership, legal
framework, community attitudes, existing infra-
structure commitments, or overall population
density. What the Department can do is influence,
and in some cases determine, the location, timing,
and nature of development. Instead of providing a
response after the commitment to development is
made, the Department's authority must focus on
the decisions that surround the initial commitment
to proceed. Mine openings might be spaced out
over time to avoid sharp changes in employment
levels. Impacts on an area following mine closings
must also be considered. The Department, thus,
can play an effective role in planning tract sales to
minimize or avert impacts at early stages of the
development process. The Department is required
by Section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 and Section 202 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
to coordinate with and to consider state and local
land use and management resource programs in its
own general planning processes. Two of the
unsuitability criteria, the buffering of state lands
unsuitable and state nominations of additional
criteria, are directed at fostering this coordination.
Additionally, criteria on historic land and sites,
natural areas, state listed endangered species,'
municipal watersheds, state resident fish and
wildlife, and national resource waters provide for
direct state or local participation. The Department
will also rely on comments from the state and local
governments in activity planning (including state
participation on the regional coal teams) as a
prime source of information in determining where
avoidance of an area is warranted because of social
or economic impacts. Further, the Department can
effectively work to close four of the five gaps in
existing mitigation mechanisms which were inden-
tified in the report.
• Information - The Department could make
all information generated in the coal man-
agement program which is not proprietary
available to state and local governments as
promptly as possible and could use lease
stipulatons to ensure disclosure of timely
and accurate private sector information,
and to ensure consultation of the private
sector with affected governments.
• State/Local/Tribal Participation in Deci-
sionmaking Process — The Department is
ideally situated to consult with and examine
development consequences with affected
state and local governments prior to mak-
ing decisions that might unduly burden
these governments with undesirable or
unmanageable responsibilities for develop-
ment impacts.
• Planning and Management - Despite the
inability of the Department to provide
additional direct financial assistance, state,
local, and area-wide institutional capacity
could be stimulated by timely and consis-
tent Departmental efforts to jointly consid-
er development consequences.
• Coordination of Assistance Mechanisms -
While the Department has no direct author-
ity to influence other Federal programs,
timely and consistent consultation with
other agencies might indirectly affect pro-
gram priorities.
The preferred program and several other
alternatives would provide for and, in fact, empha-
size each of the Departmental responses suggested
above. Particularly important are the early, fre-
quent, and special access procedures for state
government designed into all significant steps of
the preferred program and several other alterna-
tives and the special focus given to consultation
6-10
MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
with state governments on the location and timing
of lease sales.
In sum, the sensitivity of the land use and
activity planning processes assume particular
importance for mitigating social and economic
impacts. A sensitivity to the social and economic
consequences of development presents difficult
challenges to the planning system, since the
optimum management of Federal resources for
strictly Federal purposes may produce intolerable
consequences for non-Federal governments. This
may ultimately prove the strongest basis for
adopting the preferred program and proceeding
with renewed coal leasing, since renewed coal
leasing offers the opportunity to modify the spatial
pattern of coal development in response to such
policy concerns.
6.4 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979. Final
Environmental Statement, Permanent Regulatory
Program Implementing Section 501(b) of The
Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act of
1977. Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation,
Washington, D.C.
2. Energy Impact Assistance Steering Group,
March 1978. Report to the President: Energy
Impact Assistance. U.S. Department of Energy,
IR0009 UC-13, Washington, D.C.
6-11
"
,.":>
CHAPTER 7
LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
7.3.4 Wildlife 7_1°
7.4 REFERENCES 7"10
CHAPTER 7
LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
OF FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents long-term environmental
consequences of the Federal coal management
program alternatives. Adverse impacts which
cannot be avoided are described in Section 7.1.
Section 7.2 discusses irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of public resources required to
support the alternatives. Section 7.3 addresses
losses of long-term productivity versus short-term
uses of public lands. Unless otherwise noted, the
discussions in these sections are in the context of
the preferred Federal coal management program.
In deriving the impacts in Chapter 5, all mitigating
measures required by law or regulation in a coal
management program were considered to be in
operation. Thus, the impacts described in that
chapter can be considered as those unavoidable
under the various program alternatives. This
chapter is largely a summary of the material
presented there, highlighting the results that need
to be considered under long-term environmental
consequences. Nearly all the effects discussed here
are subject to some form of control, both in the
pre-leasing and post-leasing program structures.
7.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
During all activities associated with the coal
development cycle (exploration, mining, beneficia-
tion, transportation, conversion, and use), pro-
grammatic measures would be in operation to
mitigate potentially adverse environmental im-
pacts. Nevertheless, it is expected that there would
be certain adverse impacts which could not be
avoided regardless of the level or types of mitiga-
tion employed. This section provides a qualitative
discussion of these unavoidable effects. To prevent
considerable repetition, the effects are discussed on
a general basis with significant regional differences
identified where appropriate.
7.1.1 Physical Environment
7.1.1.1 Topography. Topographical features would
be unavoidably altered by construction and min-
ing. Construction activities could result in the
filling of areas of low relief, the leveling of rolling
terrain, and the removal of prominent points of
land. In addition, construction of water impound-
ments would result in the inundation of large areas
of land and would completely alter the topography
of such areas. Such impoundments are regulated
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977, but will still result in residual
effects on topography. Mining activities, especially
surface mining, would result in the disturbance of
extensive surface areas. Reclamation would, to a
large extent, restore the topography to approxi-
mate pre-mining contours in many areas. Subsi-
dence of land would also unavoidably result from
some underground mining activities.
7.1.1.2 Soil. Due to the nature of surface mining,
and to a lesser extent underground mining, some
quantities of native topsoils would be mixed with
or buried under mining wastes or lost through
erosion. These soils constitute a valuable natural
resource which would be irrevocably lost. The
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
contains several provisions designed to control and
minimize the soil loss. With reclamation, new soils
would form over time; however, in some areas of
the West, particularly the more arid regions,
hundreds of years could be required for natural
processes to reestablish fertile soils.
7.1.1.3 Archaeological and Historical Resources.
Even though coal production activities are accom-
plished within the framework of existing protective
laws and regulations, there would be some loss of
archaeological, cultural and historic resources
within each coal region. In no case, however,
should this loss involve a significant site or a
significant assemblage of sites if strict enforcement
of statutory requirements and application of
unsuitability criteria and other elements of the
preferred program and alternatives are main-
tained. Moreover, surveys required under existing
7-1
regulations could add to the cultural resources
data base.
7.1.1.4 Paleontological Resources. Coal deposits
and overburden material inevitably contain fossil
remains. Although significant fossil remains could
be lost through mining and mine-related activities,
the number and amount of such losses would be
minimized by the imposition of recovery stipula-
tions. Criteria and guidelines for protection and
recovery of such resources are presently being
developed. It is not possible to meaningfully
estimate the extent of potential loss of this
nonrenewable resource.
7.1.1.5 Water Resources. Water would be required
for coal mining in all of the coal regions;
additional water would be required for develop-
ments of supporting activities and the population
associated with coal mining, conversion, and use.
In water-short regions, the large volumes of water
withdrawn for coal development could be avail-
able for agricultural, industrial, commercial, and
residential uses. Generally, however, much of this
water would re-enter the water regime and be
available for such other uses. If coal production
were accompanied by development of power
plants, gasification plants, or other conversion
facilities, consumptive water uses and conflicts
with other users would increase. Water exists in
sufficient quantities in the three Appalachian Coal
Regions and the Eastern Interior Coal Region to
support coal development; however, water quality
can be of concern. In the Western Interior, Texas,
San Juan River, Uinta-Southwestern Utah, Fort
Union, Green River-Hams Fork, and Powder
River Coal Regions, sufficient water would gener-
ally be available on an annual basis, although
shortages might occur during the predictable and
regular low flow periods or under drought condi-
tions. In the Denver-Raton Mesa Coal Region
water might not be available, even on an annual
basis, to support projected coal-related and other
developmental activities.
Adverse impacts resulting from some breach-
ing and draining of aquifers during coal mining
could not be avoided. The loss of local aquifers can
be quite important in the Powder River, Fort
Union, and Texas Coal Regions. Here, lowering of
water levels may dry up springs and seeps or
reduce stream flows. Replacement of aquifers with
material of differing water holding capabilities
LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
than those present prior to mining would disrupt
groundwater flow patterns and could reduce
aquifer storage capacity.
Disruption of existing surface drainage pat-
terns and development of lakes and ponds could
result from surface mining, especially where thick
coal seams with thin overburden layers are mined
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
specifically seeks to mitigate this effect. Water use
m the area could be adversely affected to the
extent that stream flow regimes would be changed
by channel modifications. In addition, there could
be an increased loss of water by evaporation from
standing bodies of water.
Increased mining would also create a potential
for some unavoidable degradation of local and
regional water quality. Construction and mining
activities would result in increased erosion, runoff
and sedimentation. Acid mine drainage could
occur, primarily in the eastern coal regions.
Alkaline mine drainage could occur in some
western regions. The operation of coal conversion
and utility plants would produce potential water
pollutants including dissolved solids, ammonia
non-degradable organic compounds, oxygenated
compounds, sulfur compounds, cyanides phos-
phates, and trace elements. All of these effects are
subject to controls. Even with controls, coal
mining would pose some small risk of their
occurring and polluting surface or ground water
Consumptive uses could also increase salinity and
concentrations of pollutants downstream from the
point of diversion where the water had previously
been diluting other sources of water pollution.
Population associated with coal mines and conver-
sion and mine-mouth plants would introduce
increased salts, nutrients, organic materials, bacte-
ria, fertilizers, pesticides, trace elements, heavy
metals, etc., into surface waters, especially where
they overtax existing sewage treatment facilities.
A general scenic degradation would occur as a
result of coal mining, conversion, and use, though
the unsuitabihty criteria on designated wild and
scenic rivers and on visual resource areas are
aimed at eliminating this possibility. Scenic rivers
and other water related recreational activities
could be adversely impacted. The waters them-
selves could be degraded or the land through
which the water flows could be affected to such an
extent that many of their aesthetic properties
would be lost.
7-2
LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The consumptive use of water by secondary or
induced energy-related or industrial activities, such
as mine-mouth steam electric generating plants,
may further degrade water quality in certain
streams and rivers by increasing dissolved solid
concentrations and by reducing the assimilative
capacity for other pollutants as a consequence of
reduced water flows.
Since water is a renewable resource, short-term
consumption to support coal mining should not
greatly affect future availability. The construction
of impoundments could result in locally increased
reliability of water supplies. On the other hand, the
removal of native topsoil could alter drainage
patterns and render large surface areas impervious
with the result that groundwater levels and
pressures would be lowered, thus reducing the
future productivity of some aquifers. The use of
large amounts of the available water supply during
the active life of a mine in water-short regions
could result in a significant shift in the local uses of
water in other activities; most typically a decrease
in irrigated agriculture in relation to urban and
industrial water uses. These shifts could outlive
local coal mining and affect the long-term regional
water use patterns.
Significant long-term changes would result
from a decline in water quality resulting from coal
development. The long-term quality of the avail-
able water supply would probably decline due to
the discharge of industrial and municipal wastes,
the increased sediment load from construction-
related activities, possible return-flow effects, and
changing consumptive patterns, including con-
struction of impoundments. Increased salinity in
the Colorado River Basin is a major issue of
national and international concern. A reduction in
water quality could result in restrictions on the
productive uses of surface and ground water.
Decreased water quality would also have impacts
on long-term biological productivity in streams
and rivers.
7.1.1.6 Air Quality. Degradation of local air quality
would unavoidably occur in all regions as a result
of projected levels of 1985 and 1990 coal develop-
ment under any of the Federal coal management
alternatives. Some potential damage to plants,
animals, and human health from air pollutants
would be unavoidable. Some increases in sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, hydrocarbons, trace elements, and partic-
ulates would occur in all regions even though best
available emission control technologies are em-
ployed and air quality standards are enforced. A
long-term warming trend in the earth's climate
might result from the build-up of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere - the greenhouse effect.
7.1.2 Ecological Resources
Coal development would affect ecological
systems through the unavoidable disruption of
habitats, food chains, predator-prey relationships,
behavior patterns, and various activities of species
playing key roles in the ecosystem. The coal
management program would go to great lengths to
avoid these impacts. Several of the unsuitability
criteria have as their purpose the avoidance of
wildlife impacts. In addition, a very active wildlife
program has been proposed, including participa-
tion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
Appendix B). Terrestrial ecosystems would be
affected by land clearing activities, increased
presence of human activities in formerly remote
areas, changes in air quality, and decreases in soil
productivity. Aquatic ecosystems would be affect-
ed by changes in water quality, changes in stream
hydrology, activities which dry up aquatic habitats,
and the construction of reservoirs which would
change river ecosystems to lake ecosystems.
Existing vegetation would be destroyed on sites
used for mining, solid and liquid waste disposal,
community expansion, and the developments of
related activities. In addition, increased popula-
tions in presently undeveloped areas of the coal
regions would intensify recreational activities on
lands formerly not subject to intensive activities,
resulting in destruction or reduction of wildlife and
habitat. At mining sites, reclamation would be
required to restore vegetation so that the land
would, at the least, be capable of supporting
former uses. However, all reclamation efforts
would not likely be completely successful in
restoring the exact pre-mining conditions, especial-
ly on some severely disturbed mine areas which
have both low precipitation and infertile soil.
Mining will not be allowed on lands that cannot be
reclaimed because of physical limitations. In the
drier areas of the West or in areas with high
evapotranspiration rates, it is possible that many
decades could pass before natural vegetation and
soil conditions could be restored to disturbed
7-3
LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
areas, even with reclamation. Bonding is required
to ensure reclamation activity will continue even
after the active life of the mine. In the Appalachian
Coal Regions, acid drainage could hinder revegeta-
tion efforts. Revegetation of an area may result in
a plant species composition drastically different
from that which existed prior to development if it
is for a more beneficial use. Reclamation efforts,
on the other hand, may attempt to restore the
original use but with an entirely different mix of
species. Either way, coal mining could have lasting
effects on the ecology of the local area.
Loss of wildlife habitat and reductions in
wildlife populations would occur as unavoidable
consequences during the mining and use of coal.
Some displacement and mortality of animals
would occur in all regions.
Mining, transportation, and processing of coal
would expose wildlife to various hazards and
disturbances. Blasting, construction, and other
noises associated with the mining activity would be
unavoidable and would frighten away some wild-
life species. Reproductive and migratory behavior
could be affected.
Destruction of existing aquatic habitat and
fauna would occur where streams are altered by
mining or by construction of reservoirs. Reduction
of water quality as a result of development would
also adversely affect aquatic life. For example,
increased sedimentation of waters could result in
the elimination of those species which require
clean gravel for spawning. Changes to or elimina-
tion of ponds, streams, and potholes would also
adversely affect waterfowl.
In many areas, wildlife would return both
during and after reclamation efforts, providing
adequate water sources are available. In most
cases, however, the diversity, density, and compo-
sition of the new populations would be altered
from previous conditions.
7.1.3 Community Resources
The influx of a relatively large number of
people into a region as a result of coal develop-
ment could exert a major influence upon the
region; primarily, this growth affects existing
communities located near the areas of develop-
ment. The potential impacts to a community
would depend on the relative size and the rate of
population increases, the existing infrastructure,
and the adequacy of any advanced planning for
growth. Other factors affecting community ability
to absorb growth include past experience with
growth phenomena and mining. There could be
instances, however, where large and rapid in-
creases in population would unavoidably create
growth rates reaching "hyperurbanization" levels.
This is particularly true in more rural western
regions where existing base populations of commu-
nities are often small compared to the rapid
increase in construction and operating work forces
related to coal development. Furthermore, the
communities in the western coal regions usually
have had much less experience with coal mining
and growth phenomena than have towns in the
eastern coal regions.
Financing and construction of facilities for
education, fire and police protection, housing,
water and sewer distribution, and health-medical
care delivery systems take considerable lead time
and often these facilities cannot be developed
rapidly enough to accommodate rapid population
growth. Local governments may experience severe
problems in raising the capital to expand necessary
facilities and services, thus creating hardships for
long-term residents as well as newcomers.
Shortages of housing and other facilities and
services, combined with higher wages of industrial
workers, could create inflationary trends most
adversely affecting established residents, particu-
larly those on fixed incomes. Hope for higher
wages may also lead to an influx of workers
seeking employment opportunities in excess of
available jobs.
Most rural communities have well-defined and
long-established networks of social and political
relationships. It is likely that, in such a community,
these groups would be fragmented by the intrusion
of relatively large numbers of persons who, in
effect, would create a new social order. Even were
this not to occur, conflicts would inevitably
develop between the in-migrating construction and
operation workers and the local population over
differing personnel, economic, and social values.
This could lead to an overall deterioration of the
quality of life for everyone in the community.
The extent to which these conditions are
unavoidable would be related to the size of the
population influx compared to the size and
stability of the base population of the given
communities. Increases in most of the eastern coal
regions such as the Appalachian Coal Regions may
7-4
LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
be incrementally small because of the existing high
level of coal development there. Conversely,
western coal regions could experience large popu-
lation changes compared to their baseline levels.
This is particularly true in the Powder River Coal
Region and some of the other more rural areas of
the West.
7.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND
IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF PUBLIC RESOURCES
Once coal is mined, it cannot be replaced.
However, this is not the only coal that is lost. Some
coal is not recoverable in the process of mining. An
average of about 85 percent of the coal resource
can be recovered when area surface mining
methods are used. Only about half of the coal in
underground mining can be recovered, especially
when seams are thick. Basically, this is because
coal must be left to support the ground above the
seam being mined. The preference expressed by
the Secretary for the maximum economic recovery
policy to be included in the preferred program is
meant to mitigate this effect.
Production of coal from Federal lands through
1977 totals about 448 million tons. An additional
15 to 50 percent of this production may have been
lost in the mining process. In 1977 alone, coal
production from Federal lands was 52 million tons,
or nearly 12 percent of the total produced during
the past 200 years.
Table 7-1 shows the amounts of projected coal
production by regions for the various Federal coal
management program alternatives. Under a high
coal production projection for the preferred pro-
gram, for example, approximately 1.2 and 1.9
billion tons of coal would be mined in the years
1985 and 1990, respectively. An additional amount
of coal, roughly about 600 and 940 million tons,
respectively, would not be recoverable using
current mining methods. Less coal would be lost
with the Federal program in place than without it
because of imposition of the maximum economic
recovery requirement and emergency leasing.
As noted in Section 7.1.1.5, those aquifers
drastically disturbed during mining or ground-
water use may be irreversibly changed. Additional-
ly, if large quantities of groundwater were to be
pumped from thick aquifers, irreversible ground
subsidence could occur, including compaction of
the underlying aquifer. The quality of water in
some aquifers could be irreversibly changed as, for
example, when pumping of high quality water
permits infiltration by lower quality water. Leach-
ates from solid and liquid wastes of coal facilities
could also cause irreversible changes to ground-
water quality.
The other principal changes would be:
• Some drainage patterns would be irrevers-
ibly changed by mining and construction
activities. Changes in drainage could lead to
irreversible alterations to surface water
hydrology.
• Fuels, electric power, lubricants, explosives,
structural materials, capital, and manpower
committed for coal development would be
irretrievably lost to other uses.
• On those areas reclaimed to premining
vegetation, it is doubtful that total reestabl-
ishment of the native plant communities to
the same level of diversity would be initially
possible. The number of exotic species may
increase, at least initially and during the
early phases of reclamation.
• A considerable portion of land use changes
accompanying coal mining would be per-
manent since areas shifted to industrial and
residential uses would likely remain com-
mitted to these uses.
o Where crop, grazing, and forest lands could
not be restored to former productivity,
there would be an irretrievable loss of
productive capacity.
• Unidentified historical, archaeological, and
paleontological sites would be destroyed by
mining and construction activities and
irretrievably lost.
• Less tangible values that would be irretriev-
ably lost include areas of natural beauty
and those of unique geologic significance as
study sites.
7 3 LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
LOSSES VERSUS SHORT-TERM
USE OF LANDS
73.1 Trade-Off Analysis of Multiple Uses of
Public Lands
Many changes would be associated with the
development of coal resources, and, in particular,
surface mining, due primarily to the long-term
nature of the land alteration. In many past
7-5
TABLE 7-1
COAL PRODUCTION SUMMARY
(million tons)
I
a-
COAL
1976
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
PRLA's
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEES
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
REGIONS
LOW
| MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
1985 PROJECTIONS
Northern Appalachian
176.0
208.3
211.7
217.5
208.4
211.6
216.7
211.8
211.7
210.4
211.5
211.1
Central Appalachian
206.8
202.7
205.5
178.8
202.7
204.4
175.9
205.6
204.8
192.5
203.4
211.0
Southern Appalachian
23.4
18.0
27.5
42.7
18.0
26.6
40.6
26.5
27.5
31.6
22.1
23.0
Eastern Interior
136.4
209.0
206.1
172.4
209.0
209.7
161.0
206.0
207.1
196.1
203.4
212.6
Western Interior
11.5
12.7
14.2
14.2
12.6
13.6
14.5
13.7
14.2
8.2
10.8
15.8
Texas
14.1
62.4
64.0
48.6
62.5
66.3
35.3
63.7
64.6
50.2
57.7
78.6
Other East
TOTAL EAST
568.2
713.1
729.0
674.2
713.2
732.2
644.0
727.3
729.9
689.0
708.9
752.1
Powder River
37.4
150.0
204.8
275.0
150.0
205.0
300.0
205.0
205.0
225.0
204.6
183.7
Green River-Hams Fork
25.7
40.0
76.0
99.6
40.0
80.0
130.0
77.9
77.0
112.0
112.0
57.5
Fort Union
11.4
16.9
' 31.9
51.9
16.9
31.9
51.9
31.9
31.9
36.9
21.9
37.4
San Juan River
8.8
15.0
24.8
39.7
15.0
25.0
40.0
24.8
24.8
30.0
22.1
32.0
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
10.2
15.0
29.6
44.5
15.0
30.0
45.0
30.0
29.7
35.0
26.4
29.4
Denver-Raton Mesa
1.9
2.0
5.0
10.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
Other West
10.4
18.3
4.2
6.7
18.3
3.0
6.7
3.8
3.8
6.8
6.6
1.8
TOTAL WEST
105.8
257.2
376.3
52 7.4
257.2
379.9
583.6
378.4
377.2
451.7
399.6
348.8
TOTAL U.S.
674.0
970.4
1,105.3
1,201.6
970.4
1,112.1
1,227.6
1,105.7
1,107.1
1,140.7
1,108.5
1,100.9
TABLE 7-1 (Concluded)
COAL PRODUCTION SUMMARY
(million tons)
COAL
REGIONS
1976
NO NEW
LEASING
PREFERRED
PROGRAM
1
FRLAs
ONLY
EMERCENCY
LEASING
ONLY
MEET
INDUSTRY
NEEDS
MEET
DOE
GOALS
STATE
DETER-
MINATION
' LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
"
1990 PROJECTIONS
,
Northern Appalachian
176.0
193.8
219.4
261.5 193.8
220.1
252.8
219.4
219.6
217. B
222.3
225.3
Central Appalachian
206.8
191.3
211.2
237.8
191.2
206.2
217.6
210.5
210.0
203.0
205.5
225.4
Southern Appalachian
23.4
15.6
26.4
42.8
15.6
25.4
40.4
26.3
26.4
30.4
14.5
14.2
Eastern Interior
136.4
275.7
331.5
351.1
274.7
319.7
280.1
314.4
328.0
284.6
312.5
381.1
Western Interior
11.5
13.1
25.5
58.5
12.7
17.1
14.0
19.3
24.2
10.2
10.1
35.0
-»J
Texas
14.1
74.0
119.4
154.0
73.0
86.1
100.0
116.4
115.8
58.9
79.6
111.0
»~J
Other East
_ _
- -
TOTAL EAST
568.2
763.5
933.4
1105.7
761.0
874.6
904.9
906.3
924.0
804.9
844.5
992.0
Powder River
37.4
175.0
305.0
335.0
175.0
400.0
600.0
355.0
316.0
450.0
396.1
269.1
Green River-Hams Fork
25.7
66.5
98.7
119.0
70.0
120.0
175.0
101.0
104.2
150.0
149.5
62.8 '
Fort Union
11.4
21.9
51.0
94.9
21.9
41.9
81.9
47.4
50.6
51.9
22.5
54.4
San Juan River
8.8
25.0
59.4
77.3
25.0
50.0
75.0
54.9
58.4
60.0
57.7
63.0
Ulnta-Southwestern Utah
in. 2
19.8
45.0
65.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
42.0
44.8
50.0
28.3
36.8
Denver-Raton Mesa
1.9
5.0
10.7
15.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
10.5
10.6
10.0
7.5
10.3
Other West
10.4
14.4
10.3
7.7
14.4
10.7
9.1
8.6
10.2
3.7
8.3
14.1
TOTAL WEST
105.8
327.6
580.1
713.9
331.3
672.6
1016.0
619.4
594.8
775.6
669.9
510.5
TOTAL U. S .
674. C
1091.1
1513.5
1819.6
1092.3
1547.2
1920.9
1525.7
15)8.8
1580.5
1514.4
1
1502.5
J -
LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
instances, the productive capacity of land has been
essentially destroyed through the employment of
ecologically unsound mining practices. Further,
there is insufficient experience in restoring lands to
allow any truly accurate estimates to.be made of
the productivity that would be expected over the
long term on reclaimed lands. The Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act requires that recla-
mation efforts return the area to at least its former
level of use.
Adjustments in the social structure of many
communities will be needed as a result of coal
development. These include adjusting to new
social situations and living with people whose
habits and values are different from those previ-
ously encountered. There may be frustrations,
problems, and reductions in social welfare for both
newcomers and long-time residents in the coal
development areas. Prediction of the intensity and
persistence of this social disruption or its conse-
quences is not possible in a programmatic environ-
mental impact statement.
73.2 Time Frame of Coal Leasing
The present Federal coal management pro-
gram diligence requirements set exhaustion of new
logical mining unit reserves within a 40 year
period. The average mine is actively in production
for about 30 years. Other time dependent elements
of the program include:
» Production starts - within 10 years of lease.
• Initial lease term - 20 years.
• Lease renewal term - 10 years.
The management program as presently struc-
tured represents a long-term commitment of
resources, e.g. 30-40 years. However, not all of the
area of a lease is removed from other productive
uses. For a surface mine, only a minor part might
be actively mined at any one time. Disturbed lands
generally enter the reclamation cycle simulta-
neously with active mining and can be available
for other productive uses before shutdown of
production. The only exception would be areas
committed to long-term use such as building sites,
roads, storage facilities, etc. Where areas are
reclaimed soon after use, the time for alternative
uses foregone and productivity losses experienced
typically ranges between five and 15 years. Under
the permanent surface mining regulations, mines
will find it to their advantage to reclaim disturbed
areas quickly.
73.3 Productivity
Reclamation efforts and natural revegetation
of strip-mined areas would be initiated once the
coal resource has been removed. Areas around
buildings and other coal development related
facilities would likely be revegetated and land-
scaped once construction of these structures was
completed.
In Chapter 5, impacts to natural and agricul-
tural productivities due to land disturbances were
presented based on total land requirements be-
tween 1976 and 1990. These requirements include
both long-term and short-term losses.
Long-term losses of natural productivity would
occur on areas committed to hard surface, build-
ings or other permanent types of structure, and to
areas committed to a major change in land use
(e.g., land required to support coal related popula-
tion increases). While there is a potential to return
these areas to some stage of natural production, it
is unlikely that such a change would occur in the
near future.
Short-term losses of natural productivity would
occur in areas subject to disturbances that would
be alleviated over time (indirect or secondary
impacts), and areas that have a potential for being
returned to some level of natural production. Such
areas include buffer zones around facilities, areas
around buildings that would be landscaped, and
land required for mining. Estimates of the amounts
of land subject to long-term or short-term losses
under the preferred leasing alternative medium
level production are presented in Table 7-2.
The amount of time required to achieve some
return of productivity to short-term land losses will
be dependent on actual land use objectives.
Reclamation to commercially harvestable forest in
the Appalachian and Eastern Interior Coal Re-
gions would take between 25 and 30 years for
coniferous species and between 75 and 80 years for
hardwoods, based on present silvicultural tech-
niques [1]. Reclaiming the land as cropland could
occur within one to two years of soil restoration in
some cases.
Estimates of time to reclaim rangeland to pre-
mining productivities range from about one year in
the Texas Coal Region [2] to 10 years in the
Powder River Coal Region and 14 years in the
Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region. These are
estimates, not precise forecasts, and only more
research and experience will develop reliable
7-1
-:: _.
TABLE f-i
ESTIMATES OF LONG TERM/ SHORT TERM LOSSES OF TOTAL LAND REQUIRED BETWEI
1976 AND 1990 UNDER THE PREFERRED COAL LEASING ALTERNATIVE,
MEDIUM LEVEL PRODUCTION
(acres)
REGION
LONG TERM
LOSSES(a)
SHORT
rERM LOSSES
SUBJECT TO
SECONDARY
DISTURBANCES (b)
ACTIVELY DISTURBED Cc)
RECLAMATION REQUIRED
TOTAL
Northern Appalachian
37,598
15,178
97,010
149,786
Central Appalachian
20,246
8,919
108,085
137,250
Southern Appalachian
23,008
9,373
22,333
54,714
-J
1
Eastern Interior
57,886
14,408
97,872
170,166
V£>
Western Interior
39,661
14,521
25,528
79,710
Texas
60,816
21,325
55,575
137,716
Powder River
36,154
5,511
59,925
101,590
Green River-Hams Fork
8,722
5,972
69,235
83,929
Fort Union
12,604
3,727
19,250
35,581
San Juan River
8,797
2,005
24,280
35,082
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
9,906
1,898
2,605
14,409
Denver-Raton Mesa
8,963
2,494
3,808
15,265
TOTAL
324,361 (32%)
105,331 (10%)
585,506 (58%)
1,015,198
(a) Committed to "permanent" structures, hard surface areas, or to a major change in
land for coal related population increased.
(b)Areas adjacent to facilities that are undeveloped,
(c) Primarily land required to produce coal.
land use (e.g.
LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
information about restoration of long-term pro-
ductivity in the grasslands and other semi-arid and
arid areas of the West.
73.4 Wildlife
The potential for returning wildlife to re-
claimed areas would be directly dependent upon
the success of the vegetation reclamation efforts
and reclaimed uses of the land. The time to recover
stable wildlife populations is highly dependent on
individual species characteristics. The long-term
reestablishment of wildlife populations must be
considered in terms of the short-term, site-specific
losses of both species numbers and habitat. This is
directly related to the acreage commitments during
the average 30-year life of a given mining site. As
specific mining tracts are not identifiable in this
statement, it is not possible to specifically identify
habitats which would be disrupted. Nevertheless,
any surface mining operation would result in a
temporary loss of habitat for certain species.
Wildlife reestablishment will closely follow the
successional stages of vegetation. Areas successful-
ly replanted in seedlings, for example, would be
expected to follow a typical pattern for both plant
and animal species. Windblown seeds that become
established along with planted seedlings would
increase plant diversity and provide additional
opportunities for wildlife feeding, cover, and
reproduction. The first inhabitants of a reclaimed
area would include soil organisms, insects, and
other arthropods, and rodents, followed by small
mammals, foxes, and ground nesting birds.
Usefulness of range reclamation to wildlife will
depend upon the eventual mix of plant species that
first establish themselves and the succession that
follows. Replanting with vegetation of only one
type, as under cultivation, could limit the benefits
to wildlife. Control of undesirable plant species
and protection of newly established vegetation
from grazing animal species may also be required
for several years before reclaimed areas can be
deemed successful in terms of maximum wildlife
benefits.
7.4 REFERENCES
1. Curtis, W., 1978. Personal communication.
Northeast Forest Experiment Station. Berea, Ken-
tucky.
2. Payne, R., 1978. Personal communication.
Railroad Commission of Texas, Surface Mining
Department.
<
7-10
CHAPTER 8
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
\
I
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 8 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION . .
8.1 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION
8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PUBLICATION
8.2. 1 Preparation of Draft Environmental Statement
(DES)
8.2.2 Publication and Distribution of the Draft
Environmental Statement
8.3 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
8.3.1 Public Meetings
8.3.2 Public Hearings
8.3.3 Public Comments
8.3.4 Review Procedures for Handling Public
Comments
8.3.5 Letters Received with Substantive Comments
8.3.6 Individuals Presenting Relevant Testimony at the
Hearings
8.3.7 Substantive Comments and Departmental
Responses
8.3.8 List of All Written Comments
8.4 REFERENCES
CHAPTER 8
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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 environmental impact
statement on the then proposed leasing program
(see Section 1.2.4), the new statutory base for
leasing (see Section 1.3.1), and the NRDC v.
Hughes suit which challenged the legal adequacy
of the 1975 statement (see Section 1.2.6). 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' argu-
ments 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. The decision
to design a new coal management program and
prepare a new programmatic environmental im-
pact statement was announced to the public in a
July 25, 1977, Departmental press release.
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, 1977 publica-
tion of the National Energy Plan which empha-
sized 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). Although the court order only
required the publication of a supplement to the
1975 environmental impact statement, for the
reasons discussed above the Secretary maintained
his decision to prepare a wholly new draft
environmental impact on a newly designed pre-
ferred coal management program.
Since these events, the Department has offered
numerous opportunities for public participation
and has consulted with expert Federal and state
agencies, state governors and their representatives,
trade associations and individual companies, envi-
ronmental associations, community groups, and
other organizations with expertise on coal develop-
ment issues on the development of the preferred
coal management program and the preparation of
this statement.
8.1 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION
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 devel-
oped and submitted to the Office of Coal Manage-
ment, Bureau of Land Management, a background
issue paper which was made public and continues
to be available from the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment upon request. The Office of Coal Leasing,
Planning, and Coordination reviewed these papers
and from them prepared concise issue option
papers which were submitted to the Secretary or
Under Secretary. (These issue option papers, listed
5-1
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
in Table 3-1, were also made public and continue
to be available from the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment upon request.) The Secretary or Under
Secretary circulated the issue option papers to the
Assistant Secretaries and the Solicitor for com-
ments and recommendations on which issue
options should be selected. After all comments and
recommendations were also circulated among the
Assistant Secretaries and the Solicitor, they or their
representatives 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.
These preferred options formed the bases of the
preferred program in this statement. Program
development was coordinated with the states,
industry, environmental groups, citizens organiza-
tions, and Indian tribes in the West by the Denver
based Assistant to the Director of the Office of
Coal Leasing, Planning, and Coordination.
In addition to the program development
coordination described above, the Bureau of Land
Management conducted interagency consultations
concerning jurisdictional authorities and responsi-
bilities. Major coordination activities have taken
place between: (1) BLM and the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) concerning coal related wildlife
management responsibilities, (2) BLM, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (USGS), and the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
concerning pre- and post-lease coal management
responsibilities, (3) the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, BLM, USGS, and the OSM
concerning the protection of cultural resources on
Federal lands, (4) between BLM and the Forest
Service (FS), Department of Agriculture, concern-
ing application of unsuitability criteria national
forest system lands, and (5) between BLM and the
Small Business Administration on small business
coal lease set aside sales. A Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) was completed between
BLM and FWS on September 26, 1978 (Appendix
B). Additional MOU's are currently being negoti-
ated.
The Department has met on a quarterly bases
with the Department of Energy through the
Leasing House Committee (see Section 1.3.2.2) and
has worked closely with the DOE Office of Leasing
Policy Development in developing the preferred
program. The Department negotiated a Memoran-
dum of Understanding with the Department on
Energy concerning the setting of energy minerals
production goals (see Appendix B). The Depart-
ment's Office of Coal Leasing, Planning and
Coordination and the Assistant Secretary, Land
and Water Resources, have held several briefing
and information-gathering meetings in the West,
beginning in January 1978 with representatives of
the western states Governors' Offices and state
resource agencies to obtain state and local govern-
ment viewpoints on and participation in the
development of, the program. The Office and the
Assistant Secretary also met with various industry
groups and environmental organizations for simi-
lar purposes.
8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT PUBLICATION
This section deals with consultations and
coordination efforts since the original Final Coal
Leasing Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement was published on September 19, 1975
Consultation efforts for this document com-
menced with a departmental news release on
November 17, 1977, which requested the public to
comment on the 1975 final environmental impact
statement. A total of 265 comments were received
from various governmental, industrial, and private
sources. These comments were considered prior to
the preparation of the draft version of this
statement.
Thereafter, BLM negotiated a contract with
the MITRE Corporation to assist in the prepara-
tion of the new statement. This contractual
assistance commenced on April 14, 1978. Subse-
quently, 4he contractor and the Department of the
Interior consulted with the organizations listed in
Table 8-1 to obtain advice and information for the
preparation of the draft statement.
8.2.1 Preparation of Draft Environmental
Statement (DES)
Three types of consultation occurred during
the preparation of the draft version of this
statement (DES). Specifically, they included circu-
lation of the DES outline, coordination with the
Department of Energy to determine coal produc-
tion level scenarios, and the circulation of copies of
the preliminary draft environmental statement.
1-2
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
The Format Outline for The Coal Program-
matic DES was made available via a Federal
Register notice on July 31, 1978[2]. Copies for the
general public were available upon request. The
alternative coal production levels which serve as
the basis for impact analysis in Chapter 5 were
derived from production projections provided by
the Department of Energy. Lastly, the preliminary
draft environmental statement, PDES, which
represented a "first cut" effort on the draft
statement, was distributed to selected agencies for
comment. In addition to Interior agencies, DOE,
FS the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and western state Governors' Offices received
copies of the PDES and were asked to comment.
See Table 8-2.
Representatives of western state Governors
Offices participated jointly with Departmental
representatives in the review of the PDES. The
assistance of these representatives was of substan-
tial value in the assessment and analysis of key
program issues, policy implications, and effects on
state and local government policies, plans and
programs. All PDES comments which were sub-
mitted in a timely manner were considered prior to
the printing of the DES. Where appropriate, the
statement reflected those comments.
8.2.2 Publication and Distribution of the Draft
Environmental Statement
The DES was published on December 13,
1978 and a notice of availability was published in
the December 15, 1978, issue of the Federal
Register.
After publication of the notice of availability,
2 000 copies of the DES were initially distributed
to a wide range of individuals, including Federal
and state agencies and nongovernmental organiza-
tions such as conservation and environmental
groups, industrial organizations, mining compa-
nies, libraries, and others. During the extended 60-
day review period (45 days is mandatory), an
additional 3,000 copies were distributed to other
nongovernmental organizations and individuals
for review and comment.
8.3 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES
The extended 60-day public comment period
was scheduled to provide the public with the
opportunity to review and offer comment on the
effects of the Federal coal management program,
including the preferred program and alternatives,
described in the DES.
During this period, the Department placed a
high priority in obtaining wide media coverage in
order to allow divergent groups and individual
citizens an opportunity to participate in the review
process, either by public appearance at scheduled
meetings and hearings or through written re-
sponses.
On December 15, 1978, Secretary Andrus
released the DES at a Washington press confer-
ence during which time he stressed the need for
maximum public participation. Assistant Secre-
tary, Guy Martin delivered a similar speech in
Denver, Colorado, on December 14, 1978, empha-
sizing the need for total public participation in the
environmental statement review process. He stat-
ed, "Publication of the Draft Environmental
Statement represents the first opportunity for all
parties who are interested to examine and com-
ment on the unified proposed program and its
alternatives."
This theme was carried out further m a
nationwide press release issued by the Secretary on
December 15, 1978. Similar news releases were
issued by BLM State offices during the subsequent
public meetings and hearings that were held in 16
cities located in the major coal resource regions.
Individual news releases were disseminated to
the following media:
Radio stations
TV stations
Newspapers
Newsletters
Magazines
News services (wire)
105
84
231
11
9
2
83.1 Public Meetings
In its concern with ensuring wide public
involvement in the preparation of the DES, the
Department took the innovative step of scheduling
special, pre-hearing informational meetings for the
public. The purpose of these meetings, which were
held in 12 cities during early January 1979, was to
fully advise the public of the contents and
availability of the DES and the upcoming formal
DES hearings and to provide an opportunity to
interested parties to informally question those in
the Department who are responsible for coal
management policy decision making and prepara-
tion of the DES.
8-3
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
A total of 380 persons attended the 12 pre-
hearing meetings held in the following locations:
January 3, 1979 —
January 3, 1979 —
January 4, 1979 —
January 4, 1979 —
January 5, 1979 —
January 5, 1979 —
January 8, 1979 —
January 8, 1979 —
January 9, 1979 —
January 9, 1979 —
January 10, 1979 —
January 10, 1979 —
Albuquerque, NM
Denver, CO
Salt Lake City, UT
Cheyenne, WY
Grand Junction, CO
Sheridan, WY
Price, UT
Billings, MT
Craig, CO
Miles City, MT
Rock Springs, WY
Bismarck, ND
83.2 Public Hearings
The Department of the Interior conducted (10)
formal public hearings to receive comments and
suggestions relative to the DES. Administrative
Law Judges (ALJ) presided over the hearings
which were recorded verbatim by professional
court reporters.
A panel of officials representing the Secretary's
Office, Department of the Interior, the Office of
Coal Leasing, Planning, and Coordination, the
Bureau of Land Management, and the Solicitor's
office received the testimony.
At the conclusion of each witness' testimony,
members of the hearing panel answered some
questions within their expertise and clarified issues
presented in the testimony.
Oral testimony at the ten hearings was given by
a total of 74 persons and amounted to 334
individual comments and/or questions. Approxi-
mately 60 percent of these comments were directed
at the functional aspects of the program. Testimo-
ny was received from a diverse group of individu-
als representing environmental organizatons, in-
dustry, governmental agencies, and private citi-
zens. Comments ranged from support of the
statement to requests for a complete rewrite of
various sections of the program.
The public hearings were conducted at 10
different locations. Sessions were scheduled begin-
ning at 1:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. at the locations cited
on Table 8-3.
833. Public Comments
At the end of the extended review period, BLM
analyzed and compiled the following statistics
representing the total of all public comments:
Total attendees at all 10 hearings
Total witnesses at all 10 hearings
Total number of attendees at
12 public meetings
Total number of written comments
(including witnesses testimony)
Total number of written comments
(after extended 60-day period)
Total individual questions
Total individual questions
(after 60-day extended period)
360
74
380
2S7
84
1392
385
The number of individual letters received both
during and after the review period were separated
into six major categories for the purpose of
classifying each comment. A breakdown of these
major categories and the number of comments in
each category is as follows: policy comments, 891;
compliance comments, 25; technical comments',
403; regulatory comments, 25; general-non specific
comments, 20; and vote (expressions for or against
the preferred alternative), 28.
The comments were provided by four major
groups: governmental agencies, industry, environ-
mental organizations, and private citizens No
single group dominated. The bulk of the comments
were directed at the program as opposed to the
DES. Industry's major concerns were that the
program involved excessive governmental control.
Environmental organizations were concerned that
the program was driven by a desire to implement
the program by 1980; that the model used during
DES preparation was inaccurate; that the need for
new leasing was not identified in the DES, and that
the reclamation estimates were inaccurate. Gov-
ernmental agencies mostly provided comments on
the technical details of the DES. Lastly, private
citizens expressed their concerns with the way in
which they would be affected by the program.
83.4 Review Procedures for Handling Public
Comments
During the review process, 287 documented
comments were received as a result of solicitation
by Federal Register notices, news releases, public
meetings, and formal public hearings.
The December 15, 1978, issue of the Federal
Register stated, "Written comments on the draft
statement will be accepted on or before February
13, 1979, submitted to the Office of Coal Manage-
ment (140), Bureau of Land Management, Depart-
ment of the Interior, 18th and C Streets NW
Washington, D.C. 20240."
5-4
MMHHMgma..,
:.,.; ■.,:.:: / :\-- ■■
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
The congressionally mandated 45-day review
period was extended by the Department to 60 days
in order to allow those commmentors preparing
their statements the maximum amount of time to
respond to the DES.
All letters and testimony were reviewed by the
environmental staff in the preparation of the final
environmental statement. Letters received by the
BLM were first reviewed relative to either draft
corrections or issues raised. All substantive com-
ments-those which presented new data, questioned
analyses, or raised questions bearing directly upon
the environmental effects of the proposed action
and its alternatives-were responded to separately.
Every person who testified at the hearings and
every letter postmarked no later than February 1 1,
1979, or received no later than February 13, 1979,
were assigned an index number. (Section 8.3.7 lists
all substantive comments and Departmental re-
sponses.)
The comment was presented verbatim whenev-
er possible; each independent comment was
identified by an index number. Comments which
duplicated others were responded to by referenc-
ing the first response (index number). Once a
comment or issue was responded to fully, the
initial response was not repeated; the reader is
referred to the initial response in answering all
similar comments.
Such substantive comments were then ana-
lyzed for subsequent change or insertion into the
text of this final environmental statement.
Letters which were general, vague, or did not
contain substantive comments were reviewed, but
no specific response was prepared. Comments of
an editorial nature, if not substantive, were also
not responded to, although appropriate text
changes were made. The reader who wishes to
identify comments and testimony by topic may
refer to Section 8.3.7, and then to the appropriate
list of hearings witness (Section 8.3.6) or comment
authors (Section 8.3.5) to specifically identify
appropriate comment/responses. All respondents
who provided written comments and all of the
persons appearing as hearing witnesses are listed in
Section 8.3.8, for general reference.
83.5 Letters Received with Substantive Comments
Over 131 letters were received during the 60-
day review period from environmental groups,
interested citizens, industry, and Federal and state
agencies. All letters were reviewed and considered.
Below is a list of only those respondents who
submitted substantive comments. Letters that were
repetitive or did not address the adequacy of the
DES were assigned an index number but are not
listed below. (Refer to Section 8.3.8 for a listing of
ail commenters.)
Agency, Organization, or Individual
Index
Number
001 . Southeast Nebraska Council of Governments
006. Energy Transportation Systems, Inc.
010. Intermountain Exploration Company
011. Natural Resources Council (Iowa)
013. Ray Brady
014. North Dakota State Planning Division
017. Wallace McMartin
018. Sweetwater County Planning Department
019. Western Coal Company
025. Friends of the Earth, Inc.
026. The Colorado Mountain Club
029. Bruce Seegert
030. Doris Ellis
031. T.W.Thursby
032. Edwina Eastman
034. Wesco Resources, Inc.
035. BLM (Utah State Director)
037. Mrs. Arthur Beier
038. Greg Flakers
042. High Country Citizens Alliance
043. M Christopher
047. Office of the Governor - State of Vermont
053. Charles W. Margolf
055. Council of Energy Resource Tribes
056. Office of the Governor - State of Texas
057. DNA - Peoples Legal Services, Inc.
058. Public Lands Institute, Inc.
059. Western Colorado Resource Council, Inc.
060. Colorado Open Space Council
06 1 . Northern Plains Resource Council
062. Powder River Basin Resource Council
066. Coastal States Energy Company
067. Burlington Northern
068. Consolidation Coal Company
069. Peabody Coal Company
07 1 . Environmental Information Center
073. Northern Minerals Company
074. CSG Exploration Company
075. MONTCO
076. League of Women Voters of the United States
077. AMAX Coal Company
078. Utah Power and Light Company
079. Bureau of Mines
082. Ad Hoc Committee on Public Body Leasing
083. Mobil Oil Corporation
084. Sunoco Energy Development Company
085. The Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club
086. Katherine Moorehead
087. American Mining Congress
088. El Paso Natural Gas Company
089. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
090. Duncan, Brown, Weinberg, and Palmer, P.C.
092. The Carter Oil Company
093 . Office of the Governor - State of Utah
5-5
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
094.
095.
096.
097.
098.
099.
100.
101.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
116.
118.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
The Cherokee and Pittsburg Coal Mining Company
Southern California Edison Company
Tenneco Coal
Friends of the Earth
National Coal Association
Environmental Policy Institute
Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc.
Colowyo Coal Company
Council on Economic Priorities
James Catlin
Tri-County Ranchers Association
3R Corporation
R Bar Ranch
Sierra Club - Northern Great Plains Office
The New Mexico Natural History Institute
James and Karen Bernhardt
The Illinois South Project, Inc.
Page T. Jenkins
Colorado River Board of California
United States Department of Agriculture (SCS)
Powder River Basin Resource Council
Colorado Westmoreland, Inc.
Office of the Governor - State of Montana
Office of the Governor - State of Wyoming
National Wildlife Federation
Environmental Defense Fund
83.6
Individuals Presenting Relevant Testimony at
the Hearings
A toal of 360 persons attended the ten hearings
with (74) witnesses presenting oral testimony.
Individuals who did not make substative com-
ments were assigned an index number but are not
listed below.
128. Milton A. Oman
Self
130. Gordon Anderson
Friends of the Earth.
131. GaryTomsic
Southeastern Utah Association of Gov-
ernments, Economic Development Dis-
trict
134. Nina Dougherty
Sierra Club-Utah Chapter
135. George By ers
Western Coal Company
136. JohnTilten
Environmental Affairs for Chaco Energy
Company
137. Paul Robinson
Southwest Research
138. Joseph Gmuca
DNA People's Legal Services
139. Judson C. Kelly
Self
144. Sarah Gorin
Powder River Basin Resource Council
145. Bob Anderson
Powder River Basin Resource Council
146. ReedZars
Powder River Basin Resource Council
147. Al Minier
Wyoming State Planning Coordinator
148. Bruce Hamilton
Sierra Club, Northern Great Plains
Regional Representative.
150. Frederick Murray
MAPCO, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma
151. KenNorris
Colorado-Ute Electric Association
152. Daniel R. Ellison
Sun Coal Company Inc.
1 54. Carolyn Ruth Johnson
Public Lands Institute
155. Harris Sherman
Colorado Department of Natural Re-
sources
156. Kenen Markey
Friends of the Earth
157. AnneeVickery
Conservation Committee of the Colora-
do Mountain Club
158. BradKlafehn
Colorado Open Space Council
159. Terry O'Connor
Peabody Coal Company
160. Steven Moore
Colorado Wilderness Network
161. Lynn Burns
Self
162. Jerry Whiting
Central Southwest Fuels, Inc.
163. Traver Berrington
Sierra Club
1 64. Linda Lindsey
Self
165. Steve Wolcott
Self
166. Robin Nicholoff
Self
167. Gretchen Nicholoff
Provisional League of Women Voters
168. Mark Welsh
Self
1 70. Governor Tom Judge
State of Montana
171. Jean Anderson
League of Women Voters
8-6
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
172. Bill Mackay
Northern Plains Resource Council
173. Harvey Bieber
McCone Agricultural Protection Organi-
zations
714. Henen Waller
Self
175. Douglas Richardson
(for) Bertha Medicine Bow, Northern
Cheyene Resource Project
176. Mary Daniels
Tri-County Ranchers Association
178. Dr. Daniel Henning
International Council of Environmental
Law
179. Keith Williams
Montana Water Development Associa-
tion of Billings, Montana
182. Ruben Hummel
Self
184. Dwight Connor
Office of the Governor, State of North
Dakota
185. Evelyn Newton
Self
187. TedNace
Self
188. Randolph Nodland
Self
189. June Thompson
North Dakota-South Dakota Sierra
Club
191. Carey Ridder
Environmental Policy Institute
192. LamontC. Laue
Sunoco Energy Development Company
193. David Masselli
Friends of the Earth.
194. Kevin L. Markey
Friends of the Earth.
195. Jonathan Lash
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc.
197. Daniel J. Snyder, III
Colorado Westmoreland, Inc.
198. Roger E. Nelson
Utah International, Inc.
200. Nancy Strong
Self
202. Susan Westfall
Self
83.7 Substantive Comments and Departmental
Responses
During the extended public comment period, a
total of 287 written comments (including witnesses
testimony) were received and recorded.
Each letter received and each person who
testified at the hearing was assigned an index
number. In the following part of this chapter,
substantive comments received are grouped by
seperate categories (e.g., Background, Reserves
Estimates, etc.). The comment was typed verbatim
in most cases; these comments are followed by the
index number of the agency, organization or
person who made the comment. Similar comments
received from more than one source have several
index numbers identifying the source. An appro-
priate Departmental response either identifies that
the text of the ES was changed or provides
rationale for why the comment did not require a
text change. Those comments solely editorial in
nature were incorporated within the text of of the
final ES but were not repeated or responded to in
this chapter.
Background
Reserves Estimates
Mine Size and Production
DOE Model
Supply and Demand
Regional Boundaries
Alternate Energy Source
East v. West
Existing Leases
Need for New Leasing
Delegent Development
Bonus Bid
Strip Mining Rules
Preferred Program
Alternatives
Land Use Planning
Unsuitability Criteria
Production Targets
Competitive Bidding
Industry Nominations
Public Participation
Special Leasing Considerations
Start Up Consideration
Surface Owner Consent
Post Programmatic ES Strategy
Maximum Economic Recovery
8-7
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
©
End Use Considerations
Environmental Description
Impact Assessment Methodology
Reclamation
Environmental Analysis
Sub Alternatives
Mitigation
Long Term Impacts
Intra-Agency Cooperation
General Comments
Appendices
Comments and Responses
BACKGROUND
1. Comment. "In many cases, the DOI may not
even be aware a coal resource exists. According to
Section 1.3.1 of the Draft Statement, almost half of
the federal coal leases issued in the past have
required no competitive bidding; indicating that
almost half the areas of interest to private industry
were not known by the government to have
significant coal resources prior to leasing. Under
the preferred program, such lands would not be
leased. A pragmatic program must receive the
input of industry to determine which lands should
be open for leasing and to encourage evaluation of
potential coal properties."
Commenters 066, 083, and 192
Response. As stated in Chapter 2, prior to
1976, the Department could grant coal prospecting
permits for lands that needed additional explora-
tion and if the company that had the permit found
an economically attractive deposit, and showed the
Department, it could receive a lease. Congress
repealed this authority in 1976 as unnecessary and
contrary to its view that coal should be disposed of
only for fair-market value. About half of all leases
were granted under this now repealed procedure.
This does not mean that the government did not
know about these deposits before the prospecting
permit or lease was issued. The discovery and
delineation of commercial coal deposits has been a
cooperative effort by industry and government.
Partially as a result of the legal structure that
existed until 1976, the Department often made the
initial identification of potential coal deposits,
what are now commonly referred to as coai
resources, through mapping programs, surveying,
and other governmental functions. Intentionally,
however, the role of the government stopped there,'
and industry had the role to do the additional work
to further identify which resources were capable of
being mined; that is, to identify reserves. Congress
has now subtly changed this relationship by giving
the Interior Department greater responsibility to
identify coal reserves. This does not mean that
industry's role is no longer needed or wanted. The
reverse is true. Even under the revised statutory
provisions, industry must participate heavily in a
coal program if it is to be a success. This is true
both with respect to working with the resource
managers in the land-use planning process and to
continuing drilling and exploration efforts. The
Congress specifically authorized the Department
to grant exploration licenses to give companies the
right to explore for coal. These exploration licenses
do not give a company any right to a lease, but
they do provide the opportunity to the company to
obtain the information it needs to decide whether
or not to bid to acquire a new lease.
2. Comment. "The second background issue
concerns the analysis of the federal laws now in
effect which are designed to minimize environmen-
tal damage resulting from various aspects of
federal coal development. These laws are summa-
rized at section 1.3.1 of the DEIS. A further
analysis of the impact of these laws on coal
development would be valuable in evaluating the
impact of the preferred program and alternatives
for federal coal development.
"Historically, severe abuse of natural resources
has occurred in surface mining of coal. These are
still visible, particularly in the Appalachian region.
However, these abuses can no longer occur in large
part because of the passage of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. An in depth
analysis of federal laws governing coal develop-
ment will impart to the reader of the FEIS an
understanding that the limitations on development
which appear in the preferred program, or whatev-
er alternative is chosen, are not the only regula-
tions in existence. The program must be viewed
not as the last barrier to mindless coal develop-
ment, but rather as one part of a multi-faceted
federal system which will permit rational utiliza-
tion of federal coal assets."
Commenters 019, 069, 090, and 135.
Response. The Department hopes that its
presentation of material in this statement shows
that the Federal coal leasing program is only one
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
of many elements that affect coal development and
that, independently of any actions taken here,
other programs and laws ensure a high degree of
resource protection. Particularly with the contem-
poraneous in-depth analysis of SMCRA now
underway, we do not think additional in-depth
analysis of all applicable laws is needed here;
presenting the principle that many ways exist to
protect the environment is more important to
forming a national coal management program than
would a recital of the details of these laws.
3. Comment. "Section 1.1.2 also describes the
various alternatives briefly and reveals vividly in
its summation of the preferred alternative that
offering tracts for leasing would be the last
alternative after all other land use options have
been exhausted. It is felt that this was not the
intent of either the Congress or the Administration
in placing emphasis on rapidly increased develop-
ment of coal in the Nation which the Statement
acknowledges must, to some significant degree, be
based on new federal leasing. If it is the opinion of
the Department that some legislation demands the
assignment of the lowest priority to coal leasing
then it would be necessary in explaining the
preferred alternative to provide a detailed discus-
sion of that legislation. Furthermore, it would be
most enlightening to have a discussion of what, if
any, legislative authority there is for putting such
uses as the establishment of recreational areas
above that of coal leasing."
Commenters 066 and 07 1
Response. The summary description of the
proposed program and the fuller description of the
program in Chapter 3 and the example regulations
do not, in our opinion, make coal a last alternative.
The program does make a strong attempt to
identify lands which statutes or executive orders
have put off-limits to coal development as early as
possible in the process. It also strives to set up a
system that minimizes loss of existing surface
resources. If expensive recreational facilities have
been built at a site, it makes little sense to develop
coal there if nearby lands that have similar or
better coal can be found. Otherwise, the coal
company would have to bear the needless expense
of other rebuilding or relocating the recreational
site. Common sense is the only authority needed
for actions of this type. Coal development will
invariably have to displace other uses - grazing,
wildlife, recreation, timber or the like; it is not a
last alternative. The Department does believe, that
it can afford to attempt to plan the uses of its land
to encourage coal development to take place so as
to minimize costs to other users of public lands.
Statutory citations for the emphasis on land use
planning are provided in the statement. In re-
sponse to this and other comments, a more
complete discussion of the role of and procedures
for land use planning is given in Chapter 3 of this
final statement.
The comment on NEP goals will be responded
to in the comments on Chapter 3.
4. Comment. "Section 1.1.4 suggest that, al-
though the Department will complete ongoing
regional environmental impact statements, it con-
templates the preparation of at least an environ-
mental analysis for each and every coal lease and
mining plan which would probably result in the
initiation of a full environmental impact statement
for most such leases and plans as well as new
regional impact statements and revision and
updating of the programmatic impact statement.
Such a procedure again requires unnecessary
delays. As is evident from Figure 1-2, most of the
major areas where coal mining is planned or can
be expected to occur in the West are currently
covered by a regional environmental impact
statement that has either been completed or is in
some stage of preparation. Even with significant
new leasing in any particular region, much of the
information that has already been presented or has
been collected for ongoing regional impact state-
ments can be used for any new additional leasing
in the area. This information includes general
topics such as climatic conditions, reclamation
characteristics and certain socio-economic consid-
erations. It is urged that the Department make it
clear in the final programmatic statement that
wherever possible, such information will be incor-
porated by reference and that ongoing regional
impact statements will be only supplemented or
updated where new leasing is provided, in order to
minimize delay."
Commenters 066 and 071
Response. The Department's proposed pro-
gram uses larger "regions" than did the environ-
mental statements started by the Department in
1976. The principal reason for the change is to give
the Department a better opportunity to analyze
8-9
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
regional impacts and to mitigate possible adverse
social or economic effects. The Department has
not finally decided the exact format of the regional
statements, but certainly the alternative of incor-
porating material by reference from the existing
statements is under consideration as is doing
entirely new statements. In either event, the
Department will use, wherever possible, the infor-
mation it has previously developed in the existing
regional statements.
5. Comment. "In the second paragraph of
Section 1.3.1.3, reference is made to the fact that
SMCRA gives the Office of Surface Mining little
discretion in enforcing the provisions of that Act.
Such a statement would certainly come as a
surprise to the drafters of final regulations for that
Office and the critics of those regulations which
are being hotly debated at this time. It would seem
that the Office of Surface Mining has somehow
developed the attitude that the Act gives them a lot
more discretion in formulating regulations and
implementing the various provisions of the Act
than the drafters of this Statement and other
agencies of the Department of the Interior recog-
nize. It might very well avoid a lot of extensive
litigation if the Department would, from the higher
levels of the Department, work directly with the
Office of Surface Mining to assure that the
regulations which it develops are indeed within the
tight authorization granted to the Office bv
SMCRA." J
Commenter 066
Response. The word "overall" has been added
before "design" to clarify that the SMCRA does
not give OSM the authority to drop whole
standards or objectives. In individual areas, OSM
does have considerable authority to interpret
Congress's intent. The introductory background
description of statutory authority here, as else-
where in Chapter 1, cannot be construed in any
way to be a substantive comment or the mandate
of the law. Certainly, for SMCRA, the more
authoritative document is the final environmental
impact statement on the permanent regulations
prepared by the office established under SMCRA
to administer the Act - the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
6. Comment. "P. 1-4, Figure 1-1. A large scale
map, or several maps, would help the public to
properly evaluate the location of the coal supplv
region." ^ J
Commenter 025
Response. The map has been altered but it is
not practical to print it at a larger size. For more
detail on the specific counties involved within a
given region refer to Appendix H, Table H-6 and
Appendix J. Section 3420. 3-1 of the proposed
regulations sets out a method for changing regional
boundaries should the need for such a change
become evident.
7. Comment. "P. 1-11, Table 1-4. The mining
method shown for the Delta, Colorado lease is
incorrect. It should read "underground."
Commenter 025
Response. The FES contains this correction.
8. Comment. "Figures 1-2. The Northwest
Colorado study boundary is not adjacent to the
West-Central Colorado ES boundary as shown."
Commenter 025
Response. The boundaries of Figure 1-2 have
been corrected for the FES.
9. Comment. "Figure 1-2. The boundary of the
Star Lake-Bisti region is incorrect."
Commenter 01 9
Response. The boundaries of Figure 1-2 have
revised, where appropriate, for the FES.
10. Comment. "Table 1-1 (page 1-6) lists only one
site-specific mining and reclamation plan. Two
DEIS's already have been issued (Nerco and
Peabody) for the Powder Regional EIS."
Commenter 071
Response. The FES contains the suggested
modification.
11. Comment. "The functions shown for the
Forest Service in Table 1-7 should be broadened
and rearranged, as follows, to more nearly reflect a
balance of programs:
—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 issuances and
mining and reclamation plan approvals;
—the issuance of easements and permits for
ancillary facilities off the lease area;
8-10
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
—the administration of an abandoned mined
land reclamation program."
Commenter 282
Response. The FES contains the suggested
modification.
12. Comment. "The purpose and major relevance
columns of Table 1-5 should be reworded to reflect
the primary impact of the National Forest Man-
agement Act of 1976, as related to coal mining:
Purpose: Provides for a comprehensive system
of land and resource management planning for
National Forest System lands.
Major Relevance: Key factor in the Secretary
of the Interior's determination of where coal
leasing will occur."
Commenter 282
Response. The FES contains the suggested
modification.
13. Comment. "The major relevance column of
Table 1-5 should be reworded for the Multiple
Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 to align it with
FLPMA:
Major Relevance: Mandates land management
principles similar to those required of the Depart-
ment of the Interior under FLPMA."
Commenter 282
Response. The FES contains the suggested
modification.
14. Comment. "(Page 1-11) In Table 1-4 (Leases
Issued Between 1974 and 1978), with respect to
1978 CO-Delta, the type of mining should be
underground (not surface)."
Commenter 091
Response. Agreed. The FES contains the
corrected information.
15. Comment. "(Page 1-14) A production rate of
96 million tons for 1977 is given for mines on or
related to Federal leases. The basis for this
production rate should be given so that appropri-
ate comparisons with proposed production in-
creases can be made (e.g., comparison with Table
2-2)."
Commenter 091
Response. The basis for the 96 million ton
figure is the production records of the Department.
Table 2-2 is the demonstrated coal reserve basis for
the United States. There is very little to compare
between the table and the production figure.
16. Comment. "The rationale used for redefining
the 12 coal Regions to cause the preparation of
new coal ES's is not clear (pages 1-4, 1-5 DES)."
Commenter 282
Response. This is more thoroughly discussed in
chapter 2 and the response to comments in that
chapter.
17. Comment, "p. 1-21 P.L. 94-429 should be
included in the list of pp. 1-17 to 1-21. Sec. 9 of this
law requires a determination whether any natural
landmark is threatened or being destroyed by any
surface mining activity. The major relevance is
recognition and protection of nationally significant
natural areas as they relate to surface mining."
Commenter 233
Response. The table has been modified to
include a citation to this law (Act of September
28,1976, Public Law 94-429, 90 Stat 1342, 16
U.S.C. 1908).
18. Comment. "We know the leasing strategies
preferred by the Department will all rely on the
surface management agencies' planning systems to
identify areas suitable for coal leasing; this can be
done by June 1,1979.
We would like to use the period of September
1978 through March 1979 to review and revise the
areas planned for coal only in selected recently
completed MFP's on high potential coal deposits,
to insure that these plans are consistent with
current Departmental policy and ready for use in
developing the mid- 1980 coal lease offer options.
Doing this will involve the following steps, to be
completed by March 1979.
Instruction Memorandum No. 78-381, July 19,
1978 (emphasis in original).
The process described in Instruction Memo-
randum 78-381 constitutes implementation of the
"preferred alternative," and it is not a part of a
general and comprehensive land use planning
process. It is solely and specifically designed to
prepare for a mid- 1980 coal lease sale. IM 78-381
does not order consideration of coal resources in
the context of resource management activities. It
explicitly cautions the State Directors "to review
and revise the areas planned for coal only ...."
Commenter 089
Response. The process described in I.M. 78-381
does not implement any leasing program, and is
part and parcel of the planning system. As a
subsequent instruction memorandum makes total-
8-11
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
ly clear, the review referred to here is to carry out
land-use planning duties, to further test unsuitabil-
ity criteria and to begin the Federal Lands review,
43 Federal Register 57662-64: 1.M.-79-76.
19. Comment.
"II. NRDC vs. HUGHES"
"Under the U.S. Constitution and the Separa-
tion of Powers Doctrine, it is improper and
inappropriate, if not unconstitutional, for the
Executive Branch (Department of the Interior) to
permit the Judicial Branch (Judge Pratt) to require
the Executive Branch to address the question of
the 'need for leasing'.
(a) The Executive Branch, by a number of
Acts of the Legislative Branch, has been
granted both the authority and the re-
sponsibility to manage the lands and
mineral resources owned by the United
States of America.
(b) Leasing of federal coal is the statutory
responsibility of Interior. The determina-
tion of the need to lease is both a
statutory and proper responsibility of
Interior as the agency designated to
manage coal owned by the United States.
(c) The determination of the need to lease,
when, and in what quantities, are determi-
nations that cannot constitutionally be
delegated to the Judicial Branch. Nor can
the Executive Branch properly submit
even to inquiry by the Judicial Branch as
to the determination of "need", let alone
feel it necessary to justify such determina-
tion to a Federal judge as a prerequisite to
preparing a leasing program.
(d) Judge Pratt acted improperly, if not
unconstitutionally, in requiring Interior to
demonstrate to him the "need for further
leasing". Interior acted improperly, if not
unconstitutionally, in recognizing any
authority on the part of the Judicial
Branch (Judge Pratt) to require a showing
of "need". &
If an administrative agency, in carrying out its
statutory responsibilities, acts "arbitrarily and
capriciously" that is one thing. When that is
alleged, the burden rests on the plaintiff to show by
convincing evidence that such is the case. That was
not the issue in NRDC vs. Hughes.
In short, it is no business of the Judicial
Branch to inquire into, let alone sit in judgment on,
the "need for leasing". The authority, the responsi-
bility, and the duty to determine the "need for
leasing" reposes upon the Executive Branch alone.
So long as the Executive Branch, in making its
determinations, does not act arbitrarily and capri-
ciously it is simply no business of the Judicial
Branch.
How the Executive Branch exercises its man-
agement authority and discharges its management
responsibilities is, of course, another matter."
Commenter 053
Response. This comment does not involve the
substance of either the environmental statement or
the program. It has been sent to the solicitor's
office for appropriate action.
20. Comment. "Memoranda written by the Direc-
tor of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
and the Directors of the Western Coal State
Offices of the BLM reveal a strenuous and
systematic program to prepare for for a mid- 1980
lease sale. The program, directed specifically
toward the identification of forty lease tracts in
time for the 1980 sale, requires updating of MFPs
prepared for coal management under EMARS II
and the Application of the draft Lands Unsuitabil-
lty Criteria. The 700,000 acres of land to be
reviewed as part of this program have not been
selected pursuant to comprehensive resource plan-
ning. There has been no intraregional evaluation of
competing values. The criterion by which the
selection was made was simple. "Focus on plan-
ning areas where completed MFP'S delineate areas
potentially suitable for coal leasing to meet short-
term (1980) leasing goals."
Commenter: 089
Response. Secretary Andrus has personally
stated that no decision as to whether to adopt a
leasing program and whether to resume leasing will
be made until after this statement is completed
We regard the steps that have been taken so far to
be m rigid compliance with both the spirit and
letter of the Hughes order. The ongoing activity is
needed to ensure that any program, if adopted, will
be one that is based on sound data and standards.
21. Comment. "The issue in NRDC v. Hughes
was the adequacy of the final Environmental
Impact Statement prepared on the Energy Miner-
als Activities Recommendation System (EMARS
8-12
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
II). The Court concluded that the EIS was
inadequate. It found both the explanation of
EMARS II and the consideration of alternatives to
be insufficient. The court specifically referred to
the necessity that the Department consider the
need for any leasing at all, and ordered the
Department to prepare a new draft impact state-
ment and the Secretary of the Interior to personal-
ly reevaluate federal coal leasing policy, based on
information contained in the new final EIS, and to
make a new decision as to whether a new leasing
program shall be instituted and, if so, what kind of
program it should be.
"Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Hughes, supra, 437 F.Supp. at 994 (emphasis
added).
Until that task is complete, the Department is
enjoined from taking "any steps whatsoever,
directly or indirectly, to implement the new coal
leasing program ...." 437 F.Supp. at 993.
"The Department has apparently concluded
that the provision of the Court's order, as modi-
fied, which permits the 'preparation of comprehen-
sive land use plans,' 454 F.Supp. at 152, forbids
only implementation of EMARS II and the
identification or leasing of tracts. 43 Fed. Reg.
57663 (December 8, 1978); Memorandum for the
Deputy Solicitor to the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management 'Planning and Data Collection
Efforts Under NRDC v. Hughes,' at 1-2. Such a
conclusion is incredible in the context of the
decision of the court. The order of the ^ court
explicitly bars implementation of 'the new' (em-
phasis supplied) coal leasing program; the point of
the order is to compel the Department to properly
complete the EIS process before it adopts, let alone
implements, a new program.
"The language which permits land use plan-
ning to go forward is addressed to comprehensive
planning which incidentally involves consideration
of coal. Yet the Department has instituted plan-
ning activities directed only to the leasing of coal.
We regard the Department's violation of the
court's order as so complete as to render the
Programmatic Impact Statement functionally irrel-
evant. The Department's memoranda and actions
suggest that the decision to lease and to lease soon
was made before the basic tasks imposed by the
court were even addressed. The Impact Statement
will inevitably turn into an effort to justify that
decision rather than a means to inform the
decisionmaker."
Commenter 089
Response. The original order in NRDC v.
Hughes contained only very general language on
what activities could occur until a new environ-
mental statement was filed and the Secretary
decided whether to adopt a new program. It only
said: that federal defendants, their agents and
employees, and all those in concert or participation
with them are enjoined from taking any steps
whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to implement the
new coal leasing program.
The Department was concerned that the order
might be construed overbroadly. On February 25,
1978, the plaintiffs and Federal defendants in
NRDC v. Hughes agreed that "Federal defendant's
activities respecting federal coal are of such a
complex and diverse nature that the scope of the
general language of the court's order is subject to
honest dispute." In an attempt to clarify and
modify the original order, the following language
was added to the original order:
Federal defendants are not enjoined from
engaging in any general studies or from preparing
any general analyses or environmental impact
statements with regard to federal coal leasing on
either a national or regional basis. Federal defen-
dants may prepare comprehensive land use plans
as long as they do not recommend the leasing of
any tracts of coal: however, the plans can consider
present and potential uses of public lands.
The Department's view of the import of the
modified court order was clearly stated in a
memorandum signed by the Deputy Solicitor on
May 24, 1978, three weeks before the court
approved the proposed stipulation. The memoran-
dum says:
Although land use planning was an integral
part of EMARS, and a "comprehensive land use
plan" is required by section 3 of the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1975, 30 U.S.C.
§201(a)(3)(A)(i), before a lease sale is held, land
use planning is also mandated wholly outside the
context of the coal program by section 202 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43
U.S.C. §1712. The potential application of Judge
Pratt's Order to land use planning was one of the
subjects that led us to stipulate with plaintiffs in
Hughes "that the scope of the general language of
the Court's Order is subject to honest dispute."
8-13
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Even though the revised court order has not
yet been approved by the District Court, this
language can be used to guide data collection and
land use planning efforts.
In our view, the gathering of raw data is in no
way circumscribed, whether in the form of Unit
Resource Analyses, contract studies, or Geological
Survey mapping of federal coal resources, includ-
ing drilling and core sampling. Further, the
collation and analysis of such data is in no way
circumscribed.
The only proscription deals with the recom-
mendations, or proposals for action contained in a
land use plan as they relate to coal and actions in
furtherance of the recommendations or proposals.
BLM, with the help of GS and OSM, as appropri-
ate, is free to evaluate coal resources and other
resource values to determine if lands are suitable
for coal development or not, and it is free to
designate lands as unsuitable for surface coal
mining under section 522 of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C §1272.
BLM may make recommendations or "decisions"
not to lease or to mine coal in its land use plans.
BLM is prohibited only from recommending
or proposing to lease a tract otherwise found
suitable for coal development, or from taking
action that directly implements such a recommen-
dation or proposal.
Similarly, on June 28, 1978, the Deputy
Solicitor advised the Director, Geological Survey,
that "work designed to determine the suitability or
unsuitability of public land for coal development is
m no way circumscribed. The unsuitability tests
now being done are being done (1) as part of a
land-use planning process and (2) focusing on
potential coal development areas rather than
tracts. It is clearly within the scope at the Fl
Hughes order."
RESERVES ESTIMATES
1. Comment. "Table 2-29 was made using data
from BLM District Offices which has in many
cases changed drastically."
Commenter019
Response. Table 2-29 was based on a survey
by the Geological Survey and data from DOE, not
the BLM. The figure of 8.5 million tons was the
best estimate by the Geological Survey mining
supervisor as of March 1 978.
2. Comment. "The DOI may also underestimate
likely production. A persistent self-fulfilling proph-
esy that deep reserves will not be developed in the
West eliminates from consideration PRLA's and
the use of deep reserves in the private sector."
Commenters 097, 156, and 174
Response. Western prospects for deep mining
are poor, except in certain areas, because of the
large reserves of surface mineable coal and its
relatively much lower mining cost. Environmental
considerations could favor underground mining in
particular circumstances.
3. Comment. "Adding only production from
deep PRLA reserves to 1990 likely and probable
production allows us to meet all western-wide
production projections except the 1990 high
projection." ^
Commenters 097 and 156
Response. If these leases were granted quickly
and if production occurred in proportion to reverse
size, the comment would be correct. Because of
high production costs, PRLA underground re-
serves are unlikely to be in production by 1990
except in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal
Region and in some special circumstances The
largest amount of PRLA underground reserves are
in the Powder River Coal Region where very little
or no underground mining is expected. It is
possible that reserves of this type will not meet the
commercial quantities test and no lease will be
issued.
4. Comment. "Table 2-4. Total surface-mineable
reserves in the San Juan Basin are approximately 6
billion tons, according to the New Mexico Bureau
of Mines. Yet this table states that 4 billion tons
alone are on Indian lands. This figure is very
questionable."
Commenter019
Response. The estimate for Indian lands was
provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It
reflects a less restrictive standard for inclusion of
reserves than employed by the Bureau of Mines
and, thus, probably counts some reserves that the
Bureau of Mines would consider too speculative to
include, until further delineation. See new discus-
sion in Section 2.7.2.
5. Comment. "Table 2-23. How were these
PRLA reserves estimated?"
Commenters 019 and 097
3-14
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Response. A BLM task force report on PRLAs,
entitled "An evaluation of Coal Preference Right
Lease Applications," explains this methodology
and can be obtained on request.
6. Comment. "No coal is recoverable today until
it is known that the coal is legally available to mine
and legally mineable and that cannot be known
until all required permits are in hand."
Commenter 053
Response. The currently accepted definition of
recoverable reserves does not require that all
permits be in hand before counting such reserves.
7. Comment. "In Table 2-19, why are recover-
able reserves of existing federal leases for Montana
confidential?"
Commenter 071
Response. Current policy is to hold reserve
information on individual leases confidential and
not to disclose reserve information for groups of
less than 32 lessees. Where two or more leases have
the same owner, or where one lease has an
unusually large share of the coal, the Department
may also hold data confidential for groups of more
than three leases. The Fort Union region m
Montana has only 3 leases and its data is held
confidential. Montana lease reserves in the Powder
River Basin are in fact shown in table 2-19, but
because of an insufficiency of underground lease
reserves, the breakout between surface and under-
ground reserves is held confidential.
8. Comment. "The statement that 45% of the
nation's reserves on a BTU basis is found in the
West is in direct contradiction to the findings of
the National Coal Policy Project which reports
that '70 percent of the remaining coal in the
United States - in terms of energy value - lies east
of the Mississippi River."
Commenter 118
Response. The 45 percent figure is based on the
distribution of coal by weight and a Bureau of
Mines estimate of average eastern BTU content of
12,500 BTU's per pound and western Btu content
of 9,000 BTUs. Given the distribution of reserves
by weight, if western coal is assumed to average
9,000 Btu's per pound, eastern coal would have to
average more than 20,000 Btu's per pound to
consitute 70 percent of coal energy. This Btu
content far exceeds actual eastern Btu content.
Hence, the figure of 70 percent given by the
national Coal Project appears to be a large
overestimate of eastern coal's share by energy
value.
MINE SIZE & PRODUCTION
1. Comment. "Mr. Freudenthal stated that the
2,560 acres listed in Table 2-27 and paragraph
2.7.3 is used as the minimum acreage of nonfederal
coal in a continuous block that could be devel-
oped. Yet the smallest mine plan in the San Juan
Basin is 6,095 acres."
Commenter 019
Response. Any acreage selected for a standard
mine size would be somewhat arbitrary. The figure
of 2,560 acres was selected to be most representa-
tive of western coal mine sizes. With a 10 foot
seam, 2,560 acres would support a 1 million ton
per year mine for 30 years. This acreage provides a
conservative estimate of the inhibitions that would
be placed on development of nonfederal coal by a
lack of leasing. The standard acreage adopted
depends on the mine size assumed, which can vary
considerably within regions as well as among
regions. If the higher figure were adopted, the
relative importance of federal coal in mixed
mineral ownership areas would increase.
2. Comment. "Likely production from existing
leases without mine plans in the Powder River
Basin in 1985 is stated to be 7M tons^ Our
investigations indicated 27.2M is a lot closer."
Commenters 097 and 1 18
Response. The Department does not want to
generate a debate with individual companies
concerning predictions on the production likeli-
hoods of their individual leases. The estimates for
likely production from leases without mine plans
were made by GS mining supervisors, taking into
account lease size, environmental, transportation,
coal type and other factors. It is likely that the
actual production will fit into a reasonable range
above or below the estimate depending on changes
in markets.
3. Comment. "One of the more serious difficul-
ties in the chapter 2 concerns the estimates of time
required to bring a lease into full production (2.8.1,
page 2-43)."
Commenter 069
Response. Full production may require more
than 7 years in some cases but, if the demand
exists, 7 years should normally be adequate.
3-15
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Several companies have suggested to us in the
context of this statement and in public information
on proposed openings of new mines that seven
years is too lengthy a projection and that it could
and should be halved.
4. Comment. "In section 2.8.2 of the DEIS
reference is made to the fact that a decision not to
lease federal coal could result in a shortfall of coal
in the overall national energy picture."
Commenter 090
Response. It is difficult to predict the precise
impacts of a shortfall in national coal production
due to no Federal leasing although the no new
leasing alternative tries to do so. Depending on the
total demand for energy, the major impact would
be expanded imports of foreign oil, however added
gas production and increased nuclear production
could also result in higher energy costs, but little
change in the overall fuel mix.
5. Comment. "Will the final EIS reconsider the
aggregate coal production targets in terms of
recent developments which mitigate the probable
demand for coal— i.e., Mexican gas, Canadian gas
availability, loosened Canadian crude restrictions,
Alaskan gas, etc.?"
Commenters 090 and 121
Response. The developments noted that would
tend to reduce coal production requirements are to
some extent offset by even more recent increases in
the instability of Middle Eastern oil supplies. If
Middle Eastern oil production were significantly
reduced or international oil prices were to rise
substantially, the pressures for greater coal devel-
opment would be heightened. All these recent
developments — both increasing and decreasing
potential coal needs — illustrate the great uncer-
tainty of long range coal projections. The final EIS
does not contain revised projections because the
low-medium-high range of production levels still
encompasses any likely future production levels. A
long-term decision on whether to establish a
Federal coal management program cannot be
based on almost month to month shifts in coal
prospects. The decision whether to lease once a
program is adopted can take these concerns into
account.
6. Comment. "Without back-up data, the as-
signed likely production figures for existing leases
without mine plans raise some interesting ques-
tions. Nearly 95% of the reserves under lease in the
Powder River Basin are assessed not to be
developed. Does GS have different views on the
potential demand for PRBR coal than DOE."
Commenters 097, 108, and 118
Response. Assessing the true development
prospects of a lease for which there is no mine plan
requires an inherently subjective estimate. There is
no substitute for good judgment, and no elaborate
formulas or mechanical procedures would be likely
to improve on good judgment. GS mining supervi-
sors are closely involved with Federal leases and
mining circumstances generally in their areas and
are in a position to make such judgments. Sixty-six
percent of the existing Fderal lease reserves in the
Powder River are expected to be in production by
1986. However, the great majority of these reserves
are already in approved or pending mine plans.
Reserves not expected to be producing are of lower
quality and located in some cases off the prime
Wyodak seam which has the highest development
prospects.
7. Comment. "States should have a role in
evaluating the inherent reasonableness of the
targets based on available market information and
forecasts."
Commenter 121
Response. States will be given the opportunity
to comment on and participate in the regional
production goal and leasing target setting process
indirectly through consultation but, more impor-
tantly (if the preferred program is established),
directly through their representation on the region-
al coal teams which have formal advisory authority
to the secretary in the goal and target setting
process.
8. Comment. "In Chapter 2 DOI apparently
calculated its planned production estimates in the
Powder River for 1985 in terms of what it believes
will actually be produced. This results in a smaller
production capacity for existing and newly ap-
proved mines."
Commenters 097, 108, 1 18, and 121
Response. Planned production estimates were
based largely on the stated plans of individual coal
companies. It is possible that actual production
might be larger but this would be hard to predict.
9. Comment. "The Draft ES tackles non-Federal,
non-Indian coal by estimating 1985 production at
8-16
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
35.7 million tons. Doubts over these figures
increase when it becomes obvious from checking
through the multitude of charts, that this repre-
sents a significant decrease in non-Federal, non-
Indian coal production."
Commenters 097 and 108
Response. The comment is mistaken in assum-
ing that 35.7 million tons represent all non-Federal
coal production in 1985. The bulk of non-Federal,
non-Indian coal production will occur in mines
that include both Federal and non-Federal coal.
This production was summarized in Section
2.7.1.1. The planned production described in the
comment includes only mines that have no Federal
coal at all and, thus, no Federal mine plan is
involved. The stated drop in non-Federal produc-
tion thus results from a mistaken comparison of all
non-Federal production in 1977 (including mixed
Federal-non-Federal mines) with 1985 production
from the much more limited number of mines that
have only non-Federal coal.
10. Comment. "(Page 2-1) Column 2, paragraph 3
states that the Federal Government owns essential-
ly no coal within the Northern and Central
Appalachian, Eastern Interior and Texas Coal
regions. The State of Kentucky is an exception to
this statement that should be taken into account.
There are considerable Forest Service acquired
lands in Kentucky."
Commenter091
Response. This has been changed to indicate
some Forest Service reserves in the East.
11. Comment. "(Page 2-29) Table 2-18 gives
consumption patterns for Western coal. The DES
should provide a detailed discussion of the basis
for this table."
Commenter 091
Response. A detailed table supplementing
Table 2-18 has been added to the text.
12. Comment. "(Page 2-32) For later comparison
purposes, what is the breakdown by coal region for
1977 production from mines located on Federal
leases?"
Commenter 091
Response. A column to that effect has been
added to Table 2-20.
13. Comment. "(Page 2-30) With regard to the
application of diligent development requirements
to leases existing prior to 1976, the DES states that
"the Department at present expects that the great
majority, if not all, of such existing leases would be
cancelled if they are hot producing by 1986."
Because application of diligent development re-
quirements has a significant bearing on the need
for additional leasing to meet projected 1990 coal
production needs, the text of the DES should
specifically address under what conditions such
requirement might not be applied (i.e., a discussion
in the text as opposed to purely a statement in the
Example Regulations in the Appendices)."
Commenter 091
Response. This discussion has been added in
Chapter 3 and Appendix I.
DOE MODEL
1 . Comment. "The DES probably is not accurate
in estimating the impact of the preferred program
due to uncertainties in both demand and supply
estimates on the part of the government."
Commenters 042, 071, 087, 089, 156, 168, 178,
and 193
Response. The Department prepared its esti-
mates of the future coal demand and supply for the
FES in such a way as to bracket all probable levels
of these functions for 1985 and 1990. There is,
indeed, much uncertainty about the future levels of
these figures, but we believe by choosing the broad
range of figures that we have in the ES, e.g., 1990
level production ranging from 1,091 to 1,921
million tons, we have provided for prudent
lowering of all levels of impacts.
2. Comment. "The DOE projections assume that
electricity demand will grow from 1977 to 1985 at
the rates of 4.4% per year in the low case, 4.8% per
year in the medium case and 5.8% per year in the
high case. The level of population growth, esti-
mates of future cost of electricity, and amount of
conservation, are not specified, making it difficult
to perform a detailed analysis of the projections."
Commenters 019, 038, 042, 061, 062, 067, 071,
079, 087, 089, 097, 099, 130, and 187
Response. From 1969 to 1973, production of
electric power grew at the average annual rate of
7.1 percent. Following the OPEC shock, it grew
negligibly in 1974 at 0.2 percent, a little higher at
2.6 percent in 1975, went back up to 6.3 percent in
1976 and then declined to 4.6 percent in 1977 and
3.7 percent in 1978. Thus, electric power demand
has behaved erratically in recent years and will be
8-17
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
difficult to predict for the future. The average
growth rate for the past three years has been 4.9
percent, slighty above the medium assumption to
1985 of 4.8 percent. Future demand will depend on
uncertain questions such as whether abundant
conservation opportunities remain or whether the
easier and cheaper conservation opportunities
have already been exhausted. There is also an
important question of whether rising oil and gas
prices might not cause a shift to greater use of
electricity as a substitute energy source for indus-
trial and residential use. The underlying electricity
growth rate assumptions generally reflect the
assumptions employed in the PIES model by DOE.
3. Comment. "The Department of Interior's
claim that it is not basing its assessment of the
need for new coal leasing on the DOE production
projections is not credible."
Commenters 089, 156, 079, 066, and 281
Response. DOE production projections play an
important role in assessing the need for leasing.
However, there are a number of other possible
reasons for leasing that do not involve the DOE
production projections. These include improving
coal development patterns and creating greater
coal industry competition. Long lead times require
that coal be leased a number of years in advance of
the date production is expected to begin. See the
proposed regulations and Chapters 2 and 3 for
further discussion of these reasons.
4. Comment. "The draft statement does not
consider the impact of the preferred program upon
demand for coal."
Commenters 089 and 019
Response. An increase in coal supplies driving
down coal prices can be seen as a successful
establishment of a competitive coal market. Coal
companies will not produce below costs for long.
The interaction between federal leasing and other
energy prices would require a complete general
equilibrium model of national energy markets.
Such an effort is well beyond the requirements of
this EIS. An analysis has been made of the impact
of the preferred program on coal prices and a brief
summary has been added to Section 2.8.1.
5. Comment. "The low crude oil price estimate
should be increased and the 5.8 per cent NERC
electric growth rate projection is practically
useless.
Commenters 156, 038, 097, 099 and 104
Response. Future oil prices are almost impossi-
ble to predict with any certainty. A wide range of
assumptions are thus needed. New gas price
assumptions will be incorporated in succeeding
model runs. It is on those succeeding model runs
that the need for leasing would be continually
reassessed under the preferred program and
several other alternatives. The high electricity
growth rate assumption is in line with long run
historical experience, not unreasonable for a high
assumption. From 1972, the average annual elec-
tricity growth rate was 7.2 percent. As recently as
1976, it was 6.3 percent. The electric utility
industry is currently projecting 5.0 percent growth
in 1985 as most likely.
6. Comment. "We are confused as to how (DOE)
and DOI will resolve their projection differences
and to whom the states will appeal if we are
dissatisfied."
Commenters 155, 130, 170, 172, 187, 019, 079
071, 089, 061, 062, 067, 097 and 066.
Response. The process for setting regional
production goals is fully set out in the example
regulations (see Appendix A Section 3420.2).
States will participate directly in this process and
are assured access to the Secretary of the Interior
before he makes his decisions on regional goals
and targets. Comments on the regional goals
(projections) will be taken at least twice before the
Secretary makes his final decisions.
7. Comment. "The design and assumptions for
the national coal model or NCM overestimate the
need for western coal. NCM uses a least cost linear
model which, among other things, assumes the
resumption of leasing to make available least cost
coal."
Commenters 156, 130, 170, 172, 019, 079, 087,
071, 089, 061, 062, 067, 042, 187, 097, 193 and 121
Response. The modeling assumption that all
coal — Federal and nonfederal— is available
provides a projection indicating how much pro-
duction would occur without environmental, feder-
al leasing or other constraints. Model runs are also
made which specify that no Federal leasing will
take place. It can then be assessed whether leasing
of federal coal is necessary to achieve such a level
of production. Any shortfalls that would occur
without new leasing provide an estimate of the
need for new leasing. This is a standard with and
8-18
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
without technique also used widely in traditional
benefit-cost analysis. The decision might still be
made not to lease for environmental or other
reasons, or special environmental constraints could
be introduced into the model. The purpose of the
national coal model is not to maximize production,
but to determine the least cost way of providing for
national electricity and coal requirements. Esti-
mates of underground mining versus surface
mining reflect the higher costs of underground
mining.
8. Comment. "The linear NCM model does not
have a feedback mechanism to account for such
certain constraints, or those due to environmental
or socio-economic considerations."
Commenters 156, 170, 172, 079, 071, 061, 062,
067, 121, and 089
Response. This consideration is given to adding
feedback constraints due to shortages or bottle-
necks into future model versions. However, for
projections 5 and 10 years in the future, there is
still considerable time to make adjustments to
avoid such bottleneck constraints, and these will
be considered in the subsequent environmental
analysis and in the two year regional production
goal and leasing target setting procedures.
9. Comment. "Since the NCM production
projections are linear programming model, the
program alternative which depends on these
projections similarly emphasizes production from
the Powder River Coal Region. A policy of no new
leasing would restrict available productions both
by preventing expansion of the Federal coal lease
reserve base and by affecting the economic
viability of the Federal coal lease reserve base and
by affecting the economic viability of private coal
dependent upon adjacent Federal reserves for their
development."
Commenters 121, 156, 147, 130, 170, 172, 187,
019, 079, 087, 071, 089, 061, 062, 067, 042, 097, 193
and 121
Response. Electric power and coal require-
ments are specified by consuming region, not by
producing region. Thus, Montana, Idaho and
Wyoming form one consuming region in the model
with specific electric power and coal requirements.
The model then solves for the least cost way from a
national perspective of supplying overall electric
power and coal requirements. The regional distri-
bution of coal production results from the solution
to this cost-minimizing problem. There are no
initial assumptions as to the role in coal produc-
tion from any region (except that production must
be at least as great as already committed regional
production). The high production projections in
the Powder River Basin result from the fact that
total national costs for electric power production
and coal transportation and mining are reduced by
placing major reliance on the large and inexpen-
sive surface minable reserves in this region.
10. Comment. "Any econometric model is basi-
cally inadequate. The DES acknowledges the
existence of more advanced end-use forecasting
methodologies, but dismisses using them as too
time consuming and costly."
Commenters 156, 147, 130, 170, 172, 187, 019,
079, 087, 071, 089, 061, 062, 067, 042, 097, 193 and
121
Response. The DOE model is a linear program-
ming, not an econometric model. It can be
adjusted to reflect greater conservation expecta-
tions and reduced energy demands by changing
the electric power and coal use growth rates. There
are benefits to end-use analyses in that the specific
circumstances of users are taken into greater
account. On the other hand, these techniques are
costly to apply on a national basis. It is also less
easy to take account of factors such as the impacts
of basic economic growth trends on electricity
demands. Greater use of survey and other demand
estimation techniques may be made in setting
electricity and coal use assumptions for future
production target setting. The entire production
goal setting process will be reviewed and updated
biennially.
1 1 . Comment. "Table 2-29 on Page 2-45, 'Summa-
ry of Planned and Projected Production,' indicates
that Fort Union would produce 21.8 million tons
in 1985. Department of Interior's data on coal
production should be correlated with the data
from the Regional EIS."
Commenters 184 and 066
Response. The production projection for the
Fort Union Coal Region of 21.8 million tons
shown in Table 2-29 was developed by DOE. As
shown in Table 5-2, for the purposes of environ-
mental analysis, DOI modified the DOE projec-
tion to 31.9 million tons for the Fort Union Coal
Region, partly because of the higher Fort Union
regional EIS figures mentioned in the comment.
8-19
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
12. Comment. "Another factor which will result in
the likelihood of demand levels lower than project-
ed by DOE is the recent authorization granted to
the EPA to require the use of local coal."
Commenters 089, 019, 079, 071, 061, 062, 066,
067, and
Response. Since EPA orders to use regional
coal are issued on a discretionary basis, and seem
to be somewhat controversial, there is almost no
way in which this factor can be modeled. Predic-
tions on how much coal production might shift
from west to east would be highly speculative.
13. Comment. "How do exports fit into regional
demand estimates?"
Commenters 019 and 089
Response. Export requirements are incorporat-
ed into regional coal demands in the specification
of coal consumption assumptions for the DOE
projections.
14. Comment. "DOI's estimates of total planned
and likely production with which the DOE need
projections are compared include planned and
likely production from mines on existing Federal
leases, planned production from Indian Lands and
planned production from wholly non-Federal
mines. Not included, however, is the production
potential from outstanding Preference Right Lease
Applications."
Commenters 089, 079, 042, 130 and 097
Response. It should be noted that issuance of
preference right leases would constitute new
leasing. PRLA production potential is not included
in Table 2-29 because production projections for
1985 can already be met without resort to PRLA
potential except in the Green River-Hams Fork
Region. In this region, there is very little PRLA
production potential. In Table 2-30, which exam-
ines 1990 leasing needs, PRLA production poten-
tial is in fact included, but as a separate column.
This allows PRLA potential to be distinguished
from the more stringent definitions for "planned"
and "likely" production. Much of the total PRLA
production potential is suitable only for under-
ground mining, which has poor prospects in most
areas. Of the 250.8 million ton annual PRLA
potential, 143.6 million tons per year consist of
potential underground mining in the Powder River
Basin where it is generally recognized that little if
any underground mining will occur for many
years. Only 90 million tons per year represent
PRLA surface mining potential that may actually
have a high likelihood. This potential is shown in
Table 2-30.
15. Comment. " Regional Production Targets. Both
the manner of intended application of regional
production targets and the timing of their use
presents serious difficulties."
Commenter 098
Response. DOE and DOI will be undertaking
further efforts to develop production projections
that are as accurate as possible. Further studies
will be made to determine the best ways of
translating regional production targets into federal
leasing objectives.
16. Comment. "We question the assumption that
exports will increase by nearly 50% between 1977
and 1985 as is indicated in the DOE projections."
Commenters 089 and 019
Response. The increase is much less than 50
percent. Projected coal exports in 1985 are 73.7
million tons. In 1970, U.S. coal exports were 70.9
million tons and in 1975 they were 65.7 million
tons. Thus, although there have been ups and
downs, little increase in export production is
projected compared with recent higher years for
U.S. exports.
17. Comment. "Since the preferred leasing system
will superimpose production levels from above
(DOE national projections), it would seem impor-
tant to have some idea of what the ratio of
outstanding leases granted/actual production lev-
els should be. At this point in time the ratio of coal
tonnage potentially available annually (based on a
30-year mining life) to existing Federal production
is something on the order of 15:1. Recognizing the
numerous constraints to development, has the
Department given thought to what kind of ratio
would be appropriate assuming that most leased
areas would be developed?"
Commenter 281
Response. The Department recognizes that
there will be a need to maintain some level of on-
the-shelf, non-producing coal leases. This level will
be addressed as part of the Secretary's decision on
the levels of regional leasing needed during the
coming decade. The Secretary's decision paper on
need for leasing will discuss the topics set out in
this comment. Finally, the 15:1 potential produc-
tion to actual production ratio cited in your letter
8-20
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
is not the ratio that would be chosen by the
Department as a matter of policy, and, judging
from the amount of activity in mining plans being
processed, the actual ratio will soon be greatly
lower. Determination of the proper ratio requires
consideration of future changes in production
goals, the necessary lead time allowances, and the
percentage of leases that might never reach active
mine production.
18. Comment. "Because of the uncertainty in-
volved in establishing 1990 production figures for
western coal, we strongly urge the Secretary to
hold off any decision on the need to lease until
after EPA has reached a final decision on the
NSPS and DOE has an opportunity to analyze the
coal demand impacts of that decision."
Commenters 097 and 066
Response. EPA computer projections indicated
only minor changes in western coal production
according to the proposed new source performance
standard (see Section 2.4).
19. Comment. "The ICF model overestimates
Western coal demand."
Commenter 097
Response. The Interior Department believes
that the range from low to medium to high
projections covers likely future western coal
production levels. The model will be reassessed
and updated regularly to introduce any needed
technical refinements or new assumptions.
20. Comment. "The inherent flaws in the DOE
model give rise to serious doubts concerning its
fitness as a tool for decision-making. These
problems are compounded by the choice of
assumptions and inputs on crude oil price, natural
gas price, electricity growth rates, etc., employed in
the DOE model adopted in the Draft ES."
Commenters 097, 156, 089, and 066
Response. Any likely coal production levels are
covered in the low-medium-high range developed
in Chapter 5 for analyses of the preferred program
and the no leasing alternative. Coal projections
will always be subject to modification as new
information becomes available. In making a basic
long-term decision such as whether to adopt a coal
management program, fluctuating changes in coal
production expectations should not be major
factors. The assumptions employed by DOE in its
modeling are generally reasonable, although cer-
tain changes, may be required. See other com-
ments on specific assumptions.
21. Comment. "Input factors which DOI consid-
ered in its production target 'adjustment' process
are listed in Appendix H, however, demand for the
coal does not appear to be included."
Commenter 121
Response. The "predetermined" western coal
production levels referred to are the DOE coal
production projections adjusted for the effects on
regional production of the different federal coal
management alternatives. Coal demand is closely
reflected in the DOE production projections and
the adjusted figures derived by DOI.
22. Comment. "The DOE estimates of coal
required for synfuel production and exports are
overstated. For example, the low projection for
1985 was based on the assumption that seven
(presumably liquefaction) plants with a capacity of
10,000 barrels per day each will be in operation by
1985; the medium and high projections assume
thirteen and twenty-seven plants respectively. In
view of the extensive Federal funding which will be
required to make such facilities available on a
commercial scale in the near future, we question
the realism of these estimates."
Commenters 089 and 066
Response. Production of 10,000 barrels per day
(oil equivalent) would be suitable for no more than
a small demonstration plant. A single full scale
commercial synfuel operation would produce in
the range of 50,000 to 100,000 barrels per day.
Production projected from the American Natural
Gas plant in North Dakota, for which permits are
now being sought, was recently scaled down from
100,000 to 50,000 barrels per day. Hence, the low
1985 assumption for synthetic coal use of 70,000
barrels per day is basically only one full scale
commercial facility. Similarly, the medium and
high assumptions would not require 13 and 27 full
scale facilities, respectively. However, there may be
a need to reduce somewhat the expected medium
and high levels of synthetics production for 1985 at
least.
23. Comment. "How does the BLM anticipate
improving its data base to a level capable of
making tract specific leasing decisions?"
Commenter 121
8-21
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Response. In recent years BLM has made
considerable expenditures for new inventories and
other data gatherings. Further efforts would be
continued as part of any coal manangement
program. Where broad-area data are not available,
BLM may have to rely on data specifically
gathered for proposed leasing tracts.
24. Comment. "Industrial coal demand is over-
stated in the DOE projections."
Commenter 089
Response. Industrial demand is difficult to
project. The National Energy Plan projected large
increases in industrial coal use, but these were
widely criticized. The rapid rises in oil prices,
however, have spurred renewed expectations of
possible major increases in industrial coal use. The
assumptions for industrial use will be reexamined
in the next projection update.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND
1. Comment. "The DES seems to imply that the
largest reason coal needs to be mined in the West
is that it is required there. This might be an
appropriate and meaningful statement if one were
not to question the definition of 'West'."
Commenters 1 18 and 097
Response. The largest reason for mining in the
West is the need to meet national energy require-
ments. A substantial part of these requirements are
in the West and can be met by western coal.
2. Comment. "The assumptions which underlie
the ES's discussion of need for additional leasing
greatly inflate the expected levels of supply and
demand for coal, leaving us with an analysis which
badly distorts the true situation and could be used
to justify a need for leasing where none exists."
Commenters 060, 097, 118, and 281
Response. The low to high range of coal
projection assumptions is very wide. High assump-
tions tend to promote western production, while
low assumptions inhibit it. The range should be
wide enough that most reviewers can find their
own views as to the most likely energy and coal
production within this range.
3. Comment. "Most non-Federal coal reserves in
Montana have been eliminated from consideration
in the DES because they occur outside the regions
covered. Potential production from non-Federal
reserves could be important in Montana without
additional federal leasing."
Commenter 071
Response. The areas in Montana with major
nonfederal ownership outside the Fort Union and
Powder River Coal Regions are projected by DOE
to have little current development prospects.
4. Comment. "We believe that environmental
protection and recent law enacted for that purpose
both require a resource management policy in
which coal management decisions must take place.
However, the DES confuses the questions after
failing, we believe, to definitively address demand
and supply."
Commenters 097, 118, and 060
Response. The issues of supply and demand
are addressed in Chapter 2. The elements of the
prefered coal program which provide environmen-
tal protection are explained in Chapter 3.
5. Comment. "The major flaw in the PIES model
is that it consistently overstates energy demand."
Commenter 097
Response. Predicting future energy production
is an inherently very uncertain activity. Regularly
revised forecasts of coal production will be
prepared to try to keep as current as possible.
6. Comment. "The draft environmental state-
ment does not give adequate consideration to
alternatives for meeting the nation's energy de-
mand."
Commenters 089 and 134
Response. The Interior Department did not
originate the conclusion that coal should be a main
avenue for reducing dependence on foreign oil.
Heavy reliance on coal has been central to the
National Energy Plan and almost all other analy-
ses of national energy policies. It is unrealistic to
expect that the Interior Department should per-
form a comprehensive analysis of alternative
energy sources and the future relative national
reliance on these sources as a part of this EIS. This
responsibility belongs to DOE and also involves
other parts of the executive and legislative
branches in a continuing process. Similarly, any
major analysis of national energy conservation
potential would go far beyond a proper scope for
this EIS. We note that a great many documents
have been prepared by the Federal government on
this topic including the recently completed CEQ
3-22
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Report entitled 'The Good News about Energy".
We think that these previous documents present
the issue in great detail and the summary type
materials in the statement are better suited to assist
the decision-maker and the public in evaluating
the proposed action.
7. Comment. "Although the assessment of likely
coal production on pages 2-30 through 2-38
assumes current mining plan estimates of annual
levels of production over a 30-year period, recent
experience has shown that existing mines are
capable of significantly increasing their production
if the demand is there. We can find no legal or
other obstacle under current legislation that would
limit yearly increases in production. It appears that
the economics of this approach are attractive,
requiring minimal additional capital investment.
"Increases of production beyond mining plan
levels do appear to pose considerable uncertainty
to those planners who will try to estimate future
leasing needs. Has the Department tried to make
an assessment of what the upper limit of annual
coal production is likely to be over time in terms of
a minimum number of years of production from a
lease? Are there any other practical constraints
that would lessen this tendency to maximize
production from industry's existing leases?"
Commenter281
Response. The Department has not estimated
what the upper limit of coal production from
existing leases might be for all-out production. The
Department views short term bursts in production
lasting from a few months to a few years as not
terribly relevant to the long term (5- to 10-year
frame) decisions on need for coal leasing that must
be made in this program. Maximum mine produc-
tion is costly to sustain over the long term. New
mines will be supplying coal that is less costly
because it is being removed at a more orderly rate.
These mines would be expected to be able to bid
away any short term advantages an existing mine
might gain from an increase in production due to a
sudden increase in coal demand. Such increases in
coal demand were seen in 1978 due to the
shutdown of certain major coal fields during a
strike. Men and equipment can be pushed at
maximum effort for just so long before productivi-
ty falls and costs rise. Rising costs at the mine
caused by too rapid an extraction rate will quickly
be seen in rising consumer energy bills. The
Department is aware of the importance of its
assumptions regarding typical mine life and will
revise them if the industry norm changes. The
Department will also consider readjusting the
typical mine life if the Department of Energy
exercises its authority in the area of diligence to
force tracts to be mined out at a faster rate than
the presently specified 40 year maximum time.
REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
1. Comment. "There is no rationale developed
for the selection of the 12 coal supply regions."
Commenter 025
Response. Regional boundaries were selected
to represent common coal types, transportation
routes, market areas, socioeconomic concerns and
other common features. Future consideration will
be given to changing regional boundaries if there
appear to be problems with the current ones.
2. Comment. "The Colorado region, west-central
Colorado should be in the Green River-Hams
Fork production region."
Commenter 196
Response. A recheck of the west-central Colo-
rado region does not establish that it should be
moved to the Green River-Hams Fork region.
However, regional boundaries are not unchangea-
ble and the issue can be considered again in the
future.
ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES
1. Comment. "Statement on p. 2-17 indicates
that national installed hydroelectric capacity de-
creased from 1975 to 1977. This seems doubtful.
Perhaps megawatt-hours produced decreased."
Commenter 121
Response. The statement should refer to actual
production, not capacity. Production declined
because of low water conditions due to drought.
2. Comment. "The discussion of solar energy is
totally without substance."
Commenter 097
Response. Solar potential is a subject of wide
controversy. The Department believes the esti-
mates given are reasonable to the purpose of this
program evaluation and that the full potential of
solar can be considered in subsequent production
goal estimates, widely available studies can be
consulted if more detail is needed.
5-23
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
3. Comment. "One other task that the Depart-
ment could undertake would be to expand on its
brief discussion of Nontraditional Energy
Sources."
Commenter 097
Response. The ES is focused on coal. Extensive
discussions of other energy sources, traditional and
nontraditional, can be found in referenced materi-
als. Most readers would not be served by locating
such discussions in Chapter 2 itself.
4. Comment. "Section 2.5, and particularly
section 2.5.1 should be expanded to more fully
consider the volatility of the international petrole-
um market."
Commenters 090 and 121
Response. A discussion has been added in
Section 2.5.1 of the increased instability in the
Middle East due to the Iranian change in govern-
ment. Section 2.5 addresses noncoal energy
sources. Coal is then discussed in Section 2.6.
5. Comment. "The trend of increasing produc-
tion of oil and gas from the 'overthrust belt' is not
discussed. Supplies becoming available from this
new source should markedly affect growth of coal
demand in the West, where it is stated that the
majority of Federal leasing would take place."
Commenter 233
Response. This point has been added to
Section 2.5.
EAST VS WEST COAL PRODUCTION
1. Comment. "Section 2.2 (page 2-3) makes
reference to the fact that although the vast
majority of low-sulfur coal reserves are in the
western coal states, there are substantial low-sulfur
reserves of coal in the East. This fact has been
misconstrued by many critics of renewed Federal
coal leasing to indicate that such low-sulfur coal in
the East is a readily available and viable alterna-
tive to expanded Federal coal leasing."
Commenter 066
Response. As noted in the DES, much of
eastern low sulfur coal is metallurgical. Because of
the price premium metallurgical coal gets, expense
would certainly be a major factor in any proposed
plans to rely on eastern low sulfur coal for steam
generation.
2. Comment. "Section 2.4 (page 2-10) discussed
the effect of recent changes in Federal air pollution
standards for coal-fired power plants with the
incredulous conclusion that: 'Overall demands 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."
Commenter 066
Response. EPA studies indicate that new
proposed sulfur standards will reduce western
production by at most 10 percent. See additional
discussion in Section 2.4.
3. Comment. "The DES justifies the large shift in
coal production westward in part due to more
rapidly increasing demand in the West. This is
misleading."
Commenters 156 and 061
Response. Where coal is converted in the West
and then the final energy product is consumed in
the East, the use of western coal for western
consumption purposes is in fact overstated. How-
ever, the great majority of western coal used for
eastern purposes would be exported to eastern
regions. The most important reason for the more
rapid rate of growth in coal use in the West is the
low base from which it starts. In the East, there has
been extensive use of coal for power generation
while such use is only now becoming common in
the West.
4. Comment. "Nowhere in the DEIS was there a
full analysis of the impact on the DOE forecasts of
a limitation on Federal coal availability."
Commenter 090
Response. In Table 5-18 estimates are devel-
oped of the impacts on western and eastern coal
production of alternative Federal coal manage-
ment programs, including no leasing.
5. Comment. "Regardless of any alternative,
there appears to be a need for separate coal
management programs for the eastern and western
U.S. due to the vast differences in regional
environment."
Commenter 052
Response. The Department must manage
eastern as well as western coal according to
FLPMA, SMCRA, FCLAA, and other laws.
Recognizing the requirement in these acts, the
Department cannot find any benefit to developing
two programs which would, by law, have to be
substantially the same. The program does allow
8-24
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
the comprehensive land use planning step to be
modified if the Federal resource in question is
relatively insignificant and it can be managed in
accordance with a state or local government land
use plan. .
EXISTING LEASES
1 . Comment. "USGS mining supervisors estimat-
ed that 57.3 million ton production will result from
existing leases which do not currently have mine
plans. These estimates are entirely undocument-
ed."
Commenter 156
Response. Whether or not a particular lease
will get into production by 1986 is a judgmental
estimate. It would be difficult to formulate any
rules for making such judgments. Factors taken
into account included lease size, mining cost,
environmental problems, coal type and transporta-
tion. The estimates were made by GS mining
supervisors who have first-hand knowledge of the
circumstances of individual leases. The estimates
were made in fuller form in task force reports and
use data now incorporated into the Department's
automated data system.
2. Comment. "In Section 2.8.2, the assumption is
made that actual production of coal is not likely to
occur until five (5) to ten (10) years after issuance
of a lease."
Commenter 168
Response. It is likely to require at least one
year to prepare a mine plan, one year to write and
approve the plan, and two years to open the mine.
Four years appears to be the bare minimum —
assuming everything goes as fast as possible.
3. Comment. "In the document there is an
absence of any resolution of the unnecessary
existing leases in the environmentally unacceptable
regions of the country, especially the West."
Commenters 130 and 105
Response. A new section in chapter 3 and a
new appendix have been added to address all the
elements of the program that affect existing leases.
4. Comment. "By starting with the KRCRAs as
the areas in which coal leasing must occur, the
Department has already and without any detailed
industry input, excluded at least three-quarters of
Federal coal lands from leasing."
Commenter 066
Response. The existing and planned KRCRAs
include the areas with Federal coal that are
believed to have any significant current develop-
ment prospects. As industry or Interior exploration
points out new areas, the Department will examine
these areas and create new KRCRAs as appropri-
ate. Congress has prohibited the Department from
leasing lands which have not been classified for
competitive leasing.
5. Comment. "Table 2-30, column 4 gives a
figure of 11.3 million tons. This figure was
calculated using small PRLA's which the BLM's
Albuquerque District acknowledges can't be devel-
oped individually, or mined at all without the
development of adjacent coal."
Commenters 019 and 097
Response. PRLA production potential was not
surveyed by size of the PRLA. It is possible that
some of the PRLAs would be too small to be
developed. On the other hand, some of them could
be incorporated into larger mines that included
nonfederal coal and/or existing federal leases.
6. Comment. "Santa Fe emphatically rejects the
"subalternative" of "not leasing in checkerboard
areas" (4-136). The DES presents no practical
justification for such a policy."
Commenter 096
Response. A policy of no checkerboard leasing
was not one of the alternative coal management
programs analyzed in the EIS. It is brought up
more as a possibility that might in some circum-
stances be discussed. As it is discussed in Chapter
5 and in the Department of Justice's Report on
Competition in the Coal Industry reasons for not
leasing coal in those areas include the difficulty of
having truly competitive leasing where one entity
controls half of the resources.
7. Comment. "The potential of Indian leases is
underestimated."
Commenter 097
Response. We believe the estimates are reason-
ably accurate and in the absence of new informa-
tion to the contrary, have not changed them.
Production of Indian coal has been well below
expectations of a few years ago. Indian tribes are
divided and uncertain as to the extent that coal
development should be promoted. Legal disputes
have tended to hold up Indian coal development.
3-25
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Since no new evidence was submitted with the
comment, no change was made.
8. Comment. "The lack of clarity continues in
the review of the 172 outstanding PRLA's. The
Draft ES accurately notes the significant reserves
associated with PRLAs and then does its best to
discount the potential."
Commenter 097
Response. The production potential of PRLA's
reserves is substantial where they are surface
mineable as discussed in Section 2.7.1.3. Under-
ground PRLA reserves have limited potential
except in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal
Region.
9. Comment. "Section 2.8.3 of the DEIS reflects
the Interior Department position that it 'has little
choice legally but to process' preference right lease
applications (PRLAs). This attitude is offensive to
Western Fuels and to others who have invested
substantial money and effort."
Commenter 090
Response. The statement was not meant to
imply any attitude about processing PRLAs but
simply to state the fact that the Department's legal
position, thus far sustained in the Courts, is that it
must issue a lease within a reasonable time after an
applicant has complied with the Department's
regulations and to distinguish this from the
competitive leasing situation where the Depart-
ment has the discretion not to lease.
10. Comment. "The Department's argument that
new leasing is required for legal and administrative
purposes rests mainly on the legal requirement to
process outstanding PRLAs. This, however, does
not require the resumption of competitive leasing."
Commenter 097
Response. The Department's proposal to re-
sume issuance of PRLAs is discussed in Sections
2.8.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, and 3.1.7. In
addition a new section is added to Chapter 3 and
Appendix I which bring together and summarize
all of the Department's proposed actions for
PRLAs. It is true that the Department does not
have the same legal obligation to proceed with
competitive leasing as it does with PRLAs.
1 1 . Comment. "Section 2.8.2 of the DES indicates
that a decision by the Federal government not to
lease Federal coal could result simply in a shift to
the development of non-Federal coal sources."
Commenters 090 and 28 1
Response. These points are made in Section
2.8.2. A full examination of the impacts of
development of non-Federal coal would require
study of alternative Federal and non-Federal
mining sites in each region. Such a study can better
be done on a regional basis. Chapter 5 presents an
analysis of interregional shifts in production due to
no leasing.
12. Comment. "Table 2-5, the Hospah KRCRA is
left out."
Commenter 019
Response. The Hospah KRCRA was not
established until July, 1978. The study on which
Table 2-5 was based included only KRCRAs
established before March, 1978.
13. Comment. "Do we really want to chase
production off unleased Federal coal lands and
onto fee areas and existing lease tracts?"
Commenter 197
Response. The Department's only explicit
policy in this regard is to favor development of
coal lands underlying federally owned surface to
development of those that do not, all other factors
being equal. The relative benefits of development
of private and federal lands are discussed in
Section 5.4.
14. Comment. "As a first step, the Department
needs to present a detailed discussion of the status
of the present Federal leases and PRLAs. We are
aware from the earlier programmatic EIS, that the
Department has made some evaluation of the
environmental merits of existing leases and
PRLAs. Yet this most critical discussion has not
ever been presented for evaluation in a public
document. We believe this should be presented in
the final EIS. A necessary first step would be to
identify the size and location via regional maps of
these leases (with and without mining plans) and
PRLAs in the final EIS. EPA is also aware that the
Department has begun an evaluation of high-
priority Management Framework Plans in coal
areas using the proposed unsuitability criteria. We
have some reservations regarding the criteria as
presently listed (discussed below). However, we
think that an essential first step in implementing
the transitional phase of the Federal coal program
would be through unsuitability evaluation of
existing Federal leases and PRLAs. Only when it is
8-2 6
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
possible to determine the number and amounts of
existing leases that are environmentally and eco-
nomically unsuitable can an intelligent appraisal of
needed new leasing be made."
Commenter 28 1
Response. Because of the concern with existing
lease and PRLA management, the Department is
including with the final Environmental Statement
a "Discussion paper on Departmental manage-
ment of existing coal leases and preference right
lease applications" as Appendix I of the final ES.
The principal points in the discussion paper have
also been incorporated in chapter 3, the descrip-
tion of the preferred program and its alternatives.
The Department does not believe that a presenta-
tion of the status of all existing leases and PRLAs
would materially benefit the ES. This material
would immensely increase the size of the ES with a
level of detail that may be of some interest, but is
of little use to decision-making. This material is
available from the files of the Bureau of Land
Management. The U.S. Geological Survey did
include environmental viability as a factor in their
assessment of the production potential of existing
leases. The Department would be concerned about
making public these necessarily undetailed, profes-
sional judgments regarding future environmental
conflicts that might face specific leases and
PRLAs. The Department does not want to be
bound to these preliminary estimates of whether
operation on an existing lease or PRLA will or will
not create problems or be permittable under
SMCRA. Unsuitability assessments and the weigh-
ing of other environmental conflicts are an
essential part of the process of adjudication of the
preference right to a lease. It is beyond the scope of
this ES to adjudicate the 172 pending PRLAs on
their merits. In addition, the Department regards it
as fruitless to conduct special assessments of
existing leases for acceptability for development if
no development is contemplated by the lease. The
lack of production from such leases can be safely
assumed in setting leasing targets without any
further environmental assessment at all.
15. Comment. "Although we can sympathize with
the U.S. Government's desire to promote greater
competition in the western coal industry, we
wonder whether additional leasing will have any
practical benefits in this regard. It would appear
that willing producers not now owning leases could
do so simply by buying them (through the
assignment process). Will additional leasing
change this situation in any discernable way?
Other reviewers have indicated that there seems to
be a tendency to concentrate the leases that have
been sold. Recent sales of leases have been to large
corporations. We wonder whether a situation of
greater competition among lease holders might
result from new leases rather than among coal
producers. We do recognize that diligent develop-
ment requirements may alleviate this situation. We
wonder whether a provision to eliminate re-sale of
leases might further prevent concentration and
speculation. Although there may be benefit in
having re-sale of present leases, we can see no good
reason why re-sale of future leases would have
practical advantages to government or commerce.
A lease could simply be returned and re-leased if
necessary. Would a statutory change be necessary
to implement such a provision, and if so, has the
Department considered doing so? How will the
Department police assignments that are made?"
Commenter 281
Response. The Department records indicate
that most coal leases have passed into the hands of
companies with the capital and the technical
expertise to develop them. Previously there was an
element in the coal lease market that was princi-
pally interested in the leases for their possible
resale value. As the Secretary will first judge the
need for leasing and then decide on targets for
leases for coal production, the coal program should
reduce the earlier high levels of speculation that
were evident among Federal coal leases. The
Department is making an effort to put coal leases
in the hands of new groups of producers through
the public body and small business special oppor-
tunity lease sales. These new entrants should
enhance competition in the coal industry. The
Solicitor's Office is now examining the question of
legal limits on the Department's ability to manage
assignments; the policy question you raise in your
comments will be considered if is determined that
such actions are within the authority of the
Secretary. An advantage of assignments is that
they do allow the Department greater certainty
that the leasing targets will be met. That is, they
increase the probability that the coal in any
Federal area will be mined by some company, if
not the original company winning the lease. If
leases were to be returned for reletting, the
5-27
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Department's ability to conduct leasing to satisfy a
target would be lessened. The Solicitor's paper on
assignment of leases will be available when it is
completed.
16. Comment. "Para 2.8.3 This paragraph should
acknowledge that it is presently illegal for the
Secretary to make exchanges of existing leases and
that Congressional legislation is necessary to give
him this authority. This authority, by the way, is
sorely needed, and should be addressed as a means
of reaching the goals of the Preferred Alternative."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. The Secretary does have limited
exchange authority. In addition lease modifica-
tions and bidding rights may be usable for
exchange with holders of undesirable leases. The
Department is on record as favoring a general
exchange authority, but is not recommending that
the Congress re-open examination of this question
until it can do so in the context of an operational
coal managment program. The Secretary's authori-
ty in this regard is fully set out in a new appendix
in the final ES.
NEED FOR NEW LEASING
1. Comment. "Para 2.8.4 states that increased
leasing may increase competition in the coal
industry, but it does not state how stifling to
competition have been the laws issued since 1970."
Commenters 019 and 043
Response. The Department does not believe
that on the whole the laws passed since 1970 have
stifled competition. The reverse appears to be true
since new laws require: competitive bidding with
bonus bids defered at least half of the time, impose
more strict acreage limitations, ease entry into
federal coal for public bodies and involve Justice
Department pre-lease issuance anti-trust review.
The Justice Department noted in its report to
Congress that all markets are workably competi-
tive, but leasing should resume to prevent future
problems.
2. Comment. "The DES seems to assume that
cancellation of leases in 1986 will create an abrupt
discontinuity in production potential that can only
be avoided by new leasing prior to that time. The
fallacy in this position is that production estimates
are based on current intentions, leading naturally
to a shortfall in the longer term."
Commenters 042, 060, 062, 043, and 097
Response. The Interior Department intends to
cancel existing leases not producing by 1986.
Leases lacking production plans now will have a
difficult time in achieving 1986 production. If there
is to be a supply of new Federal leases available to
begin production from 1987 on, these leases must
be awarded well before the year production is
expected to begin. From four to seven years after
lease issuance is likely to be required to get a mine
into production. Hence, if production is expected
from new leases in 1987, these leases should be
issued soon.
3. Comment. "Don't just encourage 'new entry in
coal mining' to encourage competition."
Cornmenter 160
Response. It is not clear from the comment
what is suggested. The Justice Department is
primarily concerned with controlling outright
collusion. The Interior Department's greater Fed-
eral leasing will aid in dealing with this problem.
4. Comment. "The analysis of national need for
leasing is based on a questionable and illogical
assumption that national need can be determined
on a regional level at a later date."
Cornmenter 058, 043, and 038
Response. It is difficult if not impossible to
assess the national need for leasing without looking
at regions. The national leasing need is the
cumulative need that results from the separate
circumstances of the regions where Federal coal is
found.
5. Comment. "There is a puzzling sentence in the
ES which reads '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 the national
and regional levels'."
Commenters 103, 168, 062, 187, 097, 096, and
087
Response. According to computer projections
of coal production under a no leasing scenario, the
greatest impact of an absence of Federal leasing
would be to shift coal production from Federal to
nonFederal coal. In some cases such shifts would
occur within the same coal region. In regions
without much nonFederal coal, an absence of
Federal leasing would cause production to shift to
other regions with greater nonFederal production
potential. The effect of these shifts would be to
8-28
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
alter coal development patterns, and the decline in
overall national coal production under a no leasing
policy probably would not be very great. The
greatest cost to the Nation of no leasing thus
would probably be in the less environmentally
satisfactory and less economically efficient devel-
opment patterns that would result.
6. Comment. "In the final analysis, the Depart-
ment bases its justification for adopting a new coal
leasing program on the perceived future need for
vast amounts of Federal coal."
Commenters 097, 042, and 103
Response. At the risk of oversimplification, it
would base this decision on its evaluation that (1)
Congress has given it the authority to manage
Federal lands (2) Federal lands contain vast
amounts of coal (3) under some conditions it is
clear that this coal can make an important
contribution to national energy needs and (4) the
Department must be ready to respond to any
needs that do occur with a program that will work
quickly, efficiently and result in environmentally
sound development. The Department is not basing
its proposal to adopt a program directly on any
specified level of need for leasing whether it is
characterized as vast or miniscule.
7. Comment. "The Department proposes that
new leasing is necessary to promote desirable
patterns of coal development. This argument
assumes that private coal development patterns
will be undesirable."
Commenters 097 and 103
Response. The environmental statement dis-
cusses the pro's and con's of developing private
versus public lands for coal in Chapter 5. The
analysis shows that on a general review there are
comparative advantages and disadvantages to
develop each. These include factors such as
proximity to transportation, effect on wildlife,
grazing, agriculture and availability of land for
new housing. Because each region has different
characteristics, however, it is very difficult on a
national level to "prove" that Federal development
is better than private development or vice-versa.
This is one of the factors that could be studied in
any regional coal leasing statement.
8. Comment. "A sound Federal management
program is an essential element of a national coal
resource management strategy that can serve to
mitigate the impacts of a no-lease policy."
Commenter 122
Response. The Department agrees completely
with this statement. One of the three major factors
the Secretary will be asked to consider in making
his decision on the need for leasing is the
environmental benefits that will result from relying
on a soundly planned Federal coal management
program. Starting up the program not only benefits
the environment from the greater degree of
planning for new mines, but also, and possibly
more important for the short run, benefits such
other elements of the coal management program as
lease exchanges, existing lease management, and
preference right lease application management.
9. Comment. "In its zeal to escape the problems
created by errors rampant in earlier leasing efforts,
the Department has established a program primar-
ily aimed at new leases."
Commenters 103, 042, and 058
Response. The Department has proceeded with
equal emphasis on the management of existing
leases and on the need to study and prepare for a
new leasing program. Additional material has been
inserted in Chapter 3 that explains these efforts.
10. Comment. "Two questions of great interest to
us with regard to the proposed Federal coal
management program are, one, how it was decided
how much coal needs to be mined and, two, how is
it decided which new land should be leased for
coal mining. I will just briefly outline our concerns
on these two issues tonight and also submit further
comments before the deadline."
Commenter 134
Response. In answering these questions the
Federal coal management program will consider
the following major factors:
1. The DOE National Energy Plan target
figure for coal;
2. The advice of the individual states;
3. Information available on industry plans
for future mine openings and expansion;
4. Utility industry future plans;
5. Industry expressions of interest in Federal
coal leasing;
6. Development potential of Federal coal
deposits;
8-29
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
7. Recommendations from the public, state
and local governments, and other Federal
agencies;
8. Environmental and social capacity of
various areas to withstand coal mining.
Many of these factors are set out in the ES, but the
ES does not draw a conclusion. This conclusion
will be reached by the Secretary after he has
considered the ES and comments received on the
preferred coal management program.
11. Comment. "The preferred alternative seems
the most sound of the seven presented. However,
throughout the report and particularly in Chapter
2, it is emphasized that new coal leasing will be
necessary to satisfy future demand since nearly all
existing non-producing leases will be cancelled in
1986. The incongruity of this situation (cancelling
leases and issuing new ones at the same time)
should be examined further. Once the coal man-
agement program policies and criteria are applied
to existing non-producing leases as outlined in
section 3.1.1.5, it might develop that enough
acceptable leases of commercial quality exist to
obviate or reduce the need for a new leasing
program. Although some means might be found to
get the good idle leases into production, the
possibility is never discussed in the DES."
Commenter 233
Response. The Department prefers that good
idle leases come into production and that these
leases reduce the need for new leasing. The
Department is certainly not pursuing a policy of
aggresively cancelling existing leases during the
period before diligence requirements come into
play. Quite the opposite, the Department is seeking
to encourage the development of these leases
within the next seven years if they are environmen-
tally acceptable. Congress, through its provisions
to ensure the diligent development of coal leases,
established standards that would require the
cancellation of leases that are not in production by
1986. There is also provision in the existing
regulations to consider the particular circum-
stances of each lease and possibly offer some form
of relief to existing lease holders. The entire policy
area of diligent devlopment, while administered by
the Department of the Interior, falls within the
policy setting powers transferred to the Depart-
ment of Energy by the Department of Energy
Organic Act.
DILIGENT DEVELOPMENT
1. Comment. "Our concern is with the criteria
for due diligence which are now inadequate to
their intended purpose of keeping Federal resource
management in the hands of Federal land manag-
ers."
Commenter 042
Response. The Department of Energy is re-
sponsible for issuing new diligent development
regulations. DOE is examining possible means to
tighten diligent development standards in the
course of preparing regulations. We note that the
Congress considered but rejected tougher stan-
dards prior to the time it passed the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendment Act. The Interior Depart-
ment is also exploring ways to ensure the enforce-
ment of the current standards.
2. Comment. "The Department argues that if
demand is not strong enough to stimulate develop-
ment of existing leases by 1986, the enforcement of
diligence requirements will result in the cancella-
tion of these leases, necessitating new leases in
order to meet demand by 1990. The argument does
not make sense, however, in view of the fact that
the Secretary of the Interior has discretion to
extend that period for five years."
Commenters 089, 163, and 062
Response. The five year extension has only
limited applicability. In addition, the Interior
Department cannot plan its future leasing on the
assumption that diligent development standards
for existing leases will be relaxed. Many of these
leases would be environmentally and economically
inferior to potential new leases. Demand may be
insufficient by 1986 to stimulate production in that
year, but increased demand in subsequent years
may require new leasing to accommodate produc-
tion starting up in those years. If no leasing took
place, this might affect the Department's decision
whether to extend the period, rather than vice-
versa.
3. Comment. "In the meantime, we cannot
understand from the ES why existing leases, if
diligently developed, will not meet coal needs."
Commenters 163, 089, and 042
Response. Existing leases for meeting coal
needs will generally only be available until 1986,
when they are expected to be cancelled if not yet
producing. New development of Federal coal after
that will require new leasing well before the
8-30
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
production is expected to begin, if demand equals
or exceeds the medium projection levels.
BONUS BIDS
1. Comment. "It is difficult to support the
conclusion that an excess of leases offered would
result in so much less compensation being paid to
the government in lower bonus bids that the
resulting loss would not be more than offset by the
total gain realized when even a few such leases are
developed."
Commenter 066
Response. Excessive leasing would create
strong pressures for reduced bonus bids and
production distortions. While certain measures
could be taken to counteract these pressures, these
measures would have costs and there would be no
guarantees of success.
STRIP MINING RULES
1. Comment. "Does the decision to suspend the
effective date of the strip mining rules affect the
coal leasing ES?"
Commenter 121
Response. The coal programmatic ES involves
long term issues not significantly affected by the
effective date of the strip mining rules. This date
could, however, affect decisions made under a new
coal management program, if one is adopted.
PREFERRED PROGRAM
1. Comment. "We feel the statement should
indicate the level at which various decisions in the
proposed leasing process would be made. Refer-
ences are made throughout the statement to
decisions to be made by the 'department.' To those
not familiar with the Department of the Interior,
its many bureaus and agencies, regional, state and
district offices, the entire leasing process could
become a confusing maze. We respectfully suggest
that the final document indicate what offices or
officers would be involved in the various steps
depicted on the schematic flow charts on pages 15,
16 and 17 of chapter 3 (which are figures 3-2, 3-3
and 3-4)."
Commenter 159
Response. Chapter 3 of the FES contains more
detailed information on the elements of the
preferred program. The proposed regulations also
clarify these relationships.
2. Comment. "A second major concern relates to
implementation of the preferred program. Our
questions relate to whether Interior will have the
budget, expertise, and necessary legislation to see
the preferred option through."
Commenters 155, 170, 098, 120, 147, and 083.
Response. The Department recognizes that this
proposed program, as well as the new land use
planning program mandated by FLPMA, will
require more comprehensive resource inventories
and socio-economic planning and impact assess-
ment capabilities. The Department is requesting
funds to meet these needs. In addition, it expects to
depend to a greater degree on local and state
government planning, particularly in the socio-
economic area, in developing its own plans and the
environmental assessments required by NEPA.
3. Comment. "Number 8, funding. As with other
government programs funding and personnel are
key elements of a successful endeavor. I am not
concerned that Montana may be burdened-I am
concerned that Montana may be burdened by this
financial crunch. I have not seen an adequate
assessment of the coal program budget and the
State's role in that budget.
"The Environmental Statement clearly admits
that it lacks a significant data base to implement
the entire program in all of its regions.
"Base-line scientific studies are extremely
vulnerable to budgetary cuts, which, conceivably,
could jeopardize the proposed program. The
legitimate demands of the nation and equally
legitimate constitutional rights of present and
future generations of Montana must be balanced."
Commenter 170
Response. The Department is fully aware of
the budget and man-power requirements of con-
ducting the program as proposed. It is recognized
that obtaining the necessary support will be a
continuing problem.
4. Comment. "CWI is concerned, however, that
in seeking to achieve the maximum degree of
environmental and community protection, on a
national scale, the Department has created a
system which is excessively complex, prone to
extensive delays, and extremely unpredictable."
Commenters 120, 088, and 098
Response. The preferred program is not con-
sidered excessively complex, prone to delay, or
unpredictable. Since many of its elements are
8-31
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
required by new law, it is unfamiliar. The Depart-
ment believes that all involved will find the
program is workable, not unduely lengthy, and
understandable and that it strives to serve the
public in an environmentally sound manner.
5. Comment. "Obviously, if you are going to
have any coal mining at all you will have to have
some people mining the coal. In other words, you
are going to have to have industry or one person
working on his own coal mine, and if this is so, you
are going to have to have people producing the
coal, and in this statement you hardly refer to
industry at all, as I understand it, so I have just got
one page here which I thought was rather signifi-
cant. This is on Page 3-1 in your preferred program
for Federal coal management. It's right at the
bottom of the page. In this preferred program the
four primary goals list things that are strictly your
own business, you might say, that are pertaining to
the Federal Government and not really what
industry would be involved in. It seems to me like
one of your four primary goals would be a
harmonious relationship with the coal mining
industry and I don't think you really indicate that
at all in your Draft Environmental Statement, so
my comments have been rather broad here."
Commenter 150
Response. The Department recognizes that
coal is produced by private enterprise and the
importance of having a program that will meet
their needs. For this reason, the Department will
look for industry advice and counsel during every
major stage of the program.
6. Comment. "Individual coal operators should
be compelled to internalize the cost of their
operations on the impacted local communities by
contribution of front end money for community
development."
Commenter 160
Response. The Department agrees that the
burden of meeting these financial needs should be
placed on the coal production and conversion
activities. The methods for accomplishing this
should be determined by state and local govern-
ments.
7. Comment. "As the title of the Draft ES
acknowledges, the 'Preferred Alternative' is much
more than a Federal coal leasing program. The title
calls it a Federal Coal Management Program. Given
the massive mineable coal deposits owned by the
U.S. which 'overhang' the coal industry and the
markets for the coal industry: given the mine
shutdowns occurring in the east as the OSM
regulations are applied and the costs of complying
with OSM, EPA, OSHA and other agency regula-
tions become apparent; and given the necessity for
significantly increasing coal production to stand
any chance for our Nation to avoid economic
disaster resulting from physical shortages of energy
or from the Nation's inability to afford higher
volumes of higher priced oil from overseas;
knowledgeable people will recognize the Proposed
Program is more than a Coal Management Pro-
gram. It is a coal control program. By reason of the
foregoing, it is a National Coal Control Program.
In essence; the government will determine
what coal is needed; what to make available;
where and when to make it available; what must
be mined; how it will be mined; at what produc-
tion rate; at what return on investment and
possibly how, where, and by whom the coal will be
consumed.
Query: If Congress set out to nationalize the
nation's coal industry what further 'controls'
would be necessary to achieve that result beyond
what the 'Preferred Alternative' provides?"
Commenter 053
Response. The Department acknowledges that
the Federal government will estimate national
demand for coal, estimate how much of that
amount will come from each of the proposed
production regions and of that amount, how much
should come from Federal lands. The Department
will be responsible for leasing enough Federal coal
on each of those areas to meet that estimated
demand. (These goals may not be met if they are
incompatible with the previously developed land
use plans.) In addition to the above Congressional
directives, the Department must insure the maxi-
mum economic recovery of the coal resource and a
fair market value return for Federal resources.
Limits are also placed on production by the
diligence requirements. The Department is not
proposing any rules that would prescribe end use:
however, there are other Federal standards, partic-
ularly air pollution controls, that will influence the
end use of coal. The Department does not believe
it is appropriate for it to recommend what steps are
needed to nationalize the nation's coal industry. It
should be noted, however, that most of the coal
-32
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
being produced today is not coming from Federal
lands and, therefore, would not be controlled by
this program.
8. Comment. "Members of the association have
attended the informational meetings in Billings
and Miles City. It is our opinion the Draft
Environmental Statement would propose the Fed-
eral Government restrict the marketing of coal
from Federal lands by determining where a
company that has a sale for coal is located. The
Federal Government personnel would decide
whether or not a customer for coal should be
permitted to purchase coal from Montana or from
Illinois or some other state. We believe this is
contrary to the free enterprise system and opposes
the process of the supply and demand marketing
system that makes the United States economy
function. We strongly oppose the Federal Govern-
ment using the leasing of Federal coal in this
manner to manipulate the the market place for
coal, as defined in Sections 2.8.2. and 2.8.4."
Commenter 179
Response. The Department will not dictate any
marketing terms for a particular company. The
Department will determine the demand for Feder-
al coal in a production region and lease that
amount of coal to the highest bidders, assuming
the amounts of coal demanded can be met within
the constraints of established land use plans.
9. Comment. "Finally, we urge the preparation
of a Regulatory Analysis in accordance with the
provisions of Executive Order 12044, signed by the
President on March 23,1978. The proposed coal
management program appers to meet the criteria
of section 3 of EO 12044." lp "We also urge that
the Regulatory Analysis examine the impact of the
proposed coal management program upon the coal
industry itself, as well as coal consumers. Such an
analysis should be beneficial to the decision-
making process, and, of course, should accompany
the proposed regulations, when published."
Commenter 089
Response. Your comment in regard to regula-
tory analysis has been considered by the Secetary.
He has decided to conduct enhanced economic
analyses of maximum economic recovery and of
unsuitability criteria.
10. Comment. "Interior's program must comply
with a number of laws enacted by the Legislative
Branch. Interior's program for leasing falls within
the purview of NEPA and requires a 'legally
adequate' ES. The Program and the required ES
do not depend upon justifying the 'need to lease'.
Futhermore, leasing itself is no longer, if it ever
was, a 'major federal action significantly affecting
the human environment'."
Commenter 053
Response. The Department must examine the
no-action alternative which, when compared to
any alternative that includes the leasing option,
results in an analysis to determine a need for
leasing. The Department, therefore, chose to
address this issue directly rather than indirectly.
11. Comment. "We find, as another shortcoming
of the proposed program and the draft EIS, far too
much emphasis placed on strip mining as opposed
to underground mining. This is inconsistent with
DOI's Coal Extraction Task Force recommenda-
tions that emphasis be placed on underground
mining in order to minimize environmental and
social impacts. The reasons cited by this group
were: to avoid the serious environmental impacts
of a large increase in strip mining; to concentrate
on the vast majority of the available coal resources
which are farther underground; to lower required
production level due to the higher energy content
of deeper coal; and to provide the smoother
growth and sustained production associated with
underground mining, as opposed to the boom-bust
cycle associated with strip mining. The EIS should
address the recommendations of this task force."
Commenter 085
Response. The conclusions drawn here are
largely in error.
1. Underground mining has different but
equally troublesome environmental impacts. The
two greatest problems are the much greater
number of people required to extract an equal
amount of coal. This leads to greater socio-eco-
nomic impacts, as well as environmental impacts
from increased urbanization and general land use
demands. In addition, human safety hazards
associated with underground mining are much
worse than those associated with surface mining.
2. Surface mines are no more prone to boom
and bust than are underground mines.
12. Comment. "On page 3-18, Col. 1, the DES
describes proposed planning rules and regulations
by both the Forest Service and the BLM. However,
3-33
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
there is no discussion of how the two agencies will
coordinate activities, or which agency will prevail
in the event of conflict. There should be specific
discussion of the Department of Interior's plans to
avoid stalemates in areas of multiple agency
control."
Commenter 094
Response. "A memorandum of understanding"
is being negotiated between the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Forest Service for
managing coal leases from Forest Service land.
Relationships between the two agencies are clearly
spelled out in the law (e.g., Section 3 of the Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976); good
relationships exist between the two agencies, and
the Department does not expect that any manage-
rial impasses will develop. When completed the
memorandum of understanding will be available
to anyone interested in the specific details of this
relationship upon request to the Department.
13. Comment. "I am concerned about many of the
economics-oriented policy questions, on such
topics as bidding systems, allocated by statute to
the Department of Energy, but for which coordi-
nated working relationship of the two agencies
must be strong in practice. The vague memoran-
dum of understanding found in Appendix B of the
Environmental Statement is no guarantee of
performance. Interior established a rigorous sched-
ule for itself and has held to it. It seems that
Energy should do the same."
Commenter 147
Response. The Departments of Energy and the
Interior will diligently work together, where neces-
sary, to implement any decisions to which they
must mutually agree.
14. Comment. "Our questions are:
-What effect will the proposed program have
on development or production of these coal
resources?
-To what extent have these coal resources been
considered within the framework of a Federal
Management Program?"
Commenter 03 1
Response. The effects of the proposed program
are presented in Chapter 5. For more detail on coal
resource consideration in existing MFP's, refer to
Chapter 3.2.11.
15. Comment. "Para. 3.1.1.1 recommend 2 points
to be added to this Preferred Program:
a. Add an exchange authority to allow the
Secretary to retain coal lands which may
have other greater values.
b. Allow selective noncompetitive leasing to
assure cheap coal supplies for local mar-
kets."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. Lands with greater value for other
resource features than coal recovery will be
eliminated from leasing by unsuitability designa-
tions and resource trade-off planning decisions
made during the initial land use planning stage of
the preferred program. The Department is limited
in how it may reobtain the mining rights to
undersirable existing leases. It may do so only by
offering compensation in the form of:
a. lease exchanges and fee land exchanges if
the existing leases are in alluvial valley
floors,
b. bidding rights,
c. lease modification, and
d. exchange for lease on another Federal
leasable mineral.
The Department unsuccessfully sought generic
exchange authority for undesirable coal leases
during the last Congress. It presently lacks such
exchange authority. Small amounts of non-com-
petitive coal are available for local markets
through the coal mining license feature described
in the regulations (see Section 3440); the Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 otherwise
removed the authority to sell Federal coal through
noncompetitive leases.
16. Comment. "The preferred program should
include provisions for denying federal leases to
companies or individuals that are in violation of
performance standards established under the
Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act of
1977."
Commenter 061
Response. Final SMCRA regulations which are
implemented by the Office of Surface Mining,
provide the appropriate enforcement.
17. Comment. "Wyoming has created many
organs of State and Local Government which deal
with various aspects of coal development. Where
Wyoming has addressed these questions, I natural-
ly oppose Federal actions which would pre-empt
8-34
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
or tend to abrogate functioning state and local
authorities. By and large, the preferred alternative
has successfully avoided these sorts of conflict. A
number of examples illustrate the problem and the
point.
"(1) The Land Quality Division of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality has primary
authority for mined land reclamation in Wyoming.
It is possible for stipulations in BLM leases to
infringe upon the determinations that are properly
left to our state regulatory authority. The preferred
alternative has consciously avoided this conflict.
"(2) Our Industrial Siting Council protects the
health and welfare of Wyoming by operating
permit procedures which thoroughly examine new
energy facilities in Wyoming. Interior has pro-
posed an investigation of its authority to regulate
the end uses of coal, which might affect the powers
of our state authority. The proposal is presently
tabled for further study, and I hope that it will
remain tabled indefinitely."
Commenter 147
Response. The Department will not propose
actions contrary to the State's interest as expressed
above.
18. Comment. "General. We consider the sections
of the DES treating evaluations and assessments of
regional environmental impacts to be comprehen-
sive and of such quality and scope as to properly
address all levels of potential leasing activity. We
have serious concerns, however, about the Pre-
ferred Coal Management Program described in
Chapter Three. In our judgment, this proposed
program has several fundamental problems:
1. We are concerned that some of the laws
upon which the program is based do not
properly recognize the balance required by
our nation's environmental, energy, and
economic goal.
2. The land use planning system, as pro-
posed, goes far beyond the President's
intent regarding environmental protection,
and seriously jeopardizes attainment of
coal production goals.
3. The inherent uncertainties associated with
utilizing long term projections of coal
supply and demand to determine the need
for leasing could result in underestimating
the levels of leasing necessary to meet our
nation's future coal requirements.
4. The potential consequences of a more
centralized form of Federal coal manage-
ment, the exclusion of industry input to the
land use planning process, and the pros-
pects of underleasing of needed coal
resources on our nation's energy and
economic goals have not been adequately
addressed."
Commenter 084
Response. This comment is answered as fol-
lows:
1. Congress is responsible for the laws upon
which the program is based. The Depart-
ment acts on the assumption that these
laws are the nation's goals.
2. The land use planning system is aimed at
meeting the multiple-use goals of the
nation, one of which is energy production.
The Department anticipates meeting those
goals within the framework of existing
laws and the proposed land use planning
and coal management program regula-
tions.
3. All predictions of future demand are
subject to reasonable question. The De-
partment recognizes the need to maintain
adequate supplies of coal available for
development. The management system
proposed would make coal available for
leasing seven to 10 years ahead of antici-
pated production dates. Coal demand
would be updated every two years. If
additional needs were evident, new leasing
would be initiated. In addition to these
demand projections, the Department will
be concerned with artificially high prices
for coal and may lease coal to improve
competition if the administration deter-
mines it is in the national interest. The
Department will not act to constrain the
national level of coal development. It may
constrain development in local areas
where it serves the local, state or national
interest.
4. All interested parties, including industry,
will be able to participate in the land use
planning process. (See proposed BLM
planning regulations, Federal Register,
December 15, 1978.) Areas that are
desirable for development can be identi-
fied by industry. However, no tracts will
3-35
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
be identified until the activity planning
step. Text has been added in Chapter 3 to
discuss industry's role in land use plan-
ning-a role which the Department hopes
will be very active.
19. Comment. "With respect to the amount of
federal coal which will ultimately be available
under the preferred alternative for the Federal coal
leasing program, it must be observed with deep
regret but not with a great deal of surprise that the
Department's present position is apparently that, if
all the various government agencies to be directly
involved in leasing cannot, among themselves, or
by virtue of public comment think of any reason
for excluding a tract of federal coal land from
leasing, the tract in question might possibly then
be considered for a lease sale. Some specific parts
or characteristics of the preferred alternative which
would seem to unnecessarily restrict the amount of
federal coal available for leasing are:
1. Designation, by means not fully discussed
and probably not quantifiable, of only
those reserves of "medium and high poten-
tial" as available for leasing;
2. Apparent reliance on existing Known
Recoverable Coal Resource Areas
(KRCRAs) as defining the areas in which
future federal coal leasing will be consid-
ered, even though the present KRCRAs
include a very small portion of all of the
Federal lands that are known to contain
the coal resources; and
3. Implementation of no less than 24 separate
unsuitability criteria for elimination of
otherwise qualified Federal lands from any
future consideration for leasing by what
will apparently be a much more uncom-
promising application of such criteria than
is mandated by law and which has been
experienced in the past."
Commenter 066
Response. Congress has eliminated exploration
for coal by private companies through the use of
preference right lease applications. The proposed
regulations do provide for private exploration of
Federal coal (see subpart 3410). The Department
has an active program which will, in time, define
the nature of all Federal coal resources. Available
manpower and budgets limit the amount of land
use planning the Department can do in any given
period; therefore, some limits must be in place on
how much of the Federal lands will be reviewed for
potential coal mining. The Department believes it
is reasonable to limit its efforts to those areas
where there are known coal resources of medium
to high potential for development. These areas are
described by procedures set out by the U.S.
Geological Survey and are available upon request!
Text has been added in Chapter 3 and provisions
have been added in the proposed regulations to
ensure those areas not already classified as having
medium or high development potential can be
considered if existing data or new data presented
by industry or others indicate a reasonable
probability of developable coal being present.
The unsuitability criteria are based on numer-
ous statutes and clear environmental policies
stated by Congress. The authority for these criteria
are shown in a new table added to chapter 3.
20. Comment. "The DES states that under the
preferred alternative, "The principal coal resource
decision in the land use plan would be the
determination of which areas are acceptable for
further consideration for coal leasing.'
"In fact, however, the process described as the
preferred program consists of screening all federal
lands through a series of successive reviews, the
sole purpose of each of which is to preclude, on
various grounds, any further consideration of the
lands involved for federal coal development.
"The process itself, and the sequence of the
decisions in the program, systematically gives
precedence to all other articulated environmental
social and natural resource development policies.
Land management decisions would be required to
be made in the absence of adequate information
concerning the nature or desirability of federal
coal resources. Indeed, the recognition of the
relative importance of such resources in compari-
son with other competing environmental or social
values is specifically precluded throughout this
stage of the planning process."
"However, both industry and the Department
might have a specific need for the coal involved in
any given area: industry might require a lease to
complete or obtain access to an otherwise undeve-
lopable logical mining unit of federal or non-
federal coal, while the Department might deter-
mine that coal from a given area is required to
fulfill one of its 'production targets' (see discussion,
8-36
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
below). In either case, throughout this process of
elimination, there would be no opportunity to
identify such specific need."
Commenter 098
Response. The preferred program consists of a
series of screens which eliminate lands from
further consideration for coal leasing. The first
screen would eliminate all those lands which have
no known coal resources or coal resources of low
potential economic value. The second screen
would be the application of unsuitability criteria.
This screen would eliminate areas from consider-
ation for the leasing that are protected by environ-
mental statutes or policy. The third screen would
be a multiple-use trade-off screen in which areas
which may not be protected by the unsuitability
criteria but have unique or strong local support for
protection would be eliminated from consideration
for leasing. We would expect that relatively small
amounts of land would be permanently precluded
from this step, but instead, the timing and amount
of development that would occur would be
controlled. The fourth screen would be applied as
a result of the surface owner consultation. Recog-
nition of the relative importance of coal resources
with other competing environmental and social
values would be specifically included in the
multiple-use planning step. The leasing targets
would be applied during the activity planning
stage. It is assumed that sufficient areas will be
available in the early years to meet these leasing
targets. Should it be impossible to meet a leasing
target in any specific region, the possibility and
advisability of shifting that demand to another
region would be studied. As the social and
environmental values changed, however, addition-
al coal resources may become available in the
planning areas in question.
21. Comment. "Western recommends that the
Department include a timetable for the planning
tract identification/leasing/environmental assess-
ment process, to include a guarantee for meeting
this timetable. The proposed process appears
awfully complicated and unwieldy, and the coal
and utility industries would like some guarantee
that this ambitious program will be carried out in a
timely fashion."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. The following timetable shows ex-
pected typical times to conduct the activities
referred to in the ES:
Comprehensive land use plan- two-three years, with most of the
jjjjj- activity occurring during the last
year
Activity planning
Target setting
Tract sales
18 -24 months
six-nine months
beginning one to two months after
the Secretary's decision on the
lease schedule and continuing over
four years
It should be kept in mind, however, that these
activities will be conducted in parallel, and it
would be expected that if a need for coal leasing is
determined in a region, there will be tracts coming
up for sale within that region continuously.
22. Comment. "With respect to the various
planning stages leading to a lease sale, (Fig. 3-1),
there should be timetables projected for each
identifiable step so that the total timetable could
be incorporated into a development schedule for
potential lease applicants, particularly for relative-
ly new entrants such as Santa Fe. These timetables
should then be further broken down to apply to the
detailed process steps defined in Figs. 3-2, 3-3 and
3-4."
Commenter 096
Response. A general table indicating typical
times needed to accomplish the major steps of the
preferred program has been provided in response
to another commenter. The details of the processes
encompassed within these major steps was not
developed sufficiently to be ready for publication
with the final ES. These times are available from
the final task force reports that will be completed
for the Secretary's decision. Departmental repre-
sentatives in State and District BLM Offices are
always available to discuss with anyone interested
the details of the coal management activities of the
Department.
23. Comment. "Section 3.1.1 describes the general
characteristics of the preferred alternative for the
proposed federal coal leasing program. In general,
this discussion should satisfy the requirements
resulting from the decision NRDC v. Hughes that
8-37
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
any proposed federal coal leasing program be
described in sufficient detail.
"There are, however, several points concerning
this program which are disturbing to industry.
First is the apparently inflexible requirement that
all necessary land use planning involving the
identification of coal lands, the application of the
numerous unsuitability criteria and the nebulous
resource trade-offs be completed before the activi-
ty planning stage can proceed which involves
regional environmental impact statements. Consid-
ering the tens of millions of acres of land involved
even if new coal leasing is restricted to existing
KRCRAS, it is difficult to believe that the
Department can maintain the schedule for resum-
ing actual lease sales within eighteen months after
the adoption of a coal leasing program. In fact,
related land use planning efforts by the primary
public land administrative agencies, the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service, con-
cerning wilderness designation would seem to
make it absolutely impossible to keep such a
schedule. It is imperative in the preferred alterna-
tive be expanded to include specific assurances,
with supporting illustrations that such a schedule
can be accommodated."
Commenter 066
Response. The Department is directed to
manage lands according to a comprehensive land
use plan (FLPMA and FCLAA). The Federal
Land Policy and Management Act validated all
existing Federal land use plans. About 85 percent
of the BLM administered land has such valid
plans. The Department has proposed these plans
be updated by applying the unsuitability criteria.
Once this step is completed, activity planning can
begin. The Department must strike a reasonable
balance between developing all new land use plans
under new planning regulations, which will take
10-15 years to complete, and issuing new leases
under existing plans without any review. Section
3.2.8 describes the process the Department pro-
poses to pursue. The Department is well aware of
the demands that will be placed on the BLM. It
should be noted that the Department cannot
compromise the values protected by statute in
order to expedite coal development, there is
nothing magic about a goal to begin leasing in 18
months, and no such goal has been set. The
Secretary must first reach a decision that there is a
need for renewed leasing. If he does, contingency
planning by the BLM has suggested that competi-
tive leasing could resume within 12 to 18 months of
the Secretary's decision.
24. Comment. "It should be expressly provided in
the new program that those areas previously
nominated under EMARS II, and those areas with
respect to which specific indications of interest
have been or may be received by the Department,
shall automatically and on a priority basis be
advanced through the land use planning process
and subjected to review under the activity planning
process.
"Moreover, we suggest that on a continuing
basis the orderly development of the nation's coal
resources would be best served by providing in all
instances that the coal industry and all interested
persons be afforded an opportunity to focus the
attention of the Department upon particular land
areas for consideration for division into tracts and
offering for lease."
Commenter 098
Response. The Department has developed a
planning process which will identify those areas
that are suitable for consideration for leasing. At
the beginning of the tract identification and
evaluation phase of the process, coal industry and
all other interested parties will be afforded an
opportunity to focus the attention of the Depart-
ment on particular land areas for consideration for
division into tracts. At that time, areas previously
nominated under EMARs II that are located in
those areas determined to be suitable for consider-
ation for leasing can be renominated by industry.
No consideration will be given to the EMARs
tracts prior to this step of the process.
25. Comment. "Lastly, we hope that the Depart-
ment will evaluate ways in which to streamline and
better integrate the coal permitting processes and
incorporate such ideas into the final EIS. As you
know, the current environmental review and
regulatory processes at all levels of government are
cumbersome, duplicative, wasteful, and overly
time-consuming. Rather than improving our envi-
ronmental understanding of a project, the existing
fragmented approach has impaired our environ-
mental awareness."
Commenter 155
Response. Lease stipulations, a central feature
of the coal permit, logically follow from the coal
leasing management program described in this
8-38
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Environmental Statement. Paragraphs 3.2.4.2 and
3.3.9 described stipulations of a preliminary nature
to assure the proposed lease would be economical-
ly and environmentally acceptable. As explained,
the subsequent mine plan required of a lessee
would involve more detailed and perhaps different
stipulations. In large part, the coal permitting
process is subsequent to the described manage-
ment program, but early and continuing opportu-
nities for public and industry participation provide
for smooth integration of the management and
permitting processes. In addition, the Department
and representatives of the western coal states have
investigated opportunities for greater administra-
tive efficiency among the Federal and the various
state coal management programs.
26. Comment. "Section 3.3.9 concerns the relative
detail of stipulations for environmental protection
which would be attached to a particular lease prior
to sale and then to any mining plan submitted
upon lands covered by that lease. The only
comment on this procedure is that it would be a
great disservice to the objectives of the coal leasing
program if the stipulations attached to the mining
plan were significantly different or more restrictive
than those attached to the lease. A bidder for the
lease has, in all fairness, a right to know that the
mining plan stipulations will not be so different
from the lease stipulations or from typical mining
plan stipulations that a significant quantity of the
coal he had expected to mine is rendered unmina-
ble."
Commenter 066
Response. The Department agrees.
27. Comment. "The first area of concern that we
have is the initiation of an exchange and the timing
of such a proposal. Specifically, who should
initiate the fee coal exchange? Will the Depart-
ment of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land
Management's land use planning efforts, approach
the fee coal owner and/or lessee concerning an
exchange? Or will the fee coal owner and/or lessee
have the burden of initiating the exchange?
"Our position is that both the fee coal owner
and the fee coal lessee, as well as the BLM, should
have the right to initiate coal exchange procedures.
The fact that a fee coal owner or lessee initiates the
procedures should not mean that they must
automatically bear the cost of the exchange
procedure.
"In conjunction with the above, the Depart-
ment of the Interior has not made it clear in the
draft EIS as to how the coal exchange program fits
into the overall context of the 'preferred alterna-
tive' for the Federal Coal Management Program.
For example, will the Federal coal available for
exchange purposes be included in reaching final
regional production targets under the Federal Coal
Management Program? Will a BLM land use study
be required prior to exchanging Federal coal under
the Federal Coal Management Program? Will the
Federal exchange coal be subject to regional tract
ranking selection and scheduling similar to that for
leased Federal coal? What role will the public have
in any coal exchange program? Will the unsuitabil-
ity criteria be applied to all lands proposed for
exchange prior to such an exchange taking place?
Would there be a maximum acreage limitation on
the Federal exchange coal? Will there be any
provision made for emergency exchange of fee coal
within an alluvial valley floor when such an
exchange is needed to meet the fee owner or
lessee/operator's contractual commitments or oth-
er financial commitments? What role will the local
and State governments play in the exchange
program?
"Will the Department of Interior consult with
other agencies such as the EPA, Department of
Agriculture, etc. to determine if those agencies
have any objections to the particular Federal coal
tract to be exchanged for fee coal? These questions
must be addressed in the final EIS in order to
provide the Secretary of the Interior a complete
picture of the impact of the proposed management
program.
"Peter Kiewit Sons' position is that exchange
coal should not be included in reaching final
production targets for Federal coal deposits or for
tract ranking of Federal coal. The rationale is that
the Federal exchange coal is replacing fee coal that
would not be subject to production targets and
ranking for Federal coal. On the other hand, any
land containing Federal exchange coal should
undergo the unsuitability review in order to ensure
that the exchange coal will be mineable. Further-
more, the Department must adopt procedures for
emergency exchanges of AVF coal when such an
exchange is necessary to meet the fee owner or
lessee/operator's contractual or other finanacial
commitments."
Commenter 100
8-39
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Response. The administration of fee coal
exchanges is now being studied by a Department
task force with results expected by May, 1979.
Your comments and suggestions will be passed
along to this task force. You should also review the
proposed regulations presented in Appendix A for
answers to many of your questions. We agree that
the exchange program should not affect regional
coal target setting in so far as production poten-
tials are the same: the tracts to be exchanged may
well come from the tract ranking and selection
process used for preparing new tracts for lease sale.
28. Comment. "There also appears to be an
opportunity to create Regional Coal Advisory
Panels for each of the 12 coal supply regions.
These advisory panels would be similar to the
Geothermal and Oil Shale Advisory Panels, and
could provide a means for input into the program
in each coal region by the public, industry, special
interest groups, and state and local representatives.
This would reaffirm the Departments' position that
the preferred coal program be continually respon-
sive to the interests of organizations and individu-
als."
CommenterOl and 13
Response. Extensive participation has been
structured into the Federal coal leasing process.
While advisory panels have been useful in the case
of oil shale development, we believe they would be
of only marginal use in the case of coal manage-
ment since coal management already includes very
extensive participation and communication oppor-
tunities. The preferred program will include Feder-
al-state regional teams with defined roles. These
regional teams will guide the entire coal activity
planning process.
29. Comment. "Since Friends of the Earth will
present more detailed comments at other such
hearings, my statement will address a narrow
apparent inadequacy in the Federal Coal Leasing
(sic) Draft Environmental Statement, this being
the complete failure of the Statement and due
process. Without question the resumption of
federal coal leasing will stimulate industry activity,
thereby placing an even greater strain on an
already overwrought state enforcement process.
Alternative methods for implementation of federal
oversight and watchdog responsibilities under all
relevant statutes must be described. It is rather
obvious at my level of involvement that the present
system is in some difficulty. Cady v. Morton,
F.O.E. is now in the seventh year of our effort to
ensure due process for the East Fork Sarpy Basin.
Yet we may lose on a simple inability to post an
enormous bond that a court might require before
looking at the coming impasse that has been
obvious for all those seven years and has often
been brought to your attention. Such an eventuali-
ty would be a travesty of justice and proof that the
general public can expect no chance at due process
in the enforcement of coal mining statutes and
regulations.
"There must be no resumption of federal coal
leasing until the citizens are assured that the law
will not continue to be taken as lightly as at
present by some major parties to this process. The
present Environmental Statement offers not the
slightest hint that your office is aware there is a
problem."
Commenter 181
Response. Enforcement and public participa-
tion concerns regarding mining and reclamation
activities are more appropriately addressed to the
Office of Surface Mining's permanent regulatory
program. Due process and enforcement are de-
tailed in OSM's regulations which are designed to
handle vigorous coal development to meet the
nation's future energy needs. The relationship of
such activities and programs to the level of leasing
determined to some degree by the alternative
chosen in the coal management environmental
statement is not sufficiently direct to merit the
extensive coverage requested. It is anticipated that
the program developed by OSM will fully protect
the public interest, allow extensive participation
and effective enforcement. Included in OSM's
activity is full review of state enforcement offices,
authorities and resources. A seperate,full environ-
mental impact statement on the OSM permanent
regulations has been prepared.
30. Comment. "Our fifth concern is that manage-
ment program goals will not be achieved because
of inadequate enforcement. The heart of the new
management approach is mitigation of social,
economic, and environmental impacts in one way
or another. As we read current laws, if impacts
cannot be mitigated adequately, then mining shall
not occur. Land managers will attempt to screen
tracts prior to offering leases for bid, but ultimate
responsibility for mitigation must lie with the
8-40
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
purchaser. To enforce this responsibility we feel
two new requirements are needed: the mine
development plan submitted by the lease holder
should include proposed measures to mitigate all
anticipated social, economic, and environmental
impacts (to include arranging for front money
where necessary) with documentary evidence
sufficient to support the reasonable conclusion
that the proposed measures would be successful,
and the prior record of a bidder or lease holder
should be admissible for consideration by the land
manager in deciding such matters as whether to
accept or reject a bid, whether to approve a
development plan, or whether to require the
posting of a bond."
Commenter 042
Response. The GS and OSM or the state
regulatory authority are responsible for enforcing
the terms of the lease agreement. The Department
is responsible for developing the lease stipulations.
Such stipulations will require the mitigation pre-
scribed by the FLPMA, SMCRA and other
applicable Federal and state laws. Complete
mitigation of all impacts is clearly not possible.
There is no legal basis for requiring a company to
provide "front money" for public services, and the
Department will not recommend such action. Prior
records of would-be bidders will not, generally
speaking, be considered for qualifying bidders. All
lessees are required to post performance and
reclamation bonds.
3 1 . Comment. "A programmatic impact statement
represents a task unique in Federal policymaking.
It imposes a nondiscretionary duty upon Federal
officials to think in a certain way about discretion-
ary acts. The programmatic impact statement is a
vehicle for introducing human environmental
values into the decisional process. It is designed to
affect and inform that process from its earliest
stages, yet is required to be made public, subjected
to public scrutiny and comment, and to be
responsive to public views. The programmatic
impact statement requires an agency to consider
values outside its mission at the very moment it
develops the basic policies for carrying out its
mission. It requires comprehensive analysis which
ranges far outside the normal ambit of an agency's
responsibility. For this reason the programmatic
impact statement is unique and essential. It is
virtually the only process for effectively addressing
such broadscale human concerns."
Commenter 089
Response. Yes, we agree. The Department has
responded to NRDCs concerns in its formal
response to their letter to the Secretary (of
February 15th, 1979) alleging possible violations of
the NRDC v Hughes agreement. Unsuitabihty
comments have been filed for consideration when
the results of field tests are on hand - April or May,
1979.
32. Comment. "Far more comprehensively than
its predecessor, the DES addresses critical issues.
But the analyses begun are often left incomplete.
Discrete topics are described but remain isolated,
unconnected by analysis. The treatment of the
need for leasing is critically deficient. The descrip-
tion of the environmental and other impacts which
will result from the development of Federal coal is
inadequate. Important issues, including the reha-
bilitation of mined lands, are treated only cursori-
ly. The alternatives considered are not genuine
alternatives, but rather fragments of alternatives."
Commenter 089
Response. We do not agree with most of this
comment. Chapter 5 has been expanded to provide
a more detailed discussion of the reclamation and
rehabilitation issue.
33. Comment. "It is apparent that this draft
impact statement, like the previous draft and final
programmatic impact statements, fails to contain a
'detailed' explanation of the proposed preferred
management program. While the number of pages
devoted to explaining this program undoubtedly
exceeds the number of such pages contained m
either of its predecessors, it does not present a
comprehensible and comprehensive picture of the
manner in which coal leasing decisions will be
made. Thus it effectively prevents readers from
making an informed judgment regarding the
degree to which this program will achieve the
Department's expressed goals."
Commenter 089
Response. The comment is rather unbelievable
in view of the great detail in Chapter 3 (both in the
draft and in the expanded final). The example
regulations presented as an appendix to the
statement in the draft (now proposed regulations),
and the widespread availability of background
papers clearly explain the Department's goals.
3-41
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Significantly the comment lacks any concrete
examples of where problems do exist that interfere
with an understandable program. Equally signifi-
cant is that virtually all commentors were able to
understand the program. We will continue to
improve the clarity of the program as the Secretary
decides what part or parts of the proposal he will
adopt.
34. Comment. "As a consequence of our position
that there are many substantive deficiencies in the
proposed coal management program, and because
the EIS recognizes that some existing leases and
PRLAs are not acceptable for development, EPA
believes that the Department's first priority should
be toward fully developing the analyses of existing
leases and PRLAs that are unsuitable for mining.
We urge the Department to concentrate on using
both the land use planning process and the activity
planning phase to identify unsuitable existing
leases and PRLAs. Any leasing in the near term
should be oriented toward replacing those existing
leases that are unsuitable for mining. The Depart-
ment should then re-evaluate the need for addi-
tional leasing given such an exchange program "
Commenter281
Response. The final ES incorporates extensive
discussions of the management of existing leases
and preference right lease applications in Chapter
3 and Appendix I. The Department looks to
existing leases and to non-competitive leases issued
as a result of preference right lease applications as
sources for coal to meet regional production goals
before it considers new leasing. The Department,
under the preferred program, would use the land
use process and the activity planning process to
identify unsuitable existing leases and PRLAs,
though, because of existing rights, the Department
will have to consider these leases and applications
on a case-by-case basis. Analysis of the regional
levels of leasing would include consideration of the
impact of unsuitability findings on existing leases
and preference right lease applications. Finally, a
consideration in the formulation of regional
leasing targets is the need to identify mining units
to support the exchange features of the coal
management program. The Agency comment
reflects a lack of understanding of the statutory
limitations under which the Department must
manage existing leases and PRLAs. There is no
statutory authority for carrying out general coal
lease exchanges on the public lands.
35. Comment. "Section 3.1.1: The Preferred
Program. The seventh element of the preferred
program, 'a strategy to integrate the environmental
analysis requirements of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 in the new program', is
extremely important. It is impossible for national
and regional leasing programs to adequately
analyze site-specific impacts or recommend appro-
priate mitigation measures. There must be a
mechanism for identifying and solving site-specific
problems on a site-specific basis."
Commenter 266
Response. The program provides several op-
portunities for conducting site specific analyses.
Each step in the process is at an increasing level of
specificity. The program, thus, clearly provides for
adequate analysis of site specific impacts. Site
specific analysis will first occur during the prelimi-
nary tract analysis step immediately following
tract delineation. There is an additional opportuni-
ty for site specific analysis together with regional
cumulative analysis during the selection of the
regional sales schedule; in this process, some tracts
might be scheduled late in the four-year sale period
covered by the schedule to allow additional data to
be gathered on them or might be entered in the
schedule on a contingency basis subject to addi-
tional pre-sale analysis results. Finally, site specific
analysis will be carried out under the Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement regulations
as part of the mining permit process.
36. Comment. "Chapter 3 creates a significant
misapprehension that the Forest Service has the
statutory authority and responsibility to plan for
the disposal of coal. We believe any such connota-
tion should be removed from the text in publishing
the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and
that such authority and responsibility be recog-
nized as a function of the BLM.
"The problem starts to surface in Section
3 J. 1.1 Planning Systems with the statement that
the Department of the Interior would rely on the
land management agencies' planning systems in
both the land use and activity planning stages to
provide the initiative and the forums for decision
making regarding the Federal coal program.
"In the discussion under Section 3.2.2 Activity
Planning, it states that, on completion of the land
8-42
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
use plan, preliminary tracts would be identified
within the areas designated acceptable for coal
mining. In delineating the tracts, the land manage-
ment agencies would consider such items as:
(a) technical coal data, including reserve ton-
nage, sulphur content, etc.;
(b) coal conservation, including maximum
economic recovery, etc.;
(c) expression of coal mining interests on
adjoining lands, etc.;
(d) surface ownerships, including terms of
private surface owner consent, etc.
In essence, BLM's activity plans are analogous
to Forest Service functional plans. However, we
know of no Forest Service authority, under either
the old or new planning concepts, which would
allow planning for disposal of a specific mineral
resource other than common varieties, such as
sand and gravel.
"The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act
of 1976 contains a mandate that the Secretary of
Agriculture take into consideration any proposed
coal development in 'comprehensive land use
plans'." It further states that the Secretary of
Agriculture shall include an assessment of the
amount of coal, identifying the amount which is
recoverable by deep mining, and the amount
recoverable by surface mining operations.
"We perceive these requirements will be met m
the process of developing the multi-functional
Forest plan. Forest planning will also be the forum
in which lands suitable for coal mining are
identified, as well as giving broad consideration to
the impacts from such activity."
Commenter 282
Response. Should reorganization occur, this
comment could become moot; however, the
necessary changes have been made in the final
environmental impact statement. The roles of the
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment in managing coal under the National Forest
System lands will be set out in a memorandum of
understanding between these agencies now under
negotiation.
37. Comment. "(Page 3-6) The FES should
address the question of how mining plan reviews
fit into the processing of preference right lease
application associated with existing leases."
Commenter 091
Response. The coal management program has
not set a policy on this subject. The question
should be raised again in connection with the
MOU to be negotiated among BLM, GS, and
OSM on coal management.
38. Comment. "(Page 3-5) Mine Plan Approval
Material in section 3.1.1.4 implies a State could
approve a mining plan without Departmental
approval. To correct this we suggest deleting the
words '... the State agency or' from the third
sentence so that it would read, 'To obtain the
permit, the lessee would be required to have a
mining plan approved by the Department if a plan
has not been previously approved or requires
change, the new plan must be included in the
permit application'."
Commenter 091
Response. The implication that a state could
approve a mining plan on Federal lands without
Departmental approval is not correct. This is a
shared responsibility (see section 741.4 of the
OSM, Permanent Regulatory Program, 44 Federal
Register 15311-15463).
39. Comment. "(Page 3-5) With regard to produc-
tion target, the DES states that 'the Department
would review and, if necessary, adjust the portion
of the national targets which applies to the eight
regions containing Federal coal.' The FES should
provide an expanded discussion of what is actually
involved in the review and adjustment function".
Commenter: 091
Response. Chapter 3 in the final statement
contains a more detailed discussion of how the
regional production goals and leasing targets are
set.
40. Comment. "(Page 3-2) What criteria will be
used in the inter-regional analysis to determine
regional production targets?"
Commenter: 091
Response. The criteria considered in determin-
ing targets from DOE's production goals are:
1 . Industry need
2. Environmental impacts
3. State and local gov't policy
4. Public comment
41. Comment. "(Page 3-25) In Section 3.2.4.2, the
DES states that the Department would conduct an
environmental analysis for each proposed lease to
develop lease terms and stipulations so that the
-43
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Department could be reasonably certain that the
lease would be environmentally acceptable. What
would be the extent of this environmental analysis?
Does it appear that a site-specific mining plan
environmental statement would later be required?"
Commenter :091
Response. The Department intends that the
environmental analyses will be to a depth at which
the Department can be reasonably certain of no
unexpected environmental impacts after leasing.
We intend as much as possible to consolidate the
environmental analysis of the Federal LMU with
that of the mining permit and reclamation permit
process in our analyses prior to leasing and to seek
all means of making these processes compatible.
Even so, however, it would be expected that ESs
will be needed for a few mining permit approvals
because of the limits of our resources available for
preleasing analysis and because of changing
circumstances.
42. Comment. "(Page 3-36) Would all pending
mining and reclamation plan approval actions be
included in the regional leasing environmental
statements?"
Commenter :091
Response. Our intention would be to include
these plans in the regional ES wherever possible.
43. Comment. "Preleasing. A principal theme of
the preferred alternative is the determination prior
to leasing, that a specific tract can, with reasonable
certainty, be developed in an environmentally
acceptable manner. If such a determination is to
take place prior to leasing, detailed baseline data
must be used together with "red-flag" criteria (or
levels) for possible non-achievement of the perfor-
mance standards of SMCRA (e.g., restoration to
equal or better land use, restoration of approxi-
mate original contour, and protection of the
hydrologic balance). The red-flag levels might be
developed, for example, with respect to the
sensitivity of surface and ground water to degrada-
tion; topsoil availability; vegetative cover and
species; and wildlife habitat."
Commenter: 091
Response. OSM will be asked to be one of the
"expert" agencies participating in the ranking and
selection processes, including review of the tract
profile analysis for flagging special OSM concerns.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Comment. "I think another thing— and this is
sort of the alternative that I would opt for— is that
we need to be looking at a combination of the
alternatives that you have there, that instead of just
saying we want the preferred alternative or we
want short-term criteria or no leasing, that instead
you ought to be looking at different ways you
might try to pull this all together."
Commenters 148, 130, 058, 135, 019, 195, 060,
145, 107, 108, 123, and 089
Response. The Department, after analyzing the
various issues associated with Federal coal man-
agement, has proposed a full range of options that
cover all reasonable alternatives available. As
shown from the summary in Chapter 3, the
preferred program is composed of numerous
elements, each of which may or may not be part of
the final program.
2. Comment. "Section 3.1.1.8 describes how an
emergency leasing system to maintain existing
mines or to permit the mining of otherwise by-
passed federal coal would be coordinated with the
broader Federal coal leasing program proposed.
The purpose of this emergency leasing program is
to respond quickly enough to situations in which a
broader long range leasing program would result in
the loss of coal or employment unfairly. However,
it is apparent from reading this section that since
the emergency program could not proceed until
the complete land use planning stage is finished,
that such "emergency" leasing would, for at least
the next few years, offer no relief to coal operators
who would otherwise be in a position to benefit,
and to benefit the government, by mining coal that
might otherwise be lost. The need for such
comprehensive land use planning before such
emergency leasing, which is certainly going to be
on a very limited basis either in terms of the
acreage in any particular lease or the cumulative
effect in any region, would seem to be unjustified.
It should be enough that if the emergency lease is
not clearly in conflict with the likely land use
scheme for the area that the lease could proceed
without such crippling delay."
"The insistence that an environmental assess-
ment be made for each such emergency lease,
presumably with a public hearing requirement and
resulting delays, is likewise unjustified. It would
seem from the discussion of emergency leasing
8-44
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
under the preferred alternative that such a system
would completely replace any emergency leasing
which is not now permitted under the settlement
agreement in NRDC v. Hughes. Serious consider-
ation ought to be given to preserving that portion
of the settlement agreement which now permits
such emergency leasing rather than redoing essen-
tially the same program in the form of a compo-
nent of the long-term coal leasing program."
Commenters 066, 059, 073, and 184
Response. Emergency leasing would conform
with existing land use plans as updated by the
application of unsuitability criteria. The emergen-
cy leases will not require redoing land use plans
under the new proposed planning regulations (see
Section 3425.2 of the proposed regulations);
analysis will be conducted on a site-specific basis.
Using this method, the BLM will be able to
respond quickly to emergency needs. The pro-
posed regulations on emergency leases have
expanded on. the existing Hughes standards for
short-term leasing.
3. Comment. "In section 3. 1 . 1 and 3. 1 . 1 .6 of the
DEIS a discussion is had of the interrelationship of
the preferred program for federal coal leasing with
the processing of PRLAs and lease issuance. A
much fuller discussion of PRLA treatment must be
included in the FEIS which would consider, inter
alia, the application of environmental and plan-
ning standards to PRLAs, the procedure to be
followed if preference right lease issuance for a
specific lease is opposed by the Department and
the legal basis for any non-issuance of a preference
right lease. Part 3430 of the example regulations,
Appendix A to the DEIS, are of some assistance,
but they do not fully delineate the impact of this
treatment of PRLAs.
It is Western Fuels' understanding that these
regulations are not yet proposed. When and if they
are proposed, Western Fuels will comment fully
upon them."
Commenters 090, 083, 013, 108, 112, 066, 098,
145, and 095
Response. The description of the management
of preference right lease applications has been
revised and expanded with a new section in
Chapter 3 and a new appendix (Appendix I) to
make the Department's intentions with regard to
this large class of possible coal leases clearer.
Environmental and planning standards will be
applied to the PRLAs during general land use
planning or planning amendments; if a preference
right lease holder successfully makes final showing
of commercial quantity and the Department still
opposes the issuance of the lease because of
general planning considerations, the Department
may enter into negotiations for exchanging the
non-competitive lease for another lease if possible
and where permitted by law or for other consider-
ation.
4. Comment. "Mobil particularly objects to
DOI's attempt in the preferred program to subject
existing leases and preference right lease applica-
tions (PRLAs) to the same standards as new
Federal leases. The preferred program would
accomplish an unauthorized change in the mean-
ing of "commercial quantities" in connection with
existing PRLAs and would also retroactively affect
existing lease rights. Existing lease and PRLA
rights cannot be changed by the rules developed
for new leases without raising serious legal prob-
lems."
Commenter 083
Response. The Department recognizes that
preference right lease applications and existing
leases have a special standing in the law (see
Appendix I). The comment raises only general
objections to the aspect of the preferred program;
it does not give any specific examples, or any
supporting rationale for its views. It is somewhat
difficult, therefore, to respond to the comment. We
will respond to more detailed comments submitted
on the proposed rules and offer the following
general response at this time.
Existing Leases. The most important point is
that the "unsuitability criteria" do not all have the
same statutory source; they come from a variety of
laws, executive orders and general rulemaking
power. Some are derived from statutes passed 10
or more years ago. Other are derived from section
522(e) of SMCRA and impose restrictions which
the Department must enforce. The second most
important point is that the Department's authority
to apply some criteria may depend on the
particular lease involved. Most lessees have agreed
to be bound by subsequently enacted regulations;
some have not. Particularly in the case of discre-
tionary standards, the lease terms may decide
whether the Department has the authority to apply
the proposed conditions. The third important point
3-45
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
is that none of these past standards would apply to
producing leases and that leases for which there
have been substantial legal and financial committ-
ments are substantially exempt from the standards
Suggestions on how to better clarify these points in
the final rules are encouraged.
Noncompetitive (Preference Right) Lease Appli-
cations. The application of the unsuitability
criteria is not a change in the "commercial
quantities" standard. Section 30 of the Mineral
Leasing Act requires the Department to set lease
terms to protect the public interest. The Depart-
ment has a long-standing practice and case law of
exercising its authority to set different lease terms
for a noncompetitive (preference right) lease than
it might have used at the time the prospecting
permit was issued. The unsuitability criteria are
nothing more than a lease term that the Depart-
ment, in accordance with Section 30 of the Mineral
Leasing Act, is imposing to protect the public
interest. The filing of a preference right lease
application does not prevent the Department from
exercising its authority to impose lease terms that
protect the public interest. This principle applies
not only to unsuitability standards but also to
conditions affecting rent, royalities and diligent
development.
LAND USE PLANNING
1. Comment. "The document often confuses the
need for resource management with the need for
leasing. It ignores or shortchanges several manage-
ment issues not directly related to new leasing
Coal policy seems to be outrunning resource policy
and the implementation of adequate land use
tools."
Commenters 156, 069, 019, 135, 130, 098, 159
200, 068, 194, 101, 148, 178, 060, 083, and 137
Response. The ES clearly sets out, and differ-
entiates between multiple resource management
land use planning) and coal resource management
(activity planning). The discussion of land use
planning in the final ES has been re-edited for
clarity. Coal management and the Department's
other resource responsibilities, e.g., land use
planning program, wilderness reserves, grazing
ESs, surface mining protection, and endangered
species protection, are being coordinated. The coal
management program review has included partici-
pation from all Bureaus and offices with the
Department having potential to play important
roles m the final program. Both FLPMA and the
Forest Services' Organic Act, specifically, allow the
use of existing land use plans in the interim until
new plans prepared under the Acts' standards are
available In this way the Congress expressed
clearly the need to avoid paralyzing this Nation's
resource management program while the new
planning systems were being put in place This
issue is discussed fully in section 5.4 of the impact
statement, which reviews the alternatives of using
existing plans as is; using the existing plans with
modifications (the preferred alternative); and
delaying all cost activities of the Department until
new plans were available.
2. Comment. "The principal weakness of the
discussion on land-use planning is the absence of
definition concerning the screening process for
coal leasing. There is no serious misunderstanding
about lands not containing coal reserves with 'high
to moderate development potential' or lands
declared unsuitable for leasing under the provi-
sions of SMCRA, though we have serious reserva-
tions about the latter. However, the statement that
areas which 'are considered to be of higher value
for other uses as determined by multiple-use
resource management trade-off decisions' would
be eliminated from further consideration for
leasing does not provide an understanding of
either the criteria or the mechanism by which
comparative land-use values are to be judged
Clearly, economic considerations are not promi-
nent in the trade-off, since much of the Federal
land containing coal has no other potential use
rivaling coal development on economic grounds
Hence, the 'higher value' must refer to environ-
mental, social, or aesthetic considerations which
are not spelled out in the DES."
Commenter 069
Response. Resource management decisions are
necessarily subjective, because all public land
values cannot be reduced by one common denomi-
nator such as economic return. The proposed
rulemaking for BLM planning regulations pub-
lished in the Federal Register on on December 15,
1978 reveals the methodology that will be used in
making resource use decisions. Section 1601 0-8
explains the principles of planning to be followed
In part 5 Response Management Planning Process
the various actions taken in a planning effort are
described. The Department has received many
8-46
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
recommendations that it prescribe specific values
for various resources beyond those defined by law.
This is generally viewed as a method to gain
control over the resource without judging its value
relative to other associated resources on a site by
site basis. If we assume seven resource uses-
minerals, timber, watershed, recreation, wildlife,
grazing and lands— we can construct 5,040
possible rankings. The Department does not
believe that the selection of one of these 5,040
possibilities would result in good land use for all
federal lands.
3. Comment. "The Secretary's preferred coal
leasing program ignores the possibility that Feder-
al coal may occupy a minority (perhaps insignifi-
cant) position in some attractive coal mining areas.
"Hopefully, isolated tracts of federal coal can
be included in an LMU and be mined in the public
interest."
Commenter 074
Response. The tract identification process will
consider state and privately-owned coal where that
coal is available for mining in forming LMUs. The
industry indications of leasing interest and the
close cooperation of the states in the tract
delineation, ranking, and selection process should
facilitate our ability to offer coal to complete
LMUs and to time lease sales with private and
state coal lands actions.
4. Comment. "Chapter 3 discusses alternatives
briefly and the proposed program in detail. Several
problems are inherent in the preferred alternative:
"1) The federal land use planning process is
indefinite at this time, since proposed BLM
planning rules are in a draft state. The planning
process is a very important step in Federal coal
leasing. It is therefore imperative that well defined
and formally adopted regulations be provided and
discussed in the DES. It is irresponsible to state
that 'the land management agencies' planning
efforts... are to provide the initiative and forums for
making of the principal decisions in the Federal
coal management program' when the mechanics of
these planning efforts are in limbo.
"All areas to be considered for possible coal
leasing should be subject to the new planning
process rather than based on results of the old
process. The DES states that proposed differences
in the planning process (BLM) are designed to
substantially improve the quality of land use plans.
This implies that existing plans are not nearly as
good as new plans could be. A land resource
decision as significant as coal leasing should not be
based on the lower quality existing land use plans.
Decisions should be postponed until new plans are
available."
Commenters 038, 061, 071, 147, 148, 156, 158
and 173
Response. Proposed regulations have been
published for the new BLM and Forest Service
planning systems. Because of this and because of
our day-to-day working relationship with the
managers of the BLM planning system and their
involvment in the coal management review, we can
see no difficulty in continuing to further define
these two processes in parallel. We do not believe
that it is good public policy to delay the possible
year for coal leasing by four years at a minimum
while waiting for new plans to be prepared.
Existing plans would be supplemented to meet the
requirements of the coal program should the
Secretary decide to proceed with the leasing of coal
from any particular region. The decisions on which
plans will be reissued first are not based on which
plans have coal leasing, but on a balance of the
many other resource management concerns pend-
ing before the Bureau of Land Management at this
time. Both FLPMA and the National Forest
Mangement Act permit the use of existing plans
until new plans are available in order to avoid
management paralysis. This is a clear indication
that the Congress did not intend to freeze all
resource decisions, including those on coal, until
they could be made in the context of a "new" plan.
This issue is fully discussed in Section 5.4 of the
final ES.
5. Comment. "The lands unsuitability criteria are
a joke since exceptions are listed for virtually every
criterion. It is not in the interest of sound land use
planning to make exceptions for everything.
Definite plans for evaluating unsuitable lands
should be included in the planning process. It is
stated that "a responsible official would make his
recommendations on the best available data that
can be obtained given the time and resources
available to prepare the land use plan". This is
utterly ridiculous. The land use planning process
should be designed to include methodologies to
provide for a sound evaluation of unsuitable lands
in a timely manner. Too many Federal decisions in
8-47
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
the past have been based on "best available data ...
given the time" with less than desirable results "
Commenters 038, 061, 071, 147, 148, 156, 158
and 173
Response. The Department believes that the
use of exceptions with unsuitability criteria will
ensure a better program and one that is more
adaptable to individual situations. We have struc-
tured the use of exceptions so as to discourage
anyone that would abuse them. Similarly, the local
land managers have been instructed to continue
lands in the system about which they may be
unsure only if they provide for the collection of
data and its analysis in order to remove this doubt.
Until the BLM office is reasonably sure of its
unsuitability findings for that area the area will not
be leased. The tract ranking system is also set up to
screen out areas with poor data coverage.
6. Comment. "Of the many questions raised
during review of this DES, the emergency leasing
system (page 3-27) is of particular concern. It is
very poorly defined. How and when is it deter-
mined that emergency leasing conditions exist?
How will the method of tract identification differ
from normal and how would the scope and
breadth of planning and environmental assessment
differ from normal? When the applicant (compa-
ny) shows coal is needed to sustain or increase
production levels, will production be correlated to
the need for coal? ... or to the need for profit? In
view of the limited information provided on
emergency leasing, it would appear that this is a
'quick and dirty' technique, so to speak, for
companies to either get around the normal leasing
process, or to avoid proper planning, or to make
up for lack of foresight."
Commenter 038, 061, 071, 147, 148, 156, 158
and 173
Response. Emergency leasing would be con-
ducted after petition for relief by a mine operator
In numerous places in the DES the Department
has stated its policy that emergency leasing would
not be used to circumvent the normal leasing
process. Planning and environmental assessment
would be conducted on a site specific basis with
reference back to the unit plan for the area in
which the emergency lease is proposed. Emergency
leases would not usually be judged against the
regional coal target because of their size and
because their effect would be to continue rather
than to add to production. The general aggregate
level of emergency leasing would, however, be
considered in forming the regional leasing target.
7. Comment. "The statement is made that, 'The
Department would rank all available tracts within
a production region'. Again, no criteria are
provided for ranking tracts. The preceding para-
graph on that page indicates that preliminary
tracts, once identified, would be analyzed for 'the
potential environmental impacts related to each
tract.' But no indication is given as to whether
environmental criteria are to be solely determinant
m the ranking process, or whether factors such as
quality, quantity, and accessibility of the coal will
also be used in comparing and ranking potential
lease tracts. We believe that the description of the
proposed process should be amplified to include
details about the methods by which potential lease
tracts will be ranked and selected."
Commenters 159, 069, 148, 098, and 097
Response. The Department is in the process of
further defining the tract ranking process. One
element that will be considered is quality, quantity
and accessibility of coal. This process is more fully
explained m the final ES and the proposed coal
management regulations (Appendix A).
8. Comment. "Although the DES is somewhat
confusing m describing the proposed system, it
seems to provide for the comparative analyses of
tracts on the basis of the amount bid per ton of
coal with some weight given for differences in coal
quality. However, it does not account for differ-
ences in environmental circumstances or differ-
ences in the cost of extraction, processing, trans-
portation recovery of the coal and reclamation,
since detailed engineering will not have occurred
until after lease issuance. As a result, no true
comparison between tracts is possible prior to
leasing. Moreover, the system does not take into
account the requirements of leasing to form logical
mining units where certain elements of a prospec-
tive unit are already subject to lease."
Commenters 087, 069, and 096
Response. The Department recognizes that the
intertract system cannot be run on a simple dollar-
per-ton basis. At the same time it believes that an
intertract system can be a good means for ensuring
the government competition in coal sales. The
Department will, however, continue to proceed
with caution in the use of this untried approach to
8-48
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
mineral lease sales. All intertract sales will be of
leases within logical mining units. The last logical
mining unit sale will be that which meets or
exceeds the total volume goal for that sale,
assuming all offers are at or above.
The tract ranking and selection process would
take into account differences in environmental
circumstances, both among individual tracts and
cumulatively for different groupings of tracts. The
principal attention at this stage in the process will
be on impacts on regional air and water quality.
The relative economics of the proposed tracts and
their socioeconomic impacts are the other major
ranking factors. The Department feels that it will
know enough about the proposed tracts at this
stage to make valid ranking judgments. It is not
necessary to wait for the mine plan to be submitted
by the lesser before conducting analyses that
would allow tracts to be sorted as acceptable, not
acceptable, or borderline for sales.
9. Comment. "Section 3.2.2. 1-Tract Identifica-
tion and Industry Expression of Interest, discusses
the designation of coal tracts for lease based on
factors including technical coal data. In the
absence of prospecting permits, there would be a
lack of complete reserve data. Section 3.2.2.2-
Regional Tract Ranking, Selection, and Sched-
uling, also discusses the possibility of this technical
data insufficiency, but does not propose positive
action to remedy the problem.
"The lack of sufficient technical data could be
remedied by a means of awarding prospecting
permits to Industry operators, thereby permitting
more meaningful tract recommendations to be
submitted."
Commenter 094
Response. The prospecting permit program
was ended when the Congress in 1976 prohibited
non-competitive leasing. Private developers may
still enter on Federal coal lands for obtaining
technical data on coal resources by using coal
exploration licenses, see subpart 3410 of the
proposed regulations (Appendix A). The Depart-
ment expects that coal companies will, therefore,
still be able to obtain the information they desire
on coal deposits in advance of leasing through the
exploration program and in many areas through
exploration on adjoining private coal deposits. The
U.S. Geological Survey is another source for the
coal data required by the preferred program.
10. Comment. "The statement is made that
'site-specific analysis of each tract would be
conducted prior to ranking and an examination
would be made for each selected tract to develop
lease stipulations if necessary5 (emphasis added)
(page 6-3, column two, second paragraph). Given
the level of protection afforded by SMCRA in
setting mine permit requirements, and the fact that
many of the 'ranked' tracts may not be finally
offered for lease, detailed analysis, prior to rank-
ing, may be a waste of federal resources. At that
stage, much of the work will be of no consequence
and will unnecessarily contribute to a monumental
workload problem for the agencies involved."
Commenter 069
Response. The OSM regulations are primari-
ly concerned with protecting site specific values
and insuring complete reclamation. The tract
ranking process is concerned with determining the
relative values of several tracts and the potential
impacts the development of those tracts might
have on adjacent areas. The Department would
not attempt to answer all the questions that must
be answered before permit approval at the ranking
step. Where answers were efficiently, and easily
attained, however, they would be sought. Of prime
concern are the cumulative impacts of developing
several tracts in the same planning unit or
production region.
11. Comment. "While Section 3.2.2.2 does
indicate that comments will be sought on the
relative merits of individual tracts under consider-
ation for leasing, there is little indication of the
weight to be given to various tract characteristics
(i.e., low sulfur content vs. wildlife habitat)."
Commenter 069
Response. Under the preferred program the
weights used to combine factors for judging the
relative worth of different tracts, and the factors
themselves, will be chosen by the regional coal
teams. These weights can be adapted to regional
value structures and to changes in the relative
importance of the values over time. The factors
will be chosen from a list of possible factors
prepared by the Department. The ranking system
will be used to broadly classify the acceptability of
the tracts for further development.
12. Comment. "The process of ranking
potential tracts on a regionwide basis 'and not
separately within each land use planning area,'
8-49
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
assumes that all land-use planning areas within the
region have completed plans, with all the required
NEPA statements, etc. Ranking and comparing
tracts in a region is relatively meaningless if
significant numbers of tracts (not otherwise de-
clared unsuitable) are unavailable because the
planning is incomplete or inadequate. An early
indication of market interest could be used to help
schedule planning activities on the public lands.
The preferred alternative precludes such indica-
tions until well after planning is presumed com-
plete."
Commenter 069
Response. The Department does not antici-
pate delays as a result of incomplete planning.
Approximately 85 percent of BLM lands have
approved plans. Under the start-up considerations
proposed by the Department, these plans would be
updated by applying the unsuitability criteria.
After completion of this process, tract identifica-
tion and ranking could begin. Ranking of tracts
from various planning areas in coal, even if not
from all planning areas because of planning
constraints, would still provide a better method of
selecting tracts with less adverse impacts, particu-
larly socioeconomic impacts, than simply selecting
tracts from individual planning areas with no
comparison between areas at all.
13. Comment. "The preferred program contains
no procedure under which a potential lessee can
obtain consideration of specific tracts of federal
land that may be essential to its operations on
adjacent lands.
"The necessary federal land may never even be
available because it conflicts with other land uses
for which there are many acceptable alternative
sites, because it is considered unsuitable for mining
under a number of questionable criteria, because it
is arbitrarily set aside for leasing by public bodies
or small business or because DOI's leasing goals
have already been satisfied in the applicable
region. Even the proposed emergency leasing
system will provide little relief if the potential
lessee cannot conclusively show that its need for
the land resulted from circumstances beyond its
control or which it could not reasonable foresee."
Commenters 083 and 069
Response. We disagree. There are numerous
procedures in the preferred program to permit
potential lessees to obtain tracts of particular
interest. Potential lessees are expected to partici-
pate actively in land use planning-showing why
areas have medium or high coal potential, provid-
ing data to show exceptions to unsuitability
criteria, and arguing for coal leasing over alterna-
tive uses. In activity planning, a company can and
is expected to specifically submit its desired tracts.
The unsuitability criteria are based on statute and
national policy and are not considered question-
able. Federal coal will not be leased contrary to the
unsuitability criteria, comprehensive land use
plans or in areas where projections indicate no
demand.
The Department does not foresee the potential
for conflict between public bodies, small business
and other coal developers. These set asides are
required or authorized by law. The system is
designed to meet all reasonable demands. Al-
though the clearly dominant interest of Federal
land management is to protect the public interest,
which ranges from wilderness designation to coal
mining, activities of private interests on the public
lands are considered and encouraged where they
are compatible with this primary goal.
14. Comment. "Regional Tract Ranking.
Section 3.2.2.2 of the DES contains the criteria to
be used by land-use planners in the regional tract
ranking and selection process. We submit that, in
addition to the elements stated, such factors as the
end-use of the coal, the existence of a firm
commitment for a project, and the time-frame for
use of the resource should be considered in the
ranking and selection process. In addition, we feel
that no discrimination should be made between
Federal and non-Federal surface ownership, if the
private surface owner has given his written consent
to surface mining of the Federal coal underlying
his tract.
"Finally, we understand that the three-man
team which will rate the tracts and recommend to
the Secretary the tracts proposed for sale will
include a representative that will be selected if the
region covers more than one State."
Commenter 96
Response. The relative commercial viability
of Federal coal deposits would be a factor in the
ranking and selection of Federal coal tracts. Also,
industry indications of interest, which would
include the desired coal location and quality
descriptions, would be very important in the
8-50
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
selection of which tracts to lease. The Department
would not commit coal deposits to any particular
private development project in advance of sale
except for coal lease modifications, since we must
offer all coal competitively. The Secretary has
decided that it is to the government's advantage to
offer coal under Federal surface before offering
coal underlying private surface-other things being
equal. In making this decision, the Secretary had in
mind avoiding disruption of private enterprises
and ensuring the competitiveness of lease offer-
ings. The regional decision teams would have one
representative from each State Governor and one
from each state BLM office in the region, plus an
additional member appointed by the Director,
BLM, who would serve as chairman.
15. Comment. "Regional Tract Ranking,
Selection and Scheduling (DES; 3.2.22). The
proposal to rank federal coal lands acceptable for
further leasing consideration for mining would
appear to insure the maximum production and
most efficient leasing of 'priority' coal lands.
Priority would be determined as either low,
medium or high in rank. Although not specified in
the DES, it implies that all economic factors
including transportation, coal quality, and market
needs would be analyzed along with environmen-
tal and multiple use trade-off considerations in the
ranking process.
"Two serious faults in the DES ranking process
exist. First, the process is not clearly outlined. No
indication is given as to how the criteria, other
than surface owner consent, would be applied and
to what degree each would count towards the final
decision. Economics should be a key factor.
Maximum economic recovery and fair market
value of the lands result from considerations of
mineability and profitability. Profitability of a
tract is determined on the basis of detailed mine
planning and market availability. Without signifi-
cant geologic knowledge of the coal deposits and
mine planning, the maximum recovery potential of
a tract in terms of profit can not be accurately
determined.
"Second, a tract considered to be low ranking
in terms of quality, its thermal value, transporta-
tion or economic recovery could quite easily
become high ranking due to sudden changes in
utility or other industry plant siting capabilities
and market needs. Currently, the preferred leasing
program would be unable to react to these market
changes without significant time losses from re-
evaluation of tract rankings and potentially
lengthy legal delays in preparation and acceptence
of an environmental impact statement. These
delays in time would all contribute to increased
costs of plant construction and mine development
and would mean the difference as far as the
attractiveness of the tracts' resources versus other
more costly fuel sources.
"Northern recommends the system of free
enterprise and competition be allowed to deter-
mine tract value and ranking. Also, that economic
recovery must be based on sound economic
principles of evaluation and mine design without
imposing probable undue economic constraints
upon unleased tracts and mining companies which
are ultimately revealed in the form of higher costs
of production and use."
Commenter 073
Response. As the Department proceeds
through the planning process, the economic values
of the coal assume greater importance. These
economic values would become very important
factors in the tract ranking step. The Department
expects industry to play a key role in this step of
the planning process. This entire process is
explained in greater detail in the proposed regula-
tions (see Appendix A). The Department would
review the activity plans every two years and plan
sales in any given area every four years. Regula-
tions allow emergency leasing at anytime. These
provisions should make it possible for the Depart-
ment to respond to changing market conditions.
An industry-nominations system such as EMARS
would not have the capability to respond to radical
market changes more quickly than the preferred
alternatives since new nominations and analysis
would have to be done prior to leasing. Contrary to
the comment, tract ranking and selection should
not be based solely on economics. The degree of
environmental and socioeconomic impacts must
also be considered. Free enterprise and competi-
tion alone would not provide this critically impor-
tant aspect of lease sale decisionmaking.
16. Comment. "Earlier in Chapter 3, page 4, it is
stated that boundaries or preliminary tracts would
be established on the basis of coal data. However,
there is no indication that any of these criteria,
especially surface ownership patterns, would play a
5-51
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
role m actually ranking tracts, once their bound-
aries are determined. We believe the EIS is
seriously deficient because of this omission."
Commenter 159
Response. The Department is in the process
of further defining the tract ranking process. Coal
geology will be the major basis for preliminary
tract delineation. Surface ownership patterns will
however, have a significant impact on how tracts
are delineated and ranked since ownership affects
the competitiveness of proposed tracts and the
Department desires to define preliminary logical
mining units that are as competitive as possible.
The Department's intention is to avoid as much as
possible situations in which the LMU ownership
pattern discourages bidders from participating in a
lease sale. As noted in the final EIS, the Depart-
ment prefers to avoid leasing in areas of split
ownership.
17. Comment. "A related point is the threshold
analysis concept mentioned in the statement. This
concept is exciting to us, but we are confused as to
how, when and where it will be employed as an
analytical tool. For example, if adverse community
conditions can be forecast under one level of coal
development, is there a lower level which is
acceptable? The same analytical approach could
be applied to meeting air or water quality stan-
dards. We believe the concept needs further
discussion."
Commenters 155, 066, 060, 145, 148, 160 037
030, 061, 057, 097, 118, 105, 108, 124, 076 and 281.'
Response. The Department has begun a
special effort aimed at further analyzing the
threshold concept. Provisions based on this analy-
sis will be included in the BLM planning regula-
tions scheduled to be published in final form in
June, 1979.
18. Comment. "The Programmatic in Section
3.2.1.4 offers the remedy that many decisions may
be oriented more toward impacts dependent on
levels or rates of development. Threshold develop-
ment levels may be used to limit the amount of
Federal coal leasing to levels which a community
or area is able to support.' This is certainly a fine
idea, but nowhere is there any requirement that it
be adopted. I urge that threshold development
levels be a mandatory part of the planning process.
The BLM should determine acceptable levels of
coal development for each region and area within
the region and refuse to permit development that
would be socially and economically excessively
disruptive. Without this requirement, we have no
assurance of protection for our families against
skyrocketing crime rates, overcrowded schools,
unrepaired roads and polluted air and water."
Commenter 164
Response. The Assistant Secretary, Land and
Water Resources, has asked the Director, BLM, by
memorandum, to further study the threshold
concept and include a requirement in the final
BLM planning regulations that consideration of its
use be a required aspect of land use planning. The
threshold concept is not expected to be used in
every area; however, when the information gather-
ed indicates the appropriateness and necessity of a
threshold level, the land use planners would
establish the policy and leasing would be conduct-
ed accordingly.
19. Comment. "Threshold levels must be
specified in every plan. They should not be
discretionary."
Commenter 156
Response. The threshold levels would not be
used in every instance, but planners would be
required to consider whether they should be used.
The threshold level could be established in the
land use plan or later, depending on when its
necessity becomes apparent. The Assistant Secre-
tary-Land and Water Resources-has asked the
BLM to study the threshold concept as part of its
development of the final BLM planning regula-
tions. At this time we believe that it is impossible
to specify a single set of specific threshold levels
that would be reasonably applicable to all of the
planning units administered by BLM. In addition
we do not believe the BLM should determine by
itself what socio-economic changes are acceptable.
This should be determined in concert with state
and local governments with full review by the
public. This requires active participation and
concrete suggestions by state and local govern-
ments if socioeconomic thresholds are to be
considered.
20. Comment. "In the Draft ES for the Western
Coal Leasing Programatic is a paragraph on page
3-21 which addresses Thresholds - ecological and
socio-economic. How can a person or a govern-
mental entity go about requesting a socio-econom-
ic threshold study for the North Fork? If resources
3-52
wtsassBsumssmiES
iHUUHUHUBBi
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
other than coal are to be preserved, such a study
appears to be imperative."
Commenter 032
Response. The BLM has conducted studies in
the North Fork and developed a land use plan.
That plan places limits on the amount of Federal
leasing primarily for socio-economic reasons.
Before that plan could be modified, an updated
plan or most likely new planning effort would have
to be undertaken. This plan would be coordinated
with the state and local plans and in all likelihood,
conform to socio-economic thresholds recom-
mended in these plans. If no local or state plans or
goals exist, the BLM, through its planning process
as defined in the regulations would develop such
goals. This process is, of course, open to the public
and requires their input.
21. Comment. "We further request that the
concept of threshold development levels, found on
page 3-21, be clarified and that the final document
state that this concept can be applied to existing
MFP'S."
Commenter 157
Response. The Department is working on
refining the threshold concept. The results of this
work may be reflected in the final BLM planning
regulations scheduled for release in June, 1979, if
appropriate. This concept will generally not be
applied to existing MFP's, however. Before any
new leasing, the Department would (1) apply
unsuitability criteria and conduct surface owner
consultation and publish supplements to existing
MFP's; (2) delineate and rank tracts from all the
planning units within a production region and (3)
write an ES documenting the tract, delineation and
ranking process. Socio-economic and environmen-
tal thresholds could be proposed during steps 2
and 3 above.
22. Comment. "Criteria should be developed to
determine threshold development levels, and these
should be used to identify areas as unsuitable for
mining as early as possible in the planning
process."
Commenters 202 203, and 281
Response. The threshold development con-
cept and the unsuitability criteria are supplementa-
ry insofar as they tend to avoid or minimize
impacts of coal development; however, the thresh-
old concept is inappropriate as a criterion. The
unsuitability criteria are used to eliminate areas
initially from mining while the threshold concept
involves a balancing judgment by the land manag-
er useful throughout the planning and leasing
process. The threshold pertains not to areas
unsuitable but to levels or rates of development
that are so great as to cause excessive stress to
other resource values or to result in impacts not
expected at lower levels or rates.
The unsuitability criteria are a test that
determines the need to eliminate a specific area
from leasing because of the innate value of that
area. The threshold concept considers the need to
limit the number of leases in a given area because
of the effects that leasing would have on values
associated with the surrounding lands. The need
for establishing thresholds may become evident
early in the planning process, however it may not
become evident until the regional level tract
ranking process is conducted. The Department is
presently examining options for including thresh-
old analyses in the BLM planning regulations.
These regulations will be published in final form in
June, 1979.
23. Comment. "Number 6, threshold develop-
ment level. The threshold concept is particularly
appropriate and applicable to Montana's balanced
growth program when considering socio-economic
impacts. The threshold concept would orient
decisions more toward impacts dependent on
levels or rates of development rather than on a site
specific basis alone. Threshold levels could be
developed for wildlife species populations.
"For example, a ten percent decrease in total
population of wildlife might be an acceptable
trade-off. It might be appropriate to establish
threshold development levels in association with
the unsuitability criteria.
"In terms of social and economic infra-struc-
tures, the rate and amount of coal development
might be critical. A recommended threshold
leasing or development level and rate would be
appropriate and compatible with the balance
growth policy.
"The draft indicates that this could be a part of
any of the alternatives but does not definitely
include it.
"It would appear to benefit Montana if
threshold leasing or development levels could be
specified in the land-use plan prior to tract
3-53
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
selection and identification, assuming that such
information is available at the time.
"I would like to see an expanded use of the
threshold concept in future land-use plans, unsuit-
ability criteria and tracts ranking and selection
procedures."
Commenter 170
Response. While some threshold development
levels conceivably could be determined during
application of unsuitability criteria, these decisions
as to optimum levels of development would be
established, where appropriate during the planning
process as information is gathered and digested.
Thresholds could also be determined in later steps
of the leasing process, but if the planning process
indicates the necessity it could and should be made
during this earliest phase. The environmental
statement describes the significant use of the
threshold concept that would be made whatever
the adopted management approach. As pointed
out this concept would be least useful in the lease
to meet industry needs alternative.
The threshold concept is now the subject of a
special Department of the Interior study being
conducted by the Bureau of Land Mangement. It
is expected that the threshold concept will be
expanded and become a part of the BLM land use
planning regulations.
24. Comment. "The Colorado Mountain Club
requests that a threshold analysis be done on the
North Fork Valley. Threshold analysis is referred
to under section 3.2.1.4, pg. 3-21 of the DES
Federal Coal Management Program. The thresh-
old analysis should cover socio-economic concerns
such as transportation for both coal and workers,
housing, schools and support populations. The
purpose of the study should be to determine what
level of mining the valley can absorb and still
retain its attractive rural character."
Commenter 026
Response. At the present time, the Depart-
ment does not foresee the immediate need for any
additonal Federal coal leasing in the North Fork
Valley. If subsequent demand projections indicate
a need to lease, one of two courses of action would
be pursued. One, the existing MFP would be
updated as. described in chapter 3 of the FES or,
two, a new planning effort as described in the
BLM-proposed rulemaking for planning the use of
public lands as described in the December 15,
1978, Federal Register would be accomplished. In
both efforts, the issues raised above would be
thoroughly considered.
25. Comment. "The Department should move
toward more of a problem-solving approach in the
next round of regional EIS's to identify and resolve
regional environmental-social problems. Threshold
environmental criteria should be established in the
EIS process. We request that EPA be named as a
formal participant in the "scoping" process for
these EIS's. "
Commenter 281
Response. The Department will, if the
preferred program is adopted, move toward a
problem-solving approach in the development of
regional lease sales environmental impact state-
ments. Regional analyses would include consider-
ation of threshold levels of environmental degrada-
tion, though the Department prefers to conduct its
analyses in terms of rninimization of environmen-
tal damage rather than risk setting a standard for
damage. EPA would be asked to participate in the
regional analyses in the areas of its expertise,
including participation in the scoping meeting for
the impact statements.
26. Comment. "Section 3.2.1.4 on page 3-21:
Threshold Development Levels We endorse the
concept of threshold development levels for a
given area based on land use planning rather than
going solely by industry's expression of need. We
also suggest that units of habitat may be a better
criterion than actual numbers of animals or
percent of population. Some wildlife populations
fluctuate drastically from year-to-year within a
given area of habitat. "
Commenter 266
Response. The Bureau of Land Management
is conducting a study to determine the feasibility of
employing the threshold concept throughout their
planning system. It is expected that the threshold
for most wildlife purposes will be set on the basis
of habitat disturbed.
UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA
1. Comment. "A number of commenters
expressed technical concerns with the unsuitability
criteria and others suggested new criteria."
Commenters 148, 144, 098, 057, 034, 037, 157,
017, 134, 178, 163, 067, 093, 066, 060, 108, 076, 095,
8-54
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
200, 109, 167, 165, 164, 042, 029, 092, 068, 101, 197,
202, 266, 281 and 287
Response. Because of the on-going field tests
of the present version of the unsuitability criteria,
the Department has selected to postpone technical
response to the unsuitability criteria. All comments
will be considered while preparing the final version
of the unsuitability criteria after the results of the
field tests are compiled in early May.
2. Comment. "The lands unsuitability criteria
must be based on competent scientific opinion
without arbitrary and capricious exceptions. They
must place the burden for determining reclaimabil-
ity on the BLM and must take into account off-
site, cumulative and socio-economic impacts. The
planning process must mandatorily apply consis-
tent threshold criteria to levels of development."
Commenters 156, 168, 108, 121, 085, 092, 076,
060, 188, 197, 097, 099, 193, 105, 123, 154, 144, 148,
164, 157, 042, 203, and 165
Response. The BLM under the preferred
program will determine the unsuitability of lands
for mining based on sound resource data. The
criteria will be applied as a part of all planning
efforts. The Assistant Secretary for Land and
Water Resources has directed that the BLM
further define the threshold concept for incorpora-
tion in the BLM planning regulations. It must be
recognized that the best planning regulations
insure consistent application of law and policy
while providing the planner with enough discretion
to take advantage of site or area specific environ-
mental differences.
Although there is a criterion that eliminates
those lands which are clearly known to be
unreclaimable during the land use planning pro-
cess, the final determination on reclaimability of
all coal land proposed to be mined will be made
after review of the mining and reclamation plan
except for extreme cases. Only at this stage will
there be available the site specific data needed to
make this more definitive determination.
3. Comment. "The results of this land use
planning are proposed to be continued under the
'start-up considerations phase'. The plans will be
overlain with the thin veneer of the lands unsuita-
bility criteria. Lands unsuitability criteria is a
much needed management tool which we fully
support. As proposed, the criteria are weak and
ignore important kinds of impacts, but these can
be corrected with rewriting. However, their effec-
tiveness depends on the quality of the land use
planning system, which forms the foundation. Use
of the criteria cannot redress the deficiencies of the
planning system, just as one can't patch a crum-
bled foundation. Yet these criteria are being used
now, before public comment and rewriting, before
a coal management system has been chosen, before
compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act, and before new land use plans have
been written using the multiple use-sustained yield
mandate of FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and
Management Act)."
Commenters 154, 168, 144, 097, 125, 165, 060,
and 123
Response. Application of the unsuitability
criteria to exisiting plans is dependent upon the
data needed to apply the unsuitability criteria.
These data should be contained in the existing
resource inventories. Where these data are found
inadequate, they will be supplemented or that area
dropped from immediate consideration. Those
criteria that are changed as a result of the review
comments on the Draft EIS will be re-applied to
the selected planning areas. Changes to the
exceptions are more likely. Such changes would be
easy to incorporate in to the on-going analysis
after the Secretary's coal program decisions. Note
that the process for applying unsuitability criteria
as set out in the Federal Register notices of
December 8, 1978, discourages the local land
manager from using the exception provision of the
criteria.
The unsuitability criteria are only one step in
the start-up phase of the program. Tract identifica-
tion and ranking on a production region basis will
also be carried out after a substantial opportunity
to discover and avoid environmental conflicts.
This phase of the program wiU be documented in
an EIS, with opportunity for additional public
comment. Finally both FLPMA and the National
Forest Management Act permit the use of existing
plans until plans prepared under these acts are
available (see Section 5.4).
4. Comment. "B. Premature Application of
unsuitability criteria. The application of unsuita-
bility criteria should be halted because of the
following reasons:
(1) The criteria are part of the preferred
program and should not be applied until
8-55
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
the criteria are in final form and a coal
program in effect.
(2) The criteria are being applied prior to
public comment.
(3) The final criteria could be different than
the proposed criteria.
(4) The Department is locking itself into the
preferred alternative, and will be unable
to seriously consider other alternatives.
(5) The BLM does not have an adequate data
base.
(6) The criteria are being applied to ten (10)
priority leasing areas.
(7) The criteria are being applied to existing
approved MFPs, some of which should
not have been approved.
(8) Instructions state that application of the
criteria '... should in effect, confirm prior
planning decisions.' (F.M. No. 79^4, Oct.
13, 1978).
(9) The criteria are being applied to (approxi-
mately 900,000 acres) acreage sufficient to
result in at least forty (40) potential lease
tracts in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana,
and Utah (F.M. 78-85, Sept. 21-78).
(10) The November, 1978 to May 1, 1979
schedule violates NEPA and the District
Court's Order in NRDC v. Hughes
(Attachment 2, Terris letter of Nov. 24,
1978)."
Commenter 168
Response.
(1) The on-going application of the criteria
will enable the Department and the
public, to gain experience with this new
coal management feature before it is
finally accepted. The Department believes
this is good management practice.
(2) The application of the criteria allows for
public comment and allows the public to
become better informed on the strengths
and weaknesses of the process and the
unsuitability criteria before the Secre-
tary's final decision.
(3) Any changes in the draft criteria used in
preparing the supplements will be re-
analyzed and entered into the supple-
ments before their final publication.
(4) "In no way do I feel bound to the
preferences I expressed last summer,"
Cecil D. Andrus, letter to Natural Re-
sources Defense Council, March 23, 1979.
(5) The BLM is under instructions to provide
for data collection on unsuitability later in
the process if presently available data are
inadequate to make a reasonably certain
decision.
(6) The criteria are being applied to 9 western
planning units and in the north central
Alabama Land Use Analysis.
(7) BLM procedures provide for amending
existing approved land use plans.
(8) The instructions do not specify that land
use managers confirm prior decisions
uncritically. This is an incorrect inference.
(9) The criteria are being applied to 540,000
acres in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana,
and Utah. If the Secretary decides there is
an immediate need for lease sales in these
states, these acres might, after unsuitabili-
ty and surface owner consultation screen-
ing, be areas from which it would be
expected that from 10 to 40 logical mining
units could be formed.
(10) The Department believes its actions in
this regard are wholly legal.
5. Comment. "Re: Draft EIS Coal Management
Program. Feel that program overall is well con-
ceived. Have doubts about status of PRLA's in
program. Since legal situation is not yet clear,
legislation for reimbursement or exchange does not
exist. Feel that a separate EIS should be done on
PRLA. Strongly support notion that Unsuitability
Criteria should be applied to PRLA's and rejection
or exchange made as necessary. Also not clear as
to whether Unsuitability Criteria apply equally to
deep mining especially as regards socio-economic
impacts, water quantity and quality, and subsi-
dence in alluvial valleys needs to be clarified."
Commenter 086
Response. The Department believes the
proposed program and this EIS adequately address
management of PRLA's. A new section has been
added to Chapter 3 and a new appendix (Appendix
I) has been included, both of which address the
management of PRLAs. Some new authority may
be required for exchanges. Unsuitability criteria
will be applied to PRLA's. Unsuitability criteria
will consider the on-site impacts of underground
mining. All unsuitability criteria are under review.
8-56
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Modifications will be published in proposed
rulemaking. Socio-economic and water quality and
quantity questions are addressed mainly in the
regional environmental analysis. Subsidence and
alluvial valley questions are addressed during
unsuitability screening and again at the mine plan
review.
6. Comment. "We believe that the DES does
not adequately address the effect of making
unsuitability determinations at the time of the first
step in the preferred program, which is the land use
planning stage. Neither does it adequately address
the effect of the unsuitability criteria, which are
excessively restrictive. Nor do the unsuitability
criteria nor the priorities expressed in the DES,
with respect to multiple use resource management
tradeoffs, appear to be in conformance with the
policy of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of
1970.
"In order for the land use planning process to
work properly, there must be industry input in the
land use planning stage to narrow the area to be
examined in detail for potential mineral produc-
tion. Section 522 of the SMCRA indicates that
unsuitability determinations must be made on the
basis of competent scientific data. At the land use
planning stage, there is not enough data in the
hands of the government to do this over the large
areas encompassed in the land use planning units.
Therefore, it is important to have early input from
the extractive industries as to areas of interest in
order to focus the study efforts.
"There must also be industry input before any
unsuitability designation becomes final or before
adoption of any multiple-use resource manage-
ment tradeoff which would exclude mining from
any area. This is essential in order to obtain the
benefit of various opinions as to the possible
reclaimability of the land or the applicability of
other unsuitability criteria or as to the value of the
area for coal production as compared to other
uses. In this regard, mineral production has been
historically considered to be a land use superior to
other potential uses due to the fact that minable
concentrations of minerals are rare and that they
must be mined where they are found. In reading the
DES, one obtains the definite impression that the
Interior Department has swung 180° and now
considers coal production the land use of last
resort. For example, with respect to the resource
tradeoffs to be made in the multiple use determina-
tions, there is a bias against mineral production
evidenced in the DES, as witnessed by statements
to the effect that recreation sites or campgrounds
would be considered values clearly superior to coal
production.
"Moreover, a number of the 24 criteria which
can determine that lands are unsuitable for mining
are strictly within the discretion of the DOI, are
not mandated by statute, are unreasonable and
arbitrary and are not supported by the experience
of industry."
Commenter 087
Response. The Department does not agree
with these allegations regarding its intentions.
Specific responses have been made elsewhere to
similar comments.
7. Comment. "Finally, according to the
Memorandum of Understanding between BLM,
the Office of Surface Mining, and the United
States Geological Survey (published in the Federal
Register 12/8/78), OSM must concur with the
criteria employed in BLM's federal lands review.
To our knowledge, this concurrence has not yet
taken place, thereby invalidating any BLM efforts
to implement that review."
Commenter 144
Response. While a letter setting out primary
responsibilities of these three agencies has been
published, the formal Memorandum of Under-
standing will be developed after the Secretary's
decision on the coal management program. The
standards eventually approved will be those
approved by the Secretary and both BLM's and
OSM's views will be taken into account.
8. Comment. "The criteria should be consis-
tent with the laws under which they are promulgat-
ed. This is of particular concern with respect to the
criteria which cover endangered species, bald and
golden eagles, falcons, and reclaimability."
Commenter 060
Response. The Department believes these
criteria are consistent with law. A change was
made in the bald and golden eagle criterion to
ensure such consistency.
9. Comment. "The impression one gets from
reading all the criteria to be used to determine
'suitability' is that when no other 'values' can be
identified for coal lands, such lands will be
considered for leasing. At least some effort should
5-57
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
be made to quantify how much 'Roadless Areas',
'Scenic Areas' 'Natural Areas', 'Endangered Spe-
cies Areas', 'Migratory Birds Areas' etc. the nation
can afford. Some effort should also be made to
determine 'cost/benefit' ratios for such 'areas' vs.
coal development. "For example, Table 5-73 on
page 5-154 indicates that the 'Lands Unsuitable
Field Test Summary' shows Montana to be 100%
Historic Lands, 98.2% High Interest Habitat,
89.9% Private Surface/Federal coal. So much for
Montana.
"I also thought the authority for setting forth
criteria used to determine 'suitability' or 'unsuita-
bly' rested on statutes. . In a number of instances,
Table 5-72 indicates the ' authority' rests on
'Departmental Policy', not Acts of Congress. In the
case of 'Criterion 8-Natural Areas', the 'authority'
rests on 'Departmental Policy' and a 'proposed'
piece of legislation. Query, suppose Congress
decides not to enact the proposed legislation
establishing 'a National Register of Natural Ar-
eas'. What happens then to 'Department Policy'?"
Commenter 053
Response. All of the unsuitability criteria are
required by statute or are designed to meet goals or
purposes of statutes through discretionary authori-
ty granted to the Secretary by statute. In reference
to National Areas, the Department will protect
most of these areas of Critical Environmental
Concern as defined in FLPMA. It should be noted
that the exclusions made under this criterion were
0% in Wyoming, 0.8% in Montana and 0.75% in
Utah. The reference to the Montana statistics do
not reflect the amount of land that would be set
aside under these criteria because no exceptions
were applied and the data were incomplete. If the
Congress specifically repudiates the "natural area"
concept, the criterion will be dropped. Further
testing will help the Department better understand
the effects of these standards before they are
finally adopted.
10. Comment. "Recommendation - The process
of defining and applying exceptions to otherwise
applicable criteria should be clarified, so that the
resulting product will allow all areas which are or
could be determined to be subject to exceptions
remain available for further consideration in the
planning process."
Commenter 098
Response. The purpose of the unsuitability
criteria is to protect identified resource values
associated with the land in question. In areas
where mining can occur without damaging these
values, exceptions can be applied unless statutes
specifically prohibit mining in the area, i.e.
National Parks.
11. Comment. "We recommend that the
procedural aspects of the unsuitability criteria
application mechanism be substantially clarified.
It should be clearly delineated from management
activity which would determine multiple resource
use trade-offs, and specific departmental responsi-
bilities assigned."
Commenter 098
Response. The procedure for applying the
unsuitability criteria are explained in the Decem-
ber 8, 1978, Federal Register (Vol. 43, pp. 57662-
57670). The BLM land management planning
steps are defined in the December 15, 1978,
Federal Register. (Vol. 43, pp. 58764-58774).
A further description for determining threshold
levels will be included in the final rulemaking on
the BLM Land Use Planning procedures.
12. Comment. "Section 3.3.3, concerning
management of existing leases, indicates that in the
case of non-producing leases, the Department's
preference is to apply the unsuitability criteria to
the area of the leasehold at the time the lessee
submits a mining plan. Utah Power would strongly
object to this procedure in that substantial invest-
ments are often required in the preparation of a
mining plan and the lessee should have some
indication prior to risking such substantial invest-
ment that much of the property will not be
determined to be unsuitable for mining. It believes,
in most cases, that adequate information would be
available to the various agencies involved to make
a preliminary determination as to unsuitability.
We suggest a procedure whereby 'an application
for a preliminary determination could be made
and an early response received as to whether there
is any reasonable chance that any of the lands
involved in the mining plan would subsequently be
declared unsuitable for mining. The same section
indicates that outstanding P.R.L.A.S would be
examined for acceptability for mining, using the
same unsuitability criteria, but this process would
not depend upon applicant initiative. This would
appear to indicate that there should be some
3-58
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
process by which existing leases could be exam-
ined, preliminarily at least, without the cost,
expense and time in preparing a mining plan from
the first instance.
"Utah Power is, in fact, extremely concerned
about the procedure which may be followed in
eliminating the so-called 'lands unsuitable for
mining'. While we recognize that the Department's
choices are limited by statutes and other con-
straints, the opportunities for abuse are so exten-
sive as to be staggering. In reviewing the numerous
bases for classifying lands as unsuitable for
mining, it becomes obvious that more coal lands in
the West could be classified as unsuitable (if the
rules were to be stringently followed) than would
be available for mining. While this is an area which
might better be discussed in another forum, Utah
Power strongly urges that great restraints be
followed in applying the lands unsuitable for
mining criteria. Otherwise a situation could arise
not only where extensive tracts would be unavail-
able for mining, but where those tracts left after
elimination would be of a nature that economical
mining there would not be possible. Moreover, it is
imperative that an adequate system be devised to
compensate lessee for the financial losses which
would naturally occur to them if lands upon which
they have made substantial legal investments are
subsequently declared unsuitable for mining and
the lessees are precluded from utilizing them for
that purpose."
Commenter 078
Response The recommendation for a prelimi-
nary finding is being considered by the Depart-
ment.
The application of the unsuitability criteria will
be a public process; as such, all interested parties
will have the opportunity to provide information
and recommendations to the land use planners
involved. The purpose of twice field testing the
criteria is to better ensure that the Department has
full understanding of the likely effects of applying
each criterion before the Secretary decides upon
the criteria.
13. Comment. "There also is no basis to try and
determine certain things like buffer zones. I mean
is a quarter mile or is a half mile better? I don't
really see any kind of supporting data on that."
Commenter 148
Response. Wildlife management practice
provides ample guidance for the concept of buffer
zones. Local conditions must be considered when
establishing buffer zones to protect important
wildlife and their habitat. Consideration of ade-
quate habitat for feeding, breeding, and resting are
necessary. The suggested buffers in the criteria are
designed to assure that planners consider buffers
before going below the specific sizes indicated. It is
intended that buffer zones would be set on a case-
by-case basis.
14. Comment. "We want the extraction of the
coal to be of the least total disturbance to the land,
to the present landowners and to the existing
communities. To be fully consistent with this goal,
the same criteria should be followed for existing
nonproducing leases, preference right least appli-
cations and presently unleased coal lands."
Commenter 145
Response. The unsuitability criteria will be
applied to all federal coal lands of medium and
high development potential. These criteria will
generally be applied during land use planning and
review of mining and reclamation plans. The
unsuitability criteria will be applied to PRLAs and
existing non-producing leases before mine plans
are approved if not during land use planning.
15. Comment. "The land use planning process
will be used to identify lands that are unsuitable
and suitable for coal mining, through the Lands
Unsuitability Criteria. The EIS states that the
application of the unsuitability criteria is the key
activity of the land use planning process in the
preferred program. However, we have found the
unsuitability criteria to be one of the weakest
components of the proposed program, for the
following reasons:
(1) The unsuitability criteria do not account
for cumulative and offsite impacts, but only
impacts that will result on an individual lease tract.
Such a narrow approach will cause serious conse-
quences to such resources as wildlife habitat.
(2) The criteria and the numerous exceptions
to them encourage subjective judgments concern-
ing the significance of impacts from mining to
other resources such as scenic, scientific, historic,
and wildlife resources, wetlands, municipal water-
sheds, and National Resource Waters.
(3) The unsuitability criteria demand subjec-
tive judgements concerning the significance of a
8-59
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
resource itself. For example, historic resources
must be of national significance if they are to be
protected. Historic features of local or regional
significance are given no protection.
(4) The unsuitability criteria offer no protec-
tion to roadless areas during the inventory pro-
cesses, before Wilderness Study Areas are desig-
nated." 6
Commenter 200
Response. The unsuitabilty criteria are de-
signed to eliminate areas from consideration for
leasing because of the innate high value of that
land. There are many other points in the planning
processes where cumulative and off-site impacts
are assessed such as the multiple use trade-off
process early on in the land use planning process
and in the tract identification and ranking process
and the socio-economic and governmental analysis
associated with these steps. At all of these steps
cumulative and off site resources will be consid-
ered. The commenter makes the mistake of
ignoring the rest of the management process and
demanding all critical decisions be made in only
one step in that process — the criteria application
step.
Any comparison of the relative values of
wildlife resources, wetlands, coal development,
municipal watersheds etc., is necessarily a subjec-
tive process. The only certainty in this process are
in those areas where definable resources are given
statutory protection. Recognizing the subjective
nature of many of these decisions the Department
has developed a program that fully discloses these
values, resolves to the maximum extent resource
use conflicts, and makes the necessary trade-offs in
a public forum with full opportunity for local
government participation in the decision process.
In regard to the importance of historic re-
sources of regional significance they could not be
considered for leasing without the concurrence of
the State. These resources could be permanently
protected by a state proposed criterion that was
adopted by the Secretary under criterion (w). In
regard to BLM lands possessing wilderness charac-
teristics but not yet designated as study areas,
these areas specifically require review before
leasing by the wilderness study area criterion to
determine if they posess wilderness characteristics.
If they do, they will be found unsuitable.
16. Comment. "The second major deficiency of
these criteria is that they give BLM the authority to
make determinations in areas where it has little or
no expertise. Several of the criteria require BLM to
'consult' with other agencies, such as the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service. Consultations are
not binding, thereby leaving BLM to make final
decisions which may or may not be consistent with
the information derived from the consultation."
Commenter 144
Response. The BLM is the agency ultimately
responsible for land use management decisions
relative to national resource lands. Congress has
required the BLM to seek advice from state and
local governments, public and private organiza-
tions, individuals and other federal agencies. Some
consultations are mandatory, but at no time has
Congress recommended another party be responsi-
ble for determining the use of national resource
lands.
The Department does not believe one agency
should make specific land use decisions and a
second agency carry out those decisions.
17. Comment. "Section 3.2.1 (p. 3-18) makes
reference to guidelines of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act which include the giving of
priority to designation and protection of areas of
critical environmental concern. Such areas have
been highly favored recently by some of the
environmentalist groups as representing a compro-
mise between industry and environmentalists in
the battle over designation of lands for wilderness
preservation. It is of course uncertain at this time
how much land otherwise available for new federal
coal leasing would be segregated as a result of the
designation as areas of critical environmental
concern. However, it is initially puzzling that this
type of land use designation is not specifically
listed or discussed in any of the unsuitability
criteria. Hopefully, this can be construed to
confirm that areas of critical environmental con-
cern will be treated as wilderness areas are in the
Statement, namely, as areas which automatically
prohibit new federal coal leasing. There is nothing
in FLPMA which would suggest that such areas
should be treated like wilderness areas. It would be
very helpful if the Department made clear in the
impact statement that areas of critical environmen-
tal concern will not be automatically excluded
from consideration for new federal coal leasing.
8-60
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
"Also on Page 3-18 the land use planning
process for excluding lands as unacceptable for
consideration for coal leasing is again described
but this time it is stated that land would not be
excluded in favor of another use unless that other
use was clearly superior to new federal coal
leasing. This statement is easily lost among the
many statements which would indicate to the
contrary that new federal coal leasing has been
given a very low, if not the lowest, priority among
all other land uses. The final environmental impact
statement should correct this confusion by consis-
tently stating that federal coal leasing will not be
eliminated as a possible land use in favor of any
other land use unless that alternate use is clearly
superior to coal leasing.
"At the end of Page 3-18 the final paragraph
refers to the fact that the land use plans would be
updated only every five to seven years. This would
appear to be inconsistent with the long term four-
year cycle of new coal leasing. Presumably each
new lease sale would require at least a review and
possible update or supplement to the land use
plans to reflect changed conditions particularly as
regards criteria which previously applied to ex-
clude lands from mining."
Commenter 066
Response. Many areas of critical environ-
mental concern, will likely be eliminated from
consideration by application of the unsuitability
criteria. Where unsuitability criteria would not
apply to areas of critical environmental concern,
the management plan for each area would deter-
mine whether all or certain types of mining would
be permitted. It would also be possible, although
less likely that although a type of mining would
still be permitted after application of a criterion,
the management plan for the area would preclude
such mining. The Department will not publish
regulations for determining areas of critical envi-
ronmental concern but instead will issue guidelines
and manual instructions to the field. The impact of
these directions will be wholly dependent on site
specific conditions and might permit mining in
rare cases. Unsuitability criteria are aimed at
determining those situations where resources exist
that would be protected regardless of the value of
the coal.
The Department expects that the land use
plans that are developed in accordance with the
new regulations would not have to be redone for
several years. The tentative target is 15 years. In
the activity planning step of this process, many
potential lease tracts would be identified and
ranked. At the completion of this ranking, a
number of tracts sufficient to meet the anticipated
demand would be offered in a competitive lease
sale. Lease sales would be scheduled for every
fourth year, however, two years after the initial
sale, the demand would be reassessed. If it were
determined that the demand had been underesti-
mated on the previous sale, another sale would be
scheduled. The tracts to be offered would be
selected from the tracts previously ranked and
from tracts that had been identified in plans
completed in the intervening two years. Older
plans would not be supplemented.
18. Comment. "Section 3.1.1.1 deals in detail
with the various planning systems of the preferred
alternative. Under the Land Use Planning portion
of this Section the first criteria for screening out
areas unacceptable for new federal coal leasing
would be areas that do not contain coal reserves of
high to moderate development potential. It is not
clear what authority or justification the Depart-
ment is relying on in applying this criteria which is
presented as distinct from the general unsuitability
criteria and every other factor suggested by law or
regulation which should affect the potential devel-
opment of coal reserves. Apparently, the Depart-
ment is attempting to substitute its engineering and
marketing judgement for that of the industry and
this is not warranted. The economic potential for
the development of reserves aside from clear legal
restrictions, is constantly changing and the federal
government cannot hope to have as much informa-
tion concerning current market conditions or have
sufficient expertise to predict future market trends
as will potential lease bidders throughout the
industry. Since this screening criteria is so nebu-
lous, it would be appropriate to include in the final
impact statement, at the very least, some detailed
justification for this screening criteria along with
an example of how the criteria might be applied
over and above all other restrictions and limita-
tions on new federal coal leases to exclude
property which would otherwise qualify for a lease
sale.
"In the same section on Land Use Planning, a
very disturbing implication is left that the Depart-
ment will indirectly engage in population control,
8-61
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
presumably only at the instance of a state
government request, by deliberately limiting coal
production from a region regardless of other
factors and of the market demand in order to
accomplish an artificial maximum limit on popula-
tion in that area. It is unknown what, if any,
authority the Department could claim for such
action but it would certainly be necessary for the
Department to elaborate on this suggestion in the
final impact statement and particularly to discuss
what, if any, public input would influence a
decision to so control a region's population even
without the request of any state government. "
Commenter 066
Response. The method of determining medi-
um and high potential coal development areas is
described in USGS publication 1450B. If industry
representatives believe there are areas in the low
potential area that should be considered in the
planning process they can submit supporting
information to the BLM for their consideration.
The FLPMA directs the Department to coordi-
nate their land use plans with local plans. Those
plans may support the need to control population
growth rates. If this is an objective of the local or
state government the Department would constrain
development on federal lands to insure the success
of those plans unless it was clearly contrary to the
national interest.
19. Comment. "While there is some merit in
reviewing potential lease areas for 'unsuitability'
before the lease is executed, it should be noted that
relatively little technical information is available
until a mine plan is actually developed. Hence,
until the latter stage, there is little or no available
information which could or would form the base
for mitigation of harmful effects of mining —
mitigation which would render an area entirely
suitable for such activity, even though pre-lease
information might lead to the opposite conclusion.
"More importantly, by placing the unsuitabili-
ty test in sequence prior to an expression of area
interest on the part of industry, and, for that
matter, even prior to any preliminary tract selec-
tion by the Department, the workload is grossly
and unnecessarily compounded, especially with
the detailed tests which would be required by the
use of the proposed criteria. Moreover, the unsuit-
ability test may well be reapplied during the mine
plan review phase after the lease is issued. Hence,
the earlier unsuitability review could be duplica-
tive."
Commenter 069
Response. The Department's proposed pro-
gram is essentially a series of screens that eliminate
areas that are unsuitable for consideration for
leasing as soon as they are identified. Application
of the unsuitability criteria is one of those screens.
The data needed to apply the majority of the
unsuitability criteria are available. The Depart-
ment believes it would be wasteful to consider any
areas for leasing which could easily be tested early
in the planning process. It is true that some criteria
such as alluvial valley floors cannot be adequately
asessed in all areas. The procedure for application
of the criteria clearly calls for continuing the land
in the planning process for further consideration
for leasing if not enough data are available. It is
very likely that some alluvial valley floor lands
may be carried all the way through the process to
the development of the mine plan stage before they
are rejected.
20. Comment. "Indeed, if tables in Chapter Five
Unsuitability, (page 5-154) are any indication, the
criteria would prohibit coal leasing on an almost
wholesale basis."
Commenter 069
Response. Present data indicate the criteria
will not prohibit coal leasing on an almost
wholesale basis. If this turns out not to be true, and
the problem lies in overbroad actions by the
Department it can take steps to reuse the standards
to achieve the correct balance between resource
protection and coal development. If the fault lies in
statutes, or executive orders, changes will be
sought in these areas. The data cited were data
from the field-testing of draft criteria. If the
commenter had more carefully read the statement,
he would have learned that the few criteria which
excluded significant percentages of land were more
tightly drawn when selected by the Under Secre-
tary for the preferred program. The Department is
again field-testing the selected criteria. Should any
of these criteria also exclude too high a percentage
of coal land they too would be altered.
21. Comment. "Table 3-1 describes in general
terms the twenty-four separate unsuitability crite-
ria all of which would be applied to each and every
tract of federal coal lands considered for new
leasing under the proposed program. In reviewing
8-62
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
this criteria it must be again stated that it would
appear that the Department's new coal policy is
that: "When in the slightest doubt, don't lease.'
That is, if the collective imaginations of all the
government officials and public interest groups
which will be influencing the application of this
unsuitability criteria cannot exclude coal leasing
on the basis of using the land for anything else
then that land will have an opportunity to be
further considered for possible eventual leasing. It
would seem that assigning what amounts to the
lowest possible priority to federal coal leasing on
any tract of unleased federal coal lands is com-
pletely contrary to numerous expressions of Con-
gressional and Administration intent to greatly
increase coal production for federal lands.
"Certain of the more potentially significant
unsuitability criteria deserve specific attention
because in some respects all or almost all of them
are felt to be overly broad or poorly conceived.
The first criterion deals with Federal Land Systems
and indicates that all federal lands which are
recommended for inclusion in preservation sys-
tems such as the wilderness Preservation System
would be automatically excluded from further
consideration as unsuitable for coal mining. Taken
literally, this would mean that all lands in National
Forests presently under review in RARE II process
would automatically be given no consideration for
coal leasing as well as all lands under the
administration of the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment which are presently being inventoried for
review as potential wilderness areas. The Bureau of
Land Management review will not necessarily be
concluded until the year 1990. Clearly, such an
automatic exclusion without opportunity for ap-
praisal by individual land unit or particular lease
tract to determine if indeed there is any potential
for further review and designation is unwarranted
and could eliminate vast tracts of federal coal
lands unjustifiably.
"The criterion concerning Rights-of-Way and,
Easements would, with certain exceptions, exclude
portions of 'federal lands' as unsuitable for coal
mining which are within any rights-of-way and
easements or within surface leases for just about
any use. Since the term 'federal lands' is used in
the text to describe lands in which the United
States owns the coal but private interests own the
surface, the application of this criteria would
require initially the horrendous task of reviewing
title to all private surface over federal coal to
identify such rights-of-way, easements and leases.
Apparently, the existence of a surface agricultural
lease even by one who would not otherwise be
granted surface owner protection would be enough
to completely exclude an area from future coal
mining and particularly from strip mining. There is
no legal justification for this situation and this
criterion must be strictly limited to landowners
otherwise protected by SMCRA so that it is not
readily abused by groups which could obtain such
rights-of-way or easements for nominal prices in
the hopes of delaying or completely blocking
federal coal production from the land in question.
"The criterion related to Wilderness Study
Areas has the same problems as those discussed for
the criterion related to Federal Land Systems
above.
"The dual criterion related to State Lands
Unsuitable for mining and State Proposed Criteria
would seem to have the potential effect of
requiring the Secretary of the Interior to abdicate
his authority and discretion in the leasing of
federal coal lands to the State in which the federal
coal lands are located. Again, there appears to be
no legal justification for this extreme result and it
is contrary to the clear intention of Congress that
the Secretary retain primary authority and discre-
tion for leasing such lands with considerable state
participation but not control.
"The criteria concerning both federal and state
designated endangered species would not seem to
allow for the flexibility which has characterized the
resolution of problems related to most applications
of the Endangered Species Act since its enactment.
Environmental groups and the Administration
fought the amendment of the Endangered Species
Act in the last Congress on the basis of statistics
which indicated that of the thousands of instances
in which the Act created a conflict with develop-
ment of any kind, including numerous coal mining
operations, the government, public interest groups
and the private companies involved were able to
work out compromises which did not result in the
serious modification or prohibition of the develop-
ment. However, when one considers that the
application of criteria only somewhat more strict
than the criteria presented in the Statement
resulted in the exclusion of one-third to one-half of
coal lands in sections of Montana and Wyoming
as unsuitable for coal mining based largely on
8-63
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
identification of endangered species and critical
wildlife habitat, it would appear that these two
criteria are going to be applied in the proposed
alternative for the long range federal coal leasing
program with an inflexibility that would not permit
similar compromises but would completely prevent
the development of coal operations on the lands in
question. If these implications are indeed an
accurate reflection of what the Department is
proposing in this Statement, then that should be
made clear and a justification should be presented
in detail for departing from what has been a rather
successful and reasonable past practice.
"The last criterion which deserves particular
mention is the one related to reclaimability. In the
text the discussion of reclamation assumes unusu-
ally long time periods (ten to fifteen years) for
reclaiming to legally required conditions. Appar-
ently this time period really assumes that the initial
vegetation will not be completely compatible with
surrounding vegetation in undisturbed lands and
that reclaimability means the slow natural progres-
sion of grasses from neighboring undisturbed lands
to establish dominance over and eliminate other
native grasses which are required by law to be
planted in the disturbed areas. Obviously, putting
the burden, as it is apparently is placed, on the
operator or potential lease bidder to prove such
reclaimability would require long term tests that
could greatly frustrate any renewed federal coal
leasing in the next decade. Certainly, the Depart-
ment could not have intended such a result. It is
hoped in the final impact statement that this area
of concern will be clarified by making it definite
that compliance with existing federal reclamation
requirements will be all that is necessary to prove
reclaimability and that the land will not be
completely withheld but that flexibility will be
applied to conduct test mining operations to give a
potential operator or bidder ample opportunity to
prove reclaimability of the tract involved when
such proof is necessary."
Commenter 066
Response. The unsuitability criteria , are
designed to protect public land values that' are
described in numerous pieces of Federal legisla-
tion. They are formulated for the purpose of
protecting values not preventing coal mining. By
definition, mining would be an incompatible use of
Wilderness areas, therefore, the Department does
not believe lands should be leased in areas that
may be recommended for wilderness designation.
Congress has also prohibited leasing within the
wilderness system itself and it has also severely
limited issuance of new leases in the National
Forest System. The Secretary will retain primary
authority on leasing of federal lands. Any criteria
proposed by the State must be approved by the
Secretary.
Application of Criteria on endangered species
and important wildlife habitat will be similar to the
approach the Department has used in determining
Critical Habitat in the past. Again, if the commen-
ter had read the draft statement more carefully, he
would have discovered that the endangered species
and critical habitat criteria were changed to reduce
their effect (see new discussion in Section 5.4
which explains the changes to the reader).
Reclaiming western strip mined land is known
to take long periods of time. The purpose of the
criterion is to remove those lands that are clearly
known to be unreclaimable from consideration for
leasing. A much more critical anaylsis of reclaima-
bility will be made at the time the mining and
reclamation plan is reviewed.
22. Comment. "The unsuitability criteria do not
address cumulative impacts, socio-economic im-
pacts, off-site impacts or adequately address deep-
mining impacts, and there is really no public
participation in their creation. We believe that the
Department of the Interior is also trying to avoid
NEPA review of these criteria, and we support
NEPA review at all levels of this coal program
from individual specific mining plans to develop-
ment proposals such as the railroad into the
Kaiparowitz Plateau from Cedar City as well as
regional analysis. These should all be reviewed bv
NEPA." '
Commenter 130
Response. The unsuitability criteria are not
intended to cover cumulative impacts, socio-eco-
nomic impacts or off-site impacts; they are
intended to cover specific physical problems
associated with coal mining that are the subject of
various statutes, executive orders and regulations.
These other areas are addressed in other ways
under the program, through the land-use plans,
tract selection and ranking and region wide
environmental statements. The commenter has
attempted to require all critical environmental
decisions be made in this one step in the coal
3-64
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
management process, while ignoring the other
steps which are more suited to the environmental
decisions which are assigned them. Public partici-
pation in the process started informally late last
spring after the Department's draft criteria were
made available to hundreds of people, upon
request. The formal involvement began on Decem-
ber 8, 1977 when the Department formally advised
the public of the availability of draft criteria,
notified the public of upcoming extensive field
testing of the criteria with further public participa-
tion, and asked for comments on the criteria over
three months before the Department expected to
formally propose the rules. Again, the draft
environmental statement on the coal management
program set out the criteria in full, presented the
results of early field tests and again requested
comments. The present fieldtesting of the criteria
has formal public participation steps as part of the
process. Rather than seeking to avoid NEPA
compliance in this process, the Department sought
it out. Adoption of unsuitability criteria is a
requirement of the Federal Lands Program under
section 523 of SMCRA. The entire Federal lands
program enjoys a specific NEPA exemption under
section 702 of SMCRA. Thus the unsuitability
criteria are specifically exempted from NEPA's
environmental impact statement requirement. The
inclusion of the criteria in this environmental
statement is not in response to a legal duty, but in
response to the Department's policy of making
every element of the proposed federal coal man-
agement program open to public scrutiny.
23. Comment. "The initial step of the 'preferred
program; described in the DES, consists of land
use planning utilizing the planning systems already
in existence in the Federal land management
agencies. In this process, there would be a
determination of the lands unsuitable for mining
and a determination of lands considered more
valuable for other uses. We believe it is imperative
that the coal industry and private mineral interest
owners be consulted during this planning process,
in addition to the State Governments, because of
the substantial effect the selection process will
have on adjacent or contiguous private and State
owned reserves. If Federal reserves are withdrawn
from development without sufficient consideration
of adjacent reserves or effects on those reserves,
the remaining parcels may be fragmented or too
small to be economically developed. For example,
Burlington Northern has substantial ownership
checkerboarded with Federal lands in Montana
and North Dakota. Those reserves cannot be
considered in many instances to be logical mining
units without the adjacent Federal coal and the
same would be equally true for the Federal
reserves if our coal is not developed. Thus
unilateral Federal decision that the Federal coal is
unsuitable for mining could make the mining of
our coal uneconomic. To deny the opportunity to
share in this decision-making process would be
tantamount to confiscation of our property with-
out compensation."
Commenter 067
Response. Industry participation is welcomed
during general land use planning, and this has
been emphasized in the final EIS. Industry would
be expected to be a strong, forceful advocate of»
leasing certain lands. The unsuitability criteria are
designed to protect naturally occurring features or
values designated directly or indirectly by
Congress as worthy of protection. Industry data
bearing on the criteria or their exceptions may be
submitted to the local BLM office.
24. Comment. "Criterion (w), state proposed
criteria, should be rewritten so that it can be
applied to existing MFP's. The wording now
indicates that such criteria can only be proposed
before a draft land use plan is issued. There is no
indication in the planning process that draft land
use plans will be written where there are existing
MFP's. This is undoubtedly an oversight and
should be corrected in the final."
Commenter 157
Response. We have modified the criterion to
allow application of state proposed criteria to
BLM supplements.
25. Comment. "Another concept warranting
serious consideration, whether in a criterion or
applied in some other way, is whether the leasing
or approval of a mining plan in an undeveloped
area requires a new major transportation system,
which in turn would require many more mines to
be approved in order to support the system
financially, in other words, what the effects of
approving the mining plan in the undeveloped area
are beyond that of the effects of the mine itself."
Commenter 134
8-65
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Response. These aspects must be considered
in the regional lease sale EIS.
26. Comment. "The 'unsuitability criteria,' it
seems to me, are likely to prevent the development
of federal coal rather than to provide appropriate
safeguards for its orderly development at a rate
consistent with National energy needs. Individuals
or groups who wish to block all future new mines
could claim that one or another of the unsuitability
criteria as written could be applied to virtually
every tract of federal coal land no matter where
located."
Commenter 017
Response. The Department does not believe
that "unsuitability" will seriously constrain region-
al coal development. The Department has field
tested an earlier set of criteria and after reviewing
the results of the field tests, altered the criteria to
those proposed in the draft EIS. The Department
believes that the criteria as now drafted would not
seriously constrain regional coal development.
However, to be certain of this, the proposed
criteria are now undergoing a second, more
extensive field test. These draft criteria will be
modified to accommodate objective comments
received as a result of the EIS review; however, we
do not expect major changes in the amounts of
land that would be designated unsuitable by the
application of these criteria. It should be noted
that these criteria are based on several statutes
generally related to environmental values.
We do not expect individuals or groups, who
may be interested in blocking coal development, to
be able to use these criteria as a tactical weapon.
There is a petition process; however, & prima facie
showing of unsuitability by the petitioner is
required before the petition receives processing.
27. Comment, "there is presently no provision
for appeal from lands initially classified as unsuit-
able for mining within the proposed program. One
should be provided and it should be drawn in a
manner that encourages response and is designed
for prompt resolution. Such a plan might be as
follows:
(1) Identification of tracts which may be
considered unsuitable by BLM
(2) Reasoning-briefly on basis for unsuitabili-
ty
(3) Publishing of said list to all interested
parties and in newspapers of record
within area (state and local government,
other Fed agencies affected, mailing list of
those desiring such information)
(4) Submission of data to support or refute
preliminary classification suggested by
BLM.
(5) Public hearing on data and conflicts as
necessary within 90 days after submission
of data
(6) Resolution of status by BLM at local level
(7) Appeal period - 30 days
(8) Inclusion of parcels removed from unsuit-
ability category in remainder of BLM
environmental analysis and tract rank-
ing."
Commenter 152
Response. Petitions can be submitted under
the SMCRA regulations to have land designated as
unsuitable or to have unsuitability designations
removed. In addition the proposed planning
regulations 160 1.6- 1(c) provide an appeal process
for any decisions made during the formulation of
new plans.
28. Comment. "First, Wesco has a great concern
that many of the decisions that will be made
during the application of the unsuitability criteria
will be made without a right for an appeal or legal
challenge to the final decision. Further, it seems
plausible that other bureaucratic decisions will be
made during the various steps that will not allow
the decision to be challenged. For instance, final
guidelines will be applied in the determination of
alluvial valley floors and be given the force of law.
Guidelines should not be treated or given the effect
of law. (See 3-13) The same concern exists for the
determination of prime farmlands or for decision
as to ability to reclaim.
"Second, Wesco has a major concern with the
uniformity with which the established criteria will
be applied across the various coal regions of the
nation. Because of the forecasted cooperation
among state officials, political considerations
could prevent wise resource management deci-
sions. Appeals should not be foreclosed when one
set of criteria is used to determine leasing one state
while a different application of the same criteria
could be used to make the same decision in
another state."
8-66
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Commenter 034
Response. Coal developers have expressed a
belief that the Department is trying to lock up
federal lands with the unsuitability criteria. Other
private interests have claimed the criteria are so
nebulous that values that are supposed to be
protected by these criteria will not be. The
Department is reviewing and modifying the crite-
ria in an effort to develop an objective screening
process that can be uniformly applied and that
protects the values of concern without unnecessari-
ly removing coal from consideration for leasing.
The application of these criteria will be a public
process as described in the Federal Register,
December 8, 1978, pp. 57662-57670, and Federal
Register, December 15, 1978, pp. 58764-58774. All
parties will have ample opportunity to challenge
the decisions during and at the completion of the
review process.
29. Comment. " Application to existing Rights -
We do not believe the Department to have the
authority assumed in the Program to apply its new
'suitability' criteria to existing but non-producing
leases and to the preference right lease applications
(PRLAs) now pending before the Department. To
the degree that the Program would cancel or
nullify an existing lease or PRLA, the taking of a
valid existing right may be involved. This issue is
currently in litigation, and adoption of this
Program element should await judicial resolution
of the nature of the rights involved. To the extent
that the Program proposes the exchange or
substitution of other rights for any so taken, it
would appear to exceed existing statutory authori-
ty. At a minimum, specific legislative proposals
should be addressed and the alternative thereto
considered in the final statement."
Commenter 098
Response. The Department has the authority
to apply the unsuitability criteria to all federal
lands. A new section in chapter 3 and a new
appendix (Appendix I) discussing the management
of existing leases and PRLAs, and, in particular
the application of the criteria to them, have been
added to this statement.
30. Comment. "While the Department plans to
apply land use planning criteria to existing leases,
this should be done at the same time as all the
other lands are being reviewed. Further, no lease
should have a mine and reclamation plan ap-
proved by the Secretary until the facility demon-
strates compliance with the in-place regional land
use plan."
Commenter 118
Response. The Department prefers to apply
the unsuitability criteria at the time of general
planning. Setting this as firm policy would,
however, be extremely unfair to the holders of non-
producing existing leases if land use planning is
not promptly scheduled in their area, since all
existing leases are under a ten year diligence
requirement and since they were sold without
restriction on how soon they could be put into
production. Consequently if planning is not sched-
uled and a mining plan is submitted, the criteria
would be promptly applied during the mining plan
review. Existing leases face thorough environmen-
tal reviews under the many environmental protec-
tion features of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act.
31. Comment. "Another area that I noticed was
inadequately developed in the Impact Statement
was the ranking of unsuitability criteria. While
Table 3-1 did indeed list several areas of unsuita-
bility for possible, ranking, there was no discussion
given to the ways in which those different criteria
are going to be intermeshed, which ones take
precedence over others, how are they ranked in the
over-all system. I think that the idea of ranking
sites within a series of industries is a very valuable
one, but the ranking system is not as well
developed in the draft impact statement as it
would need to be really implemented."
Commenter 137
Response. The concept of tract ranking was
not, as you observe, described in the programmatic
EIS draft fully enough to permit its implementa-
tion. It was developed in enough detail to describe
the program for the purposes of the Programmatic.
In the period between the draft EIS and the final
EIS, over twenty task forces have been at work
developing the procedural details of the federal
coal management program, including the tract
ranking process. The results of their work are
available from the Department. Some of these
additional details are presented in the final EIS.
Incidentally, unsuitability criteria are not a rank-
ing factor. If an area is found to be unsuitable
under the criteria, it is dropped from further
consideration for coal leasing.
3-67
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
32. "Comment The preferred program needs to
strengthen the unsuitability criteria generally and
improve the existing land-use plans (MFP's). This
should include a better definition of management
tradeoffs of resources vis-a-vis coal development
and a commitment to develop land-use and
activity planning processes. Better public and
agency access is needed to review MFP's before
the leasing process is started."
Commenter281
Response. The unsuitability criteria list to be
issued with the final regulations for the coal
management program will be improved over the
current version as a result of what the Department
learns from on-going field tests, as well as language
improvements to the criteria to clarify their
application and responses to specific public sug-
gestions for improvements to the criteria. Existing
MFP's will be improved prior to any coal manage-
ment decisions through application of criteria and
surface owner consultation. The land-use planning
carried out by the Bureau of Land Management is
undergoing a major change at present as a result of
the statement of policy regarding planning on
public lands set out in the Federal Lands Policy
and Management Act of 1976 by the Congress.
This includes clarification of public and outside
agency participation in the preparation of plans.
The input of the coal management program to the
development of policy for the land use planning
program of the Bureau of Land Management is
limited to setting out the steps needed to identify
lands acceptable for further consideration for
leasing. The Department is studying further devel-
opment of the threshold concept in the planning
process context, but adoption of formal threshold
criteria is not anticipated.
33. "Comment Lands Unsuitable for Surface
Coal Mining At several places in chapter 3 it is
indicated that on existing leases, the unsuitability
criteria would not be applied until after a mining
plan had been submitted. We believe that lessees
should be given the opportunity to avoid mining
plan development costs until after the unsuitability
criteria have been applied. This could be accom-
plished in several ways. Rather simply, the lessee
could advise the Department of his interest in
mining the tract, with a request that the determina-
tion of unsuitability be completed and made •
public. Some controls could be built in to avoid
requests that were not associated with a genuine
desire to proceed with mining at an early date."
Commenter091
Response This proposal was considered and
rejected during construction of the preferred
program.
PRODUCTION TARGETS
1. Comment. "It should be noted that the
preferred program is now described as a coal
management program rather than a coal leasing
program. It would appear that one of the most
salient features about the preferred program is the
centralization of decision-making in the federal
government with the resultant control of large
elements of the economy of the western United
States. The unprecedented degree of management
proposed to be employed by the government will,
of course, result in a corresponding reduction in
the freedom of action on the part of the private
sector. The level of new leasing is to be determined
by the government's estimate of coal demand on a
region-by-region basis. New leasing levels will be
established according to such governmentally
derived estimates of demand. Furthermore, it is
stated on page 3^1 that consideration is being
given to imposing upon new leases conditions
which specify how, where, or by whom coal would
be consumed. It appears that the government is
completely ignoring the operation of market forces
in the development of federal coal resources.
Commenters 087, 066, 069, 083, 098, and 093
Response. Any good businessman will try to
make forecasts about future demands; the Depart-
ment is trying to do so with the regional target
setting process. We wish to offer the amount of
lease rights that we can sell. The Congress has
declared that we must provide for other activities
in conducting our business such as comprehensive
planning, the receipt of fair market value, the
determination of maximum economic recovery,
surface owner protection, and the setting of
national production goals and leasing targets.
Many of these requirements are of recent origin.
Since there has not been an active coal program in
the Nation since 1971, none of us is familiar with
these provisions in operation . But, just as clearly,
these provisions are not created at the whim of the
Department but reflect the unambiguous intent of
the Congress. In summary, then, we must both
enforce the laws of the nation and we must closely
8-68
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
follow the laws of the market for coal if we are to
properly conduct our business, the selling of coal
extraction rights. In coal, the Department's man-
aging a resource will have a major role m the
future economy and environment of the West, but
the Department cannot abrogate its responsibilities
just because they are important, rather we must
redouble our efforts to fulfill them with heightened
sensitivity to all who will be affected by the future
development of coal.
The term "management" was used because any
Federal coal program includes many more activi-
ties than just leasing, i.e., administration of lease
assignments, readjustments, relinquishments, can-
cellations, terminations, and transfers, application
of planning and unsuitability requirements to
existing leases; and the exchange of Federal coal
and other mineral leases for environmentally
unacceptable Federal coal leases and of Federal
coal for alluvial valley floor coal.
2. Comment. "3.1.1.2 - Regional Production
Targets -Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of
the statement, and the preferred program itself, is
the reliance on regional production targets as the
driving mechanism for the program. The establish-
ment of targets in the so-called major production
regions' implies that the coal market is cordoned
into neat, autonomous market areas. In reality,
there are many instances when coal from the West
must compete with Midwestern and Appalachian
coal, and even coal from Australia and South
Africa. To discern in advance, as the preferred
alternative proposes, that certain levels of produc-
tion are desirable in each region simply flies in the
face of reality. It will be disruptive in the coal
market, impose additional, artificial costs in an
already marginal industry, and it would seem to
raise serious questions about the federal role m
determining the level of economic activity in the
various states. None of these issues is raised in the
statement.
"Moreover, even presuming the efficacy ot
setting regional production targets, it is not clear
that such targets would in fact serve as the driving
mechanism for federal coal leasing. Not only does
the statement indicate that the targets set by the
Department of Energy would be subject to
adjustment by Interior (3.1.1.2), but that such
targets could be adjusted according to the avail-
able tracts deemed to be suitable for leasing.
Section 3.2.3 states that 'the regional ranking and
selection process should consistently indicate the
optimum tracts for the desired level of develop-
ment... "
"Previously offered, but unleased, tracts are an
obvious indication of market miscalculation and
the need to adjust production targets. But the
statement implies that, in many cases, the targets
will be adjusted to meet the number of available,
suitable leases. If that is the case, then the
production targets serve only as a planning guide,
not as the piston for coal lease sales. In any case,
the role of the regional production targets would
seem to require further description in the final
impact statement."
Commenter 069
Response. The Department will rely heavily
on the DOE projections, however, the regional
targets may be increased or decreased in response
to other projections or expressions of interest in
specific regions. These composite projections will
indicate the demand for coal in a particular area.
The land use plans will determine the amount of
coal available for development The supply. In the
next several years, the Department believes that
with few exceptions, there will be more than
enough tracts to meet demand.
3. Comment. "Section 3.2.3. (page 3-23) of the
Draft Environmental Statement describes a system
whereby regional coal production targets would be
developed by the Department of Energy. We
suggest that the program provide for adequate
availability of federal coal leasing so that enough
coal is available even if the production targets turn
out to be grossly underestimated compared to
actual demand. Although the preferred program
does provide for industry comment after the
regional production targets are initially set by the
Department of Energy, we believe that industry,
including both the coal producers and the coal
users, should be more closely involved in the initial
tsrpct scttins*
Commenters 151, 098, 118, and 066
Response. Before the Department of the
Interior adopts any regional production goals or
leasing targets there will be full consideration given
to industry estimates of demand as well as other
non-governmental forecasts. There are limits to the
Department's authority to involve industry prior to
the proposal of the production goals since the
8-69
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-
91) granted DOE authority to propose those goals.
COMPETITIVE BIDDING
1. Comment. : Competition is for the most part
not realistic as it is almost non-existant especially
in L.M.U. F y
Commenters 1 10, 019, and 135
Response. The level of competition for any
particular tract is often a problem for the Depart-
ment. We have proposed many measures through-
out the preferred program to encourage competi-
tion on tracts where it is within our power to do so.
Fair market value represents another means for
assuring the Department a fair return from its lease
sales.
2. Comment. "IV. The Single Tract Sales
System and Cash Bonus Bidding Method Should be
Used
"The public interest is best served through the
use of the single tract sales system, which results in
lower end use costs, administrative efficiency in
the planning process and a more equitable com-
parison of competitive bids. The intertract sale
system inequitably forces comparison of bids on
different tracts, because adequate consideration
cannot be given to tracts, because adequate
consideration cannot be given to differences in
coal mining, processing, transportation and recla-
mation expenses.
"The cash bonus bidding method, of the five
methods of bidding considered in the preferred
program, is best suited to the government's coal
management goals. Cash bonus bidding maintains
strong incentive for development on the part of the
successful bidder. It also reinforces the incentive
for diligent development otherwise required by the
federal government. Royalty and deferred pay-
ment bidding methods, on the other hand, encour-
age lease speculation."
Commenter 092
Response. The Department recognizes there
are certainly operational difficulties with intertract
bidding, and we will proceed with caution with
implementation. An interagency task force is
presently studying the intertract bidding concept
The report of the task force will be made public
when completed. Because of ownership patterns in
the west, there will be many lease sales in which all
who would be lessees would not be on an equal
footing in the bidding. This becomes particularly
true where a valid pre-existing surface owner
consent that is not transferable is involved:
Intertract sales, in which several leases are offered
in one simultaneous sale, is a means to re-intro-
duce competition into such sales. The promulga-
tion of regulations to govern bidding methods is
the responsibility of the Department of Energy.
The Department plans to continue to offer tracts
by deferred bonus bidding unless the Department
of Energy invalidates this method.
3. Comment. "Provision for intertract competi-
tive bidding should be deleted from the Program."
Commenter 098
Response. The Department believes inter-
tract bidding is the only way it could conduct a
competitive lease sale which included tracts where
the surface owner gave consent to mine to one
company and that consent is not transferable.
Elimination of intertract bidding would eliminate
those tracts from consideration for leasing unless a
new transferable consent is negotiated. The De-
partment intends to support the DOE in maintain-
ing the option of using intertract bidding in
selected areas.
4. Comment. "It will also be desirable to make
sufficient tracts available in order that goals stated
in the Draft Environmental Statement such as
doubling the 1977 coal production by 1985 (page
1-7) and improving competition in the coal
industry through new leasing (page 2-43 and 2-49)
can be achieved. The more that coal is made
available through federal leasing, the more com-
petitive the coal market will be."
Commenters 151 and 137
Response. The proposed program is designed
to insure that sufficient Federal coal resources are
available to maintain a competitive coal market
and meet national demands.
5 Comment. "Similarly, the argument falters
that leasing is necessary to increase competition It
is not ever clearly established that lack of competi-
tion is a major problem in the coal industry. But if
this were a concern of the government, here again,
it has numerous means at its disposal by which to
resolve the problem. It could, for instance, pursue
vertical or horizontal divestiture, prohibit mergers
of a certain sort, use the powers established in
Section 501 of FLPMA to deny rights-of-way
8-70
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
which would give applicants unfair competitive
advantages, make the Justice Department's anti-
trust review of lease renewals and readjustments
mean something rather than the proforma treat-
ment they're given now (See Section 15 of the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976),
enforce the provision of the Mineral Leasing Act
which bars common carrier railroads from obtain-
ing federal leases, and conduct an aggressive
antitrust review when lease assignments arise.
Measures such as these would appear to be much
more effective means of promoting competition
than leasing. As described in the ES, the Interior
approach to antitrust if applied, for example, to the
steel industry, would not be to break up the giants
which are the cause of the problem. Rather it
would be to make additional lucrative contracts
available to them."
Commenter 060
Response. The Department views competi-
tion as a major potential problem. One of the
many concerns of the Department in this regard is
for the pool of potential bidders for lease sales.
Questions of divestiture are beyond the Depart-
ment's authority, but the Congress in the Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act clearly had in
mind that the Department promote industry
competition in carrying out its other leasing duties.
The Department is examining the question of
rights-of-way control. The Justice Department's
review of lease sales has been considerably
simplified in the preliminary rulemaking. The
railroad holding limits are enforced by the Depart-
ment, and the Department is examining the
question of more tightly controlling the assignment
market. The Department would follow all avenues
open to it to promote competition.
' 6. Comment. "Section 3.2.4.4 lists several
alternatives being considered for sale and bidding
procedures for new federal leases. The sliding scale
royalty bidding would increase the percentage
royalty with the value of the coal. With coal prices
expected to continue to rise, this method would
probably insure that marginal deposits or small
areas of logical mining units would be increasingly
by-passed by companies. The profit sharing meth-
od would probably be the worst of all worlds for
both the government and the operators since the
government would effectively have nationalized
the portion of the coal mining industry engaged in
mining new federal leases requiring an horrendous
new bureaucracy.
"The fixed rental method would probably not
reflect a return of fair market value to the
government over the long term period."
Commenter 066
Response. The Department expects that
deferred bonus bidding will be the most common
method used for coal lease sales over the next few
years: As noted in earlier responses, the Depart-
ment of Energy now has the authority to promul-
gate regulations for sale and bidding procedures.
INDUSTRY INPUT
1. Comment. "The preferred program for coal
development is described in the DEIS generally in
Chapter 3. Western Fuels' primary concern with
the preferred program involves industry participa-
tion in the leasing process. First, the preferred
program permits industry involvement which is
both too little and too late. As is clear from
sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, the initial opportunity for
input by industry occurs after the basic land
selection decisions have been made. In undertak-
ing the initial selection of tracts to be considered,
the federal agencies take on a heavy responsibility
of determining needs and balancing those needs
against the numerous other factors impacting
decisions to mine coal. In the final analysis, it is
industry which develops federal coal resources.
Industry's input is both necessary and appropriate
at the earliest stages of the planning process. This
input must occur prior to initial selection of lands.
"Further, the level of industry input is too
small. In the preferred program, only industry
'expressions of interests' are permitted. Western
Fuels submits that industry should be permitted to
submit nominations, rather than merely expres-
sions of interest."
Commenters 090, 104, 098, 087, 066, 068, 084,
069 and 083
Response. The Department agrees that
"industry's input is both necessary and appropriate
at the earliest stages of the planning process." This
was our position at the time of preparing the draft
EIS but was not well explained. This final EIS has
been revised to correct for this poor communica-
tion. Basically, in land use planning the Depart-
ment is interested in the general level of activity
the private coal developers expect in the area and
any special resource information they may have
8-71
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
available that would be important to general
planning decisions. We are particularly interested
in information that indicates the need to widen our
screen for medium and high development potential
coal, data to demonstrate appropriate exceptions
to the application of unsuitability criteria, and
arguments in favor of coal development over other
potential uses of the land. The difference between
participation in the planning process and in the
expression of interest is that between general
interest in seeing further coal development in an
area and being ready to identify specific potential
tracts in contemplation of purchasing a lease and
opening a mine. The expressions of interest are
expected to have the same level of detail as
nominations have had previously. The role of
expressions of interest has been more fully de-
scribed in this final EIS.
2. Comment. Industry Input
"As now drafted, no timely or meaningful
input would be sought from industry to identify
those areas of federal coal lands which are most
desirable for immediate development. The coal
industry will continue to be the developer of
whatever land areas are leased (DES 3.1.8, at 3-
14). Such input in the land use planning process
would serve to focus DOI's attention on those
areas which should receive priority review for lease
potential. This would be especially important in
the early rounds of resumed lease offerings, but
would involve no derogation of the Department's
other or subsequent planning responsibilities."
Commenters 098, 069, 087, and 066
Response. The Department will be seeking
industry input throughout the entire process of
land use planning, target setting, tract identifica-
tion, ranking, and lease sales.
3. Comment. "The expressions of interest
described in the DEIS at section 3.2.5 are not idle
musings of the industry. The expressions of interest
apparently must include maps, geologic data,
mining methods, proposed transportation system,
etc. This data, which can be developed only be
expending great amounts of time, energy and
dollars, can in many instances be proprietary in
nature. Some alteration of the leasing system must
be made either to keep the submitted data
confidential or to give the entity which develops
the data some preference in the leasing of that
land. A plan which calls for the submission of
substantial data which can be used by one's
competitors and does not place one in a preferen-
tial leasing status will not evoke substantive
industry input."
Commenter 090
Response. The Department believes that the
information submitted with an expression of
interest should not be held confidential. Competi-
tive sales will not take place where the government
knowingly countenances one potential lessee hold-
ing information on the federal coal deposit not
available to other lessees. The Department will not
select a favored bidder for any sale. Private
companies must balance the strength of their
interest in seeking leasing of a coal deposit against
their desire to keep their competitive edge over the
federal coal because of the information that they
hold. A similar policy will be followed by the
government regarding information submitted dur-
ing general land use planning.
4. Comment. "We believe the Final Environ-
mental Statement should not only permit, but
specifically provide for, input and use of industry
information in the land use planning process. A
possible means to this end might be a process
similar to the BLM proposed Regional Technical
Working Groups in various outer continental shelf
areas which will address the entire planning
process for OCS leasing. We suggest similar
advisory groups could be established for various
coal leasing regions, specifically providing for
industry representation on each of the groups."
Commenter 084
Response. The recommendation for advisory
groups will be considered prior to publishing final
planning regulations. It should be noted that the
role of industry in land use planning is regarded as
very important to the Department and the discus-
sion of land use planning in Chapter 3 of this final
statement has been expanded to make our inten-
tions clearer.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1. Comment. "Opportunities for Public Input
are Inadequate as Proposed. It is appropriate for
the federal government to examine reliable, timely
forecasting data made available to it by a variety
of sources, thus enabling the government to
prepare its projection and set its production targets
on the basis of the best evidence available. The
3-72
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
importance of such production targets cannot be
over emphasized, as forecasting errors would likely
result in an imbalance of supply and demand,
which could be difficult if not impossible to correct
in light of the long lead time now necessary to
obtain permits and approvals to open a coal mine.
Such information can be obtained by providing the
opportunity for the public as well as the federal
government to initiate lease sales. In the land-use
planning process, too, opportunity for participa-
tion of all interested parties is essential to evidence
the public's priorities in assessing land use and to
improve the quality of decision making.
We therefore urge that the preferred federal
coal management program be revised, in line with
Executive Order 12044, to facilitate public partici-
pation and also to provide for public initiated
leasing.
Commenters 092, 074, 064, 019, 135, 131, 058,
170, 166, 097; 076 069, 093, 203, and 138
Response. Public input will be sought twice
during the setting of regional leasing targets. The
Department will accept expressions of leasing
interest for areas acceptable for further consider-
ation for leasing and will respond positively
whenever possible. Thus, the public could, under
the preferred program, initiate many of the lease
sales. Chapter 3 of the EIS is being rewritten to
emphasize the Department's commitments to
having all parties interested in coal leasing partici-
pate in land use planning and activity planning.
The final comprehensive planning regulations,
which will be issued in June 1979, will make the
process for participating in land use planning
much clearer.
2. Comment. "The land manager is awarded
arbitrary powers in the very early stages of the
land-use planning process, in the event that new
unit resource analysis, socio-economic profiles and
planning area analysis, which are all considered to
be a part of the MFP's are to be done for an area.
There is no provision for public input at this
stage."
Commenters 203, 066, 092, and 166
Response. As indicated at 3.2.5.2 of the Draft
Statement, a public hearing is provided in order to
consider recommendations on the land use plan
before the final decisions are made. Opportunities
for public participation continue throughout the
coal management process. The public does not
have to wait for formal opportunities to present
their views and knowledge to the local BLM land
manager. Inputs from the public are welcomed at
any time.
3. Comment. "CERT is concerned about a few
elements of the preferred alternative. First, there is
no provision for tribal participation in the program
except as a part of the general public. The
Department has made a commendable and appro-
priate effort to include states and localities in
decisions concerning federal coal leasing and
development. States, however, do not speak for
Indian tribes. In fact, they often have interests that
are in direct conflict with tribal interests. Many
CERT tribes, especially those in the Powder River,
San Juan River, and Fort Union coal producing
regions are very near and in some cases, virtually
surrounded by, land bearing federal coal. Develop-
ments of that coal would have a profound impact
on the natural, social and economic environments
of these reservations. Tribal governments are
responsible for managing the impacts of energy
development on our reservations. We want and
need to coordinate our efforts with the federal
program, but to do this we must be directly
involved in your planning process.
"Federal agencies, when developing programs,
often do not include provisions for the participa-
tion of Indian tribes-usually not out of ill-will but
merely as an oversight. When that happens, tribes
are often ignored and have tremendous difficulty
participating in federal agency decisions.
"CERT therefore urges you to make explicit
provisions for tribal participation in the program.
Tribes should be given the opportunity to partici-
pate in the ranking and selection of tracts, setting
regional production targets, land-use planning,
and assessing impacts. Attached to this letter is a
list of our suggested modifications to the sample
regulations to allow for active tribal participation.
"Indian tribes should have been given the
opportunity to participate in the development of
the DES and the preferred alternative. Perhaps
the lack of tribal participation accounts for the
inadequate treatment in the DES of the significant
impacts of the program on those tribes located
near federal coal regions. We feel that greater
attention should be paid to those impacts in the
section on regional impacts."
8-73
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Commenters 055, 172, 180, 079, 118, 108, 019
135, 138, 160, 175, 137, 148, and 057
Response. There is specific provision for
tribal participation in the BLM land use planning
process. The method for accomplishing this partic-
ipation is in section 1601.4-1 and 1601.4-2. This
section describes the methods used to contact
Indian tribes and the intent to coordinate BLM
plans with land use policies, plans, processes and
management programs of Indian Tribes. It should
be noted the BLM is only one party and for this
process to be productive, Indian Tribes must play
an active and aggressive role. The Interior recog-
nizes its trust responsibilities to assist Indian
Nations in their land use planning and resource
management activities and is prepared to assist
any Indian Nation that expresses an interest and
commitment to coordinated land use planning.
Strong efforts were made to give Indian tribes
the opportunity to participate in the development
of the DES on the preferred program. The Denver-
based Deputy to the Director of the Office of Coal,
Leasing, Planning and Coordination (OCLPC)
contacted those tribes with major coal deposits
adjacent to large Federal coal fields. Those tribes
that expressed an interest in the program were
personally visited by a representative of the
OCLPC and were briefed on the development of
the program. All departmental issue papers were
sent to these tribes as they were developed. The
Department offered to continue to work with the
tribes individually or collectively. No Tribal
Government made any request for follow-up
coordination meetings.
The OCLPC is presently examining with the
commenter and other concerned parties what
additional methods there might be to ensure tribal
participation in leasing.
Changes have been made in Chapter 5 of this
final EIS to recognize the impacts of the various
management program activities on the Indian
tribes.
Your comments on the regulations have been
addressed separately.
SPECIAL LEASING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Comment. "Public Body Leasing
"The program for public body leasing should
be carried out under the supervision of the joint
state-federal coal selection and ranking team in
each production region. The governor of each state
should be allowed to review and approve any lease
sale of coal under the public body provisions to a
public body from another state."
Commenter 093
Response. The Department intends to pro-
vide State governors with an opportunity to
consult with the Secretary of the Interior on all
lease sales, including public body sales. Addition-
ally, the federal/state regional coal teams will be
closely involved in preparing tracts for special
opportunity sales.
2. Comment. "In section 3.2.6 of the DEIS, the
special leasing opportunities for public bodies 'and
small business are discussed. Western Fuels sup-
ports this concept but urges expansion of the
discussion in the FEIS to include a consideration
of the amount of coal land which would be
available for special leasing opportunities and the
precise procedures which would be utilized."
Commenter 090
Response. The Department plans to make
sufficient coal available to satisfy the needs of
those firms qualifying for special opportunity sales
The Department believes that this will not repre-
sent a major amount of the Federal coal leased in
the program. The amount of coal supplied to
special opportunity sales but not sold will be
offered in later normal lease sales.
3. Comment. "Special Leasing Opportunities
Provisions are mandated by Section 2 of the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act. The
present Draft Environmental Statement is inade-
quate in that it fails to specifically identify such a
program. The final Environmental Impact State-
ment must address this issue or it too will be
inadequate."
Commenter 151
Response. The final EISs do adequately
recognize the special leasing opportunities provi-
sion of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act
of 1976. We refer you especially to Section 3 2 7 of
the EIS and to subpart 3420.1^4 of the preliminary
regulations.
4. Comment. "The Draft Environmental'
Statement (section 3.2.6, page 3-27) and the
Example Regulations (sections 3420. l^t(a) (2)
page A-ll and 3472.2-2(e), page A-36) provide
tor a 'special leasing opportunity' in the form of a
small busmess set-aside. The authority for this
8-74
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
special class of bidder apparently is derived from
the Declaration of Policy of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 631(a). There is no small business
set-aside provision in the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1976 or in other mineral
leasing authorities.
"The American Mining Congress fully en-
dorses the policy of the Small Business Act to
assist small businesses as a means to encourage
free competition in the private enterprise system.
"Without intending to diminish our support for
small business, it is appropriate to point out that
the authority relied upon in the Small Business Act
is open to serious question. In this regard, 15
U.S.C. 631(a) would appear to be directed to the
'sale' of government property, which contemplates
the passing of title, as distinguished from a
leasehold interest which falls short of complete
ownership. Moreover, the Coal Leasing Amend-
ments Act of 1976 indicates the intent of Congress
to only create set-asides for certain public bodies.
"One concern can be expressed in the context
of the large areas of land that may eliminate from
mining during the land use planning stage. An
additional exclusion of tracts of the remaining
lands acceptable for mining at least has the
potential of rendering adjoining tracts uneconomi-
cal for mining by larger companies and may
seriously complicate the problem of creating
logical mining units.
"Assuming that such set-asides are legal, the
DES characterizes the amount of land to be set-
aside as a 'reasonable number of tracts. It is our
understanding that the SBA will determine the
number of small mining businesses in a particular
area and on that general basis arrive at a figure for
the amount of reserves to be set-aside. Although it
is not clear how this determination will work
procedurally, it is recommended that public and
industry input be allowed at the earliest possible
stage. Only through such early and continued open
discussion of this process can Interior make the
necessary selection decisions.
"It is also recommended that the set-aside
process be accomplished early in the activity
planning stage. While we note that there will be no
special determinations of fair market value, maxi-
mum economic recovery, diligent development, or
other possible financial incentives, DOI has not
indicated how the set-aside concept will impact the
regional production targets. If these targets will
serve to rank and select tracts, early set-aside
information is absolutely necessary.
"We would also note that the application of
terms such as 'fair market value' and 'maximum
economic recovery' may take on different interpre-
tations in the small business context. A fuller
discussion of these issues is absolutely necessary.
"Our recommendations generally have equal
applicability to the special leasing opportunity
offered to public bodies under the authority of
section 2 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments
Act of 1976. This is particularly true with regard to
the early and continued opportunity for input from
the public, industry, and other interest groups.
Commenters 087, 098, and 034
Response. The Department believes that its
statutory, and policy, bases for the small business
special opportunity sales are sufficient. We see
nothing in the language of the Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1976 that would foreclose the
sale of leases in the small business program.
The Department does not expect that the size
of the special opportunity set-aside program will
be large enough to have a material effect on the
normal leasing process. The Department would
run these programs largely on the basis of then-
public purpose rather than on the basis of
satisfying a regional coal target. The probable size
of the special opportunity sale for any upcoming
schedule will be known at the time that tract
ranking, selection, and scheduling begins. Any
participants in activity planning and the associated
regional sales EIS will be able to comment on the
proposed special opportuntiy schedule. In addi-
tion, the Small Business Administration requested
comments on its definition of small business for
coal leasing purposes in Federal Register, March
14, 1979, p. 15514
Fair market value and maximum economic
recovery would not take on a separate meaning
when used in connection with the special opportu-
nity sales except that in computing these parame-
ters the Department would recognize the unique
tax structures that sometimes face such firms, i.e.,
it would not negate the tax preferences shown
these firms.
START-UP CONSIDERATIONS
1. Comment. "We need a new MFP to
consider such socio-economic disasters, and the
Land Unsuitability Criteria need to be changed to
8-75
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
protect our farmland and water. But the impres-
sion I get is that we will receive very little
protection from the preferred alternative because
of the start-up program as described in 3.1.1.8.
You plan to lease in our area because it has
existing MPF and ES. This is contrary to NRDC v.
Hughes, which has already been quoted. It also
violates the requirements of NEPA Act, 3.1.1.7,
where you state that an environmental statement is
needed for Management Framework Plans."
Commenters 165, 144, 176, 203, 145, 148, 167
168, 156, 038, 085, 172, 097, 063, 155, 160, 157, 164
124, 108, 107, 105, 038, 089, 130, 111, 061, 076, 088'
and 148
Response. The Department has not made any
decision to lease coal in any area except under the
short term emergency procedures allowed by the
NRDC v Hughes amended order. Before any new
competitive leasing is proposed in any planning
area, that area will at a minimum be tested by the
unsuitability criteria as updated by the response to
comments received on the draft EIS, this EIS, and
the proposed regulations and by surface owner
consultation. [In addition, the tract identification
and ranking process would consider again the
socio-economic impacts of leasing additional coal
that would be considered for the ranking process.
NEPA requirements would be fully met by
a new regional lease sale EIS which would be
written to support this tract delineation, ranking,
and election process .]
On March 23, 1979, Secretary Andrus respond-
ed to a letter from NRDC which raised many of
the same issues concerning start-up considerations
as are set forth in this section. See the Secretary's
letter, (page 8 77)
2. Comment. "C. 1980 Lease Sale Date.
"These start-up considerations would not be
necessary if the 1980 coal lease sale date was not so
rigid. Both the public and the Department would
benefit if this leasing date were abandoned so that
DOI could take the time to 'do it right' and
develop a satisfactory coal policy without franti-
cally trying to meet political deadlines.
"Unfortunately, we are doubtful that DOI will
halt its application of the unsuitability criteria and
abandon the other start-up considerations. A draft
instruction memo from the Director to the State
Directors concerning planning for the preferred
alternative makes it perfectly clear how important
is the mid 1980 lease sale schedule".
Commenters 168 and 281
Response. Start-up procedures are establish-
ed to allow the best management possible should
leasing in the near future be necessary.
The Department has not scheduled a 1980
lease sale. The Department has set the goal of
having a coal management program in place by
1980. This program would make it possible to have
a lease sale in 1980 if it were determined (1) that
the component of the program that determines the
need for leasing indicated a lease sale was in order
and (2) all the necessary data aquisition and
environmental analysis required by the program
could be completed. Any lease sale held in the next
few years would include all the major coal
management program elements of the preferred
program. They include application of unsuitability
criteria and the tract delineation and ranking and
selection process, and a production regional lease
sale EIS. During all of these stops there are
repeated opportunites for public participation.
SURFACE OWNER CONSENT
1. Comment. "Where a consent has been
issued, the Department should infer only interest
in the tract, and encourage development by
offering such area for a lease."
Commenter 098
Response. Tract delineation, ranking, and
selection will consider all lands available for
mining on the relative socio-economic and envi-
ronmental merits of developing that lease not on
the basis of who owns the private surface rights
unless that surface owner is a bona fide 714 (e)
surface owner and he has withheld consent or filed
a statement of refusal to consent. (A preferred
program policy change in this final EIS).
2 Comment. Page 3-18; "By designating land,
the surface of which is owned by people who
oppose surface mining, as suitable for coal devel-
opment consideration, the local land manager
would create a situation where tremendous pres-
sures to consent to the mining would be brought
on the surface owners."
Commenter 057
Response. The Department will not identify
or rank tracts which include lands owned by bona
fide 714 (e) surface owners when those owners
8-76
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
MAR 2 3 1979
Mr. Jonathan Lash
Senior Project Attorney
Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc.
917 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Lash:
your letter of February 15, 1979, on the Depart-
Interior's proposed Federal coal management program.
I have read
ment of the
I cannot concur in the judgments expressed there.
Jn the letter you state that:
Despite the court's explicit command to the
contrary, the Department has chosen and begun
to implement a coal leasing program long in
advance of completion of the required Pro-
grammatic Impact Statement.
This statement is simply not correct. First, this Department
Is not even proposing a leasing program. It is, instead, design-
ing a comprehensive coal management program. Certainly leasing
would be a component of that program, but it would encompass
awhole range of coal actions, including the application of
planning and land unsuitability requirements to existing leases;
the processing of lease readjustments, relinquishments,
cancellations, terminations, and transfers; the consideration
of preference riaht lease applications; and the exchange of
Federal coal and other mineral leases for environmentally un-
acceptable Federal coal leases and of Federal coal for alluvial
valley floor coal. Second, and most importantly, not only has
the Department not yet chosen a management program, but it will
not do so until the final programmatic environmental statement,
the comments thereon, and the comments on the proposed coal
management regulations have been thoroughly reviewed. Finally,
my approval of a coal management program is entirely
8-77
">6-A9lfo
separate from any decision on a need for new competitive
■leasing. The competitive leasing component of that program
would most emphatically not be initiated unless and until
I decide that there is a need for renewed competitive
leasing.
I am particularly dismayed by your statement quoted above
because of the special efforts made by this Department to
not simply comply with the order in NRDC v. Hughes, but to
go way beyond its minimum requirements. All that the order
required was a supplement to the 1975 final programmatic
environmental statement. Preparing a completely new draft
environmental statement was my idea. I chose to do so in
order to avoid building on a proposed program which did
not reflect the policies enunciated in the President's
Environmental Message, the directions I have set for re-
source management in this Department, and the goals and pro-
visions of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976
£nd the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
I made this decision knowing that development of a wholly
new preferred alternative coal management program and the
preparation of another full programmatic statement would
be a time consuming activity. This was not an easy decision
given the recent uncertainties in energy supply and the
emphasis on coal in the President's Energy Plan. However,
I felt no amount of tinkering with the 1975 proposal could
ensure the full incorporation of the new statutory and policv
directions I noted above. * b>u±±cy
Caving briefly commented on your letter, I will proceed to
discuss more fully the basic issues which, as I see it, divide
US «
First, I detect in your letter a suggestion that the coal pro-
gram development efforts are being conducted without my full
andW«thfmM« CO"currence' Your references to "the Department"
and the BLM and your request for a meeting directly with
me give rise to this inference. If this suggestion was
8-78
intentionally made, I wish to promptly dispel it. I take full
responsibility for the Federal coal management program. As
this responsibility was given to me by the President upon
his appointment of'me and was explicitly *ssi9ne^o jne ^
him in his -May 24, 1977, memorandum directing me to undertake
certain activities in fulfillment of his Environmental Mes-
sage? I view it most seriously. Either I 01 : the Under
Secretary have considered fully every significant policy
op"on put forward in the development of the alternatives and
^alternatives analyzed in the draft P^?rammatic statement.
I directly monitor on a biweekly basis detailed milestones
for the establishment of . the coal management P^gram and will
compl^^
olish dav-to-day Secretarial level management oversight, I
Save even "kef the unusual step of establishing a sp ««1
office under the Assistant Secretary, Land and Water Resources,
!o "lan for and coordinate the coal policy review and the work
in establishing the program.
«t* ic= a difficult and not very constructive £ask to respond
•to nferentialUarguments such'as those -de in your letter
For the record, however, I will repeat again that I have ma°e
ro or secret commitment to resume competitive coal leasing
k^ °ffiQftn or anv other date. The competitive coal leasing
L^ofa coal°mhanagement program «nnot be implemented
until first, I personally choose a program after reviewing
Xe final "rograLatic statement and the public comments on
both it and the proposed regulations, and, second, if and until
^make a separate determination that leasing should resume.
in any Department of this size, ^isconceP^0^fCt":a-Depar?-
readinq brief excerpts from the great number of intra-Depart
Cntal'and intra-agency communications. Despite whatever in-
ferences may be drawn from those commun icat ons, none of^ the
decisions I discuss above will be made until June 1 at the
earliest! I am confident the Department is fully complying
8-79
with the letter and spirit of the amended court order. The
Department is, in short, properly completing the "EIS process
before (your emphasis) it adopts, let alone implements, a
new program be it EMARS II or any other".
The issue which is discussed in greatest detail in your letter
is the relationship between the Hughes order and the ongoing
field tests of the unsuitability criteria in selected plann-
ing units. Concerning that issue, I bargained for and the
Court approved the right of the Department to do any coal-
related planning which does not delineate, select, or other-
wise focus on particular tracts. The order allows the Department
to continue land use planning efforts, revise or alter existing
land use plans, and conduct studies of new planning standards.
I am, therefore, satisfied that the Department has rigidly
adhered to the order in its field test application of unsuit-
ability criteria.
In Part, the opinions you express in your letter would seem to
be based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of identifying
a preferred program alternative. The preferred program in the
draft programmatic statement represents the program I would
have selected last summer based on the information then avail-
able and without the benefit of the environmental impact
analysis in the statement. As you will recall, one of the
principal criticisms of the 1975 programmatic statement made
by the plaintiffs in NRDC v. Hughes— a criticism with which
the court concurred— was that EMARS II, the proposed program,
was not sufficiently detailed to provide am understanding
or now it would function if it were adopted. To remedy that
defect, I asked that a fully detailed preferred program alter-
native be developed and presented in the new draft program-
matic statement. Now, largely as a result of providing a high
level of detail to all interested parties, we are the subject
of criticism that the Department has overcamuni-tted itself to a
program. I have already said this is not true. In no way do I
teel bound to the preferences I expressed last summer.
1C
8-80
statement. These changes resulted ^om review of ' some of the com-
ments on the draft statement. I am confident that additional,
Ejor changes will be made after review °f the comments on the
final statement and on the proposed regulations. As your
letter particularly addresses the unsuitability criteria,
let me assure you that, when I make my decisions on the coal
Lnagement program, I will not be bound by the existing preferred
program proposal. I will, instead, fully consider the
Appropriateness of the concept of requiring the initial ^appli-
cation of unsuitability criteria in the land use planning
process, the proposal to place the criteria in regulations,
and the language of each criterion. I will not commit this
Department to a multi-million dollar, multi-year principal
feature of the preferred program without careful consideration.
I certainly will not do so simply because the Department will
expend limited amounts of funds this fiscal year to improve
land use planning so that the coal leasing component of a
PeSeral coal management program can be implemented Promptly
ill determine on or after June 1 that competitive leasing is
needed? If changes need to be made in the unsuitability criteria
3? the manner in which they are established or used, they
certainly will be made.
On the other hand, I will also not commit this Department to this
decided^ innovative feature, whether as proposed now or changed,
unless I am confident of its value and am assured as to the manner
in which it will work. The only way to obtain the necessary
ievel of confidence is to field test the unsuitability criteria
as we are doing. As you know, these criteria are highly con-
Soversial. Many who have commented on them have expressed con-
cern that they are not sufficiently stringent, but at least an
eaual number have stated that they are far too stringent. I,
clrtainlyfwill not make a decision on. the proposed criteria and on
how and when they should be applied until I have a good idea of
which if either, position is correct. The application of those
criteria now in certain land use planning efforts will provide me
with sufficient information to make the necessary informed judgment.
It is not at all surprising to me that the agency officials who have
responsibilities for running the Department's land and resource
management programs as effectively and efficiently as possible have
used as an assumption for their future budget and work planning
that the preferred alternative would become the Federal coal
management program (nor that they may have occasionally slipoed
from the use of the future perfect subjunctive tense. that
the lawyers would have preferred they use). I would be deeply
disturbed if such planning were not taking place. If it were
not, we could find ourselves either lacking the funds and
the personnel to implement whatever program I choose or serious-
ly endangering other programs by drawing off the necessary
funds and personnel to assure that implementation. The basing
Ot management planning on the preferred alternative is
obviously an appropriate decision for the agency officals
to make, as the proposed action or preferred alternative' is
normally the most likely outcome of the environmental impact
I£!!f5 *.Pr°Se",\ SUCh contin9ency Planning work, however,
should not and will not commit me to choosing the preferred
alternative coal management program.
I will continue to aggressively seek to develop an environ-
m?nua C"y f°Und COal management program which meets the qoals
Of both the President's Environmental Message and his Energy
Plan and to do so m full compliance— in fact, more than full
compliance — with the NRDC v. Hughes opinion and order. I
believe the chances are extremely good that this task will be
von^nHi*! ^rtainly hope that, when success is achieved,
you and all citizens who support environmentally responsible
fnS iCKentr9y ?roduction efforts will join me in welcoming
and celebrating it. y
I am grateful for this opportunity to exchange views on the
If l1S^UeS concerning the management of federally-owned
coal. Should you wish to meet with me to discuss further the
^ h^oTto at Jo" F?dSral C°al raana9^nt Pr°9"m, X would
SfnJ*??* t0 i0*0' J suggest any such meeting include repre-
sentatives of those groups who, with you, ' co-signed the sub-
sequent letter dated February 16, 1979. ■
Sincerely,
8-82
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
have filed statements of refusals of consent. The
Department will not propose to lease any tracts for
surface mining which include bona fide 714 (e)
surface owners' land unless their consent to mine
has been obtained. The refusal to consent proce-
dure and the removal of the exception which
permitted the holding of a lease sale even where
consent had not been given are preferred program
policy changes made in this final EIS as a result of
these comments.
3. Comment. "Implementation Sched-
ule Preempts Proper Planning"
"While the principle is sound, the execution of
that principle, as proposed, misses the mark and
misses so badly that the principle is lost. The
problem with the preferred alternative is the rapid
implementation schedule, which calls for lease
sales in 1980, timed to occur before the November
elections. This creates massive problems in all
program areas. For example, this does not allow
enough time for the District BLM offices to put
into effect the new land use planning system.
"Instead, adoption of the real, preferred
alternative is put off and the 'start-up consider-
ations' (p. 3-28) phase is substituted for up to 15
years, according to the proposed planning regula-
tions (1601.6-3(c)). This substitute is nothing less
than the activities done under the old system,
EMARS (Energy Minerals Activity Recommenda-
tion System), dusted off and injected with life
again."
Commenters 154, 058, 061, 130, 173, 165, 203,
202, and 179
Response. The Department has not decided
to conduct lease sales in mid- 1980, but it is
maintaining that option. It is unrealistic to assume
that federal land use decisions should be held in
abeyance until new land use plans could be
generated. Congress recognized this when both the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the
National Forest Management Act were enacted by
validating existing land use plans. The methods
used to identify potential lease tracts in both the
start-up phase and the mature program are totally
unrelated to previous decisions based on the
Energy Minerals Activity Recommendation Sys-
tem.
4. Comment. "The mid- 1980 lease sale target
date effectively implements much of the EMARS
planning process by necessitating reliance on
existing land use plans and industry nominations."
Commenters 061, 130, 154, 058, 173, and 165
Response. First, the Department is not
committed to a 1980 lease sale, it is committed to
having a process in place that could accomplish
leasing in 1980 if it was determined to be needed.
Second, the Department is not proposing to lease
previously identified tracts. The Department is
proposing to update some BLM plans developed in
accordance with its multiple use planning regula-
tions by applying the unsuitability criteria de-
scribed in the draft statement. This update would
identify areas suitable for consideration for coal
mining. From this point, the activity planning
process would be initiated. The first step of this
process would be tract identification. It should be
noted that this tract identification will occur after
environmental, social-economic, and surface-own-
er consultation steps have been completed. These
tracts may or may not be similar to tracts
previously identified by industry. It will be very
likely that many will have been previously identi-
fied since as much as 85% of Federal coal lands
with high development potential have been previ-
ously nominated. To claim that the Department is
implementing the EMARs program because it may
propose to lease lands that were proposed for
leasing during that program is irresponsible.
5. Comment. "Since there is no provision for
override of the surface owner's decision on the
final lease, it should be presumed that no opportu-
nity for override in the planning process is allowed
either.
"A consistent interpretation and application of
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
is called for."
Commenters 057, 189, 146, 171, 013
Response. The Department is requesting
comment on the following policy. The consultation
and consent processes should be kept separate.
However, during the consultation process, the
Department would remove any land from further
consideration for leasing if the surface owner of
that land is a Section 714 surface owner and if he
indicates on the consultation form that he has not
previously consented to surface mining and that he
firmly intends not to consent during the life of the
plan. After the surface owner consultation screen
has been applied and the local land manager (i)
8-83
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
has determined each general area in which a
significant number of surface owners have ex-
pressed a preference against leasing (preference
areas) and (ii) has made a determination concern-
ing the removal of those preference areas from the
areas which the land use plan will identify as
acceptable for further consideration for coal
leasing, the disclosure of firm intent not to consent
(firm intent disclosure) would be considered.
Those specific lands covered by firm intent
disclosures which are within the preference areas
removed from further consideration for leasing
would be noted in the plan. Those specific lands
covered by firm intent disclosures which are not
situated in the preference areas removed from
further consideration would also be removed from
any further consideration for coal leasing in the
land use plan.
As a consequence of these procedures any land
covered by firm intent disclosure on the consulta-
tion form (within or outside of preference areas
removed from further consideration for coal
leasing) would not be considered for coal leasing
again for the life of the land use plan unless the
ownership of the land changed, either the new
owner is not a Section 714 surface owner or he is
and is willing to file a written consent to surface
mining, and the BLM decides to proceed with a
plan amendment.
6. Comment. "All consents which have been
given prior to the activation of the program, and
which are non-transferable, must be respected as
such. Second, after the initiation of the program,
consent should not be required to be transferable."
Commenter 118
Response. The preferred program explicitly
recognizes pre-existing consents. Transferability is
required of new consents to ensure competitive
lease sales in accordance with the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. Consents are
legal contracts and should be enforcable no matter
who is party to them. The preferred program does
specify that consents are to be individually
negotiated between surface-owners and the coal
company without government involvement.
7. Comment. "The DES does not adequately
address the validity of surface owner consents
obtained by coal companies after the date of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and
before final publication and implementation of the
Coal Management Program.
" We believe that the transfer of any surface
owner consent from the company holding such
consent to the successful bidder at a lease sale
should be based on the cost of acquisition of the
consent plus recovery of overheads normally
allocated to capital acquisitions.
'If a tract is offered for lease under the
exception which permits the Secretary to continue
a tract in a lease sale without the prior filing of a
surface owner consent, the successful bidder
should be allowed a sustained period of time in
order to obtain such consent."
Commenters 096 and 189
Response. It is not the Department's inten-
tion to penalize companies who have obtained a
consent after the date of SMCRA and before final
publication of coal management regulations, at the
same time the Department wishes to avoid any
potential bidder's gaining a competitive advantage.
Thus, such consents must be transferable unless
the company can demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Department that their consent will not be used
to discourage other potential lessees from partici-
pating in a sale. A statement that the consent will
be assigned without extra cost to whomever would
be the successful bidder would be sufficient.
The Department is considering recognizing the
carrying costs of a consent in providing for the
compensation of the party originally obtaining the
consent. Further comments on this policy are
solicited. The Department considered requiring
reimbursement of the administrative costs of
acquiring consent as well as the direct costs of the
consent. The idea was discarded because we could
not visualize a fair means for establishing what the
administrative costs of consent acquisition actually
were. Thus, the Department decided that opening
the reimbursement process to recover administra-
tive costs had just as much potential for reducing
competition as the scenario referred to in this
comment. The Department has included other
safeguards in the delineation and surface owner
consent processes to counter the tendency to only
sell tracts in which few bidders could be expected
to be interested. The delineation process will
design tracts that maximize competition by taking
into account what is known about ownership and
consent process required complete disclosure of
the content of surface owner consents and of any
8-84
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
knowledge of surface owner consent that might
affect the sale.
The Department would not continue a tract
past sale notice without evidence of written
consent. This represents a change in policy as a
result of comments on the draft EIS. This excep-
tion is certainly valid under the letter of the law
(Sec. 714 prohibits leasing, not holding lease sales,
unless consent is obtained) and is excellent public
policy from a land use and resource planning
perspective. However, numerous comments have
been received by parties most concerned with the
surface owner consent provision of SMCRA all of
which suggest that the exception violates the
purpose and spirit of that provision. Once the lease
sale is held, according to the commenters, it will at
least appear that the industry and BLM have
jointly decided the coal should be mined and have
"joined forces" to obtain consent. The commenters
maintain that, even if this impression is not given,
this exception would still have the inevitable
impact of placing heavy pressure on the surface
owner to consent to surface mining— pressure of
the type the proponents of Section 714 had hoped
was foreclosed by that provision's enactment.
8. Comment. "An unnecessary restriction is the
provision for allowing the surface owner to have
final or irrevocable veto power over the leasing of
federal coal. The checkerboard pattern of coal
land ownership so common in many parts of the
west further complicates the problem."
Commenters 017 and 019
Response. The surface owner protection
feature to which you are referring is spelled out
clearly in the law, Section 714, Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act. The Department
has in no way expanded on the protection granted
by the Congress to a certain class of surface
owners whose lands overlay Federal coal.
The complex pattern of land and coal owner-
ship does complicate the management of the
Federal coal management program. The Secre-
tary's authority for handling land ownership is
limited.
9. Comment. "I understand now that the
government is in the process of proposing to
increase its royalty in the coal realms even though
it underlay surface ov/ned by others to two dollars
and a half a ton, so whatever the government
might have to recover in these mining ventures— it
is protected. The surface owner has no royalty at
the present time to come to him to assure him
anything to replace what can and what will happen
in operations of the kind I have just mentioned."
Commenter 128
Response. The royalty payment is payment to
the public for the right to extract the coal resource
on public lands. At present, Congress has directed
that 50% of this royalty be returned to the state in
which it originated with priority for the use given
to the local governments socially or economically
impacted by the coal mining. The overlying
surface owner is also directly protected from
damages done by coal mining under the law. In the
case of surface mining, for the special class of
surface owners defined in Section 714(e) of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977, most farmers and ranchers, the Secretary
must have written evidence that the owner of the
overlying surface has consented to mining. In the
case of underground mining, on the other hand,
the overlying surface owner may negotiate directly
with the coal company for compensation or the
company may be required to post a bond against
damages to the surface owner's property.
10. Comment. "The manner in which such
consultation is actually being carried out at the
present time differs in some respects from the
preferred program, and to the extent that our
interests may be affected."
Commenter 096
Response. BLM State Offices have used
different forms to conduct surface owner consulta-
tion. The results of these experiences have been
compiled and a report prepared recommending the
consultation procedures the Department should
adopt. The Department has decided that the
consultation process and the consent process
should be clearly separated because of their
differing objectives. Consultation aims at making a
recommendation for or against surface mining in
the area; consent aims at discovering whether
individual surface owners will agree to surface
mining on their property. The Department will
attempt to conduct consultation and then gather
consent statements. The final consultation may be
expanded to include questions regarding whether
consent has been previously granted and requests
that, when appropriate, respondents identify them-
selves as qualifying under Section 714 of SMCRA.
8-85
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
1 1. Comment. "The surface owner that does not
qualify pursuant to Section 714 of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 for
the considerations therein mandated by Congress
('nonqualified surface owner') should not be
allowed to distort the competitive bidding situa-
tion."
Commenter 092
Response. "Non-qualified surface owners,"
including coal companies owning surface, are
protected under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of
1920. Such surface owners are protected against
damages, but do not have the right to block entry
to the mineral estate as do surface owners who
qualify under Section 714 of SMCRA. Such a
surface owner cannot block entry.
We interpret Section 714 to mean that consul-
tation must take place during land use planning.
Its purpose is to identify areas where a significant
number of surface owners prefer to have no
surface mining on their lands. Consultation after
ranking would not meet the intent of the Congress.
12. Comment. "We would like to see a
mandatory surface-owner consent screen during
the land-use planning process to be included in the
area's management framework plan."
Commenters 171, 057, 128, and 198
Response. In response to these comments, a
procedure has been added to the preferred pro-
gram to permit a Section 714 surface owner to file
at any time during activity planning a letter with
the BLM district office stating that he will not give
consent to surface mine his land. If such a letter is
filed that land will not be considered available for
leasing until the ownership changes or a new land
use plan is prepared.
Consent to mine involves a contractual agree-
ment between the landowner and coal developer or
broker. The Department does not believe it is
appropriate for a governmental agency to enter
into negotiations that set a price for surface rights
that would be purchased by a private party.
Therefore, the Department will not seek the
consent to mine from land owners during surface
owner consultations or at any other time.
13. Comment. "What will happen in the event
the surface owner should refuse to give his
consent."
Commenters 128, 037, and 146
Response. A Section 714 surface owner has
the absolute right to refuse entry to surface mine
beneath his land for coal. No Interior authority
can abridge that right.
14. Comment. "The National Wildlife Federa-
tion is concerned about the current proposal for
surface owner consent in the preferred alternative.
The major deficiency is that the BLM may proceed
with the selection, delineation, and ranking of
tracts, and may even proceed to the point of lease
sale prior to industry's soliciting the consent of the
surface owner."
Commenter 160
Response. A Section 7 14 surface owner could
file a statement during activity planning with the
BLM district office stating he will not grant
consent to mine on his land. The BLM would then
exclude this land from consideration for leasing for
surface mining until ownership changes or a new
land use plan is prepared. This refusal to consent
policy is a change made as a result of public
comment.
15. Comment. "Surface owner consultation is a
wonderful concept, but, unfortunately, has been
rendered totally meaningless by the statement."
Commenters 203, 057, 128, 092, and 198
Response. A Section 714 surface owner has
the absolute right to withhold consent to surface
mine on his land. No local manager or any other
Interior official has the authority to abridge that
right. No lease sale will be held where Section 714
surface owner land is involved prior to a filing of
surface owner consent. The statement referred to
concerns for surface owner consultation, a statuto-
rily required activity very different from surface
owner consent acquisition. As a result of this and
many other similar comments text has been added
to Chapter 3 of this final statement to explain more
clearly the distinct statutory differences between
surface owner consultation and surface owner
consent and to spell out more precisely the
procedures for each.
16. Comment. "A negative response from a
surface owner as to whether or not he/she wants to
lease his land has the effect of a non-binding
response."
Commenter 099
Response. A change in the final EIS, based
on comments received, makes a negative statement
8-86
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
on consent to the BLM from a Section 714 surface
owner binding.
17. Comment. "There are no provisions in the
preferred program or the sample regulations which
protect the surface owner from harrassment or
from incomplete, inaccurate or misleading infor-
mation by 'the industry' representative who solicits
the written consent. A surface owner is ultimately
assured greater protection, or at least a greater
opportunity of redress, in cases of abuse and
harrassment when the responsibility rests with the
government not 'the industry.' The preferred
program creates an atmosphere which encourages
harrassment of the surface owner. Even under
those circumstances where 'the industry' is present-
ing the surface owner with complete and accurate
information which is not misleading, the surface
owner under the preferred program is defenseless
against persistent requests by 'the industry' to sell
leases despite repeated negative responses."
Commenters 099 and 061
Response. The arguments you raise in favor
of having the government negotiate for surface
owner consent were considered when we made our
decision that industry should negotiate directly
with surface owners. The Department felt that it
was unwise to become directly involved in a
process that is basically a transaction between two
private parties. We have removed the provision
that would have allowed the BLM State Director
to continue a tract lease sale without consent and
made several other changes aimed at avoiding
"harrassment" of surface owners.
18. Comment. "How would the Department
proceed to convince the surface owner that it is in
his best interest to allow the Federal coal to be
developed?"
Commenter 198
Response. The Department would make all
the information on hand affecting the surface
owner decision available so that the surface owner
could make his decision based on full knowledge
of likely future outcomes. The Department has
decided that industry ought to negotiate with
surface owners for consent. The Department does
not seek to "convince" any one of the parties to a
consent as to what may be in his best interest.
19. Comment. "Section 3.3.4 suggests that in
dealing with split estate leasing the Secretary
would attempt to regulate the amount of compen-
sation paid for surface owner consent through
some vague notion of fair market value while
publicizing all consents."
Commenter 066
Response. It is assumed that if a surface
owner asked for compensation above market
value, he would be less likely to find a buyer. Also,
the Department does not forsee the availability of
coal to be so limited that the cost of surface
consents in general could be escalated to unreason-
able levels. In any event, the Department will
continue to follow the Congressional requirement
that it obtain fair market value for the coal it
leases.
20. Comment. "We recommend that the
Department delete from the Preferred Program the
provision on pages 3-25 that provides that tracts
not be offered for sale unless included in an
intertract sale if a pre-existing consent is deter-
mined to be non-transferable."
Commenter 068
Response. The Congress has directed the
Department to make coal available through com-
petitive lease sales. The emphasis is on competi-
tion. The Department does not believe this
directive could be met by conducting the sale as
recommended above.
21. Comment. "The Secretary's preferred coal
leasing program fails to recognize the equality of
the surface and mineral estates."
Commenter 074
Response. Surface and mineral rights are not
always equal. The Department lacks the authority
to lease land for surface mining where surface
owners as defined by Section 714 of SMCRA have
not provided consent to the development of
Federal coal resources under the surface. The
Federal government can lease coal under a non-
Section 714 surface owner without his consent
after compensation or promise of compensation is
provided.
22. Comment. "We were told that the surface
leases taken years ago were still considered
consents, no matter what the circumstances, and
that our land would be included in any planning
done for leasing. They said any other consider-
ations on the leases would have to be settled in
court. By the time the surface owners in my area
8-87
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
discovered that the things they had been told when
they leased were not true, the time delay and the
time to go through the court process made it very
doubtful that anything could be done."
Commenter 188
Response. The consent to mine privately held
surface is a contract between that surface owner
and the coal developer. The Department does not
have the authority to nullify a contract between
two private parties.
The Department will recognize consents given
prior to the passage of the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act as required in that Act. If
these consents are not transferable, the Depart-
ment would only consider putting those up for bid
in an intertract lease sale.
23. Comment. "Some suggestions for an im-
proved Federal coal management planning process
include removing the broad discretionary powers
of the Bureau of Land Management in determin-
ing areas unsuitable for leasing by setting strict
rules and guidelines. In the proposed lands
unsuitability criteria, the exceptions to the criteria
and the broad powers of discretion in application
of these exceptions render them meaningless. The
Department should have a clear, strict set of rules
for soliciting and subsequently utilizing local
public participation from the beginning to the end
of the planning process. This participation should
begin with the Department, not industry, being
responsibile for acquiring surface owner consent.
Surface owner consultation on Page 3-21 should
be conducted by the Department prior to rather
than during the planning process, and it should not
be just another screen for identifying lands that
should not be leased. Surface owner consent
should be the foremost provision of the lands
unsuitability criteria. If the Department fails to
obtain the consent of a surface owner to lease at
the outset of planning, then that land should be
removed from further consideration."
Commenter 105
Response. The Department believes it is
necessary to maintain flexibility in the application
of the unsuitability criteria. This flexibility is
needed because of the unique difference between
the various environments in which coal might be
mined. Criteria are designed in a way to protect
the values considered in the criteria but not
unnecessarily eliminate coal from consideration
for mining. If mining could be conducted in a way
that would not damage the values covered by the
criteria, the land could be considered for leasing.
The public would participate in this process as set
out in planning regulations and procedures.
We can see no benefit from conducting
consultation prior to general planning. The De-
partment of the Interior's proposed coal manage-
ment program can be divided into two major
planning steps. The first is the general land-use
planning for all of the resources, including grazing,
timber, recreation, wildlife, mineral, etc. The
second step is the activity planning stage which
relates specifically to one resource, coal. During
the first level of planning, the Department of the
Interior will conduct surface owner consultation
and will ask surface owners to state their prefer-
ences for or against leasing. The Department is
considering a policy whereby if the surface owner
states a preference against surface mining of his
land and he is a surface owner as described in
Section 714 of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, that land would be excluded
from the activity planning steps. For those areas
where the land owner has stated a preference in
favor of surface mining or has not stated a
preference, those lands may enter into the tract
identification and ranking process depending on
the outcome of the other screens applied during
general planning. We do not understand the
comment "just anothef screen" since these are the
most important steps for identifying lands accept-
able for further consideration for leasing during
the general planning process. The Department has
carefully examined the options for obtaining
surface owner consent and has determined that
this consent should be negotiated by the two
parties that must reach an agreement on the terms
of that consent, industry and the surface owner.
24. Comment. "The Secretary's preferred coal
leasing program has taken a timid approach to
coal leasing when an aggressive approach is in the
public interest."
Commenter 074
Response. The Department disagrees with the
conclusion stated above. The Department is
moving aggressively to end the moratorium on
Federal coal leasing and put into effect a program
that will lease the amount of coal needed to meet
national demand. It must be recognized that the
..,:;L^:.'^,^.y -'■?;;...;.,■,■
_. ■..: :.........■:....■:.. ■. ■■ :■ ■. : . . ■ ■■ ■. . ' . ■.. . ■ ■ .
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
application of unsuitability criteria and the land
use planning regulations is not an indication of
timidness, it is an application of the law of the
land. Coal development is an integral part of the
national goals, however, it must be consistent with
national environmental and socio-economic goals.
The coal program has not been developed
anticipating wide-spread opposition to mining by
surface owners. The surface owner consultation
and surface owner consent steps are required by
law. They are accomplished at times in the
planning process consistent with the guidance
given in the SMCRA.
POST-PROGRAMMATIC ES STRATEGY
1. Comment. "EIS Strategy. In response to a
question by Peabody at the 3 January 1979 public
meeting in Denver on the DES, Assistant Secretary
Guy Martin and other Department officials indi-
cated their 'hope' that EISs would not be necessary
at the mine plan stage. It was explained that the
Department intends to prepare a 'good enough'
regional sale EIS to anticipate the site-specific
impacts on each lease. We do not believe that is
possible. As several industry representatives point-
ed out at the same meeting, it is impossible to
propose a mining plan, reclamation, or even
ancillary facilities until it is possible to obtain more
definitive coal resource information necessary to
do engineering and reclamation planning but
which is unavailable prior to actual leasing. There
is considerable NEPA case law which indicates
that significant technical changes in proposed
actions between regional or programmatic EISs
and site-specific are legally sufficient to trigger
site-specific EISs. Such impacts as hydrological
impacts, air quality, water quality, subsidence, and
other equally fundamental impacts all depend on
site-specific mine and reclamation plans. The
different natures of the Federal actions and
alternatives involved at each level also strongly
indicate the need for separate EISs. For example,
at the regional sale EIS stage, the Department is
evaluating how many and which tracts to lease on
a regional basis; the alternatives analyzed at this
point include different tract rankings and lease
conditions. At the mine plan stage, however, the
decision is the approval (for Federal lands only) of
mining and reclamation plans; the alternatives
evaluated at that point include approval or
disapproval, approval with conditions, and various
technological environmental mitigation measures
which are clearly beyond the scope of any regional
sale EIS."
Commenter 097, 28 1 , and 099
Response. The need for environmental
impact statements on mine plans would be consid-
ered on a case-by-case basis. Environmental
assessments will be prepared for every mine plan
submitted. We believe that the effects of a mine
can and should be indicated at the time the
regional lease sales EIS is prepared in sufficient
detail to permit a thorough and meaningful
examination of the impacts of the actions before a
lease decision is made; whether the detail is
sufficient to make a full EIS necessary upon mine
plan review can only be determined in each
instance when the mine plan is submitted. The
Department will not make a firm commitment one
way or the other until we have operational
experience with the coal management and mining
plan approval systems.
2. Comment. "Another area of concern could
be classified as the regional impact statement and
its relationship to this programmatic. Other speak-
ers have mentioned the Star Lake-Bisti Region. I
have trouble following the rationale which would
allow a regional impact statement to be part of a
national program if the national program is not
implemented as yet. There seems to be a problem
with the timing more than a problem with the
framework in which BLM is trying to make their
decision making. With the Star Lake-Bisti you
have an impact statement which is addressing two
right-of-way applications where there are on the
order of 15 mining claims being considered, thus
the regional coal impact statement is not specifical-
ly addressing the regional coal development. I
think that were the Star Lake-Bisti statement, the
final one on the Star Lake-Bisti, it should be
delayed until the Federal coal management pro-
gram was implemented. I think that many of the
inadequancies of the Star Lake-Bisti document
could be cleared up."
Commenter 137
Response. Should the Secretary determine
that new leasing is appropriate in any of the
regions described in the Programmatic EIS, new
regional lease sale EISs will be prepared analyzing
these new proposed actions and their site specific
and cumulative impacts. Data developed in con-
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
nection with the presently on-going regional
impact statements, such as Star Lake-Bisti, will be
used in the new regionals as appropriate. This and
similar statements will not be used to fulfill NEPA
requirements for new competitive leasing. They are
being completed on a schedule apart from the
programmatic because of the need to do NEPA
analysis proposals to mine existing leases and take
other non-leasing actions.
3. Comment. "In Section 3.4 there is a brief
discussion of numerous on-going studies which are
described as clarifying procedural details and
which will apparently not be the subject of any
further impact statements. Although the Depart-
ment is not encouraged to increase the number of
impact statements for any reason, it is felt that
these studies are so important to industry and
other public interests that failure to at least provide
an adequate public comment period for them
could seriously jeopardize the legal defensibility of
the entire Federal coal leasing program as well as
result in an inequitable situation in which parties
most knowledgeable in the areas specifically being
studied would not be given the proper opportunity
to influence the decisions of the Department."
Commenter 066
Response. These studies, for the most part,
are to simply detail procedures in any coal
management program selected by the Secretary.
Few, if any, of the studies' results would likely
produce significant environmental impacts sepa-
rate from the policies and procedures which the
detailed procedures would implement and which
are fully analyzed in this final statement. More-
over, most of the task forces' work is already
reflected in the proposed regulations in Appendix
A and changes in the text of this statement. Any
additional task force results which are considered
significant will be made available for public
comment.
4. Comment. "Page 3-6, Section 3.1.1.7,
paragraph 3 of the Statement indicates that EISs
will be prepared for each MFP completed by BLM
(coal and non-coal related). Is this statement
correct or does it refer to the regional lease sale
environmental impact statements? The issue of
preparing EISs on land use plans was previously
discussed during public hearings on BLM's Wil-
derness Inventory Procedures, and it was deter-
mined at that time that this requirement would be
excessive (especially since the public is involved in
the planning process)."
Commenter 013
Response. The statement is correct. BLM has
stated in their proposed rulemaking for planning
"approval of a resource management plan is
considered a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
The environmental assessment of alternatives and
the proposed plan shall be accomplished as part of
the resource management planning process and
shall be documented and filed as an environmental
impact statement." (43 Federal Register 58769,
December 15, 1978). We have described the coal
management process as it relates to other processes
that will be in effect at the time the program might
come into being rather than processes we believe
are fairly certain to be outdated. Text has been
included in Chapter 3 of this final EIS comparing
the resource management plan (RMP) and MFP
processes.
5. Comment. "The Draft Statement does not
provide any mechanism for coordinating the
studies required under the preferred program with
studies that will later be required by OSM or
USGS as the lessee attempts to develop a mine.
The potential for wasteful and expensive duplica-
tion of effort is high. The preferred program alone
contemplates the preparation of four different
environmental impact statements prior to leasing."
Commenter 083
Response. The program as described involves
the BLM, USGS and OSM. It is an integrated
program. The Department is actively seeking
means to streamline the coal management func-
tion. Among other things, the Department has
established an interagency task force to study
means of making more efficient, less costly, and
more effective the data gathering tasks at each step
of the coal management program.
6. Comment. "Page S-41: The discussion of
compliance with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act is troubling for the same
reasons that I have set out above. While the plan is
to provide a two-level system of Environmental
Impact Statements, one national and interregional
and one site-specific and intra-regional, both
applying the provisions of the Federal coal
management program, compliance with the Act is
threatened by the preparation of the Star Lake-
8-90
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Bisti Statement and the commitment of resources
which will be the inevitable result of approval of
that statement. Unless the final statement on this
area is delayed and modified to comply with the
final Federal coal Management Program serious
questions about the Management Program and its
compliance with NEPA are raised."
Commenter 057
Response. No new competitive leases will be
made unless a new regional lease sale EIS is
written and the leases are in compliance with the
proposed regulations in Appendix A.
7. Comment. "The Program should expressly
include and provide a Departmental undertaking
that EISs under NEPA will not normally be
performed upon a lease offering."
Commenter 098
Response. NEPA requires an EIS on major
Federal actions, and the Department must do one
for lease sales that meet the statutory standards.
MAXIMUM ECONOMIC RECOVERY
AND FAIR MARKET VALUE
1. Comment. "The proposal to define maxi-
mum economic recovery as 'collective profitability'
would increase the cost of coal to the consumer by
requiring the recovery of coal that the prudent
operator would not otherwise mine. It would be
preferable to continue the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey's current vigorous enforcement of the
Congress' mandate to ensure maximum economic
recovery, as the Office of Surface Mining has
chosen to do in its proposed surface mining
regulations, rather than to increase the consumer's
costs by adopting the present proposal.
"Furthermore, maximum economic recovery
as proposed could require production of coal that
the consumer cannot readily use because it fails to
meet quality specifications for boiler design, or to
otherwise fulfill contract requirements for the
market's coal needs. Finally, the impact of the
definition as proposed would be counter-produc-
tive to achieving the domestic priorities set forth in
the President's recent State-of-the Union message,
and contrary to his pertinent reflection, expressed
in that message, on the advantages of letting the
competitive market, rather than government, con-
trol industry performance."
Commenters 092, 083, 078, 106, and 087
Response. The definition tentatively selected
by the Secretary is to calculate maximum econom-
ic recovery on the basis of all seams in land with
consideration for social and environmental costs.
The purpose of MER is to maximize the coal
recovery from mines and thus to minimize overall
surface disruption. A task force developed an
operational process for this definition that basical-
ly computes the profit maximizing level of output
for each seam. Thus, company profits would not
be threatened nor the cost of coal to the consumer
raised. Instead the Government would, on a case-
by-case base, accept a lower recovery of its coal on
more costly seams to avoid external environmental
and social costs. Because the economic evaluation
would be carried out seam by seam, where coal in
a seam is unmarketable MER will not force the
company to extract it. A task force is presently
studying methods of determining MER in accor-
dance with the Secretary's preference plus at least
two other alternatives. At the request of the
Council on Economic Advisers, the task force will
also do an economic analysis of the alternatives.
The report of the task force will be considered by
the Secretary when he makes his final decision on
the coal management program.
2. Comment. "Requirements for provision in
the lease for a determination of specific levels of
'maximum economic recovery' should be deleted
from the Program."
Commenter 098
Response. The law directs the Department to
require maximum economic recovery.
3. Comment. "The intent of the definition of
maximum economic recovery contained in 3.3.6 is
a good one. Minimization of surface disturbance is
a sensible objective in both surface and under-
ground mining. By limiting the area of surface
disturbance, conflicts with other values and land
uses, especially those associated with wildlife, can
be minimized. But the desire to achieve maximum
economic recovery cannot be the absolute, over-
riding, dominant concern. The definition of maxi-
mum economic recovery needs to be tempered
with a common sense qualifier: The seams that are
recovered within the scope of this collective
profitability test must be marketable. The seams
that are recovered within the same deposit are not
necessarily homogeneous. The diversity in quality
of the coal can be such that one or more of the
8-91
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
seams may not be marketable end-use due to the
poor or aberrant quality of the coal. An additional
qualifier is that maximum economic recovery
should be based upon coal recoverable from
current, existing technology."
Commenter 093
Response. The maximum economic recovery
process has been studied by a special Departmen-
tal task force, and a report on this task force's
efforts is expected to be available by March, 1979.
This study is likely to recommend that the
maximum economic recovery determination
should consider new technology that is likely to be
employed in coal mining within the life of the
lease. Since changing technology may affect the
profitability of the deposit, the tract delineation
would be adjusted to recognize this possibility.
Analyzing tracts in the light of changing technolo-
gy will improve conservation of the coal resource,
and may also avoid processing later by-pass leases
and the administrative costs associated with them.
The MER study is also likely to contain an
alternative for the Secretary to consider the
determination of MER based on individual seam
profitability.
4. Comment. "I am concerned that the
conceptual implementation of statutory fair mar-
ket value requirements may be too complicated to
be workable. The transformation of techniques
that inform market decisions into techniques that
comprise regulatory mandates often yields unfore-
seen or undesirable consequences, not the least of
which are ever more applications of technical
concepts. One example is the limitation on surface
owner compensation, which is tied to fair market
value determinations. I would prefer to see Federal
analysis based on simpler conceptions of protec-
tion for the Federal taxpayer, which I believe was
the Congressional purpose for the fair market
value requirement."
Commenters 147 and 78
Response. The Department recognizes the
complicated nature of fair market value determina-
tions and its implications for surface owner
compensation. It now has a task force actively
working on these complicated issues and expects,
with the help of the states, to be able to resolve
them in the next two to three months.
5. Comment. "Section 3.2.4.3 concerns fair
market value and states that it would be establish-
ed by a discounted cash flow analysis. We feel that
the actual methods used to define fair market value
should be presented in more detail to allow a basis
for evaluation of the methodology to be employed
as well as the likely results of its application.
Inclusion of an example or test case could allow a
better understanding of this concept by the public
and industry."
Commenters 106, 098, 096, and 101
Response. The preferred method of establish-
ing fair market value is the use of comparable
sales. The discounted cash flow model is described
somewhat in a report of the special task force on
that subject which is available on request from the
Department. It has been the position of the
Department that the detailed description of the
discounted cash flow model used by the Depart-
ment is for government use only since it relates
quite closely to the evaluation of bids on coal
leases.
6. Comment. "The State of Utah clearly and
unequivocally rejects the notion that the Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act direct the federal
bureaucracy to maximize its monetary return from
each individual lease, or to use the coy euphemism
employed by the advocates of this institutionalized
avarice, 'capture all the economic rent'. It is a
contradiction of the spirit of FCLAA, the creation
of maximum competition, for the Department of
the Interior to pursue the maximization of profits
like some nineteenth century Robber Baron. The
intent of Congress was to insure that the federal
government receive a fair and reasonable return
from private use of public resources. The best
measure of 'fair market value' is comparable
transactions from state and privately-owned coal.
Such an estimate based upon available data, will
more accurately reflect market conditions — hence
'fair market value' — than federal behavior
suitable only to the most brazen attempts at a
monopoly market.
"An approach that seeks reasonable returns
through a suitable combination of front-end bonus
bids and royalty payments will maximize total
revenues to the federal government over the long
run. Efforts to extract everything the market bears
from each individual lease can actually be counter-
productive to production. At some level of produc-
tion royalty or front-end bonus bid would be
bidders will shift their capital to non-federal coal if
8-92
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
these are available or even other types of energy
resources. The intent of FCLAA was clearly to get
development of federal coal resources going - not
at any cost, but at fair and reasonable return to the
owners of the public lands. An effort to extract
maximum return off each lease can be motivated
by a bureaucracy defensively misreading Congres-
sional intent, or greedily misreading Congressional
intent, or by distorting that intent to frustrate
development of federal coal. Whatever the motiva-
tion, an insistence that 'fair market return' is a
license to pursue monopoly profits will hold down
development of federal coal and aggregate returns
to the treasury from that development. Those
charges for front-end royalty bids will inevitably
be passed back to the public in their roles as
consumers of power, so it is fiction to pretend that
the people experience a net gain from heavy front-
end bonus bids or royalties."
Commenter 093
Response. The Department has taken a close
and detailed look at the subject of fair market
value. Comparable sales data have been and
continue to be one of the bases of established fair
market value. When the comparable sales cannot
be determined, a coal resource economic valuation
(CREV) is conducted in an attempt to predict the
worth of the coal. The Department does not wish
to extort high prices for its coal or to cause
consumers high energy prices because of the policy
it pursues with regard to acceptable bids on coal
leases. At the same time, the Department feels that
it must attempt to recover the same amount of
compensation for leasing Federal coal as an
informed private owner of coal would for his coal.
Congress clearly did not intend the Federal
government to subsidize the class of consumers
that rely on Federal coal. Since more than half the
royalty recovered from Federal leases is returned
to the states from which it originated, we also feel
that good management in acceptance of bids on
coal leasing is in the interest of the coal state
residents as well.
END-USE CONSIDERATIONS
1. Comment. "The DES indicates that the
Department is considering an inclusion in the
preferred program of a procedure for issuing leases
containing stipulations regulating the sale of the
coal produced from those leases. We are extremely
concerned by such a suggestion as it would reduce
the coal lessee to little more than a mining
contractor for the federal government and would
indicate an intention by the government not only
to control the amounts and locations of produc-
tion, as is implicit in the provisions of the preferred
program, but would also imply that the govern-
ment will undertake to tell consumers from whom
they must purchase their fuel. Not only is such a
thought violative of the Mining and Minerals
Policy Act, which relates to the encouragement of
mineral production by the private sector, but its
implications go far beyond the confines of a
federal coal leasing program and extend into the
area of government control of all industries which
use coal either as a fuel or in some manufacturing
process. Clearly, the authority for and the effects
of such a concept have not been discussed in the
DES."
Commenter 087
Response. The Department disagrees that the
statement fails to discuss the effects of adopting an
end-use program. Most importantly, the statement
notes that "Controlling end-use would cause very
fundamental changes in how the Department
leases coal." and that "the consequences of such an
increased Federal role would likely be more
significant to political and economic relationships
in our society than to the environmental values
and standards which are within the scope of the
statement." Some additional text has been added
to clarify the extent of this change, but no
fundamental changes have been made in the text.
As the comment notes, the Solicitor has not yet
determined whether and to what extent authority
for this program would exist.
2. Comment. "DOFs contemplation of placing
end use restrictions on coal mined from federal
leases is without authority or justification and has
no place in a federal coal management program."
Commenters 083, 092, 078, and 104
Response. The comment does not provide
any support for its assertion that an end-use
control program is without authority or justifica-
tion; no specific response is needed in this
situation. As a general matter., the discussion of
this issue shows that these would appear to be
benefits to all concerned if a coal lease was
conditioned on certain end-use restrictions.
Whether there is justification for a full-scale
program is much more arguable. There are
8-93
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
significant costs and risks from involving a
government agency in a program of that type. As
to the legal authority for the program, the
Solicitor's Office has not completed its opinion on
the topic. Comments on the Department's legal
authority should be sent directly to Solicitor, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
20240.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
1. Comment. "Since there is little federal land
in Illinois underlain with coal and the leasing of
this specific coal will not have a significant impact
on the overall development of Illinois' coal
resources, The Federal Coal Management Pro-
gram will not have the importance in the Eastern
Interior Region as it does in the West. Neverthe-
less, the Draft EIS regional projections target
Illinois (as part of the Eastern Interior Region) as
one of the key areas for future coal production. In
light of such a conclusion, we find it disturbing
that the federal government's assessment of envi-
ronmental conditions and impacts is so inade-
quate, specifically the conclusions the Statement
draws concerning reclamation. We also find it
disturbing that the Statement is concerned about
the regions's ability to recover from mining to uses
such as forest and pasture lands, when the majority
of the state's land is prime agricultural land. (See
page 4-9.)"
Commenter 1 1 1
Response. The reclamability text of Section
4.2.1 is based on adequate land management
practices and the fact that natural succession is a
common ecological phenomenon of the eastern
deciduous forest. If, however,the land is not
properly managed and erosion or some other long
term adverse condition prevails, reclamability may
be seriously jeopardized. Forest and pasture lands
reclamation is pertinent to the discussion as much
of the southern portion of this region is used for
these purposes. Prime farm land mining and
reclamation would be conducted within the con-
straint of SMCRA and the unsuitability criteria.
2. Comment. "Page 4-17 discusses various
Federal lands in Texas. Camp Swift is not
mentioned even though a mine is being considered
on this property."
Commenter 091
Response. Camp Swift has been added to the
FES' list of Federal lands in Texas.
3. Comment. "I think the first major point that
I would like to say is that you look at the definition
of the Powder River Coal Region. It's said to
include seven Montana counties and six Wyoming
counties. I couldn't even count that many in
Wyoming that I could figure out that were the
Powder River Basin, as we plunged through it.
"The area then this programmatic speaks to
when it always talks about the Powder River Coal
Region encompasses somewhere around thirty-one
thousand square miles. While this may be the fact
in proper technical definition of Powder River
Basin, it does not speak to where the majority of
coal is centralized and thus to where this impact is
centralized."
Commenter 146
Response. The counties involved in each coal
region have been tabularized in Appendix H of the
FES. The site-specific impact locations are not
known at this time, as they would be a function of
future tract delineation.
4. Comment. "There are several errors in the
description of the Powder River Coal Region
Environment. On page 4-19 the Powder River
rather than the Tongue River should be named as
a stream with a heavy sediment load. On page 4-
20, prairie chickens are included as birds occurring
in this area. However, it is very doubtful that any
of this species occurs in the Powder River Coal
Region. A reference is made on page 4-21 to a fish
species called the shovelnose sturgeon chub.
Actually, there is no such species. The authors are
probably referring to a shovelnose sturgeon or a
sturgeon chub."
Commenter 121
Response. The FES text contains the suggest-
ed modifications.
5. Comment. "In Chapter 4, Description of
Regional Environments, Page 4-20, in Paragraph 4,
it is noted that Madison Limestone water reserves
exceed 13-million acre-feet. We feel that this figure
is extremely conservative and should be revised to
more accurately describe the potential of this
aquifer. In a statement by Floyd A. Bishop, former
Wyoming State Engineer, on the Coal Slurry
Pipeline Act of 1975, H.R. 1863, et al, before the
committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House
8-94
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
of Representatives, Nov. 14, 1975, it is noted that
there is almost universal agreement that the
Madison Formation in this area constitutes a
tremendous aquifer, with estimates of total water
in storage running from 500-million acre-feet to
more than one billion acre-feet."
Commenter 006
Response. Section 4.5.1 has been changed to
reflect that the groundwater reserves in the
Madison aquifer are uncertain and that estimates
range to over one billion acre-feet.
6. Comment. "I am pleased to find that
Chapter 4, "Description of Regional Environmen-
tal Environments" contains several sketchy histori-
cal sections entitled "The Environment and Man."
Since this is an overall management plan, the
omission of numerous historical events, perso-
nages, and sites from this section is understandable
if unfortunate. Yet, it does not appear that
adequate identification and/or evaluation of prop-
erties eligible for or enrolled in the National
Register of Historic Places was performed for the
Powder River Coal Region. The section mentions
no sites enrolled in the National Register and
Sheridan and Johnson Counties alone contain
more that 65 historic sites eligible for or enrolled in
the National Register. Section 4.6 'Green River-
Hams Fork Coal Region' provides an adequate
listing of 50 sites listed on the National Register.
However, Danger Cave mentioned on page 4.6.2 is
located within Tooele County, Idaho and not in
Wyoming."
Commenter 122
Response. The FES contains the suggested
modifications. It should be noted that no survey or
evaluation of properties eligible for or enrolled in
the National Register of Historic Places was
performed for this FES because the specific sites
involved for any given region are not known at this
time.
7. Comment.
4-25, and 2nd Column, 1st full paragraph, 2nd
sentence:
"Fonelle" should be Fontenelle.
4-26. 2nd column, 1st full paragraph, 2nd
sentence:
Should be "Kendall warm springs dace", (not
darem). In same sentence the Utah prairie dog
occurs in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Region. It
is doubtful if it occurs in the Green River - Hams
Fork Region.
4-26, 1st Column:
After 4th full paragraph, insert "The sagebrush
biome is a winter concentration area for golden
and bald eagles."
4-26.4.6.2: The Environment and Man
1st paragraph, Danger Cave is in Tooele
County, Utah (not Wyoming). It is also outside the
Green River, Hams Fork Coal region.
4-28, 1st Column, 2nd full paragraph:
"Seedshadee" should be "Seedskadee".
Commenter 266
Response. The FES contains these suggested
modifications.
8. Comment. "No reference is made in this
management program to the Great Divide Basin in
the description of the Green River-Hams Fork
Coal Region. This formation is a unique geological
phenomenon containing several land forms, plant
types, animal species and bird species peculiar to
that area. The Basin also contains several potential
National Natural Landmarks which have been
identified by studies done for the National Park
Service. However, no mention is made of any of
those potential landmarks. This area is richly
endowed with paleontological and archeological
remains. Surely an area with so many varied
cultural resources deserves some type of mention
in this study. The Great Divide Basin, per se, is
given a cursory mention in conjunction with a
casual composite reference to endangered animal
and bird species."
Commenter 122
Response. The environmental description
contained in Section 4.6.1 applies to the entire
Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region, of which
the Great Divide Basin is a part. The FES contains
a discussion of representative paleontological
and archeological resources of the entire region.
9. Comment. "Specific corrections to Chapter 4
concern statements on Page 4-21 in the last
paragraph in section 4.5.1, the species list for fish
should read 'shovelnose sturgeon, sturgeon chub:'
in section 4.6.1 on Page 4-26 the last paragraph in
the left-hand column should not include rainbow
trout and brown trout as native game fish (cutth-
roat trout should be substituted for these two
species), walleye pike should be deleted from the
list of fish that have been introduced, (the species
8-95
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
does not occur in the Hams Fork-Green River
Drainage) under non-game species the word
'rednose' should be changed to 'redsided shiner,'
and the word 'shiner' should be deleted; in the first
paragraph on the upper right-hand side of this
page, 'Farrow's goldeneye' should read 'Barrow's
goldeneye'; in the next paragraph, the species is
Kendall Warm Spring dace, not daren; the
greenback cutthroat is also noted as an endangered
species. This subspecies does not exist in the Green
River-Hams Fork Region (it occupies the head-
waters of the South Platte River); the native
subspecies of the cutthroat in this drainage is the
Colorado River cutthroat (Salmo clarkii pleuriti-
cus); also on Page 4-26, under section 4.6.2 in the
first paragraph in this section, Danger Cave in
Tooele County, Wyoming, is an error as there is no
Tooele County in Wyoming."
Commenter 006
Response. Agreed. The appropriate changes
have been made.
10. Comment "(Page 4-30) There is disagree-
ment with the statement in the DES that'... none of
the regions are particularly fragile. With proper
soil and vegetative management, all can be
reclaimed to a near-original state, following sur-
face mining.' What basis exists for this conclusion
(e.g., cited evidence of reclamation success on
surface mined lands in terms of species diversity,
productivity, and ground cover density)? We
recommend that this phrase be stricken and that a
more qualified statement be included in the FES to
reflect the fragility of Western lands (e.g., reclama-
tion difficulties in areas with low precipitation and
limited soils, alluvial valley floors, and prime
farmlands)."
Commenter 091
Response: This phrase has been amended in.
Section 4.71 of the FES contains the suggested
alteration.
11. Comment. "Additionally, the Utah praire
dog does not occur in the Green River-Hams Fork
Region. This should be included in the discussion
of the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Region."
Commenter 093 and 266
Response. The FES has deleted this species
from Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region.
12. Comment. "It should initially be observed,
however, that as regards the unsuitability criterion
of reclaimability, several comments are made for
the separate regions which indicate that enough
knowledge has already been generated to prove
that such reclaimability is usually not a serious
problem. See, for example, the comment in the
third full paragraph on page 4-30 to the effect that
none of the regions are particularly fragile and that
with proper soil and vegetative management all
can be reclaimed to a near original state following
mining. Presumably, the Department will not lose
sight of this admitted fact in requiring proof of
reclaimability in any region."
Commenters 066, 182, and 187
Response. This statement in the DES has
been qualified in the FES, to state that a high
degree of reclamation attention would be required
in sensitive areas, the Department will continue its
awareness of reclamability potential throughout
the decision making process of the Federal coal
management program.
13. Comment. "The statement is made here that
"potential evaporation exceeds normal precipita-
tion by a factor of 6 or more' in the San Juan River
Region. Certainly this factor has a direct relation-
ship upon the recharge to aquifers used for coal
development. Yet no discussion of the total effects
of massive dewatering and minimal recharge is
contained anywhere in the Draft Environmental
Statement."
Commenter 057
Response. Chapter 5 of the FES addresses
intraregional water requirements due to coal
development. These requirements are considered
in light of the water (surface and groundwater)
resources of a given region as described in the
Water Impacts section text and Appendix E water
data.
14. Comment. "(Page 4-34) What is the basis
for the statement that '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 germination
and emergence"?
Commenter 091
Response. This statement is based on the
ecological principle of secondary ecological suc-
cession which is basically defined as the return of
an ecosystem to its natural state under appropriate
conditions following a catastrophic change.
8-96
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
15. Comment. "Para 4.8.2. This paragraph
discusses water as a limit on development in the
Region. But it fails to mention that by the mid-
1980's over 40,000 acre feet of water may be
available from the de-watering of deep uranium
mines."
Commenters 0 1 9 and 1 3 5
Response. The purpose of Section 4.8.2. is to
describe the existing socio-economic environment
of the San Juan River Coal Region in light of the
historical role of mankind. For a future analysis of
water availability, refer to the water impacts
section of Chapter 5.
16. Comment. "Page 4-33: The statement is
made here that water from the aquifers likely to be
drawn upon in coal development are of "poor to
fair quality". This is a mistatement, as the
Westwater Canyon member of the Morrison
Formation which is the aquifer most likely to be
used in coal development and contains excellent
drinking water used by the Crownpoint area,
impacts to this aquifer will affect the only good
drinking water available in the San Juan Basin.
Substantial impacts such as this should be treated
more fully in the final statement."
Commenter 057
Response. Chapter 4 of the FES contains the
suggested modification. Ground water effects are
addressed in Chapter 5. It should be noted that
SMCRA provisions prohibit adverse impacts on
ground water quality.
17. Comment. "Page 4-33: Although the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
mandates reclamation of lands which have been
mined, and although the statement here describes
the soils of the San Juan River Region as 'shallow,
saline and erodable', no substantial discussion of
the actual methods for reclaiming this type of soil
is made."
Commenter 057
Response. The purpose of Chapter 4 is to
describe the environment. Chapter 5 contains a
discussion of reclaimability. The method of recla-
mation would be conducted within the confines of
SMCRA. SMCRA enforcement would be con-
ducted by the Office of Surface Mining Reclama-
tion and Enforcement.
18. Comment. "Page 4-34: The statement 'all
areas may be reclaimed if topsoil can be replaced
and adequate moisture is available.' This type of
meaningless assertion makes a mockery of the
whole process of mitigating environmental im-
pacts. Of course all areas can be reclaimed if those
conditions are present. According to statements in
this Draft Environmental Statement, the San Juan
River Coal Region has fragile topsoil and virtually
no precipitation. The possibility that reclamation
may not be possible should be discussed as well as
the resulting possibility that with no, or minimal,
reclamation coal development may well force the
migration of all those people living in the area to
be developed."
Commenter 057
Response. This statement has been clarified
to indicate the area's fragility,
19. Comment. "Page 4-34: The San Juan River
Coal Region is one of exceedingly complex land
status. The discussion here should include a
description of these various categories of land
which include: Tribal trust land, Tribal fee land,
Individual Indian allotments, Executive Order
Land (set aside for exclusive Indian use and
occupancy), Public Domain Land, Private Land
and State Land. Each of these types of land is
administered differently and by different individu-
als and agencies of the Tribal, State and Federal
governments. To merely state that most of this
land is 'Federal' land is to minimize the difficulties
inherent in land use planning in this area. The
difficulties are so great that a tri-partite agreement
had to be reached between the Navajo Tribe, the
Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for the management of the area of
proposed coal activity. This agreement and the
problems which caused it to be adopted should be
included in the final statement."
Commenter 057
Response. Discussions of coal reserves within
the above indicated types of lands are contained in
Chapter 4 does not contain detailed intraregional
discussions of land ownership patterns, because
this is site-specific information beyond the scope of
the FES. Such information, however, would be
germane to any future regional environmental
analyses concerning designated tracts, and land for
leasing purposes.
20. Comment. "Para 4.8.2. The paragraph also
fails to mention the work force potentially avail-
3-97
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
able from a 5-county unemployment rate of 12.7%
in 1977, as the Star Lake-Bisti Regional ES states."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. Although this statement is true,
Table 4-10 contains pertinent demographic and
employment data for the San Juan River Coal
Region.
21. Comment. "Para 4.8.2. The Draft Program-
matic states that regional population is 'relatively'
low; recreation is showing 'significant' growth;
land ownership is 'primarily' federal; only 'a small
percentage' of land is private; in 'many' communi-
ties lack of housing is 'extreme.' These are
unquantified words, and should be quantified.
Similar examples of this lack of quantification can
be found throughout this Draft ES."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. Chapter 4 contains general de-
scriptive data which serve as a foundation for the
Chapter 5 impact analyses. For further socio-
economic data refer to Appendix E
22. Comment. "Para 4.8.2. It is true that the
economy of the San Juan River Region is closely
tied to energy. But, according to the Star Lake-
Bisti Regional EIS, government accounts for the
most employment, with 21.2% of regional employ-
ment and 24.3% of total income in 1977. This is
completely at variance with the data given in Table
4-10."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. The boundaries and consequently
the regional socio-economic data bases differ for
the Star Lake-Bisti Regional ES and this FES.
23. Comment Chapter 4 - Description of
Regional Environments Section 4.9. - Uinta-South-
western Utah Coal Region. A descripton of the
coal resource (types, quantity) should be included.
Fishing and hunting, plus other recreation orient-
ed activities, should be included as significant
economic characteristics of this region.
Commenter 266
Response. The FES contains these suggested
additions.
24. Comment. "Page 4-36: The statement at
issue here is that water will be a stringent limit on
development.' How stringent a limit water will be
must be more fully discussed and here we run into
the problem of cumulative impacts. Given the
massive uranium development planned for the San
River Region and the equally massive coal devel-
opment there is no doubt that water will be an
absolute limit on development. Discussion of this
limitation is imperative."
Commenter 057
Response. A discussion on regional water
requirements is more appropriate to Chapter 5,
which contains information and a discussion of
water availability.
25. Comment. "The twelve coal regions are not
sufficiently delineated. A map of each region
should be included in the description of regional
environments in Chapter 4. For example, the Black
Mesa area in Arizona is shown on Figure 1-1 to be
a part of the San Juan River Coal Region.
However, the textual description of that region
does not include any part of Arizona. The Navajo
Indian Reservation comprises most of the San
Juan Basin, however, the Navajos are mentioned
only in a historical sense."
Commenter 088
Response. Rather than 12 separate regional
maps, Appendix H (see Table H-6) has been
expanded for purposes of detail to include a list of
all counties involved in each region. No Arizona
counties are included in the official San Juan River
Coal Management Region and the text has been
modified to so indicate. For information on Indian
coal in the San Juan Coal Region, refer to Section
2.7.3.
26 Comment. "Hear the end of Section 4.9.1 on
page 4-48, the discussion is directed to the
reclaimability of lands in general and particularly
in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region. In
stating that the reseeding process may take several
years during the drought cycle, the Department is
apparently making the unrealistic assumption that
mines cannot be expected to have a water supply
available for irrigation during the reseeding pro-
cess. On the contrary, a coal mine simply cannot
function without an adequate water supply for
many purposes including hydromulching and
other reclamation processes."
Commenter 066
Response. Section 4.9.1 has been modified to
reflect the mitigatory effects of irrigation on
reclamation during drought years.
27. Comment "The second paragraph on page
4-38 refers to the deterioration of some watersheds
8-98
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
in this region as a result of overgrazing by
domestic livestock and big game animals. Presum-
ably, therefore, the Department will not be so
senstitive to relatively small scattered impacts on
wildlife habitat as a result of the predominantly
underground coal mining which is expected to
occur in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Region.
Furthermore, it is hoped that this paragraph does
not suggest that coal mining companies will have
to bear significantly higher reclamation costs in
order to compensate for such overgrazing, much of
which occurred not only with the consent but the
encouragement of federal land use agencies over
the past several decades."
Commenter 066
Response. The intent of this paragraph is to
demonstrate that certain ecosystems of the Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Coal Region are presently in a
state of deterioration. The paragraph does not
suggest that coal mining companies will have to
bear significantly higher reclamations costs in
order to compensate for such overgrazing.
28. Comment. "Several corrections need to be
made in the description of the Uinta-Southwestern
Utah coal region. On page 4-36 it states that 'six
billion tons of coal reserves are estimated to be
located in this region'. Utah Geological and
Mineral Survey reports that within Utah, there are
22.5 billion tons of coal reserves in place. Also, the
Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8497, dated
1970, and titled 'Coal Producton from the Uinta
Region, Colorado and Utah' states (p. 3) that 41
billion tons of reserve are present in this region."
Commenter 093
Response. The six billion tons figure was
obtained from 1977 Bureau of Mines data (see
references 2 and 3 Section 2.10 of the DES). It
should be noted that Utah's coal reserve base is
not restricted to the Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Coal Region as portions of Utah are included in
the Green River-Hams Fork and the San Juan
River Coal Region. As such, the six billion ton
figure does not reflect the entire reserve estimate of
Utah.
29. Comment. "Section 4.9 Uinta-Southwestern
Utah Coal Region. A description of the coal
resource (types, quantity) should be included and
should reflect variability of the resource. Fishing
and hunting, plus other recreation-oriented activ-
ites, should be included as significant economic
characteristics of this region."
Commenter 093
Response. The FES contains the suggested
modifications, except for descriptive information
on coal resources. Regional coal resource informa-
tion is contained in Chapter 2.
30. Comment. "The tables showing population
and economic characteristics for the respective
regions (Tables 4-1 through 4-12) list employment
in the various sectors in terms of thousands of
employees. This appears to be a typographical
error which should be corrected.
"It would be helpful if the drafters provided
references for the demographic data in this
chapter. Perhaps the most useful data in this
chapter are the socioeconomic characteristics,
especially employment. Yet, without references,
reviewers cannot tell how timely or accurate the
data is. It is apparent that some of the data,
especially coal mining employment, is not current,
at least for the Powder River Coal Region."
Commenter 069
Response. Tables 4-1 through 4-12 have
been edited to remove the term "in thousands"
from the employment columns. The information
for these tables was compiled from the Bureau of
Land Management, Denver Service Center's So-
cioeconomic Data Systems.
31. Comment. "Chapter 4. A more complete
description of the coal resources by region should
be provided and detailed maps of the extent of
each region should be included. Figure 1-1 could
be repeated here. Coal is the reason for the
document, proposed action, and controversy.
"Page 4-1, section 4.1.1. There is a great
unbalance in discussion on the "environment"
versus "history." The authors should compare their
treatment of sections 4.1.1. and 4.1.2. with section
4.3.1.
"Page 4-19, paragraph 3. How was the figure
130,000 tons per acre derived? 120 feet x 1,770
tons/acre foot = 212,400 tons/acre.
"Page 4-29, column 1, paragraph 4. Clinker is
also used to describe burned coal in local mining
terminology.
"Page 4-36, section 4.9.1. A description of the
region's coal and its quality is needed here."
Commenter 041
8-99
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Response. Where considered appropriate, the
FES contains modifications which reflect these
concerns.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
1. Comment. "Estimates of coal production
from the Powder River Basin Region are consider-
ably too high. The high probability placed on the
'medium' level scenario for the preferred program
(Table 5-2, page 5-10 of the DES) is overly
optimistic. In planning for projected increases in
volume of coal transportation, Burlington North-
ern conducts a comprehensive research effort to
predict future coal traffic from the Powder River
Basin. The basis for this planning effort is
primarily utility demand as expressed by present
and future customers beginning with rate quota-
tion requests by utilities exploring the use of
Powder River Basin coal. We also look closely at
the plans of the mines we serve and the contracts
in effect between mines and their customers. Such
analysis convincingly leads to projections more in
the range of the 'low' scenarios mentioned in the
DES rather than the 'medium' level which is
favored in the DES.
"For example, our internal analysis predicts
that total Powder River Basin coal production in
1985 will not exceed 175 million tons. This
production may be as low as 133 million tons if
full-control scrubbing requirements are promulgat-
ed by the Environmental Protection Agency. By
contrast, the subject DES assumes a total of 205
million tons for the same territory in 1986 (Table
2-5, page 5-10).
"Our projections are further substantiated by
the most recent demand forecast (August 1978)
issued by the National Electric Reliability Council
(attached as Table BN-1). This forecast indicates a
total demand from all Western Regions of 290
million tons in 1985. In view of these forecasts, the
"medium" projections used in this subject DES are
highly illogical.
"A further illustration of wide discrepancies
and over-estimations occur in the supply-demand
flows shown in Figures 5-4 and 5-5 (pages 5-107
and 5-108, respectively). These charts depict
expected coal flows in 1985 and 1990. Figure 5-4
shows a total of 131 million tons in 1985 from the
Powder River Basin. Figure 5-5 indicates produc-
tion of 329 million tons in 1990. No evidence
supports this tremendous 250% spurt in demand in
a five year period. The coal volume predictions
used in this DES do not appear to give sufficient
weight to a number of factors which affect the
competitiveness of this region's coal vis-a-vis other
fuels as well as coal from other regions in the U.S.
There are a number of developments currently in
the offing which are now significantly tipping" the
competitive balance away from Powder River coal
as may well reduce drastically even the 'low'
scenario."
Commenter 067
Response. Comment a: The levels of produc-
tion selected are based upon those projected by
DOE. The rationale for the levels is to bracket
anticipated coal production so that planning
decisions can be made. Before selecting regional
leasing targets, the Department would consider all
evidence brought forward on future levels of
production needs, including material such as that
offered in this comment.
Comment b: The production estimates incor-
porated in the Environmental Statement are based
upon DOE projections, but are somewhat modi-
fied. These modifications reflect the many uncer-
tainties concerning future levels of coal production
and energy substitutes, such as imported oil. The
estimates of high, medium and low coal produc-
tion will bracket the realistic range of production
possibilities and accordingly, of environmental
impacts accompanying such production. While it is
possible that the high production level for the
Powder River Coal Region is unattainable, inclu-
sion of such a production scenario as the upper
end of a range of production levels insures that the
Environmental Statement considers all potential
production levels. Additional National Coal Mod-
els incorporating major technical corrections re-
confirm the levels of demand used for the EIS.
2. Comment. "Tables 5-2 and 5-3 present yet
another startling insight into the ES's analysis.
Chapter 2 gives the impression that if federal
leasing is not undertaken soon production will fall
substantially short of the 1990 "needs" - "Achieve-
ment of medium and high 1990 production levels
would require extensive development of new
courses of western coal production ... New federal
leasing would make a major contribution in
achieving such development." (p. 2-47). This
statement is flatly contradicted by the information
in Chapter 5, which shows that even with no rifw
100
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
leasing, national production will be sufficient
tn nw.t the goals of the preferred alterna -
live medium ^raHo fhr 1990! The primary dif-
ference between the no new leasing alternative and
the preferred alternative for 1990 is that coal
production would be more evenly distributed
around the nation. 100 million fewer tons would
come out of the Powder River region which would
be hit incredibly hard under the 'no new leasing'
alternative anyway, its production rising from 37
million tons in '76 to 305 million tons in '90. But
this would result in no national shortfall even if the
1990 'need' was 1.5 billion tons, which seems
impossibly high.
"Having thus failed to demonstrate an actual
need for coal leasing, the Department next tries to
justify the institution of a leasing program by using
other extreneous arguments which have no rela-
tionship whatsoever to the amount of coal already
under lease. These arguments are that leasing will
1) promote more desirable patterns of coal
development;
2) increase competition in the coal industry;
and
3) be necessary anyway to process PRLAs.
"These all attempt to establish reasons for
leasing, rather than speaking to the need for
leasing. There is a big difference between the two,
and absent convincing proof of need, these
arguments amount to little more than rationaliza-
tions and excuses for what Interior really wants to
do - lease. Rationalizations, even if they are
somewhat persuasive (which these are not), are an
inadequate and inappropriate basis on which to
make major public policy decisions. The West
must not and will not be subjected to the impacts
of a federal leasing program on the basis of DOI
rationalizations."
Commenter 060
Response: The Secretary will determine the
form of the program and the need for leasing based
on the analysis presented in this document. The
Department believes there are reasons for putting a
coal management program in place other than for
new leasing purely to meet near-term leasing needs
in any particular region. Also, the Secretary does
not consider forcing consumers to pay greatly
increased energy bills, as would be the case under
the no-new-leasing option in 1990, is in the
national interest. That is the need for coal should
be met under relatively the same level of economic
impact on the economy. In addition, while the
Department is examining "need" for leasing in
response to then Secretary Morton's 1973 order.
The Mineral Leasing Act does not require any
absolute quantitative showing before a lease can be
issued. The program is structured to be sensitive to
possible adverse effects from coal development
while still meeting energy need.
3. Comment. "For example, the Draft ES takes
as a given - as an unchallenged assumption of the
entire study - that there are no physical, economic,
legal, or environmental constraints on the produc-
tion of coal. Amazingly, the ES assumes that there
are no significant multiple use conflicts between
coal development and other resources:
"Development of other resources in the Feder-
al coal regions will not significantly interfere with
coal development under the Federal coal manage-
ment program.
"This assumption is obviously fallacious. There
are very serious environmental and other con-
straints on coal development."
Commenter 158
Response. The commenter is incorrect in
making the assertion that the Draft ES assumes no
physical, economic, legal or environmental con-
straints on coal production. Production potential
from existing leases and from preference right lease
applications has been assessed in terms of econom-
ic and environmental constraints. They are also the
bases for the analyses in Chapter 5.
Concerning the statement that no sigmficant
conflicts will occur between multiple resource use,
it is implicit that, since this is a programmatic
statement, the reference is made on a region-wide
basis. Identification of site-specific resource use
conflicts must be deferred to individual mine plans
and specific lease environmental studies. However,
the entire preferred program structure is aimed at
identifying and resolving multiple use resource
conflicts.
4. Comment. "The assumptions used in the
analysis (5.1.2) are not realistic. The Department
has assumed there will be no delays specifically
related to compliance and implementation of
current best practicable pollution control technolo-
gy related to air and water pollutants. The
assumption is invalid since the terms used, BPT
8-101
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
and BACT, as used in the statement, have not been
adequately defined."
Commenter 069
Response. 1) The assumptions in Section
5.1.2.2 did not address delays related to compli-
ance. Whether or not these delays will be signifi-
cant cannot yet be assessed.
2) Current best practicable control technology
is assumed to be the technology which currently
can be applied to minimize air pollution and at the
same time meet existing air pollution regulations.
3) Current best available control technology is
assumed to be the technology which can be
applied by 1985 to minimize water pollution and at
the same time meet existing water pollution
regulations.
4) The terms such as BATEA (best achievable
technology economically available) and BCT (best
control technology) are defined in the 1977
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments.
5. Comment. "Section 5.1.2 discusses the
assumptions made by the Department for analyz-
ing future regional impact of the proposed federal
coal leasing program.
"One of these assumptions expects that the
production goals established by the Department of
Energy will be met. However, in several instances
early in the Statement the Department of the
Interior indicated that it would not expect to meet
these goals by its preferred alternative. Therefore,
it would appear that the assumptions determining
the environmental impact of the coal leasing
program are deliberately based upon the 'worst
case' situation. Although typical of environmental
analyses, such a situation is not at all appropriate
here since the Department has made it clear that
the worst case is not preferred and that the
preferred alternative will probably be selected with
rather insignificant changes if any program is
initiated by the Secretary.
"Another one of these assumptions is that no
significant delays will be experienced by operating
companies in obtaining any and all of the myriad
authorizations from federal, state and local agen-
cies. The industry would like nothing more than to
be able to believe this, but based upon past
experience and the incredibly complex procedures
of the proposed federal coal leasing program, it
ought to be apparent that such an assumption is
unrealistic. Futhermore, it is dangerous because it
permits the Department to avoid focusing atten-
tion on the many instances in which delays could
be decreased by assuming that such delays will not
occur or will not create a problem.
"The Department is in general to be commend-
ed for the wide range of alternatives discussed in
this Chapter based upon innumerable assumptions
and recognition of the limitations of quantifying
all impacts. This is a basically realistic approach
which should tend to support the legal defensibility
of the Statement. It must again be noted, however,
that far too much attention is paid to developing
what are admittedly unrealistic 'worst case' projec-
tions for environmental impacts. Although such
projections may now have become common to
environmental analyses, it is important in any
environmental statement and in particular in one
of such far-reaching implications as this statement,
that the Department repeat emphatically with each
presentation of 'worst case' data or environmental
impacts that these extremes are very unlikely to
occur and are presented only for the sake of
bracketing and putting some kind of limit on what
would otherwise be a hopelessly vague and
unquantifiable anlaysis of environmental impacts.
The Department has done this in several cases in
Chapter 5. It can only be emphasized that in the
final impact statement the Department should
avoid any opportunity to give those who would be
opposed to renewed federal leasing the ability to
quote statements which would appear to insure
that the impacts will be incredibly extreme. Such
quotes are commonly used in public hearings and
discussions with news media in an attempt to scare
local officials and local citizens into believing that
any coal development in their area will have
devastating consequences."
Commenter 066 and 28 1
Response. The lease to meet DOE production
goals was one of the seven major alternatives
analyzed in this EIS. Other alternatives assumed
higher and lower values for leasing levels. The
Department has analyzed a range of cases, not just
"worst case". The residuals analyses was based on
typical levels of impact. The assumptions com-
mented upon were made in order that the impacts
of the Federal coal management program, required
to be addressed in this environmental statement
could be analyzed. It would be impossible to
perform the required analysis if these assumptions
8-102
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
were not made. If delays occur, they would tend to
restrain production below anticipated levels. Thus,
the impacts forcasted here would not occur for
months or years later than the dates specified in
the EIS
6. Comment "(Page-22) Table 5-9 should be
revised to show which are from Packer and which
are from Leathers. Any references to cropland on
the table attributed to Packer should be excluded
(unless they are footnoted "North Dakota only")-"
Commenter091
Response Packer considers rehabilitation
response units in Wyoming, and Montana as well
as North Dakota. The data presented in Table 5-9
represent the relative nature of reclamation poten-
tial and better estimates of either time to achieve
or potential to achieve will be available only when
specific sites are considered.
7. Comment "(Page 5-10) Series of tables
beginning with Table 5-2. Projections labeled low,
medium, and high show "high" for Texas to be less
than "medium". An explanation of this is not
readily apparent.
Commenter091
Response The high production level present-
ed in Table 5-2 refers principally to production
levels in the six western coal producing regions.
The explanation for the Texas "high production"
being lower than the "medium production" level is
quite simple. Under the high production scenario,
the level of Powder River Coal Region coal
production flowing to Texas is substantially higher
than at the medium production level. Accordingly,
it is projected that the demand for Texas ligmte
will be reduced by 15.4 million tons in 1985 under
the "no new leasing" alternative.
8. Comment. "Given the prognosis of some 1
to 1.1 billion tons per year of coal to be consumed
in this country by 1985 and higher amounts in
1990, some estimate of the fly-ash residual should
be made. Assuming an ash content between 10-
30% of the mined coal, we are talking about
disposing of some 100-300 million tons per year.
Disposal problems will differ regionally, but on a
national level, such a magnitude of often toxic
solid waste could pose severe localized ground-
water problems. In the Eastern coal regions,
greater leaching rates and acidic conditions could
result in significant groundwater problems. We
have already alluded to the problem this could
pose in the Colorado River system. Some discus-
sion of potential mitigation measures to lessen this
impact needs to be considered."
Commenter281
Response. The loading factors associated
with solid waste generation from all the phases of
the coal fuel cycle are discussed on pages H^5,
H-46, H-47, H-48 and H-49. Also the Tables H-
37 through H-89 summarize these loading factors
on a regional basis.
As for the ash content of coals, Table H-31
presents coal ash content on a regional basis. One
of the impacts of solid waste disposal is land
requirements. This aspect is discussed in the
document (see pages H-45, H-56 through H-108).
As for the toxicity of fly ash and the mitigation
measures associated with its disposal, it is our
judgement that the Regional Environmental State-
ments are better suited to address this issue, and
the disposal of solid waste will meet applicable
local, state, regional, and Federal regulations.
9. Comment. "Little or no analysis of noise
impacts has been made. EPA could agree that at
this level of national analysis, noise impacts cannot
be meaningfully evaluated since they are very site-
specific. We do expect that the Regional EISs will
evaluate noise problems on specific communities
and in certain sensitive areas. The Colorado State
BLM, for example, has been working with the
Region VIII EPA office to define background
levels in "quiet" rural areas as well as assessing
how various coal developments will affect these
levels and more typical urban noise level criteria.
This information will be used in the West-Central
Colorado Regional Final EIS."
Commenter281
Response. The commenter is correct in
identifying the relatively low value of noise
analyses at the national programmatic level. The
Department does anticipate that noise impact
analysis will be incorporated in the various
Regional EISs and treated at length in the site-
specific studies preceeding any actual coal produc-
tion.
In the site-specific studies, in-depth consider-
ation of transportation noise impacts, especially
rail and truck, will be expected. Also, potential
increases in background noise levels in the "quiet"
rural areas noted in the comment will be evaluated
8-103
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
vis-a-vis increased levels of activities throughout
the coal development cycle.
10. Comment. "C. A further assumption of the
ES is that 'Labor, equipment, and capital shortages
will not significantly distort the projected levels or
timing of the Federal coal management program.'
(p. 5-3). In other words, none of these factors will
inhibit the doubling of coal production by 1985,
which is President Carter's stated goal and one of
the goals of the preferred alternative.
"Common sense, the industry, and the General
Accounting Office all disagree with this blithe
assumption. For example, on June 9, 1977, the
Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story entitled
'Increasing Use of Coal as President Proposes
Faces Myriad Problems; Among Them: Mine
Capital, Pollution, Transportation, and Industry's
Resistance.' The article began: At first, President
Carter's plan to increase coal use significantly by
1985 seemed difficult. On closer scrutiny, it looks
almost impossible.' Once again, it is typical that
everyone recognizes real-world constraints on the
demand and supply of coal except the Depart-
ment."
Commenters 060 and 200
Response. The assumption is made so that
the analysis of impacts due solely to the Federal
coal management program can be made. The
environmental statement is required to analyze
these impacts; speculation on the effects of
shortages of labor, equipment and capital would
delay implementation of the program, but not its
impacts. The assumption that these shortages will
not arise is at least as reasonable as assumption
that they will.
11. Comment. "Since coal transportation costs
are one of the variables included in the DOE
model, it is instructive to see how the model's
assumptions correspond to the real situation in the
industry. First of all, we see that the mid-range
figures are based on 1977 ICC rates escalated at an
inflation of 5.5%. One does not need to be an
economist to know that our present inflation rates
are significantly higher, and that by 1990 the
difference between the two could have an appreci-
able effect on coal movement which, of course, is
not reflected in the DOE model as presently
iterated. Furthermore, those 1977 rates are, ac-
cording to the railroad industry, grossly inade-
quate to finance the capital expansion which they
need. In early 1978, for example, Burlington
Northern and Southern Pacific applied to the ICC
for permission to raise their coal haulage rates 52%
on the Wyoming to San Antonio run. They argued
that they needed the rate increase to be able to
raise capital, but opponents said that such a boost
would have a serious effect on efforts to increase
coal production because it would wipe out the
competitive advantage of coal relative to other
fuels. Wall Street Journal, May 16, 1978, p. 17. The
ES nowhere analyzes this argument, probably
because it uses even older rates. The DOE model
should be recalibrated accordingly. Of course,
even this will not solve the more basic problem
that the model and the ES's analysis of need in
general have not dealt with the issue of equipment
shortages and timing problems of building enough
cars, locomotives, and additional lines to increase
coal haulage by some 800% by 1990."
Commenter 060
Response. In the example cited above, the
Interstate Commerce Commission authorized coal
haulage rates to San Antonio approximately 50
percent higher than the rates informally discussed
(but not requested) among the railroads and the
utility. It is agreed that the DOE model should be
modified to more accurately reflect future rail
rates. If not, the Department of the Interior would
take them into account during regional target
setting in the future. However, such an adjustment
at this time would be most difficult since there is
no established rate structure for the movement of
western coal. The establishment of such a rate
structure is the subject of an on-going Interstate
Commerce Commission investigation entitled Ex
Parte No. 274. As part of its analysis, the
Commission will address the relationship of rail
freight rates on the demand, location, and timing
of western coal, development. Changes in factors
such as these will, under the preferred program, be
taken into consideration in 2-year intervals.
12. Comment. "Para. 5.1.2.1. This paragraph
should acknowledge that other resource develop-
ments (e.g., uranium in northwest New Mexico)
will make an increased base load energy demand
by 1985 of more than 300 megawatts."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. Although this fact may be valid, it
may or may not have been an assumption used in
the impact analysis. The level of demand used in
8-104
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
the DOE energy model does take some account of
specific coal users, but relies mostly on statistical
forecasting techniques and modeling The FES also
assumes that the development of other resources in
the Federal coal regions will not significantly
interfere with coal development under the Federal
coal management program. The FES did not
investigate future individual, specific power plant
sites. The FES did not investigate
13. Comment. " The Statement's assessment of
the water impacts of the preferred program is
inadequate due to the use of incorrect assumptions
in some cases and to the failure to explain
assumptions in others. Because the presentation of
the Department's analysis of the program is overly
general in a number of respects, it is difficult to
determine whether the assessment of impacts is
complete.
"(1) For example, the estimates of future water
consumption are not broken down into uses,
making it impossible to compare water usage
associated with coal development to water usage
for other activities. There is also no description of
the assumptions that were used in estimating
future water requirements (for example, the annual
amount of water used by a standard-size coal
gasification plant).
"Some of the data indicate extraordinary
assumptions: for example consumptive water use
decreases in the Denver-Raton Coal Region
between 1976 and 1985, and in the Powder River
Coal Region between 1985 and 1990. (Tables E-6
and E-ll) Present trends in both of these regions
indicate growing water demand. (2) Another
inadequacy of the analysis is that estimates of
available water in each region are taken from
streamflow data of major rivers at the downstream
end of each region, (p. 5-57) Using these data as
estimates of water availability ignores the problem
of water distribution within the region. Examina-
tion of this problem in the statement is totally
inadequate."
Commenter 089
Response. 1. The estimates presented in
Tables E-6 and E-ll were derived from Water
Resource Council data. The decreases in consump-
tions cited for the two regions (2.2 percent and 6.6
percent) are gross projections which must be
refined in the regional case sale environmental
statements.
2. It is agreed that estimates of available water
in each region could be more accurate. However
this programmatic environmental impact state-
ment will be followed by regional lease sale
environmental impact statements wherein more
accurate water availability estimates will be pre-
sented. The data presented was deemed adequate
enough to satisfy the needs of this statement.
14. Comment. "Page 5-7: "In the Coal Impact
Estimation Program no mechanism for determin-
ing or mitigating impacts to water quantity is
included. Since the reduction of water quantity in
the aquifers of the San Juan River Region is a
certainty given the development planned for the
area, this issue should be addressed in any
estimation of coal impacts."
Commenter 057
Response. The CIEP is a methodological
approach used to quantify and estimate environ-
mental impacts associated with specific program
alternatives. Mitigation of such impacts is not a
part of the CIEP. Impact mitigation is addressed in
Chapter 6 of the draft programmatic environmen-
tal statement. In that chapter, mitigation measures
are considered on a generic basis. Specific mitiga-
tion measures for impacts within a region should
properly be addressed in the appropriate regional
environmental statement.
15. Comment. "The principal component of
chapter five's environmental assessment is the
determination of environmental residuals which
result from various coal production levels and
patterns identified by the Department in Table 5-2
and Appendix H. These production projections are
somehow derived from Department of Energy
projections. The process for converting from DOE
to DOI projections is entirely conjectural. Appen-
dix H could not explain the basis of the conver-
sion, and Departmental personnel were hard
pressed to explain it in public meetings. One of the
reasons for the adjustments is well justified— the
inaccuracy of the DOE projections as described in
these comments, supra. However, the adjustments
do not reflect what we believe are rational attempts
to correct DOE's errors. For example, Powder
River production projections are untouched by
DOI's adjustments, except for the 1985 High
Powder River estimate, which is actually 70 million
tons higher than DOE's estimate!
8-105
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
"Further comparing Tables 5-2 (DOE projec-
tions) and 2-29 (DOE estimates), we find that
Interior's estimates for 1985 production exceed
DOE's forecasts in five regions and throughout the
West by 145 million tons, (high level). In 1990, the
DOI medium and high estimates each exceed
DOE's in three regions and throughout the West
by 94 million tons for the high level. When asked
about these inconsistencies at the Denver, Colora-
do DES hearing, Departmental personnel indicat-
ed that the Coal Management Office had arbitrari-
ly adjusted some of the projections in order to
observe what would happen to the environmental
impacts. Based on this explanation, we believe that
the projections do not actually indicate the regional
productions which could be expected under the
preferred alternative, or for that matter, any other
program. Hence, the environmental loadings
which result from application of the Coal Impact
Estimation Program (CIEP) to these production
projections do not represent the environmental
impacts of the preferred program. Prior to analysis
of the preferred alternative, the Department must
more clearly explain the process for disaggregation
and conversion beyond the description provided in
H.2.2 to allow a more accurate picture of the
actual regional production targets and thus the
impacts resulting therefrom."
Commenter 097
Response. The production estimates incorpo-
rated in the Environmental Statement are based
upon DOE projections, but are somewhat modi-
fied. These modifications reflect the many uncer-
tainties concerning future levels of coal production
and energy substitutes, such as imported oil. The
estimates of high, medium and low coal produc-
tion will bracket the realistic range of production
possibilities and accordingly, of environmental
impacts accompanying such production. While it is
possible that the high production level for the
Powder River Coal Region is unattainable, inclu-
sion of such a production scenario as the upper
end of a range of production levels insures that the
Environmental Statement considers all potential
production levels.
16. Comment. "Socioeconomic impacts are
relegated to insignificance by the environmental
residual methodology of the DES. By their very
nature, these impacts are local but extreme. The
DES prefers to ignore the isolation of extreme
impacts to very local populations, preferring to
sum population and employment impacts over vast
tracts of land which have no relevance to the
evaluation of social impacts. For example, the
Powder River region includes thirteen countries,
but residents indicate that most development has
concentrated and can be expected to concentrate
in the future on Campbell county. The Denver-
Raton Mesa region includes the Denver metropoli-
tan area, yet most of the industry interest is in the
Raton Mesa area in relatively underpopulated
southern Colorado, certainly outside of the major
portion of the 1.9 million population attributed to
the coal producing region. In each case, comparing
coal related population increases to a 1975 baseline
which includes the entire region makes absolutely
no analytic sense. Any population impacts should
be compared to baseline population in the locally
affected communities, individually. A program-
matic statement may not be able to evaluate each
and every community, but could certainly indicate
hkely impacts in the more important communities
in the affected regions."
Commenter 097
Response. The nature of a programmatic
statement necessitates comparisons on a very
broad basis particularly when such vast regions are
under analysis. It has been stated in the document
that such a general approach should serve only as a
first step toward identifying potential areas of
adverse impact that vary from region to region.
While this has been accomplished by the analysis,
it is agreed that individual communities within any
one of the regions may be more severely affected.
However, analysis of such local impacts are
beyond the scope of the programmatic statement
and can only be identified in the more site specific
analyses that must be initiated as development
occurs. The regional lease sale EIS under the
preferred program would be mainly aimed at
analyzing such problems.
17. Comment. "The heavy environmental
considerations; primarily sociologic, included in
the proposed federal leasing program promote and
urge the development of underground coal mining
versus surface mining because of less apparent
environmental impacts."
Commenter 073
Response. We disagree. The sociologic
changes associated with underground mining may
8-106
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
be greater than those associated with surface
mining because of the greater number of people
needed to produce a given amount of coal from an
underground mine vs. a surface mine.
18. Comment. "Another equally erroneous
assumption is stated openly on page 5-3, 'Develop-
ment of other resources in the Federal coal regions
will not significantly interfere with coal develop-
ment under the Federal coal management pro-
gram.'
"The Minerals Division of the Department of
Economic Planning and Development (DEPAD)
of Wyoming recently published a report on
industrial activity which indicated Uranium em-
ployment will outstrip coal employment by 1983.
(7394 to 6733 workers). In 1977, 2969 people
worked in the Uranium industry in Wyoming, and
produced 9 million pounds of yellowcake. In 1983,
7394 workers are expected to bring 25 million
pounds to market. Interior must understand that
Wyoming, (and to a large extent Campbell
County), holds approximately 35% of the nation's
Uranium reserves.
"The pressures to develop this resource are
intense, and in many senses, unrestricted. There is
no leasing program for Uranium. Since a good
deal of Uranium activity will take place in
Campbell and Converse Counties, Interior has an
obligation to detail the impacts of that develop-
ment, and how, in fact, it will interfere with
Federal coal leasing.
"NOTE: In 1978, 11 Uranium mines and one
mill were in operation in Converse County. In the
period 1979-1985, 25 new mines and a new mill are
expected in Converse County. In addition, 6 new
Uranium mines and 2 mills are expected in
Campbell County, and 4 mines are anticipated in
Johnson County. (Mineral Development Monitor-
ing System, DEPAD)."
Commenterll8
Response. The assumptions listed in Section
5.1.2.1 were made in order for the analysis to
proceed. With regard to the assumption cited, the
impacts of uranium development may be impor-
tant but the quantification of those impacts is
beyond the scope of this environmental statement.
The summary of impacts for the Powder River
Coal Region in Section 5.2.5 emphasizes the
concern expressed in the comment. Conflicts
between uranium and coal production would be
addressed in Federal land use planning EISs.
Generally, they are not expected to cause signifi-
cant dislocations.
19. Comment. "Table 5-12. 1990 figures are the
same for the San Juan River Region and for the
Uinta-Southwest Utah Region. One or the other is
wrong."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. The data in Table 5-12 of the DES
are being checked to eliminate typographical
errors and incorporate new data on water con-
sumption in western coal regions.
20. Comment. "5-8.2: You should note that in
the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region nesting
areas for golden eagles and winter roosting
concentration areas for bald eagles would be
potentially affected."
Commenter 266
Response. The suggested language has been
added to the FES.
21. Comment. "5-8.1: Green River-Hams Fork
Coal Region: The endangered fishes mentioned
are not supported by "the cold, clear waters of the
Green River system." These endemic Colorado
Basin fishes require the turbid, relatively warm
waters of the lower elevations. The conversion of
warm turbid waters to clear, cold waters by
construction of reservoirs that trap sediment and
lower summer temperatures is one of the main
reasons for the decline of these species."
Commenters 266 and 093
Response. Concur; humpback chub and
Colorado squawfish removed from section. Senten-
ce changed to read "The waters of the Green River
...". Kendal Warm Spring Dace remains based on
the inclusion of Kendal Warm Spring in our region
as mapped.
22. Comment. In Section 5.2.3.3, pages 5-81, the
"...cold clear waters of the Green River...." in the
Green River-Hams Fork Region are described as
supporting the endangered hampback chub, Colo-
rado squawfish and Kendall warmsprings dace.
This is totally untrue. The humpback chub and
squawfish are restricted to lower quality, turbid
waters of the Co1 or ado River System and the dace
to Kendall Warm Springs in Wyoming.
Commenter 266
Response. "Cold clear" has been removed
from the sentence since Green River includes both
8-107
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
higher altitude "cold" water feeder streams and
rivers typical of lower attitude. "Colorado squawf-
ish" and "humpback chub" references have been
removed from Green River-Hams Fork Region
discussion. However, based on our region as
mapped Kendall Warm Springs does fall into the
Green River-Hams Fork, Coal Region.
23. Comment. "Water quantity and water
quality relationships in the different coal regions
should be better identified. In particular, activities
in the Colorado River Basin need to focus closely
on salinity problems, using data from recognized
sources such as the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Forum to predict cumulative water quality im-
pacts. The Department will need to closely assess
the potentially serious problem of trace metal
contamination developing from mining operations
in a number of coal producing regions."
Commenter 28 1
Response. The comment requests that mining
activity and salinity problems in the Colorado
River Basin be addressed in the draft EIS.
1) Recognizing the seriousness of the problem
in the Colorado River Basin a paragraph was
incorporated on page 5-44 to point out the issue at
this stage. The paragraph reads as follows:
"To minimize the deleterious impacts on the
Colorado River of saline drainage waters resulting
from operation of mines and coal-using facilities,
these facilities should operate in accordance with
the policy, adopted by the seven-state Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum and the states
of the Colorado River Basin, of no-salt returns in
industrial discharges, wherever practicable. This
policy has been followed by the states and the
Environmental Protection Agency in the issuance
of National Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem permits in the Colorado River Basin. Adher-
ence to this policy will minimize the salinity
deterioration below Hoover Dam."
2) It is true that trace metal contamination
resulting from mining operations poses a serious
problem to the environment, however it is not the
intent of this programmatic Environmental State-
ment to go into such details. Regional Environ-
mental Statements may be better suited to address
this issue. This issue is discussed qualitatively in
the final EIS.
24. Comment. "The potential impact of
subsidence on water availability in springs and
seeps, water and mesic micro-habitat sources
extremely important to wildlife, is not adequately
addressed in Section 5.2.2.6, pages 5-26.
Commenter 266
Response. Any area adjoining an excavation
is normally subjected to increased stress as a
consequence of the redistribution of load. This
may be at the front of, or at the sides or rear of, a
working face. Changes, diversions, or pollution of
surface or underground water may occur, and pits
and cracks may result due to these stresses,
resulting in increase of soil moisture in same areas.
A change in soil moisture may lead to a change in
plant cover which would result in a change in
wildlife habitats. These changes are highly site
specific and could be beneficial or detrimental to
wildlife."
25. Comment. "Under the discussion of geologic
impacts from coal extraction, the EIS categorizes
impacts on archaeologic resources as site-specific.
While this is ultimately the case, we wonder
whether the proposed BLM-USGS assessment
mechanism could not at least identify regional
locations where there is a high probability of
certain strata containing archaeological fossil
remains. Those strata likely to be affected by coal
mining enterprises need to be identified early in
the process. Eventually limited areas of such strata
might be included under unsuitability criteria, if
the potential resource is valuable enough."
Commenter 28 1
Response. While it is true that certain regions
are presently known to have a higher probability
for containing archaeological remains, this knowl-
edge is more often the result of the intensity of
investigations in the particular region rather than a
definitive knowledge that the region has more sites
(or a greater probability of sites) than another
region. Unfortunately, the present level of archaeo-
logical knowledge of the various regions does not
allow any particular region to be singled out as
having a low probability for sites and thus would
be a better location for mining than a region with a
high probability. The leasehold specific or county
specific survey is still a definite requirement.
26. Comment. "Page 5-24, Section 5.2.2.3.
Surface mining is not the only phase with geologi-
cal impacts. Subsidence and reclamation resulting
from underground operations should also be
discussed here."
8-108
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Commenter 041
Response. Geological impacts (subsidence)
due to underground mining are discussed in
Section 5.3.2.3. Reclamation is discussed in Sec.
5.3.2.6.
27. Comment, "page 5-25, Section 5.2.2.4. No
discussion of depletion should omit the quantity of
coal in the United States and the fact that this coal
could last on the order of 250 or 500 years."
Commenter 041
Response. Section 5.3.2.4 and Section 7.2
discuss the amounts of coal that would be depleted
in the years 1985 and 1990, and Table 2-1 presents
demonstrated reserves in the U.S. How long these
reserves will last depends on many variables such
as technology, future energy sources, health ef-
fects, policy, etc.
28. Comment. "Page 5-102, table 5-60. What is
the royalty rate used in calculation? Were the
current Federal royalty rates of 8 percent and 12
1/2 percent used? Was the royalty rate applied to
the present price of coal or the expected price in
1985 and 1990?"
Commenter 041
Response. Yes, the Federal Royalty rates of 8
and 12 1/2 percent were used to compute projected
royalties shown in Table 5-60 for the years 1985
and 1990. Also these rates were applied to an
assumed coal price of $20 per ton in 1978 dollars.
29. Comment. "Page 5-128, Table 5-70. Why is
the standard of 1,750 tons/acre foot, which is used
only for calculating lignite reserves, applied to
surface disturbance of coal lands with higher rank
coals? Mining of higher rank coals will disturb
fewer acres."
Commenter 091
Response. 1750 tons of coal per acre foot is
the widely accepted number for calculating ton-
nage from seam thickness. On a weighted average
basis, this number is representative of most coals.
This same number was also used in U.S. Energy,
Research and Development Administration, 1977.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement — Coal
Research, Development and Demonstration Pro-
gram, Washington, D.C.
30. Comment. "Page 5-154, note (a) at bottom.
A matter that affects "almost all of Utah land" and
favors leasing there should warrant appropriate
treatment elsewhere in the EIS.
Commenter 091
Response. The unsuitablility criteria as tested
represented a draft version of the criteria. Results
of the unsuitability criteria field test should be
considered as representative of the effect of
applying the draft criteria to potential lease areas.
Subsequent versions of the criteria will, in all
probability, result in substantial revisions to
estimate of the land areas affected. Accordingly,
the data presented in Table 5-73 should be viewed
as preliminary, although representative, data.
Additional data will be available by May, 1979, for
on-going applications of the revised criteria in
selected planning areas.
31. Comment. . "(Page 5-94) With regard to the
DES's discussion of impacts on agriculture, the
DES should include a discussion of the alluvial
valley floor protection provisions of SMCRA in
addition to the prime farmland provisions."
Commenter 091
Response. Section 5.3.4.3 is being revised to
reflect the provisions of SMCRA vis-a-vis alluvial
valley floor protection.
32. Comment.. "Archaeological Analysis. Under
the discussion of geologic impacts from coal
extraction, the EIS categorizes impacts on ar-
chaeologic resources as site-specific. While this is
ultimately the case, we wonder whether the
proposed BLM-USGS assessment mechanism
could not at least identify regional locations where
there is a high probability of certain strata
containing archeological fossil remains. Those
strata likely to be affected by coal mining enter-
prises need to be identified early in the process.
Eventually limited areas of such strata might even
be included under unsuitability criteria, if the
potential resource is valuable enough.
Commenter 281
Response. While it is true that certain regions
are presently known to have a higher probability
for containing archaeological remains, this knowl-
edge is more often the result of the intensity of
investigations in the particular region. Unfortu-
nately, the present level of archaeological knowl-
edge of the various regions does not allow any
particular region to be singled out as having a low
probabilitly for sites and thus would be a better
location for mining than a region with a high
probability. The leasehold-specific or county-spe-
cific survey is still a definite requirement.
8-109
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
RECLAMATION
1. Comment. "Section 5.3.1. discusses land
disturbance and reclamation in general terms.
Although this section is helpful in finally putting
into proper perspective the relatively small amount
of disturbance which will be experienced in
western coal regions relative to the rest of the
country, it does contain some distortions and
inconsistencies which should be corrected in the
final impact statement."
Commenters 057, 058, 061, 089, 097, 105, 107,
111, 118, 123, 130, 148, 154, 160, 172, 173, 174, 176,
187, 188, and 281
Response. Land disturbance and reclamation
are discussed in Section 5.3.2.1. This section is
being expanded in the final ES and inconsistencies
in the DES will be rectified.
2. Comment. "On page 5-22, a table entitled
"Time Required to Reclaim Mined Land" in the
West, states, by area, that very precise amounts of
time are needed to reclaim to rangeland. For
example, it says it takes 9.6 years in the Power
River area and 14.1 years in the San Juan area.
Where has this been demonstrated? No areas are
given as proof because there aren't any. At best,
reclaimability in the West is an open question. This
is half heartedly acknowledged on p. 5-23 by the
statement that, 'The question of whether or not
initially irrigated plant communities on reclaimed
areas could maintain native area densities for an
indefinite period of time has not been answered.'
Yet all the tables of impact comparisons assume
reclamation can and will occur."
Commenters 057, 066, 091, 093, 154, 163, 167
171, and 266
Response. Table 5-24 has been changed to
read estimated time required to reclaim mined-
land. Estimate of years required to reclaim have
been rounded up to remove the implied precision
while retaining the relative importance. The em-
phasis should be on the fact that as a whole,
reclamation in the San Juan River Coal Region is
believed to take longer than in the Powder River
Coal Region. The actual time required for recla-
mation is highly dependent upon site specific
information which canrot be determined until
actual sites are chosen.
No doubt each of the regions have areas which
will take longer or shorter periods of time to
reclaim (depending on the goal of reclamation)
and some areas that if disturbed cannot be
reclaimed at all. The unsuitability process would
screen out these latter areas.
3. Comment. "On page 5-17, at the bottom of
the first column, reference is made to estimates of
land which would normally not be reclaimed.
Curiously, this estimate considers land occupied
by buildings and coal conversion and processing
plants as lands most likely not to be reclaimed.
It should be noted that these lands are fully
bonded for reclamation and, in the sense that the
salvage of the buildings might pay for the reclama-
tion itself, have as good or better chance of being
reclaimed by the appropriate state authority or
contractors working with that authority, if neces-
sary, than any other areas. Furthermore, concen-
trating on such areas as unreclaimable indicated
that the Department would expect a larger propor-
tion of surface directly disturbed by underground
coal mining to be unreclaimed relative to that
expected to be unreclaimed as a result of surface
mining. There is no basis for such an assumption
particularly since on the same page under 'Recla-
mation Potential,' the flat statement is made that
all mined land will be reclaimed. It would seem
that this statement is directly contrary to the
assumptions which are basis for the estimates in
Table 5-8."
Commenter 066
Response. Estimates of land disturbed and
reclaimed have been revised. However the revision
numbers still reflect the probability that land
committed to hard surfaces, (buildings, etc.) would
remain unreclaimed longer than land used for
mining coal. Some of the confusion might be
caused by the fact that the FES includes building
caused by the presence of mining in the area, but
not located directly at the mine site.
4. Comment. "Also, this statement does not
fairly assess the impacts new Federal coal leasing
would create. Socio-economic and air quality
impacts are too narrowly defined, but perhaps
most disturbing is the section on reclamation. The
assumption that prime farmland in the Northern
Great Plains can be easily reclaimed after mining
to equal or better production is not well document-
ed, and contradicts substantial data to the con-
trary. In NPRC's seven years of work on the
effects of coal development, we have rarely seen
such a rosy prediction of reclaimability. The State
8-110
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
of Montana, which has the most stringent reclama-
tion law in the nation, has yet to give its stamp of
approval to a single acre of reclaimed land able to
support argicultural production."
Commenters 172 and 185
Response. No assumption was made that
prime farmland in the Northern Great Plains could
be easily reclaimed after mining to equal or better
production. To reclaim any area to a given use will
take a lot of effort and will require detailed
consideration of site-specific characteristics, and
careful step by step planning. Prime farmland will
not be leased unless it has been demonstrated that
it can be reclaimed.
5. Comment. "The statement assumes that
prime farmland will be reclaimed in five to fifteen
years without providing a documentation of this
assumption. The statement fails in some areas to
distinguish between acreage mined and acreage
disturbed, which is very inconsistent and leads to
false conclusions. The statement also fails to assess
the impacts of burning all that coal."
Commenters 185 and 172
Response. The reclamation potential of five
to 15 years for prime farmland is based on
personal communication with S.D. Zellmer
(Agronomist, Argonne National Laboratory) and
L. Ross (Department of Soil Conservation, Iowa).
In addition, Packer, (1974) suggested that in higher
response units (areas with best combination of
factors influencing successful reclamation) recla-
mation to agricultural cropland may occur in one
to five years.
Acres disturbed have been recalculated based
on land allocated to mining and land allocated to
other uses (coal banning and conversion). These
will give a better basis for comparisons of the
effects of coal extraction and those of coal
conversion.
6. Comment. "The statement does not
consider the long-term effects of unsuccessful or
partially successful reclamation efforts. By limiting
its scope to the period before 1990, the statement
ignores the cumulative effects of long-term mining
on Federal coal land. Dependence upon coal
during the 1980's will create pressure to continue
mining that resource in the future. A comprehen-
sive environmental statement must consider the
cumulative effects of unsuccessful reclamation
efforts, or at least consider the possible effects of
continual coal mining activities over a time period
that is sufficiently long to ensure steady-state
conditions (i.e., the amount of land being success-
fully reclaimed equals the amount of land being
disrupted). Because the statement assumes a priori
that all reclamation will be successful, neither of
these alternatives is considered.
Commenter 089
Response. Section 5.3.2 has been upgraded to
respond to these concerns. Under the preferred
program, the Department would not lease unre-
claimable lands.
7. Comment. "Para. 5.2.3.2. This paragraph
discusses post-mining habitat losses, but does not
address habitat gains which are likely with success-
ful reclamation. Again, a subtle hint that impacts
will be greater than they actually will be."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. The impact assessment of habitat
losses is based on a 1985 and 1990 time frame.
Reclamation during this time period would be in
its initial phases. In the long run, reclamation
would most certainly be contributing to wildlife
habitat gains.
8. Comment. "The League believes that the
use of land should be related to its inherent
characteristics and carrying capacities; therefore,
we recommend that reclaimability of mined land be
assigned a high priority in land-use planning and
that lands that cannot be returned to their previous
productivity be immediately screeened out of
consideration for leasing."
Commenter 171
Response. The Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 establishes strict stan-
dards of reclaimability for any coal lands to be
mined. Consistent with this Congressional man-
date, the Department includes reclaimability in its
unsuitability criteria. As indicated in the draft
statement, each criterion is applied in the initial
phases of the land use planning process to
eliminate lands from further consideration for
leasing. It should be noted that SMCRA requires
lands to be returned to their former use, not former
level of productivity.
A final test for reclaimability will be applied
before approval of the mining and reclamation
plan.
3-111
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
9. Comment. "5-23, 1st Column, 5th para-
graph: The Uinta-South western Utah Region has
areas equally as adverse to Reclamation efforts as
those mentioned."
Commenter 266
Response. Concur. The referenced section
has been expanded in the FES to better reflect
reclamation potential.
10. Comment. "(Page 5-17) With regard to the
discussion of reclamation potential, we offer the
following comments.
a. Packer (1974) estimated reclamation
potential on a scale of + 9 to -9 (not + 8 to -8). In
addition, he addressed only the Northern Great
Plains States of Montana, Wyoming, North Dako-
ta, and South Dakota (not Colorado, Utah,
Arizona and New Mexico). Therefore, the DES
should not imply that his findings hold for the
entire West.
b. Packer (1974) believes that the higher
rated response units, which occur predominantly
in North Dakota, can be rehabilitated successfully
in one year to agricultural cropland and in five
years to mixed grass range. In medium-rated
response units found in moisture areas of southeast
Montana and northeast Wyoming successful reha-
bilitation should be achieved in five to ten years,
depending on whether land is to be returned to
short-grass, grassshrub steppe, or a mixture of
these and ponderosa pine. On the lower-rated
response units in the drier portions of northeastern
Wyoming and northeastern Montana, from five to
fifteen years may be required to successfully return
the land to short-grass and/or shrub steppe which
was present prior to mining. It should be noted
that restoration to cropland is mentioned only for
North Dakota, not for the other two States (much
less for the entire West). The time required for
reclamation increases as areas become drier. One
can therefore project that time to achieve reclama-
tion in Arizona and New Mexico will be much in
excess of those quoted for the Northern Great
Plains.
c. Cook, et al. (Revegetation Guidelines for
Surface Mined Areas, No. 16, December 1974)
states that arid areas underlain by strippable coal
have precipitation rates of six to nine inches,
together with excessively high evaporation rates.
For these reasons, Cook, et al., report that natural
revegetation is unpredictable and may occur only
every five to seven years in most desert areas, when
favorable conditions provide for germination,
emergence, and establishment.
d. Although North Dakota mines are identi-
fied as having the highest reclamation potential,
Packer (1974) does point out that there are serious
problems associated with highly saline (sodic)
overburden. Although this problem might presum-
ably be dealt with by covering highly sodic spoils
with topsoil, Power, Ries, and Sandoval (Reclama-
tion of Coal-Mined Land in the Northern Great
Plains, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
March- April 1978, (pp. 69-74) pointed out that
sodium in North Dakota mine spoils tends to
migrate upward into soil material spread on the
surface. The seriousness of this sodium migration
problem has only been researched in recent years,
and final answers as to how it can best be handled
are not yet available.
e. Power, et al. (1978) conclude that the
technology does not exist to economically restore
the mixed native prairie of the Northern Great
Plains in less than 30 to 40 years; however, Power,
et al., indicate that introduced vegetative species
can be established. Reclamation procedures re-
quired by Western States seem adequate for initial
restoration of plant growth potentials, but long-
term stability of the landscape and perennial
vegetation is unknown.
f. Barth (Reclamation Practices in the
Northern Great Plains Coal Province, Mining
Congress Journal, 1977, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 60-64)
studies revegetation success on seven mines in the
Powder River and Fort Union Regions. He found
that although a wide variety of species were
planted, few of these species were found in
revegetated areas. Species that failed to establish
themselves were generally native grasses.
"In summary, with respect to the potential for
revegetation in the West, there are reclamation
management problems relating to salinity and
aridity which are still unresolved by those charged
with reclamation of Western coal mined lands. In
addition, the long-term prospects of existing
revegetated areas (only a few years old in most
cases) are still in doubt. The DES should be
revised to reflect this conclusion."
Commenter 091
Response.
The text has been changed to reflect Packer's
scale of -1-9 to -9.
3-112
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
There are many remaining problems with
successful reclamation as indicated by this
thoughtful comment and the volume of current
research. Each site potentially mined would re-
quire detailed information on existing conditions
prior to any mining to give a data base for
reclamation planning. Conditions would be ex-
pected to vary between sites and in different
sections of a site. Each potential problem area
could require a unique approach if reclamation is
to be successful. Realistic land use goals are a must
throughout the premining, mining, and reclama-
tion planning process.
11. Comment. "(Page 5-82) Chapter 5 should
somewhere address the availability of the mining
equipment necessary to achieve the production
estimates."
Commenter091
Response.
The commenter is correct in identifying the
need for additional mining equipment and the
necessary lead times required as a potential
obstacle to the attainment of production goals. It is
true that a leasing program (whatever its form) will
influence the demand for mining and related coal
extraction equipment. The programmatic shows
that the effect of differing levels of Federal leasing
would largely be to shift the capital available for
coal operations to different regions of the country.
However, the programmatic nature of this environ-
mental statement precludes estimation of specific
equipment requirements. The appropriate forum to
address this issue is in the regional environmental
statements, where precise information about anti-
cipated production facilities can be utilized by
industry to generate precise estimates of equip-
ment needs.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Comment. "As is the case with the strip-
mining or deep-mining of coal, the environmental
impacts— the degradation of air quality, disruption
of hydrologic systems, and the disturbance of
agricultural land and wildlife habitat— are likely to
be site-specific, rather than generalized. The Draft
Environmental Statement should reflect this fact,
rather than aggregating impacts and giving the
appearance that they will occur generally over a
broad geographic region."
Commenters 123 and 160
Response. The FES, as well as the DES, is
restricted to generalized impact analyses due to its
programmatic nature. Site-specific impacts cannot
be analyzed at this time because the specific tracts
involved have not been delineated. Tract delinea-
tion and site-specific environmental analyses
would be the subject of future regional and site-
specific environmental assessments if a program is
adopted which necessitates leasing.
2. Comment. "The cumulative impacts of
letting new leases and of their subsequent develop-
ment must be evaluated. Likewise, the cumulative
impacts of mining old leases should also be
evaluated. Previous plans have understated or
ignored this problem."
Commenter 176
Response. The precise cumulative impacts of
all lease management actions will be the subject of
future intraregional environmental statements
subsequent to any tract delineation identification.
This statement estimates what they might be based
on generalized relationships between mining activ-
ities and impacts.
3. Comment. "The primary, and I think most
serious problem with the Draft Environmental
Statement, is that it totally ignores the issue of
cumulative impacts which I know face the San
Juan River Coal Region and which I presume may
be present in other coal areas as well. As you
should be well aware, no development takes place
in a vacuum. When an area faces extensive coal
development on the one hand and extensive
uranium development on the other, as the San
Juan River does, any discussion of the impacts of
one type of development is virtually useless
without a thorough consideration of the other type.
Treatment of topics such as water impacts, socio-
economic impacts or air quality impacts are fatally
flawed without analysis of the cumulative impacts
of all development planned for one area. I will
discuss further the need for investigating and
addressing cumulative impacts in the specific
comments I will make later."
Commenter 057
Response. Non-coal related developments are
not addressed in the FES because their impacts
would occur regardless of any decision on a
Federal coal management program. While a
regional study of all future development scenarios
might be useful, the coal program review and
8-113
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
analysis is not the proper instrument for such a
study.
4. Comment. "There are other potential
problems resulting from the adoption of either the
preferred program or some of the other alterna-
tives discussed in the DES, which also should be
analyzed. The management of Federal coal re-
sources is important to the overall national energy
picture. Therefore, the results of any program
adopted should be considered with respect to their
effect on the domestic economy, the national
defense, U.S. foreign policy, and the value of the
dollar as well as on various economies around the
world. If the effect of the coal program adopted by
the government is inflationary or appears to place
more importance on values such as esthetics,
recreation or wildlife protection than on energy
production, consideration should be given to the
perception of other nations with respect to the
resolve of the United States to carry out the
objectives of the President's energy program."
Commenter 087
Response. The preferred program is primarily
a domestic concern to the United States since it is
essentially a means of reducing reliance on foreign
energy. The macroeconomic effects of any pro-
grammatic option which increases the domestic
coal production would have a positive effect on the
domestic economy, national defense, U.S. foreign
policy, and the value of the dollar. The precise
effect, however, is speculative and subject to
change. Though the affects of coal on the future of
the world's economy and environment might prove
significant, it is necessary to put some outer
bounds on the scope of key analysis. The Secretary
has decided that a regulatory analysis is not
needed for the entire preferred program, but has
requested enhanced economic analysis of unsuita-
bly criteria and of the maximum economic
recovery definition after notices.
5. Comment. "We also feel that the DES fails
to provide an analysis of the effect of the semi-
nationalization of the coal industry which would
effectively be the result of the preferred program
and its system of leasing in response to government
determinations of supply and demand."
Commenter 087
Response. The DES, as well as the FES, does
analyze the effects of the preferred program and its
alternatives. The Department, however, does not
consider the Federal Coal Management Program
to be equivalent to the "semi-nationalization of the
coal industry." Rather, the program is intended to
regulate coal development, which ultimately must
be conducted by coal industries, in an environ-
mentally sound manner consistent with national
needs and the public interests.
6. Comment. "If the estimates of 0.2 to 2
percent coal dust loss from unit trains on p. 5-53
are based on the Weigert and Jensen report they
should be researched again as these estimates are
not based on research. More than one source of
information should be used. These emissions do
not accurately reflect emissions from dry western
coals. The relationship between power plant
emissions and coal leasing policy, if there is one, is
unclear. Additionally, the impacts of gaseous
emissions are not defined anywhere, nor are
gaseous emissions from mines or power plants
related to air quality standards. Probability of
violation of standards should be addressed as well.
Finally, there is no discussion of impacts from
nitrogen oxide fumigations due to overburden and
coal blasting."
Commenter 071
Response. Weigart and Jansen was not used
as a source. In Railway Age, "Crusting Agent
Minimized Loss of Coal in Transit," September 9,
1974, it was reported that a 70- ton coal car may
lose up to 1.5 tons of coal in a trip from West
Virginia to northern Indiana.
7. Comment. "Trace elements have impacts
other than those associated with health (e.g. to
livestock, crops, wildlife and vegetation) which
should be discussed. How do trace element
impacts, on coal dust, power plant emissions, and
overburden vary from region to region and thus,
how do they relate to the leasing policy?"
Commenter 071
Response. Trace elements that are harmful to
man and his environment are found in coal.
Concentrations of these elements may increase
during production and consumption in various
waste streams; for example, in the coal feed ash,
water effluent, coal refuse, and stack gas. It is
beyond the scope of this statement to estimate
trace element impacts on a programmatic basis.
This analysis is more appropriatly performed in
the regional coal lease sale environmental state-
ment.
8-114
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
8. Comment. "Why are emission control
standards for power plants addressed, and emis-
sion control for coal mines and coal transport not
addressed? Certainly the latter would be of greater
importance in defining a leasing policy. If not, why
not? "The analysis of nonattainment areas is
irrelevant. Where are the nonattainment areas, and
how do they relate to coal mining and to coal
leasing policies? Will emissions controls at coal
mines be sufficient within the various regions to
prevent allowable PSD increments from being
violated?"
Commenter071
Response. Relating gaseous emissions to air
quality standards requires the application of
diffusion models to translate emissions in the form
of quantities of pollutants per unit of time (e.g.,
tons per year, pounds per day) into concentrations
of pollutants expressed as micrograms per cubic
meter. Such models require site-specific data such
as local climatological characteristics, terrain
features, and the size and operational conditions of
the pollutant source. Because of this site-specific
data requirement, a programmatic statement can
only discuss such factors as air quality (i.e.,
pollutant emissions) and nonattainment areas
generically. Air quality impacts and the relation-
ship between a particular action and any nonat-
tainment areas are detailed for specific actions in
such documents as the environmental statements
issued for each mining and reclamation plan.
Emission control standards were presented for
power plants because such performance standards
exist; however, standards have not been promul-
gated for coal mining or coal transport except that
a particular type of equipment may be included in
a particular source performance category.
9. Comment. "There is no analysis of the
variable geographic impacts which would occur as
a result of the leasing program summarized in the
EIS."
Commenter 197
Response. Chapter 5 (Section 5.2) has been
revised so that the FES contains a region-by-region
impact analysis summary.
10. Comment. "In Chapter 5 of the DEIS, there
is not sufficient discussion of the impacts of a
Federal coal leasing program, such as the no
leasing alternative, which would result in the
increase of the development of non-Federal coal
sources. The impacts from increased non-Federal
coal development should be discussed in the
FEIS."
Commenter 090
Response. Impacts due to non-Federal coal
development are incorporated in the no new
leasing alternative.
11. Comment. "There is little discussion of the
broad impacts of a decision to delay leasing. What
could be accomplished if the time were available to
assess the impact of the Coal Leasing Act Amend-
ments, the National Energy Plan, the New Source
Performance Standards, the newest oil price
increases, conservation which is taking place
simply as a result of energy price increases, and so
forth? What are the national human consequences
of an oversupply of Western coal? As Mr. Laue
pointed out, what are the national human environ-
mental consequences of an undersupply of West-
ern coal? The fact that it would be an undersupply
answers no questions."
Commenter 195
Response. Impacts due to non-Federal coal
development are incorporated in the no new
leasing alternative. Analyses must be conducted on
the basis of the situation as it exists at that time;
the preferred program, which would include the
possibility of no new leasing and would provide for
periodic reassessments of the impact of coal
leasing on the nation in light of changing situa-
tions.
12. Comment. "The environmental analysis
sections suffer from fatal flaws:
1. It is written in gibberish. It is dominated by
incomprehensible phrases such as "environmental
residuals," and sentences such as "Due to the
dynamic nature of coal transportation, incorpora-
tion of the transportation sector in the analysis
required a methodological approach which recog-
nizes the inherent differences between static
processes and dynamic flows (p. 5-5)." These
examples were selected at random. It is disorga-
nized and pieces of analysis appear in several
places. This style of writing occurs when authors
do not understand their subjects. As a result, the
EIS does not inform; it serves only to confuse the
reader. On this count alone, it should be redraft-
ed."
Commenters 154, 069, and 281
8-115
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Response. The environmental analysis sec-
tions in Chapter 5 have been substantially revised
for purposes of clarity.
13. Comment. "Define the jargon 'environmen-
tal residuals' (p. 5-1)."
Commenter071
Response. The term "residuals" proved to be
confusing and so the term has been deleted from
this statement.
14. Comment. "How is your coal cycle cyclic (p.
5-1)? b. Will money be generated from this "cycle"
to support alternative, especially solar, energy
developments?"
Commenter071
Response, a. The coal development cycle is
cyclic in the sense that the statement considers
impacts associated with all activities from coal
extraction through utilization, b. Money generated
from coal development cycle operations that
accrues to the Federal government under the
Federal coal management program becomes part
of the general funds that are used to support
Federal programs.
15. Comment. "The Department of Energy's
coal demand projections should be revised to take
into account 1) the current slump in the coal
market; 2) the glut of Alaskan oil which may be
crossing Montana via the Northern Tier Pipeline;
and 3) the potential influx of Mexican natural
gas."
Commenter 071
Response. As noted in Section 5.3.1.2 of the
draft programmatic Environmental Impact State-
ment, many believe that the national coal model
projection under the 1985 medium level demand of
1.1 billion tons (a 64% increase over 1976 produc-
tion) is overly optimistic, particularly in view of the
myriad of uncertainties involved in estimating coal
demand, including, such as the factors mentioned
in the comment. Nevertheless, it is felt that use of
high, medium, and low production projections
derived from the NCM output effectively bracket
the range of regional coal demand in 1985 and in
1990.
16. Comment. "What other goals for reclama-
tion are implied by the statement that "the major
thrust would be to return disturbed land to the
contour and use specified..."?"
Commenter 071
Response. No goals were implied since these
may be highly variable depending on individual
mining and reclamation plans. The assumption
used was that reclamation technology will not
change significantly by 1990 and the major thrust
would be to return disturbed land to the contour
and use specified in the approved reclamation
plan.
17. Comment. "How would shortages in the
transportation network affect your assumption
that development of other resources would not
interfere with coal development. How have trans-
portation costs been built into your assumptions
on where to develop."
Commenter 071
Response. As explained in Section 5.1 and
H.2 of the environmental impact statement, coal
production and consumption levels were derived in
part from the Department of Energy's National
Coal Model (NCM). The NCM uses a least
economic cost methodology first to estimate the
level of regional coal production and second to
allocate this production using the most economic
transport route. The medium and high production
estimates reflect 1977 Interstate Commerce Com-
mission rates, escalated at an assumed inflation
rate of 5.5 percent. The low estimates assume a one
percent escalation.
18. Comment. "What is the meaning of the last
sentence in the last assumption concerning com-
pensating regional production adjustments?"
Commenter 071
Response. "Compensating regional adjust-
ments" means that production shortfalls will be
made up in other coal regions.
19. Comment. "Have reclamation costs been
used to determine leasing policy?"
Commenter 071
Response. Reclamation costs are an element
of the proposed alternative leasing policies to the
extent they influence the ability of mine land to be
reclaimed. Relatively low reclamation costs (in
terms of both monetary and ecological values)
would indicate a greater production success in
reclaiming mine land. The converse would also be
true.
20. Comment. "Basing reclamation potential on
Packer's work is very riskly, particularly in view of
the time required for soil and plant community
8-116
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
development in a semiarid region such as the
Powder River Basin (p. 5-17)."
Commenter 07 1
Response. Section 5.3.2.1 has been expanded
to better explain the intent of Packer's work, and
to include other research as well. Actual reclama-
tion potential in any of the regions can only be
determined after detailed site-specific information
has been obtained. The intent at this programmat-
ic level of alternative analysis is to show general
trends that could be expect on a regional level.
Individual leases, and areas within a leased tract,
may vary considerably from the regional charac-
teristics.
21. Comment. "Page 5-23 (6th paragraph) How
is it possible to determine whether initially irrigat-
ed plant communities on reclaimed areas could
maintain native area densities for indefinite period
of time? Sounds like research Hodder might be
interested in."
Commenter 071
Response. The sentence has been changed to
read, "The question of whether or not initially
irrigated plant communities can achieve and
maintain densities similiar to undisturbed native
areas has not been answered."
22. Comment. "What are the potential air
quality impacts?"
Commenter 071
Response. Air quality is measured in terms of
concentrations of a given air pollutant per unit
volume, such as grams per cubic centimeter. Since
this environmental impact statement is not site-
specific, it is impossible to estimate impacts, or air
quality, other than in terms of emission rates.
Thus, the use of the words "potential air quality
impacts" is meant to imply that the measures are
not only projections of what could occur, but the
more precise method of measuring air quality
cannot be used.
23. Comment. "Impacts of particulates are
inadequately defined and addressed. The only
impact defined is the reduction in visibility, but no
context is given. How large is the surrounding area
(p. 5-51)?"
Commenter 071
Response. Table 5-42 presents estimates of
impacts on visibility as a function of particulate
concentrations. It is impossible to calculate con-
centrations without site-specific data such as
climate, winds, terrain features, emitter character-
istics, etc.
24. Comment. "In conclusion, it would seem
that information has been presented here in a
random fashion without definition of impacts, or
their magnitude and significance. Are we to
conclude mining, particularly strip mining, has no
impact on air quality? The data are obviously
available; consequently, this section must be
rewritten and the original authors sent back to
their respective divisions, and replaced by quali-
fied, competent professionals."
Commenter 071
Response. The kinds of detailed studies
referred to will be presented in the regional coal
lease sale environmental impact statements.
25. Comment. "Is the loss of potential produc-
tivity here based on acreage disturbed, on reclama-
tion potential, or on postreclamation productivity
projections? The impacts vary significantly de-
pending on the definition (p. 5-73). Productivity
losses are based on misleading data. It should be
pointed out that belowground and aboveground
productivity is listed in the tables."
Commenter 071
Response. Potential productivity loss is based
on total commitment of land (assuming no
reclamation) times an unweighted productivity
average (excluding agriculture). As indicated in the
text it is useful for comparisons between alterna-
tive leasing policies and should not be interpreted
as actual losses. These can only be derived when
actual sites are known and data specific to those
sites is available. In Appendix D, potential produc-
tivity values were derived from allotment of
acreages to various land use categories times
estimates of potential productivity. Again these are
expected to vary considerably once actual sites are
known.
26. Comment. "What, in either the Powder
River or Fort Union coal regions, could be defined
as a nonsensitive ecosystem? In light of the
climatic conditions, and the disastrous results of
dryland farming in the 1930's (and the subsequent
dustbowl conditions), it is insane to call any of this
area 'nonsensitive' (p. 5-75)."
Commenter 071
5-117
iiWiiBBii7aaiMia-™'''f
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Response. Concur. The sentence has been
deleted. What was implied was that coal develop-
ment was assumed to occur in common types of
vacant land areas and not in known sensitive (e.g.,
nest areas of raptors) or limited ecosystems.
27. Comment. "In your discussion of impacts to
endangered species of the Powder River coal
region: where do grizzlies and wolves occur?
Neither animal is mentioned in chapter 4. Is all the
information presented herein as accurate as this (p.
5-81)?"
Commenter 071
Response. Neither the grizzly nor wolf are
known residents of the Powder River Coal Region
at present. They were residents in recent past and
were included more on historical range than actual
presence.
28. Comment. "Through the admission of the
DES, 82% of the coal to be produced in the
Powder River Basin will come from Wyoming. The
figures below emphasize the point further, in that
88% of Wyoming's Powder River Basin Coal lies in
one County; Campbell.
"This gross oversimplication renders meaningless
the discussion of actual impacts in the Wyoming
Powder River Basin. The DES discussed air
quality impacts over an area of 31,300 square
miles, when, as we have shown, an overwhelming
percentage of activity and pollution will result in
Campbell County, Wyoming, with an area of 4,800
square miles. The same holds true for population
impacts, when the base used is 228,000 people
while Campbell County, in the same year, had only
17,000 people. The treatment of impacts to wildlife
agriculture, water and many other components of
the environment is equally as useless, due to such a
large base used for comparison."
Commenter 118
Response. While it is true that Campbell
County does contain the vast majority of the
Powder River Coal Region reserves, the program-
matic nature of this environmental statement
precludes the analysis of potential impacts at less
than regional levels. It is the role of the regional
and site-specific environmental studies to assess
the cumulative effects of coal resource develop-
ment at the county and community level.
29. Comment. "In the third full paragraph on
page 5-53, the implication is left that Western coal
uniformly has more radioactive material in it than
Eastern coal. We know of no authorities to support
this implication, and would suggest that the
Department clarify this to indicate that since both
Eastern and Western coals vary widely in quality
and trace element content, such a statement
concerning radioactivity cannot be applied across
the board to all Western coal."
Commenter 066
Response. This paragraph has been revised to
dispel this implication.
30. Comment. "Although the draft ES for the
preferred program mentions their existence four
times and supplies a table of air pollution emission
factors for 22 of them, trace elements are basically
ignored. Their effect on the environment, however,
may be as large as any other effect, and may well
be more devasting in the long run."
Commenter 097 and 281
Response. It is true that the effect of trace
elements on the environment may be serious;
however, it is not the intent of this programmatic
environmental statement to go into details which
require characterization of local coals. Regional
Environmental Statements would be better suited
to address this issue. The discussion of trace
elements in the FES has been reviewed and
amplified as appropriate.
3 1 . Comment. "Page 5-50. Any discussion of air
quality impacts in the San Juan River Region must
include the effect of the cumulative impacts of
uranium mining and milling."
Commenter 057
Response. Emissions of air pollutants in the
San Juan River Coal Region for the 1976 base case
include those due to uranium mining and milling.
Emissions of air pollutants for 1985 and 1990 are
projected only for the Federal coal management
program alternatives. To project emissions for
other potential industrial activities in 1985 and
1990 is beyond the scope of this statement.
32. Comment. "The total suspended particulate
has been underestimated, when we use the Pedco
(sic) figures at two pounds per ton produced.
That's an average figure, but it's been taken from
most of the Western mines. I get around an
average of twenty percent of the total impact was
assessed in this statement.
Commenters 146 and 1 18
8-118
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Response. The greatest variability in estimat-
ing total suspended particulates from mining
would come from the fugitive dust portion of the
TSP loading. The amounts of fugitive dust vary
with the type of mining, the coal regions, and even
within coal regions. Because of this, the loading
used in the DES may be low for one region (or part
of a region) and high for another region. It should
be noted that the fugitive dust loadings and the
resultant TSP loadings may vary as much as 25-
fold per unit of coal produced depending on site-
specific characteristics.
33. Comment. "The Statement's discussion of
air quality impacts of the preferred program is
insufficient. Because the Department assesses air
quality impacts within the coal production regions
only, the full end use impacts of the program on
national air quality are not considered. Since much
of the coal will be burned outside the coal
production regions, the Department's region by
region comparison of total emissions does not
provide, as alleged,
A comparison of the emissions associated with
the Federal coal management program alternatives
against the no new leasing base case. (p. 5-50) We
also question the Statement's proposal that a
comparison of the total emissions for each alterna-
tive is the most meaningful measure of relative air
quality impact available. (5-50)"
Commenters 089 and 281
Response Coal production (mine construc-
tion, extraction, cleaning, plant construction, and
equipment operation) and coal consumption (facil-
ities construction and use in coal - fired power
plants, and coal conversion facilities) are the major
sources of air pollutants attributable to the Federal
coal management program. Tables 5-18 and 5-19
present coal production and coal consumption
estimates for 1985 and 1990. These tables show
that over 98 percent of the coal produced in the
United States is forecast to be produced in the 12
coal regions examined in this statement, and over
75 percent of the coal is forecast to be consummed
in the 12 coal regions. It is agreed, therefore, that
impacts on national air quality are not considered.
However, the method employed of comparing
emissions associated with the Federal coal man-
agement program alternatives with the no new
leasing base case is considered to yield an accurate
relative estimate of how national air quality would
be impacted due to the Federal coal management
program.
34. Comment. "Since the impact of a specified
level of emissions in some regions would exceed
the impact of the same level of emissions in others,
the proposal is not necessarily correct. For exam-
ple, the impact of a strip mine or a coal-fired
electric generating plant is more likely to have a
noticeable impact on air quality within an air basin
in the Northern Great Plains or Four Corners
Region than would a mine or plant of the same
capacity if it were located in the Eastern Interior or
Western Interior Region, because of the differ-
ences in ambient air quality of these regions."
Commenters 089 and 281
Response. The comment is well-taken. This is
the reason why it is impossible to determine the
impacts on air quality due to activities performed
under the Federal coal management program
without being site-specific. The rationale for this
limitation is discussed in Section 5.3.2.7.
35. Comment. "The estimates of total land
disturbance are subject to challenge. In addition,
this method of calculating plant and wildlife loss
neglects the fact that certain habitat zones support
wildlife from a much larger area. For example,
bottomlands cover only four percent of the land
surface in the Northern Great Plains, but they
provide water and winter forage for wildlife that
range over a much larger area. Habitat characteris-
tics vary within each coal region and in some cases
the wildlife within different habitats are interde-
pendent, so the loss of one type of habitat could
upset the balance in another."
Commenters 089 and 281
Response.
Estimates of land disturbance have been
recalculated to include land requirements for coal-
related population increases. In addition, estimates
of the various land-requiring activities have been
separated into those which require land on a yearly
basis (e.g., mining) and those which represent total
land required by a specific point in time (e.g., land
for fixed facilities).
The points on habitat and wildlife interdepen-
dence are quite true. However, to give a meaning-
ful analysis of specific effects on a given popula-
tion or habitat would require site-specific informa-
tion. At this programmatic level of analysis it had
to be assumed that each alternative had an equal
8-119
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
potential for effecting any habitat or population
within a region. To analyize each habitat and each
population within each region would provide
interesting data, but would not give a means of
comparing alternatives unless it can be shown that
an alternative favors a specific habitat over
another.
Loss of habitat in one area and its effects on
adjacent area population are covered in the
general discussion on Ecological impacts (Section
5.3.3).
36. Comment. "The statement also fails to deal
adequately with the ecological impact of increased
human population and easier access to previously
undisturbed areas in the coal regions. The in-
creased population resulting from coal develop-
ment would exacerbate impacts due to hunting,
fishing, off-road vehicles use, and other human
outdoor activities. New roads and rights-of-way
for pipelines, transmission lines, and aqueducts
could open remote areas by providing a pathway
for penetration into the areas, possibly disrupting
fragile environments and faunal migration pat-
terns. The most significant effect of increased
human activity may be that it could drive certain
species out of large areas, reducing their habitat by
a much larger area than is represented by the
estimates given in the statement."
Commenters 089 and 281
Response.
In the revised estimate of land disturbance, a
component has been added to include land
requirements for coal related population increases.
Impacts from human activity are included in
the general discussion of Ecological impacts (see
Section 5.2.3 DES)
37. Comment. "It is stated that degradation of
local air quality would occur even though best
available emission control technologies are em-
ployed (p. 7-2). Why is this chapter assuming best
available technology for impact evaluation when
in chapter 5 best practicable technology is as-
sumed?"
Commenter021
Response. Section 5.3.2.7 assumes best
available emission control technologies.
38. Comment. "In the second paragraph of page
5-24, the incredible statement is made that the
primary surface disturbance associated with un-
derground mining is a lowering of the surface in
the area mined (subsidence) to depths which vary
from a few feet to 'hundreds of feet.' We believe it
would come as a great surprise to anyone in the
industry to be made aware of areas in which
underground mining has resulted in subsidence of
hundreds of feet. Even considering the very thick,
shallow deposits in the Powder River Basin which
often exceed 100 feet and assuming that somehow
that coal might be mined by underground mining
techniques not yet developed, it still defies the
imagination to determine how such mining would
lower the original elevation by hundreds of feet.
Such seemingly innocuous statements made in
such an offhand manner are just the kind of
statements which will be taken out of context by
groups opposed to any new coal operations in the
West to try to scare those who might otherwise
support new leasing into believing that the conse-
quences of that leasing could be devastating.
Furthermore, the very next paragraph of the
Statement recognizes swell factors and discusses
typical lowerings which indicate that the Depart-
ment, although using swell factors which are lower
than those usually experienced, recognizes that the
effects of subsidence in changing surface eleva-
tions are really not that serious."
Commenter 066
Response. It should be noted that the
paragraph referred to is a description of the
potential impacts to topography of surface mining,
not underground mining. Underground mining is
only mentioned in the first sentence and then only
to indicate the considerable variation between the
effects of surface and underground mining. For a
discussion of the topographic effects of under-
ground mining the commenter is directed to the
section 5.3.2.2.
39. Comment, "b. The statement's evaluation of
the extent to which the preferred program will result
in land disturbance is inaccurate. In estimating land
disturbance, the statement claims to use a figure
that includes land committed to mining and
conversion, although an adequate description of
the derivation of this figure is not given, (pp. 5-17
and H-26) Estimation of other quantities of land
was considered beyond the scope of the document
due to site-specific factors, (p. 5-17) Since
'(p)rospective environmental impacts of economic
development and population growth stimulated by
8-120
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
the conversion of energy from strippable coal in
the West are likely to far exceed the impact of
surface mining alone,'28 some estimate of the
amounts of land which would be disturbed by
roads, pipelines, and residential and commercial
structures should be made. It is possible to identify
a range of estimates within which the probable
amount of land needed for these developments
would occur, given a specific level of coal-related
development. One could then bracket a subset of
the range of estimates for each region based on
factors such as estimated population increase,
average amount of land required for a residence,
and a ratio of commercial to residential acreage."
Commenter 089
Response. Land disturbed due to secondary
impacts such as roads, pipelines, and powerline
construction was included in the analysis. (See
Appendix H.)
40. Comment. "The next one is topographical
features would be altered by construction and
mining activity. Go out here anyplace where they
are subdividing and people are moving in to this
state, in small amounts, really, there is always
some ground changes. Those changes are not bad."
Commenter 139
Response. The FES presents the topographi-
cal changes in view of physical changes to the
environment. Judgemental assessments such as
whether these changes are good or bad are beyond
the scope of the FES.
41 Comment. "The subsidence of land could
result from underground mining activities. Well,
since when hasn't land subsided? Every time it
rains out here we get something dropping in
somewhere. If you want to talk about subsidence,
you had better take a look at the environment
itself, nature itself is producing subsidence. There
are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of holes in
the east part of the State of New Mexico, many of
them right on the highway, many of them under-
neath railroad tracks, have dropped out under-
neath highways and are really a severe danger just
from solution and natural collapse on the part of
nature. The amount of subsidence that would take
place, if you ever did get to underground mining,
would be very negligible. I think this thing could
just be left out of this."
Commenter 139
Response. It is true that subsidence triggered
by rainfall and other natural occurrences causes
regional topography to be in a constant state of
dynamic change. In most cases, subsidence due to
underground mining would be comparatively
negligible, but in certain cases it is major. The FES
addresses underground mining subsidence because
it is a relevant environmental impact.
42. Comment. "Para. 5.2.2.3. This paragraph
states that 'surface mining operations would
produce significantly greater geologic impacts than
underground mining.' However, USGS Open File
Report 78-473 states that in the Western Powder
River Basin, underground mining is more geologi-
cally damaging if proper surface mining reclama-
tion procedures are followed. This Draft Program-
matic should be consistent with other Department
of Interior documents."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. The above-cited USGS statement
is not considered applicable since it is referring to
very long-term post-reclamation geological fea-
tures. During the time frame of this FES, active
mining will be on-going and on this basis the
statement of the FES is considered valid.
43. Comment. "c. The Statement provides
misleading assessment of the preferred program's
impact upon topology and soils."
Commenter 089
Response. A description of the exact level of
impacts to topography and soils that could occur
due to mining activity requires detailed data from
each site being mined. As stated in the DES, the
amount of such changes would be highly depen-
dent on the characteristics of a particular site. In a
programmatic impact statement, the specific sites
of coal extraction operations are not known and
impacts can only be described on a general basis.
Such detailed, site-specific impacts would be
included in the impact statements issued in
connection with each mining and reclamation
plan.
44. Comment. "On page 5-25 at the top of the
second column the statement is made that in-
28 National Academy of Sciences, op. cit., p. 107."
8-121
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
creased mining might result in uncontrolled fossil
collection. This statement, although really of minor
environmental impact, is rather farfetched in that
surface mine properties, for a variety of reasons,
including the liability of the mine operator for the
safety of the surrounding populace, are simply not
left open for anyone to run across the property
gathering fossils or otherwise having free access to
pit areas and other disturbed lands."
Commenter 066
Response. This statement was aimed at the
possible impacts associated with conjunctive devel-
opment and not actual surface mining. It is
recognized that such mining activities would limit
access to the areas by stringent controls. However,
other surface-disturbance activities outside of the
lease tract could expose fossiliferous rocks (e.g.,
cuts for access roads or rail lines). The statement
has been revised to indicate its application to
conjunctive development activities.
45. Comment. "The first two full paragraphs on
page 5-26 discuss briefly potential conflicts be-
tween oil and gas development and coal mining.
Unfortunately, it would seem to be the attitude of
the Department that such potential conflicts will
often be resolved by requiring that one resource be
developed to the exclusion of the other. Such a
decision will rarely prove necessary. In the north-
ern Appalachian Coal Region, there have been
hundreds of thousands of wells drilled over the
past 100 years, yet that region has been and
remains one of the prime coal producing areas in
the country. Of course, it cannot be said that such
dual development has never resulted in actual
conflicts concerning recovery of one mineral or the
other. However, the Department of Energy and the
Bureau of Mines have developed techniques for
mining through abandoned wells even in under-
ground coal mines and there are many alternatives
which can accommodate both methods of resource
extraction without excluding one or the other in
the same tract. This conflict is particularly impor-
tant in the West, where many of the prime oil and
gas producing areas in existence and that can be
expected to be discovered will be in areas with
important Federal coal reserves. Any program
which sets up an 'all-or-nothing' battle between oil
and gas interests can only result ultimately in
losses of these critical resources to both industries
and the Nation as a whole."
Commenter 066
Response. One purpose of the environmental
impact statement preparation process is to present
all the issues. Resource conflicts may not have
been as serious in the past as they may be in the
future as we strive to become more energy
dependent. As set out in Chapter 3, the Depart-
ment emphasizes planning to eliminate potential
resource conflicts under the preferred coal manag-
ering program.
46. Comment. "Specifically, we request the
following be added somewhere in Section 5.2.2.6,
'Water Impacts', beginning on page 5-26 of the
report: 'To minimize the deleterious impacts on
the Colorado River of saline drainage waters
resulting from operation of mines and coal-using
facilities, these facilities should operate in accor-
dance with the policy, adopted by the seven-state
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and
the states of the Colorado River Basin, of no-salt
returns in industrial discharges, wherever practica-
ble. This policy has been followed by the states
and the Environmental Protection Agency in the
issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimina-
tion System permits in the Colorado River Basin.
Adherence to this policy will minimize the salinity
deterioration below Hoover Dam."
Commenter 113
Response. The above paragraph was incorpo-
rated in section 5.3.2.6.
47. Comment. "Also, a serious study should be
made into the effects of mining coal as an aquifer.
Many ranchers in the Powder River Basin of
Wyoming rely on the coal seam for stock water,
and the mining of this resource will destroy a
reliable water supply, in terms of both quantity
and quality.
"According to our calculations, between 182-
217 acre-feet of water are removed with every
million tons of coal (25-30% of Powder River coal
being water). By 1990, at 400 million tons per year
mined from the Basin, a possible 86,800 acre-feet
of water will be literally shipped out of the region.
What are the long term effects of this practice?"
Commenter 118
Response. Groundwater is available in
Powder River coal mines both from shallow and
deep aquifers. For some cases, coal seams are
associated with or located above groundwater
aquifer systems. In order to mine this coal, it may
8-122
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
be necessary to dewater it (locally). This water can
be used as process water and for other uses at the
mine site.
Generally, mining of coal may cause change,
diversion, or pollution of surface and underground
water. However, appropriate mitigation based on
Federal, state and local requirements should
minimize these problems. These effects would be
analyzed in the regional lease sale EISs under the
preferred program.
48. Comment. "We are very concerned about
the off-hand treatment of water consumption
impacts due to renewed Federal coal leasing. The
DES indicated that water deficiencies at the 95%
low-flow levels should be expected in the Basin. It
went on to say that increased coal production
would not cause additional deficits in months not
presently experiencing shortages, but would exac-
erbate the existing problems.
"As Interior should know, the water is most
required in the West when there is none to be had.
"The worst months, in late summer, are very
critical to agriculture in this state. While numbers
may not reveal an apparent increased impact, it is
obvious to any farmer that coal production will
worsen a drought year, and possibly make that
consumptive difference which spells disaster."
Commenters 118 and 146
Response. The textual statements in the DES
regarding water shortages appear to be accurate
and to reflect the projections shown in the Tables.
Numbers do indeed reveal an apparent increased
impact by showing for specific alternatives that the
demands will be higher than under the base case. It
is difficult to see how the DES could have been
more explicit in pointing out that with or without
the coal program, there may be water shortages in
the West and that such shortages will be worsened
under alternatives that increase consumptive use.
It is also true that in the summary of regional
impacts in Section 5.3 considerable emphasis is
placed on the issue of water availability in the
West.
49. Comment. "Tables 5-10, 5-11 and 5-12
show higher water requirements in the Fort Union
Region for the low leasing level than for the
medium level. This should be reviewed and
explained if the figures are correct."
Commenter 204
Response. The apparent discrepancy is
attributable to the overall level of development of
coal production end use facilities presently envi-
sioned in the medium and low production scenario
for 1985. Slightly higher development rates of coal-
using facilities are anticipated under the low
production scenario, while under the medium
production scenario a greater proportion of Ft.
Union coal would be transported out of the region.
50. Comment. "The programmatic EIS should
recognize that the focus of air-quality impact issues
for Federal coal production will lie with the
potential conflict between coal mining /processing
operations and environmentally sensitive air quality
areas. Specifically, EPA is concerned about the
leasing of coal in proximity to Class I air quality
areas defined under Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Regulations. Under these regula-
tions, most of the emissions from coal produc-
ing/processing facilities can be adequately con-
trolled with the notable exception of fugitive dust,
a major problem in many Western coal producing
areas. Visibility reductions over Class I areas are a
genuine concern with new leasing. Problems of this
kind have already surfaced at the Alton, Utah coal
field. In our discussions on Unsuitability Criteria
we suggest a possible way of identifying these
kinds of air quality impacts prior to leasing.
"Other specific comments are enumerated
below and are keyed to page numbers.
"Page 5-53. The section which discusses
emission control standards quotes EPA-proposed
standards for power plants. It is difficult to
understand the connection between power plant
regulations and standards which would pertain to
"production facilities using fossil-fuel steam gener-
ators."
"Page 5-56. The reason for the inclusion of
Table 5-29 is unclear. The text (page 5-53)
mentions only SOxand TSP, yet Table 5-29 also
lists NO*. Furthermore, comparison of state
emission regulations is a very complex subject. We
believe that the table is factually incorrect, e.g.,
New Mexico's TSP regulation, Arizona's and
Ohio's SOxregulations are not more stringent than
the proposed power plant NSPS; and the Pennsyl-
vania SOxregulation does not apply to all areas of
the state. References 78 through 83 appear to have
been omitted or are misplaced.
8-123
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
"Page 5-57. The purpose of Table 5-30 is
obscure. While this material is factually correct, it
is not used to develop any point.
"Pages 5-62 through 5-71. We believe that
material of this type would be best if summarized
(perhaps national totals) in the document with the
detailed results placed in an appendix. It would be
helpful to have totals on Tables 5-39 through 5^3.
"We are not sure how the Tables 5-34 through
5-43 were generated for nationwide emissions
from all coal-related sources for the different
alternative coal leasing programs. In particular, we
find it difficult to see how there could be variations
in SChemissions (powerplant-related) as shown in
Table 5-35, given the assumption that the nation-
wide new source performance standards for
SChemissions would be met as stated under Section
3.1.2. Yet on page 6-1 the statement says that the
impact analysis in the previous chapter does not
include those mitigating measures required by law
of regulations. The EIS should make clear the
extent to which controls have or have not been
placed on impact parameter estimates.
"Since projections of end-use (basically power-
plant combustion from the NCM model) define
the level of expected impacts for various time
frames and scenarios, the EIS should also make
clear the number of actual new powerplants
projected. The estimate of megawatt size should
also be identified, particularly where industry
projections are available."
Commenter 28 1
Response.
a. The emission control standards discussed
address fossil fuel steam generators regulations.
These generators have heat input of 250 million
BTUs/hour or more. Whether these generators are
for steam only or associated with electric power
production, the emission standards are the same.
b. The reason for the inclusion of Table 5^5 is
discussed in Section 5.3.2.7. The Table does not
compare state regulations with proposed NSPS but
it compares state regulations with existing NSPS.
The references have been included. Also some
changes are made to the Table to reflect some of
your comments.
c. The Clean Air Act and the National Air
Quality Standards were discussed in Section
5.3.2.7. Thus it was judged appropriate to show
these standards in a separate table.
d. The referenced tables compare regions and
alternatives, considered to be important and
necessary presentations in this analysis.
e. A correction was made to read "The impact
analysis in the previous chapter does include those
mitigating measures required by law or regula-
tion".
f. An estimation of the number of electric power
plant facilities can be derived from the tables in
Appendix F using an average of 1,000 MWe plant
size consuming an average of 2.6 million tons of
coal a year. Applying these assumptions to the
Appendix F data (specifically, steam generation
consumptive use), approximately 196 power plants
were in existance. The number of plants would
increase under the preferred program medium-
level projections to 345 and 486 in 1985 and 1990,
respectively.
51. Comment. "On page 5^41 is a discussion of
the projected consumptive water requirements in
the Upper Colorado River Basin. This discussion
concludes with an observation which is made for
other regions to the effect that the Water Re-
sources Council figures relied upon in the State-
ment, are probably exaggerated by a "double
count" which includes general use, plus coal
development. The Statement should present more
reasonable water consumption statistics based on
efforts to eliminate this double count. Failure to do
so, even with the express recognition that the
double count may exist, again gives critics of the
coal leasing program and of western coal develop-
ment in general the opportunity to capitalize on a
very sensitive subject in the West by using
exaggerated figures for water consumption to
imply that municipalities and agricultural activity
will be severely deprived of water if additional coal
leasing occurs. Even though the Department tries
to put the exaggerated water consumption into
perspective by describing it also as a percentage of
low-flow total water availability, it is felt that
additional efforts are necessary to prevent this very
sensitive subject from being misunderstood."
Commenter 066, 089 and 097
Response. There is no feasible way now to
relate specifically the assumptions which underlie
the WRC data to the conditions postulated for any
of the programmatic alternatives analyzed. The
problem of double counting has been addressed
and its effects largely removed in the tables of
8-124
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
water flow and in the revised text in Section
5.3.2.6. In the revisions, it is assumed that where
the WRC requirements for a given watershed (or
combination of river basins) in 1985 exceed
estimates forecast by the analysts preparing this
environmental impact statement for the no new
leasing alternative, then the coal-related water
usage is assumed to be reflected in the WRC
figures. This approach can be supported by the
fact that both the WRC projections and those of
the above analysts (under the no new leasing
alternative at the medium level of coal production)
assume that 1.1 billion tons of coal will be mined
in 1985. This point is established in a memoran-
dum from the Bureau of Mines. There are four
watersheds for which energy-related water require-
ments exceed those for all purposes as estimated
by WRC. For these, the requirements are consid-
ered as additional to those of WRC and the
residual flows shown in the tables are accordingly
reduced (as in the draft EIS). Here the problem of
double counting cannot be eliminated and the
point is emphasized. The fact that the projections
for these watersheds represent a "worst case" or
upper bound on water consumption which is
expected to exceed conditions that will actually
exist. It happens that even with the double
counting only one of these watersheds is projected
to show a deficit; that is the Missouri-Kansas
watershed where the deficit is for a single month
and exists even without the double counting.
While the above approach mitigates the prob-
lem of double counting (by eliminating it in 60
percent of the watersheds), no totally satisfactory
method is known at this time to relate the impacts
of coal-related requirements to total water con-
sumption. The point is made in the text that none
of the alternatives differ significantly and that
none will change a seasonal shortage into a surplus
or conversely create a deficit.
52. Comment. "EPA considered this impact to
be one of genuine national/regional concern.
Water limitations could definitely put constraints
on the proposed coal program. Unfortunately, the
water resources/water quality portions of the Draft
EIS on the Federal Coal Management Program are
weak, poorly organized, and it is difficult to make
any meaningful sense out of the information. It is
not at all clear what specific water uses are
included in the various alternatives. Therefore, it
seems to be impossible to directly compare figures
in the draft with estimated water uses from other
sources. As a specific example, we have attached
water use estimates prepared by the Salinity
Forum as Appendix A. These projections are
about as good as any available; however, it does
not seem possible to make a direct comparison
between the Forum's projections and the figures in
the draft EIS.
Commenter281
Response. The water quality and water
supply sections of this environmental statement
have been reorganized in response to this and
other commentors. This restructuring should allow
comparability of the EPA and DOI water use
estimates.
53. Comment. "Table 5-5 and following four
tables imply a shifting of coal production to
western coalfields under all but the 'no new
leasing' alternative. Lacking here is an analysis and
discussion of the competitive position of Western
coal versus Eastern coal, particularly in view of
new requirements for emission control devices on
all powerplants, rising transportation costs, and
increasing demands on limited water supplies in
the West. Potential impacts of a western shift in
coal production on employment and regional
economic stability in Eastern coal producing
districts should be briefly discussed."
Commenter 079
Response. Section 5.3 of the FES addresses
the points raised.
54. Comment. ."5.2.2 Physical Impacts and
5.2.2.6 Water Impacts "As a result of the lack of
specificity in the draft statement, it is difficult — if
not impossible — to evaluate this section. The
terms are very general in nature, and it is difficult
to assess whether the tables are adequate or
meaningful.
«_ Table 5-44, page 5-74, 'Comparison of
Potential Primary Productivity Loss.' This table
needs clarification and references. In addition,
Tables 5^2, 'Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,' and 5-
43, 'Hydrocarbon Emission,' are difficult to inter-
pret. A statement should outline the criteria on
which the emission factors were generated and
what kind of emissions would impact what areas.
"_ Table 5-46, 'Potential Threats to Endan-
gered Species of Coal Regions,' is extremely
misleading. The column labeled 'Most Serious
8-125
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Threat' to the endangered species is purely conjec-
tural unless better referenced. It appears the most
serious threat specifically related to strip mining is
unfounded. For example, it states that mining is
the most serious threat to the gray bat. This is
unfounded, especially when the animal's normal
habitat is limestone caves. Another endangered
species, the black-footed ferret, is said to be
threatened by strip mining. In fact, farming and
farming practices are considered to be the princi-
pal cause for the degradation of the habitat. This
also applies to the Utah prairie dog. Thus, Table
5-46 describes severe negative impacts as if they
are solely resulting from strip mining.
Commenter 069
Response. Appendix H addresses the meth-
odology used to calculate the various environmen-
tal factors, including air pollutants. The Regional
Impact Summary Comparison (DES, Section 5.3,
FES Section 5.2) now preceeds the specific
program impacts section and presents key impacts
in a series of tables which lists the impacts of the
various alternatives as a percent increase or
decrease over the No New Leasing base case.
Reference for estimates of individual produc-
tivity are included in Appendix Table D-l. Table
5^14 DES (5-62 in FES) is the result of unweighted
productivity averages times surface area required
(see section 5.3.3.1) and is for comparison purpose
only.
Any activity that removes changes or disturbs
habitat is a threat to wildlife regardless of whether
the species has protected status or not. Table 5^16
DES (5-64 in FES) has been modified to reflect
this.
55. Comment. "TDWR invites attention to the
following specific items in the DEIS relative to
water resources which impact significantly on the
State of Texas:
a. The analysis of water availability is based on
preliminary data pertaining to water flow and
consumptive water use compiled by the U.S. Water
Resources Council (WRC) (i.e., U.S. Water Re-
sources Council, 1978 (Preliminary Review Copy)
— 'The Nation's Water Resource — The Second
National Water Assessment', Washington, D.C.).
See DEIS at page 5-26, section 5.2.2.6, fourth
paragraph under the caption 'Water Impacts'.
b. The DEIS presents water resources data,
including total streamflow, and estimated present
and future water requirements corresponding to
the WRC's Texas-Gulf aggregated subregions
(ASR) 1107 (Lower Red River Basin), 1201
(Sabine-Neches Basin), 1202 (Trinity-San Jacinto
Basin), 1203 (Brazos River Basin), 1204 (Colorado
River Basin), and 1205 (Navidad - Guadalupe -
Mission - Nueces Basin) (See Appendix E of the
DEIS at pages E-2 and E-6).
"Even though the said water availability data
and the related projection methodology are pre-
sented with numerous conditions and cautions
regarding the validity, applicability, and practicali-
ty of the data and methodology, TDWR has more
fundamental objections to the use of the said WRC
preliminary data. TDWR's review comments,
suggested revisions, and point-by-point assessment
relative to WRC's draft review report on the
'Second National Water Assessment', were pre-
sented in letter dated August 25, 1978, to the
Secretary of the Interior. A copy of the said August
25, 1978 letter is attached for ready reference, and
special attention is invited to comment 12, thereof.
TDWR has been advised that WRC and the
Department of the Interior are taking appropriate
action to resolve the important problems and
questions raised in the review of the Second
National Water Assessment.
"Because the Texas Coal Region is not one of
the eight coal regions for which the Department of
the Interior is preparing separate, detailed environ-
mental impact statements, (see DEIS at page 3-6,
section 3.1.1.7, fourth paragraph under caption
'Meeting the Requirements of the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act'.), TDWR suggests that final
version of the subject programmatic environmental
impact statement include assurances that revised,
coordinated WRC data relative to the Texas-Gulf
Region water availability and demand will be
used. TDWR emphasizes the Second National
Assessment without substantial revision of the data
will not be useful in determining the present and
future adequacy of Texas water resources, and that
the use of these unrevised data in major energy-
related programs may unavoidably and seriously
hamper the solution of energy-related problems.
Unfortunately, the use of WRC's ASR aggregated
water resources data appears to generalize water
data beyond the point of being useful. The
aggregate, generalized data tend to portray condi-
tions as covering a much broader area than they
actually do."
8-126
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Commenter 056
Response. As requested, the new WRC data
will be evaluated when available and incorporated
in the programmatic where appropriate if they are
significantly different than the data used in
preparation of the draft. The ASR data was used
because no other options were available to the
Department in the time frame available for
preparation of the draft environmental statement.
56. Comment. "Page 5-28: The discussion of
water rights here should include the problem of
Indian title to groundwater. The complexity of the
issue, the problems of competing interests between
the state and Indian water rights and the fact that
no final determination of the ownership of the
water underlying much of the coal in the San Juan
River Coal Region should be addressed in any
discussion of the feasibility of coal development in
that region."
Commenter 057
Response. Indian water rights are a very
complicated topic to address without being site-
specific. The DES, page 5-28, footnote 1, addresses
the rights of Indian tribes with Northern Great
Plains. The footnote and supporting text have been
revised to highlight potential Indian rights to water
and the effect to coal development such rights
might involve.
57. Comment. "Page 5-26: Under the section
dealing with water impacts the problem of cumula-
tive impacts is very serious. According to the
figures in Table 5-10, water demands in the San
Juan River Region from coal development could
range from 30,000 to 52,000 acre feet per year
depending upon the alternative chosen. It is a fact
that in the San Juan Basin, where most of the coal
development in the Region will take place, the only
water available for coal development will come
from the Westwater Canyon aquifer. Claims that
water can be obtained from the San Juan River are
unrealistic and misleading. Information from the
New Mexico State Engineer's Office and the
United States Geological Survey reveal the follow-
ing facts.
"Page 5^1: As I have pointed out above no
discussion of the availability of water for coal
development in the San Juan River Region is
sufficient without addressing the realities of the
situation which are:
1) Virtually every drop of San Juan River
water is already allocated and it is probable that
none will be available for coal development.
2) Coal development in the San Juan Basin
will have to depend entirely on water from the
Westwater Canyon aquifer.
3) Cumulative demands on this aquifer will
raise a very real possibility that no water will be
available for coal development.
The problems raised here with respect to the water
impacts of coal development go to the initial
question of whether the entire San Juan River Coal
Region should be considered at all for any
development. These impacts should be discussed
at the national level and should be included in the
final Environmental Statement for the Program.
"These problems should also be discussed at
the regional level. Again, the Star Lake-Bisti Coal
Environmental Statement does not address any of
these problems. If the regional statement is
approved and implemented the area will be
committed to development without the knowledge
that there will be sufficient water to support that
development."
Commenter 057
Response. It is recognized that water deficits
are probably the most significant problem in
development of western coal resources. More
specifically, it is clear that additional development
of coal resources in the San Juan River Coal
Region will require a reallocation of existing fully-
allocated surface water rights. It is the role of the
programmatic environmental statement to identify
such adverse impacts, it is up to regional planners
and resource use decision-makers to prioritize and
allocate scarce resources among competing uses.
It is also noted that the use of deep aquifers
may offer some mitigation to the problem of
inadequate surface water resources. Use of deep
aquifer resources may, however, generate an
entirely new set of environmental impacts.
58. Comment. "One of the issues overlooked by
the DES is the lack of understanding of the effects
of the use of fertilizers and irrigation."
Commenter 097
Response. A statement has been added as
follows: The use of fertilizer consisting of nitrogen,
phosphorous, or potassium have given variable
results. In some cases, fertilizer addition has
produced favorable results, but this response has
8-127
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
not been consistent. Intensive soil testing of
specific sites would be required before fertilizer
application.
59. Comment. "Later in the same Section (page
5-23, the sixth full paragraph), the statement is
made that irrigation cannot be considered a
solution for all mines in semi-arid regions simply
because water rights are 'usually not available.'
This statement is contrary to the experience of
virtually every mine operator. Water rights are
relatively expensive to develop or obtain anywhere
in the West, yet we know of no mine operator who
has been unable to acquire such rights either
directly by purchase or by appropriation. Presum-
ably this statement is based on a miscomprehen-
sion of western water law and the realization that
most states consider all or almost all of their
watersheds to be fully appropriated already, which
may be the case on paper but not in reality."
Commenter 066
Response. The FES text has been changed to
read "may not be available."
60. Comment. "Table 5-12. This Table also
predicts water requirements for coal mining in the
San Juan River Region as 62,500 acre feet at the
middle range in 1990. However, the Star Lake-Bisti
Regional EIS states that this demand will be only
14,488 acre feet in its high-level scenario. This
discrepancy must be addressed, for, again, it
implies impacts which other Department docu-
ments dispute as being too high."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. As can be seen in the attached
table extracted from the Star Lake-Bisti Regional
ES, the projected 1990 high level water require-
ment is not 14,488 acre feet, but rather, 58,936 acre
feet. Since the estimate of 62,500 acre feet is for
coal extraction and use, the variation between the
two reports of 3,564 acre feet (5.7%) represents a
reasonable variation attributable to variation in
the assumptions made vis-a-vis coal production
and use.
TABLE I- n
PROJECTED ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS
FOR COAL-RELATED DEVELOPMENT
(acre feet)
1977 1980 1985 1990
Coal Mines
Generating Stations
Star Lake Railroad
Fruitland Coal Load
Transmission Line
Community Water Use
Total
1,851 3,146 8,006 8,763
11,715 14,822 30,962 47,997
0 760 70 70
0 5 5 5
429 1,451 1,510 2,101
13,995 20,184 40,553 58,936
61. Comment. "The EIS failed to consider the
limitation on coal development due to shortages of
water within the western states. Utah in particular
has far more development schemes than can be
supported by the water available. As is being seen
near Delta, agricultural water is being used to
furnish water for the IPP plant. Large coal
development within this region will take water
which could be used for agriculture. One impact of
this program would be a reduction in the food
production within the region. Clearly the EIS is
assuming that national policy is to favor energy
production beyond need at the expense of agricul-
tural development."
Commenter 104
Response. The water requirements due to
coal development are contained in Chapter 5's
water impact section and Appendix E. Where
water consumption is excessive, it would be in
definite competition with other intraregional water
requirements. This site-specific competition is
germane to future site-specific analyses. Further,
the FES definitely does not assume that the
national policy is to favor energy production at the
expense of agricultural or other development.
62. Comment. "The discussion of groundwater
reserves on page 5^1 is quite good. This should
provide a rational foundation for extremely limited
mining of the deep aquifers of Wyoming."
Commenter 118
Response. This environmental analysis will
provide the foundation for future site-specific
environmental analyses of any specific tract
leasing. Cumulatively, these analyses will be used
as a tool to weigh resource trade-off decisions.
8-128
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
63. Comment. "Table 5-12: This table might be
better explained because in several instances the
'Medium' figure is not medium as related to
adjacent 'High' and 'Low' figures. The same is true
for tables 5-13 and 5-24."
Commenter 079
Response. The column headings in Table 5-
12, 5-13, and 5-24 (Low, Medium, and High) in
the DES refer to coal production scenarios as
detailed by DOI. The high, medium, and low water
measures presented in Tables 5-12, 5-13, and 5-24
are those associated with the three coal production
scenarios.
64. Comment. "Also, in dealing with water, the
Impact Statement does state that most of the coal
used in the region is an aquifer itself. I have done a
little bit more work on that and have computed
that between 182 and 217 acre feet per million tons
of coal is actually in that water.
"Now, we can argue about how much can be
used and how much can't, but by the year 1990 we
would be hauling out eighty-six thousand acre feet
of water out of this state just by way of hauling the
coal, and I think the Impact Statement— you had
better look at that and see what we are doing to
this country and whether this is a proper concern."
Commenter 146
Response. The comment has been noted. The
assumptions cannot be verified and the conclu-
sions are exaggerated and argumentative.
65. Comment. "In Chapter 5 we take exception
to the statement the 'Yellowstone River Moratori-
um' would deplete the flow of the Yellowstone
River to the extent it would preclude further
processing of coal in the area. We testified in
opposition to the Montana Department of Fish
and Game's request for 8.2 million acre feet, as
well as the request of the Department of Health
and Environmental Science's request for 6.7
million acre feet instream flow. Section 5.2.2.6
should be rewritten to include the recent decision
by the Board of Natural Resources and Conserva-
tion."
Commenter 179
Response. Approval of large instream water
rights would maintain the flow of the Yellowstone
and its tributaries at a minimum specified level,
thereby possibly inhibiting the development of new
(junior) water rights in those basins.
The Montana State Board of Natural Re-
sources and Conservation handed down their
decision ending the Yellowstone Moratorium on
December 15, 1978. Based on conversations with
personnel of the Montana DWR, it appears that
the decision favored the in-stream flow interests
and may result in the imposition of an additional
constraint on the development of new water rights
in the basin.
66. Comment. "The impacts attributable to the
Federal coal management program would be only
a small fraction of those resulting from meeting
national coal requirements. (5-9)
"For example, the Department's assertion that
the preferred program will not result in significant-
ly greater environmental impacts than a no new
leasing alternative is contradicted by its own
projections of the relative regional water impacts
of the two main alternatives. The Statement's
comparison of the water consumption (evapora-
tion) impacts of the various program alternatives
shows that, while the total water consumption for
the preferred program will be almost identical to
that of the no new leasing alternative in 1985, the
preferred alternative will result in more water
losses from western rivers, (p. 4-59) Because of
lower average streamflows, greater streamflow
variation, and over-commitments to other uses, the
ecosystems of western rivers will be less tolerant of
water loss than would be those in the East. Thus, in
the case of water, the preferred program is likely to
have significantly greater impacts than the no new
leasing alternative."
Commenter 089
Response. Nationally the impacts from
different levels of leasing are similar. Regionally,
which leasing level is chosen results in significantly
different levels of impacts. Analyzing these pat-
terns is the goal of the FES (see Section 5.2).
67. Comment. "Furthermore, the statement
makes no attempt to assess the impacts of major
surface water diversions, groundwater withdraw-
als, and new reservoirs which would be required
under the preferred program.
"The statement also fails to assess the conse-
quences of the impact of coal mining-related
pollutants discharged into streams whose flows
have been reduced as a result of coal development.
The water flows predicted in some regions during
periods of low flow are small, indicating that the
8-129
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
impact of chemical and sediment loading on
streams is likely to be significant. The statement
does discuss surface water shortages during peri-
ods of low flow in the Texas, Powder River,
Denver-Raton, Green River-Hams Fork, Uinta-
Southwestern Utah, and San Juan Coal Regions
(pp. 5-33 to 5-47), but again it neglects to discuss
the consequences of these shortages or of the
impacts of measures taken to avoid them ( i.e., the
construction of new reservoirs).
"Finally, the Department's approach does not
provide an adequate comparison of the water
impacts of the preferred program with those of the
no-project alternative. First, the statement glosses
over the difference in regional water impacts
resulting from each of these options."
Commenter 089
Response. Section 5.3.2.6 Water Impacts has
been substantially rewritten to address previous
deficiencies with regard to the treatment given to
water availability and quantity.
68. Comment. "It appears that the development
of the Western Interior Region may bring about
some reduction of flow in the Mississippi River
along the state's eastern border and that develop-
ment of the Fort Union Region may bring about
more drastic reduction of flows in the Missouri
River along the state's western border. Especially
distressing is the following: 'Table 5-20 indicates
that up to 14 percent of the annual average flow
for this (Missouri) river basin could be required.
Up to 38 percent of the 20-year low annual supply
would be required in 1985.' Page 5-41, DES
FCMP "
Commenter Oil
Response. Table 5-20 of the DES refers to
the upper Missouri River basin of the Powder
River and Fort Union Coal Regions. These regions
are located approximately 500 miles upstream
from the segment of the Missouri River which
form Iowa's western border. Due to the fact that
numerous other tributaries feed the Missouri over
this 500 mile river segment, Iowa would not be
affected by the indicated magnitude of water
reduction. The actual impact in Iowa would be
minor.
69. Comment. " The Department mistak-
enly concludes that the impacts of the preferred
program will be little greater than those of the no-
project alternative.
"As we have discussed above, a major flaw in
the Draft Environmental Statement is its failure to
examine realistic alternatives to the preferred
program. The alternatives examined in the DES,
not leasing, emergency leasing or leasing to meet
industry, state or DOE requirements, are not
independent coal management programs. There
are ways of answering one of the questions which a
coal management program must answer: how
much to lease. The most significant alternatives
which the Department failed to consider is a
program whereby new leasing is deferred until
such time as it is clearly needed to meet future
energy requirements, and whereby existing leases
are managed in such a way as to balance
environmental and economic concerns. It is likely
that the environmental impacts of such a program
would be quite different from those of continua-
tion of the status quo, termed by the Statement as
the no-project alternative.
"Because there are a variety of no-project
alternatives which would have lesser environmen-
tal impacts than the 'no new leasing' alternative
discussed in the statement, the Department's
comparison of the environmental impacts of the
preferred program with those of the no new leasing
alternative gives the misleading impression that the
impacts of the preferred program will be only
marginally greater than those of a program which
is explicitly designed to ensure full protection of
environmental values in the development of
Federal coal."
Commenter 089
Response. The major management alterna-
tives used for this ES blanket the range of possible
decisions by the Secretary. As is pointed out, the
permutations in coal management decisions are
endless; we do not believe the impacts of these
different alternatives will, from a national view-
point, change impact levels significantly. The
preferred program described here would result in a
balanced approach to coal leasing decisions. While
this ES has reported a level of leasing to the
preferred program for the purposes of analysis;
this alternative does not in fact carry with it any
pre-determined level of leasing.
70. Comment. "In a related factor, only land
disturbance caused by the presence of mining
operations, beneficiation, conversion, use and
transportation of coal has been considered. This is
8-130
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
unacceptable. Surface mining of coal necessarily
requires human involvement, as reflected in pro-
jected population increases. However, areas which
will be temporarily or permanently disturbed for
residential, commercial, industrial and governmen-
tal structures, ancillary support structures, recre-
ation, and corridors for the service and utilities of
such 'populations have been ignored. Stating that
the 'multiplicity of site-specific factors which
would dictate acreages committed to such develop-
ments' renders quantification 'beyond the scope of
this document' is not a statement of environmental
impact. It may be noted that residential develop-
ment has traditionally taken place on the best
agricultural lands, because that is where towns
have been historically located. Expansion of
existing urban areas to serve energy booms will
only expand the agricultural losses."
Commenter 097
Response. Secondary land disturbance is
quantified in the ES where it is felt that reasonable
estimates could be made. Secondary impacts
related to coal development including induced
growth and community change are covered genen-
cally in Section 5.3.4. An estimate for the amounts
of land required to support coal-related population
increases has been added to the discussion of land
disturbance. The factors which contribute to make
land "prime farmland" are also often the best
characteristics for other land uses.
71. Comment. "Some characteristics of the data
presented concerning land disturbance are not
clearly explained. Table 5-5 indicates that, for the
low and high coal development scenarios, the
preferred program would lead to more acres being
disturbed than the 'no new leasing' alternative, but
would lead to less for the medium level of coal
development, (p. 5-18) It is not clear what factors
are responsible for such conclusions."
Commenter 089
Response. Acres disturbed are based on coal
production estimates. Where medium coal produc-
tion level estimates are higher than high-level
production, a shift of coal production to other
regions is indicated. Land disturbance reflects this
shift.
72. Comment. "On page 5-73 and Table 5-44
the term is meaningless. Productivity, being a rate
measurement, is a function of time; however, no
explanation of the time interval involved is given
for the data. Because productivity rates are
inherently different among the coal regions, the
procedure in this section of comparing productivi-
ty levels used throughout the document are
suspect."
Commenter 088
Response. This section is being rewritten to
clarify the time aspects of productivity.
73. Comment. "Furthermore, the statement
completely ignores long-term and cumulative
ecological effects: no consideration is given to
impacts after 1990. (p. 5-3) Although it is difficult
to assess long-term ecological effects of specific
stresses, some comments can be made regarding
potential consequences of coal development. For
example, strip mining thick beds with shallow
overburden can significantly alter drainage and
erosional patterns. Mining can alter the quality
and quantity of both surface and ground water,
alter soil characteristics, and change the topogra-
phy and geology of the land. Soils in arid and
semi-arid climates recover very slowly, so loss of
productivity could be a significant factor. While
the statement assumes a return to original produc-
tivity, alteration of the environment may prevent
it.
"Thus, the numerous environmental changes
associated with coal development could diminish
the ability of an ecological system to reestablish
itself. If reestablishment is not attained after some
period of time, then the fragile, low-density food
webs of most western coal regions become very
susceptible to disruption. As can be seen from the
statement's list of endangered species in the
western coal regions, (pp. 5-77 to 5-80) flora and
fauna in these areas are already stressed; addition-
al burdens caused by coal development may make
extinction a real possibility.
"In short, the statement's discussion of the
environmental impacts of the proposed program
does not fully assess the consequences of Federal
coal leasing to the natural ecosystems of each
region. In order to provide an adequate analysis of
the total environmental impact of the proposed
program, the statement must relate its estimates of
the 'loading' upon the environment to the long-run
ecological consequences of such disturbance."
Commenter 089
Response. Section 5.3.3 discusses impacts on
ecosystems in terms of productivity loss, habitat
8-131
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
losses, and endangered species. Appropriate mate-
rial will be included in 5.3.3 to address more
clearly the issues raised in the comment.
74. Comment. "The second one is existing
vegetation would be destroyed on sites cleared for
development and surface mining, wildlife habitat
would be lost or temporarily displaced. Well, on
the east side of the state the ranchers are always
setting fire to the grass and burning it off for one
reason or another. It is a little bit hard to be sure
of. Sometimes for good, maybe for bad, I don't
know. It depends on whether you get caught in the
fire at the time it gets burned off. As far as the
wildlife goes, I am sure that we don't get too
concerned about the hunters going out and
hunting the quail. It is my understanding the quail
are going to die whether the hunters shoot them
anyway. This is kind of getting at little things
about how the wildlife is going to be affected. That
is greatly overdone. I think the wildlife is more
likely to come in because they will find more food
around where there are people. If you want to take
it from that point of view you might have more
wildlife than you would have if there wasn't
anybody out there."
Commenter 139
Response. Wildlife impacts due to the
implementation of a Federal coal management
program are most certainly within the scope of the
FES and merit analysis while the wildlife effects
due to the actions of ranchers, hunters or other
non-Departmental actions do not.
75. Comment. The statement does not assess
the long-term impacts of the environmental
stresses which will be caused by the preferred
program. The statement acknowledges that the
preferred program and and other alternatives
involving significant amounts of coal development
will create serious environmental stresses in the
regions where coal is mined. However, it does not
attempt to estimate the impacts that these stresses
will have on those regions. We believe that an
evaluation of the long-run consequences on partic-
ular species and ecosystems within each region is
also essential to any decision concerning Federal
coal leasing policy.
"To its credit, the statement does attempt to
address the issue of ecological impacts. Unfortu-
nately, the assessment is too superficial to be
meaningful; moreover, it relies once again on some
questionable assumptions. For example, the state-
ment estimates plant and wildlife losses by multi-
plying plant and wildlife densities by the estimated
number of acres directly disturbed by coal devel-
opment, (p. H-26)"
Commenter 089
Response. Estimates of land disturbance over
the long-term and short-term have been revised in
Chapter 7 to indicate the amounts of land that
would be committed in regions for each of these
broad categories. The long-term consequences on
specific species and ecosystems can only be
generalized at this alternatives level of analysis (see
section 5.3.3). Once specific sites are identified,
impacts specific to the type of activity and the
area being affected can be assessed in detail.
76. Comment. "The potential impacts of
subsidence on water availability in springs and
seeps water and mesic micro-habitat sources
extremely important to wildlife, should be ad-
dressed more fully in Section 5.2.2.6, page 5-26."
Commenter 093
Response. Any area adjoining an excavation
is normally subjected to increased stress as a
consequence of the redistribution of load. This
may be at the front of, or at the sides or rear of, a
working face. Changes, diversions, or pollution of
surface or underground water may occur, and pits
and cracks may result due to these stresses,
resulting in increase of soil moisture in some areas.
A change in soil moisture may lead to a change in
plant cover which would result in a change in
wildlife habitats. These changes are highly site
specific and could be beneficial or detrimental to
wildlife.
77. Comment. "The discussion of wildlife
disturbance and destruction is not adequate in the
DES. The document indicates that larger, more
mobil wildlife will rarely be killed (5-72). But the
Eastern Powder River Coal DES finds 1,947 game
mammals will be destroyed, along with 200,651
nongame. This is in addition to the loss of 280,359
birds. Further, the above statistics say nothing
about car, 'domestic pet,' and wanton killings.
These forgotten factors arguably kill more wildlife
than the loss of habitat."
Commenter 118
Response. The document reads "while direct
mortality of larger, more mobile wildlife species
would be rare " in the generic discussion of
5-13^
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
ecological impacts. In Section 5.3.3.2 (habitat loss)
and in Appendix D tables D-4 through D-25
estimates of potential wildlife losses due to habitat
loss are presented. Increased traffic, pets, and
illegal hunting will surely result in additional losses
which cannot be reasonably estimated at this level.
It's possible for a habitat to exist without wildlife,
but unlikely that wildlife can exist without a
habitat.
78. Comment. "The Section on Ecological
Impacts beginning on page 5-72 appears to
contain some conflicts. On page 5-75, the follow-
ing statement appears -.'Since the specific tracts
which may be leased are presently unknown, it is
not possible to indicate the exact habitat which
would be lost.' Several paragraphs later, reference
is made to table 5-45 which represents estimates of
potential big game population reductions which
would occur due to habitat loss. Since it is not
possible (as previously stated) to indicate the exact
habitat that would be lost, then how can potential
big game population reductions which would
occur due to habitat loss be calculated?"
Commenter 121
Response. Potential big game population re-
ductions were derived by using estimates of
population densities of occupied habitat multiplied
by estimates of acres required for coal develop-
ment (See Appendix H.4.4 for more details).
Since specific tracts are unknown, a land use
forecast was developed for each region which
alloted percentages of the estimated land required
for coal development to forest, range, cropland,
pasture and wetlands. Potential big game popula-
tion reductions (and other wildlife as well) were
then determined by multiplying estimates of
population densities of occupied habitat by acres
of habitat (as determined by the land-use forecast).
Details of the steps used to estimate the various
components of this methodology are given in
Appendix H.4.4. It is important to recognize that
these are estimates based on a set of assumptions
and that actual reductions may vary considerably
once specific areas are defined.
79. Comment. "In addition, the DEIS could be
improved with a benefit/cost analysis and eco-
nomic comparison of the various proposed actions
and alternative mitigation measures, since it is
important to strike a balance between economics
and environmental impacts."
Commenter 117
Response. While it is entirely appropriate to
strike a reasonable balance between the extremes
of environmental preservation versus economic
development, it is beyond the scope of this
programmatic environmental statement to develop
the data necessary to adequately address the issues
of cost/benefit analysis. Further, since the regions
evaluated encompass such broad areas, the num-
ber of qualifying assumptions would, of necessity,
be so extensive as to render useless any serious
attempt to quantify program-wide costs and
benefits. A far more appropriate setting for such
analyses would be the regional impact statements,
where the regional impacts, costs and benefits
could most adequately be described. Economic
factors are incorporated in the Secretary's deci-
sions on the Federal coal management program.
80. Comment. "The DES indicates coal related
population growth would reach 'hyperurbaniza-
tion' levels in the Powder River without any new
leasing (5-85). Under the preferred program
medium level, the annual growth rate would be
approximately 14.2%, creating an even worse
situation. Might this be turbohyperurbanization?"
Commenter 118
Response. The text of the FES has been
modified to more fully discuss the social and
economic impacts of boom town developments.
81. Comment. "Unfortunately this draft fails to
recognize, as some Federal legislation fails to
recognize, that those jurisdictions which experi-
ence the most severe adverse impacts may not be
the same as those which accrue the chief tax
benefit. The statement implies that an increase in
population is accompanied by an eventual increase
in taxable valuation which eventually catches up
with the cost of the additional demand for public
services and facilities. In cities, towns and school
districts this is not necessarily so: the catch-up may
never occur. In that circumstance, loans can be
part of the burden they are intended to alleviate
and grants are much preferable. We are all familiar
with interstate jurisdictional inequities, but they
also occur within the state and it does not appear
they can be completely nor equitably addressed by
the state's adoption of any single jurisdictional
mechanism, such as tax base sharing. By the same
token, the statement suggests prepayment of taxes
as a mechanism to help off-set tax lead time
8-133
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
problems. Although Montana has legal provisions
which would allow prepayment of taxes, every time
prepayment has been proposed industry has
threatened to challenge its constitutionality."
Commenter 121
Response. The commenter is correct in
noting the interjurisdictional nature of fiscal
impacts potentially arising from coal development.
Section 5.3.4.5 is being revised to incorporate this
impact in the discussion of tax lead time impacts.
82. Comment. "The draft implies a minimal
responsibility on the part of the Federal govern-
ment for providing what we consider to be highly
appropriate financial assistance to help mitigate
adverse impacts. The statement is made: 'The task
of providing mitigation rests primarily with states.'
Montana has taken a lead in the nation in
assuming its responsibilities toward the coal area
through the establishment and use of our coal
severance tax and our innovative approach to
assisting impact communities through the Mon-
tana Coal Board. Recognizing that energy impact
extends beyond the coal area, we are continuing to
evaluate our role and to explore new possibilities.
Montana has the highest coal severance tax in the
nation— and it is currently subject to challenge by
the energy industry. We, therefore, find it ironic
that in discussing the inadequacy and unresponsi-
veness of existing Federal aid, the Department of
Interior should recommend that 'the more severely
impacted states such as Wyoming and Montana
could seek to raise revenue by other means, for
example, through the imposition of an increased
coal severance tax'."
Commenter 121
Response. Reference to the State of Montana
has been deleted from the quoted material.
83. Comment. "In addition to the environmental
impacts, the National Wildlife Federation is
concerned about the socio-economic ramifications
of coal production of the magnitude expressed by
Department of Energy projections for 1985 and
1990. The problems associated with the transfor-
mation of most of these geographic locations from
an agricultural lifestyle to urban, industrial life-
styles include not only the physical implications
discussed in the impact statement— a shortage of
housing, health, recreational, and educational
facilities; and inadequate police, fire, and water
and sewer provisions— but metaphysical conse-
quences such as juvenile deliquency, alcoholism,
drug abuse, serious emotional problems and
increased crime rates. These are more than 'socio-
economic' impacts— they are reflections of the
dramatic transformation of a lifestyle chosen and
enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Western States."
Commenters 160, 071, 123, 146, and 057
Response. The text of the FES reflects the
existence of the mentioned metaphysical conse-
quences, particularly as they relate to areas
expected to experience rapid population increases
(i.e., creation of hyper-urbanization or boom
towns). However, the coal management program is
not expected to generate lifestyle transformations
as geographically broad as implied in the com-
ment. Rather, population increases would be most
rapid in areas expected to experience a concentra-
tion of energy-related development activities, while
the broader coal region would experience more
moderate increases.
84. Comment. " The preferred program does
not adequately provide for consideration of cumu-
lative social and economic impacts of leasing
federal coal. The question of how, where and when
the coal will be consumed (its end-use) is critical to
this consideration."
Commenter 061
Response. The cumulative social and eco-
nomic impacts of coal development will be
assessed by production region and, indeed, is the
main thrust of this analysis. The impact of regional
coal consumption will be part of the regional lease
sales EIS.
85. Comment. "What is considered 'high to
moderate' development potential? Why not en-
courage low development potential which might be
more suitable and sensitive to local demand?"
Commenter 118
Response. The terms refer to the potential
economic feasibility of mining the coal deposit.
Coal of low-development potential is, by defini-
tion, very costly to produce and would not be in
demand, even locally. If anyone believes that he
has information on a coal deposit that would
change the USGS's determination of its develop-
ment potential, he can present it to the Depart-
ment, which will, if the presentation is reasonable,
include the suggested coal deposit with the coal
classified as having high or medium development
potential.
8-134
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
86. Comment. "It is on Page 5-83. 'The goal of
maintaining a physical and social environment
consistent with tradition is not realistic. Residents
who cherish this way of life will be forced to
tolerate changes.' As I said, I find this really
disturbing. You are making judgments about our
lifestyles, how we should live. You have demon-
strated a fairly keen prejudice against the rural
lifestyle."
Commenter 161
Response. The FES does not make any
judgment about how one should live, rather, it
assesses the sociological changes which are antici-
pated to occur due to the adoption of a Federal
coal management program.
87. Comment. "As a general note on Chapter
Five, the impact section does not describe benefi-
cial impacts from mine development; and does not
discuss the economic benefits received from coal
severance tax money. In addition, the statement
should also describe the positive economic benefits
of developing coal tracts within a particular
region."
Commenter 089
Response. The commenter is referred to
Section 5.3.4.2 which addresses the new jobs
created and Tables 5-77 and 5-78, Projected Coal
Royalties and Severance Taxes. Statements relat-
ing to the positive economic impacts accruing to a
community due to coal production are included in
Chapter 5 to amplify these points.
88. Comment. "The ES ignores non-coal related
growth in the regions (p. 5-9) and analyzes only
the direct impacts of development on socio-eco-
nomics and the land. Both are contrary to
established ES procedures and prevent the state-
ment from presenting the total impacts develop-
ment would have. Furthermore, all the impact
analyses in the document are based on the
assumption that underground mining produces no
air pollution and no short- or long-term land
disturbance (pp. H-34, 45, 56-108). This is another
in the series of absurd assumptions on which the
ES is based."
Commenter 158
Response. The objective of this programmat-
ic environmental statement is to address coal-
related development impacts. It is beyond the
scope of this statement to address non-coal related
growth.
Emissions from underground mining are as-
sumed to be negligible compared to surface
operations because of the widespread use of
electrical equipment. Underground mining air
emissions are addressed in Section 5.3.2.
Estimates of land disturbed have been revised
for the FES. Incorporated in the revision to
Section 5.3 is consideration of land committed on
a short-term basis to roads, buildings, tailing piles,
etc.
89. Comment. "In Section 5.2.4.1, a lengthy
discussion is made of the assumptions used in
projecting the population increases due to the new
federal coal leasing and the resulting socio-eco-
nomic impacts. On page 5-83 (second column) and
near the beginning of page 5-85, are comments
which indicate that those impacts assumed are
based on increases in population which combine
short-term increases due to major construction as
well as long-term employment in coal mines and
supporting services.
"Similarly, these impacts are based on figures
which do not reflect any assumptions concerning
the number of new people which would come into
an area and the number of jobs related to new
federal coal leasing which would be filled by
present residents of an area. These two factors
greatly exaggerate the socio-economic impacts of
new federal coal leasing. This is particularly true in
areas such as central Utah, where certain counties
which would be directly impacted by new federal
coal leasing are experiencing relatively high levels
of unemployment or underemployment which
would be alleviated by coal development without
many of the related environmental impacts that
occur when new residents move into a rather
sparsely-populated area. Therefore, it is urged that
the Department make a concerted effort in the
final impact statement to relate current unemploy-
ment figures to influxes of population resulting
from new federal coal leasing to develop not just
the "worst case" picture again, but also to show to
what degree the employment of existing residents
in coal development projects and/or supportive
services would reduce the projected environmental
impacts. Many residents of the West are particu-
lary opposed to any developments which would
bring in large numbers of "outsiders." It is
important to public support of the new federal coal
leasing program and to the blunting of any
$-135
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
opposition based on population increases that the
Department put such population increases in
proper perspective by indicating to what extent
existing residents might reduce immigration prob-
lems."
Commenter 066
Response. The objective of this programmat-
ic environmental statement is to attempt to
estimate overall levels of impacts associated with a
Federal coal managment program. As such, it is
inappropriate to attempt to specify alternatives
designed to provide solutions to county-level
problems. Further, the "worst case" impact repre-
sents an extreme impact level. In all probability,
this level of adverse impact would not occur.
90. Comment. "In Section 5.2.4.4 (the second
full paragraph on page 5-96), the basis for
projecting fiscal impacts on state and local govern-
ment agencies is described as being based on
admittedly overstated population shifts which
assume, incredibly, that all population shifts would
be interstate. It continues to be confusing and
frustrating for the Department to be making
assumptions on one page and then contradicting
the same assumptions with completely unjustified
assumptions on the next page. Although it might
be helpful to present the 'worst case' scenario for
physical impacts in order to avoid any criticism
that the Statement is inadequate for failing to at
least mention all possible impacts, it is basic to an
objective analysis that the Statement also demon-
strate what the Department considers to be the
most likely situation so that published reports of
the Statement or comments taken out of context
by groups opposed to new federal coal leasing
programs will not unduly alarm state and local
governments to enact new taxes or increase
existing taxes in preparation for problems based on
wholly unrealistic assumptions."
Commenter 066
Response. It has been assumed that all
population shifts will occur on an interstate basis
to insure that the "worst case" impacts are
presented. Some population shifts will occur on an
intra-state basis; this does not imply that fiscal
demands accompanying such intrastate shifts will
"net out" to zero. Rather, those shifts into areas
with inadequately developed infrastructures will
result in additional fiscal demands.
The Department cannot control the ultimate
use of specific sections of the environmental
statement. It must, however, comply with all
applicable law. In doing so, the worst case impact
is presented.
91. Comment. "The population increase figures
assumed by the Department are apparently in
direct conflict with statements made on page 5-87
at the beginning of Secion 5.2.4.2 to the effect that
the principal source of labor for western coal
development can be expected to be western
workers in agriculture and to a lesser degree, in the
construction industry. Here the Department is
acknowledging that many existing residents of the
West will be available to fill coal development-
related jobs, thus making the exaggerated assump-
tions of the amount of in-migration even more
unrealistic."
Commenter 066
Response. The existing supply of excess
labor, on a regional basis, will be inadequate to
meet total additional local labor demands. To
present estimates of "worst case" impacts, it was
necessary to assume all migration would be on an
interstate basis.
92. Comment. "Page 5-82: The discussion of
impacted communities is inadequate in the follow-
ing respects:
1) Although it is stated that a growth rate of
more than 10% on small communities
would require special planning, no discus-
sion is made of what effects any popula-
tion increase would have on areas where
there are essentially no services, as would
be the case throughout the San Juan River
Region.
2) No discussion is made of impacts on
communities where there are no services,
no housing and no private land on which
to build these things.
3) No discussion is included about the
boom-bust phenomenon experiences in
areas which have sudden development but
which have no structure to hold the influx
of people after the development."
Commenter 057
Response. The material suggested by this
comment is included in the final statement; see, for
example, Section 5.3.4.2.
8-136
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
93. Comment. " No discussion is included
about the effects of increased population on Indian
communities, where English is not spoken and
traditional lifestyles are dominant.
"These issues must be addressed in the final
statement."
Commenter 057
Response. Additional text addressing the
effect on Indian communities has been inserted in
Section 5.
94. Comment. "Similarly, impacts on state and
local expenditures have been diluted by consider-
ing only the impact in comparison with total
budgets of all state and local governmental units.
A 1990 impact on government expenditures in
Colorado seems miniscule, but in real terms the
$16 to $33 million will be mostly spent by local
communities with budgets which are presently
almost invisible."
Commenter 097
Response. While the commenter is correct in
stating that the annual fiscal impacts on local
budgets will be substantial, it is beyond the scope
of this programmatic environmental statement to
attempt to quantify impacts at the local level.
Rather, the appropriate regional and site-specific
impact statements would be the vehicle to identify,
quantify, analyze and, where necessary, mitigate
such impacts.
95. Comment. "It appears that Chapter 5 of the
statement should include a discussion of the
impact on utility bills from the preferred program
and alternatives."
Commenters 013 and 197
Response. The Department has prepared an
analysis of the impact on utility bills of no-new-
leasing alternative vis-a-vis the preferred program
as part of its study of the sensitivity of the DOE
model. This analysis was not available in time for
incorporation in the draft ES. It has been incorpo-
rated into Chapter 2 of the final ES.
96. Comment. "Page 5-96. Fiscal Impacts -
Alternate funding for front end developments are
loans or direct assistance.
"Loan programs would not assist the highway
developments as future increases in highway
development due to coal development would be
minimal and not sufficient to repay loans. The EIS
should recognize that specially funded programs
such as highways should receive direct assistance."
Commenter 014
Response. The FES does not specifically refer
to highway funding programs. It is recognized that
highway funding is normally conducted via direct
governmental assistance. The basis, however, for
governmental funding is taxes; coal development
is one means of increasing an area's tax base.
97. Comment. " Other concerns involve the
Department of Agriculture programs under SCS
such as the P.L. 566 Program. A number of
watershed developments are underway or planned.
It is felt mining might cause surface problems on
watersheds and also in the '208' non-point pollu-
tion program."
Commenter 001
Response. The statement recognizes that
mining activity may cause surface problems on
watersheds. However, this issue will be assessed on
a site-specific and regional basis as subsequent
plans are developed. Federal and State laws
pertaining to water quality provide criteria and
standards which must be met by any development.
Leases issued will require conformity with estab-
lished State and Federal water quality standards.
Chapter 5 in the final statement provides a
discussion on water impacts in the 12 Coal
Regions.
98. Comment. "Again on page 5-94 (bottom of
first column), reference is made to Table 5-54 as
containing projected increases in population due
to construction of coal development-related facili-
ties. These comments recognize that part of the
increase is due to a national surge in construction
of new combustion facilities but it also notes that
the data is based on the assumption of the possible
development of significant numbers of synthetic
fuel plants. Earlier in the Statement, the Depart-
ment clearly stated that, in general, its environ-
mental impact policies contained in Chapter 5 will
be based on the assumption that the end uses of
coal would, during the unforeseeable future, not
vary significantly from the present uses which are
primarily for the generation of electricity and
secondarily for conventional industrial boiler use
with negligible or no synthetic fuel development.
There would appear to be no justification for
making an exception to this general observation in
analyzing population increases. To assume signifi-
8-137
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
cant population increases from synthetic fuel
plants can be unnecessarily alarming to existing
residents in regions to be impacted by any new
federal coal leasing program."
Commenter 066
Response. The assumptions incorporated in
the impact analysis methodology (see Appendix H)
clearly indicate that synthetic fuels development
will occur by 1985, albeit on a limited scale. The
purpose of including such development as a basis
of impact projection is not to cause alarm, but
rather, to provide an objective estimate of future
population-related impacts.
99. Comment. "In the San Juan River Region,
most of the coal lies in New Mexico, yet only the
severance tax is used in computing economic
benefit to the State.
"Actually, the severance tax is only a small
part of direct taxes which New Mexico receives
from coal production."
Commenter 136
Response. This comment is correct in stating
that many different sources of tax revenue to the
states will become available with increased coal
production. However, the programmatic statement
addresses severance taxes and royalties on an
individual state basis because of their direct
relationship to the amount of coal mined. The level
of revenue from other taxes, such as sales, property
and income taxes, will be more a function of land
area used, employment levels, and income distri-
bution patterns rather than coal roduction.
100. Comment. "Page 5-94: A discussion of who
will bear the financial impacts of coal development
in Indian communities should be included here.
Much coal activity is planned for Indian areas
which are not on a reservation and the issues of
who will bear the costs is pertinent here.
"Here again there is a problem of what will be
done in Indian areas with no tax base."
Commenter 057
Response. Developmental pressures will be
most severely felt in those areas with no or little
infrastructure. Indian communities will be severely
affected by such pressures attributable to increased
levels of coal resource utilization. Section 5.3.4 is
being revised to include consideration of this
comment.
101. Comment. "The impacts on prime farmland
and other agricultural land by coal mining activi-
ties are discussed but no specific consideration is
given to revegetating farmland that has lost its
water supply. These lands may become subject to
wind and water erosion because of inadequate
vegetative cover, even though not disturbed by
mining operations. Measures should be taken to
reestablish native vegetation that can survive in an
arid climate without irrigation before the water
supply is removed."
Commenter 116
Response. Measures to prevent erosion (wind
and water) either through revegetation or other
means are an important part of any premining -
mining - or post-mining planning process. These
measures would be part of an adequate reclama-
tion plan required for a mining permit.
102. Comment. "It seems questionable whether
the section addressing loss of agricultural lands
and productivity represents the situation fully - for
example, the chart illustrating the costs to agricul-
ture cannot fully reflect the adverse impact on
agriculture because it does not take into account
the potentially extensive and extremely detrimen-
tal disruption of the region's aquifiers or possible
increases in animal mortality because of air or
water pollutants. These must be matters of concern
to us as an agricultural state and as a nation which
benefits from our agricultural productivity."
Commenter 121
Response. Adverse impacts to agriculture due
to aquifer disruption would be dependent upon
factors including: how development actually oc-
curs and to what extent the aquifer was disrupted.
Aquifers are protected under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Similarly,
effects of air and water pollutants are dependent
upon increases over ambient levels considered
harmful. Both areas would require more detailed
site-specific information before impacts could be
quantified.
103. Comment. "Page 5-94: The evaluation of
where the work force for coal development will
come from is based on the assertion that agricul-
tural workers will be available for the work. In the
San Juan River Region there are virtually no
agricultural workers to draw upon. Virtually all
employees in the coal development will have to
come from outside the area. This influx of
8-138
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
outsiders constitutes a considerable impact and
should be discussed.
Commenter 057
Response. This impact is considered m
Section 5.3.4 Of the FES, and is further reflected in
Tables 5-65 and 5-66 of the FES.
104. Comment. "The third one is that present
agriculture use in some areas would be converted
to residential, commercial or industrial uses. Well,
what is so bad about that? You read about the
chamber of commerces all around the state, how
they are growing and how the business is good and
how this is going to be great for New Mexico, you
read how New Mexico is increasing in population
and it is always below Arizona, it is always below
Colorado, it is always below Utah and it is way
below Texas, yet we are afraid of a little increase m
population or the building of a few houses. I can't
see that that is bad. I am glad I built my house
when I did. Maybe now I would have to file an
impact statement to build it.
"The fourth one is industrial-municipal de-
mand for water would increase. Generally water
would be available for these uses when in some
western states new demands compete with present
water uses and the competition will cause price
increases that may cause economic problems to
agricultural water users. Well, the farmers are
using the water and there is increased use on the
part of the farmers, so why do you have to single
out the miners for using some water?"
Commenter 139
Response. The purpose of the FES is, among
other things, to assess the effects of a Federal coal
management program on agriculture and water
consumption It does not make a judgement as to
whether these effects are good or bad.
105. Comment. "In summation, agriculture is
necessary, and the depredations which it is
suffering currently will be exacerbated by the
proposed coal scheme. Losses will be permanent in
some areas, and temporary in some areas. Long-
term losses will also be created in less noticeable
ways, such as yield decreases in response to air
quality degradation in areas which are now
relatively clean. The draft EIS fails to address
these impacts on uranium."
Commenter 017
Response. Areas with relatively clean air
quality will experience some air quality degrada-
tion if development occurs in these areas. Whether
emissions will be sufficient to lower crop yields
cannot be determined on the broad scale required
for a progammatic ES (see 5.3.2.7).
106. Comment. "Page 5-94: The evaluation of
impacts to agriculture based on the dollar value of
the productivity of an area does not allow
consideration of the very real impacts to areas
where people grow or raise only enough to support
themselves. These situations must be addressed."
Commenter 057
Response. Because this is a programmatic
based on broad regions, impacts are necessarily
general in nature. As sites become better defined
more specific impacts and areas of impact can be
better defined. Generally, the impacts on farm
profits can be interpreted as an indication of
impacts on any agricultural activity.
107. Comment. "There are also secondary
impacts such as the loss of older buildings when a
town grows due to coal mining. This is mentioned,
but probably should be enlarged upon. The
Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer con-
siders it the responsibility of the Federal govern-
ment to mitigate secondary damages on private
and other lands caused by coal leasing. While this
position is questionable, we need to be aware of
such policies."
Commenter 025
Response. The nature of a programmatic
environmental impact statement precludes the
inclusion of site-specific details. Thus, mitigating
measures to be undertaken to preserve for exam-
ple, the older buildings of a town that might be
affected by coal-related development activities
cannot be addressed except in a generic way.
When environmental impact statements are pre-
pared for a coal leasing activity under the Federal
coal management program, potential impacts on a
site-specific basis would be discussed. At that time,
coordination would be required between the land
management agency involved and the appropriate
State Historic Preservation Office to mitigate the
kinds of impacts like the example cited. The
determination of whether the Federal, state, or
local government has the primary responsibility to
mitigate undesirable secondary impacts would be
decided during the coordination process.
8-139
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
108. Comment. "Page 5-104 — Paragraph
5.2.4.8. Recreation Impacts. Should be clarified
that coal mining may cause significant changes in
population distribution and concentration in cer-
tain areas, thus impacting certain recreation
facilities. Coal mining does not increase the
population as implied."
Commenter 119
Response. Population "loading factors" were
incorporated in the CIEP to estimate population
change. These loading factors are supported by
numerous field studies which indicate a direct
relationship between coal production, associated
population levels and the level of services generally
demanded by an average population. This pro-
grammatic statement addresses the population
impacts associated with coal development and
identifies the secondary impacts, such as recreation
impacts, stemming from coal resource develop-
ment. Consideration of impacts on specific recre-
ation facilities is most properly addressed in the
regional and site specific mining studies required
prior to coal production.
109. Comment. "Moreover, each environmental
statement should address not only how the project
will affect the recreational use of the land itself,
but also give some thought to how the impact of
people could hinder or enhance the quality of the
environment. The impact of needed recreational
areas and/or facilities to cater to an increased
population, should be considered in this Federal
Coal Management Program."
Commenter 122
Response. Section 5.3.4 of the FES discusses
generically the impact of additional people on an
area's recreational facilities. As stated in this
paragraph, a detailed determination of recreation-
al-related impacts is highly dependent upon a
variety of locally specific factors that are beyond
the scope of a programmtic ES. Regional or site
specific ES's would be able to detail such impacts.
1 10. Comment. "One specific error was noted in
this section. A 100 car unit coal train with 5
locomotives and a caboose is 1.1 miles is length
rather than 1.6 miles."
Commenter 1 14
Response. The text of the DES has been
modified accordingly.
111. Comment. "Union Pacific is concerned
particularly that the non-quantifiable impacts of
increased coal transportation by rail not be
exaggerated. As stated in the two preceeding
sections, it must be recognized that all rail traffic is
increasing, not just coal. Furthermore, it has been
Union Pacific Railroad's experience that problems
caused by operations of a railroad through a
community seldom stem from either the length or
freqency of trains. What problems do exist are
often compounded because community leaders do
not know how to contact those representatives of
the railroad who may be in a position to provide a
solution. In keeping with its generally perceived
role as a good corporate citizen, this Company is
continually involved in working to improve such
communications and community relations in
general.
"Apparently as a means of mitigating environ-
mental impacts, transportation access is mentioned
as being a factor which might limit the areas in
which new Federal leases would be issued. Union
Pacific concurs in the conclusion on page 5-115
that any such restriction would only delay, and not
prohibit, new leasing in limited access areas.
Union Pacific does not view transportation access
as a stumbling block for the Federal coal manage-
ment program simply because, as recognized in
Section 5.4.4, major coal related rail extensions will
only be built if the total mining project, including
transportation facilities, is economically sound. In
fact, Union Pacific's existing system provides
ready access to several of the coal supply regions
identified in the Draft Environmental Statement as
containing significant reserves of Federal coal.
Transportation access will only present a problem
if necessary rights-of-way to serve coal mines can
not be obtained across state or Federal land. It is
assumed that rights-of-way across public lands will
be available if leasing of Federal coal is permitted
in a given area."
Commenter 1 14
Response. While impacts may not in all
instances stem from train length and frequency,
these factors do exacerbate problems created at
many unseparated grade crossings. It is agreed that
more open communication can mitigate problems.
For example, railroads are receptive to citizen calls
to assure that stopped trains are "cut" to prevent
unnecessary blockage of grade crossings.
8-140
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
1 12. Comment. "As pointed out in the preceedmg
section, system capacity will have to be increased
to handle all freight, not just coal. Consequently,
the railroads' ability to make the financial invest-
ment required to provide adequate transportation
services for all commodities must be considered.
The Draft Environmental Statement properly
takes such an approach and does consider finan-
cial capability in terms of the total investment
required by the railroad industry to provide
transportation services for both coal and other
freight. In this context, it should also be recognized
that revenues from coal traffic will certainly
improve the railroad industry's financial ability to
improve the country's rail transportation system
with obvious benefits to all rail shippers."
Commenter 114
Response. No response required.
113. Comment. "The impact of coal traffic on
system capacity must be viewed from the perspec-
tive that coal is only one of many commodities
carried by railroads. System capacity must be
increased to handle growing volumes of all freight,
not just coal. This point is recognized in the
introduction to Section 5.3.5.1, but it should be
specifically emphasized in the discussion of system
capacity.
"It is correct that capacity for a given segment
of track is 'a function of line mileage, the number
of tracks per line, the length and spacing of sidings
..., the type of signaling system and train control,
traffic imbalance and peaking patterns, and track
conditions.' Union Pacific is committed to insuring
that its track system has sufficient capacity to
handle projected increases in all rail traffic. In
addition, Union Pacific recognizes that some
segments of branch line trackage may require
upgrading primarily in order to accommodate
increased coal traffic in a safe and efficient
manner. For example, the Company is currently
replacing ties, relaying rail, lining and surfacing a
1 14 mile section of its North Platte branch in order
to handle Powder River Basin coal traffic inter-
changed from the Burlington Northern at North-
port, Nebraska."
Commenter 1 14
Response. While it is recognized that system
capacity must be increased to handle growing
volumes of all freight, the projected annual growth
rate for noncoal traffic is significantly less than
that for coal. Accordingly, increased coal traffic
would be a dominant factor in decisions to
upgrade capacity, particularly for the major mam
lines in the western coal states.
114. Comment. 'With respect to projected
shortages of coal hopper cars and locomotives, it
appears that the increased efficiency resulting from
effective equipment management programs has
been overlooked. Union Pacific is working with
coal shippers, including electric utilities, to develop
such efficiencies. While it is probably true that
some increase in locomotive and hopper car
production will be required to meet future de-
mands, efficient equipment management can, in
part, mitigate the projected car shortages."
Commenter 1 14
Response. The degree to which efficient
equipment management would mitigate projected
car shortages cannot be quantified. For example,
improvements in turnaround time for unit trains
through greater train speeds and more mechanized
loading and unloading facilities would reduce
equipment shortages. On the other hand, train
speeds have been reduced in certain instances m
response to the growing concern in the rail
industry that unit trains are causing accelerated
wear and tear of tracks and roadbeds, particularly
along curved trackage.
115. Comment. "A calculation from page 5-51
indicates that coal trains lose from 20-200 tons of
coal per trains load. In the worst case, this says
that one out of every 50 unit trains blows away.
What are the effects of this emission?"
Commenter 118
Response. Estimates of wind blown coal dust
(fugutive dust) range from 0.2 to 2.0 percent. A
unit train carrying 10,000 tons may lose 20 to 200
tons of coal. This is a worst case estimate, because
it assumes that coal is transported dry. An effective
mitigation major would be to transport the coal
wet and covered. This would reduce fugitive dust
emissions to negligible amounts.
Fugitive coal dust would be dispersed along
the train route and over a wide area. The impact of
the coal particles include possible reduction in
visibility, damage to surfaces of structures, injury
to vegetation, and damage to human health. The
severity of this damage and the toxicological and
epidemiological effects of coal dust are a function
of particle size, concentration, and composition.
8-141
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
116. Comment. "On page 5-87, it is stated that
'Because coal transportation systems are not labor
intensive, employment growth to transport coal
would not be as dramatic as for mining or use of
coal.' This is opposite the findings of the Colstrip
III and IV EIS. Which is correct?"
Commenter 121
Response. Relative to other phases of the coal
cycle, coal transportation facilities require lower
per-ton labor inputs and higher per-ton capital
inputs. Accordingly, it is reasonable to character-
ize coal transport systems as capital intensive
rather than labor intensive.
1 17. Comment. "Although the draft addresses the
problems associated with hauling coal by truck or
by train, it does not recognize the severe adverse
effects on both state and county roads not just
from an unaccustomed volume of commuter traffic
but also from the hauling of heavy equipment to
and from mine or facility sites. This stress and the
construction of new or relocated roads can cause
overwhelming highway and roadway expenses."
Commenter 121
Response. The text of the FES reflects this
comment.
118. Comment. "The bulk of the discussion on
transportation impacts dwells at length on the
impacts on the railroad industry. However, discus-
sion of impacts on people due to railroad transport
of coal is so brief that the statement virtually
ignores this major impact. The impacts of rail-
road/highway crossing blockage, community dis-
ruption, and financing mitigation measures war-
rant discussion in character with the rest of the
text."
Commenter 122, 121
Response. The text of the FES has been
modified to reflect the concerns indicated in the
comment.
1 19. Comment. "In Chapter 5, Regional Impacts,
Page 5-113, the environmental impacts resulting
from the transportation of coal by rail, there
should be some mention of rail-side ecosystems.
An appropriate comment here could be taken from
a report published by the Office of Technology
Assessment, dated March 1978, entitled, 'Coal
Slurry Pipelines.' On Page 117, 118 and 120 of this
report there is a rather complete review of the
disruption of biological communities from two
modes of coal transportation systems. Copies of
these pages have been attached."
Commenter 006
Response. The FES addresses the ecological
impacts of rail transportation of coal in Section
120. Comment. "On Page 5-116, the third
paragraph under section 5.2.5.4, Coal Slurry
Pipelines, the sentence which begins, 'While this
quantity of water would be a small portion of
available surface water, ... underlying the Madison
Formation, the exporting of such a valuable
resource has met with the opposition from West-
erners,' we would suggest that the last part of this
sentence read as follows, ' ... the exporting of such
a valuable resource has met with opposition from
some Westerners and is receiving growing support
from others.' To support this suggested change, we
have attached a copy of a letter to Sen. Dale
Bumpers from Mr. Frank B. Odasz which includes
a list of coal slurry pipeline proponents. This
information is documented on Page 271 of hear-
ings that were conducted on the Coal Pipeline Act
on May 17, May 25, and June 19, 1978, before the
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Resources
(Publication No. 95-136.) To further support this
addition, we have enclosed a copy of a list of
Wyoming proponents of the coal slurry pipeline."
Commenter 006
Response. The FES text has been altered to
indicate that the coal slurry pipeline issue receives
mixed support and opposition from Westerners.
121. Comment. "On page 5-113, it is stated that
funds are available from the 1978 Surface Trans-
portation Act for rail-highway grade crossing
improvements. It should be more specifically
pointed out that this is a limited amount which is
intended for use throughout the state. The needs at
other locations throughout the state must also be
recognized."
Response. It is understood that funds for rail-
highway grade crossing improvements are not
solely intended for rail lines hauling coal.
122. Comment. "Figure 5-3 shows no coal being
moved by rail from the McKinley Mine to Texas
or Arizona."
Commenters 019, 135
Response. Although these movements may
have been occuring, they were not considered to be
5-142
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
of major volume. Figures 5.4 and 5.5 (1985 and
1990 interregional flows) should be consulted to
obtain a graphical concept of how the total future
coal productions will move.
123. Comment. "The major projected sources for
unconventional natural gas are in the geopressur-
ized zones of the Gulf Coast and the Rocky
Mountain overthrust belt. Thus, such sources are
perfectly situated to service the same region which
will be receiving the bulk of Western coal (Figures
5-4, 5-5, show Texas, Western Interior and Other
East (the Midwest) receiving the bulk of Western
coal). There is also a good transportation network
already in place. No mention is made of any of
these facts."
Commenter 097
Response. Section 2.5 addresses trends in
other sources of energy such as unconventional
natural gas in the Gulf Coast and the Rocky
Mountain states. It further states that this resource
is considerable but the recovery technology has yet
to be developed. Therefore, future development of
unconventional natural gas may, at some future
date, become a significant source of energy
affecting the interregional demands of Western
coal but not in the immediate future.
124. Comment. "The DES makes only passing
reference to slurry pipelines because certain con-
straints on slurry transportation are unresolved.
This avoidance of slurry pipeline issues is hardly
justifiable in a presentation which undertakes to
forecast such nebulous topics as coal demand and
effects of coal demand in 1990. Slurry lme
proponents themselves represent that slurry line
construction is a certainty in the early 1980's.
"In light of the serious environmental risks
posed by slurry pipelines - especially the diversion
of Wyoming's scarce water resource - careful
treatment of these environmental impacts seems
required."
Commenter 067
Response. Speculation as to the resolution of
the major unresolved issues affecting future devel-
opment of coal slurry pipelines is beyond the scope
of this programmatic ES. The potential quantity of
coal to be transported by slurry pipelines has been
incorporated in estimation of potential environ-
mental impacts. Environmental impact statements
will be prepared prior to pipeline construction and
operation. These impacts will be addressed quanti-
tatively on a site-specific basis when the specific
pipeline routes have been identified.
125. Comment. "The DES indicates that certain
rail links may have shortfalls in capacity to haul
future coal traffic. Table 5-62, Potentially Con-
strained Rail Links, page 5-110, specifically
identifies two Burlington Northern routes which
allegedly will be unable to handle expected traffic
volumes. Because reference No. 77 was omitted
from the resource list at the end of Chapter 5, we
are unable to analyze the assumptions which lead
to the 'capacity shortfall' conclusion. The DES
does recognize on page 5-109 that the railroad
industry has expressed willingness to expand line
capacity to accommodate projected increases in
coal traffic. Capacity on the Burlington Northern
route east from Gillette to South Dakota border
(through Clifton) is adequate for current traffic
levels and additional track is planned for this
segment in the near future. The second Burlington
Northern route mentioned (from Frannie Junction
to Cheyenne) is not on an existing or planned
route for unit coal trains and, therefore, the
expectation of a severe capacity shortfall is
puzzling. A portion of this route from Onn
Junction to Wheatland, Wyoming is a coal route
for which improvements to increase capacity are
also planned in the near future. In light of the
railroad industry's expressed willingness and plans
to expand capacity of rail lines to meet projected
coal traffic, Table 5-62 has only marginal signifi-
cance. It would be more accurate and informative
to include in this table information indicating track
capacity after projected improvements have been
made."
Commenter 067
Response. Reference No. 77 was inadvertent-
ly shown as the source of the data presented in
Table 5-62 (Table 5-82 of the FES); this reference
is not germane to the table. The information
shown is based on original analysis which is
intended to identify potential railroad capacity
constraints on anticipated coal flows rather than
projected track capacities. Coal flow data, devel-
oped as described in Section H.2.3, were the
primary input to the analysis. Centroids (cities)
were selected for the already indentified coal
producing and consuming areas and formed into
origin-destination pairs appropriate to the coal
flow data. The route between each O-D pair was
8-143
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
then selected on the bases of lease circuitry and
roadbed quality. The routes selected do not
necessarily reflect existing routes as they were
predicted on the coal flow information. The
capacity of each route was expressed in terms of
trains per day (assumed to be 25 for single-track
lines and 70 for double-track lines). The number of
trains per day required for estimated non-coal
traffic was deducted from capacity and the balance
compared (on a gross ton-mile basis) to coal traffic
requirements. The capacity shortfall on the five
routes shown in FES Table 5-82 rests, therefore,
on the assumed track capacity of 25 trains per day
in each case and on the estimated coal flow over
these routes. To the extent that track capacity is
above or will be increased beyond this level by
1985 or that the coal flow is overstated, the
indicated capacity shortfall would be mitigated.
126. Comment. "The DES purports to compare
energy consumed by various modes of transporta-
tion in moving coal from production facilities to
other locations on the coal cycle. See pages 5-116
and H-54. The estimations of operating energy
expended by railroads and slurry pipelines are not
only inaccurate but are completely out of propor-
tion. The recent task report on coal slurry pipelines
prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment
predicts slurry pipeline operation would consume
about 920 BTUs per net ton-mile versus only 400
BTUs for rail transportation of the same quantity.
Office of Technology Assessment, 1978. A Tech-
nology Assessment of Coal Slurry Pipelines.
Washington, D.C., Volume II, Part 2, page 205.
Burlington Northern's own experience with unit
coal train service indicates a figure slightly lower
than 400 BTUs per ton-mile. The DES energy
consumption rates of 670 BTU for rail carriers and
450 BTU for slurry pipelines are unsupportable."
Commenter 067
Response. The comment noted that Burling-
ton Northern's own experience of energy con-
sumption is 400 BTUs per ton-mile versus reported
670 Btus for rail carriers.
The 670 BTUs per ton-mile (Section 5.3.6 of
the DES) were divided by 1.78 to give 376 BTUs
per gross ton-mile. This closely agrees with
Burlington Northern's statement. Also, on a gross
ton-mile basis, pipelines consume more energy
than railroads. How much more is argumentative.
It should be noted here that these numbers are
subject to a number of varied interrelated influ-
ences, and they should be viewed as representative
on a national basis rather than definitive.
Further information can be found in: "Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Conservation of Energy, A National Fuels and
Energy policy study, serial #92-18, Washington,
DC, 1972 page 50.
127. Comment. "Again, in Section 5.2.5.1, the
analysis of transportation impacts deliberately sets
forth only the worst case situation in which the
vast majority of coal is moved by railroads with a
variety of resulting impacts. The Department
should try to develop again a 'most likely' impact
scenario because even where discussions are
relatively brief and it is clearly stated that they are
on the worst cases basis, a reader is likely to lose
sight of that in attempting a detailed review of the
bewildering amount of data contained in the
Statement.
"The last paragraph on page 5-113 makes the
incredible statement that it is possible to construct
major new rail lines without prior authorization
from the Federal government. In support of this
statement is a footnote reference to a publication
based solely on one section of the Interstate
Commerce Act. We are aware of no major rail
lines that have been constructed or that are
proposed for construction which could avoid
getting any authorization from the Federal govern-
ment. Even in instances where rail lines have been
built as spur lines by coal companies, the construc-
tion was the subject of at least an environmental
analysis or an environmental impact statement
because it was associated with one or more coal
mine developments which in themselves required
some Federal authorization. Therefore, the fears
expressed in this part of the Statement would seem
to be wholly unfounded and unnecessarily raise
problems for new coal development in the West.
"As is noted in the closing sentence of this
Section, such considerations have far-reaching
social and political implications which can only be
considered by Congress and not in an environmen-
tal impact statement on only one of a number of
activities which will affect the population growth
and result in environmental impacts in the West.
This Section vividly portrays just a few of the
many serious problems which would be created by
8-144
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
any end-use control system so that it is difficult to
understand why the Department is expending any
effort in further consideration of this option."
Commenter 066
Response. The mentioned article cites these
instances where major rail extensions were or may
be constructed without any prior approval of the
Federal government. For example, a 19.2 mile line
was constructed in 1972 by the Decker Coal
Company to link its mine (with projected 1980
production of approximately 20 million tons) with
The Burlinton Northern mainline at Sheridan,
Wyoming. No detailed environmental analysis was
conducted for this line. In addition, the article
notes on page 185 that " ... the Burlington
Northern recently prepared a prelimiary engineer-
ing report for the 43.7 mile line from The Big Sky
Spur near Colstrip to Ashland, Wyoming. The
railroad's preferred route does not enter The Crow
or Cheyenne Reservations and avoids Bureau of
Land Management properties. "Accordingly, no
right-of-work permit ... would be required." If built
by a coal company or if classified as a spur line,
commission authorization would similarly not be
required.
128. Comment. "The ES's assumption that coal
transportation will not be a problem stands in
stark contrast to statements of industry spokes-
men. Burlington Northern Chairman Louis Menk
has stated that his company, a leading transporter
of coal, is 'critically short of cars and locomotives',
and Randall Meyer, President of EXXON Co.
USA, has stated that 'The limitation (on producing
Western coal) is getting coal trains in and out of
there'. Wall Street Journal, February 15, 1978, p.
31.
"Exacerbating this problem, of course, is the
huge quantities of captial which will be required to
build up the railroads' coal hauling capabilities to
handle and move a six-fold increase in Western
coal production over the time period 1976-1990.
According to the ES, during that time period, coal
movement by railroad will increase at an even
faster rate: from 110 billion ton-miles in 1976 to
872 billion ton-miles in 1990 (p. 5-109). Will this
staggering increase cause any financing or equip-
ment problems? 'No', says the ES analysis of
supply and demand levels; 'Yes', say other
portions of the ES and the railroad industry itself
(p. 5-109 to 113). The most conservative estimate
in the ES is that the industry will require $17
billion just to make capital improvements for
Western coal traffic alone (p. 5-113). This will not
be an easy chore for an industry whose financial
strength is called 'anemic' and which has a rate of
return on equity investment of 2%."
Commenter 060
Response. The DES does not imply that there
would be no financing, equipment, or other
problems related to achieving coal production
levels projected for 1985 and 1990. Rather, Section
5.1.2.1 assumes that the mentioned factors would
not present insurmountable constraints to meeting
the Nation's future coal demands. While the rail
industry as a whole has a low rate of return, most
of the major coal-haul railroads(particularly those
serving the Western coal fields) experienced rates
of return considerably above the national average.
For example, the five year average rates of return
for the Union Pacific, Norfolk and Western,
Chessie, and Burlington Northern Railroads were
6.0, 5.9, 4.8, and 4.3 percent, respectively (see
Interstate Commerce Commission, 1977. Initial
Paper of the Rail Services Planning Office in The
Study of Rail Mergers and Consolidations. Wash-
ington, D.C.).
129. Comment. "The ES'S estimates of the capital
needs of the railroad industry to expand Western
capacity, however, pale beside those of the coal
industry itself. A US Bureau of Mines study, for
example, is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as
estimating that even to reach 988 million tons per
year by 1985 (approximately equal to the 'low
scenario') would require a capital investment of
$45.5 billion. It would also demand the training of
531,000 new miners. Wall Street Journal, Septem-
ber 26, 1977, p. 28. This is an incredibly difficult
bill to fill in the next six years. No wonder, then,
that the General Accounting Office concluded that
doubling coal production to 1.2 billion tons by
1985 is impossible, and that reaching even one
billion tons would be very difficult.
"Yet, the Draft ES assumes that achieving the
higher of the two levels will entail no significant
labor, capital, or equipment problems. It merely
assumes these 'myriad problems' out of existence."
Commenter 060
Response. See response to comment 114.,
above.
8-145
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
130. Comment. "Page 5-115: There must be a
discussion of the impacts of coal development in
areas where there are no existing paved roads. The
following statement points out the inadequacies of
the Draft Environmental Statement in this regard:
' 'Perhaps the most important impact would
be the perceived, rather than actual, impact of
truck traffic on a local community-in terms of
traffic volume, noise and vibrations, coal spillage
and visual impacts".
"This irresponsible statement points out that
whoever wrote this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement has no perception of problems outside
the scope of suburban life where this statement
might have some validity.
"In the entire San Juan Basin, that area of the
San Juan River Coal Region where most coal
development will take place, there are two paved
roads, neither of which comes near the areas to be
developed. The impacts of traffic related to coal
development in this area are tremendous and must
be addressed."
Commenter 057
Response. The term "community" as used in
the environmental statement is broadly construed
to include rural as well as suburban areas. The
need for paved roads in sparsely populated areas is
but one component of local infrastructures which
would be adversely impacted by accelerated coal
development. Related fiscal impacts and tax lead
time shortfalls are discussed in sections 5.2.4.4 and
5.2.4.5 of the DES.
131. Comment. "Inflated estimations of coal
production from the Powder River Basin will cause
a significant overstatement of impacts from coal
transportation by rail carriers. Impacts attributed
to rail operations in the Powder River Basin region
are exaggerated throughout the DES and presum-
ably are high for other regions as well. Track
capacity, gaseous emissions from combustion of
locomotive fuel and other impacts are dependent
on coal volume transported and the system for
transportation. All of the above factors appear to
have been calculated based on a unit train
consisting of 100 cars. In actuality, most Burling-
ton Northern unit trains are and will be comprised
of 1 10 cars, giving a train capacity of 11,000 tons.
Ignoring for now differences in coal volume
projections, the faulty assumption of a 100-car
train leads to numerous erroneous conclusions,
Track capacity, for example, is stated as the
number of trains per day over a track segment
before congestion occurs. Generally tonnage
hauled is not considered. Thus, the amount of coal
which could be transported over a given line
segment per day would be greater in 1 10-car trains
than in 100-car trains."
Commenter 067
Response. The use of 100-car, 10,000 ton
capacity unit trains reflects a generally accepted
national average for unit train movements. It is
recognized that actual train configurations vary
widely depending upon track grade and curvature,
operating practices of individual railroads, the
availability of in-service hopper cars and engines,
and the volume of coal movements to utilities and
other consumptive points.
While most Burlington Northern unit trains
will consist of 110 cars, the average system-wide
capacity would be somewhat less.
132. Comment. "P. 5-115, 5.2.5.3 - Highway
Transportation. The following information was not
given and should be if there are potential impacts:
a. Bridge weight restrictions.
b. Highway design capacities - volume at
service level C.
c. Road bed construction.
d. Additional traffic generated by employees
and families.
e. Noise generation.
f. Impacts on small towns where the main
street is often a major Federal or State
Highway."
Commenter 03 1
Response. The need for highway improve-
ments and additions mentioned in Section 5.3.5.3
would depend in part on the impacts mentioned,
particularly bridge weight restrictions, highway
design capacities, and secondary traffic generation.
Truck transport of coal greatly accelerates the
deterioration of road surfaces, particularly on
secondary and local coal haul routes. The actual
extent of resulting environmental impacts cannot
be determined at the programmatic level as they
are dependent on localized road conditions and
coal haulage volumes.
133. Comment. "Pages 5-59 thru 5-72 show
tables of estimates of emissions of SQ2, particu-
lates, and other pollutants for 1985 and 1990 under
the several alternative plans as well as the
8-146
■"""■■ ■■■"■ilium ii in mi in in irrmmeiwnM
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
preferred program. These show increases for the
western areas, in particular those in the Southwest.
The Bureau of Land Management should ensure
that the requirements of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 are fulfilled and that the
program is implemented in a manner that will not
impair the air quality related values that are a
highly significant component of the environment
of units of the National Park System in this
region."
Commenter 233
Response. The impact of coal leasing on
regional air quality will be assessed as part of the
regional lease sales environmental impact state-
ments under the Secretary's preferred program.
Lease sale schedules would be conducted to avoid
violations of the Clean Air Act Amendments as
a direct result of mining or due to mine-related
developments. In conducting the regional lease
sales analyses, the BLM will be especially cautious
about mine-related impacts on the air quality of
National Parks and other Federal land manage-
ment systems. Where such impacts are forecast,
the participation of the affected land management
agency would be sought.
1 34. Comment. "(Page 5-59) The discussion with
respect PSD in the DES is related totally to power
plants. The FES should address EPA's policy with
respect to PSD and mining( i.e., EPA's treatment
of fugitive dust). OSM's treatment of the fugitive
dust issue should also be discussed."
Commenter 091
Response. The PSD discussion on page 5-59
in the DES gave one example that related to a
power plant and was not related totally to power
plants. The PSD class designations (Class I, II, and
III) presently establish maximum allowable air
quality degradation in terms of allowable incre-
mental increases in sulfur dioxide and particulates.
(PSD regulations for other criteria pollutants are
expected later this year). The PSD system is not
directed toward a specific activity or activity
category but rather toward the air quality of the
area, regardless of the source of potential pollu-
tants in the area.
The document has been revised to include a
discussion of the contribution of OSM's fugitive-
dust control regulations to air quality.
SUBALTERNATTVES
1. Comment. "Section 5.4.7 discusses the
apparent preferred alternative definition for 'maxi-
mum economic recovery' which requires that
recovery be based on the mining of all collectively
mineable seams in a property. While it is advanta-
geous that a coal company have the option to mine
all seams within one property rather than leasing
separate seams to different companies, such an
election should be based, as reflected in the third
alternative discussed in this Section, on sound
engineering practices which can be readily adapted
to changing mining technology and economics.
Any profit-making company such as a coal
company which invests huge amounts of capital in
its projects cannot realistically be expected to act
to reduce the return on that investment by failing
to mine the maximum amount of coal from each
seam which can be safely and efficiently mined."
Commenter 066
Response. The Department recognizes that
carrying out the Congress' directive to ensure that
all mining plans for Federal leases achieve "maxi-
mum economic recovery" of the coal in the lease is
one of the more difficult problems it faces. The
goal of the standard is laudable: to make sure that
coal is not unnecessarily left in the ground.
Unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as the
commenter suggests. First, companies do not have
the incentive to mine all reasonably available
coal— they have only the incentive to mine the coal
that will yield the highest profit. Second, not all
companies are capable of consistently maximizing
their own return. Resistance to innovation is one
factor, for example, that may limit a company
from maximizing its return. The underground
mining portion of the coal industry in the United
States has been slow to adopt longwall mining
techniques even though they are widely accepted
in other countries. The failure to adopt this
technique may be due to a variety of factors, but
whatever the reason, the principle effect is that a
lot of coal that might otherwise be recovered is
permanently left in the ground. If the standard
could be limited to situations where there will be
major differences in total recovery it might be of
universal benefit. The problem with this solution is
that it appears that Congress was concerned with
more subtle situations as well and intended the
Department to oversee narrow gradations of
recovery as well as large ones. As the text notes,
8-147
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
the major drawbacks of this approach are that it
begins to involve the Department heavily in
reviewing day-to-day economic decisions of a
given company.
2. Comment. "5.4.2: In this section on
requiring underground mining, references to the
economic aspects of mining should be worked into
the discussion."
Commenter 079
Response. The section does refer to economic
aspects, particularly with a reference to the $8-15
per ton cost difference between surface and
underground mining. Additional language has
been inserted to explain that the expected decline
of production in some regions as a result of this
policy stems almost entirely from economic con-
siderations.
"5.4.2 Require Underground
3. Comment.
Mining
"The summary of this alternative is at best,
superficial and really lacks thoroughness. Such an
alternative makes so little sense that it would be
best to discard it in the final analysis. Fearing this
will not be the case, we submit some additional
thoughts.
" 1 . Some of the best reserves (quality) may be
too shallow to mine by underground methods.
"2. It is assumed in the conclusion that
safety can be assured by Federal regulations in
underground mines to insure that their fatali-
ty/injury rate is similar to that of a surface mine. It
is also assumed in the conclusion that Federal
regulations concerning surface mine regulations
will not have a similar positive effect on reclama-
tion.
"3. By requiring only underground mining,
the presently developed surface mining operations
may wither away as fee reserves are depleted or
surface mining becomes uneconomical because
logical surface mining units are no longer available
without the combination of fee and federal leases.
This could cause serious social costs to surface
mine employees whose services are no longer
needed. It cannot be assumed that they will
become underground miners. It cannot be as-
sumed that a significant number will be absorbed
into other jobs within the community.
"4. It is recognized that underground mining
requires significantly more manpower than surface
mining. One fact that is not discussed, is the
environmental damage that would be caused by
the additional urbanization required to house and
serve this larger number of miners. This environ-
mental disturbance would be of a permanent
nature. Environmental damage from surface mines
is recognized and emphasized to the extent that it
would be assumed that no reclamation was, or will
be occurring. This is not the case as a number of
mines have conducted good reclamation in recent
years. The Federal surface mine law of 1977
requires thorough reclamation, controls the intro-
duction of sediment into streams and insures that
the area is replaced to its approximately original
contour. Environmental damage caused by a
surface mining operation is transitory; environ-
mental damage caused by urbanization is perma-
nent.
"5. Wishing away the cost differentials like
those found between underground mining and
surface mining, can only happen in the Federal
government and sewing circles."
Commenter 152
Response. The text has been revised in
response to the comment.
4. Comment. "Section 5.4.5 discusses diligence
and continuous operation requirements. This
section opens with a brief statement as to the
advantages for strictly applying such requirements.
It should be noted that the imposition of end-use
controls would significantly decrease if not elimi-
nate most of these advantages.
"Also in this Section, the Department con-
tinues to stress the fact that many existing leases
are not producing. Although it is not disputed that
some of these leases have been and continue to be
held for speculation, it should also be noted that it
was only within the last five or six years that there
was any real market incentive for the development
of western coal in general. Furthermore, as has
already been noted in the Statement many of these
leases exist in units too small for economic
development or in areas where development would
be prohibited or unduly costly because of environ-
mental considerations. To this list of constraints
beyond the control of the lessees of non-producing
leases must be added the fact that in the past five
or six years 'the rules of the game' for federal coal
leasing and the stipulations under which mining
could be conducted, if at all, have been changing
constantly and significantly. In view of these facts
8-148
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
and the statements made at the top of the second
column on page 5-133 concerning the long lead
time to the opening of mines even under the best of
conditions, it can be seen that many of the leases
which were not developed are and perhaps will
remain so because of circumstances beyond the
control of either the lessee and/or the Department.
"Also on page 5-133, is a discussion of
alternatives to the present diligent development
and continuous operation requirements. It is
puzzling why the Department of the Interior is
concerning itself with such alternatives since it
acknowledges at the beginning of this discussion
that the authority to adopt any such alternatives is
totally the responsibility of the Department of
Energy."
Commenter 066
Response. The discussion of diligence is
included in the programmatic statement first
because factors affecting whether existing leases
will be developed will, over the next five to 10
years, affect whether and to what extent the
Department should lease additional coal reserves.
Evaluation of existing lease production potential is
part of the process required by the memorandum
of understanding between DOE and Interior and is
part of the regional production target process in
the preferred program. The discussion will also be
of some use to the DOE should it decide to modify
the existing regulatory requirements for new leases.
As to the point that leases are not being
developed because of "circumstances beyond the
control of either the lessee or the Department", the
Mineral Leasing Act does not contemplate that
coal leases can be held indefinitely without
production. Under the Act, a lessee is required to
make prompt, active efforts to achieve production.
Failing that, the lease should be returned to the
government. Finally, the Department does not
agree that government delays or changes in rules
have substantially impeded western coal leases.
5. Comment. "It is necessary that both
biological and social impacts be minimized in the
process of siting new mining activities in Montana.
The current experimental nature of mitigation of
mining impacts in the undisturbed rural areas of
the West indicates that concentration of mining
activities and their effects is the only feasible
strategy for reducing uncontrollable, areawide
disruption. The draft Federal Coal Management
E.S. (DES) briefly discusses this option in Section
5.4.4. This strategy for Western coal mine siting is
also covered in more detail in a paper presented to
the Conference on Energy and the Public Lands,
III, at the University of Utah, August 18, 1978,
which should be studied by the Dept. of Interior.
"In Section 5.4.4, 'Concentrating Federal
Leases,' several problems are pointed out regard-
ing this strategy, in particular, the concentration of
air and water pollution. It would be beneficial to
concentrate these impacts so that a more economi-
cal and effective program of monitoring and
abatement could be utilized. The construction of
one or only a few high quality water treatment
facilities, for use by several companies, would be
less expensive and more effective in protecting
water quality. Similarly, the joint use of dust
abatement equipment and materials would be
more cost effective and give better results. The
current situation in Montana involves serious
violations of TSP regulations at every mining site
where monitoring networks are sufficient to ade-
quately measure air quality. The Montana air
quality regulatory process is currently inadequate
(with financial support from the federal govern-
ment) and will be spread more thinly and be even
less effective with further dispersal of mining
activities. Concentration of air pollution sources is
the only way the regulatory agencies will catch up
with the problems of monitoring and equitable
enforcement, given the existing monetary con-
straints.
"Federal Coal Leasing Policy Guidelines:
'Where', 'When', and "How" Curry, Robert R. and
Charles van Hook. Conference on Energy and the
Public Lands, III. Univ. of Utah, Park City, Utah.
Aug. 18, 1978."
Commenter 071
Response. The text has been modified to
show the advantages of concentration to regulato-
ry agencies and overall compliance with environ-
mental laws. The preferred program seeks to
handle problems like this as part of the regional
tract ranking process which will help determine
tracts or patterns of development can best meet the
nation's energy needs with minimum disruption in
each region.
6. Comment. "Section 5.4.8 discusses unsuita-
bility criteria development. Although it is not
expressly stated in this Section, it is assumed that
8-149
•■->-as^»iiiM»M™«»m««»»««M
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
the task force field studies and reports applying the
draft criteria would be available to the public.
These field tests as described in the third full
paragraph on page 5-141 were applied in sections
of Montana and Wyoming to indicate an exclusion
of one-third to one-half of the available federal
coal resources. This result is all the more incredible
and unrealistic when viewed with the fact that such
exclusion did not apply all twenty-four unsuitabili-
ty criteria even though some of the criteria have
since been modified to permit more leasing. As
discussed above, it would appear that the criteria,
particularly that related to endangered species and
wildlife habitat, is being applied most rigidly and
without exceptions or compromises which have
been so often experienced in past development
impacts on such aspects of the environment. It is
hoped that the Department will consider a whole-
sale review and revision of the unsuitability criteria
to minimize the amount of coal which would be
excluded while meeting the clear mandates of
relevant legislation. In the final statement, the
Department should include an analysis of the same
areas to which the draft unsuitability criteria were
applied so that the industry and public in general
can have a clear concept of just how and to what
extent criteria in this final proposed form would
exclude federal coal resources from development."
Commenter 066
Response. The Department shares the con-
cern of this comment that land not be excluded
from leasing unless mining would have a harmful
effect on the resource that a criteria is intended to
protect. This is particularly true with respect to
wildlife concerns where filed experience shows that
some wildlife species can co-exist with coal mining
operations if the operations are conducted with a
reasonable degree of sensitivity to the wildlife. The
Department's proposed standards are supposed to
be sensitive to the distinction. The results of the
new field tests of these standards were not
available in time to be included in this final
statement. We expect to publish a notice of
availability of the results of the field tests on or
about May 15, 1979.
7. Comment. "1. On page 5-131 under the
heading of End Use Considerations, the text reads,
'To encourage development of new technology ....
a lease stipulation could require the coal in the
lease to be developed by a particular mining
method (such as in-situ gasification) to protect
lands that offer high potential for a new technolo-
gy.' I believe there is a need for encouraging
development of new coal technologies and that
lease terms can be an effective mechanism for
advancing these new technologies. Other than
stipulating the end use to which a coal lease can be
put as exemplified in the above quotation, I
suggest that certain lease terms as mandated by the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 be
modified for lessees and preference right lease
applicants whose mining method is a new technol-
ogy. Modifications recommended to encourage
new technologies are:
"—Extension to 15 years the period for
achieving diligent development. Retention of the
provision allowing the Secretary to grant one five
year extension to the period for achieving diligent
development because of time needed to complete
development of advanced technology.
"—Provision for advance royalties to be paid
for 15 years.
"—Extension of the total 40 year production
time to 50 years where reserves are large enough to
warrant such an extension.
"Since the Department of Energy now has the
authority to revise diligent development and
continuous operation regulations and has estab-
lished production goal levels for synthetic fuels
produced by coal gasification, it seems appropriate
that the Leasing Liaison Committee establish lease
terms tailored to provide incentives for new coal
technologies."
Commenter 1 12
Response. All three of these points would
require new legislation to carry them out since the
Mineral Leasing Act as amended by the Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act mandates 10-year
diligence requirements, allows advance royalties
for only 10 years, and requires production of all
reserves from mining plans in 40 years. As part of
the decision making process, the Department may
recommend legislative changes. The particular
proposal raised by the comment is evaluated in
section 5.4.5.
8. Comment. "Section 5.4.8 and Tables 5-72
and 5-73 discuss the unsuitability criteria utilized
by the coal task force in the summary of 1978. The
proposed unsuitability criteria which were pub-
lished in the December 8, 1978 Federal Register
8-150
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
(43 Fed. Reg. 57668 57670) differ substantially
from the unsuitability criteria discussed in the
DEIS. The body of the FEIS should reflect the
new proposed criteria and should contain suffi-
cient information to permit a reader of the FEIS to
know what areas of federal coal lands will be
deemed unsuitable under each criterion and what
amounts of coal will be excluded from consider-
ation for development by utilization of each
criterion."
Commenter 090
Response. Section 5.4.8 and Tables 5-72 and
5-73 differ from the actual proposed unsuitability
criteria as of December 8, 1978, because the field
tested criteria were scrutinized and modified in
certain seemingly appropriate instances prior to
December 8, 1978. The FES text of Chapter 3 and
Appendix A (Proposed Regulations) contain de-
tailed information on unsuitability criteria.
9. Comment. "Para. 5.4.9 implies EMARS II
was boycotted by all environmental groups. This
was not the case and should be so stated. For the
BLM's Chaco Planning Unit alone, two environ-
mental groups made nominations."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. Section 5.4.9 states that the
nominations process was boycotted by a "large
number" of environmental groups rather than
"all" environmental groups.
MITIGATION
1. Comment. "The DES fails to substantively
address the problems of socio-economic impacts of
leasing federal coal, and the preferred program
avoids establishing any guidelines or specific
requirements to include these effects in decision-
making.
"The DES shows a complete misconception of
the nature of the disruption in statements like:
'While the change offers long-term opportunities
for the communities in question, short-term dis-
tress has too often been the more visible result.' (p.
6-4) The long-term benefits of extraction of a
nonrenewable resource, particularly by strip min-
ing in an area where reclamation is dubious, will
very likely be the 'bust' of unemployment and
poverty.
"The DES goes so far as to cheerfully suggest a
public relations effort (top of p. 6-5), in coordina-
tion with the few who enjoy an economic boom
with industrialization, as a mitigation measure.
"Since much of the federal coal lies in rural,
agricultural areas, the introduction of coal mining
will radically alter the character and economy of
the communities. State and local governments, and
the public, should be involved in determining levels
of leasing. Guidelines or standards on levels of
social and economic impacts that can be borne in
an area should be developed."
Commenter 061
Response. The purpose of the FES is to
analyze the environmental impacts of the preferred
program and its alternatives. Among these impacts
are the socio-economic impacts. The socio-eco-
nomic findings in Chapter 5 demonstrate the
above-described alteration of the character and
economy of the communities (short-term and long-
term), as well as benefits and detriments. The state
and local governmental inputs to program deci-
sions which drive these impacts are addressed in
Chapter 3 of the FES.
2. Comment. "While we appreciate the symbol-
ic attempt to mitigate the adverse impacts of the
proposed action, it is obvious that this section is
sorely lacking. The impacts itemized in Chapter
Five are on quite a different and removed level of
specificity compared to the mitigating measures. If
the impact statement is to be consistent, it must
speak in the same terms and planes in all chapters.
Chapter Six attempts to conceptually mitigate the
impacts, but does nothing to practically deal with
the problems."
Commenter 118
Response. Chapter 6 addresses the mitigatory
measures of a program which already incorporates
environmental mitigatory measures, such as the
unsuitability criteria. Chapter 5 addresses the
environmental impacts of the total program,
including these mitigatory measures. It is therefore
not practical to address mitigation in the same
terms as does Chapter 5.
3. Comment. "6.3.2 - Socioeconomic Impact
Mitigation "The statement fails to adequately
point out the full range of assistance available to
impacted communities. Of particular consequence
are the changes in the formula for distributing
federal royalty payments; increases in state sever-
ance taxes, impact aid under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and
8-151
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
payments in-lieu-ot-taxes. Several, but not all, of
the above programs are mentioned (6.3.2.8), but
there is no quantification of the assistance avail-
able, or potentially available, to communities
impacted by federal coal development. We believe
the data will show a significant amount of financial
aid is readily available which could reduce the
socioeconomic impacts involved. In any case,
further information should be provided."
Commenter 069
Response. An estimation of the quantity of
financial assistance available, or potentially avail-
able, to communities impacted by Federal coal
development is an economic issue as opposed to an
environmental impact and as such is beyond the
scope of the FES.
4. Comment. "The first introductory paragraph
on page 6-1 contains the statement that 'The
impact analysis in the previous chapter (Chapter
Five) does not include those mitigating measures
required by law or regulation' (emphasis added).
As written, this is inconsistent with statements in
Chapter Five, and we assume that a typographical
error has been made. We believe the word 'not' in
the above sentence should be deleted."
Commenter 069
Response. Agreed. The FES contains the
suggested modification.
5. Comment. "On page 6-5 in the first column
nine principal factors are listed which are to be
considered in evaluating any impact of the pro-
posed decisions discussed in this Statement. One of
those factors is labeled 'cost internalization' and
refers to the extent to which costs of all adverse
impacts can be borne by the producing company
or passed through to energy consumers.
"This statement perpetuates the popular myth
that large corporations should be made to bear the
brunt of costs which would be completely ab-
sorbed by them. In fact these costs simply add to
the price of the coal or the product produced by
the coal such as electricity and so all of these costs
can be expected to ultimately be passed through to
the energy-consuming public. This should be made
clear in the final statement so that members of the
public are not eager to adopt or support provisions
which would unrealistically increase the price of
the coal on the mistaken belief that in so doing
their individual cost of energy consumption or of
coping with the environmental impacts of coal
development are reduced. It is true that costs may
be shifted into the operator's internal cost struc-
ture, so that such costs might be hidden from the
public but to suggest that doing so 'relieves' the
consumer from these costs is simply not true."
Commenter 066
Response. Cost internalization (the extent to
which the costs of addressing adverse impacts
resulting from energy development are borne by
the producing company or passed through in
energy product processes to energy consumers) is
presented as one of nine factors which merit
consideration during the evaluating of impacts of
proposed decisions. It is in no way intended to
imply that industry, or for that matter consumers,
should be made to bear any cost whatsoever.
6. Comment. "Page 6-3: "The statement is
made here that the changes brought about by coal
development will bring about long-term opportuni-
ties for impacted communities. In many areas the
changes will actually spawn ghost towns and the
eradication of traditional lifesytles. These end
results should be discussed in detail in the final
Environmental Statement."
Commenter 057
Response. The socio-economic analysis in
Chapter 5 (Section 5.3.4.1) contains an impact
analysis of population changes.
7. Comment. "Our principal concern in
development of the coal resources of the Colorado
River Basin is in regard to the possible production
and disposal of saline drainage waters resulting
from the operation of the mines and coal-using
facilities. To minimize deleterious impacts, the
mines and coal-using facilities should operate in
accordance with the policy, adopted by the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and
the states of the Colorado River Basin, of no-salt
n-returns in industrial discharges, wherever practi-
cable."
Commenter 113
Response. All coal development operations
are required to be conducted within the confines of
all local, state, and Federal legislation. We assume
these funds will be applied in the areas of greatest
need.
8. Comment. "Although the statement careful-
ly explains the Department's limited role in
mitigation of socio-economic impacts, we fail to
8-152
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
find a thoughtful statement of what the Depart-
ment can do. Let me be more specific. The
statement might offer comment on what kind of a
mitigation program could work, even if new
legislation or modified budget requests are re-
quired. The statement could describe what assis-
tance could be forthcoming to the states and local
communities under the loan provisions of the
Federal Policy Land Management Act. The state-
ment could review the current involvement and
coordination, or lack thereof, of other federal
agencies with the Department of Interior, and
what might be done to improve joint mitigation
efforts. The issues of phasing of coal development
and stipulations in leases to mitigate impacts-two
critical tools- are not adequately addressed. Four
pages devoted to mitigation of socio-economic
impacts in the statement gives the appearance of
an afterthought to an otherwise comprehensive
statement. For the western states, socio-economic
considerations are at the forefront of our concerns.
The mitigation of these impacts must be realistical-
ly and thoughtfully addressed in the final EIS."
Commenter 155
Response. The Department can best mitigate
socio-economic impacts on local communities by
coordinating their actions with local communities
and states. This kind of cooperation would prevent
most of the "surprises" that have occurred in some
rapidly growing areas. The Department believes it
is the responsibility of state and local governments
to plan for and provide the public services and
facilities needed to meet the demands of a growing
population. The state and local governments have
the taxing authorities and land-use planning and
control authorities that makes them the best
qualified to meet these public needs. Front-end
costs are a problem but they can be met by state
governments; federal government assistance is
available through a number of programs.
9. Comment. "Page 3-20: "Section 522 of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act sets
out certain standards for the protection of the
environment. One of the standards set out is that
the protection of all aquifers be provided for.
"In the San Juan River Coal Region, especially
in the San Juan Basin where most of the coal
activity of the Region will take place, coal
development will probably depend exclusively on
water from the existing aquifer. However, no
discussion of how the aquifer will be protected is
included in this section. Since aquifers provide the
only water supply for much of this region,
discussion of mitigation measures is imperative."
Commenter 057
Response. Site-specific issues such as this
must be addressed at the Land Use Planning step,
the EIS on any lease sales, and the mining and
reclamation plan. This issue, as important as it is,
is beyond the scope of the Programmatic EIS.
10. Comment.
"On page 6-3, it is stated that 'The Secretary
has also indicated that the Department should be
responsible for determining, with reasonable cer-
tainty, that a specific tract can be developed
without severe or permanent harm to the environ-
ment . . .'
"This obviously precludes development of coal
leases in the Northern Powder River and Fort
Union Coal Basins, as well as coal formations in
other semiarid and arid areas, until the success of
existing reclamation attempts has been thoroughly
evaluated.
"It is also stated that EMRIA 'would provide
site-specific reclamation data for use at the several
decision points in the preferred program. . .' From
whom would this data be obtained and which
points in the decision-making process are being
referred to?"
Commenter 071
Response. The success so far of reclamation
in the Powder River Basin and Fort Union Basin
indicates surface mining can be carried out in
those areas; however, some areas cannot be mined
under present standards. All proposed mining will
be reviewed on a site-by-site basis either by the
state or OSM for an adequate reclamation plan.
The scope of the EMRIA program is presently
under review, however, basic data generated by
EMRIA would be used as input to tract site-
specific analyses for ranking and selection pur-
poses. EMRIA would also input to the inventory
generated at the beginning of land use planning
and possibly to the review of the mining and
reclamation plan submitted by the coal developer.
11. Comment. "Chapter 6-Mitigation of Major
Adverse Impacts of a Federal Coal Management
Program
"Opportunities for mitigation should be pro-
vided on a site-specific basis. We question that the
5-153
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
regional EIS approach will accomplish this objec-
tive. The preferred program should clearly describe
its links to the process called for in SMCRA.
"A mitigative or compensatory measure not
mentioned in this comment would be to provide
habitat improvement concurrent with or preceding
development of a coal mine in adjacent areas. This
could provide habitat sufficient to sustain dis-
placed animals in some instances and minirnize the
losses to wildlife for the thirty-to-thirty-plus year
project life and until reclamation can be accom-
plished. This would be far preferable to an
approach of using the unsuitability criteria as a
means to exclude areas from any development,
before the lands have been examined in detail for
these kinds of possibilities."
Commenter 093
Response The unsuitability criteria do allow
the local land manager to consider mitigation on a
site-specific basis where appropriate; for example,
the state resident wildlife criteria (o) does say that
a lease may be issued where complete mitigation is
possible or where the species being protected will
not be adversely affected by all or certain methods
of mining activity. The mitigation technique
mentioned of providing enhanced habitat near a
mine site to handle displaced populations for the
life of the mine would be appropriate, especially if
coupled with reclamation of some of the lands to
wildlife habitat. The state resident wildlife criterion
is not focused on general wildlife conservation, but
rather preservation of high-interest populations
from extinction or reduction to a critical level
within an area. Wildlife conservation is expected to
be sought most often through the use of threshold
procedures by the local land manager.
12. Comment. "There are operations now in the
state that are at an elevation of approximately nine
thousand feet, and that's quite near the surface in
the area of these operations.
"Considerable volumes of water are being
interfered with in this operation, and the water is
very vital to the forest production, which takes
place in practically all of our state in these
elevations.
"Not only is this high elevation water important
from the standpoint of community and irrigation uses
downstream where sufficient volume is available,
but it's almost a must in the utilization of the
forage resources in our high forest ranges, so I
would like to see something done more than has
been done to give some consideration to the
surface owner."
Commenter 128
Response. Qualifying surface owners are
given an absolute veto under the law over surface
mining, but other surface owners whose lands
overlie Federal coal deposits that will be mined
using underground methods still are protected
under the law against damages from mining
activity. Further safeguards, in the form of wit-
holding certain lands from consideration for
leasing or of lease stipulations, will result from the
land use planning and activity planning processes
under the preferred program. The objective of the
multiple use planning process is to preserve the
long-term use of renewable resources on Federal
lands. An owner of water rights is protected by
state allocation laws and Federal/state water
quality laws. Special provisions to protect ground
water against the adverse effects of mining are
included in the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act.
13. Comment. "Moreover, by incorporating into
the preferred program at the pre-lease stage
extensive provisions relating to environmental protec-
tion, the Department appears to be ignoring the
effect of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act Act of 1977 (which is not even included in
Table 1-5 listing statutes affecting coal leasing). As
a result, it would require many critical environ-
mental judgments at the pre-lease stage, whereas
such determinations cannot realistically be made
until mine plans have been formulated.
"The effect is to exclude other sources of
information and expertise and to rely instead
primarily on government with respect to such
critical issues as the determination of which lands
may be appropriate for mining and with respect to
the value of coal production as contrasted to other
land uses in the multiple-use resource management
tradeoff decision process. We believe this goes so
far beyond the objective of environmental protec-
tion as to jeopardize the achievement of the
production goals."
Commenter 087
Response. The Secretary has decided that the
Department should only offer for lease lands for
which it is reasonably certain mining plans can be
approved. By selecting this policy, the Secretary is
8-154
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
offering coal companies a fairly high degree of
assurance that they will not be put in the position
of leasing lands only to find that they cannot mine
them because of environmental considerations.
Early concern for the provisions of SMCRA also
ensures the Nation of a more certain flow of coal
from the Federal leases and increases management
flexibility. The preferred program envisions a large
role for industry. In fact, the preferred program
will not work without the participation of industry.
14. Comment: "(Page 5-26): With regard to
discussions of impacts resulting from the various
alternatives, the DES should clearly delineate
impacts resulting from more coal mining and
impacts from coal mining and coal conservation.
Commenter091
Response:
As indicated in the comment, it is desirable to
quantify impacts where possible. It is not possible
in a programmatic impact statement to quantify
impacts on soils, minerals, geology, and topogra-
phy without being site-specific. When the tracts to
be leased have been identified, then these impacts
can be addressed quantitatively. This will occur in
the regional lease sale environmental impact
statements."
15. Comment. "On page 6-3, the statements in
the second paragraph of the second column
suggest all environmental stipulations to be at-
tached to a particular lease and mining plan would
be determined prior to the lease sale. Earlier
descriptions of the lease sale and mining plan
approval process indicated that at both levels the
Department would anticipate attaching special stipu-
lations although most of the stipulations would occur
prior to lease sale as is only fair to the lease bidders.
This inconsistency should be clarified in the final
impact statement."
Commenter 066
Response. Not all stipulations can be devel-
oped prior to lease sale; however, the Department
expects the bidder to be able to determine the costs
of meeting stipulations if he is familar with
SMCRA regulations, typical mining reclamation
plans for the area, and pre-lease sale stipulations.
16. Comment. "The focus of our review involved
Chapter 6, Mitigation of Major Adverse Impacts
of a Federal Coal Management Program.
"Our primary concern has been the need to
obtain direct federal financial assistance for
planning as the State of Wyoming has deemed this
activity ineligible for tapping Wyoming's share of
mineral leasing royalties under Section 35 of the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by
Section 317(a) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976.
"The Sweetwater County Planning and Zoning
Commission, therefore, recommends re-consider-
ation of the Department of Interior's 'inability' to
provide direct financial assistance to the planning and
management functions of local and areawide agen-
cies. We are one agency of local government who
has experienced energy and mineral impact. We
contend that federal coal leasing policies cannot
totally abdicate responsibilities on the distribution
of these funds by State government."
Commenter 018
Response. As pointed out in Chapter 6,
reduction of financial burdens on interest affected
by leasing are anticipated as a result of the
emphasis on early application of protective and
mitigative measures. The preferred program and
several alternatives are constructed to assure state,
local, and Federal participation beginning in these
early phases and continuing throughout the leasing
process. As indicated in Chapter 6, financial
assistance is beyond the Department's direct
jurisdication; however, some Federal assistance for
planning and management possibly is available
under section 601 of the Powerplant and Industrial
Fuels Use Act of 1978 to be implemented by the
Secretary of Agriculture.
17. Comment. "We assume that the wide effects
of air and water degradation that might accompa-
ny coal development are being addressed, yet the
draft ES says little about how impacts to these
resources will be avoided or minimized. Degrada-
tion of air and water resources is equally as
important as impacts resulting in direct losses of
fish and wildlife habitat."
Commenter. 287
Response. The program itself is geared
toward managing Federal coal in an environmen-
tally sound manner. Thus, because many of the
program's elements are environmental mitigating
measures (i.e. the unsuitability criteria and land
use planning), the chapter on mitigation is limited
and appears to be relatively small. It should be
5-155
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
noted that in addition to be mitagatory aspects of
the program, air and water resources are protected
by Federal, state, and local environmental statutes.
For further information on relevant state statutes,
refer to Appendix I.
18. Comment. "To our knowledge, there are no
guidelines by which conflicts between oil and gas
and Coal production can be controlled or mitigat-
ed. Conversations with industry and governmental
agencies have indicated that the two activities can
occur on the same ground, but that protection of
the oil and gas well(s) and pipelines would be
required. It is the general opinion that leaving coal
barriers or pillars to protect the wells and pipelines
is perhaps the proper solution. If our information
is correct, it would require leaving a coal pillar
2,000 feet in diameter to protect an oil or gas well
where the coal is 1,000 feet below ground surface.
This is assuming an angle of draw for subsidence
of 45 degrees. Using an average coal thickness of
10 feet, this would result in the leaving of about
1,000,000 tons of coal for each well. A like amount
would also be left for protection of each 2,000 feet
of pipeline. This generates the following questions:
1. Are supporting coal pillars a proven
method for the protection of oil and gas
wells and pipelines?
2. Is this an acceptable method?
3. Who would be responsible should damage
to an oil or gas well occur from the effects
of coal mining?
4. Who would be responsible for the coal
resources loss? For the coal value lost?
5. Would the coal company be given other
coal to compensate for that lost?"
Commenter 282
Response. In the Mining Regulations, these
issues are addressed under parts 211.11 and 21 1.21
which refer to mine plan and oil and gas/ coal
management by the USFS Area Mining Supervisor
and the Area O&G Supervisors
Coal pillars are an approved method, and are
an acceptable method.
No damage should occur but if it did and the
company should be found to have been negligent,
then the coal company would be responsible. The
USFS and MSHA would probably also be called
on to account for such a problem.
There would be no loss if the well was already in
place and a known effect on the mining plant, ie.,
the coal was known not to be recoverable.
19. Comment. "A mitigative or compensatory
measure not mentioned in this document would be
to provide habitat improvement concurrent with or
preceding development of a coal mine in adjacent
areas. This could provide habitat sufficient to
sustain displaced animals in some instances and
minimize the losses to wildlife for the thirty- to
forty-plus-year project life and until reclamation
can be accomplished."
Commenter 266
Response. Where it is feasible, providing
enhanced habitat for displaced animals is a sound
mitigative strategy. Such a strategy is not always
possible, however, since many species require a
definite amount of territory, and this spatial
requirement varies only slightly with the quality of
the habitat available. This form of mitigation could
be recommended as a result of general land use
planning, site profile analyses, or mine plan
development by the lessee.
LONG-TERM IMPACTS
1. Comment. "Table 7-1. Production figures
given again conflict with those in the Star Lake-
Bisti Regional EIS."
Commenters 019, 135
Response. The geographic boundaries and
consequently the data bases differ for the Star
Lake-Bisti Regional ES and this FES.
2. Comment. "The second flaw is the substance
of the impact analysis. It is misleading, contradic-
tory, erroneous and based on false assumptions.
One such assumption is that all "mitigating
measures required by law or regulation" are 'in
operation.' (p. 7-1) Using reclamation as an
example, this assumes that all coal mines can and
will reclaim to the standards of the federal act. The
long history of poor reclamation enforcement in
this country and the short record of the Office of
Surface Mining's efforts do not support the rosy
optimism implied in that assumption."
Commenter 154
Response. While the Department of the
Interior intends to fully implement statutory
responsibilities in mitigating mining impacts, the
point of Chapter7 is to realistically recognize those
impacts which may be unavoidable. The program
8-156
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
described in the Environmental Statement is
designed to assure, in conjuction with OSM's
efforts, that only coal lands that are reclaimable
will be mined and that all lands mined will be
reclaimed.
3. Comment. "TDWR believes that the
programmatic water resources impact analysis on
pages 7-1 and 7-2 should include the following
points:
a. The consumptive use of water resources
impact analysis induced energy - related
or industrial activities (e.g., "mine-mouth"
steam electric generating plants) may
further degrade water quality in certain
streams and rivers by increasing dissolved
solids concentrations and by reducing the
assimilative capacity for other pollutants
as a consequence of reduced streamflows.
b. Recent Federal regulations mandating the
use of sulfur removal techniques on all
new coal-fired power plants will substan-
tially increase both water consumption
and the amount of sulfur-bearing sludge
that must be disposed.
c. The cumulative effect of Federal regula-
tions which involve increased water de-
mands and consumptive water use in
energy-related activities, is cause for con-
cern in water-short areas such as certain
portions of the Texas Coal Region, as the
national coal production and conversion
programs are escalated. TDWR believes
that the feasibility of mitigative actions
should be considered with respect to
federal regulations which do not provide
the necessary engineering flexibility to
adapt energy-related activities to local,
geologic, climatic, and hydrologic condi-
tions. For example, the revised national
standards for thermal discharges from
electric power plants do not appear to
provide the maximum; reasonable latitude
for engineering flexibility in the design of
cooling systems. This flexibility would
permit the optimum selection and use of
cooling systems (i.e., wet cooling towers,
single-purpose cooling reservoirs, once-
through cooling on multiple-purpose reser-
voirs, streams, or estuaries, and dry cooling
systems, etc.) which would provide the
most desirable balance between water
conservation (including minimum water
consumption) and environmental protec-
tion."
Commenter 056
Response. The FES (Section 7.1.1.5) contains
the modification suggested in point a. Points b and
c however, are not addressed because the effects of
recent Federal legislation are not the subject of this
statement.
4. Comment. "Section 7.1.1.1 states that
topographic features would be adversely altered by
construction and mining. There exists considerable
potential for upgrading the land surface to higher
beneficial configuration after mining is completed.
The draft should include discussion of such
possibilities."
Commenter 106
Response. The purpose of the FES is to assess
the environmental impacts of the preferred pro-
gram and the alternatives. Regardless of the
ultimate programmatic decision of the Depart-
ment, coal companies would be required to comply
with SMCRA, as well as any other regional
reclamation laws. The environmental impact anal-
ysis is thus confined to these requirements, and
any further analysis is beyond the scope of this
FES.
5. Comment. "Portions of chapter 7 discuss the
fact that reclamation is by no means an assured
thing in many areas of the arid west. Given this
uncertainty, it is difficult to put much faith in table
7-5 where estimates of wildlife populations that
could be supported on reclaimed lands are made."
Commenter 121
Response. Section 7.3.4 has been revised to
indicate that the wildlife populations which could
be supported by reclaimed lands are a direct
function of land in reclamation at any given time.
Table 7-5 has been eliminated since it is no longer
considered necessary.
6. Comment. "Tables 7.3 and 7.4 are also very
misleading. They seem to indicate that reclamation
will reestablish "forest" in the Powder River and
Fort Union regions. It should be pointed out that
to date very little success has been noted in
attempts to reestablish ponderosa pine in these
regions."
Commenter 121
8-157
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Response. Tables 7.3 and 7.4 have been
deleted, and replaced by a new table 7.2 which
displays estimates of long term and short term land
disturbances.
7. Comment. "The statement is made that
'Loss of habitat and reductions in population
would occur as unavoidable consequences during
the mining and use of coal.' Wildlife studies
conducted the past five years at Peabody's Big Sky
Mine have not shown a reduction in population
due to the mining activity. The size of population
appears to be more dependent on climatic changes
and its effect on vegetation. In addition, additional
acreage of certain habitat types beneficial to
wildlife (i.e., reclamation areas and water im-
poundments) may be established. The statement
also says that 'blasting, construction, and other
noises associated with the mining activity would be
unavoidable and would frighten away some wild-
life species.' Wildlife species are adaptable to
noise, as is man. Although animals may initially
scatter at the time of a blast, studies have shown
that a creature will generally remain within its
territorial range. Elimination of surface water
bodies would adversely affect waterfowl, but
changes made by the mining activity can also be
beneficial to waterfowl. Big Sky Mine has in-
creased the waterfowl population in the area with
the creation of shallow reclamation ponds. In
essence, temporary disruption may occur, but
long-term benefits could ensue. The statement
should reflect this possibility. The statement
remarks that 'In most cases, however, the diversity,
density, and composition of the new populations
would be altered from previous conditions.' Diver-
sity, density, and composition are dynamic aspects
of wildlife populations, and therefore constantly
changing. Just because one of these aspects, or all
three, may be altered to some degree does not
necessarily mean that the impact is adverse."
Commenter 069
Response. Section 7.1.2 has not been altered
to reflect these criticisms because (1) the elimina-
tion of vegetation during surface mining activity
does eliminate habitat for species using the
involved acreage and the carrying capacity for
these species is therefore reduced (2) "some"
sensitive species would not become habituated to
intrusive noises and would therefore be frightened
away, (3) the elimination of surface waters tradi-
tionally used for food, cover, and nesting sites
generally is not replaced by the ecological features
of a reclamation pond, and (4) in most cases
human-induced changes in diversity, density, and
composition of wildlife populations generally are
more adverse than beneficial to the total ecosys-
tem. It warrants mention, however, that environ-
mentally sound mining and reclamation practices
in many cases can minimize these adverse impacts
and ultimately lead to the restoration of the
ecosystem to its near natural state.
8. Comment. "Basic coal mining operations do
not require large quantities of water, as it implied
on page 7-2 (second column, first paragraph).
Some water is used in coal processing facilities, but
the only water used at some mines is for dust
suppression and sanitary needs. Frequently, pit
water provides most of the water requirements for
a mining operation."
Commenter 069
Response. The large quantities of water
referred to in Section 7.1.1.5 reflect the water
requirements quantifications of Chapter 5's water
impacts section. Although the individual water
requirements of certain mines may be relatively
small, the potential total regional water require-
ments are considered large.
9. Comments. "In that same Section (on page
7-8), statements are again repeated to the effect
that reclamation will require from five to fifteen
years in most areas. These statements are based on
studies which were either conducted when there
was little if any information available to accurately
assess reclamation efforts on western coal mines or
before the implementation of the strict reclamation
requirements of applicable state statutes and
SMCRA. These statements should be modified in
view of these developments if for no other reason
than that such assumptions left uncontested can
result in enormous burdens to operators by
extending and increasing bonding requirements
unnecessarily. Such costs are, of course, passed on
to the ultimate consumer of energy and products
produced from coal."
Commenter 066
Response. Due to the SMCRA requirements
concerning mining and reclamation upon prime
farmland, the above-referenced statement has been
deleted.
8-158
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
10. Comment. "In Section 7.1.3 (second full
paragraph of the second column on page 7-3) a
statement is made to the effect that prospects for
higher wages in coal development areas would
attract new people which would necessarily exceed
the demand for labor and cause increases in
unemployment. This statement would appear to be
contrary to all experience to date with coal
development in the West. The final impact state-
ment should explain on what basis the Department
asserts this statement since it is assumed in other
parts of the Statement that coal development
would severely .decrease current unemployment
rather than result ultimately in an increase of
unemployment."
Commenter 066
Response. This statement is not included in
the FES as it may not be the general case.
1 1 . Comment. "In Section 7. 1 . 1 .2 the long term
effects of mining on soils is discussed with the
conclusion that some areas of the West would
require hundreds of years for natural processes to
reestablish fertile soils. This must assume that the
disturbance of those soils will result from activity
which will be clearly in violation of SMCRA which
emphatically requires the segregation of all soils
and the return and stabilization of all soils on
mined areas. Perhaps this statement is referring to
soil disturbances resulting from general population
growth which are not controllable by operating
companies. Under such circumstances, it should be
made clear that this is not the responsibility of
operating companies. Again, such extreme state-
ments unnecessarily alarm all those who are
already very concerned about increased coal
development in the West and particularly agricul-
tural interests. If space does not allow objective
explanation of such statements then they should
not be made in the first place. Such statements are
even more incredible in view of other comments
made in portions of the Statement. For example, in
Section 7.1.2 (at the beginning of p. 7-3), it is flatly
stated that mining simply would not be allowed in
the first place on lands which could not be
reclaimed and that bonding to insure reclamation
would certainly continue after mining in areas
where reclamation was particularly difficult."
Commenter 066
Response. In view of SMCRA, this statement
has been deleted from Section 7.1.1.2 of the FES. It
should be noted, however, that violations of
SMCRA could result in such lengthy reclamation
time periods and that mining activities do create
the potential for these effects.
12. Comment. "It appears that the description of
the long-term effects of the preferred program and
its alternatives tends to disregard the mitigative
effects of recent environmental protection statutes.
For example, the possible disruptions to the
hydrologic balance mentioned in the statement
(page 7-2, first column, third paragraph) would
not appear to be reasonable in view of the
provisions of SMCRA which prohibit disruption of
the hydrologic balance. Adverse water quality
impacts (page 7-2, second column, second para-
graph) will be greatly mitigated by waste treatment
and erosion control requirements under the Clean
Water Act and SMCRA. The statement seems to
belie the effects of these statutes."
Commenter 069
Response. Section 7.1.1.5 acknowledges the
mitigatory effects of SMCRA, but goes on to state
how certain coal mining activities would increase
the potential for some unavoidable degradation of
local and regional water quality.
13. Comment. "Section 7.3.3 discusses produc-
tivity of lands as affected by reclaimability. Again,
as in Chapter 5, statements are made which
indicate that even though existing laws require
adequate bonds to insure the ultimate removal of
all structures will be left and the land so disturbed
will never be reclaimed. It is not clear how or why
the Department makes this assumption and it is
certainly contrary to the express provisions of
SMCRA."
Commenter 066
Response. Although SMCRA requires com-
prehensive reclamation efforts for lands disturbed
by coal mining, certain buildings may not be
subject to reclamation. This is particularly true
where coal development induces community devel-
opment or transportation facility development and
associated buildings become a permanent feature
of the environment. Most structures constructed in
association with coal mining operations, however,
will be subject to demolition during reclamation,
as required by SMCRA.
14. Comment. "Although it is difficult to assess
long-term ecological effects of specific stresses,
8-159
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
some comments can be made regarding potential
consequences of coal development. For example,
strip mining thick beds with shallow overburden
can significantly alter drainage and erosional
patterns. Mining can alter the quality and quantity
of both surface and ground water, alter soil
characteristics, and change the topography and
geology of the land. Soils in arid and semi-arid
climates recover very slowly, so loss of productivi-
ty could be a significant factor."
Commenter 089
Response. The issues raised in this comment
regarding potential ecological consequences of
coal development are addressed in Section 7.1.1.
15. Comment. "Table 7-3 should include
references. For example, we cannot determine
whether the table represents potential productivity
on an annual basis or in total. Some of the
estimates for reclaimed land in Table 7-3 are as
much as ten times greater than current empirical
data would show for unmined land.
Commenter 069
Response. Tables 7-3 and 7-4 have been
deleted.
16. Comment. "The statement does not assess
the long-run impacts of the environmental stresses
which will be caused by the preferred program.
The statement acknowledges that the preferred
program and any other alternative involving
significant amounts of coal development will
create serious environmental stresses in regions
where coal is mined. However, it does not attempt
to estimate the impacts that these stresses will have
on those regions. We believe that an evaluation of
the long-run consequences on particular species
and ecosystems within each region is also essential
to any decision concerning Federal coal leasing
policy. To its credit, the statement does attempt to
address the issue of ecological impacts. Unfortu-
nately, the assessment is too superficial to be
meaningful; moreover, it relies once again on some
questionable assumptions. For example, the state-
ment estimates plant and wildlife losses by multi-
plying plant and wildlife densities by the estimated
number of acres directly disturbed by coal devel-
opment, (p. H-26)."
Commenter 089
Response. Without knowing specific sites or
their location each alternative has an equal
potential for impacting all or some of the charac-
teristic environments in a region. Land distur-
bance, as a function of coal production, is a
variable. By applying average or typical densities
for vegetation and wildlife to these variations
estimates of the relative magnitude of an alterna-
tive can be derived. Only when sites are better
defined and boundary areas narrowed can impacts
for a particular species be projected meaningfully.
We believe the level of detail in the programmatic
is appropriate to decisionmaking at this level.
17. Comment. "In a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Report of June, 1973 it was stated
that, 'Disposal of the coal ash ... deserves radioac-
tive waste management consideration.' What are
the cumulative affects of long term radioactive
releases from coal fired plants? This statement
does not do justice to the subject whatsoever."
Commenter 118
Response Traces of materials that are
harmful to man or his environment are present in
raw coal. These materials include potentially
hazardous trace elements, toxic compounds, and
radioactive substances. The concentrations of
these materials in the ash from coal-fixed plants
may increase. Not enough information is currently
available on the concentrations involved nor what
concentration levels pose a health hazard.
18. Comment. "A discussion of long-term
consequences resulting from the use of coal should
allude to the belief among some climatologists that
fossil fuel burning will lead to unacceptably high
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The
resultant 'greenhouse effect' would increase the
mean atmosphere temperature by several degrees,
resulting in the onset of significant climatological
changes. However, not all climatologists agree that
increased atmospheric CO2 will significantly affect
the climate, and whether the net impact of any
such climate change would be favorable or
unfavorable is not known. Energy policy-makers
should, nevertheless, be aware that possibly nega-
tive climatic impacts could result from increased
development of coal resources."
Commenter 256
Response. The potential for coal develop-
ment to cause increased atmospheric discharge
which in turn could create its "greenhouse effect"
is addressed in the Chapter 5 section on "Potential
Air Quality Impacts".
8-160
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
INTRA-AGENCY COOPERATION
1. Comment. "A centralized decision making
process, whereby the federal government attempts
to control the rate and the location at which new
mines will open, will have an anticompetitive effect
on the marketplace by artificially limiting supply.
In addition, such limitation on supply would have
an inflationary impact through limiting the avail-
ability of coal to meet demands in a timely manner
as they increase. (It does not appear, from the
DES, page 8-17, Table 8-3, Federal Agencies
Requested to Comment on the Draft Environmen-
tal Statement, that the Justice Department has
been consulted in the formulation of the preferred
program, as is required by the provisions of
Section 15 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amend-
ments Act of 1976, which provided for Justice
Department participation in formulating the regu-
lations and all aspects of the program in order to
promote a competitive atmosphere)."
Commenter 087
Response. Government control over the rate
and location of coal development on Federal lands
is a necessary corollary of government ownership
over the mineral resource. The debate whether the
government should control larger amounts of land
began in earnest in the late 1800's and has
continued until the present. At every important
juncture, the latest being the enactment of
FLPMA, the Congress has decided in favor of
government retention of lands. The question, then,
is not whether the government will exercise control
over the lands it owns, but whether it will do so in
a wise way. In the specific area of encouraging
competition, it is obvious that the government can
play a very beneficial role. It can adopt bidding
procedures that lower the entry requirements, it
can set aside sales for small businesses, it can set
low acreage limitations and stiff diligence require-
ments to prevent large companies from dominating
important reserves, and it can lease to assure that
potential market entrants will be able to obtain
needed coal reserves. It can also refuse to lease
where the issuance would tend to cause violations
of the anti-trust laws. The preferred program
contains all of these elements.
The Justice Department does have an impor-
tant role in this process (see new text in 1.3.2.4), as
does the Energy Department, which can issue rates
on bidding systems and competition. Although
Chapter 8 did not adequately outline consultation
in the draft, the final statement sets out fully the
consultation that took place.
2. Comment. "Section 8.1 describes in part
several memoranda of understanding which are or
will be executed by the various federal agencies
with often overlapping authority for various
portions of the federal coal leasing program.
Although no deadline is suggested for the comple-
tion and publication of these memoranda, it would
surely be highly desirable that such memoranda be
available to the public for comment before or at
the time of publication of the final impact
statement."
Commenter 066
Response. Chapter 8.1 of the FES contains
information on the availability of the MOU's.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Comment. "In this regard, I would like to
interject another point. I might consider that there
is also serious questions about their use of the
interdisciplinary approach as required under
NEPA. It requires a systematic and integrated
approach, and I don't see that in the draft and, in
fact, technically it could be illegal , if we really
wanted to press it to maybe the fine lines."
Commenter 178
Response. The interdisciplinary approach
was used during the preparation of the FES. For
example, personnel trained in the following disci-
plines were employed: mineral and resource
economics, community planning, computer pro-
gramming, ecology, transportation technology,
mining engineering, geology, forestry, biology,
recreation planning, natural resource sciences, law,
and personnel management.
2. Comment. "From beginning to end of the
statement, economic benefits are downplayed and
other values are overstated."
Commenter 136
Response. The purpose of this FES is to
assess the range of environmental impacts due to
any decision to adopt a Federal coal management
program. Although strict monetary benefits and
detriments are beyond the scope of this assess-
ment, the socio-economic analysis does assess
pertinent economic impacts. Also, the discussion
in Chapter 5 on economic impacts of program
alternatives has been expanded.
8-161
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
3. Comment. "The ES states that anticipated
coal development in the Uinta-Southwest Utah
region, which includes Delta County, exceeds the
1990 Department of Energy high production
projection. Because coal production is expected to
increase at a rapid rate without new federal
leasing, we believe that the capacity of the area to
sustain more growth should be carefully consid-
ered before any new leasing occurs."
Commenter 167
Response. This and other socio-economic
effects are the subject of this FES and will be the
subject of any future site-specific intraregional
environmental analysis which will be prepared
subsequent to tract delineation.
4. Comment. "The League of Women Voters
believes that prime agricultural land and the water
to make it productive should be preserved. A
careful assessment should be made of the impacts
of removing water from agriculture. There is a
need for cumulative assessment of regional im-
pacts to assure that the agricultural base of an area
like Delta County is not destroyed."
Commenter 167
Response. The cumulative assessment of
resource tradeoff decisions will be the subject of
site-specific regional lease sales analyses, which
would be prepared subsequent to tract delineation.
5. Comment. "There is another area of interest
and that concerns resource conflict. The San Juan
Basin coal region is underlain by the richest
uranium belt in the country. The Power River Coal
Basin is underlain by the second richest uranium
basin in the country. Thus we find two major
energy fuels competing for surface access. These
concerns are not addressed in the federal coal
management program. When you do exploration
work for uranium, you need surface access to the
sites even if they are very deep. You need to drill
holes, you need a surface location to drill the holes.
Even though there may be very deep coal, very
deep uranium underlying very shallow coal, there
are still resource conflict issues, in terms of just
resource development that need to be developed in
the final impact statement."
Commenters 137 and 146
Response. The cumulative assessment of
resource tradeoff decisions would be the subject of
the land-use plan/EIS process and site-specific
intraregional environmental analyses, which will
be prepared subsequent to tract delineation.
6. Comment. "Two counties in the SENCOG
area with known coal deposits are Nemaha and
Pawnee. Since the deposits are known to be along
the western side of the Missouri River in Nemaha
County in the Brownville area, there is concern for
the bluffs and for historic preservation in the
Brownville area. It is felt that efforts should be
developed for administering the program with
other federal agencies that own lands which have
mineral deposits. In this case the Corps of
Engineers."
Commenter 001
Response. As stated in Chapter 1 of the FES,
this is a programmatic statement addressing the
existing environment and impacts resulting from a
Federal coal management program in a general
way. The extent and amount of historical-cultural
values encountered on Federal land varies consid-
erably from area to area. It is essential that these
values be discussed on a site-specific basis prior to
adopting any specific plans or proposals. Chapters
5, 7, and 8 in the final statement provide a general
discussion on the cultural, historical and archaeo-
logical resources as well as the consultation and
coordination efforts that were initiated between
Federal, state and local governments in preparing
this programmatic ES. The Department coordi-
nates its coal leasing responsibilities with other
Federal surface management agencies.
7. Comment. "How can -regional environmen-
tal statements be prepared before there is a
national leasing policy? How can the impacts of a
non-existent coal program be assessed? As we find
later on in the Programmatic, these areas are slated
to be leased first because of these premature
regional environmental statements."
Commenter 165
Response. Regional lease sales environmental
impact statements will not be prepared until the
Secretary makes a decision to conduct sales.
Regional environmental statements, as well as this
FES, are prepared based on a number of Depart-
mental options prior to any decision on a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment. After the environmental
impacts of these options are weighed a decision on
a Federal coal management program can be made.
It should be noted that the Federal actions
8-162
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
pending decision during the preparation of previ-
ous regional coal environmental statements were
basically mining and reclamation plans or rail
right-of-way application approves or denials. Since
the Department will have augmented data bases
for these regions, but mostly since these regions
represent those areas with the highest coal develop-
ment potential, it does seem most likely that
leasing over the next several years would be mainly
located in these regions.
8. Comment. "The greatest weakness, however,
it seems to me in the Programmatic is in the lack of
protection for communities against adverse social
and economic impacts that will follow from coal
development. Of course, I'm particularly con-
cerned with the treatment of our region, the Uinta-
Southwest Utah Coal Region, and particularly
with the Uncompaghre Area. In the first place, the
Department does not justify the need for further
federal coal leasing in our area. Yet, because we
have an adequate MFP and West Central Regional
EIS, which have been rushed through, we suddenly
find ourselves as one of the prime targets for coal
developments in the nation. The Programmatic
clearly reveals that in order to meet Department
goals by 1990, the Uinta Region should actually
take 3.2 million tons of coal out of production."
Commenter 164
Response. The purpose of the FES is to assess
impacts including adverse community impacts and
the mitigating measures thereof so that prudent
programmatic decisions can be made. Further-
more, the FES does not indicate any regional coal
production requirements for any time period, but
rather uses a high, moderate, and low level of
production estimates to assess the potential range
of environmental impacts. The need for leasing
targets will not be decided until the Department
has had time to weigh the results of this first EIS.
9. Comment. "We feel that greater consider-
ation should be given alternative uses of the
federal lands— for example, agricultural and recre-
ational values should be given a higher status vis-a-
vis the value accorded the coal resource."
Commenter 160
Response. Resource tradeoff decisions would
receive due consideration during the land use
planning phase of the program. Except for those
values protected by unsuitability criteria, which do
include some protection of agricultural and recrea-
tional sites, decisions are made on their case-by-
case merits.
10. Comment. "Contacts or involvements of the
Soil Conservation Districts are not mentioned. The
impact of mining and related activities should be
made known to local Soil and Water Conservation
Districts."
Commenter 116
Response. It is the policy of the Department
to provide all copies of coal-related environmental
statements to the Department of Agriculture for
review. Accordingly, the Soil Conservation Service
is provided a means to the requested information.
SCDs could obtain information in this way or
through local notices of actions and meetings put
out by the BLM and FS.
11. Comment. "The ES fails to describe the
relationship between coal management in general
and other major Bureau programs such as grazing
plans and the wilderness inventory. There is no
discussion of areas of critical environmental
concern and how differing interpretations of that
concept could affect existing leases."
Commenter 060
Response. During the land use planning
phase of the program, resources tradeoffs, includ-
ing those resources managed under other major
Bureau programs would be weighed prior to any
ultimate resource development decisions. Also
during the land use planning phase, critical
environmental concerns would be considered.
ACECs are not a direct feature of the coal
programs. For further detail refer to the land use
planning text of Chapter 3, and to the proposed
BLM planning regulations (Federal Register,
December 15, 1978).
12. Comment. "Also, from an environmental
impact point of view, do we really want to increase
production in certain geographic areas at the
expense of other geographic areas? By increasing
production in the Powder River Basin, we would
be concentrating impacts in this area and along the
already overcrowded Burlington Northern rail
corridor, which connects this area with its logical
markets in the Midwest."
Commenter 197
Response. It is true that by increasing coal
production in the Powder River Coal Region,
adverse transportation impacts would be intensi-
3-16^
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
fied along existing rail corridors, as identified in
Chapter 5. Western railways, however, are aware
of this potential and have begun efforts to improve
their transportation facilities. The question of
concentrated regional development is a valid issue
of which the Department will weigh the pros and
cons prior to any decision on the Federal Coal
Management Program. Generally, the level of
leasing of coal in any region is determined by the
competitiveness of the coal in the market place.
13. Comment. "There is no word in the
Environmental Impact Statement concerning how
existing mines will be treated. We would submit to
you that this is a flaw, in this Environmental
Impact Statement, because if it is the Department's
objective to lease and produce the maximum
amount of coal with minimum environmental
impacts, then certainly existing mining operations
deserve special consideration, because these min-
ing operations can double and even triple with
very few, if any, environmental or socioeconomic
impacts."
Commenter 197
Response. It is true that existing mining
operations can, in certain instances, increase
production without creating a proportionate in-
crease in environmental impacts. However, wheth-
er these high levels are sustainable or cost efficient
is questionable. The jurisdiction of this Federal
Coal Management Program, however, concerns
the future management of coal resources on
Federal lands. This program provides for an
orderly rate of mine development and protection.
To this end Chapter 2 addresses the production
potential of Federal coal.
14. Comment. "Criteria and guidelines for the
protection and recovery of paleontological re-
sources have not been released; therefore, the
public is unable to evaluate those resources and
potential impacts."
Commenters 069 and 109
Response. Paleontological resources are a
new responsibility for the BLM and the criteria
and guidelines for their protection, recovery and
inventory are in an embryonic stage.
Interim guidelines were issued in a BLM
instruction memorandum (79-111, Nov. 29, 1978).
These interim guidelines will be developed further
in the near future so that paleontological resources
can be fully integrated into the BLM inventory
planning system and achieve a position equal to
that of other resources on the public lands.
15. Comment. "It can be stated categorically
that no one, today, can know whether they will be
able to mine coal from a federal lease until they
have gone down the long, long road above
described and have in hand all the local, state and
federal permits required to be able to legally mine
coal. There can not possibly be a significant
impact on the human environment from a coal
mine until there is, in fact, coal that is legally
available to mine and legally mineable. That can
not be known by the federal government, or by a
lessee of federal coal, until the lessee has in hand
all of the required permits. In the process of
obtaining all the required permits, a legally
adequate 'site-specific' environmental impact
statement must be prepared before the proposed
mine plan will be approved. Therefore, it is the
approval by the federal government of the mine
plan, not the issuance of a lease, that is today the
'major federal action significantly affecting the
human environment'."
Commenter 053
Response. The application of NEPA to the
process of issuing Federal coal leases and granting
mining permits is far from settled; several court
cases which will help resolve this question have not
been finally decided. These include Sierra Club v
Andrus (Does the Department have to prepare an
environmental statement before it issues a geother-
mal lease) and EDF v Andrus (Does the Depart-
ment have to do an environmental statement on a
detailed development plan for an oil shale lease
where it has done an environmental statement
prior to lease issuance). At what point in the
process does the Department irretrievably commit
resources and allow actions which significantly
affect the human environment? When does a
statement done on a general topic satisfy the need
for a statement on a more specific application? The
potential solutions to the problem are complex and
worthy of extended discussion.
The process leading to mining of coal from a
federal lease is a series of steps each of which
narrows the options available to the government
and industry and increases the resources that have
been committed to a particular project, and limits
the usefulness of each additional commitment
except for how it promotes mining.
8-164
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Completion of a Land Use Plan
Preparation or revision of a land use plan
involves a moderate commitment of Interior's
resources, to prepare the plan, but the information
obtained has broad applicability. Information
gathered to see if coal development is potentially a
wise use of land can also be used to evaluate
grazing or wildlife needs, or to make decisions on
wilderness design characteristics. No other uses are
precluded by adoption of a plan, no rights are
granted to a private party, since only those areas
totally unsuited to coal development are eliminat-
ed in the plan. The Department neither commits
itself to issuance of a particular lease, or to a
particular level of development in the planning
unit. Identification of potential, not commitment is
the goal of a land-use plan, while it does take effort
to do a land-use plan, the effort is a general one
and gives only minimal drive to mining.
Industry's committment is similarly limited. It
may expend money to gather information to
submit to the resource managers, but it gains no
expectation of rights nor can it rely on the eventual
outcome. To both industry and the Department
excluded not included activities is the focus of the
land-use plans.
Lease Issuance: Delineation, selection, ranking
of tracts and preparation of sale schedules and
issuance of a lease entail a Department commit-
ment of resources on an entirely different scale
than that done to complete a land-use plan. The
work done at this stage is important or needed only
if coal leasing will be done. It is a more intensive
focusing on the resources involved and the com-
mittment rises extensively. Lease issuance is also
the time when the Department makes the basic
commitment to allow coal to be mined by a
particular company at a particular site. Under the
preferred program, the procedures leading up to
lease issuance will give the answers to a broad
variety of questions. Is there good coal at the lease
site that can be mined under today's economic
conditions? Are the social impacts of development
acceptable? How will mine development affect
state and local financing? Is it expected that the
eventual lessee can meet all environmental laws?
Lease issuance is also the threshold point for
industry; the fundamental relationship between a
company changes when a lease is issued. The
company is no longer a mere applicant for a right,
someone with a hope of mining; it is a holder of a
prescribed set of rights and has to undertake a
specified set of duties. It must pay "fair market
value" for its rights, pay rent and begin to prepare
a mining plan for submission within three years.
Pre-lease expenditure might be limited to several
hundred thousand dollars at the most; post-lease
expenditures will rise into the millions of dollars.
Both for the Department and industry lease
issuance is a crucial expensive step needed to mine
coal. Even though the company's rights are
conditioned the performance of certain actions
and compliance with all laws, the relative position
of the parties has greatly changed. There can be
little doubt that it will be enormously more
difficult to refuse to approve a mining plan than it
would have been to refuse to issue a lease. As the
commenter notes, however, issuance of a lease
does not mean that mining will necessarily occur.
It does mean that mining will occur if it can do so
consistent with the lease and all applicable laws
and regulations. To date, there has been no case
where mining has been totally disallowed on a
Federal lease despite the fact that virtually all
leases were issued before Congress enacted NEPA.
Despite the possibility that mining may not take
place, because of the high likelihood that it will
occur, and because of the fundamental change in
degree of commitment by both industry and
government, the Department feels it must do an
environmental statement before it issues a lease.
The need to do an environmental statement
before lease issuance is consistent with the Depart-
ments view that it is overwhelmingly in the public
interest to resolve basic questions about the
desirability of coal development as early in the
process as possible. In other words, to save
everyone time and money, everyone should take
their best shot at whether to favor or oppose coal
leasing at a particular location before a lease is
issued, technical consideration on how to mine the
coal should be everyone's concern; a leaseholder
should not have to suffer delay while people
endlessly argue whether leasing should take place.
16. Comment. "Table 5-6. No units of measure-
ment."
Commenters 019 and 135
Response. The unit of measure for DES
Table 5-6 is thousands of acres. This error is
corrected in the FES.
8-165
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
17. Comment. "Moreover, consideration should
be given to the effect of the passage of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
on the injunction issued in NRDC vs. Hughes and
whether since the passage of the SMCRA, any
federal leasing can be considered a major federal
action with significant effect on the environment in
view of the fact that the lessee must still comply
with the severe environmental constraints of
SMCRA. Should the department still consider
itself bound by the mandates of that injunction,
which caused the preparation of this document?"
Commenter 087
Response. The Department does not feel that
the enactment of SMCRA eliminates the need to
prepare an environmental statement on the coal
program, although it does confirm that this
statement should focus more on ways to analyze
need for leasing and broad impacts of coal
development rather than standards for mining at
specific sites. While at times the obligations to
prepare a NEPA statement seem more procedural
than substantive, the Department considers this
statement to have been most helpful in preparing
to make decisions on a crucial range of issues that
have developed over the years. Because the papers
which formed the basis for the proposed program
were used heavily in this statement, consideration
of environmental impacts was truly a part of the
decision-making process. The Department has for
the first time gotten a good feel for the potential
relationship between total production and Federal
leases, for the potential of production from existing
leases, the role of split-estate lands, and a host of
other important factors, as well as the effects of
different development levels in different regions.
Even with the excellent standards set by SMCRA,
these are important questions requiring indepen-
dent evaluation.
18. Comment. "Further, under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976, which I refer
to as the Organic Act, new rules and regulations
are being formulated with public hearings to begin
about May, and so forth, on April 1st, I believe.
Again, somebody else has referred to it.
"My big point here is, going back to this
cornerstone, again, how can this particular very
important Draft Statement be made without, you
know, regular Congressional formulated, autho-
rized type procedures? And, in this event, this act
calls for broad management authority under the
principles of multiple and sustained yield— and
mining is not a multiple use— inventory and
indentification and mapping of public lands— and,
as I understand, there is a big data lack, you know,
several years in some of the areas they have
studied — and also comprehensive land-use plan-
ning.
"To go ahead with an environmental statement
which does not have the rules, regulations, and
provisions of this Congressional act firmly set out
with public inputs so people can really say what's
going to happen with these regulations and use
those as the cornerstone would be questionable
unless we have them firmed up.
"The wise course of action would be to develop
the various provisions, rules and regulations with
ample public hearings of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act under comprehensive land-
use planning into final form rather than proceed-
ing with an unsound draft environmental state-
ment for the benefit of energy corporations who
are pushing to get the coal leased for their private
interests."
Commenter 178
Response. A new subsection, has been added
to section 5.4 of the FES to respond to this and
similar views.
19. Comment. "Figure 2-1. This map is illegible.
I suggest it be made into smaller maps."
Commenter 019
Response. The quality of this map has been
improved for the FES.
20. Comment. "This draft environment state-
ment determines that by the year 1990 solar energy
will not contribute more than one or two percent
of the total water and space heating requirements
of the U.S. In a crisis determined to be the moral
equivalent of war this nation would be wise to
devote its available resources to the rapid develop-
ment of this relatively benign energy resource
rather than pursuing programs where the environ-
mental tradeoffs for the net energy gain are
unacceptable."
Commenter 047
Response. The development of solar energy is
being actively pursued by the Department ' of
Energy. Despite these efforts it appears unlikely
that solar energy technology will be perfected by
1990. The President's National Energy Plan calls
8-166
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
for a major role for coal for supplying the Nation's
energy needs over the coming decades. The
Department of the Interior is studying the alterna-
tive means of Federal coal management in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The decisions
on the energy mix strategy for the Nation to take
do not belong to this Department.
21. Comment. "Also, the expression "pounds of
trout/acre foot of stream" is a very unusual one
and is in desperate need of clarification and/or
definition. Under the wetlands criterion, it should
be specified whether the 5cfs is an average flow, a
minimum flow, or which specific flow is intended.
The Falcon Cliff Nesting Site Criterion (page 3-12)
is not printed properly in the table - a portion of it
is printed on page 3-10. Apparently page 3-12
should come between pages 3-9 and 3-10."
Commenter 121
Response. The FES contains the suggested
juxtaposition of pages. Pounds of trout per acre
foot of stream refers to the average unit weight
measure of the trout population in a given unit
surface area of a stream. For example 100 pounds
of trout per acre foot of stream would mean that
there could be 100-one pound trout or 10 - ten
pound trout in an average acre of a stream. For
clarity this unit measure has been changed to
pounds per surface area. Unsuitability criteria will
be re-evaluated and changed as needed in light of
all the comments received and in light of the
ongoing field tests.
22. Comment. "We would like to have seen
considered as serious national policy options, such
alternatives as seeking repeal or at least clarifica-
tion of much of the environmental legislation of
the past ten years and also consideration of a
policy that eventually would convey ownership of
all federal coal into private hands. There has been
much made over the 'fact', the accuracy and
meaning of which is still in dispute, that a
disproportionate amount of federal coal is under
lease relative to the amount produced from federal
lands. Further, that speculation is rampant and
that industry is withholding federal coal from
market for self-serving reasons. This line of
reasoning usually arrives at the conclusion that
consequently there is no need for any additional
federal leasing in the foreseeable future.
"We believe this to be a gross misinterpretation
of the situation and that the conclusion is in error.
To us, the fact that 93.5% of national coal
production in 1977 came from non-federal lands
does not suggest we discontinue federal leasing.
Instead, it strongly suggests that in order to
increase production from Federal lands, the lands
should be under non-federal control. Leasing is at
least a step in that direction and the fact that only
791,000 acres are under lease of the 11.5 million
federal acres within Known Recoverable Coal
Resource Areas, which in turn is only a small part
of the approximately 100 million acres of coal
rights owned by the federal government, borders
on the criminal for a nation hungry for domestic
energy supplies. Just imagine the furor if a private
corporation held such dominant control of a
resource and similarly refused to allow it to be
developed! And regarding speculation, we can
think of no better way to encourage speculation
than to withhold the major portion of a resource
from the market— that is certain to drive up the
price of remaining available lands."
Commenter 066
Response. The Department believes that the
suggestions to repeal all the environmental legisla-
tion of the past ten years and to convey ownership
of all Federal coal into private lands are unworthy
of response.
23. Comment. "All related regulations which
may affect the coal leasing program must be
published in the FES. All other pertinent docu-
ments such as solicitors opinions, internal memo-
randum and the like should be gathered under one
office and made available to the public without
requiring an FOIA request."
Commenter 118
Response. The Department has considered
printing the final surface mining regulations and
the proposed BLM planning regulations under
FLPMA in the final EIS. At this time we do not
believe the benefit from making this ancillary
information available outweighs the cost of print-
ing, especially the cost of paper. We are also
concerned that we might discourage some readers
with the sheer bulk of the EIS. Final copies of
those memoranda anticipated to be of interest to
the public have been gathered in one place and are
available upon request until supplies are exhaust-
ed. These documents are available from the BLM,
Office of Coal Management (142), Washington,
D.C. 20240. If supplies of these memoranda have
8-167
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
been exhausted or if the request is of a memoran-
dum for which the Department did not anticipate a
request, there may be a slight charge to defer
duplicating costs. The Department certainly pre-
fers to avoid the formality of an FOIA request
whenever possible.
24. Comment. "The process has a built in
'chicken-egg' enigma relative to tract leasing
(especially so for underground mining). Namely,
the resolution of the issues raised in land planning
unsuitability criteria, resource evaluation, tract
selection and ranking, Regional production quo-
tas, State government, public and industry views,
site-specific impacts, and cumulative effects.
Unless the data is available from all sources
simultaneously, it would seem impossible to reach
a decision."
Comment 282
Response. Options for achieving data effi-
ciencies, including the pooling of data used in
making decisions on other resource programs are
being examined by several task forces that include
participation from the Departments Bureaus and
Offices and from other Federal agencies. Programs
for sharing data should improve the decision
making by all parties involved with the manage-
ment of Federal coal.
25. Comment. "The responsibilities of the
Geological Survey are either poorly addressed or
ignored. The EIS implies that the Office of Surface
Mining (OSM) has the sole management role. The
role of the Geological Survey in conservation and
recovery of the resource should be adequately and
precisely defined."
Commenter 041
Response. The USGS has been represented
fully in all the deliberations bearing on the
development of the coal management program.
26. Comment. "Section 2.4 of the DEIS
discusses the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970
and 1977 on power generation. This section is
conclusory in style and should be expanded."
Commenter 090
Response. A brief summary of EPA estimates
of alternative sulfur standard impacts on western
coal production has been added to Section 2.4.
Discussion of the litigation and other details
concerning these standards would go beyond the
scope for this EIS.
27. Comment. "We hope that the Department
will continue to follow this splendid example in
how to write a program EIS in its subsequent EIS
efforts. Past DOI efforts have been overly formalis-
tic, highly structured and very short on culling out
issues of significance. We think this present EIS
does a commendable job in initiating the spirit of
the Council of Environmental Quality's new
regulations stressing conciseness and attention to
decisionmaking issues in EISs. We do think that
larger print would be advisable in the final EIS in
view of the extensive information contained
throughout the document. The EIS could also use
a comprehensive Table of Contents."
Commenter 28 1
Response The FES contains enlarged print
size and a comprehensive table of contents
APPENDICES
1. Comment. A large number of commenters
expressed concerns with the various components of
the Example Regulations in Appendix A of the
DES.
Commenters 048, 052, 055, 061, 077, 082, 087,
089, 090, 097, 098, 099, 102, 104, 120, 122, 130, 133,
281, and 282
Response. All comments on the Example
Regulations were considered during the prepara-
tion of the Proposed Regulations. In many cases
Departmental changes from the Example Regula-
tions were instigated by these comments and
incorporated in the preliminary rulemaking pub-
lished March 1979, in the Federal Register. These
comments are fully discussed in the preamble to
that rulemaking.
2. Comment. "Moreover, due to the provisions
of the Department of Energy Organization Act, we
feel that there is a legal issue as to whether the
Memorandum of Understanding between the DOI
and DOE attached as Appendix B to the DES,
may be in violation of the said Act and also
whether the production target process described in
the preferred program is in conformity with either
the Department of Energy Organization Act or the
said Memorandum of Understanding."
Commenter 087
Response. The Department believes that both
the Memorandum of Understanding and the
preferred program meet the mandates of the
Department of Energy Act. We have made some
8-168
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
corrections to the description of the proposed
program in Chapter 3 and to the example regula-
tions to clarify that the starting point for the
regional prediction process is the DOE production
goals when they are available. In other words,
while the statement presents a range of figures for
analyses and evaluation purposes, the program will
start with a set of figures suggested by the
Department of Energy. The commenter does not
suggest any specific problem or shortcoming; our
response is necessarily equally general. The De-
partment encourages more specific comments as
part of the rulemaking process.
3. Comment. "Table C-l. The figure of 1,750
tons per acre-foot conflicts with the figure of 1,770
tons per acre-foot which must be used according to
USGS General Coal Mining Order No. 1, dated
July 3, 1978."
Commenter 019, 135
Response. This difference is not considered
significant enough to warrant change.
4. Comment "Appendix C, figure C-3. This
figure is incorrect and misleading. It shows a
continuous miner and conventional equipment in
the same mining section. Separate figures should
show the utilization of each type of equipment.
Pillar recovery should also be shown for each
system, preferably on a separate figure."
Commenter: 041
Response This figure is a generalized presen-
tation of an entire mining process. Although
separate figures may be appropriate, they are not
considered to be warranted for this general degree
of detail.
5. Comment. "The discussion of endangered
species in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Region
indicates that '... at least 10 endangered species
occur in this region. Presumably this includes the
Yuma clapper rail listed in Appendix Table D-2,
page, D-7. This species has never been observed in
Utah and should be excluded from that table."
Commenter 093
Response. The regions as originally mapped
appeared to include Arizona, Colorado and Utah.
The actual production region (see Figure 1-1 and
Appendix J) shows only Colorado and Utah, thus
Yuma Clapper rail has been deleted from list since
distribution appears limited to California and
Arizona.
6. Comment. "I will cite an example. I believe
there is a statement in here to the extent that one
animal requires 1 1 acres of land in order to graze
adequately. The figure is probably something more
like one animal for every 22 acres. The argument
has been made that this land is generally unpro-
ductive and for that reason it would be worthwhile
to develop the coal reserves in that area. Well, I
submit to you that you should probably be
considering alternatives having to do with scaled-
down development for the San Juan Region for the
very simple reason that the people who are there
have no place to go and they do depend greatly on
grazing for their livelihood. Any mining of the
coal, taking into account the ratio that you propose
for animal grazing in this area, will essentially
short-change and put a lot of people below the
poverty level than are already below it at this
point."
Commenter 138
Response. The referenced statement has been
changed to reflect a grazing requirement of one
animal per 22 acres in accordance with this
comment. The preferred program would provide
for analysis of regional socio-economic impacts,
including proposal of appropriate mitigation tech-
niques. Persons from different cultural back-
grounds have different capabilities to adapt to
change; such facts would be considered in the
regional lease sale EISs.
7. Comment. "Appendix D - Ecological Data.
The Uinta-Southwestern Utah portion of Appen-
dix Table D-l should be modified to include one
antelope per 150 acres and one mule deer per 50
acres. Division of Wildlife Resources' estimates of
carrying capacity for 15 deer herd units in Utah
averages one deer per 47 acres.
"Also we wonder if the pounds fish per acre-
foot values included for streams and reservoirs
should be pounds per acre. The values reported
seem high where expressed on an acre-foot basis."
Commenter 093, 121,266
Response. Table D-l has been modified as
indicated. Pounds per acre-foot has been corrected
to read pounds per surface area.
8. Comment. "Table D-l : Estimated Regional
Carrying Capacities and Primary Productivities.
The acres per animal figures for some big animals
are low. For example, one mule deer/ 100 acres in
Uinta-Southwestern Utah region. The average
8-169
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
capacity for 15 herd units in Utah is one mule
deer/47 acres based on Utah Dvision of Wildlife
Resources data."
Commenter 266
Response. Carrying capacity for mule deer
has been changed in the FES as noted.
9. Comment. "In earlier correspondence we
recommended that potential losses of wildlife
incorporation in Table D-5, pages D-13 through
34, be identified in terms of habitat units, not
animal numbers. We reiterate that recommenda-
tion here. It is the Division's position that the
numbers shown do not provide an adequate base
for impact assessment or ultimate establishment of
thresholds."
Commenter 266
Response. Habitat units would have more
meaning at a regional or site specific level. In
comparing alternatives, without knowing where
actual mining activities would occur, all potential
habitat within a region would need to be identi-
fied-thus no apparent difference would be detect-
ed. Once sites are determined, and if aerial photos
are available or can be easily obtained, habitat
units can be determined, and differences between
sites can be determined. The level of detail then
required (e.g. species or category such as game
animal) can be applied more meaningfully.
10. Comment. "The references cited for the
sources of information in Table D-l are too
general in nature for the uses to which the data is
put. More site-specific studies should be cited.
Much of the data were obtained as values for an
entire state and used as regional values. For the
San Juan River Region, 1 1 .04 acres/animal unit is
extremely low; a more believable value would be
11.04 acres/animal unit month, which would
translate to 132.48 acres/animal unit, a more
believable figure (USDA, Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, 1977. Technical Guide, New Mexico: Techni-
cal range site description.) The value for productiv-
ity of 4.5 tons/acre/year (Table D-l) or 3.2
tons/acre/year (Table H-15) is far too high. The
Soil Conservation Service estimates productivity
for several range sites in the San Juan Basin to be
approximately 500 pounds per acre per year
(USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1977. Techni-
cal Guide, New Mexico; Technical range site
descriptions). Corn productivity is alleged to be
96.6 bushels/acre/year for the San Juan Basin;
however, the official New Mexico Agricultural
Statistics, 1974, produced by New Mexico State
University list average irrigated corn production in
San Juan County in 1973 as 50 bushels/acre and in
1974 as 60 bushels/acre. The productivities of all
crops for which values were found in the literature
were below the values used in this document. All
regions contain suspect productivity values. Simi-
lar productivity values also appear in Tables H-15
and H-17. The calculation of potential loss of
animal units does not take into account the data in
Table H-14 on allocation of land to various land-
use categories; the values are calculated on the
basis of each land-use category comprising 100%
of the land area. Tables D-5 through D-26 are
therefore suspect due to the questionable values
used in the calculations of potential losses of plant
and animal productivity. The use of computer
modeling to derive potential biomass losses does
not negate the importance of using a proper data
base."
Commenter 088
Response. The references cited in Table D-l
are necessarily general because of the areas
involved. As areas become better defined, data
specific to given sites, if available, should be used.
The intent at this level of analysis was to provide
comparison among alternative leasing options.
Data used in most cases were the typical
average values for each state contributing to the
region. For example, average corn for grain yields
for New Mexico, Colorado, Utah was 98.3 bushels,
103.3 bushels and 88.3 bushels, respectively,
between 1975 and 1977. This gave an average of
96.6 bushels which was multiplied by an estimate
of the amount of land assumed to be in corn.
Whether the acreage alloted to corn is actually in
corn, or potentially available to grow corn, and
exact yields are simply beyond the scope of this
document. This is not to suggest that any number
could be used without some data base. It is fully
expected that more representative data will be used
when areas are narrowed and better defined.
Several comments have been received on the
value used for animal units in the San Juan
Region, ranging from the value is 10 times too high
to the value is two times too low. The value of
11.04 acres/animal unit is the average derived
from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Statistics, 1975. Because of comments received it
has been changed to 22 acres/animal unit/month.
8-170
■"■::■.: ;^ ■;:■.:' ■;-.?;
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
With the exception of big game animals, as
indicated in Table D-l, all other wildlife popula-
tion estimates and animal units were derived from
total acres times estimated population densities.
While the percentages alloted to the various land
use categories may suggest that a category occurs
as a discrete unit, the regions were assumed to
have a mosaic pattern of vegetation. Where
grassland or range occurred continuously over
broad areas, it is probable that grazing animals
may remain only on range. Where range is broken
by other types, it is probable that grazing animals
may pass through or use these other areas for some
periods of times.
11. Comment. "In this section, revegetation of
range in Texas is stated as taking three years,
where in Section 7.3.3 the same vegetation in Texas
is stated as taking one year."
Powder River 1 game mammal/ 13 acres (7-5), 1 game
mammal/33 to 200 acres (D-l)
Green River 1 game mammal/ 13 acres (7-5), 1 game
mammal/66-250 acres (D-l)
Fort Union 1 predator/500 acres (7-5), 1 preda-
tor/3,200 acres (D-l)
Denver-Raton Mesa 1 game bird/5 acres (7-5), 1 game bird/1
acre (D-l)
Denver-Raton Mesa 13.7 acres.animal unit (7-5), 1.6
acres/animal unit (D-l)
In reviewing the two sets of data, Table 7-5
and Appendix D-l seem to imply that reclaimed
land in the Powder River, Green River, and Fort
Union Regions will support three (3) to nineteen
(19) times the relative wildlife population said to
exist naturally, while the Denver-Raton Mesa will
support a wildlife population five (5) to nine (9)
times less than exist naturally. Explanation of this
extreme variance is needed."
Commenter 069
Response. Data in Appendix Table D-l has
been checked and corrected. Table 7-5 has been
eliminated.
The discrepancy between Table D-l and Table
7-5 lies in the estimates of carrying capacity (D-l)
which are based on density estimates of occupied
habitat. Data in 7-5 presents estimates if all area is
occupied habitat. This discrepancy should be
eliminated once areas become better defined and
site specific data can be applied.
12. Comment. "DOE quotes the carrying
capacity of the land which will be mined here
(Table D-l) at 11.04 acres per animal unit, a figure
exaggerated more than 10 times. * It projects a
grassland productivity of 4.5 tons/acre/year in this
same region when usable forage actually ranges
from 0 to 250 lbs./acre/year. When fish produc-
tion in reservoirs in the San Juan River Region are
given as 250 pounds of fish/acre foot, it becomes
apparent that prejudices against Western Coal
development are a part of the leasing plan. I have
been involved in fisheries research 25 years, and
this is my first experience with fish productivity
given in acre feet and not surface acres except
when deception or a hard sell were intended. The
very fact that highly productive Texas reservoirs
are shown to have approximately one-half this
carrying capacity when they should show nearly
twice as much does not appear to be error, but
attempted deception."
Commenter 136
Response. The carrying capacity has been
changed to 22 acres per animal unit based on
comment 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1975
statistics indicate that about 25 acres per animal
unit are required in Arizona and New Mexico, 9
acres per animal unit in Utah and 7.7 acres per
animal unit in Colorado for an average of about 16
acres per animal unit for these four states which
contribute to the San Juan Region. The figure of
4.5 tons per acre per year (grassland productivity)
is from L.E. Rodin et al, 1975 and reflects an
average for semiarid regions (subboreal belt). No
doubt actual site productivity will vary from this
figure. If 250 pounds per acre per year is an
acceptable figure that be referenced, there is no
problem in changing the multiplier to reflect this.
There is no intended prejudice or attempt to
deceive by using a higher figure for fish productivi-
ty in San Juan. Carlander, 1955, figures for
standing crops of fish were used for this estimate.
A figure of 25-150 pounds per surface acres was
used for Texas since it seemed to fall into the
category of warm-water lakes, while 250 pounds
surface acres was used for San Juan since there
was no category specific to that region. Carlander
lists a standing crop of between 200-300 pounds
per surface for "other reservoirs and ponds."
Standing crop should have appeared as pounds per
surface acre and not pounds per acre foot as listed.
3-171
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
13. Comment. "The thing that really caught my
attention was the 455,000 acres to be disturbed in
the Texas Region of this plan, which the plan says
includes mining and coal handling and preparation
facilities, 455,000 acres to be disturbed between
now and 1980 would produce 370,000 tons of coal
a year, figuring 10,000 tons per acre, a figure which
is 20 times what is being produced there now, a
figure which to anyone has to be nonsensible."
Commenter 136
Response. Acres committed are being revised
to better reflect actual land requirements to
support a given coal production. In the original
draft, a yearly total of land required for mining
and a consuming industry was multiplied by the
time period to give total land requirements. The
error in this is that it assumes that land required
for a consuming industry would increase at a much
faster rate than was actually needed.
14. Comment. "The following data were
acknowledged as erroneous by Mr. Uram, Mr. Van
der Walker, and Mr. Moore on January 3, 1979 at
the informal meeting in Albuquerque. These, too,
must be corrected, since they imply a productivity
from San Juan Basin that simply is far from
accurate.
a. Table D-l, page D-3. The Figure of 1 1.04
acres/animal unit/year is acknowledged
. by the BLM's Albuquerque District as
inaccurate. The figure given by the BLM
for the Star Lake-Bisti Region is 12.52
acres/animal unit/ month . The figure
given in the Programmatic should be
revised.
b. For sagebrush steppe the Programmatic
gives a figure of 1.8 tons of productivity
per acre. The BLM's Albuquerque Dis-
trict was unable to provide an accurate
figure, but estimated that 1,000 pounds
per acre would be excessive.
c. For Grasslands the Programmatic gives a
productivity of 4.5 tons per acre in the San
Juan Basin. A 1974 figure for intensive
hay production in Illinois (FES Related to
the Proposed Braidwood Station, done by
Commonwealth Edison and accepted by
AEC) predicts only 2.92 tons of productiv-
ity per acre. To suggest that the San Juan
Basin is 2X as productive as the heartland
of mid-America is ludicrous.
d. Table D-l also gives productivity figures
for corn, hay, wheat, cotton, and sugar-
beets. None of these crops are presently
grown on any potential coal lands in the
San Juan Basin. The current use and
likely end use of these lands is grazing.
Moreover, cotton is grown in new Mexico
no farther north than Socorro, 60 miles
south of Albuquerque."
Commenter 019, 135
Response. Appendix D has been revised to
reflect more accurate information.
15. Comment. "The statement undervalues the
productive ability of western lands. This in
conjunction with the inadequate assessment of
reclamation in the West, results in a vast underesti-
mation of the long-term loss of productivity and
renewable resources."
Commenter 061
Response. Estimates of the productive ability
of western lands are from Rodin et al (1975).
Productivity of the world's main ecosystems are
average productivity value for type of vegetation.
They do not reflect specific productivity for a
given area. This can only be determined by
productivity measurements of the specified tract.
16. Comment. "Coal development projects, in
particular coal slurry transport and coal gasifica-
tion (as described in Appendices C and H) use
large quantities of water. Thus, water availability
may become a very serious problem to some areas
with marginal or insufficient quantities of water
required for the operations of the existing hydro
and/or other developments, for example, in water
deficient parts of the Central Plains and southwest-
ern states. Water impacts (Chapter 5) would be
more effectively demonstrated if water deficit, the
difference between the minimum available and
maximum demand in water for each particular
region during critical periods, was included as one
of the impact evaluation criteria."
Commenter 117
Response. Appendix E addresses total stream
flows and consumptive water requirements. The
tables in Appendix E indicate on a per month basis
the amounts of water available and needed for the
Federal coal management program.
17. Comment. "The WRC report 'The Nation's
Water Resources' was referenced as the source for
3-172
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
the Consumptive Water Requirements shown in
Appendix E. It appears that these consumptive use
figures may be high for the Missouri River Basin.
Therefore, the streamfiow impacts in the Missouri
River (Tables E-A and E-7) may be somewhat
exaggerated."
Commenters 204, 028
Response. Table E-12 explains the rationale
for the data, as well as their source. The data are
not considered to be exaggerated.
18. Comment. "Appendix F presents coal
production projections by state and includes
projected in-state coal consumption as well. How-
ever, the process used to derive these numbers is
not indicated. The manner in which Appendix F
supports or is incorporated into the main body of
the EIS is also not explained in the Appendix,
although references may exist in the body of the
text. The Montana and Wyoming shares and total
Powder River production are summarized as
follows (from Tables F-2 and F-3) in million tons
per year (mtpy): Production Consumption data.
"There are several obvious problems with this
data. In 1976 Wyoming power plants consumed
approximately 7.5 million tons of coal (mt) in
electric generating plants and Montana plants
consumed approximately 2.3 mt. It is not clear why
Wyoming consumption is projected to be lower in
1985 than in 1976 and why Wyoming consumption
is lower in both 1985 and 1990 than Montana since
more coal-fired generating projects are already in
operation or scheduled for construction in Wyom-
ing. The Montana coal consumption projects are
not unreasonable in light of future planned
facilities which the state is aware of. However, if
low BTU coal gasification by 1990 is among
facility construction plans for Montana, the state
of Montana would like to be informed.
"On p. 2-24, three actions are specified which
will be undertaken at the national level to address
the problem of growing energy demands; these
include expanded domestic use of coal, increased
foreign supplies of oil and gas, and greater energy
conservation. We in Montana would like to see a
fourth action added, namely, to allocate the
necessary support and research efforts required to
increase reliance on renewable forms of energy."
Commenter 121
Response. Low-Btu projections were not
based on any specific new construction plans, but
on general energy demand considerations. Nation-
al energy planning includes greater reliance on
solar energy and other possible renewable re-
sources. However, for the short run, these sources
do not appear likely to provide a major contribu-
tion to national energy. The difference in Montana
and Wyoming projections appears attributable to
different power plant sizes.
19. Comment. "Table F-l says 27,400 people, or
16% of the population of northwest New Mexico is
coal-related population. The BLM's Star Lake-
Bisti Regional EIS states that only 3,475 people
were coal-related in 1977, and this includes basic
and non-basic and indirect employment plus
families. This discrepancy must be addressed, since
carried further in later tables it suggests that coal-
related socio-economic impacts will be far greater
than they actually will. Tables F-2 and F-3 show
the same great discrepancy discussed in Item No.
41 above."
Commenter 019, 135
Response. The boundaries and consequently
the data bases for the Star Lake-Bisti ES and the
San Juan River Coal Regions differ.
20. Comment. "What is the source of the
Appendix F data?"
Commenter 121
Response. Appendix F data is based on the
detailed DOE production projections adjusted for
the estimated impacts of alternative Federal coal
management programs.
21. Comment. "Table G-2 differs enormously
from approximately similar tables in the Star Lake-
Bisti Regional EIS. For example, (Page H-7)
DOE's National Coal Model (NCM) was run with
the assumption that the Federal Government
would lease enough coal reserves such that the
reserves cheapest to be mined would be mined
first. How would the results of the NCM change if
this assumption was not made?"
Commenter 091
Response A DOE and DOI report, Effects of
No Further Federal Leasing on the Nation's Coal
Markets (draft January 1979) can be obtained
which analyzes this question."
22. Comment. "In Table H- 15 (page H-29), it is
questionable that in the Powder River Region,
productivity in an upland forest (8.0 tons/acre) is
greater than that in a wetland/bottomland forest
8-173
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
(5.4). Also, it is difficult to believe that rangeland
produces 6.7 tons per acre and pastureland only
"Some of the productivity data in Table D-l
appear to be questionable. If, as indicated, produc-
tivities per acre/year in the Powder River Region
(page D-2) are 5.4 tons for floodplains and higher
than this for prairie (6.7), hardwood forest (5.8),
and evergreen forest (8.0), then it seems as though
unsuitability criteria should include more than just
the floodplain type."
Commenter 121
Response. Tables H-15 and D-l have been
revised to reflect more accurate information.
23. Comment. "One transparently incorrect
conclusion regarding environmental loadings from
coal transportation is the assumption that coal
slurry pipeline operations would not contribute to
air emissions. See, for example, Tables H-65 on
page H-84 and H-89 on page H-108. Although a
pipeline is powered by electricity and may not
visibly produce emissions along its line, generation
of that electricity does cause air emissions. More-
over, these emissions are localized around power
generation facilities. Failure to include emissions
from electricity generation necessitated by slurry
pipeline operation, distorts environmental impacts
of the various modes of transportation.
"Based on those factors identified above, all
estimates in this DES of air emissions from
transportation as they relate to the Powder River
Basin are suspect and should be given little weight.
Regarding rail carriers, emissions factors from
locomotive combustion are inaccurate, fuel com-
sumption estimates are contradictory, unit train
length was shortened and total coal to be trans-
ported is excessive. The bottom line is not a 'worst
case' estimate of impact, but a totally improbable
result."
Commenter 067
Response. The comment is that emissions
from electric power generation needed to power
pipelines should be considered in calculating air
emissions resulting from coal slurry pipeline
operations. This approach is not consistent with
the analysis of residuals generated from fuel coal
cycle. Air emissions from electric power plants are
addressed separately and to recount them by end
use categories will be double counting. The
amount of total cost to be transported was based
upon production numbers, and emission factors
were derived from references 7 and 45 pages H-
114andH-115.
24. Comment.
The comment also quotes regional factors that
are less than those reported in the environmental
statement. It should be noted here that the factors
are based on 10,000 capacity trains and are subject
to a number of varied interrelated influences and
they should be viewed as representative on a
material basis rather than definitive.
Commenter 067
Response. The typical train air emissions
listed on page H-34 are per train mile of travel.
However, as shown in Table H-22 these emissions
are for long-haul rail. Page H-34 will be corrected
to reflect this. Also it should be indicated that
those emissions were calculated from U.S. EPA
1976, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions
Factors, Second Edition, AP-42, Research Trian-
gle Park, N.C.
25. Comment. "Table H-22 is also subject to
criticism because without very careful review it is
highly misleading. It purports to compare air
emissions from various modes of transportation
but does not compare equal volumes of coal
transported by each. Fuel consumption used for
calculation of emissions is also inconsistent with
relative energy consumption for the various modes
stated on page 5-116. It stretches credibility that
one mode of transportation which allegedly con-
sumes the same Btus to transport a ton of coal as
another mode (670 Btus for rail and 680 Btus for
barge) suddenly consumes 2500 times the fuel
volume per unit of coal transported (50 gallons of
fuel to transport 10,000 tons one mile by rail versus
0.02 gallons of fuel to transport 10,000 tons one
mile by tug)."
Commenter 067
Response. Table H-22 addresses air emis-
sions from various modes of transportation in
pounds/mile. These numbers were then converted
to tons of pollutants per billion ton miles based on
the weight of equipment and average distance
transported. Then these factors were inputed to the
model based on equal volumes of coal that agrees
with your suggestion.
The calculations indicated for computing
pollutants gives pounds of pollutants in the fuel,
8-174
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
and does not account for the oxygen in CO, NO* ,
and SOxOr the uncombustible hydrocarbons.
26. Comment. "Paragraph H.5.1.3 Transporta-
tion, page H-34, states that typical train emissions
have been estimated at 18.5 pounds of nitrogen
oxides, 6.5 pounds of carbon monoxides, and 4.7
pounds of hydrocarbons per train mile of travel.
Such casual use of national estimates does not
provide a valid measure of locomotive emissions
for a specific region. Fuel consumption and
gaseous emissions are related to train speed, track
grade, train load and many other operating
conditions. This is particularly misleading when
juxtaposed with the statement that transportation
facilities are responsible for a large share of air
pollutant emissions in many areas of the United
States. This glib declaration begs the conclusion
that rail carriers alone are responsible without help
from automobiles, trucks, and other "transporta-
tion facilities.
"A more reasonable and logical measure
relates gaseous emissions to fuel consumption. The
following factors were provided by the manufac-
turer of the locomotive most likely to be used in
unit train service in the Powder River Basin
Region.
At a fuel consumption rate of 400 Btus per ton-
mile, gaseous emissions from "long haul rail"
would be as follows: 3.3 pounds of nitrogen oxides,
0.45 pounds of carbon monoxides, and 0.13
pounds of hydrocarbons per train mile of travel."
Commenter 067
Response. The values used in the analysis for
train emissions are conservative. It is true that in
certain cases lower emission values may be more
suitable than those used.
27. Comment. "Four, regarding Tables H-90
and H-91 on the value of all agricultural products
sold per acre of all land and the maximum
agricultural opportunity costs of mining the figures
and corresponding narrative are questionable.
They reflect the typical BLM disregard for and
undervaluing of the agricultural industry, which, in
the long run, makes for a more easily justifiable
resource trade-off. No mention is made anywhere
in the statement of impacts to the livestock
industry."
Commenter 174
Response. The values used to estimate
opportunity costs of coal production, i.e., agricul-
tural revenues foregone, represent the average of
all agricultural revenues divided by all agricultural
land acreage. Accordingly, the values utilized
reflect the incorporation of high and low value
crops and production. Included in these per-acre
opportunity costs are the revenues generated by
livestock production. Such an approach is used
because it would be inherently biased to utilize
only high value per acre crops in calculating such
opportunity costs.
28. Comment. "The principal component of
Chapter five's environmental assessment is the
determination of environmental residuals which
result from various coal production levels and
patterns identified by the Department in Table 5-2
and Appendix H. These production projections are
somehow derived from Department of Energy
projections. The process for converting from DOE
to DOI projections is entirely conjectural. Appen-
dix H could not explain the basis of the conver-
sion, and Departmental personnel were hard
pressed to explain it in public meetings. One of the
reasons for the adjustments is well justified— the
inaccuracy of the DOE projections as described in
these comments, supra. However, the adjustments
do not reflect what we believe are rational attempts
to correct DOE's errors. For example, Powder
River production projections are untouched by
DOI's adjustments, except for the 1985 High
Powder River estimate, which is actually 70 million
tons higher than DOE's estimate!
"Further comparing Tables 5-2 (DOE projec-
tions) and 2-29 (DOE estimates), we find that
Interior's estimates for 1985 production exceed
DOE's forecasts in five regions and throughout the
West by 145 million tons (high level). In 1990, the
DOI medium and high estimates each exceed
DOE's in three regions and throughout the West
by 94 million tons for the high level. When asked
about these inconsistencies at the Denver, Colora-
do DES hearing, Departmental personnel indicat-
ed that the Coal Management Office had arbitrari-
ly adjusted some of the projections in order to
observe what would happen to the environmental
impacts. Based on this explanation, we believe that
the projections do not actually indicate the regional
productions which could be expected under the
preferred alternative, or for that matter, any other
program. Hence, the environmental loadings
which result from application of the Coal Impact
5-175
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Estimates Program (CIEP) to these production
projections do not represent the environmental
impacts of the preferred program. Prior to analysis
of the preferred alternative, the Department must
more clearly explain the process of disaggregation
and conversion beyond the description provided in
H.2.2 to allow a more accurate picture of the
actual regional production targets and thus the
impacts resulting therefrom."
Commenter 097
Response. Section H.2.2 has been revised to
present additional descriptive material concerning
the disaggregation and derivation of coal produc-
tion and consumption levels.
29. Comment. "Table 1-1 shows reclamation
costs to be $2,900/acre. Our experience at our San
Juan Mine shows such costs to average approxi-
mately $5,200/acre. I suggest this table be revised
through contacting the surface mine operators in
the San Juan Basin.
"Table 1-1. The heading on the right-hand
column is wrong, It should not be "Total $/acre."
"Table 1-3 gives an average dollar cost/ton of
coal mined as 9<f for reclamation. Our experience
suggests this figure is 26* to 30C per ton. This table
can also be easily revised through contacting the
surface mine operators in the San Juan Basin."
Commenter 019, 041, 091
Response. The reclamation cost appendix has
been eliminated from the FES due to data
inaccuracies, prediction uncertainties, and the fact
that this information is strictly economic and
therefore not essential to an environmental impact
statement.
83.8 LIST OF ALL WRITTEN COMMENTERS
All of the written comments that were received
during the extended review period were given an
index number and reviewed by the Department for
substative comment on the draft programmatic
environmental statement.
Written comments received after the 60 day
review period were assigned to the environmental
staff analysts for evaluation and for resultant
changes or insertion in the text of the DES.
However, no response was generated for these late
comments. All of the comments have been record-
ed and are on file and available for public review
at the Office of Coal Management, Bureau of Land
Management, Room 3610, Washington, D.C.
20240. Below is a list of all respondents to the
environmental statement, including the witnesses
who appeared at the public hearings.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
4A.
45.
46.
Southeast Nebraska Council of Governments
Natural Resources Council (Iowa)
BLM (730)
BLM (Oregon State Directors)
BLM (ESO)
Energy Transportation Systems, Inc.
BLM (Idaho State Director)
State of Utah, - Department of Development Services
David Rorick, Jr.
Intermountain Exploration Company
Natural Resources Council (Iowa)
Mr. Snyder
Ray Brady
North Dakota State Planning Division
BLM (ESO)
Department of the Interior - (HCRS)
Wallace McMartin
Sweetwater County Planning Department
Western Coal Company
BLM (DSC)
BLM (Montana State Director)
Eleanor C. Robbins
BLM (Nevada State Director)
BLM (Colorado State Director)
Friends of the Earth, Inc.
The Colorado Mountain Club
Friends of the Earth, Inc.
North Dakota State Planning Division
Bruce Seegert
Doris Ellis
T.W. Thursby
Edwina Eastman
BLM (TF-13)
Wesco Resources, Inc.
BLM (Utah State Director)
Intermountain Power Project
Mrs. Arthur Beier
Greg Flakers
Board of County Commissioners - Sheridan, Wyoming
Western Coal Company
USGS
High Country Citizens Alliance
M. Christopher
Bruce Seegert
Friends of the Earth, Inc.
North Dakota State Planning Division
8-176
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
47. Office of the Governor - State of Vermont
48. Department of the Treasury, BOGEO
49. Dwight Filley
50. HEW (EAG)
51. Governor's Office of Planning Coordination - State of Nevada
52. Russell L. Lipp
53. Charles W. Margolf
54. BLM (730)
55. Council of Energy Resources Tribes
56. Office of the Governor - State of Texas
57. DNA - Peoples Legal Services, Inc.
58. Public Lands Institute, Inc.
59. Western Colorado Resources Council, Inc.
60. Colorado Open Space Council
6 1 . Northern Plains Resource Council
62. Powder River Basin Resource Council
63. Jean Rasager
64. Arizona State Clearinghouse
65. Central and South West Fuels, Inc.
66. Coastal States Energy Company
67. Burlington Northern
68. Consolidation Coal Company
69. Peabody Coal Company
70. Honorable Ken Kramer - U.S. House of Representatives
7 1 . Environmental Information Center
72. BLM (New Mexico State Director)
73. Northern Minerals Company
74. CSG Exploration Company
75. MONTCO
76. League of Women Voters of the United States
77. AMAX Coal company
78. Utah Power and Light Company
79. Bureau of Mines
80. BLM (360)
8 1 . Western Energy Company
82. Ad Hoc Committee on Public Body Leasing
83. Mobil Oil Corporation
84. Sunoco Energy Development Company
85. The Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club
86. Katherine Moorehead
87. American Mining Congress
88. El Pasco Natural Gas Company
89. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
90. Duncan, Brown, Weinberg, and Palmer, PC.
9 1 . Office of Surface Mining
92. The Carter Oil Company
93. Office of the Governor - State of Utah
94. The Cherokee and Pittsburg Coal Mining company
95. Southern California Edison Company
96. Tenneco Coal
97. Friends of the Earth
99. Environmental Policy Institute
100. Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc.
101. Colowyo Coal Company
102. American Mining Company
103. Council on Economic Priorities
104. James Catlin
105. Tri-County Ranchers Association
106. 3R Corporation
107. R Bar Ranch
1 08 Sierra Club - Northern Great Plains Office
109. The New Mexico Natural History Institute
1 1 0. Hames and Karen Bernhardt
111. The Illinois South Project, Inc.
1 12. Page T. Jenkins
113. Colorado River Board of California
1 14. Union Pacific Railroad Company
115. Department of Administration - State of Kansas
1 16. United States Department of Agriculture (SCS)
1 17. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
118. Powder River Basin Resource Council
1 19. Pennsylvania State Clearing house
120. Cororado Westmoreland, Inc.
121. Office of the Governor - State of Montana
1 22. Office of the Governor - State of Wyoming
123. National Wildlife Federation
124. Environmental Defense Fund
125. Town of Guilford, Connecticut - Conservation Commission
Hearing Witnesses
Providing testimony
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
Clark Layton
William R. Bowen
Milton A. Oman
Loren E. Williams
Gordon Anderson
Gary Tomsic
R. J. Bowen
John Bell
Nina Dougherty
Albuquerque New Mexico
135. George Byers
136. JohnTilten
137. Paul Robinson
138. Joseph Gmuca
139. Judson C. Kelly
140. David Glowka
141. L. C. Edwards
142. Ken Brim
143. Jack Kennedy
8-177
lllllllllllllllllllT -r^B— ^— «■ II llll -I I
.,, .., . :... .. . ...... ....... ......... 7k ...
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Casper. Wyoming
144. Sarah Gorin
145. Bob Anderson
146. Reed Zars
147. Al Minier
148. Bruce Hamilton
149. Richard Andrews
150. Frederick Murray
Craig. Colorado
151. KenNorris
152. Daniel R. Ellison
153. Bill Gossard
Denver. Colorado
1 54. Carolyn Ruth Johnson
155. Harris Sherman
156. KenenMarkey
157. AnneeVickery
158. Brad Klafehn
159. Terry O'Connor
160. Steven Moore
161. Lynn Burns
162. Jerry Whiting
163. Traver Berrington
164. Linda Lindsey
165. Steve Wolcott
166. Robin Nicholoff
167. Gratchen Nicholoff
168. Mark Welsh
169. Carolyn R. Johnson
Billings. Montana
1 70. Governor Tim Judge
171. Jean Anderson
172. Bill Mackay
173. Harvey Bieber
174. Henen Waller
175. Douglas Richardson
176. Mary Daniels
177. Patty Kluver
178. Dr. Daniel Henning
179. Keith Williams
180. Bertha Medicine Bow
181. Edward Dobson
Bismarck, North Dakota
1 82. Ruben Hummel
183. Gust Mittelstedt
184. Dwight Connor
185. Evelyn Newton
186. Bruce Hagen
187. TedNace
188. Randolph Nodland
189. June Thompson
190. DaleNabben
Washington. Ti.C.
191. Carey Ridder
192. LamontC. Laue
193. David Masselli
194. Kevin L. Markey
195. Jonathan Lash
196. Robert L. Sansom
197. Daniel J. Snyder, III
198. Roger E. Nelson
NOTE: The following witnesses presented oral
testimony that was not typed on the original copy
of the court transcript due to an error in transcrib-
ing. Hence, the index numbers are out of sequence.
202 Susan Westfall
NOTE: Witness names listed below did not
present oral testimony but submitted written
comments at the following locations
Denser
199. Claire Moore
200. Nancy Strong
201. PaulMurrill
Bismarck
203. Vera Fahy
204. Ken Ziegler
(No witness testimony presented at the scheduled
hearings in Chicago, Illinois, or Lexington, Ken-
tucky).
Late Comments
205. Denver Service Center
206. Joanne Dunnebecke
207. Holland & Hart
208. Utah International
209. Edison Electric Institute
2 1 0. Getty Oil Company
211. Sierra Club - Utah Chapter
212. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
213. Edison Electric Institute
214. Northern Cheyenne Research Project
215. Dwayne Ward
216. The Wilderness Society
217. Sierra Club - Pennsylvania Chapter
218. Theodore K. Nace
219. Thomas Breitback
220. Atlantic Richfield Company
8-178
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
221. BLM(TD)
222. Intergovernmental Relations Division
223. Wilderness Study Committee
224. GRC Exploration Company
225. Oklahoma State Clearinghouse
226. Rocky Mountain Energy Corporation
227. Ranchers Energy Corporation
228. Kenneth E. Joel
229. Peter Kiewit & Sons, Inc.
230. Charles W. Margolf
23 1 . McCone Agricultural Protection Organization
232. Walter Swain
233. Graduate Students, Environmental Studies Program,
University of Montana
234. Charles Worley
235. Western Energy Company
236. Wyoming Outdoor Council
237. Cecil H. Smith
238. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.
239. Department of Finance Administration - State of New Mexico
240. National Park Service
241. Henry Peck
242. Kansas City Power and Light Company
243. Texas Historical Commission
244. City of Gillette, Wyoming
245. Game and Fish Department - State and Wyoming
246. Department of Natural Resources - State of Colorado
247. Northern Cheyenne Research Project
248. Kansas City Power and Light Company
249. Texaco, Inc.
250. Bruce Berger
25 1 . Claire Kearney Gailbraith
252. Connie Ohman
253. Henry Peck
254. Missouri River Basin Commission
255. April L. Sanders
256. Department of Commerce
257. Union Pacific Railroad Company
258. Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development
259. North Carolina Department of Administration
260. Commonwealth of Virginia-Council on the Environment
26 1 . New Mexico State Clearing House
262. Tom Snyder
263. North Dakota Game and Fish Department
264. State of Montana-Department of Agriculture
265. Commonwealth of Kentucky-Department of Natural Re-
sources
266. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado-Utah office
267. Colorado Department of Natural Resources
268. North Dakota State Historical Society
269. Southwest Research and Information Center
270. Burgess and Davis, Esq.
271. State of Washington-Office of Financial Management
272. State of Illinois-Bureau of the Budget
273. Department of the Army-Office of the Chief of Engineers
274. Arizona Department of Transportation
275. New Mexico Wilderness Study Committee
276. Colorado Division of Planning
277. Florida Department of Administration
278. Holland and Hart, Esq.
279. Charles David Parent
280. Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development
281. Environmental Protection Agency
282. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
283. Office of the Governor-State of Alaska
284. Office of the Governor-State of South Dakota
285. The Resources Agency of California
286. Office of Economic Planning and Development
287. Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection
8.4 REFERENCES
1. 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.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. The
Format Outline for Coal Programmatic DES.
43 Federal Register 147: 33348-33349.
8-179
BimnBHB
TABLE 8-1
ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED DURING PREPARATION OF THIS STATEMENT
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Office of the General Counsel
Department of Agriculture
Division of Forestry, Forest Sciences Laboratory,
Logan, Utah
Economic Research Service
Forest Service
Land Inventory and Monitoring Division
Livestock and Range Research Station, Miles City,
Montana
Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Berea, Kentucky
Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census, Population Division
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Economic Development Administration
Department of Energy
Argonne National Laboratory, Land Reclamation Office
Division of Coal
Division of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Division of Non-Ferrous Metals
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Leasing Policy Development Office
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Health Resources Administration
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management, Office of Coal Management
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, National
Register Office; National Landmarks Group;
Interagency Archaeological Services
Geological Survey
Office of Surface Mining
Bureau of Mines
Department of Justice
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wholesale Price Index
Division
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
8-180
TABLE 8-1 (Continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal Operations Branch
Region IX
Interstate Commerce Commission
Water Resources Council
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Alabama Division of State Parks
Alabama Forestry Commission
Arizona State Parks
Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism
California Air Resources Council
Colorado Air Pollution Control Board
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Division of Mine Land Reclamation
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Parks and Historical Sites Division
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
Illinois Department of Conservation
Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals
LaJnd Reclamation Division
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Division of State Parks
Iowa Department of Soil Conservation
Division of Mines and Minerals
Iowa State Conservation Commission
Iowa State University
Kansas Foresty, Fish and Game Commission
Kansas State Park and Resources Authority
Kentucky Air Pollution Control Board
Kentucky Division of Parks
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Louisiana State Park and Recreation Commission
Missouri Department of Conservation
Forestry Division
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Land Reclamation Program
Montana Department of Fish and Game
Recreation and Parks Division
Montana Department of State Lands
Reclamation Division
8-18]
:.,:■ ■
TABLE 8-1 (Continued)
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
New Mexico State Park and Recreation Commission
North Dakota Park Service
North Dakota Public Service Commission
Ohio Department of Parks and Recreation
Division of Natural Resources
Oklahoma Department of Mines
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma Division of State Parks
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of State Parks
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks
Division of Parks and Recreation
State Council of Governments
Tennessee Department of Conservation
Division of State Parks
Texas Forest Service
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Parks Division
Texas Railroad Commission
Surface Mining Department
Utah Department of Natural Sources
Oil, Gas, and Mining Division
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Wildlife Resources
Utah State Forester Office
Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development
Division of Parks
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
West Virginia University
School of Forestry
Western Interstate Energy Board
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Land Quality Division
Wyoming Department of Revenue and Taxation
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Wyoming Recreation Commission
INDUSTRY
American Mining Congress
Bituminous Coal Operators' Association
Burlington Northern Railroad
Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Kemmerer Coal Company
8-182
imiiimfflwimMMMniMMMMMmMMi^^
TABLE 8-1 (Concluded)
National Coal Association
Utah Power and Light Company
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Geraghty and Miller, Incorporated
Hunter, Tom
Jans en, Dr. Ivan J.
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
National Geographic Society
Schiff, Dr. Daniel
Society of American Foresters
8-183
............................. ■
TABLE 8-2
FEDERAL AGENCIES REQUESTED TO COMMENT ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Appalachian Regional Commission
Council on Environmental Quality-
Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Forest Service
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Energy
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Mines
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
National Park Service
Office of Surface Mining
Department of Labor
Mining Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Department of State
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Trade Commission
General Services Administration
Interstate Commerce Commission
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
8-184
TABLE 8-3
PUBLIC HEARINGS
January 22, 1979
Salt Lake City, Utah
Steve Freudenthal , Deputy Under Secretary
Paul Howard, BLM State Director, Utah
Monte Jordan, Chief, Coal Program Development Staff
Albuquerque, New Mexico
John Van der Walker, Special Assistant to Director, Office of
Coal Leasing, Planning and Coordination
Bob Moore, Asst. to Director, Office of Coal Management
January 23, 1979
Casper, Wyoming
Steve Freudenthal
Barbara Heller, Deputy Under Secretary
Monte Jordan
Delmar Vail, BLM Associate State Director, Wyoming
Craig, Colordao
Leo M. Krulitz, Solicitor
Bob Moore
Dale Andrus, BLM State Director, Colorado
January 24, 1979
Denver, Colorado
Leo M. Krulitz
John Van der Walker
Bob Moore
Dale Andrus
Billings , Montana
Frank Gregg, Director, Bureau of Land Management
Chuck Rech, Deputy Director, Office of Coal Leasing, Planning
and Coordination
Monte Jordan
Ed Zaidlicz, BLM State Director, Montana
3-185
TABLE 8-3 (Concluded)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
January 25, 1979
Bismarck, North Dakota
Chuck Rech
Monte Jordan
Ed Zaidllcz
January 30, 1979
Chicago, Illinois
Leo M. Krulitz,
Steve Quarles, Director, Office of Coal Leasing, Planning
and Coordination
Bob Moore
Claude Martin, BLM Associate State Director, Eastern States
Office
February 1, 1979
Lexington, Kentucky
Guy Martin, Assistant Secretary
Barbara Heller
Steve Quarles
Claude Martin
February 6, 1979
Washington, D.C.
Steve Quarles
Bob Uram, Assistant Solicitor
Bob Moore
Lowell Udy, BLM State Director Eastern States Office
Monte Jordan
8-186
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE REGULATIONS
16800
[4310-84-M]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[43 CFR Group 3400]
COAL MANAGEMENT
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The proposed rulemak-
ing sets out the procedures the Secre-
tary of the Interior proposes to use in
carrying out the authority granted
him to manage Federally-owned coal
through leasing or exchange under
the provisions of the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920, as amended; the Mineral
Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, as
amended; the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976; the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977; the Multiple Mineral Develop-
ment Act and other related Acts.
These procedures are to be carried out
in a manner that will afford protec-
tion for the environment.
DATE: Comments by May 18, 1979.
Only those comments received by the
above date will be considered.
ADDRESS: Comments are to be sent
to: Director (210), Bureau of Land
Management, 1800 C Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20240. Comments
will be available for public review in
Room 5555 of the above address
during regular working hours (7:45
a.m.-4:15 p.m.) Monday through
Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Don Mitchell, 202-343-4537, or
Robert C. Bruce, 202-343-8735.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This proposed rulemaking is designed
to establish the procedures that the
Secretary of the Interior will use to
carry out his authority to manage
Federal coal, through leasing or ex-
changing of coal interests and other
actions. This authority is granted
under the provisions of the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30
U.S.C. 181 et seq.); the Mineral Leas-
ing Act for Acquired Lands, as amend-
ed (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.); the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); the Sur-
face Mining Control and Reclamation
Act Of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.);
the Multiple Mineral Development
Act (30 U.S.C. 521 et seq.); and the De-
partment of Energy Organization Act
(42 U.S.C. 7191 et seq.). These proce-
dures are to be carried out in a
manner that will afford protection for
the environment.
PROPOSED RULES
This proposed rulemaking consoli-
dates all regulations concerning the
management of coal in a new Group
3400 in Title 43. At the present time,
coal is handled in the same manner as
other leasable minerals (except oil and
gas) and is covered by the provisions
of Part 3500 of Title 43 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Because of the
special considerations required in the
disposal of coal in recently enacted
legislation, it was decided that the eoal
program of the Department of the In-
terior needed special handling and all
references to coal should be removed
from Part 3500 and placed in a new
group that addresses coal exclusively.
In addition. Part 3500 will be rewritten
to eliminate all references to coal and
to make Part 3500 easier to read and
understand.
This proposed rulemaking is a fur-
ther step by the Department of the
Interior In carrying forward a new
Federal coal management program.
This new program was initiated in re-
sponse to the President's May 23, 1977,
Environmental Message; the Presi-
dent's May 24, 1977, direction to the
Secretary of the Interior to establish
and implement an environmentally-
sound comprehensive Federal coal
management program; and the Presi-
dent's Energy Plan of April 29, 1977,
which stressed the need to increase
national coal production to meet the
Nation's growing energy needs while
diminishing its dependence on import-
ed oil and gas. The statutory base for
coal management has been altered
substantially over the last three years
by the passage of the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act of 1977, the
Department of Energy Organization
Act of 1977, and the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments of 1978. This
new statutory and program direction
Is reflected in the proposed rulemak-
ing.
On September 27, 1977 in NRDC v.
Hughes, 437 F. Supp. 981 (DCC 1977).
modified 454 F. Supp. 148 (DDC 1978)
it was held that the 1975 final environ-
mental statement on a proposed Fed-
eral coal management program
(termed Energy Minerals Activity Rec-
ommendation System (EMARS)) was
inadequate. The accompanying order
required the Department of the Interi-
or to prepare a supplement to that en-
vironmental statement which would
address certain coal management
issues. The Secretary chose not to
simply publish a supplement but in-
stead to develop a new program re-
sponsive to the many statutory
changes and new program directions
which had been made since the filing
of the 1975 statement. As a result, an
entirely new draft environmental
statement was issued on December 15.
1978, which addresses a new preferred
alternative coal management program.
In that environmental statement, as
appendix A, was a set of example regu-
lations for the preferred alternative.
As a first step in the rulemaking proc-
ess, the Department of the Interior
published a notice of intent to propose
rulemaking in the Federal Register
of December 15, 1978 (43 FR 58776),
which requested comments on the ex-
ample rulemaking in the draft envi-
ronmental statement. The notice of
intent requested comments by Febru-
ary 13, 1979, but a later notice made it
clear that any comments received
prior to publication of the proposed
rulemaking would be considered.
As a result of the notice of intent to
propose rulemaking, the Department
of the Interior received 22 written
comments. Six of the comments were
from mining companies, four were
from Federal agencies, seven were
from interest groups, with three repre-
senting industry interest groups and
four representing environmental inter-
est groups, one comment was from a
State governmental agency and four
were from private individuals. Oral
comments were received at hearings
and meetings held on the environmen-
tal statement. In addition, written
comments submitted on the draft envi-
ronmental statement after close of the
comment period, to the extent they
were relevant, were treated as com-
ments on the notice of intent to pro-
pose rulemaking. Each of the written
comments and all of the oral com-
ments received were carefully consid-
ered during the preparation of the
proposed rulemaking and are dis-
cussed as part of this preamble.
Subpart 3400 contains material that
applies generally to all the subparts of
the proposed Group 3400. It contains:
Citations to the statutory authorities
exercised in promulgating this pro-
posed rulemaking; a division of respon-
sibilities among the agencies in the
Department of the Interior that have
a role in managing Federal coal; defi-
nitions of the terms used throughout
Group 3400; a statement of the Feder-
al lands that are subject to the provi-
sions of the group, especially the leas-
ing provisions of Group 3400; and a de-
scription of the membership and func-
tions of the regional coal teams that
have a central role in administering
the provisions of Group 3400.
The authorities section lists all stat-
utes that are significant sources of au-
thority for the proposed rulemaking.
Each subsequent subpart of the pro-
posed rulemaking contains a reference
to this general list and notes a specific
statute or section of a statute only if
that subpart chiefly implements or is
chiefly derived from that authority.
The example regulations carried the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-l
PROPOSED RULES
16801
authorities cited in the existing Group
3500 regulations into each of its sub-
parts, with the addition of authorities
that did not exist when the coai regu-
lations were last revised in 1976. The
proposed rulemaking alters only the
format of the example rulemaking, as
indicated above. No comments were re-
ceived on the authorities section of
the example rulemaking. The respon-
sibilities section was not in the exist-
ing Group 3500 regulations. The sur-
face management regulations for
mining operations (43 CFR Subpart
3041. May 17. 1977) contain some of
the material, but their scope is not as
broad and the passage of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
changed much of those regulations.
The responsibilities section appeared
for the first time in the example rule-
making and is carried forward into the
proposed rulemaking with several
changes. One noteworthy change in
section 3400.04 is the qualification in
section 0-4<a)(l) that makes it clear
than only the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
will formally designate lands unsuit-
able for mining operations under sec-
tion 522(c) of the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act. In addition,
section 0^4(c)(6) was added to ensure
the inclusion of the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment's role as the negotiator of coop-
erative agreements with the States on
State enforcement of reclamation laws
on federal lease operations under sec-
tion 523(c) of the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act
Two comments were offered on the
responsibilities section of the example
rulemaking. The first comment sug-
gested that the Pish and Wildlife Serv-
ice could not carry out its responsibil-
ities under the rulemaking unless it
had the authority to designate lands
unsuitable for coal development
rather than simply recommending
lands as unsuitable. The Secretary of
the Interior by authorization of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act has delegated the authority
to designate lands as unsuitable to the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement.
The agency making the unsuitability
determination will give careful consid-
eration to the recommendations of the
Pish and Wildlife Service prior to
making its final decision.
A second comment on the responsi-
bilities section recommended that the
Bureau of Land Management be re-
Quired to obtain the concurrence of
the land owner, if it is someone other
than the Federal Government, before
determining an appropriate postmin-
ing land use of surface-mined lands.
Postmining land use is determined
through the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment's land use planning process, reaf-
firmed at time of lease offering, and
again during review of the mining and
reclamation permit application. Where
private surface overlays Federal coal,
the surface owner's choice of postmin-
ihg land use is given the highest prior-
ity, subject to provisions of the Sur-
face Mining Control and Reclamation
Act (See 30 CFR 780.23. 816.131) and
mitigating measures during the envi-
ronmental assessment process under
the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969. No changes were made in
the proposed rulemaking as a result of
the comments offered. In fact, the
proposed rulemaking requires surface
owner approval of any land use sub-
stantially different from the pre-
mining land use (§ 3465.4).
The terms in the definitions section
were drawn from all subparts of the
present Group 3500 regulations. These
were substantially supplemented by
definitions in the example rulemaking
to incorporate terms introduced by
new legislation as well as to clarify ex-
isting usage. The proposed rulemaking
is even more inclusive in an attempt to
make the use of terms in each subpart
of the proposed rulemaking consistent
and to reduce ambiguity and confu-
sion. To make the usage consistent
throughout the new Group 3400, new
definitions were added to those in the
example regulations for the following
terms: Bypass coal; compliance bond;
Federal lands; lease; licensee; and li-
cense to mine. The definition of com-
mercial quantities in § 3400. 0-5U) was
corrected from the example regula-
tions—subsection (i)(2) was changed
from "lease issued after August 4,
1976," to "lease issued before August 4,
1976".
Definitions relating to functions of
the Office of Surface Mining Reclama-
tion and Enforcement or terms that
apply to mining operations on private
lands and the Federal lands review are
intended to be the same as those con-
tained in the permanent program reg-
ulations of the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment. The timing of the publication of
that agency's final rulemaking and
this proposed rulemaking has made it
difficult to assure that all definitions
are identical in substance, if not in
wording. Any discrepancies between
the definitions and other aspects of
the two rulemakings will be resolved
in the preparation of the final rule-
making for this program.
Several comments were directed to
the definitions section of the example
rulemaking. One comment suggested
that the definition of the term "fair
market value" include not only the
bonus payment but also rentals and
royalties. The comment pointed out
that the higher royalties have the
effect of lowering the bonus in a fair
market value estimate. After careful
consideration, a minor change was
made in the definition of the term
"fair market value".
The definition of the term "logical
mining unit" drew two comments that
asked for a change in the 25.000 acre
limitation and the 40 year limitation
incorporated in the definition. These
limitations are statutorily imposed
and cannot be changed.
A comment suggested changes in the
definition of the term "maximum eco-
nomic recovery". Even though the
comment was considered and no
change was made in the definition, the
Department of the Interior solicits
comments on whether the term should
be redefined to use the marginal cost
and the marginal revenue of all seams,
to use strictly the average cost and
average revenue of all seams, or to use
some other definition. Under the pres-
ent definition, a lessee will mine those
seams which can be collectively ex-
tracted at a normal level of profit with
consideration given to social and eco-
nomic costs.
An interagency task force is present-
ly considering the methods employed
by the Department in determining fair
market value and the proposal for de-
termining maximum economic recov-
ery. The task force report will be sub-
mitted in April will be made public,
and will be considered by the Secre-
tary when he renders his decision on
these proposed regulations.
Finally, a comment on the definition
of the term "written consent" suggest-
ed that the term "negative consent"
should also be defined. This comment
has not been adopted because the re-
fusal to give consent process is fully
described in §§ 3420.2-3 and 3420.6 of
the proposed rulemaking.
Sections 3400.1 through 3400.3 are
derived from the coal related provi-
sions of the existing Subparts 3500
and 3501. These sections are the focus
of two comments. The first comment
indicated that §3400.3-1 was in con-
flict with § 3420.2-5. An analysis of the
two sections did not disclose any such
conflict and no changes have been
made in either of the two sections of
the proposed rulemaking.
A second comment from the same
source requested changes in § 3400.3-3
of the example rulemaking. The first
change would require the Secretary of
Ariculture to make a formal finding
for decisions under § 3400.3-3(b)(2).
The second change was to provide
some method of appeal or protest
within the Department of the Interior,
when it is alleged that the finding
cannot be sustained. The comment
also suggested that a possible alterna-
tive way of achieving the same result-
providing for a review of the facts in
contention when the decision is made
by another agency— might be to allow
the Department of the Interior to
HMRAl MGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-2
16802
lease under these conditions only
when such leasing is in accord with a
land use plan developed under the Na-
tional Forest Management Act. there-
by allowing the issue to be contested
under the Department of Agriculture's
planning rules. The change proposed
in the comment has not been adopted
because the Secretary of Agriculture
essentially makes a formal finding
under §3400.3-3(b>(2) when potential
coal leasing is found compatible with
other uses during the Forest Service
land use planning process under the
provisions of the National Forest Man-
agement Act. Also, the Department of
the Interior affords the right of
appeal to any party adversely affected
by a decision of an officer of the
Bureau of Land Management or an
Administrative Law Judge. The De-
partment of Agriculture has a similar
appeals procedure. In addition, (1) a
person adversely affected by a decision
to lease for surface mining can submit
a petition to have lands classified as
unsuitable for surface mining, and (2)
any decision to lease coal, whether for
surface mining on National Forest
lands or otherwise, is automatically
subject to environmental assessment,
not only through the land use plan-
ning process, but also through the re-
quirements of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 and Council
on Environmental Quality regulations
in 40 CFR Part 1500.
Section 3400.4 of the proposed rule-
making was not in either the existing
Group 3500 regulations or In the ex-
ample rulemaking. This set of sections
proposes to establish regional terms
that will be central to the administra-
tion of the new coal program. This
proposal formalizes the Department's
commitment of close Department-
State relations In administering pro-
gram functions and the Department's
commitment to conduct its coal man-
agement decisionmaking in a manner
which ensures that it considers all cu-
mulative region-wide impacts of its de-
cisions. The regional coal teams' func-
tions are found in the substantive pro-
visions of the proposed rulemaking.
Since this is an entirely new section,
no comments were received on it and
the public is asked to be particularly
alert to these provisions when making
comments on the proposed rulemak-
ing. The proposed regions will be set
out in the final environmental impact
statement and in an appendix to this
notice. Comments are specifically re-
quested on these proposed regions.
Subpart 3410 governs all pre-lease
exploration activity for coal for com-
mercial purposes on Federal lands.
The provisions of the proposed rule-
making are primarily taken from Sub-
part 3507 of the existing regulations.
These were established in January
1977 to implement the Federal Coal
PROPOSED RULES
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976
which repealed the former prospecting
permit system of coal exploration on
public lands. The proposed rulemaking
is carried over from the example rule-
making with some changes: The sec-
tions have been reordered so that the
rulemaking follows the chronology of
the licensing process; and provisions
has been made for publishing the
notice soliciting participants in the ex-
ploration upon the filing of an applica-
tion for a license. The latter change _
should expedite license issuance; par-
ticipants will be solicited while the ex-
ploration plan is being reviewed and
approved, not afterwards.
In addition, § 3410.3-4(c) was added
concerning exploration for Federal
coal on split estate lands where the
surface Is under private ownership
(whether or not the owner is qualified
for the purpose of consent for leasing).
Three different comments were re-
ceived on this subpart of the example
rulemaking. One comment of a gener-
al nature on exploration licenses sug-
gested that an exploration license
granted by the Bureau of Land Man-
agement would be duplicative of ex-
ploration permits authorized by the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act. The only licenses to explore
for coal on unleased public lands will
be those authorized under this sub- .
part.
A comment on § 3410.2-1 of the ex-
ample rulemaking, which has been re-
numbered §3410.2-2 in the proposed
rulemaking, suggested that wording be
included that would require consulta-
tion with the U.S. Geological Survey
in the assessment of the potential
effect of a coal exploration program
on an area and its environment. This
comment was adopted.
Another comment recommended
that §3410.2-1 of the example rule-
making, which has been renumbered
§3410.2-2 in the proposed rulemaking,
be deleted since it appears to be un-
necessary. The comment suggested
that an environmental statement
should not be considered for an explo-
ration license because exploration is
only an information gathering activity
and information gathering activity is
permitted only if there is no substan-
tial disturbance. Presently, an environ-
mental statement will be done only
when it is required under section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2X0). The section has been re-
tained, but the Department proposes
to request a categorical exclusion for
the Issuance of exploration licenses
from the environmental statement re-
quirements of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act under the regula-
tions of the Council on Environmental
Quality (40 CFR 1508.4, 43 FR 56003).
This exclusion is being requested be-
cause exploration under a license is
not supposed to cause substantial dis-
turbance to the natural land surface.
A second comment from the same
source recommended that the Bureau
of Land Management, rather than the
applicant, publish the Notice of Invita-
tion which the proposed rulemaking
requires. This suggestion was based on
the fact that the applicant received no
preference right in return for the ex-
ploration data received at little or no
cost to the Federal Government. Since
the exploration licenses yield no reve-
nue to the Federal Government, the
costs involved in an exploration permit
should be borne by the applicant.
A final comment on Subpart 3410 of
the example rulemaking suggested
that exploration results obtained
under a license may need to be held
confidential even after an area has
been leased where other private hold-
ings are at issue or surface owner con-
sent negotiations with the Govern-
ment may be taking place. The sug-
gested change was not adopted be-
cause it would be inconsistent with the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments
Act.
The Department of the Interior has
been informed that some coal explora-
tion is done in the guise of uranium
exploration, since the two minerals
may both be identified by identical
methods and both may reasonably be
thought to underlie the same lands.
Coal exploration for commerical pur-
poses without an exploration license
constitutes trespass against the United
States. To assist in administering the
law, the Department solicits comments
on how widespread such a practice
might be and how the Department
might best act to prevent this trespass,
and to acquire the data respecting
Federal coal deposits Congress intend-
ed it should have to administer a coal
management program.
Subpart 3420 contains the general
competitive coal leasing provisions
that are proposed to replace the
Energy Mineral Activity Recommen-
dation System (EMARS) now in Sub-
part 3535 of existing regulations. The
enforcement of EMARS as enjoined
by the U.S. District Court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia in NRDC v. Hughes,
437 F. Supp. 981 (D.D.C. 1977), modi-
fied, 454 F. Supp. 148 (D.D.C. 1978).
This new leasing process is set out as
an integral part of the preferred alter-
native in the Draft Environmental
Statement on the Federal Coal Man-
agement Program, and is discussed at
greater length there. The example
rulemaking sets out the chronology of
the land use planning and activity
planning process that would be com-
pleted before a competitive lease sale.
The provisions of §§3420.1 through
3420.1-5 prescribe the screening steps
that must be completed In the proce-
FIDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-3
PROPOSED RULES
16803
dure before lands can be considered
acceptable for further consideration
for leasing. Section 3420.1-5 requires
that a land use plan, or under certain
circumstances, a land use analysis, be
conducted for Federal lands before an
area can be considered for lease sale.
The land use plan requirement in
53420.1-5 has been clarified to estab-
lish more clearly what organizational
unit is chiefly responsible for the com-
pletion of land use plans on what
lands, and to clarify the Secretary's
authority, in the absence of a Federal
agency plan or in the absence of a rel-
evant State plan, to conduct a land use
analysis. The revision is designed both
to clarify the importance of a complet-
ed land use plan (or land use analysis)
as a statutory prerequisite to leasing,
and to conform this proposal to the
proposed Bureau of Land Manage-
ment planning regulations for Group
1600 of Title 43 (43 FR 53764-58774).
The provisions of §§ 3420.2 through
3420.2—7 describe the land use plan-
ning process necessary on lands ad-
ministered by the Bureau of Land
Management before those lands will
be considered acceptable for further
consideration for leasing; this process
is conducted as an integral part of
Bureau-wide land use planning, but
specific steps must be taken during
planning to screen lands that should
be considered during coal activity
planning. Section 3420.2-3 sets out the
screening that is to be applied to all
coal-bearing lands during the land use
planning. The high and medium coal
development potential and surface
owner consultation screening process-
es have been modified from those con-
tained in the example rulemaking.
Just as | 3420.1-5 was revised to make
it consistent with the proposed group
1600 rulemaking, §3420.2, governing
coal-related land use planning re-
quired before an area will be identified
as acceptable for further consideration
for leasing, was also revised in some
respects. The requirements in this sec-
tion would not supersede or modify
any requirements of the proposed
group 1600 rulemaking, and are in-
tended to be fully consistent with
them. The texts of §3420.1-5 and the
sections under §3420.2 dealing with
land use planning are not verbatim
copies of the group 1600 rulemaking.
Additional text has been added in
order to specify the details that will be
required in land use plans to be pre-
pared under the procedures of the
Group 1600 rulemaking for lands con-
taining coal deposits subject to leasing.
The Bureau of Land Management
has chosen to repeat certain provi-
sions, such as requirement for consul-
tation with qualified surface owners in
section 714(d) of the Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement Act, in
both the proposed land use planning
rulemaking and this proposed rule-
making (43 CFR 1601.3(f). and 3420.2-
2(d)) rather than raise a question as to
their omission from a prominent piace
in either the land use planning process
or the coal management program. The
consultation process is unchanged by
the dual reference. The Bureau of
Land Management will closely coordi-
nate its review of the related com-
ments on the two proposed rulemak-
ings, and will closely coordinate the
drafting of final rules to avoid any in-
consistency between the two sets of
final rulemakings.
A new subsection has been added to
the initial land use planning screening
procedure where all but high and
medium coal potential lands are
screened out from further considera-
tion for leasing. The subsection would
assure that companies and the public
have the opportunity to submit infor-
mation on the coal resource, and that
this screen is applied with the broad-
est possible data available to the land
use planners. This valuable resource
information gathering step is not,
however, a call for expressions of leas-
ing interest, but an opportunity to
submit coal resource data.
The public is asked to give careful
consideration to the provisions for
consultation in the land use planning
process and the impact that the non-
mining preference can have on land
use planning. The use of the firm
intent not to provide consent disclo-
sure and its impact on the manage-
ment program is an. area on which
comment is specifically requested (see
discussion of firm intent disclosure in
preamble discussion of Subpart 3427).
The provisions of § 3420.3 through
§ 3420.3-4 contain an element absent
from EMARS: The establishment of
regional leasing targets to guide the
post-land use planning coal manage-
ment decisionmaking. This group of
sections has been revised in the pro-
posed rulemaking in these major re-
spects: (1) It now shows more explicit-
ly and directly how the leasing target
setting process is tied to the Depart-
ment of Energy's national coal produc-
tion goals, and the Memorandum of
Understanding between the Depart-
ment of the Interior and the Depart-
ment of Energy on setting and using
those national goals; (2) it establishes
the distinction between regional coal
production goals generally and the De-
partment of the Interior's regional
leasing targets— the amount of coal,
both Federal and non-Federal able to
be developed only In conjunction with
Federal coal, that the Department of
the Interior will consider readying for
production in its current four-year
competitive leasing cycle; and (3) it de-
scribes the role of the regional coal
team in the process of setting regional
leasing targets.
The provisions of §$ 3420.4 through
3420.4-6 set out the activity planning
(as oposed to land use planning) steps.
This is the process for selecting tracts
for leasing and exchange of coal inter-
ests from lands that have been identi-
fied in the land use plans, after the
land use planning screening has been
fully applied, as areas acceptable for
further consideration for leasing. Each
discrete step is set out in §§ 3420.4
through 3420.4-6: calls for expression
of leasing interest; tract delineation,
the physical description of the lands
and coal seams that could become a
mine; tract ranking, comparing all de-
lineated tracts in a region; tract selec-
tion, determining how many and
which highly ranked tracts should be
sold to meet the regional leasing
target; and sale scheduling, timing the
sale of the -selected tracts over the
four-year sale cycle. The proposed
rulemaking is different from the ex-
ample rulemaking chiefly in the estab-
lishment of the role of the regional
coal team as the central actor in this
process.
The proposed rulemaking also re-
quires the preparation of a "tract pro-
file" in the tract delineation process
(§3420.4-3(f)), to assist the team in
tract ranking, selection and schedul-
ing. Section 3420.4-4, which sets out
the regional tract ranking, selection
and scheduling procedures, has been
expanded to discuss the formulation
of alternative sales schedules as an in-
tegral part of this process. The process
includes the preparation of a regional
sale environmental statement that will
formally discuss the results of the
process and alternatives.
The example and proposed rulemak-
ings differ signficantly from the
EMARS regulations in that the De-
partment's call for expressions of leas-
ing interest from coal companies, utili-
ties and others is issued as the first
step in the tract delineation process
after land use planning Is completed.
In the EMARS process, this step pre-
ceded land use planning and was the
driving force in determining what
lands would be leased; in the preferred
alternative, expressions of interest can
be filed only for land already identi-
fied in the land use planning process
as acceptable for further consideration
for leasing.
In sections of §3420.2 through
3420.2-7, 3420.3 through 3420.3-4 and
3420.4 through 3420.4-6 described
above, the successive steps in the land
use planning, leasing target setting
and activity planning processes are de-
signed to complement each other once
the program, if adopted, is fully imple-
mented. The latter two processes will
continue on regular cycles, using areas
found to be acceptable for further con-
sideration for leasing in the on-going
Bureau-wide land use planning effort.
FEDERAt REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-4
16804
If the program is adopted- and if leas-
ing is needed before the first four year
regional lease sale schedules could be
set using the full step-by-step process,
the Department proposes these start-
up considerations.
First, the land use planning section,
expressly provides that an already
completed land use plan (or manage-
ment framework plan, under current
Bureau usage), is an adequate basis for
determining the acceptability of lands
for further consideration for leasing,
as long as it is formally supplemented
by the application of the lands unsuit-
able and surface owner consultation
screens set out in proposed § 3420.2-3.
Thus the absence of final land use
planning regulations under the pro-
posed rulemaking for group 1600. or
land use plans formally revised in con-
formity with those rules after they are
final is not a bar to coal activity plan-
ning and the issuance of a coal lease,
just as it has not been for coal or
other resources— forage, timber, wil-
derness—since the enactment of the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act in October 1976. Both the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act. as
well as the proposed land use planning
regulations for each, specifically pro-
vide for continued use of existing land
use plans for resource management
decisionmaking until new plans under
the proposed rulemakings are pre-
pared.
Second, the initial regional leasing
targets may be formulated on the
basis of the analysis contained in the
final environment statement on the
Federal coal management program. If
adopted, the proposed Subpart 3420
would provide that the regional leas-
ing target provisions of §§ 3420.3
through 3420.3-4 would not be used in
activity planning until after the De-
partment of Energy issues the nation-
al coal production goals that are essen-
tial to activating the procedures for
setting regional leasing targets and
such procedures have been fully fol-
lowed.
The formal State and Federal
agency consultation provisions in sec-
tion 3420.5 have been retained, even
though another surface management
agency will have indicated the accept-
ability of leasing in its land use plan-
ning process for the potential tract,
and even though the States will have
been involved in the process through
the deliberations of the regional
teams.
The provisions of §§ 3420.6 through
3420.6-3 are new since surface owner
consent to lease has been required
only since the enactment of the Sur-
face Mining Control and Reclamation
Act on August 3, 1977. The proposed
rulemaking has been changed from
the example rulemaking in order to in-
corporate the Under Secretary's ex-
PROPOSED RULES
pression of preference in an issue
option memorandum of February 27,
1979, for the policy option of not
scheduling for sale any tract on which
written consent or evidence of such
consent is not yet on record with the
Bureau of Land Management. At the
same time, § 3420.2-3(d)(2) has been
added to allow the land use planner to
consider changes in surface ownership
or in the attitudes of qualified surface
owners toward leasing.
Approximately 50 percent of the
comments received on the example
rulemaking were directed at the sec-
tions in Subpart 3420. Those com-
ments ran from recommendations of
support for actions taken in the exam-
ple rulemaking to recommended
changes to a large portion of the sec-
tions in Subpart 3420. Each of the
comments was given careful considera-
tion during the reexamination of the
sections contained In Subpart 3420
and, where possible, were incorporated
in the almost total rewrite and more
orderly arrangement of Subpart 3420.
The public is asked to review the new
provisions of Subpart 3420 and to com-
ment on the subpart.
Much of Subpart 3422 is derived
from §§ 3525. 2(e) and 3525.8 of existing
regulations. The example rulemaking
contained supplemental provisions
dealing with the notice of sale and the
bid evaluation after the sale. The ex-
ample rulemaking also contained a
listing of the information currently re-
quired by the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice for its statu-
tory review of lease issuance and read-
justment. This listing had been used
on the basis of an informal agreement
with the Department of Justice. The
Department of Justice has informally
advised the Department of the Interi-
or that it will change its reporting re-
quirements. When the Department of
the Interior receives any new or modi-
fied requirements, they will be substi-
tuted in § 3422.3-4.
The proposed rulemaking (§ 3422.1-
1) changes the chronology of the sale
process to provide that the public's
views on fair market value and maxi-
mum economic recovery will be solicit-
ed as economic evaluation of the
scheduled tracts begins, as well as
after the Geological Survey makes its
recommendation on these determina-
tions to the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment.
Three comments were received on
the sections under Subpart 3422. Two
comments questioned the bonus bid
system with one comment focussing
on the minimum bonus of $25 con-
tained in §3422.1-2. The comment
pointed out that a bonus of $25 was
not normally considered high, but in
those cases where a 12V4 percent royal-
ty is mandated and where the Depart-
ment, for the purposes of conserva-
tion, wishes to encourage maximum
recovery of marginal value coal during
ongoing mining, it might be too high.
Even though this section has not been
changed in the proposed rulemaking, a
task force is currently considering the
bonus bid and the establishment of a
minimum bonus for future policy.
One comment received on §3422.4
suggested that the section be altered
to provide that the collection of re-
ceipts be accelerated to a maximum
level so that cash management prac-
tices are observed. The section has not
been changed to incorporate the com-
ments offered. However, every effort
will be made by the Bureau of Land
Management to see that cash manage-
ment practices are maximized.
Subpart 3425 contains the emergen-
cy leasing procedures. The Depart-
ment of the Interior has had "short-
term" or emergency leasing criteria
ever since the imposition of the leas-
ing "moratorium", with the first
short-term standards in February
1973. The existing regulations contain
a short-term need exception (43 CFR
3525.1(b)(2)) but do not specify crite-
ria. Presently, the Department is con-
ducting short-term lease sales at a rate
of approximately two a month under
criteria set forth in the modified court
order in NRDC v. Hughes. The exam-
ple rulemaking specified the condi-
tions under which the Department
would sell a lease outside of the
normal competitive leasing process.
The proposed rulemaking carries for-
ward the example rulemaking criteria
(which are similar to those in the
modified court order in NRDC v.
Hughes) with these following changes.
(1) The proposed rulemaking sets a
limitation on the number of years of
reserves that can be leased to an exist-
ing operation. This is designed to
avoid compromising the competitive
leasing under the coal management
program by meeting leasing targets
only through issuance of leased to ex-
isting operators. The limit is designed
so that future needs of the same exist-
ing operation should be able to be met
through future cycles of the general
competitive leasing process. (2) The
proposed rulemaking establishes a
"hardship" category much like the
listed lease applications in the NRDC
v. Hughes order, that will allow leasing
that would lead to the opening of a
new mine or expansion of an existing
mine, with safeguards for the integrity
of the general competitive leasing
process. The Department recognized
that there are urgent needs for Feder-
al coal in cases where an existing oper-
ation is not about to shut down, as
well as where one is about to close.
Apart from preference right leases,
emergency leases are the only leases
that will be issued in response to appli-
cations. The Department solicits com-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54-MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
PROPOSED RULES
15505
merits on these emergency leasing cri-
teria to assist in the determination of
whether legitimate needs for Federal
coal may go unanswered under these
criteria, or conversely, whether these
criteria threaten the integrity of the
general competitive leasing process.
The one comment received on Sub-
part 3425 of the example rulemaking
was concerned that the "short-term",
limited reserve, piecemeal leasing con-
cept provided for in the example rule-
making would produce extremely
small reserve blocks and thus create
unnecessary difficulties for under-
ground mines. The subpart has been
rewritten and is new in its concept.
The comment was given full considera-
tion during the rewrite.
Subpart 3427 implements section 714
of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, and sets out when
and how the Department of the Interi-
or will determine whether split estate
lands are acceptable for further con-
sideration for leasing, are acceptable
for tract ranking, but not scheduling,
or are acceptable for lease sale. The
provisions of Subpart 3427 were new in
the example rulemaking and are car-
ried forward to the proposed rulemak-
ing with these changes: (1) The rule-
making now provides for a qualified
surface owner to suhmit a "refusal to
consent" that will result in the De-
partment dropping coal underlying
the covered surface from considera-
tion for leasing for surface mining in
activity planning whenever it is filed;
and (2) the rulemaking deletes the ex-
ception formerly in § 3427.2 that al-
lowed the Department to offer a tract
for sale in certain circumstances even
though written consent had not yet
been given by the qualified surface
owner. These changes are derived
from the Under Secretary's expres-
sions of preference for policy options
in an issue option memorandum dated
February 27, 1979.
With respect to the first of these
issues, the rulemaking now proposes in
5 3427.4 that a refusal of consent may
be filed with the Bureau of Land Man-
agement at any time during activity
planning and that the tract involved
will be promptly eliminated from fur-
ther activity planning for the life of
the land use plan. In the February 27,
1979, memorandum, a second issue
option was put forward to permit a
qualified surface owner to disclose
during the surface owner consultation
screening process in land use planning
that the owner has the firm intent not
to provide consent to mine by other
than underground methods during the
life of the plan. Upon such a disclo-
sure, that surface owner's land would
be identified in the land use plan as
land unsuitable for coal development
by other than underground mining
methods. The Under Secretary chose
to defer a decision on this issue option,
but to include it in the proposed rule-
making with a specific request for
public comment. The Department so-
licits comments particularly on this
firm intent disclosure procedure but
also more generally on the procedures
and policies set forth in this rulemak-
ing for both surface owner consulta-
tion and surface owner consent acqui-
sition.
In the preferred alternative that
this proposed rulemaking implements,
the Secretary chose to allow consents
to be acquired only by private parties,
not by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment. The Department also solicits
comments on whether the Bureau of
Land Management should negotiate
consents from those qualified surface
owners who seek to consent under any
specific terms and have the coal depos-
its underlying their surface considered
for leasing, but wljo do not wish to ne-
gotiate the terms of consent with any
specific company.
Six comments were received on Sub-
part 3427. These comments were di-
rected at the example rulemaking
which has been substantially rewritten
in the proposed rulemaking. A couple
of the comments suggested that the
proposed rulemaking should contain
provisions that would automatically
exclude lands from leasing when con-
sent to lease has not been obtained
from the surface owner. This sugges-
tion was not adopted. The proposed
rulemaking goes even further and now
provides for refusals of consent on
lands. A refusal to consent eliminates
the lands from all consideration in the
leasing process during the life of a
land use plan. The proposed rulemak-
ing has dropped the provision of the
example rulemaking that allowed a
State Director of the Bureau of Land
Management to publish a notice of
lease sale for split-estate land where
the surface is owned by a qualified
surface owner and conduct that sale
even though no consent has been pro-
vided by the owner. This change was
suggested in three comments received
on the example rulemaking.
Subpart 3430 reflects wording found
in Subpart 3521 of existing regula-
tions, especially the procedures and
standards for filing and adjudicating
preference right lease applications
that were issued prior to May 7, 1976
(41 FR 18843). The existing regula-
tions were carried forward into the ex-
ample rulemaking with only two sig-
nifcant changes: (1) specific provisions
on the relationship of lease right adju-
dication and possible exchanges were
added: and (2) a land use plan must be
completed on the lands in the lease
application. This will assure the appli-
cation of the unsuitability criteria to
preference right lease applications in
manner consistent with land use plan-
ning on other lands. This latter re-
quirement for land-use planning was
an element in prior practice, but it was
not made explicit in the prior regula-
tions.
The example rulemaking provisions
are carried into the proposed rulemak-
ing with the addition of a provision
(§3420.2-l(d)) incorporating the re-
quirements that a complete applica-
tion include a certified abstract of title
for the purpose of determining wheth-
er the lands were "unclaimed and un-
developed" at the time a prospecting
permit was issued prior to its amend-
ment in 1976. This Is necessary for
consistency with the provisions of sec-
tion 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act.
See Solicitor's Opinion M-36893, 84
I.D. 442(1977).
The Department of the Interior so-
licits comments from industry and the
public on whether preference right
lease application reserve data should
be maintained as confidential after
lease Issuance, since: (a) The reserve
calculations are essential to determin-
ing commercial quantities, a process
that will include public participation
in land use planning and the environ-
mental assesssment processes under
the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969; (b) the lease reserves must
be calculated for the purpose of estab-
lishing the lessee's diligence require-
ments under the existing diligence reg-
ulations; and (c) Congress has pro-
vided that reserve data or exploration
licenses be made public upon lease is-
suance.
Section 3430.2-Z of the example
rulemaking was amended by the dele-
tion of subsections (a) and (c). The
time provided for filing an initial
showing in response to the May 1976
regulations has passed, and any sup-
plemental information showing how
the applicant wfll comply with the rec-
lamation requirments of the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and En-
forcement regulations can be submit-
ted with the final showing, if neces-
sary. The same is true of the abstracts
of title needed to show that the permit
lands were "unclaimed or undevel-
oped"—all abstracts are already filed
except for those of applicants to
whom specific extensions of time were
granted. The extension periods with
respect to the initial showing thus did
not need to be carried forward from
the existing regulations in Subpart
3521.
A total of ten comments were re-
ceived on the various sections of sub-
part 3430 of the example rulemaking.
All of the comments were considered
during the decision process that led to
the rewrite of the subpart in the pro-
posed rulemaking. Some of the sugges-
tions made in the comments were
adopted as part of the rewrite. A
number of the comments which were
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-6
16806
not adopted were directed at what was
claimed to be a change in the rights
granted by a prospecting permit and
the requirements that had to be met.
The proposed rulemaking and its re-
quirements relating to preference
right lease applications is consistent
with the various Acts of the Congress
on the subject. A review of the Miner-
al Leasing Act of 1920 showed that it
was the Intent of Congress that the
commercial quantities test applicable
to preference right lease applications
incorporate the standards of the pru->
dent man test applicable under the
Mining Law of 1872. It was found that,
in the past, prospecting permits were
issued too readily, resulting in vast
areas being leased under preference
right lease applications, but little or
no mining being dohe. The proposed
rulemaking is designed to create a coal
management program that will cause
diligent development of mining on
leased lands.
Subpart 3431, which provides for the
sale of coal to be taken in the exercise
of a right-of-way granted across,
through or under Federal lands, was
now in the example rulemaking be-
cause the authority to dispose of coal
in such a manner was not part of the
law until enacted in October 1978. The
provisions have not been significantly
changed for their inclusion in the pro-
posed rulemaking. No comments were
received on this subpart of the exam-
ple rulemaking.
The Department of the Interior so-
licts comments from those persons
whose plans for the development of
other Federal or non-Federal coal
have been previously frustrated by the
absence of this authority on whether
the provisions of the proposed rule-
making will successfully implement
the new authority.
The coal lease modification provi-
sions of subpart 3432 were taken from
existing regulations (43 CFR 3524.2-1)
and expanded in drafting the example
rulemaking to reflect the amendments
In the Act of October 30. 1978 (Pub. L.
95-554) to the authority to make modi-
fication less burdensome on existing
lessees.
A modified lease under the new au-
thority is not subject to the increased
minimum royalty and the new dili-
gence requirements mandated by the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments
Act. The example rulemaking also
spelled out more precisely when non-
competitive "leasing by modification"
could occur and when a tract would
only be leased under the provisions of
Part 3420.
The modification sections were
moved from the part of the example
rulemaking covering "management of
existing leases" to the part of the pro-
posed rulemaking covering "noncom-
petitive leasing" to reflect their func-
PROPOSED RULES
tion and potential significance as a
system for leasing small tracts of Fed-
eral coal. No comments were received
on these provisions of the example
rulemaking.
The provisions of Subpart 3435 carry
forward the existing regulations issued
in December 1977 for the exchange of
lease interests as they relate to the re-
linquishment of coal leases of prefer-
ence right lease applications in an ex-
change. Comparable non-coal mineral
lease exchange regulations will remain
in the group 3500 regulations when
they are rewritten. The proposed rule-
making is not significantly different
from the example rulemaking. The
proposed rulemaking thus carries for-
ward the requirement that a prefer-
ence right lease applicant must dem-
onstrate the discovery of commercial
quantities of coal on the applied for
lands before an exchange involving
those lands can be consummated (43
CFR 3425.2(a)). The proposed rule-
making carries forward the policy
enunciated by the Department of the
Interior in hearings on S. 3189, the ge-
neric coal leasing exchange authority
legislation, in the 95th Congress that
the Department would not seek au-
thority to consummate an exchange in
any case where the constraints of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act could lawfully be applied to
prevent environmentally unsatisfac-
tory mining from occurring.
The proposed rulemaking was
changed in one important respect
from the example rulemaking in order
to conform to the intent of Congress
in the exchange of mineral leases and
coal lands. Coal lease exchanges in al-
luvial valley floors, fee land exchanges
In alluvial valley floors, and the spe-
cial lease exchanges authorized by the
Act of October 30, 1978 (Pub. L. 95-
554), all are required to be equal value
exchanges. Subpart 3435 in the exam-
ple rulemaking, however, consistent
with the provisions of the December
1977 regulations, from which it was de-
rived, only required that the value of
the exchange tracts be "comparable".
Section 3435.3-3 of the proposed rule-
making requires that equal values be
exchanged in any action under the
subpart.
Comments were received from two
different sources on this subpart of
the example rulemaking. One of the
comments raised a number of ques-
tions about the exchange procedure as
it was presented in the example rule-
making and an effort was made in the
rewrite of the subpart for the pro-
posed rulemaking to address each of
those questions. The other comment
was directed at what perceived as un-
necessary burdens placed on a lessee
that is party to an exchange. These
points were considered in the rewrite
but little or no change was made in
the proposed regulations.
Subpart 3436 of the proposed rule-
making implements the alluvial valley
floor lease exchange authority con-
tained in the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act. This provision
appeared for the first time in the ex-
ample rulemaking. The subpart incor-
porates the principles and procedures
outline in Subpart 3435 of the pro-
posed rulemaking to the extent appli-
cable. No significant changes were
made between the language of the ex-
ample rulemaking and that of the pro-
posed rulemaking.
One comment was received on this
subpart of the example rulemaking.
The comment raised a number of con-
cerns about the procedures that will
be followed in making exchanges
under the provisions of the subpart.
Detailed procedures will be developed
when the manual sections for the sub-
part are prepared following the issu-
ance of final rulemaking on a coal
management program. All of the con-
cerns are in areas that will be closely
examined in developing the program
procedures.
Subpart 3437, which is designed to
implement partially the alluvial valley
floor land exchange authority (private
lands for Federal lands, with no lease
Interest involved) contained in the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act, was new language in the ex-
ample rulemaking. The example rule-
making only made cross-reference to
Group 2200 of existing regulations in
Title 43, those that would be used to
implement section 206, the general ex-
change authority of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act. The pro-
posed rulemaking establishes criteria
under which the Department of the
Interior will determine which ex-
changes of potential alluvial valley
floor private fee for federal fee the
Department will, as an initial matter,
consider consummating under the au-
thority of section 206. These criteria
are felt to be necessary since alluvial
valley floor exchanges are by law to be
carried out under section 206 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act. Section 206 has no inherent limi-
tations on when the Secretary may ex-
change lands in alluvial valley floors
or elsewhere except for the require-
ments that the exchange be in the
public interest, be for lands of equal
value (with some cash equalization au-
thorized), and be for lands in the same
State. The same party that comment-
ed on Subpart 3436 commented on this
subpart and again raised questions
about the procedure to be followed in
carrying out the subpart. As stated
above, the procedure will be worked
out in the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment manual sections after the issu-
ance of a final rulemaking.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-7
Subpart 3440, which governs licenses
to mine coal granted to persons or mu-
nicipalities who supply coal only for
domestic use. Is derived from existing
regulations (43 CFR Part 3530). The
language of the example rulemaking
has not been significantly changed in
the proposed rulemaking. The Depart-
ment of the Interior solicits comments
about whether this little-used authori-
ty remains worthwhile and useful, or
whether it is no longer relevant to the
economic and environmental protec-
tion considerations controlling coal
mining today. No comments were re-
ceived on this subpart of the example
rulemaking.
Subpart 3450 provides the language
that will govern readjustment of the
terms and conditions of Federal coal
leases. Over half of the existing Feder-
al coal leases will be subject to adjust-
ment by 1986, and this is the time
when the economic and other terms of
each lease can be changed.
The example rulemaking expanded
on the provisions of §3522.2-l(b) of
existing regulations, the existing read-
justment provisions, to express more
precisely both the procedures and the
substance of lease readjustment, in-
cluding consultation with the Attor-
ney General with respect to the anti-
trust impacts of lease continuation
under the proposed readjustment
terms. The proposed rulemaking does
not differ significantly from the exam-
ple rulemaking.
Two comments were received on this
subpart of the example rulemaking.
One comment stated that the subpart
provisions had the effect of changing
agreed-on lease terms and impacted
existing property rights and should be
changed. The agreed-on terms of each
lease provide for such readjustments,
and Congress has required that each
lease contain such a term. The second
comment felt that a time limitation
should be imposed on lease readjust-
ments. This comment was partially
adopted in changes to the proposed
rulemaking by section 3451 which pro-
vides that, for leases which become
subject to readjustment after 1980,
the Bureau of Land Management's
failure to notify the lessee that read-
justment will occur will signify a
waiver of the Bureau's right to read-
just.
Subpart 3452 governs how Federal
coal leases are closed out, whether at
the initiative of the lessee or the
United States. The language of the
proposed rulemaking is carried for-
ward from Subpart 3523 of the exist-
ing regulations without significant
change. No comments were received
on this portion of the example rule-
making.
Subpart 3452 Is derived from the
coal-related provisions of the existing
regulations in Subpart 3506, "Assign-
PROPOSED RULES
ments or Transfers and Subleases."
The example rulemaking made no sub-
stantive changes in the language of
the existing regulations. The proposed
rulemaking, however, did make
changes: (1) Revising the use of the
word "transfers" to embrace all
changes in ownership interests in Fed-
eral leases, whether designated assign-
ments, subleases or whatever by the
parties, thus simplifying the provi-
sions; and (2) setting out clearly in
checklist form the requirements for
approval and causes for disapproval of
any transfer of an interest in a Feder-
al lease.
The Department of the Interior is
presently examining its authority to
condition approval of transfers of in-
terests in coal leases on the submission
of or agreement to specific develop-
ment plans by the transferee, or to
changes in the diligence provisions of
the lease designed to assure that lease
transfers are not serving solely specu-
lative ends. If greater authority than
that which is currently exercised
exists, the Department will consider
adding to this proposed rulemaking
provisions relating to conditioning ap-
proval of transfers on specific develop-
ment plans, much as the suspension of
oil and gas leases are being condition-
ed under current Departmental policy.
No public comments were received on
this subpart of the example rulemak-
ing.
Subpart 3461 of the proposed rule-
making sets out the content and pro-
cedures for the elements of the Feder-
al lands review the Congress directed
the Secretary to conduct in section
522(b) of the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act, and which the
Bureau of Land Management, either
by itself or through cooperative agree-
ment with other surface management
agencies, has been entrusted to carry
out. As the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act was passed after
the last regulatory revisions of the
coal program, these provisions were
developed for the example rulemak-
ing. Several important changes have
been made from the example regula-
tions in the language of the proposed
rulemaking.
First, the unsuitability criteria have
been structured more precisely to spell
out the exemptions to each criterion.
Second, the provisions governing the
application of the criteria to oper-
ations on existing leases (43 CFR
3461.1-2) have been expanded and
clarified.
Most important, the proposed rule-
making clarifies the division of respon-
sibility for the administration of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act within the Department of the
Interior by clearly distinguishing be-
tween the unsuitability assessments
carried out by the Bureau of Land
16807
Management through its land use
planning process and unsuitability des-
ignations carried out by the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and En-
forcement in response to petitions to
formally designate (or to terminate
designation of) Federal lands as un-
suitable for all or certain types of sur-
face coal mining operations (43 CFR
3461.1-3 and 3461-4). After making its
assessment as part of the lands review,
the Bureau of Land Management
might: (a) Condition any leasing to re-
quire that operations be conducted in
a manner consistent with the land use
plan; (b) withdraw the Federal lands
assessed as unsuitable; or (c) itself pe-
tition the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement to for-
mally designate the lands as unsuit-
able.
The proposed rulemaking does not
change the Department of the Interi-
or's intention to make unsuitability as-
sessments in the land use planning
process (43 CFR 3420.2), a screening
provision to be applied in determining
what Federal lands are acceptable for
further consideration for leasing.
An individual offered comments on
this subpart of the example rulemak-
ing during one of the field hearings.
The comments were directed at what
was perceived as a lack of guidance to
Bureau of Land Management manag-
ers in preparing land use plans. This
instruction will be provided by the
proposed Group 1600 rulemaking that
is now under review and by other
policy guidance, rather than in this
rulemaking. The same individual also
raised questions about the designation
of areas of critical environmental con-
cern. These designations will be han-
dled under guidelines now under devel-
opment in the Bureau of Land Man-
agement and not in this rulemaking.
Six written comments were received
on this subpart of the example rule-
making. One comment stated that in-
dustry nominations should be called
for immediately after an area is deter-
mined unsuitable for mining. This sug-
gestion was not adopted because in-
dustry is expected to participate fully
in the land use planning process at
each stage when an opportunity for
public participation is provided. A
second comment wanted a clarification
of the exemption from unsuitablility
criteria for lands on which surface
mining operations were being conduct-
ed on August 3, 1977, or where sub-
stantial financial and legal commit-
ments to the operations had been
made prior to January 4, 1977. The ex-
emption is required under section
522(a)(6) of the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act and is ade-
quately covered in the proposed rule-
making. In addition, the definition sec-
tion of the rulemaking defines "sub-
stantial financial or legal commit-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. S4— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-8
16808
menf. Another comment raised ques-
tions about the applicability of the un-
suitability criteria to existing leases.
The criticria will be applied to existing
leases during the land use planning
process or when the mining plan is
submitted, whichever comes first. The
provisions of the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act authorize
the application of the unsuitability
criteria to existing leases.
One comment wanted Indian tribes
to be included in the unsuitability cri-
teria application process. The unsuita-
bility criteria are applicable to Federal
lands, which specifically excludes
Indian lands. Indian tribes can submit
their views on the application of un-
suitability criteria to the Federal lands
during the land use planning process.
One comment raised two points, first,
that the placing of the unsuitability
criteria in the regulations rather than
in manual sections or policy guidance
documents might deny flexibility
needed in certain cases, and second,
that there seems to be little purpose
to including lands determined to be
unsuitable for mining within applica-
tions for exploration licenses. No
changes have been adopted in re-
sponse to the issues raised by this
comment because, first, the criteria
have been determined to be needed
part of the rulemaking, and second,
exploration could be useful for deter-
mining underground mining data. The
final comment received indicated that
the procedures for documenting ex-
ceptions in the example rulemaking do
not appear to mesh with the Bureau
of Land Management's present efforts
to field test and incorporate the pro-
posed unsuitability criteria into the
land use planning system. The steps
outlined in the Federal Register
notice mentioned in the comment are
only interim guidance for approved,
ongoing land use plans. Future land
use plans will be covered by later guid-
ance in separate instructions.
The only changes to the wording of
the specific criteria in this proposed
rulemaking over the wording of those
published in the example rulemaking
were made to correct the criteria for
conflicts with existing statutes and to
improve their clarity. As noted above,
the criteria as they appeared in the
draft programmatic environmental
statement are now being field tested.
Changes suggested in comments re-
ceived on the draft environmental
statement and the example rulemak-
ing will not be considered until results
of the field testing have been assessed.
This is expected to occur sometime
during April. 1979. All comments will
be considered prior to the issuance of
the final rulemaking. If a proposed
program is adopted and leasing re-
sumes, the land use plans in the field
PROPOSED RULES
test areas will be conformed to all re-
vised criteria before leasing begins.
The provisions of Subpart 3465 of
the proposed rulemaking generally
govern environmental protection
during operations on leases and li-
censes to mine. The example rulemak-
ing was derived from Subpart 3041 of
existing regulations, but was substan-
tially reduced by the transfer of many
of the surface management functions
to the Office of Surface Mining Recla-
mation and Enforcement as a result of
the oassage of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act. The ex-
ample and proposed rulemaking re-
flect that transfer of functions.
Five comments were received from
the public on this subpart of the ex-
ample rulemaking. The first comment
wanted to include language that would
require compliance with the regula-
tions of another Federal agency. This
recommendation was incorporated in
the proposed rulemaking. The other
comments were aimed at changes that
would bring the rulemaking more
under the control of the environmen-
tal assessment process. The proposed
rulemaking complies with the require-
ments of the National Environmental
Policy Act and the environmental re-
quirements of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation act. No
changes were adopted as a result of
the review of these four comments.
Part 3470 contains the technical re-
quirements of the coal management
program, with Subpart 3471 setting
out the requirements for land descrip-
tion in leases, what happens if the sur-
face of the leased land is conveyed by
the United States while the coal is
under lease, and what protection is af-
forded bona fide purchasers of leases
that are subject to cancellation or for-
feiture. The language of this subpart
is derived from §§3501.1-2, 3501.1-3,
3501.2-4, 3501.3-2<bX2), 3501.3-3 and
3502.1-2 of existing regulations of title
43. Several insignificant changes in
the language of the existing regula-
tions were made in the proposed rule-
making. No comments were received
on this subpart of the example rule-
making.
Subpart 3472 governs the qualifica-
tions to take or hold a coal lease. The
language of the subpart is derived di-
rectly from Subpart 3502 of existing
regulations with only slight modifica-
tion. Two comments were received on
this example subpart. One comment
suggested that the acreage limitations
imposed in the rulemaking were not
needed. The limitations are established
by the provisions of the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 and
have been retained in the proposed
rulemaking. The other comment
wanted to know if the restriction in
the subpart pertaining to railroad
holding companies holding leases ap-
plied to subsidiaries of a railroad. The
limitation does not apply to a subsidi-
ary of a railroad that is a legitimate
mining company; such a company is
authorized to hold a lease under the
provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act.
The provisions of Subpart 3473 con-
tain the financial terms of leases and
the methods for getting them waived
or reduced. The rulemaking language
has been taken from Subpart 3503 of
existing regulations. In the example
rulemaking, the Department of the In-
terior raised the annual per acre lease
rental. That increase. S3 per acre per
year, has been carried forward to the
proposed rulemaking. The proposed
rulemaking also prohibits the reduc-
tion of the production royalty on sur-
face-mined coal below 12>/2 percent
and on underground-mined coal below
5 percent. The example rulemaking re-
stated the Secretary of the Interior's
authority without limiting the scope
of the Secretary's discretion to reduce
royalties. These reduction limitations
are not required by law; they are pro-
posed as an exercise of discretion.
Subpart 3474 contains the bonding
requirements for Federal leases and
was derived from Subpart 3504 of ex-
isting regulations. The example rule-
making contained several notable
changes from the existing provisions.
The bond required by the Bureau of
Land Management no longer covers
reclamation: the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
has assumed that bonding function in
connection with the issuance and su-
pervision of permits to mine. In addi-
tion, there is no longer any authoriza-
tion for a nationwide or statewide
bond; each lease of a Federal portion
of a logical mining unit must be sepa-
rately bonded. Upon issuance of this
rulemaking in final form, each lessee
holding such a blanket coverage bond
would be notified of this requirement.
The proposed rulemaking changes
the example rulemaking to standard-
ize the terms used with respect to
bonding. The term "performance
bond" been limited to reclamation ob-
ligations. The term "lease bond",
which has had many different uses,
has been dropped, and the Depart-
ment uses the term "compliance bond"
in the proposed rulemaking to mean
the bond covering compliance with the
financial and other non-reclamation
lease obligations of the lessee. The De-
partment solicits comments on diffi-
culties, if any, that Federal lessees
have had or may have in securing ade-
quate bonds for these purposes.
Subpart 3475 contains the general
lease term provisions on diligent devel-
opment and continued operation obli-
gations (diligence requirement) issued
by the Department of the Interior in
May 1976 to cover the existing leases,
and those issued in December 1976 to
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, J979
A-9
cover leases issued after the passage of
the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments
Acts of 1976. The rulemaking is car-
ried forward from §S 3500.0-5 and
3520.2-5 of existing regulations with-
out substantive change, since the au-
thority to promulgate regulations re-
specting diligence on Federal coal
leases was transferred to the Depart-
ment of Energy by the Act creating
that Department. If and when the De-
partment of Energy promulgates new
or additional diligence requirements
for Federal coal leases, these provi-
sions will be amended to state or
simply cross-reference the Depart-
ment of Energy regulations. Provisions
dealing with the administration of the
diligence requirements, such as in
§ 3452.3-2(b) of existing regulations,
will remain.
The only comment received on the
provisions of Part 3470 was one ques-
tioning the diligence requirements of
Subpart 3475. The comment was con-
sidered and not adopted.
The principal authors of this pro-
posed rulemaking are Steven Quarles
and Charles Rech of the Office of
Coal Leasing. Planning and Coordina-
tion; Lawrence McBride. Office of the
Solicitor: and Don Mitchell. Office of
Coal Management, Bureau of Land
Management, assisted by the staff of
the Division of Legislation and Regu-
latory Management of the Bureau of
Land Management.
It has been determined that the pub-
lication of this document is a major
Federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environ-
ment. A draft environmental state-
ment was published on December 15,
1978. and a final environmental state-
ment is now being prepared pursuant
to section 102(2X0 of the National
Environmental Policy act of 1969 (42
U.S.C 4332(2)(C».
Note.— The Department of the Interior
has determined that this document is not a
significant regulatory action requiring the
preparation of a regulatory analysis under
Executive Order 12044 and 43 CFR Part 14.
Under the authority of the Mineral
Leasing Act, the Mineral Leasing act
for Acquired Lands, the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976,
the Surface Mining Control and Recla-
mation Act and the Multiple Mineral
Development Act. it is proposed to
amend Subchapter C, Chapter II. Title
43 of the Code of Federal Regulations
by adding a new Group 3400 as set
forth below:
Group 3400— Coal Management
part 3400 — coal management— general
Subpart 3400— Introduction— General
PART 3410— EXPLORATION LICENSES
Subpart 3410— Exporation Licenses
PROPOSED RULES
PART 3420— COMPETITIVE LEASING
Subpart 3420— Competitive Leasing
Subpart 3422— Lease Sales
Subpart 3425— Emergency Leasing
Subpart 3427— Split Estate Leasing
PART 3430— NONCOMPETITIVE LEASING
Subpart 3430— Preference Right
Leases
Subpart 3431— Negotiated Sales—
Rights-of-Way
Subpart 3432— Lease Modifications
Subpart 3435— Lease Exchange
Subpart 3436— Lease Exchange— Allu-
vial Valley Floors
Subpart 3437— Coal Exchange— Allu-
vial Valley Floors
PAST 3440— LICENSES TO MINE
Subpart 3440— Licenses t6 Mine
PART 3450 — MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING
LEASES
Subpart 3451— Continuation of
Leases— Readjustment of Lease
Terms
Subpart 3452— Relinquishments, -Can-
cellations, and Terminations
Subpart 3453— Transfers by Assign-
ment, Sublease or Otherwise
PART 34 60— ENVIRONMENT
Subpart 3461— Federal Lands Review—
Unsuitability for Mining
Subpart 3465— Surface Management
and Protection
PART 3470 — COAL MANAGEMENT
PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Subpart 3471— Coal Management Pro-
visions and Limitations
Subpart 3472— Qualification Require-
ments
Subpart 3473— Fees, Rentals and Roy-
alties
Subpart 3474— Bonds
Subpart 3475— Lease Terms
Group 3400 — Coal Management
PART 3400— COAl MANAGEMENT— GENERAL
Subpart 3400 — Introduction — General
Sec.
3400.0-3 Authority.
3400. 0-4 Responsibilities.
3400.0-5 Definitions.
3400.1 Multiple development.
3400.2 Lands subject to leasing.
3400.3 Limited authority to lease.
3400.3-1 Consent or conditions of adminis-
tering agency.
3400.3-2 Department of Defense lands.
3400.3-3 Department of Agriculture lands.
3400.3-4 Trust protection lands.
3400.4 Federal/Slate government coopera-
tion.
AoTHORtTY: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.: 30 U.S C
351-359: 30 U.S.C. 521-531: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et
seq.: 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; and 43 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.
1C809
Subpart 3400 — Introduction — General
§ 3400 0-3 Authority.
(a) These regulations are issued
under the authority of:
(1) The Mineral Leasing Act of Feb-
ruary 25. 1920. as amended (30 U.S.C.
181 etseq).
(2) The Mineral Leasing Act for Ac-
quired Lands of August 7, 1947. as
amended (30 U.S.C. 351-359).
(3) The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, October 21.
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
(4) The Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977, August 3
1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
(5) The Multiple Mineral Develop-
ment Act of August 13. 1954 (30 U.S.C.
521-531).
(6) The Department of Energy Orga-
nization Act of August 4. 1977 (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).v
(7) The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
(b) Specific citations of authority in
subsequent subparts of this Group
3400 are to authorities from which the
subpart is chiefly derived or which the
subpart chiefly implements.
§ 3400.0-4 Responsibilities.
(a) The Bureau of Land Manage-
ment has the responsibility on Federal
lands to:
(1) Determine the acceptability of
lands for leasing and development,
except as provided in subsection (c)(7)
of this section;
(2) Issue, modify and readjust leases
and serve as the Office of Record for
transfers, relinquishments and similar
transactions on leases;
(3) Ensure that fair market value is
received for rights to extract Federal
coal before issuing a lease;
(4) Issue and administer all use au-
thorizations for facilities related to
coal development on BLM adminis-
tered lands outside the area of mining
operations;
(5) Determine, in consultation with
the Office of Surface Mining Reclama-
tion and Enforcement, the appropriate
post-mining land use of BLM adminis-
tered lands on which surface coal
mining operations will be conducted;
(6) Include terms in each lease to
protect nonmineral resources and to
ensure reclamation of mined lands to
the applicable standards:
(7) Recommend judicial action to
cancel leases for noncompliance with
lease terms:
(8) Consult with other surface man-
agement agencies and surface owners
when they are involved in or affected
by coal management actions that are
the primary responsibility of the
Bureau of Land Management; and
(9) Adjudicate applications for. issue.
and administer exploration licenses.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-10
16810
(b) The Geological Survey has the
responsibility on Federal lands to:
(1) Supervise production and re-
source recovery in the area of raining
operations:
(2) Make geologic, engineering, coal
resource economic value, and maxi-
mum economic recovery determina-
tions for the Department's leasing pro-
gram;
(3) Review and concur with mining
and exploration plans and amend-
ments to plans to establish production
and resource recovery requirements;
(4) Approve exploration plans and
supervise exploration under an explo-
ration license, and on a lease outside a
permit area; and
(5) Deal with operators on the mat-
ters listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(c) The Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement has the
responsibility on Federal lands to:
(1) Approve mining and reclamation
permit applications;
(2) Ensure that mining operations
are consistent with environmental cri-
teria and reclamation plans;
(3) Monitor reclamation operations
for compliance with plans;
(4) Deal with operators during
mining operations on the matters
listed in paragraph (c)(1) through (3)
of this section;
(5) Ensure that the rights of holders
of noncoal Federal leases and permits
are protected in the permit approval
process;
(6) Negotiate, in consultation with
the Bureau of Land Management and
Geological Survey, and recommend for
Secretarial approval, cooperative
agreements with the states to estab-
lish the authority of state regulatory
agencies over Federal operations on a
lease; and
(7) Designate lands, in response to
petitions, as unsuitable for all or cer-
tain kinds of surface mining oper-
ations, reject petitions, and terminate
designations of lands.
(d) The Fish and Wildlife Service
has the responsibility on Federal lands
to:
(1) Protect and conserve endangered
and threatened species, migratory
birds, eagles, and other fish and wild-
life;
(2) Recommend lands unsuitable for
leasing due to fish, wildlife, and relat-
ed ecological values:
(3) Recommend tract ranking fac-
tors and weights, for fish and wildlife;
(4) Recommend lease stipulations re-
lated to fish and wildlife values;
(5) Review and recommend post
mining land uses of surface mined
lands as they relate to the creation or
maintenance of fish and wildlife
values;
(6) Review exploration, mining, and
reclamation plans to make recommen-
PROPOSED RULES
dations about their potential impacts
on fish and wildlife values; and
(7) Review water resource develop-
ment projects and all other projects
that will result in the impoundment,
diversion or control of streams or
other bodies of water, for the purposes
of mitigating or avoiding adverse im-
pacts on fish and wildlife values.
§ 3400.0-5 Definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) '-Alluvial valley floor" means un-
consolidated, stream-laid deposits
holding streams where water availabil-
ity is sufficient for subirrigation or
flood irrigation agricultural activities.
This definition does not encompass
upland areas generally covered by a
thin veneer of colluvial deposits com-
posed chiefly of debris from sheet ero-
sion; deposits laid down by unconcen-
trated runoff or slope wash, including
talus; other mass movement accumula-
tions; and windblown deposits.
(b) "Area of Mining Operation"
means that area of non-Federal land
and Federal land under lease or li-
cense to mine (within a logical mining
unit) that (1) contains surface or un-
derground excavations from which
coal is extracted as part of a commer-
cial venture, that is, one which has a,
historic production record or existing
contractual production commitments
or both; (2) contains support facilities
that contribute directly to coal
mining, preparation and handling: or
(3) contains coal reserves intended for
extraction in the course of the mining
operation.
(c) "Authorized officer" means any
employee of the Bureau of Land Man-
agement delegated the authority to
perform the duty described in the sec-
tion in which the term is used.
(d) "Bonus" means that the value in
excess of the rentals and royalties that
accrues to the United States because
of coal resource ownership.
(e) "Bypass coal" means an isolated
coal deposit that cannot, for the fore-
seeable future, be practically mined
either separately as part of any logical
mining unit other than that of the ap-
plicant for an emergency lease under
the provisions of Subpart 3425 of this
chapter.
(f) "Certificate of bidding rights"
means a right granted by the Secre-
tary to apply the fair market value of
a relinquished coal or other mineral
lease or right to a preference right
lease as a credit against the bonus bid
or bids on a competitive lease or leases
acquired at a lease sale or sales.
(g) "Coal deposits" mean all Federal-
ly-owned coal deposits, except those
held in trust for Indians.
(h) "Coal resource ecomomic value
(CREV)" means the value of the coal
resource in a lease in its best oper-
ational and market application.
(i) "Commercial quantities" as used
in paragraph (n) mean:
(1) For any lease issued after August
4, 1076. an amount of production equal
to one percent of the LMU reserves
per year; or
(2) For any lease issued before
August 4. 1976, an amount of produc-
tion equal to one-fortieth of the LMU
reserves per year.
(j) "Compliance bond" means the
bond or equivalent security given the
Department to assure payment of all
obligations under a lease, exploration
license, or license to mine, and to
assure that all aspects of the mining
operation other than reclamation op-
erations on a lease are conducted in
conformity with the approved mining
or exploration plan. This is the same
as the "lease bond" referred to in 30
CFR 742.11(a).
(k) "Continued operation" means
the production of coal equal to one
percent of the LMU reserves for each
of the first two years following the
achievement of diligent development,
and an annual average amount of one
percent of the LMU reserves thereaf-
ter. The average annual amount shall
be computed on a three year basis, and
the three-year period for which the
average shall be computed shall con-
sist of the year in question and the
two preceding years.
(1) "Contiguous" means having at
least one point in common, including
cornering tracts.
(m) "Department" means the United
States Department of the Interior.
(n) "Diligent development" means
(1) for any lease issued after August 4,
1976, the timely preparation for and
initiation of coal production from the
LMU of which the lease is a part so '
that coal is actually produced in com-
mercial quantities by the end of the
tenth year from the effective date of
the lease; or
(2) For any lease issued before
August 4, 1976, the timely preparation
for and initiation of coal production
from the LMU so that coal is actually
produced in commercial quantities
before June 1, 1986. except that the
period of time during which produc-
tion of coal in commercial quantities
must be achieved may be extended as
provided in 43 CFR 3475.4.
(o) "Exploration" means drilling, ex-
cavating, and geological, geophysical
or geochemical surveying operations
designed to obtain detailed data on
the physical and chemical characteris-
tics of coal deposits and their environ-
ment including the strata above and
below the deposits, the hydrologic con-
ditions associated with the deposit,
and any other information that may
be used to prepare a coal resource
evaluation of the land.
<p) "Exploration license" means a li-
cense issued by the authorized officer
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-ll
to permit the licensee to explore for
coal on Federal lands under terms and
conditions that will protect the sur-
face and subsurface resources and the
environment, and provide for the rec-
lamation of areas distrubed by such
exploration.
(q) "Exploration plan" means a plan
prepared in sufficient detail to show
the location and type of exploration to
be conducted, environmental protec-
tion procedures, present and proposed
roads, and reclamation and abandon-
ment procedures to be followed upon
completion of operations under an ex-
ploration license.
(r) "Fair market value" means that
amount in cash, or on terms reason-
ably equivalent to cash, for which in
all probability the coal deposit would
be sold or leased by a knowledgeable
owner willing but not obligated to sell
to a knowledgeable purchaser who de-
sires but is not obligated to buy or
lease.
(s) "Federal lands" mean lands
owned by the United States, without
reference to how the lands were ac-
quired or what Federal agency admin-
isters the lands, including mineral es-
tates or coal estates underlying private
surface, excluding lands field by the
United States in trust for Indians,
Aleuts or Eskimos.
(t) "Governmental entity" means a
Federal or State agency or municipal-
ity or their subdivisions, including any
corporation acting primarily as an
agency or instrumentality of a State,
which produces electrical energy for
sale to the public.
(u) "Grant of modifications" means
the Secretary's approval to expand an
existing lease to include additional
coal lands or deposits contiguous to
the existing lease.
(v) "Interest" in a lease, application
or bid means: any record title interest,
overriding royalty interest, working in-
terest, operating rights or option, or
any agreement covering such an inter-
est; any claim or any prospective or
future claim to an advantage or bene-
fit from a lease; and any participation
or any defined or undefined share in
any increments, issues, or profits that
may be derived from or that may
accrue in any manner from the lease
based on or pursuant to any agree-
ment or understanding existing when
the application was filed or entered
into while the lease application or bid
is pending.
(w) "Intertract bidding competition"
means a lease sale method where
tracts containing more reserves in
total than the Department intends to
lease in that sale are offered for sale.
and each bidder competes against
other bidders on the same tract for
which he bids and against bidders on
the other tracts offered in the same
sale.
PROPOSED RULES
(x) "Know Recoverable Coal Re-
source Area (KRCRA)" means an area
determined by the Geological Survey,
where data are believed to be suffi-
cient to evaluate the extent, depth,
quality, and potential for development
of coal deposits that are technically
recoverable based on past and current
mining practices in the area. Bound-
aries for such as area show only the
extent of recoverable coal deposits
based on data available at the time of
determination.
(y) "Lease" means a Federal lease,
issued under the coal leasing provi-
sions of the mineral leasing laws,
which authorizes the exploration for
and extraction of coal. In provisions of
this Gro-ip that refer to Federal leases
for minerals other than coal, the term
"Federal coal lease" may be used.
(z) "Licensee" means the holder of
an exploration license.
(aa) "License to mine" means a li-
cense issued under the provisions of
Part 3440 of this Chapter to a munici-
pality or charitable organization to
mine coal for domestic use.
(bb) "Logical Mining Unit (LMU)"
means an area of coal land that can be
developed and mined in an efficient,
economical, and orderly manner with
due regard for the conservation of coal
reserves and other resources. An LMU
may consist of one or more leases and
may include intervening or adjacent
non-Federal lands, but all lands in an ,
LMU must be contiguous, under the '
effective control of a single operator,
and capable of being developed and
operated as a unified operation with
complete extraction of the LMU re-
serves within 40 years from the date of
first approval of a mining plan for
that LMU. No LMU approved after
August 4, 1976, shall exceed 25.000
acres, Including both Federal and non-
Federal coal deposits.
(cc) "Logical Mining Unit reserves"
mean the sum of (1) estimated recov-
erable reserves under Federal lease in
the LMU, and (2) estimated non-Fed-
eral recoverable reserves in the LMU.
The LMU reserves associated with a
Federal lease are the LMU reserves es-
timated as of the effective date of the
LMU, of which that lease is a part,
except that the LMU reserves of this
section may be adjusted by the Mining
Supervisor whenever he approves a
modification of the LMU boundaries
or whenever significant new informa-
tion becomes available concerning the
amount of such reserves.
(dd) "Maximum economic recovery
(MER)" means the amount of coal
that can be recovered by prudent
mining practices from all seams that
are collectively profitable to be mined
on any tract evaluated for a lease sale
at the time of the MER determina-
tion. Social and environmental costs
16811
shall be considreed in determining
profitability.
(ee) "Mining method evaluation"
means a written comparison of mining
method alternatives used to determine
maximum economic recovery.
(ff) "Mineral leasing laws" mean the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as
amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.). and
the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired
lands of 1947, as amended (30 UJS.C.
351-359).
(gg) "Mining plan" means a mining
and reclamation operations plan that
fully complies with the requirements
of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as
amended, the Suface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977. and all
other applicable laws.
(hh) "Mining Supervisor" means the
Area Mining Supervisor, Conservation
Division, U.S. Geological Survey, or
the District Mining Supervisor or a
subordinate acting under the Supervi-
sor's direction.
(ii) "Mining unit" means an area
containing technically recoverable coal
that will feasible support a commerical
mining operation. The coal may either
be Federal coal or be both Federal and
non-Federal coal.
(jj) "Operator" means a lessee, li-
censee or one conducting operations
on a lease or exploration license under
the authority of the lessee or licensee,
(kk) "Participate" means to have or
take part or share with others in an
exploration license.
(11) "Permit" means the document
issued, to authorized surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on
Federal lands either by the Director of
the Office of Surface Mining Reclama-
tion and Enforcement or, where a co-
operative agreement pursuant to sec-
tion 523 of the Suface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1273) has been executed by the
state regulatory authority (30 CFR
Part 741), after approval of a mining
plan by the Assistant Secretary,
Energy and Minerals.
(mm) "Permit area" means the area,
including all natural and human re-
sources, included within the bound-
aries specified in a permit, whether or
not the areas will be affected by sur-
face coal mining and reclamation oper-
ations, which is designated on the ap-
proved maps submitted by the appli-
cant with this permit application and
which is covered by the performance
bond required Part by CFR Parts 800-
808.
(nn) "Public bodies" means Federal
and state agencies, municipalities,
rural electric cooperatives and similar
organizations, and nonprofit corpora-
tions controlled by any such entities.
(oo) "Qualified surface owner"
means the natural person or persons
(or corporation, the majority stock of
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-12
16812
which is held by by a person or per-
sons) who:
(1) Hold legal or equitable title to
the land surface;
(2) Have their principal place of resi-
dence on the land, or personally con-
duct farming or ranching operations
upon a farm or ranch unit to be affect-
ed by suface mining operations: or re-
ceive directly a significant portion of
their income, if any, from such farm-
ing and ranching operations; and
(3) Have met the conditions of (para-
graphs (00) (1) and (2) of this section
for a period at least 3 years prior to
the granting of any consent to mining
of their lands. In computing the three
year period the authorized officer may
include periods during which title was
owned by a relative of such person by
blood or marriage if, during such peri-
ods, the relative would have met the
requirements of this subsection.
(pp) "Reserves" means coal deposits
which are economically feasible to ex-
tract.
(qq) "Secretary" means the Secre-
tary of the Interior or his authorized
representative.
(rr) "Sole party in interest" means a
party who is and will be vested with all
legal and equitable rights under a
lease, bid, or an application for a lease.
No one is, or shall be considered, a sole
party in interest with respect to a
lease or bid in which any other party
has any interest.
(ss) "Split estate" means land in
which the ownership of the surface is
held by persons including governmen-
tal bodies, other than the Federal gov-
ernment and the ownership of under-
lying coal is, in whole or in part, re-
serve to the Federal government.
(tt) "Substantial legal and financial
commitments" mean major invest-
ments of money In power plants, rail-
roads, coal handling and storage facili-
ties and other capital intensive im-
provements, and fixed equipment
made on the basis of long-term, legally
enforceable coal sales contracts. In-
vestments are "major" if they are sub-
stantial in relationship to the aggre-
gate capital expenditures which rea-
sonable can be anticipated to be made
for capital improvements and fixed
equipment at the mine site up to and
including completion of all reclama-
tion operations. Costs of the acquisi-
ton of the coal in place or of the right
to mine it do not alone constitute
"substantial legal an financial commit-
ments".
(UU) "Surface management agency
means the Federal agency with juris-
diction over the surface of Federally
owned lands containing coal deposits.
(w) "Surface Mining Office" means
the field representative authorized to
act for Director of the Office of Sur-
face Mining, Reclamation and En-
forcement.
PROPOSED RULES
(ww) "Surface mining operation"
means activities conducted on the sur-
face of the lands in connection with a
surface coal mine or surface oper-
ations and surface impacts incident to
an underground mine, as dtfincd in
section 701(23) of the Surface Mining
Reclamation and Environmental Act
Of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1291(28).
(xx) "Written consent" means the
document or documents that the sur-
face owner has signed that: (1) Permit
a coal operator to enter and commence
surface mining of coal; (2) describe
any financial considerations given or
promised in return for the permission,
including in-kind considerations; (3)
described any considerations given in
terms of type or method of operation
or reclamation for the area; (4) con-
tain any supplemental or related con-
tracts between the surface owner and
any other person party to the permis-
sion; and (5) contain a full and accu-
rate description of the area covered by
the permission.
§ 3400.1 Multiple Development.
The granting of the exploration li-
cense, a license to mine or a lease for
the prospecting, development, or pro-
duction of coal deposits will neither
preclude the issuance of prospecting
permits or mineral leases for prospect-
ing, development or production of de-
posits of other minerals in the same
land with suitable stipulations for si-
multaneous operation, nor will it pre-
clude the allowance of applicable en-
tries, locations, or selections of leased
lands with a reservation of the mineral
deposits to the United States.
§ 3400.2 Lands subject to leasing.
The Secretary may issue coal leases
on all Federal lands except:
(a) Lands in:
(1) The National Park System;
(2) The Natonal Wildlife Refuge
System;
(3) The National Wilderness Preser-
vation System;
(4) The National System of Trails;
(5) The National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System, including study rivers
designated under section 5(a) of the
Wild and Scenic River Act;
(6) Incorporated cities, towns, and
villages;
(7) The Naval Petroleum Reserves,
the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska, and oil shale reserves; and
(8) National Recreation Areas.
(b) Tide lands, submerged coastal
lands within the Continental Shelf ad-
jacent or littoral to any part of land
within the jurisdiction of the United
States;
(c) Land acquired by the United
States for the development of mineral
deposits, by foreclosure or otherwise
for resale, or reported as surplus prop-
erty pursuant to the provisions of the
Surplus Property Act cf 1944; and
(d) Lands acquired with money de-
rived from the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund.
§ 3400.3 Limitations on authority to lease.
§3400.3-1 Consent or conditions of ad-
ministering agency.
(a) Leases for land, the surface of
which is under the jurisdiction of any
Federal agency other than the Depart-
ment of the Interior, may be issued
only with the consent of the head or
other appropriate official of the other
agency having jurisdiction over the
lands containing the coal deposits or
holding a mortgage or deed of trust se-
cured by such lands.
(b) Exploration licenses and licenses
to mine for lands described in para-
graph (a) of this section shall be sub-
ject to such conditions as that official
may prescribe with respect to the use
and protection of the nonmineral in-
terests in the lands, but may be issued
without the consent of that official.
§ 3400.3-2 Department of Defense lands.
The Secretary may issue leases with
the consent of the Secretary of De-
fense on acquired lands set apart for
military or naval purposes only if the
leases are issued to a governmental
entity which:
(a) Produces electrical energy for
sale to the public;
(b) Is located in the state In which
the leased lands are located; and
(c) Has production facilities in that
state, and will use the coal produced
from the lease within that state.
§3400.3-3 Department of Agriculture
lands,
(a) Subject to the provisions of
§3400.3-1, the Secretary may issue
leases that authorize ..surface coal
mining operations on Federal lands
within a National Forest or a National
Grassland, where:
(1) There are no significant recre-
ational, timber, economic or other
values which may be incompatible
with the surface mining operations;
and
(2) Either (i) the surface mining op-
erations are incident to an under-
ground coal mine; or (ii) the Secretary
of Agriculture determines (on lands
west of the 100th Meridian that do not
have significant forest cover) that sur-
face mining complies with the Multi-
ple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960,
the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments
Act of 1976. the National Forest Man-
agement Act of 1976, and the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977.
(b) The Secretary may not issue
leases that would authorize surface
mining operations on Federal lands
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-13
within the boundaries of the Custer
National Forest. §3400.3-4 Trust pro-
tection lands. The regulations in this
group do not apply to the leasing and
development of coal deposits held in
trust by the United States for Indians.
See 43 CFR 3500.0-5(s). Regulations
governing those deposits are found in
25 CFR Chapter I.
§3400.4 Federal/State government coop-
eration.
(a) In order to implement the re-
quirements of law for Federal-State
cooperation in the management of
Federal lands, a Department/State re-
gional coal team shall be established
for each coal region. The team shall
consist of a Bureau of Land Manage-
ment .field representative for each
State in the region, who will be the
State Director, or, in his absence, his
designated representative; the Gover-
nor of each State or, in his absence,
his designated representative; and a
representative appointed by and re-
sponsible to the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management. The Di-
rector's representative shall be chair-
man of the team. If the region is a
multi-State region under the jurisdic-
tion of one Bureau of Land Manage-
ment State Office, the State Director
shall designate a second representa-
tive.
Cb) Each regional coal team shall
consider and suggest policy for region-
al target setting, tract delineation, and
site specific analysis in the coal pro-
duction region, guide and review tract
ranking, and conduct the selection and
sale scheduling process in order to sug-
gest regional lease sale alternatives to
be analyzed In the regional lease sale
environmental statement and to be
recommended to the Secretary. Each
team member may submit a lease sale
schedule alternative which shall be
treated equally In the draft and final
regional lease sale environmental
statement.
(c) Upon completion of the final re-
gional lease sale environmental state-
ment, the chairman shall submit the
recommendations of the regional coal
team to the Director. Any disagree-
ment as to the recommendations
among the team shall be documented
and submitted by the chairman along
with the team recommendation. The
Director shall submit the final region-
al environmental statement to the
Secretary- for his decision, together
with the recommendations of the
team and any recommendations the
Director may wish to make after
review of the final statement.
(d) The regional coal team shall also
serve as the general Department/
State forum for all other major De-
partment coal management program
decisions in the region, concerning
preference right lease applications.
PROPOSED EU6.ES
public body and small business set-
aside leasing, emergency lease, ex-
changes, and readjustment of lease
terms and exploration licenses.
(e) Participation in the proceedings
of a regional coal team need not be
limited to the designated representa-
tives of the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment State Directors or the Gover-
nors. Additional representatives of
State and Federal agencies, may par-
ticipate directly in. team meetings or
indirectly- in the prepesallon of mate-
rial to assist the team 'at. different
points in the process at. the request of
the team chairman. At a minimum,
participation shall be solicited from
State and Federal agencies with spe-
cial expertise in topics considered by
the team or with direct responsibilities
in areas potentially affected by coal
management decisions. However, at
every point in the deliberations the of-
ficial team spokespersons for the
Bureau of Land Management and for
the Governors shall be those designat-
ed under paragraph (a) of this section.
PART 3410— EXPLORATION LICENSES
Subpart 3410— Exploration LicentM
Sec.
3410.0-1 Purpose.
3410.0-2 Objective.
3410.0-3 Authority.
3410.0-4 Responsibilities.
3410.1 Exploration licenses— Generally.
3410.1-1 Lands subject to exploration li-
censes.
3410.1-2 When an exploration license is re-
quired.
3410.2 Prelicensing procedures.
3410.2-1 Application for an exploration li-
cense.
3410.2-2 Environmental review.
3410.2-3 Cultural resources.
3410.2-4 Threatened or endangered spe-
cies.
3410.2-5 Surface management agency.
3410.2-8 Substantial disturbance to the
natural land surface.
3410.3 Exploration licenses.
3410.3-1 Issuance and termination of an
exploration license.
3410.3-2 -Limitations on exploration li-
censes.
3410.3-3 Operating regulations.
3410.3-4 Surface protection and reclama-
tion.
3410.3-5 Ground and surface water data.'
3410.3-6 Bonds.
3410.4 Use of data.
3410.5 Use of surface.
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.
Subpart 3410— Exploration licenses.
§3410.0-1 Purpose.
This subpart provides for the issu-
ance of licenses to explore for coal de-
posits subject to disposal under Group
3400.
§3410.0-2 Objective.
The objective of this subpart is to
allow private parties singularly or
16813
jointly to explore coal deposits to
obtain geological, environmental, and
other pertinent data concerning the
coal deposits.
§3410.0-3 Authority.
(a) These regulations are issued
under the authority of the statutes
listed in § 3400.0-3 of this Group, prin-
cipally section 30 of the Mineral Leas-
ing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 189).
(b) These regulations primarily im-
plement section 2(b) of the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920. as amended by
section 4 of the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1976 (30 U.S.C.
201(b)).
§3410.0-4 Responsibilities.
(a) The Bureau of Land Manage-
ment exercises the Secretary's discre-
tionary authority to determine wheth-
er exploration licenses are to be
issued. The Bureau is also responsible
for issuing and cancelling exploration
licenses and terminating the period of
liability of the licensee under any
bond he may have posted as a condi-
tion of license issuance. The regula-
tions in this Subpart shall be adminis-
tered by the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management through the State
Director and the authorized officer,
subject to the supervisory authority of
the Secretary. The Bureau of Land
Management State Office having ju-
risdiction over the lands involved (43
CFR Subpart 1821) is also the Office
of Record.
(b) The Geological Survey exercises
the Secretary's authority regarding
operations conducted within the area
covered by the license, including re-
sponsibility for all geological, econom-
ic, and engineering determinations.
(c) The authorized officer, in consul-
tation with the Geological Survey, and
where appropriate, the surface man-
agement agency, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the surface owner, if
other than the United States, formu-
lates the requirements to be incorpo-
rated in exploration licenses for the
protection of the surface resources
and for reclamation.
(d) The Geological Survey, after
consultation with the authorized offi-
cer, and where appropriate, the sur-
face management agency and the
surfce owner, if other than the United
States, shall provide technical review
and approval of the exploration plan.
The Geological Survey shall recom-
mend bonding requirements to the
Bureau of Land Management. Upon
the completion of exploration oper-
ations, the Geological Survey shall
recommend termination of the period
of the licensee's liability under any
bond posted.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL *«, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-14
16814
§ 3410.1 Exploration licenses— Generally.
§3410.1-1 Lands subject to exploration li-
censes,
(a) Exploration licenses may be
Issued for:
(1) Lands administered by the Secre-
tary that are subject to leasing,
§ 3400.2;
(2) Lands administered by the Secre-
tary of Agriculture through the Forest
Service or other agency that are sub-
ject to leasing. § 3400.2;
(3) Coal deposits in lands which have
been conveyed by the United States
subject to a reservation to the United
States of the mineral or coal deposits,
to the extent that those deposits are
subject to leasing under § 3400.2; and
(4) Coal or lignite deposits in ac-
quired lands set apart for military or
naval purposes.
(b) No exploration license shall be
issued for land on which a lease has al-
ready been issued.
§3410.1-2 When an exploration license is
required.
(a) An exploration license shall not
be required for "casual use" as defined
in 30 CFR 211.10(a).
(b) No person may conduct explora-
tion activities for commerical purposes
on lands subject to this subpart with-
out an exploration license.
(c) Exploration activities conducted
without an exploration license in vio-
lation of paragraph (b) of this section
shall constitute a trespass, and shall
be subject to the provisions of 43 CFR
9239.5-3U).
§ 3410.2 Prelicensing procedures.
§3410.2-1 Application for an exploration
license.
(a) Exploration license applications
shall be submitted at the Bureau of
Land Management State Office having
jurisdiction over the lands covered in
the application (43 CFR Subpart
1821). The applications shall be sub-
ject to the following requirements:
(1) No specified form of application
is required.
(2) The area to be explored shall be
described by legal description or, if on
unsurveyed lands, by metes and
bounds.
(3) Each application shall contain
three copies of an exploration plan
which complies with the requirements
of 30 CFR 211.10(a).
(4) Each application and its support-
ing documents shall be filed with a
nonrefundable filing fee (43 CFR
3473.2).
(5) Coal exploration license applica-
tions shall normally cover no more
than 25,000 acres in a reasonably com-
pact area and entirely within one
State. Applications for more than
25,000 acres must include a justlfica-
PROPOSED RULES
tion for an exception to the normal
acreage limitation.
(b) Any person qualified to hold a
lease under the provisions in Subpart
3472 of this chapter may apply for an
exploration license.
(c) Nothing in this Subpart shall
preclude the authorized officer from
issuing a call for expressions of leasing
interest in exploration licenses for a
given area.
(d) Applicants for exploration li-
censes shall be required to provide an
opportunity for other parties to par-
ticipate in exploration under the li-
cense on a pro rata cost sharing basis.
(1) Immediately upon the filing of
an application for an exploration li-
cense the applicant shall publish a
"Notice of Invitation," approved by
the authorized officer, once every
week for four consecutive weeks in at
least one newspaper of general circula-
tion in the area where the lands cov-
ered by the license application are sit-
uated. This notice shall contain an in-
vitation to the public to participate In
the exploration under the license.
Copies of the Notice of Invitation
shall be filed with the authorized offi-
cer two weeks prior to publication by
the applicant, for posting in the
proper Bureau of Land Management
Office and for Bureau of Land Man-
agement's publication of the Notice of
Invitation in the Federal Register.
(2) Any person who elects to partici-
pate in the exploration program con-
tained in the application shall notify
the authorized officer and the appli-
cant in writing within 30 days after
the final publication. Any person who
seeks to participate in the exploration
program, but who wants the explora-
tion program modified in any respect
shall submit, with his notification to
the authorized officer, three copies of
an exploration plan that complies with
the requirements of 30 CFR 211.10(a),
showing the modifications that would
be required in the exploration plan in
which he seeks to participate. The au-
thorized officer may require modifica-
tion of the original exploration plan to
accommodate the needs of additional
participants.
(e) An application to conduct explo-
ration which could have been conduct-
ed as a part of exploration under an
existing or recent coal exploration li-
cense may be rejected.
§3410.2-2 Environmental review.
(a) Before an exploration license
may be issued, the authorized officer,
using the exploration plan submitted
by the applicant, as approved by the
Geological Survey, shall make an as-
sessment of the potential effect of
such exploration on the area and its
environment. Aspects of the environ-
ment to be examined include surface
water and groundwater; fish and other
aquatic resources; wildlife habitats
and populations; visual resources; rec-
reational resources; cultural resources:
and social factors in the affected area,
(b) If. before issuance of the license,
the authorized officer determines that
an environmental statement is re-
quired by Section 102(2X0 of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2XO), a state-
ment shall be prepared.
§3110.2-3 Cultural resources.
If lands in or nominated for inclu-
sion in the National Register of His-
toric Places contain cultural resources
which might be affected by an action
taken under an exploration license, no
exploration license for such land shall
be authorized until after compliance
with section 106 of the Historic Preser-
vation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f). Other cul-
tural resource values shall also be pro-
tected pursuant to Section 105 of the
Historic Preservation Act.
§3410.2-4 Threatened or endangered spe-
cies.
If threatened or endangered species
of fauna or flora or their critical habi-
tat would be destroyed or adversely
modified as a result of the issuance of
an exploration license, no exploration
license for such lands shall be author-
ized. In making this determination the
authorized officer shall consult any
other surface management agency,
and if the presence of threatened or
endangered species or their habitat is
suspected or known, with the Fish and
Wildlife Service in accordance with 50
CFR Part 402.
§ 3410.2-5 Surface management agency.
The authorized officer may issue an
exploration license covering lands the
surface of which is under the jurisdic-
tion of any Federal agency other than
the Bureau of Land Management only
in accordance with those conditions
prescribed by the surface management
agency concerning the use and protec-
tion of the nonmineral interests in
those lands.
§3410.2-6 Substantial disturbance to the
natural land surface.
No exploration license shall be
Issued if exploration under it would
result in substantial disturbance to the
natural land surface. Substantial dis-
turbance to the natural land surface
means any disturbance other than
that necessary to determine the
nature of the overlying strata and the
depth, thickness, shape, grade, quality
and hydrologic conditions of the coal
deposit, or which causes unnecessary
and undue degradation of the lands.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54-MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
HHUHHBnfl
MBatmaaiaM— ai^Ma
§3410.3 Exploration licensee.
§ 3410.3-1 Issuance and termination of an
exploration license.
(a) The authorized officer has the
discretion of issuing an exploration li-
censes or rejecting the application
therefor under this subpart.
(b) An exploration license shall
become effective on the date specified
by the authorized officer as the date
when exploration activities may begin.
An exploration license shall not be
valid for more than two years from its
effective date. Cleanup and reclama-
tion must be completed during this
period.
(c) An exploration plan approved by
Geological Survey shall be attached
and made a part of each exploration li-
cense issued.
(d) Subject to the continued obliga-
tion of the licensee and the surety
company to comply with the terms
and conditions and special stipulations
of the exploration license, the explora-
tion plan, and the regulations, a licens-
ee may relinquish an exploration li-
cense for all or any portion of the
lands in it. A relinquishment shall be
filed in the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment State Office in which the origi-
nal application was filed. See 43 CFR
Subpart 1821.
(e) An exploration license may be re-
voked by the authorized officer for
noncompliance with its terms, the ex-
ploration plan, or the regulations,
after the authorized officer has noti-
fied the licensee of the violation(s) in
writing and the licensee has failed to
correct the violation(s) within the
period prescribed in the notice.
(f) Should a licensee request a modi-
fication to the exploration plan, the
Mining Supervisor, with the concur-
rence of the authorized officer, and
where appropriate the surface man-
agement agency, may approve the
modification if geologic or other condi-
tions warrant. If modification of the
exploration plan could result in sig-
nificant disturbance or damage, the
authorized officer, after consultation
with the Mining Supervisor, and
where appropriate, the surface man-
agement agency, may adjust the terms
and conditions of the license to miti-
gate such disturbance or damage.
Unless the licensee concurs in the ad-
Justed terms and conditions of the li-
cense, the modification of the explora-
tion plan will not be approved.
(g) When unforeseen conditions that
could result in significant disturbances
or damage to the environment are en-
countered, or when geologic or other
physical conditions warrant a modifi-
cation in the approved exploration
plan, (1) the authorized officer, after
consultation with the Mining Supervi-
sor, and where appropriate, the sur-
face management agency, may adjust
the terms and conditions of the explo-
ration license, or (2) the Mining Su-
pervisor, after consultation with the
authorized officer and where appropri-
ate, the surface management agency,
may direct adjustment in the explora-
tion plan. If_ the licensee does not
concur in the adjustment of the terms
of the exploration license and explora-
tion plan, he may relinquish the ex-
ploration license.
. Ch) Exploration licenses shall not be
extended. Exploration operations may
not be conducted after the exploration
license has expired. The licensee may
apply for a new exploration license as
described in §3410.3-1. A new explora-
tion license may be issued simulta-
neously with the termination of the
existing exploration license.
§ 3410.3-2 Limitations on exploration li-
censes.
(a) The issuance of exploration li-
censes for an area shall not preclude
the issuance of leases under applicable
regulations for that area. If a lease is
issued for lands included in an explo-
ration license, the authorized officer
shall cancel the exploration license on
the effective date of the lease for
those lands which are common to
both.
§3410.3-3 Operating regulations.
The licensee shall comply with the
provisions of the operating regulations
of the Geological Survey (30 CFR Part
211). Copies of the operating regula-
tions may be obtained from the
Mining Supervisor. Authorized repre-
sentatives of the Secretary and, where
appropriate, any surface management
agency shall be permitted to inspect
the premises and operations. The li-
censee shall provide for the free in-
gress and egress of Government offi-
cers and other persons using the lands
under authority of the United States.
§ 3410.3-4 Surface protection and recla-
mation.
(a) The authorized officer shall in-
clude in each exploration license re-
quirements and stipulations to protect
the environment and associated natu-
ral resources and to ensure reclama-
tion of the land disturbed by explora-
tion.
(b) The exploration plan shall be de-
signed to prevent substantial disturb-
ance of the natural land surface.
(c) The authorized officer may issue
an exploration license for Federal
lands underlying private surface. The
establishment of the bond amount,
when the exploration license will em-
brace such lands, shall reflect any
agreement or lack of agreement be-
tween the license applicant and the
surface owner with respect to consent
to or compensation for operations on
16815
the surface of the lands In the explo-
ration license.
§ 3410.3-5 Ground and surface water data.
The applicant may be required to
collect and report ground and surface
water data to the authorized officer.
§ 3410.3-6 Bonds.
(a) Bonding provisions In Subpart
3474 of this chapter apply to these
regulations.
(b) Prior to issuing an exploration li-
cense, the authorized officer, after
consultation with the Mining Supervi-
sor and, where appropriate, the sur-
face management agency and the sur-
face owner, shall insure that the
amount of the bond or bonds to be
furnished is sufficient to assure com-
pliance with the terms and conditions
of the exploration license, exploration
plan and regulations. In no event shall
the amount of such bond be less than
$5,000.
(c) Upon completion of exploration
and reclamation activities that are in
compliance with the terms and condi-
tions of the exploration license, the
exploration plan, and the regulations,
or upon discontinuance of exploration
operations and completion of such rec-
lamation as may be needed to the sat-
isfaction of the authorized officer and.
where appropriate, the surface man-
agement agency, the authorized offi-
cer shall terminate the period of liabil-
ity of the compliance bond. Where the
surface of the land being explored is
privately owned, the authorized offi-
cer shall not terminate the period of
liability under the compliance bond
until each surface owner has notified
the authorized officer, in writing, that
the surface has been reclaimed in a
satisfactory manner. Should the li-
censee and any surface owner be
unable to agree on the adequacy of
the reclamation, the authorized offi-
cer shall make the final determina-
tion. The period of liability under the
compliance bond shall be terminated
after it is determined that the terms
and conditions and special stipulations
of the exploration license, the explora-
tion plan, and the regulations have
been met.
§3410.4 Use of data.
The licensee shall furnish to the
Mining Supervisor copies of all data
(including, but not limited to, geologi-
cal, geophysical, and core drilling anal-
yses) obtained during exploration. The
licensee shall submit such data and,
where appropriate, the methods by
which the data were gathered, at such
time and in such form as required by
the Mining. Supervisor, the authorized
officer, or surface management
agency, or as specified in this subpart.
the license, or the plan. All propri-
etary data shall be considered confi-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 197V
A-16
16816
dential and not made public until the
areas involved have been leased or
until the Mining Supervisor deter-
mines that public access to the data
would not damage the competitive po-
sition of the licensee, whichever comes
first. (30 CFR 211.6; 43 CFR 2.20).
§ 3410.5 Use of surface.
(a) A licensee shall be entitled to use
for exploration purposes only that sur-
face area of the lands in the explora-
tion license that is authorized in the
exploration plan.
(b) Operations under these regula-
tions shall not unreasonably interfere
with or endanger operations author-
ized, under any other Act or regula-
tion- , Mk
(c) The licensee shall comply with
all applicable Federal, State and local
laws and regulations, including the
regulations in Group 3000 and Part
3460 of this chapter, and 30 CFR Parts
211 and 741.
PAKT 3420— COMPETITIVE LEASING
Subpart 3420— ConipollHvo tailing
Sec.
3420.0-1 Purpose.
3420.0-2 Objectives.
3420.0-3 Authority.
3420.0-6 Policy.
3420.1 Procedures.
3420.1-1 General.
3420.1-2 Lands subject to evaluation for
leasing.
3420.1-3 Known Recoverable Coal Re-
source Areas.
3420.1-4 Special leasing opportunities.
3420.1-5 Requirement for land use plan-
ning. . ..
3420.2 Land use plans prepared by the
Bureau of Land Management.
3420.2-1 Preparation of a land use plan.
3420.2-2 Coal resource information.
3420.2-3 Areas acceptable for further con-
sideration for leasing.
3420.2-4 Hearing requirements.
3420.2-5 Consultation with Federal surface
management agencies.
3420.2-6 Consultation with states.
3420.2-7 Identification of lands as accept-
able for further consideration.
3420.3 Regional production goals and tar-
gets.
3420.3-1 General.
3420.3-2 Evaluation of coal needs.
3420.3-3 Use of final regional leasing tar-
gets.
3420.3-4 Environmental assessment.
3420.4 Activity Planning— The leasing
process.
3420.4-1 Area identification process.
3420.4-2 Expressions of leasing interest.
3420.4-3 Preliminary tract delineation.
3420.4-4 Regional tract ranking, selection,
and scheduling.
3420.4-5 Environmental assessment.
3420.4-6 Public meetings on proposed
tracts.
3420.5 Final consultations.
3420.5-1 Timing of consultation.
3420.5-2 Consultation with surface man-
agement agencies.
3420.5-3 Consultation with Governors.
3420.6 Qualified surface owner consent
considerations.
PROPOSED RULES
3420.6-1 Receipt of written consent.
3420.6-2 Announcement of tracts under
consideration.
3420 6-3 Consideration of consents.
3420.7 Adoption of final regional lease sale
schedule.
3420.7-1 Announcement.
3420.7-2 Revision.
Subpart 3422— Looso Salos
3422.1 Economic evaluation.
3422 1-1 Mineral evaluation and initial
comments on fair market value and
maximum economic recovery.
3422.1-2 Estimated fair market value de-
termination.
3422.2 Notice of sale.
3422.3 Sale procedures.
3422.3-1 Conduct of sale.
3422.3-2 Other bidding systems.
3422.3-3 Unsurveyed lands.
3422.3-4 Consultation with Attorney Gen-
eral.
3422.4 Award of lease.
Subpart 3425 — Emorgoncy looting
3425.0-1 Purpose.
3425.0-2 Objective.
3425.0-6 Policy.
3425.1 Application for emergency lease.
3425.1-1 Where filed.
3425.1-2 Form.
3425.1-3 Qualifications of the applicant.
3425.1-4 Emergency leasing criteria— exist-
ing operations.
3425.1-5 Emergency leasing criteria— hard-
ship cases.
3425.1-6 Preliminary data.
3425.1-7 Rejection of applications.
3425.2 Land use plans.
3425.3 Environmental assessment.
3425.4 Consultation and sale procedures.
3425.5 Diligence and other lease terms.
Subpart 3427— Spill Etlalo loosing
3427.0-1 Purpose.
3427.0-3 Authority.
3427.1 Coal deposits subject to consent.
3427.2 Procedures.
3427.3 Validation of information.
3427.4 Refusal of consent.
3427.5 Pre-existing consents.
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.: 30 U.S.C.
351-359; 30 U.S.C. 521-531; 30 U.S.C. 1201 et
seq.; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.; and 15 U.S.C. 631-644
Subpart 3420 — Comp«ti»ivo leasing
§3420.0-1 Purpose.
This subpart sets forth the proce-
dures for the competitive leasing of
rights to extract Federal coal.
§ 3420.0-2 Objectives.
The objectives of these regulations
are to establish standards and proce-
dures for considering and, where ap-
propriate, causing development of coal
deposits through a leasing system in-
volving land use planning and environ-
mental assessment processes; to ensure
that an adequate supply of Federal
coal is developed efficiently in compli-
ance with laws, planning processes,
and other safeguards designed to pro-
tect society and the environment; to
ensure that coal deposits are leased at
their fair market value; and to ensure
that coal deposits are developed in
consultation, cooperation, and coordi-
nation with the public, State and local
governments, and involved Federal
agencies.
§ 3420.0-3 Authority.
(a) The regulations in this part are
issued under the authority of the stat-
utes cited in § 3400.0-3 of this Group.
(b) The regulations in this Part im-
plement: (1) Primarily Section 2(a) of
the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as
amended by Sections 2 and 3 of the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act
of 1976 (30 U.S.C. 201(a)); and (2) The
Small Business Act of 1953, as amend-
ed (15 U.S.C. 631 eq seq.).
§ 3420.0-6 Policy.
All leases except those issued under
the provisions of Part 3430 of this
chapter shall be Issued competitively.
There shall be special opportunity
lease sales for qualified public bodies
and for small businesses. The fair
market value determinations for spe-
cial opportunity lease sales shall be de-
rived in the same manner as for other
lease sales. Before each sale, the De-
partment shall evaluate and compare
the method or methods of mining that
will achieve the maximum economic
recovery of the resource. The Depart-
ment shall receive fair market value
for all coal leased.
§ 3420.1 Procedures.
§ 3420.1-1 General.
The competitive leasing program is
part of the Federal coal management
program and consists of four principal
elements: Comprehensive, multiple re-
source land use planning; establish-
ment of regional leasing targets; spe-
cific tract identification, ranking selec-
tion, and scheduling; and lease sale.
The application of criteria for unsuita-
bility for mining is an integral part of
land use planning. All competitive
lease sales under this subpart shall be
Initiated by the Secretary; applica-
tions for a competitive lease will be ac-
cepted only when filed under the pro-
visions of Subpart 3425 of this chap-
ter.
§ 3420.1-2 Lands subject to evaluation for
leasing,
(a) All lands subject to coal leasing
under the mineral leasing laws are
subject to evaluation under this sub-
part (43 CFR 3400.2).
§3120.1-3 Known recoverable coal re-
source areas.
No area outside a designated Known
Recoverable Coal Resource Area
(KRCRA) shall be leased. Each
KRCRA shall be formally designated
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOI.-44,- NO. S4-MONDAY. MARCH 19, 1979
A-17
by publication in the Federal Regis-
ter.
§3420.1—1 Special lea.ienii opportunities.
(a) The Secretary shall, under the
procedures established in this subpart,
including § 3402.4. reserve and offer a
reasonable number of lease tracts
through competitive lease sales open
only to a restricted class of potential
bidders. Except for the limitation on
bidding contained in paragraph (b) of
this section, all requirements in this
Subpart apply equally to special leas-
ing opportunities, including the re-
quirement that coal be leased at its
fair market value.
(b) Special leasing opportunities
shall be provided for two classes of po-
tential lessees:
(1) Public bodies.
(i) Only public bodies with a definite
plan for producing energy for their
own use or for their members or cus-
tomers shall bid for leases designated
as special leasing opportunities for
public bodies. To qualify as a definite
plan, a plan must clearly state the in-
tended use of the coal and have been
approved by the governing board of
the public body submitting the plan.
(ii) Each public body shall submit
evidence of qualification as part of its
expression of leasing interest or upon
submission of a bid if no expression of
interest is made.
(iii) The Secretary may designate
certain coal lease tracts as special leas-
ing opportunities for public bodies
only If a public body has submitted an
expression of leasing interest under
§3420.1-2. requesting that the proce-
dures of this section apply.
(iv) Leases issued under this section
to public bodies may be assigned only
to other public bodies.
(2) Small businesses.
(1) When necessary to comply with
the requirements of the Small Busi-
ness Act. the Secretary shall designate
a reasonable number of tracts for spe-
cial leasing opportunities for business-
es qualifying under 13 CFR Part 121.
(ii) Leases issued under this section
may be assigned only to other small
businesses qualifying under 13 CFR
Part 121.
§ 3420.1-5 Requirement for land use plan-
ning.
(a) The Secretary may not issue a
lease for coal development unless the
lands containing the coal deposits
have been included in a land use plan
or land use analysis and unless the
sale is compatible with, and subject to,
any relevant stipulations, guidelines
and standards set out in that plan.
(b) Plans for lands administered by
the Bureau of Land Management shall
be prepared in accordance with the
provisions of § 3420.2 of this title.
PROPOSED RULES
(c) Plans for lands under the juris-
diction of the Department of Agricul-
ture or any other Federal agency with
surface management authority over
lands subject to leasing shall be pre-
pared by the. surface managing
agency, except as provided in the fol-
lowing subsection.
(d) In an area where the Secretary
finds either that there is no Federal
interest in the surface or that the coal
deposits in an area are insufficient to
justify the costs of a Federal land use
plan, lands may be leased if
(1) The lands have been included in
a comprehensive land use plan pre-
pared, authorized or recognized by the
state in which the lands are located,
which shall govern Federal coal leas-
ing recommendations affecting surface
management except for those deci-
sions for which the Secretary is re-
sponsible under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
and those recommendations that are
in conflict with Federal law; or
(2) The lands have been included in
a land use analysis completed under
the provisions of Group 1600 of this
chapter, or, prior to adoption of the
regulations comprising Group 1600, a
comparable land use analysis under
existing procedures.
(e) In the absence of a completed
land use plan, a member of the public
may petition for a land use analysis
for coal related uses of the land as
provided for in this group.
§3420.2 Land use plans prepared by the
Bureau of Land Management
§ 3420.2-1 Preparation of a land use plan.
The Bureau of Land Management
shall prepare resource management
plans and land use analyses as pro-
vided in Group 1600 of this chapter,
or, prior to adoption of the regulations
comprising Group 1600, a comparable
management plan or land use analysis
under existing procedures.
§ 3420.2-2 Coal resource information.
A land use plan shall contain an as-
sessment of the amount of coal recov-
erable by either surface or under-
ground mining operations or both.
§3420.2-3 Areas acceptable for further
consideration for leasing.
The major land use planning deci-
sion concerning the coal resource shall
be the identification of areas accept-
able for further consideration for leas-
ing. The areas acceptable for further
consideration for leasing shall be iden-
tified by the following screening pro-
cedure's in each subsection below.
Each screening procedure shall be ap-
plied only to those lands still identi-
fied as acceptable for further consider-
ation for leasing after application of
16817
the screening procedure in each pre-
ceding subseetion.
(a) Only those areas subject to eval-
uation for leasing (§3420.1-2) that
have high or moderate development
potential coal deposits shall be consid-
ered acceptable for further considera-
tion for leasing.
(1) This determination shall be
based generally on the Geological Sur-
vey's Coal Resource Occurrence-Coal
Development Potential (CRO/CDP)
maps. If CRO/CDP maps are not
available, the Geological Survey shall
use other available data sources to es-
timate coal development potential for
the land management agency. If other
data sources are used, the same crite-
ria for designating coal reserves as
high or moderate development poten-
tial shall be used.
(2) Coal companies, the State gov-
ernments, and members of the public
may submit non-confidential coal geol-
ogy and economic data during the ear-
lier inventory phase of planning.
Where such information is determined
to indicate significant development po-
tential for an area not shown to be of
medium or high potential in the CRO/
CDP maps, the area shall be consid-
ered medium development potential
and shall not be excluded from fur-
ther consideration and application of
the remaining screens in the land use
planning process.
(b) The authorized officer shall,
using the unsuitability criteria and
procedures set out in Subpart 3461,
review Federal lands to assess where
there are areas unsuitable for all or
certain types of surface mining oper-
ations. Areas considered unsuitable for
all types of surface mining operations
shall not be acceptable for further
consideration for leasing.
(1) On Federal lands administered
by the Bureau of Land Management,
an unsuitability assessment will be
made as part of the land use planning
process using both the environmental
and resource management criteria of
the bureau, including those set out in
Subpart 3461, and the reclamation and
environmental criteria developed by
the Office of Surface Mining Reclama-
tion and Enforcement. This assess-
ment shall be consistent with any deci-
sion of the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement to des-
ignate lands unsuitable or to termi-
nate a designation in response to a pe-
tition.
(2) In cases where land use plans to
be used for coal activity planning have
been prepared by other Federal agen-
cies or State governments that do not
contain an unsuitability assessment,
the Secretary shall conduct an assess-
ment. This assessment shall provide
opportunity for public comment.
(c) Multiple land use decisions shall
be made which may eliminate addi-
FEDERAL REWSTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-18
16818
tional coal deposits from further con-
sideration for leasing to protect other
resources values of a locally important
or unique nature not included in the
unsuitability criteria discussed in para-
graph Cb) of this subsection.
(d) While preparing a land use plan,
the Bureau of Land Management shall
consult with all qualified surface
owners, as defined in § 3400.0-5 of this
chapter, whose lands overlie coal de-
posits to determine preference for or
against mining by other than under-
ground mining techniques.
(1) Where a significant number of
qualified surface owners in an area
who have not previously granted any
option, preference, or right of first re-
fusal to any other party to mine their
land by other than underground
mining methods have expressed a
preference against mining by other
than underground mining techniques,
and that area would be considered ac-
ceptable for further consideration for
leasing only for development by un-
derground mining techniques. In addi-
tion, the area may be offered for lease
sale for development by other than
underground mining techniques if
there are no acceptable alternative
areas available to meet the regional
leasing target.
(2) An area subject to paragraph
(dXl) of this subsection may be con-
sidered acceptable for further consid-
eration for leasing for mining by sur-
face underground or surface methods
If the number of qualified surface
owners who have expressed their pref-
erence against mining by other than
underground methods is reduced
below a significant number because
qualified surface owners who ex-
pressed their preference against such
mining subsequently have given writ-
ten consent for such mining; (ii) the
ownership of the surface estate of
qualified surface owners who ex-
pressed such a preference is trans-
ferred to surface owners who are not
qualified surface owners or to quali-
fied surface owners who subsequently
provided consent to such mining; or
(ill) both (i) and (ii); and the land use
plan is amended accordingly.
(3) If any qualified surface owner in-
dicates a firm intent not to give writ-
ten consent during the expected life of
the land use plan to the mining of the
coal deposit underlying his surface
estate, and signs a written statement
that he has not granted any option,
preference, or right of first refusal to
acquire consent to any other party,
that portion of a coal deposit underly-
ing his land, if otherwise considered
acceptable for further consideration
for leasing as a result of the applica-
tion of the screen in the preceding
subsection, shall be considered accept-
able for leasing for development by
underground mining methods.
PROPOSED RULES
(4) A portion of a coal deposit con-
sidered acceptable for leasing for
mining by underground methods pur-
suant to clause (3) may be considered
for leasing also by other than under-
ground mining techniques if the own-
ership of the surface estate is subse-
quently transferred to a surface owner
other than a qualified surface owner
or to a surface owner who does not ex-
press a firm intent not to provide con-
sent for such mining and if the land
use plan is amended.
(e) The land use plan may provide
for Impact thresholds to manage coal
development. Thresholds are pre-spec-
ified levels or rates of coal develop-
ment, measured by impacts on natu-
ral, social or economic resources, for
the areas assessed as acceptable for
further consideration for leasing.
Where a threshold exceeded, the
Bureau of Land Management may
halt, suspend or condition further con-
sideration of the areas acceptable for
leasing.
(f) Where the areas acceptable for
further consideration for leasing
within a planning unit, in the judg-
ment of the local land manager con-
tain more reserves than are likely to
be needed for leasing over the life of
the plan, the plan may specify broad
areas greater than 60,000 acres for ear-
liest consideration for leasing, if any is
to be done.
§ 3420.2-4 Hearing requirements.
The Bureau of Land Management
shall conduct a public hearing on the
proposed land use plan before it is
adopted if such a hearing is requested
by any person may be adversely affect-
ed by the adoption of the plan. A
hearing conducted under Group 1600
of this chapter may fulfill this re-
quirement.
The authorized officer conducting
the hearing shall: (a) publish a notice
of the hearing in a newspaper of gen-
eral circulation at least once in each of
two consecutive weeks in the affected
geographical area;
(b) provide an opportunity for testi-
mony by anyone who so desires; and
(c) record the proceedings of the
hearing so that a complete transcript
of the hearing can be compiled if re-
quested.
§3420.2-5 Consultation with Federal sur-
face management agencies.
In situations where another Federal
surface management agency adminis-
ters limited areas overlying Federal
coal within the boundaries of a land
use plan being prepared by the Bureau
of Land Management, the Bureau of
Land Management shall consult with
the other agency to obtain its recom-
mendations as to the acceptability for
further consideration for leasing of
the land the other agency administers.
§ 3420.2-6 Consultation with States.
Before adopting a land use plan that
makes any formal assessment of lands
acceptable for further consideration
for leasing, the Bureau of Land Man-
agement shall consult with the state
Governor and the state agency
charged with the responsibility for
maintaining the state's unsuitability
program (43 CFR 3461.4-1).
§3420.2-7 Identification of lands as ac-
ceptable for further consideration.
Formal determination that lands are
acceptable for further consideration
for leasing will be made under Subpart
1600 of this chapter. Any lands deter-
mined to be acceptable may be further
considered for leasing under §3420.4
of this Subpart.
§3420.3 Regional production goals and
leasing targets.
§ 3420.3-1 General.
(a) The coal production regions to
which this section applies shall be des-
ignated by publication in the Federal
Register. They may be changed, or
their boundaries altered, by publica-
tion in the Federal Register.
(b) The Secretary in consultation
with the Secretary of the Department
of Energy, affected State Governors,
and other concerned parties shall bi-
ennially adopt regional coal produc-
tion goals provided by the Department
of Energy adjusted as necessary. The
Secretary shall also establish regional
leasing targets for the purposes of set-
ting Departmental priorities, aiding
the States in planning for potential
future impacts of coal development.
and supplying the guidance for estab-
lishing the amount of coal to be of-
fered through proposed lease sale
schedules.
§ 3420.3-2 Evaluation of coal needs.
This section sets out the process the
Department shall follow in establish-
ing regional coal needs and appropri-
ate coal management actions.
(a) Proposed regional production
goals stating the desired levels of pro-
duction of coal from various types of
coal shall be established by the De-
partment of Energy consistent with
the procedures as agreed to by the
Secretaries of Energy and of the Inte-
rior on production goals for energy re-
sources on Federal lands.
(b) The Secretary shall, within 60
days of receipt of the proposed pro-
duction goals, review and comment
thereon to the Secretary of Energy.
The Secretary shall inform the Secre-
tary of Energy of potential policy con-
ficts or problems concerning, but not
limited to: (1) the Department's re-
sponsibility for the management, regu-
lation, and conservation of natural re-
sources; (2) the capabilities of Federal
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-19
lands and Federal coal resources to
meet these goals; and i3> the national
need for coal resources balanced
against the environmental conse-
quences of developing the resources.
(c) The Secretary of Energy shall
Issued final production goals not more
than 30 days after receipt of the Sec-
retary's comments. In establishing or
revising regional lease saie schedules,
the Secretary shall be guided by these
final production goals of the Depart-
ment of Energy.
(d) The Department of Energy's
final production goals and related pro-
duction statistics of the Department
of the Interior shall be provided to the
regional coal teams. Each team shall
consider the regional situation and
recommend adjustments to the rele-
vant regional production goal based on
such factors as (1) public comment re-
ceived as a result of the publication of
the Department of Energy's final re-
gional production goals in the Federal
Register, (2) testimony received in
hearing(s) held by the team in the
region, (3) state government, BLM
State Office, regional development
policies, (4) administrative capacity to
satisfy the indicated level of leasing
based on the Department of Energy's
final production goals, and (5) other
information available to the states and
BLM State offices which they believe
should receive consideration by the
Secretary in his review of the Depart-
ment of Energy's final regional pro-
duction goals. Regional teams may
also recommend preliminary regional
leasing target to the Secretary.
(e) The Secretary shall consider the
findings and recommendations of the
regional coal teams and other relevant
Information and review the Depart-
ment of Energy's final regional pro-
duction goals to determine whether
any adjustments thereto are neces-
sary. The Secretary shall either adopt
such goals or make the necessary ad-
justments thereto and then adopt the
goals, as adjusted. Upon adoption of
the Department of Energy's final re-
gional production goals, with or with-
out adjustments, such goals, together
with the reasons for adjustments, if
any, shall be transmitted to the Secre-
tary of Energy and published in the
Federal Register.
<f) The Secretary shall also establish
preliminary regional leasing targets,
based on: the Department of Energy's
final regional production targets, as
adopted; recommendations of the re-
gional coal teams; and other relevant
information. In establishing the pre-
liminary regional leasing targets, at a
minimum, the expected and potential
production for existing coal leases,
noncompetitive coal leases, non-Feder-
al coal holdings, expected non-Federal
leasing, the level of competition
within the coal region, and the envi-
PROPOSED RULES
ronmental benefits of leasing in the
management of the Federal coal rej
source shall be evaluated. Preliminary
regional leasing targets shall reflect
the difference between desired levels
of production in the region and pro-
jected supplies, shall be set out on the
basis of reserve coal tonnages, shall be
for 4 years, and shall be based on the
coal that would come into production
as a result of Federal leasing. Consid-
eration shall also be given to the rela-
tive economic, social, and environmen-
tal differences among the coal regions,
the comparative benefits of developing
Federal rather than non-Federal coal.
and other factors as the Secretary
deems appropriate. The preliminary
leasing targets shall be published in
the Federal Register.
(g) In the process of adopting the
Department of Energy's final regional
production goals and establishing pre-
liminary regional leasing targets, the
Secretary may call a national confer-
ence of the regional coal teams to
review their recommendations.
(h) In addition to participating in
the Secretary's regional hearings on
the Department of Energy's final re-
gional production goals, the coal and
utility industries, agricultural and
community organizations, environ-
mental groups, and other concerned
parties shall be afforded the opportu-
nity to submit their views on these
goals, as adopted by the Secretary,
and on the preliminary regional leas-
ing targets by notice in the Federal
Register and, if sufficient requests are
received, from the public through ad-
ditional hearing(s).
(1) The Secretary shall consult with
the State Governors seeking their
views concerning the Department of
Energy's final regional production
goals, those goals as adopted by him,
and the preliminary leasing targets.
The Secretary shall particularly seek
the Governors' views regarding the re-
lationship between the preliminary re-
gional leasing targets and potential
social and economic effects on the
State and region.
(j) Based on the consultation with
the State Governors, consideration of
the Department of Energy's final re-
gional production goals, as adopted,
and the comments received on these
goals and the preliminary regional
leasing targets, the Secretary shall
adopt final regional leasing targets for
the guidance of regional coal teams as
set out in § 3420.3-3 of this title.
(k) Two years after the adoption of
each new regional lease sale schedule,
the Secretary shall review the final re-
gional leasing target which applies to
that schedule through the process set
out in paragraphs (b) through (j> of
this section and, if necessary, revise
the final regional leasing target for
the final 2 years of the sale schedule.
16819
(1) The initial regional leasing tar-
gets established for the first regional
lease sales may be established by the
Secretary based on the analysis pre-
sented in the final Environmental
Statement, Federal Coal Management
Program, and related analyses without
retard to the provisions of paragraphs
(a) through (j) of this section
§ 3 120.3-3 Use of final regional leasing
targets.
(a) The final regional leasing targets
shall guide the regional coal team in
the preliminary delineation, ranking,
selection and scheduling of tracts for
lease sale in the coal production re-
gions.
(b) The final regional leasing targets
do not represent final leasing decisions
and may, with the approval of the Sec-
retary, be revised by the regional coal
teams as a result of consideration of
national needs and social, economic,
and environmental factors that are
taken into account during the tract
ranking, selection, and scheduling
process. Circumstances justifying a re-
vision of a final regional leasing target
may include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(1) Expressed industry interests in
coal development In the region not re-
flected in the final regional leasing
target;
(2) Expressed interests and rationale
thereof from a community or group of
communities for coal development in
the adjacent and surrounding areas;
(3) Expressed interests for special
opportunity sales;
<4) Adjustments Indicated by the
success or failure of the scheduled
lease sales in meeting the final region-
al leasing targets;
(5) An expressed desire on the part
of the state or local government to
shift or disperse development patterns
In the region or sub-region by addi-
tional leasing, reductions In leasing, or
shifts in locations of lease sales; and
(6) Results from the analyses con-
tained in the regional lease sale envi-
ronmental statement.
(c) In any case, one alternative shall
be analyzed in the regional lease sale
environmental statement that repre-
sents the applicable final leasing
target established pursuant to
§3420.3-2(j).
(d) Where a regional coal team
elects to propose a revision of the rele-
vant final regional target during the
selection of tracts proposed for lease
sale and the design of the recommend-
ed regional sale schedule, the team
shall clearly set out the proposed revi-
sion and the reasons therefor in the
regional sale environmental statement
and request public comment on the
proposed revision in the public partici-
pation process for the regional lease
sale environmental statement. Such a
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1»79
A-20
16820
proposed revision shall not become ef-
fective unless and until the Secretary
approves the recommend*! alternative
leasing target and schedule.
§ 3420.3-1 Environmental assessment
An environmental assessment in the
form of an updating of the coal pro-
grammatic environmental statement
shall be conducted by the Secretary if
he: , ,
(a) determines that the regional pro-
duction goals and regional leasing tar-
gets established in accordance with
§§3420.3-2(e) and 3420.3-2(j) vary sig-
nificantly from those analyzed in the
most current version of the coal pro-
grammatic statement, or
(b) has reason to believe that the
tracts available for selection in the
next round of the tract ranking, selec-
tion, and scheduling process (Section
3420.4-4) In any given region(s) may
generate significantly different levels
or types of environmental impacts
than were anticipated in the most cur-
rent coal programmatic environmental
statement.
§3420.4 Activity planning— The leasing
process.
S 3420.4-1 Area identification process.
This section describes the process
for identifying, ranking, selecting, and
scheduling lease tracts after land use
planning has been completed. This
process constitutes the "activity plan-
ning" aspect of the coal management
program. Activity planning may occur
(a) where areas acceptable for further
consideration for leasing have been
identified In the Bureau of Land Man-
agement's land use planning process
or (b) where the surface management
agency or State has completed accept-
able planning under § 3420.1-5 of this
title. Activity planning may also occur
where coal leasing and development is
consistent with land use plans com-
pleted prior to the adoption of this
group 3400 of this title that have been
supplemented by the application of
the unsuitability criteria in accordance
with subpart 3461 of this title and con-
sultation with the surface owners in
accordance with § 3420.2 of this title.
53420.4-2 Expressions of leasing interest
(a) A call for expressions of leasing
interest may be made after areas ac-
ceptable for further consideration for
leasing have been Identified through
the Bureau of Land Management's
land use planning process. A call for
expressions of leasing interest may
also be made in other areas having ac-
ceptable planning completed by other
surface management agencies or state
governments under the provisions of
§ 3420.1-5 of this title. The call may be
made in any one. several, or all of the
above mentioned areas when the Sec-
PROPOSEO RULES
retary determines, using the regional
production goals and regional leasing
targets established under § 3420.4-1 of
this title, that additional federal coal
leasing may be needed to meet local,
state, or national needs in the foresee-
able future.
(b) The expressions of leasing inter-
est process provided for in this Sub-
part is not exclusive. Any individual,
business entity, governmental entity,
or public body may participate in the
general public participation opportuni-
ties and procedures that are part of
the land use planning process which
precedes the call for expressions of
leasing interest. •
(c) Entities qualifying for special
leasing opportunities as defined in
§ 3420.1-4 of this title shall make their
intentions known through submission
of expressions of leasing interest when
called for by the Secretary.
(d) Any expressions of leasing inter-
est may include supportive nonpro-
prietary data. Such data may include,
but are not limited to, location and
quantities of coal desired, time frames,
proposed use of coal, technical coal
data, commitment with private surface
and coal owners and adjacent land
owners or lessees, and basic develop-
ment proposals. Expressions which
identify quantity and quality of coal
and timing of need without specifying
a location shall be given as serious
consideration in activity planning as
those that specify a location. Data
which are considered proprietary shall
not be submitted as part of an expres-
sion of leasing interest.
(e) Public inspection and copying of
information submitted under this sub-
part shall be governed by the proce-
dures in part 2 of this title.
(f) Each call for expressions of leas-
ing interest shall be published as a
notice in the Federal Register and in
at least one newspaper of general cir-
culation in each affected state. This
notice of request shall specify the area
or areas Involved, information re-
quired, the time period within which
expressions may be submitted, where
to write for further information, and
where to submit the expressions.
§ 3420.4-3 Preliminary tract delineation.
(a) Preliminary tracts shall be delin-
eated for analysis during ranking, se-
lection, and scheduling. The prelimi-
nary tract's may include non-Federal
as well as Federal coal reserves and
may include existing mining oper-
ations.
(b) In addition to expressions of leas-
ing interest, factors to be considered in
delineating preliminary tracts may in-
clude but are not limited to:
(1) Technical coal data, including re-
serve tonnage, rank, sulfur content,
seam thickness, and ratio of overbur-
den to recoverable coal;
(2) Conservation considerations, in-
cluding preliminary calculation of
maximum economic recovery, land
ownership patterns, and the potential
formation of logical mining units; and
(3) Surface ownership, including
qualified surface owners' preferences
expressed in consultation during land
use planning, and the existence of
written surface owner consents and
their terms. .
(c) The potential tracts shall be de-
lineated in accordance with §3471.1-2
of this title and by seam(s) or coal
bed(s). More than one potential tract
may be delineated for a specific coal
bed or potential mining unit.
(d) When potential public bodies
have submitted expressions of leasing
interest, tracts to meet those needs
shall be delineated when and where
technically feasible for public body
special leasing opportunities in accord-
ance with § 3420.1-4 of this title.
(e) In cooperation with the Small
Business Administration, tracts may
be delineated when and where techni-
cally feasible for small business special
leasing opportunities in accordance
with § 3420.1-4 of this title.
(f ) Other tracts to be used In a lease
or fee exchange (43 CFR Subparts
3435, 3436. and 3437) may be delineat-
ed.
(g) A tract profile shall be formulat-
ed for each preliminary tract. The pro-
file shall include:
(DA summary of the information
used in the delineation of the tract,
and
(2) A site-specific environmental in-
ventory and preliminary analysis.
(h) The regional coal team shall de-
termine the location, priority, and
timing of both preliminary tract delin-
eation and site-specific environmental
inventory and analysis, subject to limi-
tations of data availability, budget,
and manpower.
1 3420.4-4 Regional tract ranking, selec-
tion, and scheduling.
(a) If the final regional leasing
target established for any given region
suggests a need for additional Federal
coal leasing, tracts shall be ranked and
a proposed lease sale schedule shall be
prepared pursuant to this section.
Tracts may also be ranked for other
coal management purposes.
(b)(1) The ranking classes shall be
those of high medium and low desir-
ability. In ranking the tracts three
major data categories shall be consid-
ered: coal economics, natural environ-
ment, and socioeconomic. The list of
subf actors to be considered under each
category shall be those determined by
the regional coal team as appropriate
for that region. The regional coal
team may defer the ranking of any
given preliminary tract for which they
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54-MONOAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-21
determine there is generally insuffi-
cient data.
(2) The regional coal team shall so-
licit the recommendations of Federal
and State agencies having appropriate
expertise. These Federal agencies
shall include but are not limited to the
Department of Energy, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Geological
Survey, and the Office of Surface
.Mining, and any Federal agency that
administers the surface of any lands in
a preliminary tract.
(c) Upon completion of tract rank-
ing, the regional coal team shall select
tracts for inclusion in alternative pro-
posed lease sale schedules or for other
management purposes to be forwarded
to the Secretary for final selection.
(1) The total of the coal reserves in-
cluded in the selected tracts in the
proposed lease sale schedules shall be
based on the applicable final regional
leasing target established under the
provisions of § 3420.3 of this title.
(2) The regional coal team shall
select tracts for scheduling based on
tract ranking as adjusted using the fol-
lowing considerations: (i) the compati-
bility of coal quality and market
needs; (ii) cumulative environmental
and socioeconomic impacts; (iii) the
compatibility of reserve size and
demand distribution for tracts; (iv)
public opinion; (v) avoidance of future
by-pass situations; and (vi) special
leasing opportunity requirements.
(3) The regional coal team shall
identify all those combinations of
tracts which they feel may be equally
desirable to meet the applicable final
regional target. In addition to tract
combinations designed to meet the
leasing target, the team may recom-
mend tract combinations representing
alternative leasing targets based on
impact assessment or revised regional
coal demand assessments, but the rea-
sons for all such recommendations
must be thoroughly documented.
<d) A notice of intent to rank tracts
shall be published in the Federal Reg-
ister and selected newspapers of gen-
eral distribution within the region no
less than 30 days before the ranking
process begins. The notice shall con-
tain a description of the tracts to be
ranked and procedures under which
any interested parties may become in-
volved in the process.
Ce) The results of the process, in-
cluding the tract rankings, the tracts
selected, the proposed schedule, and
the list of ranking criteria used shall
be published in the regional lease sale
environmental statement prepared on
the tract ranking, selection, and sched-
uling process (Section 3420.4-5). De-
tailed information on each of the
tracts ranked will be available for in-
spection In the Bureau of Land Man-
agement State offices that have juris-
diction within the region (43 CFR
PROPOSED RULES
Subpart 1821). Those parties interest-
ed in commenting on the results of the
tract ranking, selection and scheduling
process shall have the opportunity to
do so in the environmental statement
process, prior to any final decision by
the Secretary to adopt a regional sale
schedule including any of the selected
tracts.
(f) Upon the close of the comment
period on the draft environmental
statement the regional coal team shall
analyze the comments and make any
revisions in the ranking, selection and
scheduling analysis they feel are nec-
essary. The team shall then forward
their final recommendations of alter-
natives for a regional leasing schedule
to the Secretary.
(g) The tract ranking, selection, and
scheduling process shall normally be
repeated every four years with an
update performed ever two years in ac-
cordance with any need identified by
the regional production goal and re-
gional leasing target. The Secretary
may, in consultation with, the
Governor(s) of the affected States and
surface management agencies, initiate
or postpone the process to respond to
considerations such as major planning
updates, new preliminary tract delin-
eations, and increases or decreases in
regional leasing targets.
§ 3420.4-5 Environmental assessment (a)
In conjunction with the tract ranking,
selection, and scheduling process, a re-
gional environmental statement of the
proposed alternative lease sale sched-
ules shall be prepared in accordance
with the provisions of the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969. The
statement shall consider both:
(1) The site-specific potential envi-
ronmental impacts of each tract being
considered for lease sale; and
(2) The intraregional cumulative en-
vironmental impacts of the proposed
leasing action and alternatives, and
other coal development activities.
(b) The regional lease sale environ-
mental statement prepared for the
original regional lease sale schedule
shall be updated if the Department
makes any significant alterations to
that schedule not considered in the
original environmental statement.
§3420.1-6 Public meetings on proposed
tracis.
After the draft regional lease sale
environmental statement has been
completed on alternative lease sale
schedules, a public meeting shall be
held in the region affected to an-
nounce the results of the ranking, se-
lection, and scheduling process; the al-
ternative lease sale schedules; and the
potential Impacts, Including proposed
mitigation measures.
16821
§ 3420.5 Final consultations.
13420.5-1 Timing of consultation.
Following the release of the final re-
gional lease sale environmental state-
ment, and prior to adopting a regional
lease sale schedule, the Secretary shall
formally consult with the Governors
of those States within which lease
sales are under consideration, and
with any surface management agency
other than the Interior Department
which administers lands overlying any
lease tract under consideration.
§ 3420.3-2 Consultation with surface man-
agement agencies.
(a) The Secretary, for any proposed
lease tract containing lands the sur-
face of which is under the jurisdiction
of any agency other than the Depart-
ment of the Interior, shall request
that the agency; (1) consent, if it has
not already done so, to the issuance of
the lease (43 CFR 3400.3-1), and (2) if
it consents, prescribe the terms and
conditions the Secretary will impose in
any lease which the head of the
agency requires for the use and pro-
tection of the nonmineral interests in
those lands.
(b) The Secretary may prescribe ad-
ditional terms and conditions that are
consistent with the terms proposed by
the surface management agency to
protect the interest of the United
States and to safeguard the public wel-
fare.
§ 3420.5-3 Consultation with Governors.
(a) The Secretary shall consult the
Governor of the State in which any
proposed lease tract is located. The
Secretary shall give the Governor a
specified period of time to comment,
not less than 30 days nor more than 60
days, before issuing a final decision re-
garding any potential lease sale within
the state.
(b) When a lease proposal would
permit surface mining within the
boundaries of a National Forest, the
Governor of the State in which the
land to be leased is located shall be so
notified by the Secretary. If the Gov-
ernor fails to object to the lease pro-
posal in 60 days, the Secretary may
adopt a sale schedule including that
tract. If, within the 60 day period, the
Governor, in writing, objects to the
lease proposal, the Secretary may not
hold the sale for that lease tract. Issu-
ance of the lease will be held in abey-
ance for six months from the date
that the Governor objects to the lease.
The Governor may, during this six-
month period, submit a written state-
ment of reasons why the lease sale
should not be held or the lease issued,
and the Secretary shall, on the basis
of this statement, reconsider the lease
proposal.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. M— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-2?
16822
§3420.6 Qualified surface owner consent
considerations.
5 3420.6-1 Receipt of written consent.
Prior to making a final decision on a
regional lease sale schedule, the Secre-
tary shall give consideration to what
acceptable written consents have been
received for those potential lease sale
tracts under consideration for inclu-
sion in the regional lease sale sched-
ule. The Secretary's considerations
shall be given in accordance with the
split estate leasing provision of section
3427 of this title.
5 3420.6-2 Announcement of tracts under
consideration.
Following the release of the final re-
gional lease sale environmental state-
ment, the Secretary shall publish an
announcement in the Federal Regis-
ter containing:
(a) A legal description of all tracts
under consideration for inclusion in
the regional lease sale schedule, and
(b) the deadline for anyone to
submit a written consent for any tract
under consideration by the Secretary
for selection for inclusion in the re-
gional lease sale schedule.
§ 3420.6-3 Consideration of consents.
The Secretary shall, pursuant to
5 3427.2, take the existence of written
consents into consideration in making
his decision on the final regional lease
sale schedule. All other ranking, selec-
tion, and scheduling factors being
nearly equal, those tracts for which
acceptable written consents have been
received shall be chosen for inclusion
in the regional coal lease sale schedule
over those for which no acceptable
written consents have yet been re-
ceived.
§3420.7 Adoption of Final regional lease
sale schedule.
§ 3420.7-1 Announcement
Following completion of the require-
ments of §§3420.5 and 3420.6 of this
title the Secretary shall announce a
final regional lease sale schedule. The
announcement shall be published in
the Federal Register and contain a
legal description of each tract included
in the lease sale schedule and the date
when each tract has been tentatively
scheduled for sale.
§ 3420.7-2 Revision.
(a) The Secretary may revise either
the list of tracts included in the sched-
ule or the timing of the lease sales in
accordance with any alternatives con-
sidered in the regional lease sale envi-
ronmental statement and during con-
sultation with the Governors and
other surface management agencies if
such revision would be in the public
interest. Notice of any such revision
PROPOSED RULES
shall be published in the Federal Reg-
ister.
(b) Any regional lease sale schedule
may be updated or replaced as a result
of a new regional tract ranking, selec-
tion, and scheduling effort conducted
in accordance with the provisions of
§ 3420.4-4 of this title.
Subpart 3422— Loc»6 So1«»
§ 3422.1 Economic evaluation.
§3422.1-1 Mineral evaluation and initial
comments on fair market value and
maximum economic recovery.
After announcement of the regional
lease sale schedule, the authorized of-
ficer shall:
(a) Solicit public comment on the
fair market value of the tract or tracts
to be offered. Such solicitation shall
present the standards and procedures
that guide the Government's appraisal
and ask for comments on these items
which affect the appraisal such as the
terms and conditions of similar market
transactions, the quality and extent of
the coal resource, the price that the
mined coal would bring in the market
place, the cost of producing the coal,
the interest rate at which anticipated
income streams should be discounted,
the value of the surface estate (if pri-
vate surface), the mining method or
methods which would achieve maxi-
mum economic recovery of the coal
and any other items which might
affect the appraisal of the tract or
tracts. Such comments will be solicited
for a period of 30 days. The authorized
officer shall forward copy of all com-
ments to the USGS.
(b) Request from the Geological
Survey an evaluation including a coal
resource economic value (CREV) and a
maximum economic recovery (MER)
determination. The CREV includes
the consideration of coal quality,
quantity, and marketability, probable
mining methods, costs, prices, prelim-
nary logical mining units, and other
appropriate elements. Prior to issu-
ance of the sale notice, the Geological
Survey shall forward this evaluation
to the authorized officer. This evalua-
tion shall include the coal resource
economic value, mining method evalu-
ation, estimated recoverable reserves
by seam, MER determination, coal
quality assessment, royalty and com-
pliance bond recommendations; an es-
timate of reclamation fees that would
be generated by mining the proposed
lease: and public comments on fair
market value and maximum economic
recovery.
§ 3422.1-2 Estimated fair market value de-
termination.
When the authorized officer receives
the mineral evaluation and accompa-
nying information, he shall estimate
the fair market value of the coal de-
posits and the proposed lease. Mini-
mum bonus bids shall be not less than
$25 per acre. The estimated fair
market value, minimum acceptable
bid, deferred bonus and other finan-
cial terms and requirements shall be
the same for special opportunity,
emergency, and regular competitive
leasing. When the estimated fair
market value has been determined.
the authorized officer shall inform the
Geological Survey of the determina-
tion.
§ 3422.2 Notice of sale.
(a) Prior to the lease sale, the au-
thorized officer shall publish a notice
of the proposed sale in the Federal
Register and in a newspaper(s) of gen-
eral circulation in the county or equiv-
alent political subivision in which the
tracts to be sold are situated. The
newspaper notice shall be published
once a week for four consecutive
weeks. Such notice shall also be posted
in the Bureau of Land Management
State Office and mailed to any affect-
ed surface owner. The lease sale shall
not be held until at least 30 days after
such posting.
(b) The notice shall:
(1) List the time and place of sale,
the type of sale, bidding method, and
the description of the tract(s) being
offered and minimum acceptable bid
to be considered;
(2) Contain a request for final com-
ments on the fair market value of the
tract(s) and maximum economic recov-
ery and state the address for submit-
ting the comments and;
(3) Contain information on where a
detailed statement of the terms and
conditions of the lease(s) which may
result from the lease sale may be ob-
tained.
(c) The detailed statement of the
terms and conditions of the lease(s)
sale offered for sale shall:
(1) Contain an explanation of the
manner in which the bids may be sub-
mitted;
(2) Contain a statement that, if
sealed bids are submitted, they may
not be modified or withdrawn unless
the modifications or withdrawals are
received prior to the time fixed for
opening the bids;
(3) Contain a statement that, if the
sale is by oral bid, sealed bids may also
be submitted;
(4) Contain a warning to all bidders
concerning 18 U.S.C. 1860, which pro-
hibits unlawful combination or intimi-
dation of bidders;
(5) Specify that the Secretary re-
serves the right to reject any and all
bids and the right to offer the lease to
the next highest qualified bidder if
the successful bidder fails to obtain
the lease for any reason;
(6) Specify that if any bid is reject-
ed, any deposit shall be returned;
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-23
(7) Contain a notice that each bid
shall be accompanied by the bidder's
qualifications (43 CFR 3472.2-2);
(8) Contain a notice to bidders that
the winning bidders shall have to
submit the information required by
the Attorney General for post-sale
review (43 CFR 3422.3-4);
(9) Require the bidder to pay one
fifth of the bonus bid;
(10) If appropriate, contain a copy of
any written consent given by a quali-
fied surface owner and its terms, in-
cluding payments which the high
bidder, if not the holder of the con-
sent, will have to make; and
(11) If appropriate, contain a notice
that bidders shall file a statement that
all information they hold relevant to
written consents affecting any area of-
fered in the sale in which the bid is
submitted has been filed with the
proper Bureau of Land Management
State Office (43 CFR Subpart 1821) in
accordance with the provisions of sub-
part 3427 of this title.
(d) The successful bidder, if any,
shall reimburse the Government for
the cost of publishing the notice of
sale as a condition of lease issuance.
(e) After the lease sale notice is pub-
lished and the final public comments
on fair market value and maximum
economic recovery are received, these
comments shall be forwarded to the
Geological Survey for consideration in
the final mineral evaluation, which
will be presented to the authorized of-
ficer at the convening of the sale
panel.
§3422.3 Sale procedures.
§3422.3-! Conduct of gale.
(a) Sealed bids shall be received only
until the hour on the date specified in
the notice of competitive leasing; all
bids submitted after that hour shall be
returned. The authorized officer shall
read all sealed bids. If the announced
procedure is to receive sealed bids fol-
lowed by oral bids, the authorized offi-
cer conducting the sale shall open and
read the sealed bids, after which the
oral bidding shall begin at the level of
the highest sealed bid. Only those sub-
mitting sealed bids may offer oral bids.
After the oral bidding has ceased, the
highest bid shall be announced. No de-
cision to accept or reject the high bid
will be made at this time.
(b) A sale panel shall eoqvene to de-
termine: (1) if the high bid was prop-
erly submitted; (2) if it reflects the
fair market value of the tract; and (3)
whether the bidder is qualified to hold
the lease. The recommendations of
the panel shall be sent to the author-
ized officer who shall make the final
decision to accept a bid or reject all
bids. The successful bidder shall be no-
tified in writing. The Department re-
serves the right to reject any and all
PROPOSES RULES
bids regardless of the amount offered,
and shall not accept any bid that is
less than fair market value. The au-
thorized officer shall notify any bidder
whose bid has been rejected and in-
clude in such notice a statement of the
reason for the rejection. The Depart-
ment reserves the right to offer the
lease to the second high bidder if the
successful bidder fails to execute the
lease, or is for any reason disqualified
from receiving the lease.
(c) Each sealed bid shall be accompa-
nied by a certified check, cashier's
check, bank draft, money order, per-
sonal check or cash for one-fifth of
the amount of the bonus, and a quali-
fications statement over the bidder's
own signature with respect to citizen-
ship and interests held, as prescribed
in 1 3472.2-2 of this title. A high oral
bidder shall tender by certified check,
cashier's check, bank draft, money
order, personal check or cash at the
close of bidding any additional amount
necessary to bring the amount ten-
dered with his sealed bid up to one
fifth of his oral bid.
§ 3422.3-2 Other bidding systems.
(a) The use of intertract bidding'
competition is authorized when, and
if, the Bureau of Land Management
and the Geological Survey in consulta-
tion with the Department of Energy
determine it is needed in the public in-
terest. The authorization to use inter-
tract bidding competition does not
preclude the use of any other form of
competitive bidding procedures. Tracts
Including nontransferable, . written
consent from a qualified surface owner
given prior to August 3, 1977, shall be
offered only In a sale using intertract
bidding competition.
(b) In intertract bidding competi-
tion, the winning bidders, if any, are
selected by determining first the tract
with the single highest bid per ton of
reserves among all tracts, then the
tract with the second highest bid and
so forth. The bids may be weighted to
compensate for differences in the
physical quality of the coal in such
tracts. If leases are awarded they shall
be awarded for tracts proceeding in
this sequence until the total reserve
tonnage sought to be leased in that
sale has been reached. Tracts receiving
lower bids per ton shall not be leased
as a result of a bid submitted in that
sale.
§ 3422.3-3 L'nsurveyed lands.
If the land is unsurveyed, the suc-
cessful bidder shall not be given 30
days notice to comply with the re-
quirements of § 3422.4 of this title for
lease issuance until the land has been
surveyed under §3471.1-2 of this title
(See 43 CFR 3471.1-2.)
16823
with Attorney
§ 3422.3-4 Consultation
General.
(a) Subsequent to a lease sale, but
prior to issuing a lease, the authorized
officer shall require the successful
bidder to submit the information set
out in this subsection relating to the
bidder's coal holdings to the author-
ized officer for transmittal to the At-
torney General. Upon receipt of the
Information, the authorized officer
shall notify the Attorney General of
the proposed lease issuance, the name
of the successful bidder, and the terms
of the proposed lease. The statement
of coal holdings that the authorized
officer will transit shall include the
following best available information
required by the Attorney General for
each coal tract or deposit controlled
by the bidder.
(1) Location of the tract or deposit
by county and state (and by public
land survey subdivisions if applicable);
(2) Whether the deposit is Federally
or non-Federally owned;
(3) Interest held by bidder (if Feder-
al, lease or lease application number;
If non-Federal, a statement of the
nature of the interest — owner, lessee,
operator, joint venturer);
(4) Surface ownership of the tract;
(5) If the surface is owned by other
than bidder, nature of agreement with
the surface owner if any;
(7) Reserves broken down: (i) by ton-
nage and acreage; and (ii) into reserves
minable by surface and underground
mining methods;
(8) BTTJ content or rank of the coal;
and
(b) Any successful bidder who has
previously submitted" a statement of
coal holdings may file a statement in-
corporating the prior statement by
reference to the date and proposed
lease or lease application serial
number, and containing any and all
changes in holdings since the date of
the prior submission.
(c) The authorized officer may not
issue a lease until 30 days after the At-
torney General receives the notice and-
statement of the successful bidder's
coal holdings. If the Attorney General
notifies the authorized officer that the
statement of coal holdings is incom-
plete or Inadequate, the 30-day period
shall stop running on the date of such
notification and not resume running
until the Attorney General receives
the supplemental information.
(d) The authorized officer shall not
Issue the lease to the successful bidder
if, during the 30-day period, the Attor-
ney General notifies the authorized
officer that lease issuance would
create or maintain a situation incon-
sistent with the antitrust laws.
(e) If the Attorney General notifies
the authorized officer that a lease
should not be issued, the authorized
officer may:
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. S4— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-24
16824
(1) Reject all bids or may notify the
Attorney General in accordance with.
paragraph (a) o£ this section that issu-
ance of the proposed lease to the next
qualified high bidder is under consid-
eration; or
(2) Issue the lease if, after a public
hearing is conducted on the record in
accordance with the Administrative
Procedure Act. the authorized officer
determines that: (i) issuance of the
lease is necessary to carry out the pur-
poses of the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1975; (ii) issuance
of the lease is consistent with the
public interest; and (iii) there are no
reasonable alternatives to the issuance
of the lease consistent with the Feder-
al Coal Leasing Amendments Act of
1976, the anti-trust laws, and the
public interest.
(f) If the Attorney General does not
reply in writing to the notification in
paragraph (a) of this section within 30
days, the authorized officer may issue
a lease without waiting for the advice
of the Attorney General.
§ 3422.4 Award of lease.
(a) After the authorized officer has
accepted a high qualified bid and noti-
fied the successful bidder, and the At-
torney General has not objected to
lease issuance or the procedures in
5 3422.3-4(e) have been completed, the
authorized officer shall send four
copies of the lease form to the success-
ful bidder. These forms shall be com-
pleted, signed, and returned within 30
days of receipt. In addition, the bidder
shall, within the 30-day period, pay
the balance of the bonus bid, if re-
quired, pay the first year's rental, and
file a compliance bond as required by
Subpart 3474 of this chapter. Upon re-
ceipt of the above, the authorized offi-
cer shall execute the lease.
(b) If the successful bidder dies
before the lease is issued, the provi-
sions found in § 3472.2-4 of this title
shall apply.
(c) At least half of all competitive
coal lease sales shall be held on a de-
ferred bonus payment basis. In a de-
ferred bonus payment, the lessee shall
pay the bonus payment in 5 equal in-
stallments; the first installment shall
be submitted with the bid. The bal-
ance shall be paid in equal annual in-
stallments due and payable on the
next four anniversary dates of the
lease. If a lease is relinquished or oth-
erwise cancelled or terminated, the
unpaid remainder of the bid shall be
immediately payable to the United
States.
Subpart 3425— Emergency Leafing
§ 3425.0-1 Purpose.
This subpart sets forth the regula-
tions for the emergency leasing of
Federal coal.
PROPOSED RULES
§3425.0-2 Objective.
The objective of this subpart is to
provide an application process
through which the Department may
consider holding leare sales apart from
the norma! competitive leasing process
(Sections 3420.4 through 3423.7)
where an emergency need for unleased
coal deposits is demonstrated.
§3125.0-6 Policy.
Leasing proposals developed by this
application process differ from those
that originate through the normal
leasing process only with respect to (a)
the method of tract delineation and
(b) the maimer in which the planning
and environmental assessment process
will be completed. Only as much of a
coal deposit as is necessary to meet
the need of the emergency lease appli-
cant without compromising the
normal leasing process shall be of-
fered.
§ 3425.1 Application for emergency lease.
§3425.1-1 Where filed.
Application for an emergency lease
covering lands subject to leasing <43
CFR 3400.2) shall be filed in the
Bureau of Land Management State
Office having jurisdiction over the
lands or minerals involved (43 CFR
Subpart 1821).
§3425.1-2 Form.
An application for an emergency
lease shall be filed on a form approved
by the Director, Bureau of Land Man-
agement. Three copies of the applica-
tion and preliminary and other data
required by this subpart shall be filed.
The application must be accompanied
by the filing fee (43 CFR 3473.2).
§ 3425.1-3 Qualifications of the applicant
Any applicant for an emergency
lease shall meet the qualifications re-
quired of a lessee as specified in sub-
part 3472 of this title.
§ 3423.1-4 Emergency leasing criteria — ex-
isting operations,
(a) An emergency lease sale may be
held in response to an application
under this Subpart if the applicant
can show:
(1) That the application involves an
' existing mining operation that has
been producing coal for at least two
years before the date of application,
and either: (i) the Federal coal is
needed within three years to maintain
an existing mining operation at the
average annual level of production, as
substantiated by the proposed produc-
tion levels stated in a mining plan, or
new contracted level of production on
the date of application, as substantiat-
ed by a complete copy of the supply or
delivery contract, or both; or (ii) if the
coal deposits are not leased they shall
be bypassed in the reasonably foresee-
able future, and if leased, some por-
tion of the tract applied for snail be
used within three years, as substanti-
ated by the proposed production levels
stated in a mining sequence plan; and
(2) That the need for the coal depos-
its shall have resulted from circum-
stances that were beyond the control
of the applicant or that he could not
have reasonably foreseen and planned
for.
(b) The extent of any lease issued
under this section shall not exceed 8
years of coal reserves at the average
annual production level or new con-
tracted level of production on the date
of the application.
§3425.1-5 Emergency leasing criteria-
Hardship cases.
An emergency lease sale may be held
in response to an application under
this Subpart if the applicant can show
that the application involves coal de-
posits that are needed to avoid signifi-
cant hardship to the lease applicant or
users of the coal.
(a) The application shall show that
the coal deposits are unlikely to be de-
lineated or scheduled for sale in the
normal competitive system because:
(1) They are outside a coal produc-
tion region estalished pursuant to
§ 3420.3-l(a);
(2) They are inside a coal production
region in which activities pursuant to
§ 3420.4 have yet to be commenced; or
(3) They are of a size, quality or end
use that is not significantly related to
meeting the regional leasing target.
(b) The application shall show hard-
ship of the following type:
(DA locality has lost or will lose its
alternative sources of domestic coal
supply;
(2) A mine which has been closed
will be reopened, and local unemploy-
ment will be alleviated;
(3) The mine will test new technol-
ogy whose development is supported
by a Federal agency;
(4) Mining and reclamation of the
tract will promote a program or policy
of another surface management
agency, such as rehabilitation of lands
scarred by past uses; or
(5) Similar reasons that the Secre-
tary determines substantially in the
public interest after allowing opportu-
nity for public hearing and consider-
ing the comments therein.
(c) The Secretary may issue a lease
under this subpart to any applicant
listed in the modified court order in
NRDC v. Hughes, 454 F. Supp. 148
(D.D.C. 1978).
§ 3425.1-6 Preliminary data.
(a) Any application for an emergen-
cy lease shall contain preliminary data
to assist the authorized officer in
FEDERAL RESISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-25
PROPOSED RULES
16S25
making an environmental assessment
as described in § 3430.3-1 of this title.
(b) Such preliminary data shall in-
clude:
(1) A map, or maps, (which may be
available from state or Federal
sources) showing the topography,
physical features and natural drainage
patterns, existing roads, vehicular
trails, and utility systems; the location
of any proposed exploration oper-
ations, including seismic lines and drill
holes; to the extent known, the loca-
tion of any proposed mining oper-
ations and facilities, trenches, access
roads or trails, and supporting facili-
ties including the approximate loca-
tion and extent of the areas to be used
for pits, overburden, and tailings; and
the location of water sources or other
resources that may be used in the pro-
posed operations and facilities.
(2) A narrative statement, including;
<i) The anticipated scope, method.
and schedule of exploration oper-
ations, including the types of explora-
tion equipment to be used;
(ii) The method of mining anticipat-
ed, including the best estimate of the
mining sequence and production rate
to be followed;
<iii) The relationship between the
mining operations anticipated on the
lands applied for and existing or
planned mining operations, or support
facilities on adjacent Federal or non-
Federal lands;
(iv) A brief description, including
maps or aerial photographs, as appro-
priate, of: the existing land use within
and adjacent to the lands applied for,
known geologic, visual, cultural, or ar-
chaeological features; and known habi-
tat of fish and wildlife— particularly
threatened and endangered species —
any of which may be affected by the
proposed or anticipated exploration or
mining operations and related facili-
ties;
(v) A brief description of the pro-
posed measures to be taken to control
or prevent fire and to mitigate or pre-
vent soil erosion, pollution of surface
and ground water, damage to fish and
wildlife or other natural resources, air
and noise pollution, adverse impacts to
the social and infrastructure systems
of local communities, and hazards to
public health and safety: reclaim the
surface; and meet other applicable
laws and regulations. The applicant
may submit other pertinent informa-
tion that the applicant wishes to have
considered by the authorized officer;
(vi) A statement which describes the
Intended use of the coal covered by
the emergency application: and
(vii) Any other information which
will show that the application meets
the requirements of this subpart.
(c) The applicant shall not under-
take any mining operations on the
land except for casual use, without
prior authorization by exploration li-
cense. Casual use excludes activities
that cause significant surface disturb-
ance or damage to lands, resources,
and improvements, such as the use of
heavy equipment, explosives, or any
off-road vehicle that could disturb the
land. Determination of significant sur-
face disturbance or damage shall be
made by the authorized officer.
(d) The authorized officer, after re-
viewing the preliminary data con-
tained in an application, and at any
time during an environmental assess-
ment may request additional informa-
tion from the applicant. Where the
surface of the land is held by a quali-
fied surface owner (Section 3400.0-5)
and the mining method to be used is
other than underground mining tech-
niques, the authorized officer shall
obtain documents necessary to show
ownership of surface. The applicant
shall submit evidence of written con-
sent from any qualified surface
owner(s). (See 43 CFR Subpart 3427).
§ 3425.1-7 Rejection of applications.
(a) An application for an emergency
lease shall be rejected In total or in
part when the authorized officer de-
termines that: (1) The application Is
not consistent with conditions for
holding a lease sale specifed in
§3425.1-3 of this title; (2) the lands
listed in the application are not availa-
ble for coal leasing under §3400.2 of
this title; (3) the lands applied for are
assessed to be unsuitable for leasing
under the provisions of subpart 3461
of this title, or lie within an identified
area of critical environmental concern;
(4) the applicant cannot qualify as de-
fined in § 3425.1-2 of this title to hold
a lease under this subpart; (5) prelimi-
nary data required under § 3425.1-5 of
this title, including additional infor-
mation specifically requested in writ-
ing by the authorized officer, are
found to be Insufficient to determine
whether the application meets the
conditions for emergency leasing, and
to complete the environmental assess-
ment satisfactorily; (6) the lease would
violate the integrity of the normal
leasing process; or (7) after thorough
investigation of the issues involved,
leasing of the lands covered by the ap-
plication, for environmental or other
sufficient reasons, would be contrary
to the public interest.
(b) Any application subject to rejec-
tion under paragraph (a)(5) of this
section shall not be rejected until the
applicant is given written notice of the
opportunity to provide requested miss-
ing information and fails to do 30
within the time specified in the deci-
sion issued for that purpose.
§ 3425.2 Land use plans.
No emergency lease shall be issued
under this subpart unless the lands
have been included in a comprehen-
sive land use plan or a land use analy-
sis, as required in §3420.1-5 of this
title. The decision tc issue an emer-
gency lease shall be consistent with
the appropriate land use plan or anal-
ysis.
§ 3425.3 Environmental assessment
(a) Before an emergency lease sale
may be held the authorized officer
shall conduct an environmental assess-
ment of the proposed lease area and
prepare an environmental assessment
record.
(1) The environmental assessment
shall Include:
(i) An evaluation of direct and indi-
rect potential impacts including cumu-
lative impacts of coal leasing and de-
velopment upon the physical and
socio-economic environment of the
proposed lease area and adjacent areas
that may be affected;
(li) An evaluation of the technical
and natural potential for successful
reclamation on the proposed lease
area; and
(iii) An evaluation of all reasonable
alternatives to leasing the area or to
any known plans of operation for the
proposed area.
(2) The environmental assessment
record shall be prepared containing
recommendations and special stipula-
tions regarding:
(i) Lands that should be excluded
from the proposed areas to avoid unac-
ceptable environmental or special im-
pacts, including those lands to be ex-
cluded as identified through the appli-
cation of the unsuitability criteria in
subpart 3461 of this title.
(ii) Any specific measures required
to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts
to, or to reclaim areas that may be ac-
ceptable for leasing and development,
including measures to assure appropri-
ate post-mining land use and measures
to prevent irreparable damage or de-
struction of unique environmental
values that are identified through the
application of the unsuitabaity crite-
ria in subpart 3461 of this title.
(3) If, based upon the environmental
assessment record prepared under (2),
the authorized officer determines that
an environmental statement is re-
quired under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969, either a
statement shall be prepared under 40
CFR 1500, or the authorized officer
may determine that because of critical
environmental considerations under
§ 3425.1-6(a)(7) of this title.
(4) If, based upon the environmental
assessment record prepared under (2),
the authorized officer determines that
an environmental statement is not re-
quired under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969, a finding of
no significant Impact shall be pre-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. £4— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-26
16826
pared and issued in accordance with 40
CFR 1501.4 and 1503.8.
(b) For lease applications involving
lands in the National Forest System,
the authorized officer shall submit the
lease application to the Secretary of
Agriculture for consent, for corr.pie-
tion of an environmental assessment
and for the attachment of appropriate
lease stipulations, and for the making
of any other findings prerequisite to
lease issuance. (43 CFR 3400.3-3).
53425.4 Consultation and sale procedures,
(a) The following sections of subpart
3420 of this title shall apply to all
leases offered for sale under the provi-
sions of subpart 3425:
(1) Section 3420.4-6:
(2) Section 3420.5-1; and
(3) Section 3420.5-2.
(b)(1) Subpart 3422 of this title ap-
plies in full to any sale to be held in
response to an application filed under
subpart 3425 of this title.
(2) In addition to the requirements
set forth in §3422.2 of this title, the
successful.bidder must meet the emer-
gency leasing criteria (See § 3425.1-3).
$ 3425.5 Diligence and other lease terms.
Diligent development and continued
operation shall be required on all
emergency leases consistent with the
provisions governing other competitive
leases (See 43 CFR 3400.0-5).
Subpart 3427— Split Estate Laating.
§ 3427.0-1 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to set
out the protection that shall be af-
forded qualified surface owners of
split estate lands (43 CFR 3400.0-5).
J 3427.0-3 Authority.
(a) These regulations are issued
under the authority of the statutes
cited in § 3400.0-3 of this title.
(b) These regulations primarily im-
plement section 714 of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
Of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1304).
§ 3427.1 Deposits subject to consent
On split estate lands (43 CFR
3400.0-5) where the surface is owned
by a qualified surface owner, coal de-
posits that will be mined by methods
other than underground mining tech-
niques shall not be included in a lease
sale notice without written consent
from the qualified surface owner (43
CFR 3400.0-5) allowing the lessee/op-
erator to enter and commence surface
mining operations.
§ 3427.2 Procedures.
(a) Each written consent, evidence of
written consent, or statement of refus-
al to consent shall be filed with the
appropriate Bureau of Land Manage-
ment State Office (43 CFR Subpart
PROPOSED RULES
1821) at least 30 working days prior to
the publication of the lease sale notice
of the lands to which it applies. It
shall be the responsibility of parties
intending to file consents to be aware
of pending ccai lease sale notice dates.
Generally, these dates shall be as pub-
lished in the final regional sale sched-
ule (43 CFR 3420.7).
(b) Written consent or evidence of
written consent may be filed by any
private person or persons with an in-
terest in the lease sale of split estate
lands. A statement of reiusal to con-
sent shall be filed by the qualified sur-
face owner.
(c) The filing shall, at a minimum
contain the present legal address of
the qualified owner, and. if it is a writ-
ten consent or evidence thereof, a
copy of the written consent or evi-
dence thereof, and the name, owner-
ship, interest, if any, and legal address
of the party who acquired the consent.
(d) At each stage in the tract delin-
eation, ranking and scheduling in that
region, areas covered by written con-
sents that are filed with the appropri-
ate State Office before the final deci-
sion on the pending regional lease sale
schedule shall be given priority over
other split estate areas where there is
a qualified surface owner.
(e) Within fifteen working days after
the filing of a written consent, evi-
dence thereof, or a statement of refus-
al to consent, the State Office shall
verify that the written consent or evi-
dence of such consent meets all of the
following requirements, and that the
statement of refusal to consent meets
the requirements of paragraphs (2)
and (3):
(1) The right to enter and commence
mining is transferable to whomever
makes the successful bid in a lease sale
for a tract which includes the lands to
which the consent applies. A written
consent shall be considered transfer-
able only if. at a minimum, it provides
that after the lease sale for the tract
to which the consent applies (i) the
payment for the consent is to be made
by the successful bidder or (ii) the suc-
cessful bidder is permitted to reim-
burse the company which first ob-
tained the consent for the purchase
price of the consent.
(2) The named surface owner is a
qualified surface owner as defined in
§ 3400.0-5 of this title and resides at
the address specified in the filing.
(3) The title for all lands described
in the filing is held by the named
qualified surface owners.
(f) Upon receipt of a filing from
anyone other than the named quali-
fied surface owner, the authorized of-
ficer shall contact the named qualified
surface owner and request his confir-
mation in writing that the filed, trans-
ferable, written consent to enter and
commence mining has been granted
and that the filing fully discloses all of
the terms of the written consent.
(g) The conditions of (e) and it)
shall be met prior to publication of the
sale notice.
(h) The State Director shall in all
cases notify the person or persons
filing the written consent, evidence of
written consent, or statement of refus-
al to consent of the results of the
review of the filing, including any re-
quest for additional information
needed to satisfy the requirements of
this subpart in cases where insuffi-
cient information was supplied with
the original filing.
(i) The terms and purchase price of
any applicable written surface owner
consent shall be included with the de-
scription of the tract(s) in the notice
of lease sale.
(j) Any statement of refusal to con-
sent shall be treated as controlling
until the land use plan that includes
the area covered by the refusal to con-
sent is revised, or the surface estate is
sold. When revision of the land use
plan is initiated, the qualified surface
owner shall be notified that his prior
statement of refusal has expired, and
given the opportunity to submit an-
other statement.
§ 3427 J Validation of information.
Any person submitting a written
consent shall include with his filing a
statement that the evidence submit-
ted, to the best of his knowledge, rep-
resents a true, accurate, and complete
statement of information regarding
the consent for the area described.
§ 3427.4 Refusal of consent.
Any person having knowledge of
qualified surface owners who have re-
fused outright grant written consent is
asked to notify the proper Bureau of
Land Management State Office. (43
CFR Subpart 1821). Should the au-
thorized officer decide on the basis of
this information, any statement of re-
fusal, or qualified surface owner pref-
erences expressed during land use
planning, that written consent cannot
be obtained for the foreseeable future,
coal deposits that underlie land owned
by such qualified surface owners shall
be eliminated from the regional sale
scheduling process.
§ 3427.5 Pre-existing consents.
An otherwise valid written consent
given by a qualified surface owner
prior to August 4. 1977, shall be con-
sidered valid for the purposes of this
subpart. Where the authorized officer
determines that any such written con-
sent is not transferable to any poten-
tial bidder on the tract in which the
area covered by the consent is includ-
ed, that tract shall be offered for sale
only in a sale using intertract bidding
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-27
competition as defined in §3400.0-5 of
this title.
PART 3430— NONCOMPETITIVE LEASES
Subpart 3430 — Preference Right Lcasea
Sea
3430.0-1 Purpose.
3430.0-3 Authority.
3430.0-7 Scope.
3430.1 Preference right leases.
3430.1-1 Showing required for entitlement
to a lease.
3430.1-2 Commercial quantities defined
3430.2 Application for lease.
3430.2-1 Initial showing.
3430.2-2 Additional information.
3430.3 Planning and environment.
3430.3-1 Land use planning.
3430.3-2 Environmental assessment
3430.4 Pinal showing.
3430.4-1 Request for final showing.
3430.4-2 Additional.
3430.5 Determination of entitlement to
lease.
3430.5-1 Rejection of application.
3430.5-2 Appeals, lack of showing.
3430.5-3 Determination to lease or seek an
exchange.
3430.5-4 Lease exchange.
3430.6 Lease issuance.
3430.5-1 Lease terms.
3430.6-2 Bonding.
3430.6-3 Lease area.
3430.6-4 Duration of leases.
3430.7 Trespass.
Subpart 3431— Negotiated Sales — Rights-of-
Way
3431.0-1 Purpose.
3431.0-3 Authority.
3431.1 Qualified purchaser.
3431.2 Terms and conditions of sale.
Subpart 3433 — Lease Modifications
3432.1 Application.
3432.2 Availability.
3432.3 Terms and conditions.
Subpart 3435 — Lease Exchange
3435.0-1 Purpose.
3435.0-3 Authority.
3435.1 Coal lease exchanges.
3435.2 Qualified exchange proponents-
limitations.
3435.3 Exchange procedures.
3435.3-1 Exchange notice.
3435.3-2 Initial response by lessee or lease
applicant.
3435.3-3 Agreement to terms.
3435.3-4 Determination of value.
3435.3-5 Notice and public hearing.
3435.3-8 Consultation with Governor.
3435.4 Issuance of lease, lease modifica-
tion, or bidding rights.
Subpart 3436 — Lease Exchange— Alluvial
Valley Floors
3436.0-1 Purpose.
3436.0-3 Authority.
3436.1 Qualified exchange proponents.
3436.2 Exchange procedures.
3436.3 Recovery costs.
3436.4 Lease issuance.
Subpart 3437— Coal Exchange — Alluvial Valley
Floors
3437.0-1 Purpose.
PROPOSED RULES
3437.0-3 Authority.
3437.1 Qualification criteria.
3437.1-1 Qualified exchange proponents.
3437.1-2 Unqualified proponents.
3437.2 Exchange procedures.
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.: 30 U.S.C.
521-531; 30 U.S.C. 351-358: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et
seq.; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. and 43 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.
Subpart 3430 — Preference Right leases
§ 3430.0-1 Purpose.
These regulations set forth proce-
dures for processing noncompetitive
(preference right) coal lease applica-
tions on Federal lands.
§ 3430.0-3 Authority.
(a) These regulations are issued
under the authority of the statutes
cited in § 3400.0-3 of this title.
(b) These regulations primarily im-
plement section 2(b) of the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 201(b)).
§3430.0-7 Scope.
Because section 4 of the Federal
Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976,
amending 30 U.S.C. 201(b), repealed
the Secretary's authority to issue or
extend a coal prospecting permit on
Federal lands, the regulations in' this
subpart apply only to lease applica-
tions which have already been filed.
No additional prospecting permits that
confer a preference right to a coal
lease shall be issued. Therefore, these
regulations address only the proce-
dures for processing pending prefer-
ence right lease applications. The sur-
face owner consent provisions of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977 do not apply to pref-
erence right lease applications.
§ 3430.1 Preference right leases.
§3430.1-1 Showing required for entitle-
ment to a leii.se.
An applicant for a preference right
lease shall be entitled to a noncom-
petitive coal lease if the applicant can
demonstrate that he discovered com-
mercial quantities of coal on the
permit lands within the term of the
permit, all other requirements having
been met.
§ 3130.1-2 Commercial quantities defined.
For the purpose of § 3430.1-1 of this
title, commercial quantities is defined
as follows:
(a) The coal deposit discovered
under the permit shall be of such
character and quantity' that a prudent
person would be Justified in further
expenditure of his labor and means
with a reasonable prospect of success
In developing a valuable mine.
(b) The applicant shall present suffi-
cient evidence to show that there is a
reasonable expectation that revenues
from the sale of the coal shall exceed
16827
the cost of developing the mine and
extracting, removing, transporting,
and marketing the coal. The costs of
development shall include the estimat-
ed cost of exercising environmental
protection measures and suitably re-
claiming the lands and complying with
all applicable Federal and state laws
and regulations.
§ 3 539.2 Application for lease.
§ 3430.2-1 Initial showing.
All preference right coal lease appli-
cations shall have contained or shall
have been supplemented by the timely
submission of the following informa-
tion;
(a) The measured and indicated
quantity and quality of the reserves
discovered within the boundaries of
the permit.
(1) Coal quantity shall be indicated
by structural maps of the tops of all
beds to be mined, isopachous maps of
beds to be mined and interburden;
and. for beds to be mined by surface
mining methods, isopachous maps of
the overburden. These maps shall
show the location of test holes and
outcrops. An estimate of the measured
and indicated reserves for each bed to
be mined shall be included.
(2) Coal quality data shall include,
at a minimum, an average proximate
analysis, sulfur content, and BTU con-
tent of the coal in each seam to be
mined. Also, all supporting geological
and geophysical data used to develop
the required information shall be sub-
mitted.
(b) Topographic maps as available
from State or Federal sources showing
physical features, drainage patterns,
roads and vehicle trails, utility sys-
tems, and water sources. The location
of proposed development and raining
operations facilities shall be identified
on the maps. These maps shall include
the approximate locations and extent
of tailings and overburden storage
areas; location and size of pit areas;
and the location of water sources or
other resources that may be used in
the proposed operation and facilities
incidental to that use.
(c) A narrative statement that In-
cludes:
(1) The anticipated scope of oper-
ations, the schedule of operations, and
the types of equipment to be used;
(2) The mining method to be used
and an estimate of the expected
mining sequence and production rate;
(3) The relationship, if any, between
operations planned on the land ap-
plied for and existing or planned oper-
ations and facilities on adjacent lands;
(4) A brief description, including
maps or aerial photographs as appro-
priate of: (i) existing land uses on and
adjacent to the applied for land; (li)
known geologic, visual, cultural, or ar-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-28
16828
chaeological features on the applied-
for land: and (iii) Known wildlife habi-
tat, and that of threatened or endan-
gered plant and animal species, that
may be affected by the planned explo-
ration and mining operations;
(5) A brief description of measures
planned to prevent or control fire and
to mitigate or prevent soil erosion,
ground and surface water pollution,
damage to wildlife or its habitat, air
and noise pollution, hazards to public
health and safety, and impacts to the
social and infrastructure systems of
local communities; and
(6) A brief description of any plans
that the applicant wishes to have con-
sidered by the authorized officer
which show how the applicant expects
to reclaim disturbed sites and other-
wise meet applicable laws and regula-
tions.
5 3430.2-2 Additional information.
In addition to the information re-
quired by §3430.2-1 of this title, the
applicant shall have submitted certi-
fied abstracts indicating the presence
of any mining claims lying within or
partly within the preference right
lease application area that were locat-
ed prior to the issuance of the pros-
pecting permit.
§ 3430.3 Planning and environment
§ 3430 .3- 1 Land use planning.
A preference right lease may not be
issued until the lands involved have
been included in an acceptable land
use plan that complies with the cur-
rent applicable planning regulations in
effect for the land management
agency, or a land use analysis, under
J 3420.1-5 of this title.
§ 3430.3-2 Environmental assessment.
(a) After the applicant has complet-
ed the initial showing required under
§ 3430.2 of this title, the authorized of-
ficer shall conduct an environmental
assessment of the proposed preference
right lease area and prepare an envi-
ronmental assessment record.
(b) The environmental assessment
shall Include:
(1) An evaluation of direct and indi-
rect potential impacts including cumu-
lative impacts of leasing and develop-
ment upon the physical and socioeco-
nomic environment of the proposed
lease area and adjacent areas that
may be affected;
(2) An evaluation of the technical
and natural potential for successful
reclamation on the proposed lease
area; and
(3) An evaluation of all reasonable
alternatives to leasing the area or to
any known pians of operation for the
proposed area as set forth In any pre-
liminary data and information.
PROPOSED RULES
(c) The environmental assessment
record shall be prepared containing
recommendations on lease terms and
special stipulations regarding:
(1) Lands that should be excluded
from the proposed lease area to avoid
unacceptable environmental or social
impacts, including those lsnds to be
excluded as identified through the. ap-
plication of the unsuitability criteria
of subpart 3461 of this title;
12) Any specific measures required to
avoid or to mitigate adverse impacts,
or to reclaim areas that may be accept-
able for leasing and development, in-
cluding measures to assure appropri-
ate post-mining land use and measures
to prevent irreparable damage to or
destruction of unique environmental
values that are identified through the
application of the unsuitability crite-
ria of subpart 3481 of this title.
(d) If, based upon the environmental
assessment record prepared under <c),
the authorized officer determines that
an environmental statement, is re-
quired under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969, such a
statement shall be prepared according
to 40 CFR 1500.
(e) If. based upon the environmental
assessment record prepared under (c),
the authorized officer determines that
an environmental statement is not re-
quired, a finding of no significant
impact shall be prepared and issued in
accordance with 40 CFR 1501.4 and
1506.6
§ 3430.4 Final showing.
§ 3430.4-1 Request for final showing.
(a) Upon completion of the environ-
mental assessment, the authorized of-
ficer shall promptly request a final
showing by the applicant.
(b) The authorized officer shall
transmit to the applicant, with the re-
quest for a final showing, the follow-
ing:
(1) The proposed lease form, includ-
ing any proposed stipulations; and
(2) A copy of the environment as-
sessment, including a map or maps
showing all areas subject to specific
stipulations because they have been
assessed or designated to be unsuitable
for coal mining operations or other-
wise.
(c) Within 90 days of receiving the
proposed lease form, the applicant
shall submit the following informa-
tion:
(1) Estimated revenues;
(2) The estimated costs that a pru-
dent person would consider before de-
ciding to operate the proposed mine,
including but not limited to, the cost
of developing the mine, removing the
coal, processing the coal to make it sal-
able, transporting the coal, paying ap-
plicable royalties and taxes, and com-
plying with applicable laws and regu-
lations, the propositi lease terms, and
special stipulations; and
(3) A comparison of the estimated
costs and revenues and of mininfc ven-
ture constituting the logical mining
unit of which the lease would become
a part.
(d) The information submitted by
the applicant shall be sufficiently de-
tailed to determined whether the ap-
plicant's showing (1) has a reasonable
factual basis, (2) supports the appli-
cant's assertion that the proposed
lease contains commercial quantities
of coal, and (3) reflects a consideration
of all factors required by this section.
(e) The applicant may delete any
area subject to special stipulations, be-
cause it has been assessed to be unsuit-
able or otherwise, and the costs of
mining subject to the stipulations,
from the final showing required by
paragraph CO of this section.
§ 3430.4-2 Additional information.
(a) If the applicant for a preference
right lease has not submitted all infor-
mation required in §3430.4-1 of this
title, the authorized officer shall re-
quest additional information and shall
specify the information required.
(b) The applicant shall submit any
requested additional information
within 60 days of the receipt of the re-
quest. The authorized officer may
grant one 60-day extension if the ap-
plicant files a written request within
the first 60-day period.
§3430.5 Determination of entitlement to
lease.
§ 3430.5-1 Reflection of application.
The authorized officer shall reject
the application if:
(a) The final showing of the appli-
cant fails to show that coal exists in
commercial quantities on the applied
for lands; or
(b) The applicant does not respond
to a request for additional information
within the time period specified in
§ 3430.4-2 of this title. .
§ 3430.5-2 Appeals, lack of showing.
(a) If the application is rejected be-
cause the existence of commercial
quantities of coal has not been shown,
the applicant may, in accordance with
the procedures in Part 4 of this title,
file a notice of appeal and a statement
of the reasons for the appeal.
(b) The applicant shall have the
right to a hearing before an Adminis-
trative Law Judge if the applicant al-
leges that the facts in the application
are sufficient to show entitlement to a
lease.
(c) In such a hearing, the applicant
shall bear both the burden of going
forward and the burden of proof to
show, by a preponderance of evidence.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL «, NO. &«— MOMDAY, MARCH 1», J979
A-29
that commercial quantities of coal
exist in the proposed lease area.
§ 3430.5-3 Determination to lease or seek
an exchange.
(a) A preference right lease shalr be
Issued if, upon review of the applica-
tion, the land use plan or analysis, and
environmental assessment record, the
authorized officer determines:
(1) The coal has been discovered in
commercial quantities on the lands ap-
plied for; and
(2) That the applicant has used rea-
sonable economic assumptions and
data to support the showing that coal
has been found on the proposed lease
in commerical quantities: and
(3) That the protective lease stipula-
tions assure that environmental
damage can be avoided or acceptably
mitigated and that the mined land can
be reclaimed in accordance with appli-
cable laws and regulations.
(b) If the authorized officer deter-
mines that:
(1) The land under application has
been shown to contain commercial
quantities of coal;
(2) All or a portion of the proposed
lease has been assessed as land that
should be unavailable for coal develop-
ment because of land use or resource
conflicts or as land that is unsuitable
for coal mining operations under the
provisions of subpart 3461 of this title;
and
(3) The land is exempted from the
application of any relevant unsultabil-
lty criteria or, for similar reasons, the
Secretary lacks the authority to pre-
vent damage to or loss of the land use
of resource values threatened by lease
operations— he may recommend that
the Secretary initiate exchange pro-
ceedings under § 3530.5-4 of this title.
§ 3430.5-4 Lease exchange.
The Secretary may initiate, upon his
own initiative, the recommendation of
the authorized officer, or the request
of the applicant, lease exchange proce-
dures under 43 CFR Subpart 3435 for
the issuance of coal lease bidding
rights, modifications to existing coal
leases, a mineral lease under subpart
3526 of this title, or in the case of an
application including lands in an allu-
vial valley floor, the issuance of a coal
lease under provisions of subpart 3436
Of this title, if he finds that the three
conditions in § 3430.5-3(b) of this title
are met.
S 3430.6 Lease issuance.
$ 3430.6-1 Lease terms.
Each preference right lease shall be
subject to requirements for Federal
coal leases established in subpart 3475
of this title including: diligent develop-
ment and continued operation, royalty
and rental rates, and logical mining
PROPOSED RULES
unit requirements as provided in
§ 3475.4 of this title.
§ 3430.6-2 Bonding.
The compliance bond for a prefer-
ence right lease shall be set in accord-
ance with subpart 3474 of this title.
§ 3430.6-3 Lease area.
A preference right lease shall In-
clude all lands in the application used
in determining the entitlement to a
lease.
§ 3430.6-4 Duration of leases.
Preference right leases shall be
issued for a term of 20 years and for so
long thereafter as coal Is produced in
commercial quantities as defined in
subpart 3400.0-5 of this title. Each
lease shall be subject to readjustment
at the end of the first 20-year period
and at the end of each period of 10
years thereafter.
§ 3430.7 Trespass.
Mining operations conducted prior
to the effective date of a lease shall
constitute an act of trespass and be
subject to penalties specified by
§9239.5 of this title.
Subpart 3431— Negotiated Satoi — Stightj-of-
Woy.
§ 3431.0-1 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to
provide procedures for the sale of coal
that is necessarily removed in the ex-
ercise of a right-of-way issued under
Title V of the Federal Land Policy and
Managemenet Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1761 e£ sec).
§3431.0-3 Authority.
(a) The regulations of this subpart
are issued under the authority of the
statutes cited in § 3400.0-3 of this title.
(b) These regulations primarily im-
plement section 2(a)(1) of the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by
section 2 of the Act of October 30,
1978 (30 U.S.C. 201 (a)(1)).
§ 3431.1 Qualified purchaser.
Any person who has acquired a
right-of-way under Title V of the Fed-
eral Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 and is required to remove Fed-
eral coal in order to develop, construct
or use the right-of-way is qualified to
purchase the coal to be removed.
§ 3431.2 Terms and conditions of sale.
(a) Coal to be removed in connection
with a right-of-way shall be sold to the
qualified purchaser only at the esti-
mated fair market value, as deter-
mined by the Secretary.
(b) Where the right-of-way is being
used in connection with the develop-
ment of a lease, the removal of coal
from the right-of-way shall be subject
16829
to the same requirements for health
and safety protection, surface protec-
tion and rehabilitation, and maximum
economic recovery that apply to the
lease involved.
(c) Where the right-of-way is not
being used in connection with the de-
velopment of a Federal coal lease, the
removal of the coal shall be made sub-
ject to the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977, and sub-
ject to such terms and conditions as
the authorized officer determines are
necessary: (1) to protect public health,
safety, and the environment; and (2)
to ensure the same recovery of the re-
source in the right-of-way that is re-
quired under a lease under the provi-
sions of group 3400 of this title.
(d) All terms and conditions of the
sale shall be terms and conditions of
the right-of-way and shall be adminis-
tered under the provisions of group
2300 of this title.
Subpart 3432 — Imm Modifications
§ 3432.1 Application.
(a) A lessee may apply for a modifi-
cation of a lease to include coal lands
or coal deposits contiguous to those
embraced in a lease. In no event shall
the acreage in the application, when
combined with the total area added by
all modifications made after August 4,
1976, exceed 160 acres or the number
of acres in the original lease, which-
ever is less.
(b) The lessee shall file the applica-
tion for modification in the Bureau of
Land Management State Office having
Jurisdiction over the lands involved (43
CFR Subpart 1821), describing the ad-
ditional lands desired, the lessee's
needs or reasons for such modifica-
tion, and the reasons why the modifi-
cation would be to the advantage to
the United States.
§3432.2 Availability.
(a) The authorized officer may
modify the lease to include the lands
applied for if he determines that: (1)
the modification serves the interests
of the United States; (2) there is no
competitive interest in the lands or de-
posits; and (3) the additional lands or
deposits cannot be developed as part
of another potential or existing inde-
pendent operation.
(b) Coal deposits underlying land
the surface of which is held by a quali-
fied surface owner, and which would
be mined by other than underground
mining techniques, may not be added
to a lease by modification.
(c) The lands applied for shall be
added to the existing lease without
competitive bidding, but the United
States shall receive the fair market
value of the lease of the added lands,
either by cash payment or adjustment
of the royalty applicable to the lands.
raDSRM REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-30
m^aia^BtaamB^mauBamaaaamasa^aBiaai
16830
§ 1432.3 Termi and conditions.
(a) The terras and conditions of the
original lease shall be consistent with
the laws, regulations, and lease terms
applicable at the time of modification
except that if the original lease was
issued prior to August 4, 1976, the
minimum royalty provisions of the
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act
of 1976 (90 Stat. 1083) shall not apply
to any lands covered by the lease prior
to its modification until the lease is re-
adjusted.
(b) Before a lease is modified, the
lessee shall file a written acceptance of
the conditions Imposed in the modi-
fied lease and a written consent of the
surety under the bond covering the
original lease to the modification of
the lease and to extension of the bond
to cover the additional land. Such
modifications must meet the same en-
vironmental safeguards as set out for
emergency leases In §3425.5 of this
title.
Subpart 3435— leaie Exchange
§ 3435.0-1 Purpose
The objective of these regulations is
to provide methods for exchange of
coal resources when it would be in the
public interest to shift the impact of
mineral operations from leased lands
to currently unleased lands to preserve
public resource or social values, and to
carry out Congressional directives au-
thorizing coal lease exchanges.
g 3435.0-3 Authority.
(a) These regulations are issued
under the authority of the statutes
cited in § 3400.0-3 of this title.
(b) These regulations primarily im-
plement:
(1) Section 3 of the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C.
203);
(2) Section 522 of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
{30 U.S.C. 1272); and
(3) Section 1 of the Act of October
30, 1978 (92 Stat. 2073).
{ 3435.1 Coal lease exchanges.
Where the Secretary determines
that coal exploration, development
and mining operations would not be in
the public Interest on an existing lease
or preference right lease application,
or where the Congress has authorized
lease exchange for a class or list of
leases, an existing lease or preference
right lease application may be relin-
quished in exchange for:
(a) Cases where the Congress has
specifically authorized, the issuance of
a new coal lease.
(b) The issuance of coal lease bid-
ding rights of equal value;
(c) A mineral lease other than coal
by mutual agreement between the ap-
PROPOSED RULES
plicant and the Secretary under sub-
part 3526 of this title; or
(d) Federal coal lease modifications;
or
(e) Any combination of the above.
These interests may be granted to the
extent of the Secretary's authority in
exchange for the relinquishment of all
or part of the existing lease or prefer-
ence right lease application area, any
part of which has been or may be as-
sessed to be unacceptable for develop-
ment because of non-coal public values
Identifed or discovered after the lease
or permit was issued.
§ 3435.2 Qualified exchange proponents-
Limitations.
(a) Any person who holds a Federal
coal lease, or a preference right lease
application that has been found to
meet the commercial quantities re-
quirements fo §§ 3430.1 and 3430.5 of
this title on lands described in § 3435.1
of this title is qualified to ask the Sec-
retary to initiate an exchange.
(b) Except for leases qualified under
subpart 3536 of this title, the Secre-
tary may issue a new coal lease in ex-
change for the relinquishment of out-
standing leases or lease applications
only in those cases listed in section 1
of the Act of October 30, 1978.
(c) The Secretary shall evaluate
each qualified exchange request and
determine whether an exchange is ap-
propriate.
§ 3435.3 Exchange procedures.
§ 3435.3-1 Exchange notice.
(a) The Secretary shall initiate ex-
change procedures by notifying in
writing a Federal coal lessee or prefer-
ence right lease applicant that consid-
eration of an exchange of mineral
leases or other coal lease interests is
appropriate. The notification may be
on the Secretary's initiative or in re-
sponse to a request under § 3435.2 of
this title.
(b) The exchange notice shall In-
clude a statement of why the Secre-
tary believes an exchange may be in
the public interest.
(c) The notice may contain a descrip-
tion of the lands on which the Secre-
tary would grant lease interest in ex-
change. If the exchange is for coal de-
velopment rights, the lands shall be
selected from those found acceptable
for further consideration for leasing
under §3420.2 of this title. The de-
scription of the interests under consid-
eration for relinquishment may in-
clude all or part of an existing lease or
preference right lease application.
(d) The notice shall contain a re-
quest that the lessee or preference
right lease applicant indicate whether
he is willing to negotiate an exchange.
§3433.3-2 Initial response by lessee or
ieaae applicant.
(a) The lessee or preference right
lease applicant wishing to negotiate an
exchange shall so reply in writing
within fiO days of the receipt of the ex-
change notice. The reply may include
a description of the lands on which
the lessee or lease applicant would
accept an exchange lease or grant of
coal lease modifications and, if appro-
priate, a showing of written consent
from a qualified surface owner.
(b) A reply to the exchange notice
by a lessee or preference right lease
applicant indicating willingness to
enter into an exchange shall also indi-
cate willingness to provide the geolog-
ic and economic data needed by the
Secretary to determine the fair
market value of the lease or lease ap-
plication to be relinquished. The lessee
or preference right lease applicant
shall also indicate willlngess to provide
any geologic and economic data in his
possession that will help the Secretary
to determine the fair market value of
the potential Federal lease exchange
tract or tracts.
§ 3435.3-3 Agreement to terms.
(a) If both parties wish to proceed
with the exchange, the authorized of-
ficer and the lessee or preference right
lease applicant shall:
(1) Negotiate the selection of appro-
priate exchange lands containing a
logical mining unit of coal in those
cases where the Secretary is author-
ized to Issue a coal exchange lease, or
a minable unit of leasable minerals
other than coal;
• (2) Negotiate appropriate coal lease
modifications;
(3) Negotiate to establish the value
of coal lease bidding rights; or
(4) Negotiate any combination of the
above.
(b) Any land leased in exchange
shall, to the satisfaction of the lessee
or lease applicant and the Secretary,
be a lease tract containing coal or de-
posits of other leasable minerals equal
to the fair market value of the relin-
quished deposits.
(c) Land proposed for lease in ex-
change for, or for inclusion in, an ex-
isting lease or preference right lease
application shall be subject to leasing
under subpart 3420 or group 3400 or
3500 of this title as appropriate.
§ 3435.3-4 Determination of value.
The value of the land to be leased,
or added by lease modification, or of
the bidding rights to be issued in ex-
change shall, to the satisfaction of the
applicant and the Secretary, be equal
to the estimated fair market value of
the lease or lease application to be re-
linquished.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, MO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-31
§3435.3-5 Notice and public hearing.
After the lessee or lease applicant
and the Secretary agree on the land to
be leased, the coal lease modifications
to be granted or the bidding rir.ius to
be issued, notice of the proposed ex-
change shall be published in the Fed-
eral Register and in at least one
newspaper of general circulation in
each county or equivalent political
subdivision where both the offered
and selected lands are located. The
notice shall announce that, upon re-
quest, at least one public hearing will
be held in a city or cities located near
each tract involved. The notice shall
.also contain the Secretary's prelimi-
nary findings why the proposed ex-
change is in the public interest. The
hearings), if any, shall be held to
obtain public comments on the merits
of the proposed exchange.
§ 3435.3-6 Consultation with Governor.
(a) The Secretary will notify the
Governor of each State in which lands
in the proposed exchange are located
of the terms of the exchange and the
Secretary's preliminary findings why
the exchange is in the public interest.
The Secretary shall give each Gover-
nor at least 45 days after this notifica-
tion to comment on the proposal prior
to consummating the exchange.
(b) If, within the 45 day period, the
Governor(s), in writing, objects to an
exchange that involves leases or lease
rights in more than one State, the Sec-
retary will not consummate the ex-
change for 6 months from the date of
objection. The Governor(s) may
during this 6-month period submit a
written statement why the exchange
should not be consummated, and the
Secretary shall, on the basis of this
statement, reconsider the lease pro-
posal.
§3435.4 Issuance of lease, lease modifica-
tion, or bidding rights.
<a) If, after any public hearing(s),
the Secretary by written decision con-
cludes that the issuance of a coal or
other mineral lease or coal lease modi-
fication or coal lease bidding rights in
exchange for the relinquishment of
the existing lease, preference right
lease application or portion thereof is
in the public interest, lease stipula-
tions for operations on the exchange
lease or modified lease shall be estab-
lished.
(b) The exchange lease shall con-
tain:
(1) A statement that the lessee
thereby quitclaims any ri^ht or inter-
est in the lease or preference right
lease application exchanged; and
(2) A statement of the Secretary's
findings that lease issuance is in the
public interest.
(c) The exchange lease or lease
modification shall be issued upon re-
PROPOSED RULES
linquiihment of the lease, preference
ribht leaie application, or portion
thereof,
(d) The exchange lease or lease
modification shall be subject to all rel-
evant provisions of group 3400 or 3500
of this chapter, 30 CFR Chapter VII,
Subchapter D, and 30 CFR Part 211,
as appropriate.
Subpart 3436 — loose Exchange — Alluvial
Valley Floor*
5- 3 136.0-1 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to es-
tablish procedures for coal lease ex-
changes where coal development oper-
ations would interrupt, discontinue or
preclude fanning on alluvial valley
floors west of the 100th Meridian, west
longitude.
§ 3436.0-3 Authority.
(a) These regulations are issued
under the authority of the statutes
cited in § 3400.0-3 of this title.
(b) These regulations primarily im-
plement section 510(b)(5) of the Sur-
face Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 (30 D.S.C. 1260(b)(5)).
§ 3136.1 Qualified exchange proponents.
(a) The coal lease exchange program
for alluvial valley designations shall be
limited to any person who holds a Fed-
eral coal lease or preference right
lease application on lands west of the
100th Meridian, west longitude, and
who has made substantial financial
and legal commitments, as defined in
§ 3400.0-5 of this title prior to January
4, i977, in connection with the lease or
preference right lease application, and
who otherwise meets the criteria in
the proviso in section 510(b)(5) of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977. Any such person may
propose an exchange under this sub-
part.
(b) The lease offered in exchange by
the Secretary shall be for lands deter-
mined to be acceptable for leasing
under criteria of the Bureau of Land
Management and Geological Survey,
including the unsuitability criteria in
subpart 3461 of this title.
§ 3436.2 Exchange procedures.
(a) Any qualified lessee may propose
the exchange to the Secretary
through the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment State Office having jurisdiction
over the leased land (43 CFR Subpart
1821). No special form of application is
required.
(b) The exchange shall processed in
accordance with the procedures in sub-
part 3435 of this title for other lease
and lease interest exchanges.
§ 3 136.3 Recovery of costs.
The exchange proponent shall bear
all administrative costs of the ex-
16831
change, including the cost of establish-
ing the value of each lease involved in
the exchange.
§3136.4 Lease issuance.
Any coal lease issued as a result of
an exchange under this subpart shall
be subject to all relevant provisions of
group 3400 of this title, 30 CFR Chap-
ter VII, Subchapter D, and 30 CFR
Part 211.
Subpart 3437— Coal Exchange — Alluvial Valley
Floor*.
§ 3437.0-1 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to es-
tablish criteria for the exchange of
privately owned (fee) coal for unleased
federally-owned coal where coal
mining operations would interrupt,
discontinue, or preclude farming on al-
luvial valley floors west of the 100th
Meridian, west longitude.
§3437.0-3 Authority.
(a) These regulations are issued
under the authority of the statutes
cited in § 3400.0-3 of this title.
(b) These regulations primarily im-
plement:
(1) Section 510(b)(5) of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1260(b)(5)): and
(2) Section 206 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976
(43 TJ.S.C. 1716).
§ 3437.1 Qualification criteria.
§ 3437.1-1 Qualified exchange proponents.
The fee coal exchange program for
alluvial valley designations shall ini-
tially be limited to all qualified per-
sons who own coal west of the 100th
Meridian, west longitude, and:
(a) Who have made substantial fi-
nancial and legal commitments, as de-
fined in § 3400.0-5 of this title prior to
January 4, 1977, in connection with
the coal holding; or
(b) Who have had a surface mining
permit rejected by the state regula-
tory authority because the holding is
in an alluvial valley floor, and who
otherwise meet the criteria of the pro-
vision in section 510(b)(5). Any such
person may propose and exchange
under this subparat.
§ 3437.1-2 Unqualified proponents.
The Secretary shall not consider an
exchange proposed by the owner of
coal west of the 100th Merdian, west
longitude, where:
(a) The premining land use is unde-
veloped rangeland which is not signifi-
cant to farming:
(b) The area of affected alluvial
valley floor is small and provides or
may provide only negligible support
for production from one or more
farms; or
FEDERAA REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-32
16332
(c) The prohibition against mining
the coal In the alluvial valley floor
does not substanially decrease the
value of, or prevent the successful
mining of, other coal that would have
been developed in conjunction with
the coal in the alluvial valley floor.
§ 3437.2 Exchange procedures.
(a) The Secretary shall evaluate
each qualified exchanged request and
determine whether the exchange pro-
ponent Is qualified and whether a re-
quest is appropriate and is in the
public Interest.
(b) Qualified requests shall be proc-
essed in accordance with the regula-
tions of subpart 2200 of this title sub-
ject to the provisions of this subpart.
(c) The coal deposits offered in ex-
change by the Secretary shall be as-
sessed as acceptable for mining oper-
ations under the criteria of the
Bureau of Land Management, and the
Geological Survey, including the un-
suitability criteria in subpart 3461 of
this title.
(d) Exchange under this subpart,
whether proposed by the Secretary or
by a qualified exchange proponent,
may include the coal estate, the entire
mineral estate, or the entire mineral
and surface estates in the lands con-
veyed to the United States or in the
lands conveyed by the United States.
(
PART 3440— LICENSES TO MINE
Subpart 3440 — Licenses le Mine
Sec.
3440.0-1 Purpose.
3440.0-3 Authority
3440.1 Terms.
3440.1-1 Forms.
3440.10-2 Limitations on coal use.
3440.1-3 Area and duration of license.
3440.1-4 Production reports.
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.
Subpart 3440 — Licenses Is Mine
J 3440.0-1 Purpose.
A license to mine may be Issued
without the payment of any rent or
royalty for a period of 2 years to an In-
dividual or association of Individuals
to mine and take coal for local domes-
tic need for fuel.
{3440.0-3 Authority.
(a) These regulations are issued
under the authority of the statutes
cited in § 3400.0-3 of this title.
(b) These regulations primarily Im-
plement section 8 of the Act of Febru-
ary 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C.
208).
J 3440.1 Terms.
5 3440.1-1 Forms.
(a) Pour copies of the application for
a license to mine coal for domestic
needs or for a renewal of such a U-
PROPOSEO RULES
cense shall be filed on a form ap-
proved by the Director, or a substan-
tial equivalent of the form, in the
Bureau of Land Management State
Office having jurisdiction over the
lands involved (43 CFR Subpart 1821).
The original application or any renew-
al application shall be accompanied by
the fee prescribed in section 3473 of
this title, except when the application
Is filed by a relief agency.
(b) A municipality shall file the in-
formation required under § 3472.2-5(b)
of this title.
§ 3440.1-2 Limitations on coal use.
License may be issued to municipal-
ities for the nonprofit mining and dis-
posal of coal to their residents for
household use only. Under such a li-
cense, a municipality may not mine
coal either for its own use or for non-
household use such as for factories,
stores, other business etablishments
and heating and lighting plants.
§ 3440.1-3 Area and duration of license.
(a) A license to mine for an individu-
al or association in the absence of un-
usual conditions or necessity, shall be
limited to a legal subdivision, of 40
acres or less and may be revoked at
any time. Each license to mine shall
terminate at the end of 2 years from •
the date of issuance, unless an applica-
tion for a 2 year renewal is filed and
approved before its termination date.
(b)(1) The authorized officer may
authorize a recognized and established
relief agency of any State, upon the
agency's request, to take goverment-
owned coal deposits within the State
and provide the coal to localities
where it is needed to supply families
on the rolls of such agency who re-
quire coal for household use but are
unable to pay for that coal.
(2) Tracts shall be selected in areas
assessed as acceptable for mining oper-
ations and at points convenient to
supply the families in a locality. Each
family shall be restricted to the
amount of coal actually needed for its
use, not to exceed 20 tons annually.
(3) Coal shall be taken from such
tracts only by those with written au-
thority from the relief agency. All
mining shall be done pursuant to such
authorization. All Federal and State
laws and regulations for the safety of
miners, prevention of fires and of
waste, etc., shall be observed. The
relief agency shall see that the prem-
ises are left in a safe condition for
future mining operations.
(c) A license to mine to a municipal-
ity may not exceed 320 acres for a mu-
nicipality of less than 100,000 popula-
tion, 1.280 acres for a municipality be-
tween 100.000 and 150,000 population,
and 2.560 acres for a municipality of
150,000 population or more. A license
to mine to a municipality shall termi-
nate at the end of 4 years from date of
issuance, unless an application for a 4
year renewal is filed and approved
before its termination date.
§ 3440.1-1 Production reports.
Each holder of a license to mine
shall provide an annual report to the
appropriate Bureau of Land Manage-
ment State Office describing all oper-
ation conducted under such license.
PART 3450— MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING
LEASES
Subpart 3431— Continuation of Uom- «»od|u«tir.«nt
Of TOTMI
Sec.
3451.1 Readjustment of lease terms.
3451.2 Notification of readjusted lease
terms.
Subpart 3452 — Rolinquithmont, Cancellation, and
Tormlnation
3452.1 Relinquishment.
3452.1-1 General.
3452.1-2 Where filed.
3452.1-3 Acceptance.
3452.2 Cancellation.
3452.2-1 Cause for cancellation.-
3452.2-2 Cancellation procedure.
3452.3 Termination.
Subpart 3453— Transfers by Assignment, Sublease or
Othararise
• 3453.1 Qualifications.
3453.1-i Who may transfer or receive a
transfer.
3453.1-2 Number of copies required.
3453.1-3 Sole party in interest.
3453.1-4 Attorney-in-fact.
3453.1-5 Heirs and devises.
3453.2 Requirements.
3453.2-1 Application.
3453.2-2 Forms and statements.
. 3453.2-3 Filing location and fee.
3453.2-4 Bonds.
3453.2-5 Description of lands.
3453.3 Approval.
3453.3-1 Conditions for approval.
3453.3-2 Disapproval of transfers.
3453.3-3 Effective date.
3453.3-4 Extensions.
Aothority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq; 30 D.S.C.
351-359; 30 U.S.C. 521-531: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et
seq; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq; and 43 U.S.C. 1701
et seq.
Subpart 3451 — Continuation af Uasas —
Readjustment of Terms
§ 3451.1 Readjustment of lease terms.
(a) All leases issued prior to August
4, 1976, shall be subject to readjust-
ment at the end of the current 20-year
period and at the end of each 10-year
period thereafter. All leases issued
after August 4, 1976, shall be subject
to readjustment at the end of the first
20-year period and each 10-year period
thereafter. If the lease is extended.
(b) The authorized officer shall
notify the lessee whether or not any
readjustment of terms and conditions
is to be made. If feasible, the author-
ized officer shall so notify the lessee of
any lease which becomes subject to re-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-33
adjustment prior to January 1, 1980,
before the expiration or the initial 20-
year period, or any succeeding 10-year
period.
(c) If the lease became subject to re-
adjustment of terms and conditions
before August 4. 1976, but the author-
ized officer prior to that date neither
readjusted the terms and conditions
nor informed the lessee wheter or not
a readjustment would be made, the
terms and conditions of that lease
shall be readjusted to conform to the
requirements of the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976.
(d) The authorized officer shall
notify the lessee of any lease which
becomes subject to readjustment after
January 1, 1980, whether any read-
justment of terms and conditions will
be made prior to the expiration of the
initial 20-year period or any succeed-
ing 10-year period thereafter. On such
a lease the failure to so notify the
lessee shall mean that the United
States is waiving its right to readjust
the lease for the readjustment period
in question.
(e) In the notification that the lease
will be readjusted, the athorlzed offi-
cer shall require the lessee to furnish
information specified in § 3422.3-4 of
this title for review by the Attorney
General as required by section 27(1) of
the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as
amended. The lease shall be subject to
cancellation if the lessee fails to fur-
nish the required information within
the time allowed. No lease readjust-
ment shall be effective until 30 days
after the authorized officer has trans-
mitted the required information to the
Attorney General.
§3451.2 Notification or readjusted lease
terms.
(a) If the notification that the lease
will be readjusted did not contain the
proposed readjusted lease terms, the
authorized officer shall, as soon as fea-
sible, notify the lessee of the proposed
readjusted lease terms.
(b> The notification of readjusted
lease terms shall also notify the lessee
that if he does not file either an objec-
tion to the proposed readjustement or
a relinquishment of the lease within
60 days after receipt of notice of the
proposed readjusted terms from the
authorized officer, the terms of such
readjustment shall be considered
agreed upon.
(c) The notification of readjusted
lease terms shall specify the proce-
dures to be followed if the lessee ob-
jects to the proposed readjusted lease
terms.
(d) The readjusted lease terms shall
become effective either 60 days after
the lessee is notified what they are, or
30 days after the authorized officer
transmits the required information to
PROPOSED RULES
the Attorney General, whichever is
later.
Subpart 3452 — Relinquishement, Cancellation
and Termination
§ 3152.1 Relinquishment.
§ 3J52.1-1 Oneral.
Upon a satisfactory showing that
the public interest shall not be im-
paired, the lessee may surrender the
entire lease, a legal subdivision there-
of, an aliquot part thereof (not less
than 10 acres), or any srarrf or bed of
the coal deposits therein. A partial re-
linquishem<?nt shall der-cribe clearly
the surrendered parcel or coal depostis
and give the exact acreage relin-
quished.
§3132.1-2 Where filed.
A relinquishement shall be filed in
triplicate by the lessee in the Bureau
of Land Management State Office
having jurisdiction over the lands in-
volved (43 CFR Subpart 1821).
§3452.1-3 Acceptance.
The relinquishment shall be effec-
tive on the date that the authorized
officer determines that all accured
rentals and royalties have been paid
and that all the obligations of the
lessee under the regulations and terms
of the lease have been met.
§ 3452.2 Cancellation.
§ 3452.2-1 Cause for cancellation.
(a) The authorized office, after com-
pliance with § 3452.2-2 of this title,
may take the appropriate steps to in-
stitute proceedings in a court of com-
petent jurisdiction for the cancellation
of the lease if the lessee: (1) fails to
comply with the provisions of the Min-
eral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended;
(2) fails to comply with the general
regulations in force at the date of the
lease or in force at the effective date
of any readjustment of the terms and
conditions of the lease, or with regula-
tions issued after lease issuance and
readjustment but made applicable
under the terms of the lease; or (3) de-
faults in the performance of any of
the terms, covenants, and stipulations ■
of the lease.
(b) A waiver of any particular breach
or cause of forfeiture shall not prevent
the cancellation and forfeiture of the
lease for any other breach or cause of
forfeiture, or for the same cause oc-
curring at any other time.
(c) Any lea.;e issued or readjusted
before August 4, 1976, on which the
lessee does not meet either the dili-
gent development requirements or the
continued operation requirements
shall be subject to cancellation in
whole or in part. In deciding whether
to initiate lease cancellation proceed-
ings under this subsection, the Secre-
16833
tary shall not consider adverse circum-
stances which arise out of (1) normally
foreseeable costs of compliance with
requirements for environmental pro-
tection; (2) commonly experienced
delays in delivery of supplies or equip-
ment; or (3) inability to obtain suffi-
cient sales.
§ 3452.2-2 Cancellation procedure.
The lessee shall be given notice of
any proposed cancellation and be af-
forded 30 days to correct the default,
to request an extension of time in
which to correct the default, or to
submit evidence showing 'why the
lease should not be cancelled.
§ 3452.3 Termination.
(a) Any lease issued or readjusted on
or after August 4, 1976, shall be termi-
nated if the lessee does not meet the
diligent development requirements.
(b) Existing leases that are not in-
cluded within an approved mine plan
shall be subject to assessment of all or
part of the lands contained in the
lease as unsuitable for coal mining op-
erations as set out in § 3461.1(c) of this
title. This assessment shall be made
either after an operator submits a
mining plan, at the initiation by the
lessee of a request for exchange, or
during land use planning. If a lease
area or portion of a lease area is as-
sessed to be unsuitable for coal mining
operations or the lease is found to be
incompatible with the land use plan,
the Secretary may enter into negotia-
tions with the lessee for exchange of
coal lease bidding rights or other min-
eral leases or coal lease modifications
as described in subpart 3435 of this
title. If a lease area or portion of a
lease area is assessed to be unsuitable
because of impacts to alluvial valley
floors, the Secretary may enter into
negotiations with the lessee to ex-
change the lease for another Federal
coal lease In an area acceptable for
mining operations pursuant to subpart
3436 of this title.
(c) Should a lease be cancelled or
terminated for any reason, all deferred
bonus payments shall be immediately
payable and all rentals and royalties,
including advance royalties, already
paid or due, shall be forfeited to the
United States.
Subpart 3453 — Transfers by Assignment,
Sublease or Otherwise
§ 3153.1 Qualifications.
§3453.1-1 Who may transfer or receive a
transfer.
(a) Leases may be transferred in
whole or in part to any person, associ-
ation or corporation qualified to hold
such leases, except as provided by
§§3420.1-4(b)(l)(iii) and 3420.1-
4(b)(2)(ii) of this title.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-34
16834
(b) A minor is not qualified to hold a
lease and transfers to a minor si-ail
not be approved. However, a transfer
In behalf of a minor heir or devisee of
a lessee to a legal guardian or trustee
may be approved.
§ 3433.1-2 Number of copies required.
A single signed copy of the qualifica-
tions required under subpart 3472 of
this title is sufficient.
3453.1-1 Sole party in interest.
The transferee or transferees shall
comply with § 3472.2-1 of this title.
§345:1.1-4 Attorney-in-fact
The attorney-in-fact shall comply
with § 3472.2-3 of this title.
3153.1-5 Heirs and devisees.
An appropriate showing as required
under §3472.2-4 of this title shall be
furnished before the heirs or devisees
of a deceased holder of a lease, operat-
ing agreement, or royalty interest in a
lease can be recognized by the Secre-
tary as the new holders of a lease,
agreement, or interest.
§ 3453.2 Requirements.
§ 3453.2-1 Application.
Applications for transfers of leases,
whether by direct assignments, work-
ing agreements, transfer of royalty in-
terests, subleases or otherwise, shall
be filed for approval within 90 days
from final execution.
5 3453.2-2 Forms and statements.
(a) Transfers of any interest shall be
filed in triplicate.
(b) No specific form need be used for
requests for apporval of transfers. The
application shall contain evidence of
the transferee's qualifications, includ-
ing statements on other coal leases
held by the transferee. This evidence
shall consist of the same showing of
qualifications required of a lease appli-
cant by subpart 3472 of this title.
(c) A separate instrument of transfer
shall be filed for each lease when
transfers involve record titles. When
transfers to the same person, associ-
ation, or corporation Involving more
than one lease are filed at the same
time, one request for approval and one
showing as to the qualifications of the
transferee shall be sufficient.
(d) A single signed copy of all other
instruments of transfer is sufficient.
except that collateral assignments and
other mortgage documents shall not
accepted for filing.
5 3453.2-3 Filing location and fee.
An application for approval of a
transfer shall be filed in the Bureau of
Land Management State Office having
Jurisdiction over the leased lands pro-
posed for transfer (43 CFR Subpart
PROPOSED RULES
1821). Each application shall be ac-
companied by a nonrefundable filing
fee (43 CFR 3473.2).
§ 3453.2-4 Bonds.
(a) If a bond is required, it shall be
furnished before a lease transfer may
be approved. The consent of the
surety to the substitution of the trans-
feree as principal or a new bond with
the transferee as principal shall be
submitted if the original lease re-
quired the maintenance of a bond. If
the transfer is for part of the leased
land only, it shall be for a legal subdi-
vision and (1) the consent of the
surety to the transfer and its agree-
ment to remain bound as to the inter-
est retained by the lessee shall be sub-
mitted, as well as (2) a new bond with
the transferee as principal covering
the portion of the leased lands trans-
ferred.
(b) The person transferring a lease,
including a sublessee, and the surety
for the lease shall continue to be re-
sponsible for the performance of any
obligation under the lease until the ef-
fective date of the approval of the
transfer. If the transfer is not ap-
proved, their obligation to the United
States shall continue as though no
such transfer had been filed for ap-
proval. After the effective date of ap-
proval, the transferee, including any
sublessee, and the transferee's surety
shall be responsible for all lease obli-
gations notwithstanding any terms in
the transfer to the contrary.
§ 3453.2-5 Description of lands.
The description of the lands in-
volved in the instrument of transfer
shall match the description of lands in
the lease. The approval of transfer of
only a part of the lands described in a
lease shall create a new lease. The
transfer of only a part of the lands
shall be permitted only where it is
demonstrated that each remaining
lease area is a logical mining unit or
part of a logical mining unit.
§ 3453.3 Approval.
§ 3453.3-1 Conditions for approval.
No transfer shall be approved if:
(a) the transferee is not qualified to
hold a lease under subpart 3472 of this
title:
(b) the lease bond is insufficient;
(c) the filing fee has not been sub-
mitted;
(d) the transferee would hold the
lease In violation of the acreage re-
quirements set out in subpart 3472 of
this title;
(e) the transfer would create an
overriding royalty interest in violation
of 5 3473.3 of this title: or
(f) the lease account is not in good
standing.
§ 3453.3-2 Disapproval of transfers.
The authorized officer shall deny .\n
application for approval of a transfer
if any reason why the transfer cannot
be approved (listed in § 3454.3-1 of this
title) is not cured within the time es-
tablished by the authorized officer in
a decision notifiying the applicant for
approval why the transfer cannot be
approved.
§ 3153.3-3 Effective date.
A transfer shall take effect the first
day of the month following its final
approval by the Bureau of Land Man-
agement, or if the transferee requests,
the first day of the month of the ap-
proval.
§ 3453.3-1 Extensions.
The filing of or approval of any
transfer shall not alter any terms or
extend any time periods under- the
lease, including those dealing with re-
adjustment of the lease and the dili-
gent development and continued oper-
ation on the lease.
PART 3460— ENVIRONMENT
Subpart 3441— Federal land* lavlaw— UnHiHabitify
foj Mining
Sec
3461.0-3 Authority.
3461.0-8 Policy.
3461.1 Relationship of leasing to unsuita-
bility assessment.
3461.1-1 Application of criteria on un-
leased lands.
3461.1-2 Application of criteria on leased
lands.
3461.1-3 Relationship of assessment to des-
ignation.
3461.2 Criteria for assessing and designat-
ing lands unsuitable for all or certain
types of mining operations.
3461.3 Exploration.
3461.4 Unsuttability assessment procedures
3461.4-1 Assessment and land use plan-
ning.
3461.4-2 Consultation with state and local
governments.
3461.4-3 Findings.
3461.4-4 Petitions td designate lands.
3461.4-5 Underground mining exception.
3461.4-6 Land exclusion.
Subpart 3445— Surface Manooamant and T refaction
3465.0-1 Purpose.
3465.0-2 Objective.
3465.0-3 Authority.
3465.0-7 Applicability.
3465.1 Use of surface.
3465.2 Obligations and standards of per-
formance.
3465.3 Inspections and noncompliance.
3465.3-1 Inspections.
3465.3-2 Discovery of noncompliance.
3465.3-3 Failure of lessee or holder of li-
cense to mine to act.
3465.4 Alternative postmlnlng land use.
3465.5 Bonding.
3465.6 Conduct, completion, and abandon-
ment of operations.
3465.7 Environmental assessment— Post-
mining land use.
FEDERAt REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54-MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-35
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.: 30 U.S.C.
351-359: 30 D.S.C. 521-531: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et
aeq.; and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
Subpart 3461 — Federal Landi Review —
Untuitability for Mining
§3461.0-3 Authority.
(a) These regulations are issued
under the authority of the statutes
listed in § 3400.0-3 of this title.
(b) These regulations primarily im-
plement:
(1) The general unsuitability criteria
in section 522(a) of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1272(a));
(2) The Federal lands review In sec-
tion 522(b) of the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1272(b)): and
(3) The prohibitions against mining
certain lands in section 522(e) of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1272(e)).
§3461.0-6 Policy.
(a) The Department shall carry out
the review of Federal lands under sec-
tion 522 of the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1272) through land use plan-
ning assessments by the surface man-
agement agency regarding the unsuit-
ability of Federal lands for coal
mining.
(b) The Department shall develop
sufficient information prior to leasing
any tract to be reasonably certain that
subsequent operations on any tract
can be conducted in compliance with
the Surface Mining Control and Recla-
mation Act of 1977.
(c) All criteria regarding the designa-
tion of lands as unsuitable for surface
coal mining operations established by
the Office of Surface Mining Reclama-
tion and Knforcement under 30 CFR
Part 760 shall be used in assessing un-
suitability, in addition to the criteria
in this subpart.
§ 3161.1 Relationship of leasing to unsuit-
ability assessment.
§3461.1 Application of criteria on un-
leased lands.
(a) The unsuitability criteria shall
be applied, prior to lease issuance, to
all lands leased after the issuance of
these regulations, including emergen-
cy leases and noncompetitive (prefer-
ence right) leases.
(b) The unsuitability criteria shall
be initially applied either:
(1) During land use planning or the
environmental assessment conducted
for a specific emergency lease applica-
tion, lease modification, or preference
right lease application under either
§ 3425.2 or § 3430.3 of this title; or
(2) During land use planning under
the provisions of § 3420.1-5 of this
title.
PROPOSED RULES
§3461.1-2 Application of criteria on
Iciised lands.
(a) For any lease issued prior to the
promulgation of these regulations the
unsuitability criteria shall be applied
to all non-producing leases. The De-
partment may await the lessee's sub-
mission of a mining plan before apply-
ing the unsuitability .criteria. This
shall not preclude evaluation of an ex-
isting lease as part of the normal land
use planning process.
(b) The leased lands shall be re-
viewed in light of the unsuitability cri-
teria to determine which, if any,
apply. If any criterion applies, the spe-
cific criterion and any exception to it
which applies shall be identified. If a
criterion does apply and the condi-
tions do not permit an exception, a
further decision shall be made on
whether the leased land is exempt
from the criterion because of the
source of the authority for the crite-
rion. Mining shall be permitted on
land to which no criterion applies; on
land where a criterion applies but
where the conditions permit an excep-
tion; and on land to which a criterion
applies, no exception applies, but
which is exempt from that criterion.
§3461.2 Criteria for assessing and desig-
nating lands unsuitable for all or cer-
tain types of mining operations.
(a)(1) Criterion. All Federal lands in-
cluded in the following land systems
or categories and an appropriate
buffer zone, if necessary, as deter-
mined by the land management
agency, shall be considered unsuitable
for coal mining: National Park System,
National Wildlife Refuge System, Na-
tional Systems of Trails, National Wil-
derness Preservation System, National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System, Na-
tional Recreation Areas, lands ac-
quired with money derived from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund,
Custer National 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 categories by the
Administration in legislative proposals
submitted to the Congress or which
are required by statute to be studied
for inclusion in such systems or cate-
gories shall be considered unsuitable.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations may be ap-
proved within the Custer National
Forest with the consent of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture as long as no sur-
face coal mining operations are per-
mitted.
(3) Exemptions. The application of
this criterion to lands within the listed
land systems and categories is subject
to valid existing rights. The applica-
tion of the buffer zone portion of this
criterion does not apply to lands: to
which substantial financial and legal
16835
commitments were made prior to Jan-
uary 4, 1977; on which operations were
being conducted on August 3, 1977; or
which include operations on which a
permit has been issued.
(b)(1) Criterion. Federal lands that
are within rights-of-way or easements
or within surface leases for residential,
commercial, industrial, or other public
purposes, or for agricultural crop pro-
duction on Federally owned surface
shall be considered unsuitable.
(2) Exceptions. A lease may be
issued, and mining operations ' ap-
proved, in such areas if the surface
management agency determines that:
(i) All or certain types of coal devel-
opment (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 leas-
ing; 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 appro-
priate stipulations.
(3) Exemption. This criterion does
not apply to lands on which mining
would result in substantial loss or re-
duction 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 in-
clude operations on which a permit
has been issued.
(c)(1) Criterion. Federal lands affect-
ed by section 522(e) (4) and (5) of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion 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, community
or institutional building or public park
or within 300 feet of an occupied
dwelling.
(2) Exceptions. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved for
lands:
(i) Used as mine access roads or
haulage roads that join the right-of-
way for a public road;
(ii) For which the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
has issued a permit to have public
roads relocated;
(iii) For which owners of occupied
buildings have given permission to
mine within 300 feet of their build-
ings.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54-MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-36
16836
(3) Exemption. The application of
this criterion is subject to valid exist-
ing rights.
(d)(1) Criterion. Federal lands desig-
nated as wilderness study areas shall
be considered unsuitable while under
review by the Administration and the
Congress for passible wilderness desig-
nation. For any Federal land which is
to be leased or mined prior to comple-
tion of the wilderness inventory by the
surface management agency, the envi-
ronmental assessment or impact state-
ment on the lease sale or mine plan
must consider whether the land pos-
sesses the characteristics of a wilder-
ness study area. If the finding is af-
firmative, the land shall be considered
unsuitable.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if au-
thorized by the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976.
(3) Exemption. The application of
this criterion to lands for which the
Bureau of Land Management is the
surface management agency is subject
to valid existing rights.
(e)(1) Criterion. Scenic Federal lands
designated by visual resource manage-
ment analysis as Class I or II (an area
of outstanding scenic quality or high
visual sensitivity) but not currently on
the National Register of Natural
Landmarks shall be considered unsuit-
able.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if the
surface management agency deter-
mines that mining operations will not
significantly diminish or adversely
affect the scenic quality of the desig-
nated area.
(3) 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.
(f)(1) Criterion. Federal lands under
permit by the land management
agency for scientific studies involving
food or fiber production, natural re-
sources, or technology demonstrations
and experiments shall be considered
unsuitable.
• (2) Exceptions. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved:
(i) With the concurrence of the prin-
cipal scientific user or agency; or
(ii) Where it would be stipulated
that the mining would be done in such
a way as not to jeopardize the purpose
of the study as determined by the sur-
face management agency.
(3) 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
PROPOSED RULES
include operations on which a permit
has been issued.
(g)(1) Criterion. All districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects of
historic, architectural, archeological,
or cultural significance which are in-
cluded in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Sites,
and an appropriate buffer zone around
the outside boundary of the designat-
ed property (to protect the inherent
values of the property that make it eli-
gible for listing in the National Regis-
ter) as determined by the land man-
agement agency, in consultation with
the Advisory Council on Historic Pres-
ervation or by procedures approved by
the Advisory Council, shall be consid-
ered unsuitable.
(2) Exceptions. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if the
surface management agency deter-
mines:
(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 Adviso-
ry 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.
(3) Exemption. The application of
this criterion is subject to valid exist-
ing rights.
(h)(1) Criterion. Federal lands desig-
nated as natural areas or as National
■ Natural Landmarks shall be consid-
ered unsuitable.
(2) Exceptions. A lease may be issued
and mining operation approved in an
area or site if the surface management
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 stipulat-
ed mining technology will result in no
significant adverse impact to the area
or site; or
(iii) The mining of the coal resource
under appropriate stipulations will en-
hance information recovery (e.g., pale-
ontological sites).
(3) 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.
(i)(l) Criterion. Federally designated
critical habitat for threatened or en-
dangered plant and animal species.
and habitat for Federal threatened or
endangered species which is deter-
mined by the Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice and the surface management
agency to be of essential value and
where the presence of threatened or
endangered species has been scientifi-
cally documented, shall be considered
unsuitable.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if,
after consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the surface manage-
ment agency determines the species
and its habitat will not be adversely
affected by all or certain stipulated
methods of coal mining operations.
(J)(l) Criterion. Lands containing
habitat deemed critical or essential for
plant or animal species listed by a
state pursuant to state law as endan-
gered or threatened shall be consid-
ered unsuitable.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if.
after consultation with the state, the
surface management agency deter-
mines that the species will not be ad-
versely affected by all or certain stipu-
lated methods of coal mining.
(3) 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.
(k)(l) Criterion. A bald or golden
eagle nest that is determined to be
active and a buffer zone of land in a V*
mile radius from a nest are areas
which shall be considered unsuitable.
Consideration of availability of habi-
tat for prey species shall be included
in the determination of buffer zones.
(2) Exceptions, (i) A lease may be
issued and mining operations approved
if:
(A) They can be conditioned in such
a way, either in manner or period of
operation, that eagles will not be dis-
turbed 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 decreased if
the surface management agency deter-
mines that the active eagle nests will
not be adversely affected.
(1)(1) Criterion. Bald and golden
eagle roost and concentration areas
used during migration and wintering
shall be considered unsuitable.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if the
surface management agency deter-
mines that all or certain stipulated
methods of coal mining can be con-
ducted in such a way, and during such
periods of time, to ensure that eagles
shall not be adversely disturbed.
(m)(l) Criterion. Federal lands con-
taining falcon cliff nesting sites with
active nests and a buffer zone of Fed-
eral land in a V« mile radius from the
nest to provide needed prey habitat
fEDERAL REGISTER, VCH. 44, NO. 54-MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-37
PROPOSED RULES
16837
shall be considered unsuitable. Consid-
eration of availability of habitat for
prey species shall be included in the
determination of buffer zones.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved where
the land management agency, after
consultation with the Fish and Wild-
life Service, determines that all or cer-
tain stipulated methods of coal mining
will not adversely affect the migratory
bird habitat during the periods when
such habitat is used by the species.
(n)(l) Criterion. Federal lands which
are high priority habitat for migratory
bird species of high Federal interest
on a regional or national basis, as de-
termined jointly by the surface man-
agement agency and the Fish and
Wildlife Service, shall be considered
unsuitable.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved where
the surface management agency, after
consultation with the Fish and Wild-
life Service, determines that all or cer-
tain methods of coal mining will not
adversely affect the migratory bird
habitat during the periods when such
habitat is used by the species.
(oXl) Criterion. Federal lands which
the land management agency and the
state jointly agree are fish and wildlife
habitat for resident species of high in-
terest to the state and which are es-
sential for maintaining these priority
wildlife species shall be considered un-
suitable. Such lands may include ap-
propriate 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;
(il) The most critical winter ranges
for deer, antelope, and elk; and
(iii) Migration corridors for elk.
(2) Exceptions. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved if the
surface management agency, in con-
sultation with the state wildlife
agency, determines that:
(i) Complete mitigation is possible;
or
Cii) The species being protected will
not be adversely affected by all or cer-
tain stipulated methods of coal
mining.
(3) 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.
(p)(l) Criterion. Federal lands con-
taining: (1) inland lakes, impound-
ments, and associated wetlands;
(ii) Inland shallow, predominantly
vegetated wetlands; or
(iii) Riverine wntland systems, lower
and upper perennial systems with flow
greater than 5 cubic feet per second,
and riparian zones in a "relatively un-
disturbed" state that are larger than
one linear mile along a riverine system
shall be considered unsuitable.
(2) Exceptions. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved where
the surface management agency deter-
mines that:
(i) The use of appropriate stipulated
mining or reclamation technology will
not significantly affect the wetlands
or will provide for complete restora-
tion; or
(ii) The wetlands contain no signifi-
cant values for groundwater recharge,
fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, or
scientific study.
(3) 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.
(q)(l) Criterion. Riverine, coastal,
and special floodplains (100-year re-
currence interval) shall be considered
unsuitable.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved where
the surface management agency deter-
mines that:
(i) Leasing a particular tract and ap-
proval of mining operations is the only
practicable method of access to coal
lands outside the floodplain which are
not unsuitable under any other crite-
rion; and
(ii) Potential for harm to people or
property and natural and beneficial
values of floodplains can be minimized
through stipulated use of demonstrat-
ed and available mining and mitiga-
tion measures.
(3) 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.
(r)U) Criterion. Federal lands which
have been committed by the land man-
agement agency to use as municipal
watersheds shall be considered unsuit-
able.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
and mining operations approved
where;
(i) The surface management agency
determines that all or certain stipulat-
ed methods of coal mining will not ad-
versely affect the watershed to any
significant degree; and
(ii) The municipality or water users
concur in the issuance of the lease.
(3) 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.
(s)(l) Cnterion. Federal lands with
National Resource Waters, as identi-
fied by states in their water quality
management plans, and a buffer zone
of Federal lands V* mile from the
outer edge of the far banks of the
water, shall be unsuitable.
(2) Exception. The buffer zone may
be eliminated or reduced in size where
the surface management agency deter-
mines that it is not necessary to pro-
tect the National Resource Waters.
(t)(l) Criterion. When the surface
management agency, with the concur-
rence of the Secretary of Agriculture
(Soil Conservation Service), identifies
Federal lands having prime farmland
soils, such lands shall be considered
unsuitable.
(2) Exceptions. A lease may be issued
when:
(1) Conditions such as soil rockiness,
angle of slope or historic or other con-
ditions leading to a negative determi-
nation under the permanent regula-
tions 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 equiva-
lent levels of management could be ob-
tained and that an operator or poten-
tial operator could meet the soil recon- •
struction standards in section
515(b)(7) of the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1265(b)(7)), and the permanent
regulations of the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment.
(u)(l) Criterion. Federal lands iden-
tified by the surface management
agency, with the concurrence of the
State in which they are located, as al-
luvial valley floors according to the
definition and standards in the perma-
nent regulations under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977, and the final alluvial valley
floor guidelines of the Office of Sur-
face Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment, and approved state programs
under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977, where
mining would interrupt, discontinue,
or preclude farming, shall be consid-
ered unsuitable. Additionally, when
mining Federal land outside an allu-
vial valley floor would materially
damage the quantity or quality of
water in surface or underground water
systems that would supply alluvial
valley floors, the land shall be consid-
ered unsuitable.
FEDERAL 8EGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54 — MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-38
16838
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
where all or certain methods of coai
mining would not interrupt, discontin-
ue, or preclude farming on land to
which the Sirst sentence of the crite-
rion applies.
(vKl) Criterion. As information re-
garding reclaimability on a local or re-
gional basis becomes available, the sur-
face management agency shall use
such information to determine if areas
of Federal land are reclaimable to the
standards of the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act of 1977. the
regulations, and approved state pro-
grams. Examples of information on re-
claimability would be soil studies, hy-
drologic studies, and studies concern-
ing revegetation. If any area is deter-
mined not to be so reclaimable, such
area shall be considered unsuitable.
(2) Exception. A lease may be issued
upon presentation of information
which contains results of studies show-
ing that reclamation is possible to the
standards in the permanent regula-
tions of the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, and an
approved state program, including
state regulations.
(wKl) Criterion. Federal lands in a
state to which is applicable a criterion
(i) proposed by the state, and (ii)
adopted by rulemaking by the Secre-
tary of the Interior, shall be consid-
ered unsuitable for coal mining.
(2) Exceptions. A lease may be Issued
when:
(i) Such criterion is adopted by the
. Secretary less than 6 months prior to
the publication of the draft land use
plan, or supplement to a land use plan,
■for the area in which such land is In-
cluded, or
(ii) The surface management agency.
In consultation with the state, deter-
mines that, although the criterion ap-
plies, mining will not adversely affect
the value which the criterion would
protect.
(3) 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.
(x)(l) Criterion. A buffer zone of
Federal lands necessary to provide
protection for any adjacent area desig-
nated as land unsuitable for mining by
the state shall be considered unsuit-
able.
(2) Exception. The buffer zone may
be modified or eliminated where the
surface management agency, in con-
sultation with the state, determines
that all or parts of the zone are not
necessary to protect the designated
area.
(3) Exemption. This criterion does
not apply to lands: to which the opera-
PROPOSED RULES
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.
§3161.3 Exploration.
(a) Assessment of any area as unsuit-
able for coal mining pursuant to sec-
tions 522 and 523 of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1272, 1273) and the
regulations of this subpart does not
prohibit exploration of such area for
coal under subpart 3410 of this title.
(b) An application for an exploration
license on any lands assessed as un-
suitable for coal mining shall be re-
viewed by the Bureau of Land Man-
agement to ensure that exploration
does not harm any value for which the
area has been assessed as unsuitable.
§ 3161.4 Unsuitability assessment proce-
dures.
§3461.4-1 Assessment and land use plan-
ning.
(a) The authorized officer of the sur-
face management agency shall de-
scribe in the land use plan the results
of the application of each of the un-
suitability criteria to the planning
area. The authorized officer shall
state each Instance in which a crite-
rion if found to .be applicable and
show the area which is excluded from
leasing, or. should the authorized offi-
cer determine that the conditions for
an exception exist, describe the area
to which the exception applies and dis-
cuss in detail the reasons why the ex-
ception is made and what type of con-
ditions or stipulations will be required
in any lease or mining permit to assure
compliance with the exception.
(b) The authorized officer shall
make his assessment on the best avail-
able data that can be obtained given
the time and resources available to
prepare the plan. The plan shall also
disclose when during activity planning
or lease sale activities, or prior to ap-
proval of a permit to conduct surface
mining operations, the data needed to
make an assessment with reasonable
certainty would be generated. When
that data is obtained, the authorized
officer shall make public his assess-
ment on the application of each crite-
rion and the reasons therefor in the
land use plan, whether or not addi-
tional data are needed. The documen-
tation in the plan should explain
whether additional data would be
likely to affect significantly the con-
clusions reached about unsuitability.
(c) All lands not assessed as unsuit-
able for all methods of coal mining
may be considered further In the land
use planning and activity planning
processes. All lands assessed as unsuit-
able for certain methods of ceil
mining may be considered in these
processes with the condition that
those methods of coal mining would
not be authorized.
§ 3461.4-2 Consultation with State and
local governments.
Prior to assessing Federal lands as
unsuitable for coal mining, the Secre-
tary shall consult with the appropriate
state and local agencies (43 CFR
3420.2-6).
§ 3461.4-3 Findings.
Prior to assessing Federal lands as
unsuitable, the Secretary shall pre-
pare a detailed statement for such
lands on (a) the potential coal re-
sources, (b) the demand for coal re-
sources, and (c) the impact of such
designation on the environment, the
economy, and the supply of coal.
§ 3461.4-4 Petitions to designate lands.
Petitions for designation or termina-
tion of a designation of Federal lands
as unsuitable for coal mining shall be
processed by the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
under 30 CFR Part 769.
§ 3461.4-5 Underground mining exception.
Federal lands with coal deposits that
' would be mined by underground
mining methods shall not be consid-
ered unsuitable for coal mining where
there will be no surface coal mining
operations, as defined In § 3400.0-5 of
this title. Where underground mining
will include surface operations and
surface impacts on Federal lands to
which a criterion applies, it shall be
considered unsuitable unless the sur-
face managing agency finds that a rel-
evant exception or exemption applies.
Surface impacts include surface occu-
pancy, subsidence, fire, and other envi-
ronmental impacts of underground
mining which are manifested on the
surface.
§ 3461.4-6 Land exclusion.
After a land use plan is completed,
the Department may exclude addition-
al lands from consideration for leas-
ing, or reassess lands as acceptable for
further consideration for leasing, as
warranted by new information, includ-
ing action by the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
on a petition to designate lands unsuit-
able or to terminate a designation of
unsuitability, without formally revis-
ing the plan. A description of any
lands so excluded shall be added to
the documentation developed during
the tract analysis phase of activity
planning (43 CFR 3420.4).
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1W9
A-39
HSBSsjs ■""Tmtr— *
Subpart 3465 — Surface Management and
Protection
§ 3463.0-1 Purpose.
This subpart establishes rules for
the management and protection of the
surface of the Federal lands when coal
deposits are developed.
§ 3465.0-2 Objective.
This subpart is designed to ensure
the use of effective and reasonable
coal mining operations, and the recla-
mation of mined lands in a manner
that will minimize any adverse social,
economic, and environmental effects
of coal mining.
§ 3465.0-3 Authority.
These regulations are issued under
the authority of the statutes listed in
§ 3400.0-3 of this title.
§ 3465.0-7 Applicability.
This subpart applies to leases and li-
censes to mine, issued by the Bureau
of Land Management for the develop-
ment of Federal coal.
§ 3465.1 Use of surface.
(a) The operator shall use only that
part of the surface area included in his
lease or license that has been included
in an approved permit (30 CFR Part
741).
(b) Separate leases, permits, or
rights-of-way under the appropriate
provisions in Title 43 of the Code of
Federal Regulations are required for
the installation of power generation
plants or commercial or industrial
facilities on the lands in the lease or li-
cense to mine or for the use of mineral
materials or timber from the land in
the lease or license to mine.
(c) Other land uses under other au-
thorities may be allowed on an area in
a lease or license to mine provided
there is no unreasonable conflict and
that neither the mining operation nor
the other use is endangered by the
presence of the other.
§ 3465.2 Obligations and standards of per-
formance.
(a) A lessee or a holder of a license
to mine shall comply with the regula-
tions in this subpart and with the
terms and conditions of the lease or li-
cense.
(b) A lessee or a holder of a license
to mine shall comply with the applica-
ble performance standards in 30 CFR
Chapter VII, Subchapter D, and 30
CFR 211.
(c) When changed conditions or
newly discovered information indicate
that an approved permit (30 CFR Part
741) needs to be reviewed or supple-
mented, the authorized officer may
propose the appropriate revision or
supplement to the Office of Surface
PROPOSES RULES
Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment.
<d) The authorized officer may de-
velop and include additional specific
stipulations in any lease or license to
mine involving special management
consideration.
§ 3465.3 Inspections and noncompliance.
§3465.3-1 Inspections.
The authorized officer, Mining Su-
pervisor, or inspectors from the Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement shall have the right to
enter lands under a lease or license to
mine at any reasonable time.
§ 3465.3-2 Discovery of noncompliance.
(a) Upon discovery of activities that
are not in compliance with the terms
of a lease or license to mine, or w-ith
an approved permit (30 CFR 741), but
that do not pose a serious and immedi-
ate threat to public health and safety
or to natural resources and environ-
mental quality, the authorized officer
shall refer the matter to the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and En-
forcement for remedial action, or to
the Mining Supervisor on matters of
exploration.
(b) Upon discovery of activities that
are not in compliance with the terms
of a lease, license to mine, or an ap-
proved permit and that do pose a seri-
ous and immediate threat to public
health and safety or to resources and
environmental quality, the authorized
officer may order the immediate cessa-
tion of the threatening activities, pro-
vided that the Office of surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
is immediately informed of the issu-
ance of any such emergency cessation
order.
§ 3465.3-3 Failure of lessee or holder of li-
cense to mine to act.
Failure of a lessee or the holder of a
license to mine to comply with an
emergency cessation order issued
under §3465.3-l(b) or with a written
notice of noncompliance issued by the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement in accordance with
30 CFR Part 211 or 30 CFR Chapter
VII, Subchapter D, shall be grounds
for suspension of the permit and may
be grounds for cancellation of the
lease or license to mine, in accordance
with subpart 3452 of this title.
§ 3465.4 Alternative postmining land use-
When a lessee, holder of a license to
mine, or permit applicant proposes
any postmining land use that is sub-
stantially different from the land use
prior to exploration and mining, the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, with the approval
of the authorized officer of the appro-
priate surface management agency.
16839
may approve such alternative postmin-
ing land use. The authorized officer
shall not approve the alternative post-
mining land use unless it:
(a) Does not conflict with land use
plans for the area in the lease or li-
cense to mine and surrounding lands;
(b) Is considered an equal or better
economic or public use of the land as
compared to the premining use of the
land;
(c) Does not, as determined by the
authorized officer, cause a significant
adverse impact upon the aesthetic
character of the land or the lives of
people who inhabit the area immedi-
ately surrounding the land in the lease
or license to mine; and
(d) Is approved by the legal owner of
the surface where the surface is pri-
vately owned.
§ 3465.5 Bonding.
(a) Bonding for compliance with the
terms of a lease or license to mine
shall be furnished in accordance with
the applicable provisions of subpart
3474 of this title.
(b) A reclamation bond shall be se-
cured in accordance with 30 CFR Part
742.
(c) A lease or license to mine may be
denied any applicant or successful
bidder who has previously forfeited a
bond because of failure to comply with
an approved plan (30 CFR Part 741) or
permit unless the affected lands cov-
ered by that plan or permit have been
reclaimed without cost to the Federal
Government. Nothing in this section
shall modify or limit the discretionary
authority of the authorized officer to
deny for other causes any successful
bid or application for a lease or license
to mine.
§ 3465.6 Conduct, completion, and aban-
donment of operations.
All terms of the permit shall be ad-
ministred under 30 CFR Chapter VII,
Subchapter D, and 30 CFR 211.
§ 3465.7 Environmental assessment— Post-
mining land use.
If the Director of the Office of Sur-
face Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment determines that a decision to ap-
prove any alternative postmining land
use or alternative rehabilitation prac-
tices would constitute a major Federal
action requiring an environmental
statement under section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4332<2)CC» and that the
decision has not been discussed in any
environmental statement that may
have been prepared for the issuance of
the lease or the approval of the
permit, a statement shall be prepared
by the Director of the Office of Sur-
face Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 197?
A-40
16840
■ ART 3470— COAl MANAGEMENT
PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Subpart 3471— Cool Manoaamant Provision* and
Limitotiont
34T1.1 Land description requirements.
3471.1-1 Land description in application.
3471.1-2 Land description in le:ise.
3471.2 Effect of land transactions.
3471.2-1 Disposal of land with a reserva-
tion of minerals
3471.2-2 Effect of conveyance to state or
local entity.
3471.3 Cancellation or forfeiture.
3471.3-1 Cancellation or forfeiture tor
cause.
3471.3-2 Protection of bona fide purchaser.
3471.3-3 Sale of underlying interests.
3471.4 Future interest, acquired lands.
Subpart 3472 — Qualification RaquirsmonH
3472.1 Qualified applicants and bidders.
3472.1-1 Special qualification provisions.
3472.1-2 Acreage limitations.
3472.2 Piling of qualification statements.
3472.2-1 Sole party in interest statement.
3472.2-2 Contents of qualification state-
ment.
3472.2-3 Signature of applicant.
3472.2-4 Special qualifications, heirs, and
devisees (estates).
3472.2-5 Special qualifications. public
bodies.
Subpart 3473— *••», Rontait, and toyolrlat
3473.1 Payments.
3473.1-1 Form of payment.
3473.1-2 Where paid.
3473.1-3 When paid.
3473.2 Fees.
3473.2-1 General fee provisions.
3473.2-2 Exemptions from fee provisions.
3473.3 Rentals and royalties.
3473.3-1 Rentals.
3473.3-2 Royalties.
3473.4 Suspension of operation, produc-
tion, and payment obligations.
Subpart 3474— Bond*
3474.1 Bonding requirements.
3474.2 Type of bond required.
3474.3 Qualified sureties.
3474.4 Default.
PROPOSED RULES
Subpart 3475— Uata T»rm>
3475.1 Duration of leases. .
3475.2 Dating of leases.
3475.3 Land description.
3475.4 Diligent development and continued
operation.
3475.5 Logical mining unit.
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. and 30
TJ.S-C. 351-359
Subpart 3471— Coal Manaaament Proviiioiw
and Limitation!
§ 3471.1 Land description requirements.
§ 3471.1-1 Land description and coal de-
posit in application.
Any application for a lease, lease
modification, or license to mine shall
include a complete and accurate de-
scription of the lands for which the
lease, modification, or license to mine
is desired.
(a) If the land has been surveyed
under the public land rectangular
system, each application shall describe
the 'and by legal subdivision (soction.
township, and range), or aliquot part
thereof (but not less than 10 acres).
(b) Where protraction surveys have
been approved and the effective date
has been published in the Federal
F.zgistzr. the application for land
shown on such protraction surveys
and filed on or after the effective date
shall contain a description of the land
according to the section, township,
and range shown on the approved pro-
traction surveys.
(c)(1) If the land has not been sur-
veyed on the ground and is not shown
on the records as covered by protrac-
tion surveys, the application shall de-
scribe the land by metes and bounds.
giving courses and distances between
the successive angle points on the
boundary of the tract. In cardinal di-
rections except where the boundaries
of the land are in irregular form, and
connected by courses and distances to
an official corner of the public land
surveys. In Alaska, the description of
unsurveyed land shall be connected by
courses and distances to either an offi-
cial comer of the public land surveys
or to a triangulation station estab-
lished by an agency of the United
States such as the Geological Survey,
the Coast and Geodetic Survey, or the
International Boundary Commission,
if the record position is available to
the general public.
(2) If the land is acquired land
which has not been surveyed under
the rectangular system of public land
surveys, and the tract is not within the
area of the public land surveys, the
land shall be described as in the deed
or other document by which the
United States acquired title to the
lands or minerals.
(i) If the land constitutes less than
the entire tract acquired by the
United States, it shall be described by
courses and distances between succes-
sive angle points on its boundary tying
by course and distance into the de-
scription In the deed or other docu-
ment by which the United States ac-
quired title to the land.
(ii) If the description in the deed or
other document by which the United
States acquired title to the land does
not include the courses and distance
between the successive angle points on
the boundary of the desired tract, the
description in the application shall be
expanded to include such courses and
distances.
<iii) The application shall be accom-
panied by a map on which the land is
clearly marked showing its location
with respect to the administrative unit
or project of which it is a part. It is
not necessary to submit a map if the
land has been surveyed under the rec-
tangular system of public land sur-
veys, and the land description can be
conformed to that system.
(iv) If an acquisition tract number
has been assigned by the acquiring
agency to the tract, a description by
tract number will be accepted.
(v) Any accreted land not described
In the deed to the United States shall
be described by metes and bounds,
giving courses and distances between
the successive angle points on the
boundary of the tract, and connected
by courses and distances to an angle
point on the perimeter of the acquired
tract to which the accretions belong.
§ 3471.1-2 Land description in lease.
All lands in a public land survey
system State shall have a cadastral
survey performed at Federal Govern-
ment expense before a lease or license
to mine may be issued, except for
areas covered by a skeleton survey, i.e.
Utah and Alaska, and the lease when
issued shall be described by legal sub-
division (section, township, and range),
or aliquot part thereof (but no less
than 10 acres).
§ 347 1 .2 Effect of land transactions.
5 3471.2-1 Disposal of land with a reserva-
tion of minerals,
(a) Where the lands included in a
lease or license to mine have been or
may be disposed of with reservation of
the coal deposits, a lessee or the
holder of a license to mine must
comply fully with the law under which
the reservation was made. See, among
other laws, the Acts of March 3. 1909
(34 Stat. 844; 30 U.S.C. 81); June 22.
1910 (35 Stat. 583: 30 U.S.C. 83-85);
December 29, 1916, as amended (39
Stat. 862: 43 U.S.C. 291-301); June 17,
1949 (63 Stat. 200): June 21. 1949 (63
Stat. 214; 30 UJ3.C. 54); March 8. 1922
(42 Stat. 415; 48 U.S.C. 376-377); and
October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2759; 43
U.S.C. 1719).
(b) Any sale or conveyance of lands
subject to the Mineral Leasing Act for
Acquired Lands by the agency having
jurisdiction shall be subject to any
lease or license to mine previously
issued under that act.
(c) Leases on acquired lands out-
standing on August 7. 1947, and cover-
ing lands subject to the Minearal Leas-
ing Act for Acquired Lands may be ex-
changed for new leases to be issued
under that act subject in each case to
such appropriate conditions as may be
prescribed.
(d) When: (1) the coal is to be mined
by other than underground mining
techniques, (2) the surface of the land
Is owned by a qualified surface owner,
and (3) the lease is issued after August
3. 1977. the lessee shall comply with
the terms of the written consent of
the qualified surface owner not incon-
sistent with Federal and state mined
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 44, NO. 54—MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-41
land reclamation laws and regulations
(43 CFR 3420.6).
§3471.2-2 Effect of conveyance to State
or local entity.
(a) If the United States has con-
veyed the title to, or otherwise trans-
ferred control of the land surface con-
taining the coal deposits to, (1) any
state or political subdivision, agency.
or its instrumentality; (2) a college,
any other educational corporation, or
association, or (3) to a charitable or re-
ligious corporation or association, the
transferee shall be notified by certi-
fied mail of the application for the li-
cense to mine or lease, or the schedul-
ing of a lease sale. The transferee
shall be given a reasonable period of
time within which to suggest any stip-
ulations necessary for the protection
of existing surface improvements or
uses to be included in the license or
lease and state the supporting facts, or
to file any objections to its issuance
and state the supporting facts.
(b) If the state or local entity op-
poses the issuance of the license to
mine or lease, the facts submitted In
support of the opposition must be
carefully considered and each case
separately decided on its merits. Oppo-
sition by the state or local entity is not
a bar to issuance of the license to mine
or lease for the reserved minerals in
the lands. (See, however, § 3461.2(b).)
In each case, the final determination
on whether to issue the license to
mine or lease is based on the best in-
terests of the public.
§ 3471.3 Cancellation or forfeiture.
§ 3471.3-1 Cancellation or forfeiture for
cause.
Any lease or license to mine may be
cancelled or forfeited for violation of
the act under which the lease or li-
cense to mine was issued, applicable
Federal regulations, or the terms of
the lease or license to mine (43 CFR
3452.2).
§3471.3-2 Protection of bona fide pur-
chaser.
(a) The Secretary's right to cancel or
forfeit a lease for any violation shall
not adversely affect the title or inter-
est of a bona fide purchaser of any
lease or any interest therein. A bona
fide purchaser must be a person, asso-
ciation, or corporation qualified to
hold such lease or interest, even
though the holdings of the party or
parties from which the lease or Inter-
est therein was acquired or their
predecessor(s) in title (including the
original lessee of the United States).
may have been cancelled or forfeited
for any such violation.
(b) Any party to any proceedings
with respect to a violation of any pro-
vision of the mineral leasing laws has
PROPOSED RULES
the right to be dismissed promptly as
a party by showing that he or she
holds and acquired his or her interest
as a bona fide purchaser without
having violated any provisions of the
mineral leasing laws. No hearing shall
be necessary on such showing unless
prima facie evidence is presented to in-
dicate a possible violation on the part
of the alleged bona fide purchaser.
(c) If, during any such proceeding, a
party waives his or her rights under
the lease, or if such rights are sus-
pended by order of the Secretary
pending a decision, rental payments
and time counted against the term of
the lease shall be suspended as of the
first day of the month following the
filing of the waiver or the Secretary's
suspension until the first day of the
month following the final decision in
the proceeding or the revocation of
the waiver or suspension.
§3471.3-3 Sale of underlying interests.
If, in any proceeding to cancel or
forfeit a lease or any interest therein
acquired in violation of any of the pro-
visions of the mineral leasing laws, the
lease or interest therein is cancelled or
forfeited, and if there are valid options
to acquire the lease or an interest
therein that are not subject to cancel-
lation, forfeiture, or compulsory dispo-
sition, this lease or interest therein
shall be sold to the highest responsible
qualified bidder by competitive bid-
ding, in a manner similar to that pro-
vided for in the offering of leases by
competitive bidding, subject to all out-
standing valid interests and options. If
less than the whole Interest in the
lease or Interest therein is cancelled or
forfeited, the partial interest shall be
sold in the same way. If no satisfac-
tory offer is obtained as a result of the
competitive offering of a whole or par-
tial interest, it may be sold by other
methods that the authorized officer
finds appropriate. However, the terms
shall not be less favorable to the Gov-
ernment than those of the best com-
petitive bid received.
§ 3471.4 Future interest, acquired lands.
An application to lease lands in
which the United States has a future
interest filed less than one year prior
to the date of the vesting in the
United States of the present interest
in the coal shall be rejected. Upon the
vesting in the United States of the
present possessory interest in the coal,
all applications for future interest
leases outstanding at the time shall
automatically lapse. Only applications
for a present Interest lease shall be
considered after that time.
16841
Subpart 3472 — Qualification Requirements
§ 3472.1 Qualified applicants and bidders.
A lease may be issued only to (a) citi-
zens of the United States; (b) associ-
ations of citizens organized under the
laws of the United States or of any
state thereof, which are authorized to
hold such interests by the statute
under which they are organized and
by the instrument establishing their
association: (c) corporations organized
under the laws of the United States or
of any state thereof, including a com-
pany or corporation operating a
common carrier railroad; and (d)
public bodies, including municipalities.
§ 3472.1-1 Special qualification provisions.
(a) Each applicant or bidder for a
lease shall furnish a signed statement
showing that, with the area applied or
bid for, the applicant or bidder's inter-
ests in leases and lease applications,
held directly or indirectly, do not
exceed in the aggregate the acreage
limitation in § 3472.1-2 of this title.
(b) A lease or license to mine shall
not be issued to a minor but may be
issued to a legal guardian or trustee on
behalf of a minor.
(c) Every company or corporation
operating a common carrier railroad
shall make a statement that it needs
the coal for which It seeks a lease
solely for its own railroad use; that it
operates main or branch lines in the
state in which the lands involved are
located; that the aggregate acreage in
the leases and applications in which it
holds an interest, directly or indirect-
ly, does not exceed 10,240 acres; and
that it does not hold more than one
lease for each 200 miles of its railroad
lines served or to be served from such
coal deposits. This last requirement
excludes spurs or switches, branch
lines built to connect the leased coal
with the railroad, and parts of the rail-
road operated mainly by power not
produced by steam.
(d) Aliens may not acquire or hold
any direct or indirect interest in li-
censes to mine or leases, except that
they may own or control stock in cor-
porations holding leases if the laws of
their country do not deny similar or
like privileges to citizens of the United
States. If any appreciable percentage
of stock of a corporation is held by
aliens who are citizens of a country
denying similar or like privileges to
United States citizens, that corpora-
tion's application or bid for a lease
shall be rejected.
(e) A license to mine may not be
issued to a private corporation.
§ 3472.1-2 Acreage limitations.
(a)(1) No person, association, or cor-
poration, or any subsidiary, affiliate,
or person controlled by or under
common control with such person, as-
fEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54-MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-42
16842
sociation. or corporation shall take,
hold, own. or control at one time Fed-
eral coal leases, lease applications, or
bids on more than 46,080 acres in any
one state and in no case on more than
100,000 acres in the United States.
(2) No person. a.ssociation. or corpo-
ration holding. owning, or controlling
leases, lease applications or bids (indi-
vidually or through any subsidiary, af-
filiate, or person under common con-
trol) on more than 100,000 acres in the
United States on August 4, 1976, shall
be required to relinquish any lease or
lease application held on that date.
However, it shall not be permitted to
hold any additional interests in any
further leases or lease applications
until such time as its holdings, owner-
ship, or control of leases or applica-
tions has been reduced below 100,000
acres witHin the United States.
(b)(1) In computing acreage held,
owned, or controlled, the accountable
acreage of a party owning an undivid-
ed interest in a lease shall be the
party's proportionate part of the total
lease acreage. The accountable acre-
age of a party owning an interest in a
corporation or association shall be the
party's proportionate part of the cor-
poration's or association's accountable
acreage. However, no person shall be
charged that person's pro rata share
of any acreage holdings of any associ-
ation or corporation unless that
person is the beneficial owner of more
than 10 percent of the stock or other
Instruments of ownership or control of
such association or corporation.
(2) On acquired lands, if the United
States owns only a fractional interest
in the coal resources of the lands in-
volved, only that part of the total
acreage involved in the lease, propor-
tionate to the extent of ownership by
the United States of the coal re-
sources, shall be charged as acreage
holdings. The acreage embraced in a
future interest lease is not to be
charged as acreage holdings until the
lease for the future interest takes
effect.
§ 3472.2 Filing of qualification statements.
§ 3 172.2-1 Sole party in interest statement.
Every applicant or bidder for a lease
or license to mine shall submit to the
Bureau of Land Management State
Office having jurisdiction over the
lands (43 CFR Subpart 1821) at the
time of filing the application or bid a
signed statement that the applicant is
the sole party in interest in the appli-
cation or bid, and the lease or license
to mine, if issued. If the applicant or
bidder is or will not be the sole party
in interest, the applicant or bidder
shall set forth the names of the other
interested parties in the application or
bid. A separate or joint statement
shall be signed by them and by the ap-
PROPOSED RULES
plicant or bidder setting forth the
nature and extent of the interest of
each in the application or bid. the
nature of the agreement between
them, if oral, and a copy of such agree-
ment if written. Such separate or joint
statement of interest and written
agreement, if any. or a statement of
the nature of such agreement, if oral,
shall accompany the application or
bid. All interested parties shall furnish
evidence of their qualifications to hold
such interest in the lease or license to
mine including a statement regarding
knowledge of written consent from
any qualified surface owner for the
area involved (43 CFR Part 3427).
§ 3172.2-2 Contents of qualification state-
ment.
(a) If the applicant or bidder is an
individual, he shall submit a signed
statement setting forth his citizenship
with each application or bid for a li-
cense to mine or lease.
(b) If the applicant or bidder. is an
association or partnership, the appli-
cation or bid shall be accompanied by
a certified copy of its articles of associ-
ation or partnership, together with a
statement showing (1) that it is au-
thorized to hold a lease or license to
mine; (2) that the member or partner
executing the lease or license to mine
is authorized to act on behalf of the
association or partnership in such
matters; (3) the names and addresses
of all members owning or controling
more than 10 percent of the associ-
ation or partnership and their citizen-
ship and holdings.
(c) If the applicant or bidder for a
lease or license to mine is a corpora-
tion, it must submit statements show-
ing (1) the state of incorporation; (2>
that the corporation is authorized to
hold leases or licenses to mine; (3) the
names of the officers authorized to act
on behalf of the corporation; (4) the
percentage of the corporation voting
stock and all of the stock owned by
aliens or those having addresses out-"
side of the United States; and (5) the
name, address, citizenship, and acre-
age holdings of any stockholder
owning or controlling 10 percent or
more of the corporate stock of any
class. If more than 10 percent of the
stock is owned or controlled by or on
behalf of aliens, or persons who have
addresses outside of the United States,
the corporation shall provide their
names and addresses, the amount and
class of stock held by each such
person, and to the extent known to
the corporation or which can be rea-
sonably ascertained by it, the facts as
to the citizenship of each such person.
Any applicant who has previously
filed a qualification statement may
submit either a serial number refer-
ence to the record and office where
the statement is filed or a new qualifi-
cation statement. Applications on
behalf of a corporation shall be accom-
panied by proof of the signatory's au-
thority to execute the instrument
except In a case where an officer of a
corporation signs an application on
behalf of the corporation.
(d) To qualify as a small business for
the purpose of bidding on any tract to
be offered as part of a special opportu-
nity lease sale for small businesses, the
bidder shall submit evidence demon-
strating qualification under 13 CFR
121.
(e) Where there is a legal guardian
or trustee, the following shall be pro-
vided: a certified copy of the court
order authorizing the guardian or
trustee to act as such and to fufill in
behalf of the minor or minors all obli-
gations of the lease or obligations aris-
ing thereunder; and statements by the
guardian or trustee as to the citizen-
ship and holdings of each of the
minors and as to the trustee's own citi-
zenship and holdings, including hold-
ings for the benefit of other minors.
§3472.2-3 Signature of applicant.
Every application or bid for a lease
or license to mine shall be signed ''by
the applicant or bidder or by its attor-
ney-in-fact. If executed by an attor-
ney-in-fact the application or bid
shall be accompanied by the power of
attorney and the applicant's own
statement as to citizenship and acre-
age holdings unless the power of attor-
ney specificially authorizes and em-
powers the attorney-in-fact to make
such statement or to execute all state-
ments which may be required under
these regulations.
§3472.2-4 Special qualifications, heirs, and
devisees (estates).
If an applicant or bidder for a li-
cense to mine or a lease dies before
the license to mine or lease is issued,
the license or lease shall be issued; if
the estate has not been probated, to
the executor or administrator of the
estate; if probate has been completed,
or is not required, to the heirs or devi-
sees; and if there are minor heirs or
devisees, to their legal guardian or
trustee. The lease or license to mine
shall not issue until the following in-
formation has been filed;
(a) Where probate of the estate has
not been completed: (1) evidence that
the person who acts as executor or ad-
ministrator has the authority to act in
that capacity and to act on the appli-
cation or bid; (2) evidence that the
heirs or devisees are the heirs or devi-
sees of the deceased applicant or
bidder, and are the only heirs or devi-
sees of the deceased; and Ola state-
ment over the signature of each heir
or devisee concerning citizenship and
holdings.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. S4-MONDAY, MARCH 19, 197»
A-43
<b) Where the executor or adminis-
trator has been discharged or no pro-
bate proceedings are required: (1) a
certified copy of the Will or decree of
distribution, if any. and if not, a state-
ment signed by the heirs that they are
the only heirs of the applicant or
bidder, and citing the provisions of the
law of the deceased's last domicile
showing that no probate is required;
and (2) a statement over the signature
of each of the heirs or devisees with
reference to citizenship and holdings,
except that II the heir or devisee is a
minor, the statement shall be over the
signature of the guardian or trustee.
§3472.2-5 Special qualifications, public
bodies,
(a) To qualify to bid for a lease on a
tract offered for sale under §3420.1-4
of this title, a public body shall
submit:
(1) Evidence of the mariner in which
it is organized;
(2) Evidence that it is authorized to
hold a lease;
(3) Evidence that the action pro-
posed has been duly authorized by its
governing body; and
(4) A definite plan to produce energy
within the next 10 years solely for its
own use or for sale to its members or
customers (except for short-term sales
to others).
(b) To obtain a license to mine, a
municipality shall submit with its ap-
plication:
(1) Evidence of the manner in which
it is organized;
(2) Evidence that it is authorized to
hold a license; and
(3) Evidence that the action pro-
posed has been duly authorized by its
governing body.
(c) To qualify to bid for a lease on a
tract of acquired land set apart for
military or naval purposes, a govern-
mental entity shall submit:
(1) Evidence of the manner in which
it is organized, including the state in
which iris located;
(2) Evidence that it is authorized to
hold a lease;
(3) Evidence that the action pro-
posed has been duly authorized by its
own governing body; and
(4) Evidence that it is producing
electricity for sale to the public. in the
state where the lands to be leased are
located.
(d) If the material required in para-
graphs (a), (b). or (c) of this section
has previously been filed, a reference
to the serial number of the record in
which it has been filed, together with
a statement as to any amendments,
shall be accepted.
PROPOSED RULES
Subpart 3473 — Fe«cr Ramtafo, and Royalties
§3473.1 Payments.
§3173.1-1 Form of payment.
Payments shall be made in cash, or
by money order, check, certified
check, bank draft, or bank cashier's
check payable to the Bureau of Land
Management or Geological Survey, as
appropriate.
§3173.1-2 Where paid.
(a) Payments for all licenses to mine
shall be paid to the Bureau of Land
Management State Office having ju-
risdiction over the land (43 CFR Sub-
part 1321).
(b) Payments of all rentals for non-
producing leases shall be paid to the
Bureau of Land Management State
Office having jurisdiction over the
land (43 CFR Subpart 1821).
(c) Rentals and royalties on produc-
tagjeases shall be paid to the Geologi-
cal Survey Mining Supervisor for the
area in which the lands under lease
are situated.
§ 3473.1-3 When paid.
First year's rental for preference
right leases shall be remitted at the
time of filing the applications. First
year's rental for competitive leases
shall be payable when required by de-
cision. Thereafter, rental for all leases
shall be paid in accordance with the
lease provisions.
§3473.2 Fees.
§ 3473.2-1 General fee provisions.
A filing fee of $250.00 must accom-
pany each application for an emergen-
cy lease, exploration license, and lease
modification. A filing fee of $50.00
must accompany each application for
approval of any transfer of a lease or
an interest therein. The fee shall be
retained as a service charge even if the
application is rejected or withdrawn in
whole or in part. An application not
accompanied by the filing fee will not
be accepted for filing; it will be re-
turned to the applicant without
action.
§ 3473.2-2 Exemptions from fee provi-
sions.
No filing fee is required for:
(a) Licenses to mine to relief agen-
cies as described in subpart 3440 of
this title: or
(b) Preference right lease applica-
tions.
§ 3473.3 Rentals and royalties.
§3473.3-1 Rentals.
(a) The annual rental per acre or
fraction thereof on any lease issued or
readjusted after the promulgation of
this subpart shall not be less than $3.
16843
The amount of the rental will be speci-
fied in the lease.
(b) Until a lease issued before
August 4. 1976. is readjusted, the
rental paid for any year shall be cred-
ited against the production or advance
royalties for that year.
(c) On leases issued or readjusted
after August 4, 1976. rental payments
may not be credited against royalties.
J3473JJ-2 Royalties.
(a)(1) Royalty rates shall be deter-
mined on an individual case basis prior
to lease issuance and upon lease read-
justment. For competitive leases. Ini-
tial royalty rates shall be set out in
the notice of lease sale.
(2) A lease shall require payment of
a royalty of not less than 1.SV4 percent
of the value of the coal removed from
a surface mine.
(3) A lease shall require payment of
royalty of not less than 8 percent of
the value of the coal removed from an
underground mine, except that the au-
thorized officer may determine a
lesser amount, but in no case less than
5 percent if conditions warrant.
(4) The value of coal removed from a
mine Is defined for royalty purposes in
30 CFR 211.63.
(b)(1) The Mining Supervisor shall
have the discretion, upon the request
of the lessee, to authorize the pay-
rnent of an advance royalty in lieu of
continued operation for any particular
year.
(2) The advance royalty for each
lease shall be based on a percentage of
the value of a minimum number of
tons of coal, and the percentage shall
not be less than the percentage pre-
scribed in that lease for the produc-
tion royalty. For any lease issued after
August 4, 1976, the minimum number
of tons shall be determined on a
schedule sufficient to exhaust the
leased reserves in 40 years from the
approval date of the LMU mining plan
of which the lease is a part: for any
lease issued before August 4, 1976, the
minimum number of tons shall be de-
termined on a schedule sufficient to
exhaust the leased reserves in 40 years
from June 1, 1976.
(3) The use of advance royalties in
lieu of continued operation shall not
be permitted for more than a total of
10 years during the life of any lease,
including the life of the lease after re-
adjustment. No payment of an ad-
vance royalty during the first 20 years
of a lease issued after August 4. 1976,
may be used as credit against produc-
tion royalty due after the 20th year of
that lease.
(4) The Mining Supervisor may,
upon notifying the lessee six months
in advance, cease to accept advance
royalties in lieu of the requirement of
continued operation.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, W*
A-44
16844
(c) An overriding royalty interest
shall not be created by a lease trans-
fer, surface owner consent, or other-
wise (1) that exceeds 50 percent of the
rate of royalty first payable to the
United States under the lease or i2)
that, when added to any other overrid-
ing royalty interest, exceeds that per-
centage. Where an interest in the
leasehold or operating agreement is
transfeerred, the transferor may
retain an overriding royalty in excess
of the above limitation if he shows to
the satisfaction of the Bureau of Land
Management that he has made sub-
stantial investments for improvements
on the land covered by the transfer
that would justify a higher payment.
CdKl) In order to encourage the
greatest ultimate recovery of coal, and
in the Interest of conservation, the
Secretary, whenever he determines it
necessary to promote development or
finds that the lease cannot be success-
fully operated under its terms may
waive, suspend, or reduce the rental or
minimum royalty, but not advance
royalty, or reduce the royalty on an
entire leasehold, or on any deposit,
tract, or portion thereof, except that
in no case shall the royalty be reduced
below 12'A percent for surface mined
coal, or 5 percent for underground
coal.
(2) An application for any of the
above benefits shall be filed in tripli-
cate in the office of the Mining Super-
visor. The application shall contain
the serial number of the lease, the
Bureau of Land Management State
Office, the name of the record title
holder and any operator or sublessee,
and the description of the lands in the
manner provided by §3471.1 of this
title.
(i) Each application shall include the
number and location of the mine, a
map showing the extent of the mining
operations, a tabulated statement of
the coal mined and subject to royalty
for each month covering a period of
not less than 12 months Immediately
prior to the date of filing of the appli-
cation, and the average production per
day mined for each month, with com-
plete information as to why the mini-
mum production or continued oper-
ation requirement was not met.
<ii) Each application shall contain a
detailed statement of expenses and
costs of operating the entire lease, the
income from the sale of coal, and all
facts Indicating whether the mines can
be successfully operated upon the roy-
alty or rental fixed in the lease. Where
the application is for a reduction in
royalty, full information shall be fur-
nished as to whether royalties or pay-
ments out of production are paid to
parties other than the United States,
the amounts so paid, and efforts made
to reduce them, if any.
PROPOSED RULES
(iii) The applicant shall also file a
copy of agreements between the lessee
and the holders of any royalty inter-
ests to a permanent reduction of all
other royalties from the leasehold so
that the total royalties owed the hold-
ers of royalty interests will not be in
excess of one-half of the Government
royalties, should the royalty reduction
be granted.
§ 3473.4 Suspension of operations, produc-
tion, and payment obligations.
(a) Application by a lessee for relief
from any operating and producing re-
quirements of a lease shall be filed in
triplicate in the office of the Mining
Supervisor. By Department Order No.
2699 and Geological Survey Order No.
218 of August 11, 1952, the Mining Su-
pervisor Is authorized to act on appli-
cations for suspension of operations or
production, or both, filed pursuant to
this section and to terminate suspen-
sions of this kind which have been or
may be granted.
(b) The term of any lease shall be
extended by adding thereto any period
of suspension of all operations and
production during such term in ac-
cordance with any direction or assent
of the Mining Supervisor.
<c) A suspension shall take effect as
of the time specified in the direction
or assent of the Mining Supervisor.
Rental and minimum royalty pay-
ments will be suspended during such
period of suspension of all operations
and production, beginning with the
first day of the lease month on which
the suspension of operations, and pro-
duction becomes effective. If the sus-
pension of operations and production
becomes effective on any date other
than the first day of the lease month,
rental and minimum royalty payments
shall be suspended beginning with the
first day of the lease month following
such effective date. The suspension of
rental and minimum royalty payments
shall end on the first day of the lease
month in which operations or produc-
tion is resumed. Where rentals are
creditable against royalties and have
been paid in advance, proper credit
shall be allowed on the next rental or
royalty due under the lease.
(d) The minimum annual production
requirements of a lease shall be pro-
portionately reduced for that portion
of a lease year for which suspension of
operations and production is directed
or granted by the Secretary in the in-
terest of conservation.
(e) A suspension under this section
shall not be granted on a lease issued
after August 4, 1976, on which the
lessee has not met its diligent develop-
ment obligations unless administrative
action caused the lessee's delay or fail-
ure to comply with those obligations.
Subpart 3474 — Bondi
§ 3474.1 Bonding requirements.
(a) Before a lease or license to mine
may be Issued, one of the following
forms of compliance bond shall be fur-
nished:
(1) Corporate surety bonds;
(2) Cash; or
(3) Personal lease bonds secured by
negotiable U.S. bonds of a par value
equal to the amount of the required ,
surety bond, together with a power of
attorney executed on a form approved
by the Director.
(b) The applicant or bidder shall file
the compliance bond in the proper
office within 30 days of receiving
notice. An original bond shall be fur-
nished on a form provided by the Di-
rector.
(c) The period of liability for the
compliance bond shall not be termi-
nated until the lease account is in
good standing.
(d) The bonding obligation for a new
lease may be met by an adjustment to
an existing bond covering another
lease within the same logical mining
unit.
§ 3472.4 Type of bond required.
(a) A compliance bond lease or li-
cense to mine, conditioned upon com-
pliance with all provisions of the lease
or license to mine except reclamation,
shall be furnished In the amount de-
termined by the authorized officer.
The amount of the bond may be
changed if the authorized officer con-
siders such a change to be proper and
necessary.
(b) A reclamation bond may be re-
quired in accordance with 30 CFR
Part 742.
(c) For exploration licenses, a com-
pliance bond must be furnished in ac-
cordance with § 3410.3-7 of this title.
§ 3474.3 Qualified sureties.
The authorized officer will notify
those leaseholders who have nation-
wide or statewide bonds at the time of
issuance of this subpart of the require-
ment to secure a separate compliance
bond for each lease in the amount de-
termined by the authorized officer to
be proper and necessary. A list of com-
panies holding certificates of authori-
ty from the Secretary of the Treasury
under the Act of July 30, 1947 (6
U.S.C. 6-14) as acceptable sureties on
Federal bonds is published annually in
the Federal Register.
§ 3474.4 Default.
When the surety makes payment to
the Government of any indebtedness
due under a lease, the face amount of
the surety bond and the surety's liabil-
ity thereunder shall be reduced by the
amount of such payment.
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1979
A-45
Subpart 3475 — lease Tamil
§ 3475.1 Duration of leases.
Leases shall be issued for a period of
20 years and so long thereafter as the
condition of continued operation is
met. If the condition of continued op-
eration is not met the lease will be
cancelled as provided in § 3452.2 of
this title.
§ 3475.2 Dating of leases.
(a) Leases will be dated and made ef-
fective the first day of the month fol-
lowing the date signed by the author-
ized officer. However, upon receipt of
a prior written request, the authorized
officer may date a lease to be effective
on the first day of the month in which
it is signed.
(b) Future interest leases shall
become effective on the date of vest-
ing of title to the minerals in the
United States as stated in the lease.
§ 3475.3 Land description.
Compliance with § 3471.1 of this title
is required.
§ 3475.4 Diligent development and contin-
ued operation.
(a) Each lease shall require (1) dili-
gent development, and (2) either (i>
continued operation except when op-
erations under the lease are interrupt-
ed by strikes, the elements, or casual-
ties not attributable to the lessee, or
(ii) in lieu thereof, when the Secretary
determines that the public interest
will be served, payment of an advance
royalty as described in § 3473.3-2(b) of
this title.
(b) For coal leases issued before
August 4, 1976. the 10-year period for
achieving diligent development may be
increased as follows:
(1) Upon application by the lessee,
the 10-year period shall be extended
by an amount of time equal to the
period during which diligent develop-
ment is, in the opinion of the Secre-
tary, significantly impaired by (i) a
strike, the elements, or casualties not
attributable to the lessee, (ii) an ad-
ministrative delay in the Department
which is not caused by the lessee's
action, (iii) extraordinary circum-
stances not attributable to the lessee
and not foreseeable by a reasonably
prudent operator. In determining
whether any of the conditions listed in
PROPOSED RULES
subdivisions or (i), (ii). (iii) of this
paragraph occurred and whether one
or more of those conditions did. in
fact, significantly impair diligent de-
velopment, the Secretary's finding
Shall be final. The Secretary shall,
however, not find to be an extraordi-
nary circumstance under subdivision
(iii) any condition arising out of nor-
mally foreseeable business risks such
as: fluctuations in prices, sales, or
costs, including foreseeable costs of
compliance with requirements for en-
vironmental protection: commonly ex-
perienced delays in delivery of sup-
plies or equipment: or inability to
obtain sufficient sales.
(2) Upon application by the lessee,
the Secretary may grant one exten-
sion, not exceeding five years, of the
10-year period because of (i) time
needed to complete development of
advanced technology, e.g., in situ, gasi-
fication or liquefaction processes: (ii)
the magnitude of the project (ordinar-
ily magnitude means a mine in which
the production in the first year after
the end of the extended period for
diligent development is expected to be
at least two million tons if an under-
ground mining operation or five mil-
lion tons if a surface mining oper-
ation): or (iii) a contract which is a
firm commitment for the sale or use of
the first one-fortieth of the LMU re-
serves after the 10-year period. Re-
gardless of the reason for granting an
extension, the lessee shall produce the
first one-fortieth of the LMU reserves
before the end of the extended term.
(c) At the time when the Secretary
grants an extension under paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section, the lessee
shall be notified of the revised date by
which coal shall be produced in com-
mercial quantities.
§ 3475.5 Logical mining unit.
(a) Criteria for approving or direct-
ing establishment of an LMU are
found in 30 CFR 211.80. Each lease
shall automatically be considered to
constitute an LMU on the effective
date of the lease or June 1. 1976.
whichever is later. The lease LMU
may, at a later date, by enlarged by
the addition of other Federal leases or
with interests in non-Federal coal de-
posits, or both. An LMU containing
any interest other than a single Feder-
al lease shall become effective only at
the direction of the Mining Supervi-
16845
sor. or by designation during the
normal tract delineation phase of the
coal activity planning process, or upon
its approval by the Mining Supervisor
when requested by the lessee. The
Mining Supervisor shall not direct or
approve the establishment of such an
LMU unless it is determined that the
maximum economic recovery of all
Federal coal deposits in the LMU will
be achieved. The boundaries of an
LMU may later be changed either
upon application by the lessee and
with the approval of the Mining Su-
pervisor after consultation with the
authorized officer, or by direction of
the Mining Supervisor after consulta-
tion with the authorized officer.
(b) When a lease is included in an
LMU with other Federal leases or with
interests in non-Federal coal deposits,
the terms and conditions of the lease
shall be amended so that they are con-
sistent with the requirements imposed
on the LMU of which it has become a
part. In particular, diligent develop-
ment, continued operation, and pro-
duction in commercial quantities any-
where within the LMU, with respect to
either Federal or non-Federal coal de-
posits, shall be considered to have oc-
curred on each Federal lease in the
LMU. The rental and royalty pay-
ments of all Federal leases in an LMU
shall be combined, and advance royal-
ties paid on any Federal lease in that
LMU may, at the request of the lessee,
be credited against those combined
royalties.
(c) The lessee may, upon approval of
the authorized officer, surrender the
rights to any coal deposits. If these
rights are surrendered, the LMU re-
serves shall be adjusted. When the
Mining Supervisor is determining the
LMU reserves, the lessee shall be con-
sulted about any coal deposits subject
to the lease which the lessee does not
intend to mine. The lessee shall also
be consulted about the rights the
lessee is prepared to surrender to de-
crease the LMU reserves upon which
the requirements of diligent develop-
ment, continued operation, and pro-
duction in commercial quantities will
be based.
Gut R. Martin,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
March 13, 1979.
CFR Doc 79-8111 Filed 3-16-79: 8:45 *m)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 54— MONDAY, MARCH 19, I97»
A-46
APPENDIX B
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING
APPENDIX B
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CONCERNING THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF PRODUCTION GOALS FOR ENERGY
RESOURCES ON FEDERAL LANDS
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Memorandum of Under-
standing between the Department of the Interior
(DOI) and the Department of Energy (DOE) is to
set forth concepts, assumptions, and responsibili-
ties for the establishment and use of production
goals for Federal energy leasing and to set forth
mechanisms for implementing those responsibili-
ties.
2. Concepts and Assumptions
a. The development of an integrated national
energy policy by the Department of Energy
requires the coordinated treatment of Federal
resources as a constituent part of national energy
planning consistent with overall national econom-
ic, environmental, and social goals and applicable
law. These energy and resource development
activities must be based on adequate data, rigorous
analysis, and appropriate program decisions.
b. Each Department has responsibilities, author-
ities, information, and data which, when properly
combined and executed, can produce efficient
energy resource development in an environmental-
ly acceptable manner.
c. The planning process must reflect the statuto-
ry responsibilities of each Department and the
inherent uncertainty of forecasts as well as include
public consultation, environmental considerations,
and appropriate energy resource development.
d. Program goals should be reviewed on a
regular basis.
e. Energy resources for purposes of this Memo-
randum include offshore oil, offshore natural gas,
onshore oil, onshore natural gas, coal, oil shale, tar
sands, geothermal resources, and uranium. Leases
include leases of Federal lands (including Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) lands) or interests in such
lands.
f. Projection periods for onshore and offshore oil
and natural gas, coal, oil shale, and geothermal
resources are 5, 10, and 15 years each; projection
periods for tar sands and uranium will be specified
in the individual information exchanges between
the Departments on an ad hoc basis.
g. Production goals are the objectives for the
national production of energy resources from
Federal lands or interests in lands including the
OCS which are necessary to carry out national
energy policy and to enable each Department to
fulfill its responsibilities under section 801 (b)(1) of
the Department of Energy Organization Act.
3. Data Responsibilities of the Secretary of
the Interior
a. The Secretary of the Interior will supply data
and information (including supporting analyses
and methodology) to the Secretary of Energy
related to the extent of energy resources and
current and anticipated production from the
Federal lands, including OCS lands, or interests in
such lands for the relevant projection period for
each resource, consisting of:
(1) Estimated energy resources and esti-
mates of anticipated annual production
for the 5th, 10th and 15th projection
years expected from leases currently
under production and from leases ex-
pected to be developed, taking account
of changes due to exhaustion of re-
sources and abandonment of leases,
under existing and proven technology
and under existing laws and regulations.
Where necessary, explanations of uncer-
tainties as to estimates and data will be
included; and
(2) Estimated energy resources underlying
areas not currently under lease but which
B-l
are included in a leasing schedule or
plan,
b. The Secretary of the Interior will also provide
to the Secretary of Energy the following data and
information, to the extent available:
(1) An evaluation of the energy resource
potential of Federal lands neither cur-
rently under lease nor included in an
established lease or schedule;
(2) Any other related data that may be
requested by the Secretary of Energy in
carrying out his pertinent statutory and
regulatory duties.
4. Goal Setting Responsibilities of the
Secretary of Energy
Subject to the process and timetable provided in
Section 6:
a. The Secretary of Energy will develop pro-
posed national energy production goals for Feder-
al lands and, following review of those goals by the
Secretary of the Interior, will establish final
production goals.
b. The Secretary of Energy will propose and
establish production goals for energy resources, on
a resource by resource basis, on lands or interests
in lands under Federal jurisdiction, for the relevant
projection period, based upon the following.
(1) The production estimates provided by
the Secretary of the Interior;
(2) Production estimates, developed by the
Secretary of Energy, from Federal lands
scheduled by the Secretary of the Interi-
or to be leased;
(3) Increases or decreases in these estimates
resulting from modification to pertinent
regulations or statutes, anticipated ad-
vances in technology, or use of enhanced
recovery methods; and
(4) Any additional increases or decreases in
production which the Secretary of Ener-
gy may propose.
c. In setting these goals, the Secretary of Energy
will take into account developmental lead times
and will consider:
(1) The overall energy strategy set forth in
the current or most recent Annual Report and
National Energy Policy Plan prepared in accor-
dance with sections 657 and title VIII of the
Department of Energy Organization Act;
(2) The estimates, evaluations and other
information provided by the Secretary of the
Interior pursuant to section 3;
(3) Estimates, information, data and evalu-
ations furnished by the Administrator of the
Department of Energy's Energy Information Ad-
ministration concerning, but not limited to, re-
serves and undiscovered resources;
(4) Such other considerations as the Secre-
tary of Energy may deem pertinent; and
(5) With respect to coal, and as available
and applicable for the other energy
resources:
(a) The availability of the energy re-
source from private, State, Indian,
and other non-Federal reserves al-
ready leased but not yet committed to
production;
(b) The impact on potential production
from non-Federal resources or on
those Federal resources already
leased but not yet committed to
production, of leasing for production
of additional Federal energy re-
sources.
d. The Secretary of Energy will provide the
Secretary of the Interior the assumptions and data
used in developing the production goals.
e. The Secretary of Energy will include appropri-
ate proposals on matters within his jurisdiction to
adjust production, including, if applicable:
(1) Changes in regulations identified by
section 302(b) of the Department of
Energy Organization Act.
(2) Changes in procedures for setting pro-
duction rates, or changes in the rates
themselves; and
(3) In the Annual Report and National
Energy Policy Plan required by section
657 and title VIII of the Department of
Energy Organization Act, proposals for
changes in legislation or other actions
affecting the broad aspects of energy
policy for which the Department of
Energy has responsibility.
5.
In reviewing and commenting on the Secretary
of Energy's proposed production goals, the Secre-
tary of the Interior will inform the Secretary of
B-2
Energy of potential policy conflicts or problems
concerning, but not limited to:
a. The Department of the Interior's responsibili-
ties for the management, regulation, and conserva-
tion of natural resources;
b. The capabilities of the Federal lands and
Federal energy resources to meet these goals;
c. The national need for these energy resources
balanced against the environmental consequences
of developing them.
6. Process and Timetable
a. As soon as practicable after the effective date
of this Memorandum the Secretary of the Interior
will provide the Secretary of Energy the informa-
tion, data, and assessments pursuant to section 3.
b. Within 30 days after receipt of the Secretary
of the Interior's information, data, and assessments
regarding a particular energy resource, the Secre-
tary of Energy shall advise the Secretary of the
Interior of the time schedule for his preparation of
proposed production goals. Such production goals
shall be transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior
as soon as practicable after receipt by the Secretary
of Energy of the above mentioned information.
c. The Secretary of the Interior will have 60 days
to review and comment on the proposed produc-
tion goals.
d. The Secretary of Energy will issue final
production goals not more than 30 days after the
Secretary of the Interior's comments have been
received.
e. This process will be repeated biennially from
the effective date of this Memorandum or at such
other interval as the Secretaries may agree.
f. The final production goals will be published in
the current or next Annual Report or National
Energy Policy Plan of the Secretary of Energy
under section 657 and title VIII of the Department
of Energy Organization Act.
g. In establishing or revising leasing programs
and lease planning schedules, the Secretary of the
Interior shall be guided by the final production
goals established pursuant to this Memorandum
consistent with the Secretary's other statutory
responsibilities.
7. Coordination
Coordination of these procedures may be accom-
plished through the Leasing Liaison Committee
established in accordance with section 210 of the
Department of Energy Organization Act.
8. Effective Date
This Memorandum shall be effective upon execu-
tion.
S/James R. Schlesinger
Secretary of Energy
S/Cecil D. Andrus
Secretary of the Interior
9/9/78
(Date)
8/31/78
(Date)
B-3
■B"™"mg— "— —" lllllhl
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND THE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ON COAL
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this agreement is for the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) to assure the effective
consideration of fish and wildlife resources in coal
related activities on public lands in a manner that
recognizes existing cooperative relationships with
the States. It is also to promote harmonious
working relationships and program efficiency in
the public interest.
A. Responsibilities
The key to achieving the purpose of this
agreement is clear definition of BLM and FWS
roles and responsibilities within respective statuto-
ry authorities. Broad responsibilities are defined
below. Specific responsibilities and relationships
. are set forth in section II of this agreement.
1. The BLM has the statutory responsibility
for inventory, planning, and multiple-use
management of the public lands and
public land resources, including coal and
fish and wildlife. In connection with this
responsibility, BLM must have the capa-
bility to efficiently inventory, manage and
protect fish and wildlife habitat.
2. FWS has statutory responsibilities for
protection of migratory birds, including
eagles, and threatened or endangered
species and their habitats. The Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act responsibilities
of FWS extend to some water develop-
ment projects on public lands.
3. FWS and BLM have general responsibili-
ties to conduct research and to compile
information on the status of the fish,
wildlife and plant resources and those
factors affecting them in their respective
area of responsibility. These general
assessments for wildlife and vegetative
conditions and trends extend to concerns
within major coal regions.
4. Both Agencies have wildlife advocacy
roles within their statutory authorities or
other assigned functions.
B. General Principles
1. The cooperative relationship between the
two Agencies is built upon the concept
that field level input into the BLM land
use planning system will achieve the basic
objectives of each Agency, and the De-
partment of the Interior (DOI). The BLM
has a statutory responsibility to see that
fish and wildlife resources are effectively
considered in all stages of its land man-
agement programs and activities. Proce-
dures consistent with this MOU will be
established by BLM State Directors and
FWS Regional Directors to provide for
regular exchange of information and
advice as early as feasible in the BLM
planning process. FWS input will reflect
BLM's responsibility of the need to
balance wildlife interests with other con-
cerns in coal development and multiple-
purpose land management. In those cases
where there are disagreements, such dis-
agreements should be expressed through
the chain of command of the two Agen-
cies beginning at the lowest appropriate
field level.
2. BLM has responsibility for assuring the
collection, inventory, and subsequent
analysis of fish, wildlife and vegetative
data on the public lands. FWS also has
responsibilities for collection and analysis
of data to meet its requirements. FWS
concerns in this area relate to the adequa-
cy of the data and analysis as these relate
to responsibilities of FWS relative to
endangered species, migratory birds, and
other species. FWS is also concerned with
the general adequacy of data and analysis
for management and protection of wild-
life, wildlife habitat, and threatened and
B-4
endangered plant species on a national
and regional basis. These responsibilities
and concerns can best be met by FWS
participation in appropriate components
of the planning system as identified in
subsequent sections of this MOU. Both
Agencies will coordinate inventory system
development and applicable data gather-
ing activities to foster a common and
compatible resource data base, to share
information, and to minimize conflicts
and disagreements concerning adequacy
of wildlife data related to coal develop-
ment decisions from the outset. BLM will
seek FWS participation in the actual
conduct of data collection activities to
meet its requirements where such partici-
pation is mutually advantageous. In turn,
FWS will seek BLM participation in data
collection and analysis to meet its require-
ments where it is appropriate.
3. The BLM State Offices and the FWS
Regional Offices or their delegated Of-
fices will be the primary Offices through
which field coordination will take place.
Each is responsible for ensuring that
appropriate Offices of their organization
are involved whenever appropriate. On
matters pertaining to coal related field
studies or investigations, the FWS Re-
gional Director or the BLM State Direc-
tor will determine which items of mutual
interest are administered by their respec-
tive Office and which items should be
referred to other field organizational units
(i.e., BLM Denver Service Center, FWS
Research Centers and National Teams).
Upon referral, the Directors or Leaders of
the field unit will be the coordination
focal point for that activity or activities
within the respective Bureaus. Additional-
ly, the Directors or Leaders of these field
units will apprise FWS Regional Direc-
tors and BLM State Directors of planned
or ongoing coal related studies, projects,
and activities. Frequent informal consul-
tation on matters of mutual concern is to
be encouraged at all levels.
4. BLM State Directors and FWS Regional
Directors will keep each other apprised of
actions planned or taken with State
wildlife agencies on wildlife matters of
concern in coal areas. Whenever coal-
related research actions and nonopera-
tional studies are proposed with State
wildlife agencies by field units within
BLM and FWS that are not administered
by the FWS Regional Director or BLM
State Director, it shall be the responsibili-
ty of the Director or Leader of that field
unit to keep both the Regional and State
Director informed. BLM will ensure State
wildlife agency involvement in the coal
programs. Officials of both Agencies will
also keep each other informed of their
respective activities relating to coal re-
sources on public lands.
5. FWS will otherwise assist BLM in a
manner consistent with this MOU,
through cooperative procedures mutually
agreed by BLM State Directors and FWS
Regional Directors, or as appropriate,
Directors or Leaders of other BLM or
FWS field units. Some examples include
participation in certain field projects,
providing highly specialized expertise,
developing methodologies for data collec-
tion and interpretation and assessing
major impacts on wildlife for preventing
or mitigating damage to important habi-
tats, and conducting and sharing research
findings to support BLM identified needs.
General Coordination
1. Meetings. There shall be annual coordina-
tion meetings between State and District
BLM Offices and appropriate FWS Re-
gional and Area Offices, and such other
Offices as deemed appropriate, timed to
coincide with the budget cycle, to discuss
programs and plans relative to coal and
other items of mutual concern to both
Agencies. WO level meetings shall be held
by the BLM/FWS Coordinating Commit-
tee.
2. Written Communication. When FWS ad-
vice/recommendations are solicited on
subjects related to this agreement, the
FWS will be afforded 30 days unless
specified otherwise in which to make its
views known to BLM to the extent time
deadlines imposed on BLM permit. If no
B-5
response is received within the 30 days or
other specified time period, BLM will
assume that FWS either concurs or has no
comments to offer.
3. Supplemental Agreements. BLM and FWS
field organizations or other appropriate
organizational units may enter into sup-
plemental agreements where needed to
specify interrelationships in detail or for
specific project type activities. Such agree-
ments must be within the policy parame-
ters of this agreement. Both BLM State
Directors and FWS Regional Directors
will make every effort to ensure coordina-
tion is achieved at their lowest appropri-
ate field units. Where mutually agreeable,
BLM State Directors and FWS Regional
Directors will delegate coordination func-
tions to their field units.
II. FUNCTIONAL COORDINATION
This section outlines Agency responsibilities
and working relationships by functional area.
A.
1.
Preleasing
Subject: Resource Inventories
a. Description: Inventories must be conduct-
ed to determine the nature and extent of
living and nonliving resources; to provide
a basis for land use planning and deci-
sionmaking; and to identify the nature,
extent, and condition of all resources
located in planning areas with potential
for coal development,
b. Responsibilities: The Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA) directs
BLM to maintain resource inventories on
a continuing basis. FWS has legislative
responsibilities to conduct nationwide
inventories related to migratory birds,
wetlands, and threatened and endangered
species. Both Agencies may also be
assigned responsibilities for inventory via
Presidential or Departmental direction.
BLM has responsibility for inventory
work relative to data necessary for public
land management. This includes invento-
ry and planning responsibilities for threat-
ened and endangered species on public
lands in coal areas pursuant to regulations
regarding Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). FWS will provide
support in terms of cooperative develop-
ment of new methodology and inventory
techniques and supply applicable data to
BLM. FWS Regional Directors and BLM
State Directors will take steps to ensure
that appropriate organizational units, e.g.,
FWS Area Offices and BLM District
Offices will periodically coordinate their
activities and capabilities. Joint efforts in
this regard will be guided by the Intera-
gency Agreement Relative to Classifica-
tion and Inventory of Natural Resources,
effective June 6, 1978. In accordance with
that agreement, both Agencies will work
in partnership to ensure that needed data
are obtained in a cost effective and
expedient manner.
The BLM's planning system contains several
inventory steps applicable to coal activities. These
steps, including their overall purposes, are outlined
together with the nature of specific FWS inputs at
the field or BLM planning unit levels:
Stc
BLM Responsibility FWS Input(s)
1. Preplanning Determine wildlife
Analysis resource data needs;
develop planning/
inventory schedule
for wildlife
resources; estimate
financial
requirements.
2. Unit Resource Identification of
Analyses (URA) existing wildlife
resource conditions
and potentials on
planning area basis.
Help identify general
wildlife situations in
coal areas, and recom-
mend data elements
needed to address
wildlife issues.
Help identify known
significant wildlife
habitats (existing and
potential) and provide
other assistance, tech-
nical support,
and advice.
Subject: Land Use Planning
a. Description: Land plans must be devel-
oped as a requisite for management and
decisionmaking regarding allocation and
use of resources located on public lands,
in accordance with planning mandates in
the FLPMA, the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendment Act of 1975, and the Secre-
tary's decision of October 22, 1977, which
calls for plans prior to identification of
lease tracts. In BLM, such plans are
B-6
.... . ....
called management framework plans
(MFP's).
b. Responsibility: The FLPMA directs devel-
opment, with public involvement, of
BLM land use plans which provide, by
tracts or areas, for the use of the public
lands. Such plans must address: multiple-
use and sustained-yield, areas of critical
environmental concern (ACEC), interdis-
ciplinary concerns, present and potential
uses for wildlife and other resources, and
certain other requirements. To the extent
consistent with law, these plans must be
coordinated with land use inventory and
management programs of other Federal
Agencies and State and local govern-
ments. Therefore, FWS will provide
comment on URA's/MFP's in potential
coal production areas by participating in
a consultative manner to minimize con-
flicts and disagreements. Such comments
will be considered and incorporated, as
deemed appropriate, into decisionmaking
by BLM District Managers, as well as
comments from other Federal and state
agencies and private organizations.
3. Subject: Identification of Areas to be Exclud-
ed From Leasing and Lands Unsuitable for
Mining
a. Description: Certain areas that may be
excluded from leasing or identified as
unsuitable for mining because of: (1)
statutes or (2) policy determinations such
as for high socioeconomic or ecological
values associated with wildlife, archaeolo-
gy, cultural and other resources, and (3)
for reasons of public health and safety.
b. Responsibility: The FLPMA directs that
critical environmental areas be identified
during BLM land use planning. The
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act
requires planning prior to coal leasing.
Also, the interagency agreement between
BLM, Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.), and
the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSM), approved July
1978, delineates Agency responsibilities
for identification of "areas unsuitable for
mining" as directed by the Surface Min-
ing Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA). In accordance with these
authorities and relationships, BLM must
decide which areas of public lands are of
environmental concern and, thus, may be
unsuitable for mining or excluded from
leasing.
The Department is providing BLM with
criteria relative to land suitability for leasing. Such
criteria will serve as a basis for unsuitability
designations or excluding lands from leasing.
Within the parameters of Departmental criteria,
FWS may provide to BLM information which it
feels should be considered in making these desig-
nations during the land use planning process.
4. Subject: Tract Selection
a. Description: This involves identification
and selection of specific tracts for short
and long term leasing, preference right
leasing, and land use decisions by BLM
District Managers. Selection of such
tracts will be after decisions are reached
on areas unsuitable for mining, or exclud-
ed from leasing.
b. Responsibilities: BLM is responsible for
selection of tracts suitable for leasing
after decisions are made as to "areas
unsuitable for mining." Using informa-
tion available through the land use
planning process and from specific rec-
ommendations from FWS, States, and
others, tracts will be selected, then ranked
for priority of leasing. Thus, through
participation in the planning and tract
selection process, FWS will have opportu-
nity to provide information and opinions
in the tract decision process.
5. Subject: Lease Stipulations, Terms, and Con-
ditions
a. Description: This involves preparing spe-
cial terms regarding environmental per-
formance standards and other protective
provisions in coal related leases.
b. Responsibility: The FLPMA directs that
all actions necessary be taken to prevent
unnecessary or undue degradation of the
public lands. BLM is the official represen-
tative of the Secretary in dealing with
lease applicants and, as such, is responsi-
ble for placing protective provisions and
stipulations on coal leases.
Such stipulations and provisions are developed
and based upon decisions flowing from the MFP,
B-7
upon findings in environmental impact analysis,
and the technical examination.
BLM is responsible for incorporating stipula-
tions and conditions into leases after consideration
of all recommendations, including those from
FWS. FWS recommendations or suggested modifi-
cations will be solicited for appropriate analysis in
coal lease stipulations.
6. Subject: Environmental Analysis
a. Description: This involves preparation of
regional or, when warranted, site specific
prelease environmental analysis reports
(EAR) or environmental statements (ES)
concerning lease tract selections.
b. Responsibilities: Sec. 102(2)(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requires agencies taking major
Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment to
prepare ES's on those actions. Extraction
or mining of coal and related activities,
such as issuance of rights-of-way and
water developments to support such
industrial activities are also among the
actions to be considered. Present "lead
agency" responsibilities for preparation
of such analyses rest with BLM except in
special exceptions where another agency
may be designated as lead agency. These
responsibilities must be carried out in
consultation with all appropriate agencies
and organizations, including the FWS.
The following procedures are hereby
established to ensure close working rela-
tionships between the two Agencies in
this regard:
(1) BLM will keep FWS apprised of current
and projected ES schedules via the regularly
scheduled meetings of the FWS-BLM Coordinat-
ing Committee and other means, as appropriate.
(2) BLM will request FWS data and other
inputs into the applicable ES's at the earliest
possible date. Where FWS has special expertise or
unique talent needed for the ES, such will be made
available to the BLM ES team under terms and
conditions mutually agreeable to the concerned
FWS Regional Director and BLM State Director.
This may include detail of FWS personnel to assist
in ES preparation.
(3) FWS and BLM budget requests for ES's
and associated work will be coordinated to reflect
their respective responsibilities in the most cost-
effective approach and to foster clear communica-
tions between the two Agencies. The FWS-BLM
Coordinating Committee will be the principal
vehicle for ensuring such coordination at the
Washington Office (WO) level. Coordination at
the field level will be in accordance with proce-
dures agreed to by FWS Regional Directors and
BLM State Directors.
(4) BLM will provide FWS review copies of
draft ES's at the earliest possible time for official
review and comment within specified time frames.
7. Subject: Endangered Species Consultation
a. Description: BLM must consult with FWS
on any action which may affect threat-
ened or endangered species or then-
habitats.
b. Responsibilities: Whenever it is found that
threatened or endangered species or their
habitat may be affected by coal leasing or
mining activities, the concerned BLM
State Director must initiate written for-
mal consultation in accordance with
Interagency Cooperation Regulations
dated January 4, 1978. To the extent that
the concerned BLM State Director and
the FWS Regional Director can agree,
and as provided for in the above regula-
tions, an aggregate approach to consulta-
tion in coal areas will be followed.
Whenever FWS rules that additional data
are needed upon which to issue a biologi-
cal opinion, such data must be provided
by BLM before the consultation process
can be concluded. It is jointly agreed that
not all habitat modifications are prohibit-
ed, only those which diminish habitat for
the species in question. The FWS will
provide methodology, expertise and rec-
ommendations, upon request, to help
resolve operational problems caused by
endangered species in coal areas.
B. Post Leasing
1. Subject: Compliance With Lease Stipulations
a. Description: This involves monitoring
exploration and associated activities to
ensure compliance with lease stipulations
and/or special terms and conditions.
b. Responsibilities: BLM is responsible for
ensuring that lessees abide by lease terms
and conditions. Where in the course of
other activities, FWS personnel find or
become aware that a lessee is not in
compliance with lease terms or condi-
tions, such personnel should immediately
advise the nearest BLM Office. The BLM
will then take necessary action.
2. Subject: Emergency Environmental Situations
a. Description: Some situations may arise in
leased areas that involve either imminent
danger to public health or safety or where
conditions, practices, or violations of
regulations or lease terms are causing or
may cause significant, imminent environ-
mental harm to land, air or water, or
other resources or significant waste of
coal. In such cases, it may be necessary to
order cessation of such activities or
violations and to order immediate remedi-
al action.
b. Responsibility: The BLM has such author-
ity when authorized mine inspectors are
unable to take action before significant
harm or damage will occur. If in the
course of other activities FWS personnel
become aware that such conditions exist,
the appropriate BLM State Director
and/or District Manager is to be so
informed immediately and will take ap-
propriate action to resolve the situation.
3. Subject: Review of Reclamation Plans and
Abandonment Procedures
a. Description: Lessees must prepare ade-
quate plans for reclaiming mined areas
which meet the reclamation requirements
of the SMCRA and multiple-use manage-
ment requirements of FLPM A.
b. Responsibilities: The OSM has primary
Federal authority to inspect and approve
abandonment procedures. BLM must
concur in such abandonment procedures
as related to protection and postmining
use of the lands regarding fish, wildlife
and other natural resources. BLM re-
source staffs will analyze the adequacy of
such procedures. Where such procedures
are found to be inadequate, BLM will
suggest needed changes and improve-
ments. FWS will be afforded an opportu-
nity to provide comments to BLM as to
the adequacy of proposed procedures
prior to BLM concurrence, in accordance
with procedures agreed to by appropriate
BLM and FWS field officials. BLM will
notify/negotiate/ resolve with applicable
agencies and groups, including FWS, any
issues which would serve as grounds for
BLM nonconcurrence.
III. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Annual meetings shall be held at the field and
WO levels to coordinate research surveys, investi-
gations, and studies being conducted that are of
mutual program interest to both Agencies. This
includes such work being conducted by the FWS
WELUT and the EELUT, cooperative research
units, or other applicable entities of FWS and
BLM's Denver Service Center. Such meetings shall
be initiated, scheduled, and organized by mutual
agreement of appropriate officials of both Agen-
cies. Agenda items should provide for discus-
sion/resolution of Agency needs and priorities
relative to coal activities and associated wildlife
considerations.
When it is of mutual interest, the FWS and the
BLM may conduct cooperative research in coal
areas.
Each Agency will be given an opportunity to
identify and review research proposals relating
directly to its lands or management responsibilities
developed by the other for the purpose of avoiding
duplication and to determine if similar research is
being conducted by other agencies. Pertinent
research results of either Agency will be made
available to the other on a timely basis, including
significant interim findings. The FWS will provide
a periodic report summarizing wildlife research
pertinent to coal.
IV. INFORMATION TRANSFER
It is recognized that a wide variety of biologi-
cal, ecological, and scientific information, pub-
lished and unpublished, exists within both Agen-
cies. This includes information and data relating to
resource conditions and trends, wildlife and
habitat inventories and baseline studies, economic
or other values, demand/supply, and use statistics.
Free exchange of this information in compatible
and standardized formats is essential.
It is, therefore, mutually agreed that proce-
dures will be developed under the direction of the
national BLM/FWS Coordinating Committee for
B-9
more formalized transfer of information between
BLM and the FWS at all levels.
V. PERMITS REGARDING WORK IN
NAVIGABLE WATERS
The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to
the FWS Director and Regional Directors authori-
ty to act for the Department in the review of and
reporting on permit applications administered by
the USA-CE (503 DM 1, August 3, 1973).
Procedures and necessary evaluations of permit
application for coal operations on public lands, as
required under sees. 402 and 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and by the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899, shall be coordinated at
the FWS Area Office and BLM District Office or
other appropriate level before a formal application
is made to the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
VI. RELATIONSHIPS TO STATE, OTHER
AGENCIES, AND INSTITUTIONS
Nothing in this MOU is intended to modify in
any manner the present or future cooperative
programs of either Agency with States, other
public agencies, or educational institutions. Both
Agencies share the concern that State fish and
wildlife resource agencies be consulted on a
routine basis to strengthen coordination and
cooperative relationships. Every effort will be
made to prevent duplicative requests or contracts
to these State agencies for information and data
assistance relative to coal.
VII. OBLIGATION OF FUNDS
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed
as obligating either party to the expenditure of
funds in excess of appropriations authorized by
law or otherwise commit either Agency to actions
for which it lacks statutory authority.
VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE, REVIEW,
AMENDMENT, AND TERMINATION
This agreement shall become effective upon
the date subscribed by the last signatory, and shall
remain in force until terminated by either Agency
upon 90 days written notice. It shall be reviewed
by all parties no later than Calendar Year 1981 for
adequacy and timeliness. Amendments to existing
wording within this agreement may be proposed
by either Agency at any time and shall become
effective upon joint approval.
K. BUDGET COORDINATION
To insure maximum compatibility of budget-
ary requests and the subsequent distribution and
utilization of funds, the following coordinating
functions shall apply:
A. Joint Review of Budget Materials
1. Prior to formulating coal related budget
instructions, the BLM and FWS shall
jointly review the coal program to deter-
mine program objectives and budget
assumptions.
2. Each Agency shall provide the other an
opportunity to review budgetary material
relating to all activities on behalf of coal
leasing and coal development. Where coal
related work is supported by a number of
activities, these will be identified to
facilitate review of budgetary plans.
3. To the extent possible, review opportunity
shall be given sufficiently in advance of
budgetary due dates to permit meaningful
input and discussion before such budget
material must be finalized.
4. Neither Agency shall advance a program
which is directly linked or referenced to
the activities, actions, or authorities of the
other Agency without advance consulta-
tion and mutual understanding as to the
nature of that program and actions to be
undertaken within the scope of this
agreement.
5. Budget materials as used herein apply to
Departmental Program Strategy Papers,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Estimates, Budget Justifications
for Congressional review, and any
amendments or supplemental thereto.
B. Budget Year Consultation
1. Where the budget (or appropriations act)
for the upcoming fiscal year (FY) in one
Agency contains funds or positions ear-
marked for direct transfer to other Agen-
cy, such funds and positions shall be
identified in writing prior to the start of
the FY for budget planning.
2. Where funds and manpower are to be
retained in the Agency, but are to be
committed toward those efforts related to
coal leasing and coal development, each
Agency shall, to the extent known, inform
the other as to the approximate level of
B-10
direct funding, its distribution, and ex-
pected accomplishments for the upcom-
ing FY. Each Agency's plans shall be
communicated to respective field offices
to facilitate further coordination at the
State-Regional level.
Funds earmarked for cooperative re-
search shall be identified and transferred
to the Agency designated as "lead Agen-
cy" for the research project.
C. Coordinatiion Points
Coordination activities, as described in this
section, shall be the primary responsibility of:
For BLM - Chief, Division of Budget and
Program Development and For FWS - Assistant
Director - Planning and Budget
X. CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Should interagency controversy arise at any
working level, the facts regarding such controversy
shall be forwarded to the next higher level of
authority for resolution.
9/26/78
Date
S/Frank Gregg
Director, Bureau of Land Management
9/26/78
Date
S/Lynn A. Greenwalt
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service
I CONCUR:
S/Guy R. Martin
Assistant Secretary. Land and Water Resources
10/2/78
Date
S/Robert L. Herbst
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
10/3/78
Date
B-ll
E$H T - ■ .-. .~ i , *...._——
SBtaafSfasra^TaHis."' ,:."■■■;'■?::"■..
APPENDIX C
COAL TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
APPENDIX C
COAL TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND INFORMATION
C.1 IMPORTANT COAL
CHARACTERISTICS
Coal is a readily combustible mineral contain-
ing more than 50 percent by weight and more than
70 percent by volume carbonaceous materials,
including inherent moisture formed from compac-
tion and induration of variously altered plant
remains similar to those in peat [1]. Character and
quality (as defined by rank and grade) are the
factors that determine the relative value and
usefulness of coal. These factors are controlled
principally by conditions during formation and the
depth of burial of the coal.
Coal is classified according to a particular
property such as degree of metamorphism or
"coalification" (rank), constituent plant materials
(type), or degree of impurity (grade). The rank of a
particular coal is established according to the
percentage of fixed carbon and the peat content,
calculated on a mineral-matter-free basis. As
shown in Figure C-l, the percentage of fixed
carbon and the heat content (measured in British
thermal units, Btus) increases from low rank lignite
to higher rank bituminous coal as the percentages
of volatile matter and moisture decrease. Coal is
classified by grade largely according to the content
of ash, sulfur, and other constituents.
C.2 MINING TECHNOLOGY
Exploration, development, production, and
reclamation are the four operations executed
during the life of a coal mine. These operations are
described in the following sections.
C.2.1 Exploration
Generally, exploration aims at locating the
presence of economic deposits and establishing
their nature, shape and grade. There are three
broad phases which comprise mineral exploration-
initial appraisal, preliminary reconnaissance, and
detailed physical sampling [3].
C.2. 1.1 Initial Appraisal. This step involves litera-
ture search and the review of maps (geological,
geographical, hydrological, etc.) to ascertain fac-
tors relating to surface and mineral ownership,
access routes, seam thickness, seam pitch, surface
contours, overburden thickness and composition,
the presence of other minerals, as well as surface
and groundwater flows.
C.2. 1.2 Preliminary Reconnaissance. If the initial
appraisal looks promising, a preliminary field visit
is made to check surface hydrology, the location of
coal outcrops, and unusual obstacles such as areas
of archeological or cultural interest. A series of
spot or information drillings may be made for
better determination or stratigraphy and coal seam
thickness. Chemical and calorific checks of out-
crops and/or drilling samples are also made.
C.2. 1.3 Detailed Physical Sampling. As the expecta-
tion for profitably extracting coal increases, more
drillings are made to verify physical and chemical
characteristics and map the coal seam. A set of
outline drillings are made to ascertain the dimen-
sions of the deposit and amount of reserves. These
may then be followed by sampling drillings to
determine the necessary parameters with enough
certainty that reliable economic appraisals are
possible. In general, coal deposits require less
drilling than other minerals because coal is fairly
consistent in thickness and quality and wider
spacing can be tolerated between exploratory
holes. In some instances, drilling on 1/4 mile
centers is satisfactory; this is unique in mineral
extraction programs since 200-foot centers are
usually required. Besides the mineralogical, chemi-
cal and physical testing of drill core samples and
outcrop cuttings, there are several types of down-
hole or bore hole tests which can be made with
instruments lowered into the drill hole. These
experiments involve devices making seismic, gravi-
metric, magnetic, and electrical resistance readings
of the different underground strata.
Exploratory drilling is generally done with
truck-mounted rotary rigs, and the samples taken
with such rigs can be either cuttings or core, or
C-l
I
1 I
40001 1 |
o i
I -
II
i
I -i
i —
i
.j I ,i
i i j
■iH
Jj
t-
■I—
I "J
I i
i i
1 i
E
-I-
;-
i
i — j
!
«
i
ii
I:
I
■
ll-
I
■
-i-
I
T
■
Source: Reference Number 2.
FIGURE C-l
COAL CLASSIFICATION BY RANK
C-2
both. Additional equipment used by an explora-
tion crew may include water trucks, personnel
carriers, a hole-logging equipment truck, and a
dozer or grader to assist in obtaining access to the
exploration area and to prepare the drill site.
C.2.2 Mine Development
Development, the operation preparatory to
production, begins after a promising coal deposit
has been found. Actual development cannot begin
until all necessary arrangements have been made
with Federal, state and local governments, as well
as any private owners that may be involved. Such
arrangements include obtaining a lease; providing
access to the mine property for roadways, railroad,
utilities; and obtaining the permits and licenses
required by Federal, state, and local authorities. A
usual requirement is that a mining and reclamation
plan be approved before a permit is granted. Bond
is posted to insure payment of rents, royalties, and
land reclamation costs as mining progresses.
Planning, the first stage of development,
involves specifying how the development work is
to be accomplished, the method and equipment to
be used for mining, the design of above-ground
facilities, the plan for prevention of air and water
pollution, and the provisions for reclaiming dis-
turbed land.
After planning, the development of a mine
includes construction of roads, utility line tie-ins,
and the mine plant. Depending on the amount of
coal produced and where it is to be used,
construction of a railroad spur may be required.
For coal that contains excessive impurities, a
washing plant could be constructed as part of the
mine plant. Otherwise, the mine plant consists of
coal handling and storage facilities, offices, shops
and laboratories, equipment storage buildings, and
waste disposal areas. If the coal is to be mined by
underground methods, the mine plant is construct-
ed near the main portal or entrance. For coal
mined by surface methods, the mine plant would
be located off the outcrop, if possible.
Access to coal deposits at an underground
operation is provided by drifts, slopes, or shafts
(Figure C-2). The coalbed is developed for further
operations by driving entries. Although terminolo-
gy varies, the following system of entries is
universal in the industry. Main entries are exten-
sions of the access openings and often run several
miles in one direction. Three or more parallel
entries, 12 to 22 ft. wide and 40 to 100 ft. between
centers, are driven in a given direction and
connected at intervals by crosscuts to provide
proper air circulation. These are the major routes
of underground transport and access, and serve for
the life of the mine [1]. Panel entries are driven
from the main entries, resulting in a subdivision of
the coalbed into blocks or panels having dimen-
sions that may be as much as 1 by 1/2 mile. Panel
entries serve as routes from main entries to the
working places, and for air circulation. Although
coal is removed during the driving of both the
main and panel entries, it is with completion of the
panel entries that the production cycle begins.
Access to coal deposits at a surface operation
involves the use of large equipment such as bucket-
wheel excavators, draglines and shovels to remove
overburden from the coal so extraction can begin.
As mining progresses, development mainly con-
sists of extending paved roads and power lines, and
constructing new roads for access to the coal
deposit.
C.23 Coal Production
This section addresses the primary operations
of extracting the coal from a deposit and preparing
(cleaning and purifying) it for shipment and use.
C.2.3.1 Extraction. There are two major methods of
extracting coal: by underground mining methods
or surface mining methods. Associated with each
method are a number of alternatives.
Underground Mining. In underground mining,
after the initial development has gained access to
the coalbed, one of three methods, i.e., room-and-
pillar, longwall, and shortwall, is commonly used
to extract the coal.
Room-and-pillar mining has been used in the
United States longer than any other underground
method. Mining is accomplished by driving entries
off the panel entries. As mining advances, rooms
are excavated in the coal seam; the strata above
the seam are supported by pillars of coal left in
place. 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
(Figure C-3). Until about 1950, most of the coal
produced from underground mines was by this
conventional technique. Since then, conventional
mining gradually has been replaced by more
mechanized, continuous mining. Conventional
n
i
DRIFT
i', \J » , - -; , - / \»v
> s/^'>^V|
SLOPE
SHAFT
FIGURE C-2
THE THREE TYPES OF ACCESS USED
IN UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
5 ROOF BOLT
4 LOAD COAL
4p A. CONVENTIONAL
<. MINING
3.
(B) CONTINUOUS v-\
MINING 6?j*
FIGURE C-3
ROOM-AND-PILLAR MINING TECHNIQUES
C-5
mining requires driving a number of entries so that
each operational phase, i.e., undercutting, drilling,
placing explosives, blasting, loading the shot coal,
and roof bolting, can be done simultaneously.
Continuous mining is performed by electric-pow-
ered machines that either bore, dig, or rip the coal
from the working face. As shown in Figure C-3,
many of the operations performed in separate
panels with the conventional technique are per-
formed simultaneously in the same panel with the
continuous technique. Such machines are usually
crawler-type vehicles operated by one man. They
either load the coal directly into a shuttle car or
pile it behind the machine where it is loaded
separately onto the shuttle cars. True continuous
operation of a mining machine cannot be
achieved, however, because stops are required to
support the roof, await haulage equipment, ad-
vance power and water supplies, change cutting
bits, etc. Where the entire thickness of a coal seam
is to be mined, recovery averages about 50 percent.
However, it is not always possible to take all the
coal in the seam because it may be necessary to
leave part of it for roof support. This is common
practice in seams greater than 10 feet in thickness.
Roof bolts and timber are used for additional
support.
Contemporary longwall mining, first intro-
duced to the United States in the 1950s, has long
been practiced in European mines. To support the
roof at the face, longwall mining originally used
manually operated props, then gradually evolved
to the presently used powered, self-advancing
supports (Figure C-4). Longwall mining is used
most efficiently in uniform coal seams of medium
height (42 to 60 in.). As in the room-and-pillar
method, longwall mining starts with sets of entries
cut into the panel areas. The difference in the
technique lies in the distance between these sets of
entries and the method used to extract intervening
coal. Longwall blocks range from 300 to 600 ft.
wide and are sometimes a mile long. The longwall
machine laterally shears or plows coal from the
entire face, transports the fallen coal by an
advancing conveyor to a secondary haulage
conveyor, reverses direction at the end of a cut,
and supports the roof in the area of the face by a
self-advancing system of hydraulic jacks. The roof
is allowed to cave behind the advancing work
areas; the roof is occasionally blasted to ensure a
controlled cave-in rate and to reduce overburden
pressure on the coalbed being mined.
The shortwall method of mining coal, a
relatively new innovation, is best described as a
method similar to longwall mining with two
exceptions. The blocks of panels are smaller,
usually ranging from 100 to 150 ft. wide and 300 to
500 ft. long, and the coal is cut with a continuous
miner and is loaded into shuttle cars.
Surface Mining. Strip and auger mining are the
two most common surface methods of extracting
coal in the United States. Two other methods,
open-pit and quarry-type mining, are being tried in
thick, shallow-lying western coal seams and may
become generally accepted where conditions war-
rant their use.
Strip mining is accomplished by two tech-
niques, area stripping and contour stripping
(Figures C-5 and C-6). Where coalbeds are
relatively flat and near the surface, as in much of
the west, area stripping is the dominant technique
[4]. In area strip mining, overlying material is
removed from a seam of coal in long narrow
parallel bands, or strips, followed by removal of
the exposed coal. With the exception of the first
cut (box cut), overburden from each cut is
discarded in the previous cut from which the coal
has been removed. These parallel cuts continue
across the coal seam until the thickness of the
overburden becomes too great to be removed
economically or until the end of the coal seam or
property is reached. Figure C-7 depicts a cross-
section and plan view of a portion of a strip coal
mine. Both single and multiple seams, near the
surface, can be mined in this manner.
Overburden removal can be accomplished with
almost any kind of earth-moving equipment, but
bucket-wheel excavators, draglines, and shovels
are the three kinds of equipment used at large area-
stripping operations. Bucket-wheel excavators are
used extensively in Europe, but in the United
States the dominant machines are draglines and
shovels. This is not strictly a matter of preference,
but results from the nature of the overburden
material. In the United States much of the
overburden contains layers of shale, limestone, or
sandstone that must be drilled and blasted before
it can be removed. Draglines and shovels are more
efficient in these materials than a bucket-wheel
excavator. After the overburden is removed, coal is
C-6
LONGWALL
PANEL
LONGWALL MINING
REQUIRES MULTIPLE ENTRY
DEVELOPMENT ON EACH
SIDE OF THE PANEL TO PROVIDE
VENTILATION, ACCESS, AND
CONVEYOR ROUTES.
TAILPIECE
ft€LT
CONVEYOR
HEADPIECE
FIGURE C-4
LONGWALL MINING
C-7
o
I
00
FIGURE C-5
AREA STRIPPING WITH DRAGLINES
HYPOTHETICAL PIT ARRANGEMENT
Order in which opera-
tions are performed:
1 - Topsoil removal
2 - Overburden drilling
and blasting
3 - Overburden removal
4 - Coal drilling and
blasting
5 - Coal loading and
hauling
6 - Reclamation
o
I
FIGURE C-6
CONTOUR MINING -
HYPOTHETICAL PIT ARRANGEMENT
Order in which opera-
tions are performed:
1 - Tops oil removal
2 - Overburden drilling
and blasting
3 - Overburden removal
4 - Coal drilling and
blasting
5 - Coal loading and
hauling
6 - Reclamation
PLAN VIEW
CROSS SECTION
FIGURE C-7
CROSS-SECTION AND PLAN VIEW
OF A PORTION OF A STRIP COAL MINE
C-10
usually drilled and blasted. Then it is loaded into
coal haulers with either a shovel or a front-end
loader.
Contour stripping is practiced on steep terrain,
mostly in the Appalachian Coal Region. The
method consists of removing overburden from the
coalbed with the first cut at or near the outcrop,
and proceeding around the hillside. Overburden is
stacked along the outer edge of the bench. After
the uncovered bed is removed, successive cuts,
usually only two or three, are made until the depth
of the overburden becomes too great for economic
recovery of the coal. Contour mining creates a
shelf or bench on the side of the hill. On the inside
it is bordered by the highwall, ranging in height
from a few feet to more than 100 feet, and on the
outer side by a high ridge of spoil. Equipment
commonly used for contour stripping is smaller in
size and load capacity than that used for area
stripping. Dozer and front-end loaders are often
used for overburden removal at these operations.
In the eastern United States, auger mining is
used on hillside terrain. It requires a surface cut
(removal of overburden and a portion of the coal
bed) to allow the auger access to the bed. It is often
used to recover part of the coal left from under-
ground mining. In the western United States, auger
mining is used in conjunction with strip mining.
Coal mining by the auger method entails boring
horizontal or near horizontal holes in an exposed
face of coal and loading the coal removed by the
auger. Three choices of auger heads-single, dual or
triple-are available to remove up to 90 inches of
coal for a distance of over 200 feet. Average depth
is about 160 feet. Augering is generally used to
supplement recovery at contour or strip mines
when the overburden thickness becomes too great
to be economically removed. It is also used where
the terrain is too steep for overburden removal and
where recovery by underground methods would be
impractical or unsafe.
In open-pit mining, overburden is removed
and placed outside the mining area. The pit
increases in size and depth as mining progresses,
and it is unusual that the overburden, once
removed, is ever returned to the pit. Open-pit
mining is used extensively for mining ores of
copper and iron, and sand and gravel. Its use in
coal mining is being tried where numerous pitching
seams lie parallel to each other and outcrop on a
relatively flat terrain. The overburden can be
removed with either scrapers or shovels loading
into trucks.
For quarry-type mining the coalbed typically
averages over 60 feet in thickness. It is benched to
facilitate its removal. A variation of strip mining of
thick coalbeds, it first requires dividing the mine
area into 40-acre tracts, for example. Overburden
is removed from two tracts, away from the
outcrop, with shovel and trucks and spoiled (piled)
on land toward the outcrop that will be mined
later. Thus, 80 acres of spoil will have to be
handled twice. When mining is completed, land
that did not produce coal will not have been
disturbed. When overburden is removed from a
third tract, enough of the thick coal seams will
have been mined from the first tract to allow
spoiling in the first tract. When mining terminates,
the mined area will have an appearance similar to
that before mining started, but lower in elevation.
Table C-l shows the number of acres that
would be stripped of overburden each year from a
coal deposit to expose the required tonnage to be
mined. In actual practice, stripping is 6 months or
more ahead of mining. The number of acres
disturbed shown in Table C-l does not include
areas impacted by other mining activities such as
overburden storage, access roads, utility corridors
and the mine plant. These additional disturbed
areas could equal that shown in the table.
C.2.3.2 Coal Beneficiation. Crushing and cleaning
of mine-run coal is commonly referred to as
beneficiation or preparation. Often crushing and
sizing is all that is required, but many coal seams,
especially those in eastern and midwestern states,
contain enough impurities to necessitate further
cleaning. Impurities in coal are innumerable, but
those occurring in quantity, such as clay, rock,
shale, and pyrite, require removal. Processes vary
from simple to complex. The simplest are crushing
and screening operations which remove large
pieces of foreign material, normally through the
use of a breaker. Beyond this, whether the process
is wet or dry, it is commonly referred to as
washing. The dry washing method has advanced
from merely blowing the dust from coal to using
pulsating air to separate the coal, and largely
eliminate the need for close screen sizing. Present-
ly, almost all air-cleaning machines depend on
pulsating air. Wet washing of coal is accomplished
by floating the coal and sinking the impurities in
C-ll
■"""ir™"™™"™""™
TABLE C-l
RELATIONSHIP OF COAL THICKNESS TO PRODUCTION
TONS OF COAL^
NO. OF ACRES
SEAM THICKNESS
STRIPPED/YEAR
IN FEET
PER ACRE OF SEAM
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
@ 90% RECOVERY
5
8,750
500,000
63.49
1,000,000
126.98
2,000,000
253.97
5,000,000
317.46
10
17,500
500,000
31.75
1,000,000
63.49
2,000,000
126.98
5,000,000
317.46
15
26,250
500,000
21.16
1,000,000
42.33
2,000,000
84.66
5,000,000
211.64
20
35,000
500,000
15.87
1,000,000
31.75
2,000,000
63.49
5,000,000
158.73
20
35,000
500,000
10.58
1,000,000
21.16
2,000,000
42.33
5,000,000
105.82
50
87,500
500,000
6.35
1,000,000
12.70
2,000,000
25.40
5,000,000
63.49
75
131,250
500,000
4.23
1,000,000
8.46
2,000,000
16.93
5,000,000
42.33
(a)
Calculated on the basis of 1,750 tons per acre foot.
C-12
water. Wet washing starts with breaking and
screening the coal to remove the large, hard pieces
of impurities. Additional cleaning depends upon
the amount, size, and type of impurity, how it is
dispersed in the coal, and how the coal is to be
used. Equipment can include any or all of the
following: jigs, screens, landers, heavy-medium
cyclones, tricone separators, concentrating tables,
froth flotation, cells, filters, and driers.
Whether the coal to be supplied a given
customer is to undergo preparation processing at
the mine plant depends upon the customer's needs.
Customers using best available control technology
(BACT) for emissions can probably use run-of-
mine coal directly. Other customers may already
have preparation facilities to size the coal to their
specific needs.
C.2.4 Land Reclamation
The term reclamation is used here to mean any
process for rehabilitating land disturbed by coal
mining. The term refers to returning the disturbed
land to a condition and/or productivity equal to or
higher than that prior to mining. Reclamation
consists basically in making a mine site safe,
acceptable in appearance, and available for other
uses before mine abandonment.
The goals of reclamation related to coal
development are different from those of restora-
tion, which can entail, for example, the conversion
of waste, desert, marshy or submerged land into
farmland. Reclamation is intended to bring the
land back to its former values, sometimes includ-
ing a desert or arid situation.
The aesthetic qualities of coal-mined areas will
be changed most drastically in areas with steep
topography and 6 inches or less of annual
precipitation. Before commitment of an area to
coal mining, other developments proposed for
adjoining or nearby areas must also be considered.
Coal mining may disturb relatively small areas at
any one time if rehabilitation is done as soon as
possible. However, in combination with environ-
mental impacts from other sources, the added
impacts from coal mining could be more serious
than if they were the only ones on the landscape.
The precise nature of impacts can be determined
only when a specific mining proposal is examined.
That step is taken by interagency teams making
environmental analyses in connection with appli-
cations for prospecting and mining plans, in
developing stipulations to be incorporated in coal
leases, in administering coal leases, in directing
rehabilitation measures, and in assessing any
unmitigated impacts that remain after all require-
ments have been met and leases are terminated.
Reclamation consists of four phases: planning,
topsoil/overburden segregation, backfilling, and
revegetation. The planning phase begins prior to
mining and continues throughout the mining cycle.
This phase mainly involves: 1) site mapping, 2)
identification of the probable effects of mining
before mining begins, 3) development of the
reclamation plan, including mitigating measures to
be followed during all mining activities, 4) prepara-
tion of periodic environmental reports, 5) bond
and permit fee related activities, 6) supervision of
the reclamation work, 7) engineering and survey-
ing for environmental protection, 8) water quality
monitoring, 9) dust control, and 10) consultation
with outside experts.
Topsoil/overburden segregation and backfill-
ing usually include: 1) removal of vegetative cover
when its removal is necessary for topsoil salvage, 2)
removing and stockpiling topsoil and overburden
separately, 3) backfilling and grading cuts with
original overburden, and 4) replacing topsoil [5,6].
Techniques used in the topsoil/overburden
segregation and backfilling phases differ according
to the type of mining method used. In the
Appalachian Coal Region where contour mining is
dominant, two mining approaches, box-cut and
truck haulback, have been implemented to inte-
grate the topsoil/overburden segregation and
backfilling reclamation phases into the mining
cycle [7]. Such integration has increased the
efficiency of the overall mining process by reduc-
ing backfill requirements after overburden removal
and spoil placement.
Area strip mining is dominant in most non-
Appalachian coal regions. Separation of topsoil
from overburden is accomplished by draglines,
bucket wheel excavators, and scrapers [8]. In areas
with shallow coal seams, the overburden can be
removed with a single effort and is referred to as
the full-cut technique. In areas with thick overbur-
den, the bench technique is used to rotate
overburden from an active cut to a previous cut in
its natural sequence. Topsoil is usually applied and
graded by draglines and dozers [8,9,10]. Surface
configuration methods include: 1) terracing, 2)
C-13
pitting, 3) ditching, 4) listering, 5) deep chiseling,
and 6) discing.
The revegetation phase usually consists of the
following in each coal region: 1) soil preparation
(discing, mulching, fertilizing, etc.), 2) seeding
and/or planting, 3) reseeding and/or replanting,
and 4) irrigation [5,6]. The methods used in each of
the four categories differ substantially in various
coal regions, due mainly to different topsoil
characteristics and environmental conditions.
Most of the Federal coal is in the Rocky
Mountain and Northern Great Plains Coal Prov-
inces. The dominant surface uses of Federal land
in those two provinces are for livestock forage
production, wildlife habitat, watersheds, wide-
ranging recreational activities, and timber produc-
tion. In those provinces, surface mining on Federal
lands will occur mainly in nonforested areas. On
the other hand, forested terrain is generally such
that if coal is mined, it will be by underground
methods. Consequently, except for areas disturbed
at mine portals and plant sites, the principal effect
on existing forests will be from subsidence.
In the Fort Union, Powder River, and Denver-
Raton Mesa Coal Regions, revegetation limiting
factors are: 1) the amount and distribution of
precipitation, 2) soil nutrient concentrations, 3) soil
alkalinity and salinity levels, and 4) the suitability
and availability of different plant species [11,12].
Most soils are deficient in phosphorus and nitro-
gen but receive in excess of 12 inches of precipita-
tion annually. Erosion is as serious a problem in
some areas as excessive aggregation is in others.
Surface soil replacement is necessary for
successful vegetation reestablishment [11]. Spoils
are graded to short lengths of gentle-to-moderate
slopes and the highest site-production overburden
is placed near the surface. Tillage is accomplished
by conventional agricultural techniques. Fertilizers
are applied for best vegetation success. Gypsum is
added to saline soils and irrigation is sometimes
necessary during erratic climatic years. Most areas
are seeded grass and legume mixtures using
established farming practices [9]. Management
measures are similar to those described for the San
Juan Coal River Region below.
In the San Juan Coal River Region, the major
limiting factor to revegetation is water [13].
Precipitation averages 6 inches annually and
evapotranspiration is much higher [14]. Another
factor is a thin topsoil layer overlying an imperme-
able overburden, which causes flash flooding and
wind erosion. Alkalinity values of the topsoil
approach a pH of 9.0, and large amounts of
sodium are present.
Irrigation is essential during the first year of
revegetation and may be necessary in subsequent
years of extraordinarily low rainfall [15]. Currently,
the most effective method is to simulate 12-14
inches of effective annual precipitation with
sprinkler irrigation in the first growing season,
followed with spring irrigation the next growing
season [13]. In the Black Mesa Field, irrigation is
not normally necessary. Species used for revegeta-
tion are selected on the basis of the future land use,
which is usually grazing [13].
Revegetation limiting factors in the Uinta-
Southwestern Utah and Green River-Hams Fork
Coal Regions are similar to those in the San Juan
River Coal Region. Revegetation is accomplished
by: 1) spoils segregation; 2) addition of topsoil (4-6
inches) selected for nutrient status and moisture
capacity; 3) surface manipulation to reduce the
rate of surface flow; 4) broad mixture seeding of
adapted species; 5) precipitation conservation
using slow drainage design, moisture-retaining
subsoil, and mulches; and 6) gradient reductions
[16].
In the Eastern and Western Interior Coal
Regions, the primary limiting factors to revegeta-
tion are topsoils with low organic matter, low pH,
low nitrogen, and poor tilth [10,17]. These prob-
lems are mitigated by the use of fertilizers, lime
and leguminous plant species. Conventional farm-
ing methods and aerial broadcasting are used in
reseeding [10].
Topsoil is not salvaged in the Texas Coal
Region because plant nutrients have been leached
to subsurface material [5]. Therefore, the latter is
used as the growth medium. Bulldozers and
scrapers are used to grade soil into gently rolling
flatland to be used for row crops, hay meadows, or
pasture. Spoil is usually revegetated with Bermuda
grass. Seeding, discing, and fertilizing occur in the
spring. The second and consecutive years are used
for hay, pasture, or both.
A number of reclamation techniques have been
tested in recent years which will allow more
efficient and economic reclamation. A lateral
groove technique allows efficient terracing of steep
slopes in areas of rugged terrain, such as the
Appalachians [18]. This method allows rapid plant
C-14
UBHUHI^HmB
establishment on easily erodible slopes by increas-
ing soil moisture and producing a "banding" effect
of seed and fertilizer.
Dryland planting innovations in Montana
include: 1) condensation traps, 2) supplemental
rooting, 3) tubelings, and 4) use of plants which are
tolerant to drought, alkalinity, and salty soil [19].
Surface manipulation techniques such as deep
chiseling, gouging, and dozer basins have in-
creased soil moisture and plant establishment.
A precipitation management method has been
successfully used [20] which will aid revegetation in
arid and semi-arid regions. This technique involves
concentration of precipitation runoff in parallel
contours, which increases soil moisture amount
and duration of availability to plant roots. In one
test, most perennials survived a 1 inch rainfall year
(one runoff event).
C.3 FUTURE USES OF COAL
Although coal comprises 90 percent of the
country's fossil fuel reserve, only 18 percent of the
national energy needs are met with coal. A
cornerstone of the National Energy Plan is to
correct this imbalance between reserves and
consumption. In the near term, conversion of
existing facilities in industry to coal from oil and
natural gas is encouraged, and construction of new
facilities that burn oil or gas prohibited. Expanding
future use of coal will depend largely on the
successful commercialization of new technologies
that convert coal to clean fuels and that permit
coal to be burned in an environmentally accept-
able manner. Processes are being developed under
Federal sponsorship to convert coal into substi-
tutes for oil and natural gas (such as crude oil, fuel
oil and distillates; chemical feedstocks; and high,
low and intermediate Btu gas) as well as to permit
increased use of coal by direct combustion (such as
in industrial boilers and process heaters, and as
primary fuel for electric power generation).
Coal gasification processes have been commer-
cially available for many years. However, the
processes are costly, and, in many cases, limited in
the kinds and sizes of coal that can be processed
[21].
C.3.1 Coal Gasification
Coal gasification is a process of chemical
transformation of solid coal into gas which is
essentially methane, carbon monoxide or free
hydrogen and virtually free of sulfur. Commercial
coal gasification processes in use today outside the
United States include the Lurgi, Koppers-Totzek,
and Winkler processes. Presently, three types of
coal gasification plants are being proposed: low
Btu gasifiers for industrial and utility boiler fuels;
intermedia te-Btu gasifiers producing feed-stock for
manufacture of liquid fuels; and high-Btu or
synthetic natural gas (SNG) to support declining
pipeline quality gas supplies.
Processes currently being developed under the
High-Btu Gasification Subprogram of the Depart-
ment of Energy include: Bi-Gas, Hygas, C02
Acceptor, Self-Agglomerating Ash, Synthane, and
Hydrane. Figure C-8 is a flow chart for the C02
Acceptor Process.
Processes currently being investigated under
the Low-Btu Gasification Subprogram of the
Department of Energy include: Fixed Bed (Stirred
and Slagging), Fluid Bed (Two Stage and Three
Stage), Entrained Bed Atmospheric, Combined
Cycle, and Molten Salt Pressurized. Figure C-9 is a
flow chart of the Fluid Bed, Three Stage Process.
C3.2 Coal Liquefaction
Coal liquefaction is the conversion of solid coal
to a liquid; this involves hydrogenation to depo-
lymerize the coal molecules into simpler molecules.
The products derived from coal liquefaction could
compete with petroleum-refined products in two
markets: first, as a low-ash, low-sulfur boiler fuel
suitable for clean electric power generation; and
second, as a substitute for high-grade fuels such as
gasoline, heating oil, and chemical feedstock.
Processes currently being investigated under the
Liquefaction Program of the Department of
Energy include: H-coal, Synthoil, Solvent Refined
Coal, Donar Solvent, Entrained Pyrolysis, and
Flash Liquefaction. Figure C-10 is a flow chart of
the H-Coal Process.
C33 Direct Combustion
Direct combustion processes are intended to
develop fluidized bed combustion systems capable
of directly burning high-sulfur coals of all ranks
and quality in an efficiently and environmentally
acceptable manner. These processes will permit
increased utilization of coal by direct combustion
in utility, industrial/institutional boilers, for heat
and electric power generation. Processes currently
being investigated are Fluidized Bed Boilers and
C-15
o
I
I MAKtUP |
I DULOMlIt I
T
1 tt-LU 1. ■ felutVOiAllt Le
ftttf I 1,'lh J-—
WASlt nt A I
and rumtH
HtCUVtHV
I
ItLLLfHILAI
IPUWtll
WASlfc
HtAI U™^. .
HECOVtH'r ]
r
UtCANItH
MLLCfJLiI
A TOR
f
■
kVASTE
SULFUR
UECOvtHf
AlMuS
lllttAlMLNI
SULhUH
SlOHAGt
i nun
lUWtH
IHON A
SFONGt II flfr
GUAftD UM
F
Mt I.IAN 1
atur n ™
WASH
lltAI — W^ LUUItH I lij
HtCOVtKY
S
Source: References 22 and 23.
FIGURE C-8
HIGH-BTU GASIFICATION: CARBON DIOXIDE ACCEPTOR
■I
J
i
PULVERIZED
COAL
FEED
HOPPER
LOCK
HOPPER
STAGE I
PRETREATER
OFF
GAS
DEVOLATIZEO
COAL
Source: Reference 24,
AIR&
STEAM
AIR&
STEAM
STAGE 2
GASIFIER
STAGE 3
CHAR
COMBUSTOR
J" 4 SOLIDS WATER I 4
GAST ! ,F.UE , tl
SPRAY
TOWER
ASH
LOCK
HOPPER
CHAR
FINES
HOLD BIN
GAS
PURIFICATION
PRODUCT GAS FOR USE
IN A POWER PLANT
FIGURE C-9
FLUIDIZED-BED GASIFICATION
BCR THREE-STAGE PRESSURIZED PROCESS
COAL
suurce
n
i
CO
CMUSlltNG.
DRYING
lOWASIt
WATER
TREATMENT
W.W. THfcAT.
WW. ACID
TREAT. GAS
SOUR
WATER "
0
LLL JJ®
SOUH
WATER
STHII'PEH
AUSGHfitH
FEED
CONDENSATE VL/ _^ COOLING*
tl "" SEPARATION '""
J LT-r
» 1 I VAPOR
SL1IHHY n
■S& pRtp B, CONDENSATE
SLIIHR
PREP. &
IIYOHOOENATION
Source: Reference 25,
I
ACID
GAS
SULFUR
plant'
POWER
PLANT. STEAM
GENERATION
ELECTRICITY
OVEHHEAD
ABSORPTION,
STRIPPING
\T!o>\ - ";■
I LIQUID
t
COOl ING,
|^ FLASHING,
~wr SEPARATION
NYDHOCLONE
OVERHEAD
0
TO SOUR
WATER STRIPI'EH
SOUR
GAS
GAS
TREATING
RECYCLE
HYDROGEN
SOUR GAS
HYDROCIONE BOTTOMS
1.
RECYCLE
HYDROGEN
1
SLURRY
stripping,
clashing
HEAVY
OISTI
HECYC
\
HEAVY FUEL
Oil.
FRACTIONATION
&NAPHTHA
STABILIZATION
ELATE
0
[0
HYDROGEN TO HtACTOII
.0
HYDROGEN
PLANT
TT
CONVENT SLAG » SOOT
OXYGEN
PLANT
HEAVY
FUEL OR.
MIDDLE
DISTILLATE
*► MAPNTtl
TO SOUR
WATER SIRiWEH
FIGURE C-10
LIQUEFACTION-DIRECT HYDR0GENATION H-COAL PROCESS
Fluidized Bed Combustion. Figure C-ll is a flow
chart for the latter process.
C.4 REFERENCES
1. 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.
2. Averitt, P., 1975. Coal Resources of the
United States-January 1, 1974. U.S. Department
of Interior, Geological Survey. Washington, D.C.
3. Bisselle, A., A. Binder, R. Holberger, L.
Morrow, R. Pagano, D. Parker, S. Sasfy, and R.
Strieter, 1975. Resource and Land Investigations
(RALI) Program: An Approach to Environmental
Assessment with Application to Western Coal
Development. The MITRE Corporation, MTR-
6988, McLean, Virginia.
4. Fluor Utah, Inc., 1975. Economic System
Analysis of Coal Preconversion Technology, Vol-
ume 3: Surface Coal Mining Methods and Equip-
ment. San Mateo, California. Prepared for the U.S.
Energy Research and Development Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C. Distributed by NTIS,
Springfield, Virginia.
5. Persse, F.H., D.W. Lockard, and A.E. Lind-
quist, 1977. Coal Surface Mining Reclamation
Costs in the Western United States. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washing-
ton, D.C.
6. Bitter, J.R., and R.J. Evans, 1975. Coal
Surface Mining Reclamation Costs-Appalachian
and Midwestern Coal Supply Districts. In: Third
Symposium on Surface Mining and Reclamation.
Vol. II. pp. 58-64. National Coal Association.
7. Nephew, E.A., and R.L. Spore, 1976. Costs of
Coal Surface Mining and Reclamation in Appalac-
hia. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. NTIS, Springfield, Virginia.
8. Grimm, E.G., and R.D. Hill, 1974. Environ-
mental Protection in Surface Mining of Coal. In:
Doyle, W.S., 1976. Strip Mining of Coal-Environ-
mental Solutions, pp. 43-73. Noyes Data Corpora-
tion, Park Ridge, N.J.
9. Ries, R.E., F.M. Sandoval and J.F. Power,
1977. Reclamation of Disturbed Lands in the
Lignite Area of the Northern Plains. In: Proc,
1977 Symposium on Technology and Use of
Lignite. Grand Forks, North Dakota, pp. 309-327.
10. Argonne National Laboratory, 1977. Recla-
mation (#9) (Draft). Prepared for: Special Com-
mittee to Study Health and Environmental Effects
of Increased Coal Production. Prepared by: Coal
Extraction and Land Reclamation Group, Ar-
gonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.
11. Packer, P.E., 1974. Rehabilitation Potentials
and Limitations of Surface-Mined Land in the
Northern Great Plains. U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.
12. Argonne National Laboratory, 1976. The
Argonne Land Reclamation Program; Coal Ex-
traction and Land Reclamation. Argonne, Illinois.
13. Green, B.B., 1977. Biological Aspects of
Surface Coal Mine Reclamation. Black Mesa and
San Juan Basin. Argonne National Lab., Argonne,
Illinois. NTIS, Springfield, Virginia.
14. Verma, T.R., 1977. Strip Mining and Hydro-
logic Environment on Black Mesa. In: Thames,
J.L. (ed.), 1977. Reclamation and Use of Disturbed
Land in the Southwest, pp. 161-166. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
15. Aldon, E.F. and H.W. Springfield, 1977.
Reclaiming Coal Mine Spoils in the Four Corners.
In: Thames, J.L. (ed.), 1977. Reclamation and Use
of Disturbed Land in the Southwest, pp. 229-237.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
16. National Academy of Sciences, 1974. Reha-
bilitation Potential of Western Coal Lands. Bal-
linger, Cambridge, Mass.
17. Pietz, R.L, J.R. Peterson, and C. Lue-Hing,
1974. Groundwater Quality at a Stripmine Recla-
mation Area in West-Central Illinois. In: National
Coal Association, 1974. Second Research and
Applied Technology Symposium on Mined-Land
Reclamation, pp. 124-144. Washington, D.C.
18. Armiger, W.H., J.N. Jones, and O.L. Ben-
nett, 1976. Revegetation of Land Disturbed by
Strip Mining of Coal in Appalachia. USDA-
Agricultural Research Service. ARS-NE-71.
19. Hodder, R.L., 1973. Surface Mined Land
Reclamation Research in Eastern Montana. In:
Research and Applied Technology Symposium on
C-19
STONE ~
I
STONE
OHYEH
n
i
o
COAL I - I COAL
SOURCE f W I OBYEH
"" T
MAKEUr HASTE
WATER WATER
Source: Reference 26.
FIGURE C-ll
ADVANCED STEAM CYCLE ATMOSPHERIC FLUIDIZED
BED COMBUSTION (FBC)
Mined-Land Reclamation. National Coal Associa-
tion, Washington, D.C.
20. Grigg, N.S., 1976. Precipitation Management
for Reclamation of Overgrazed Areas In Arid and
Semi-Arid Regions. Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado. Submitted to U.S. Depart-
ment of Interior, Office of Water Research and
Technology Project No. A-026-COLO, Washing-
ton, D.C.
21. U.S. Energy, Research & Development
Administration, 1977. Draft Environmental Im-
pact Statement-Coal Research, Development and
Demonstration Program, Washington, D.C.
22. Glazer, F., A. Hershaft and R. Shaw, 1974.
Emissions from Processes Producing Clean Fuels.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C.
23. Jahnig, C.E., et al., 1974. Evaluation of
Pollution Control in Fossil Fuel Conversion
Processes, Gasification. Section I. Co2 Acceptor
Process, Exxon Research and Engineering Compa-
ny, Linden, New Jersey.
24. U.S. Energy, Research & Development
Administration, 1976. Fossil Energy Research
Program of the Energy Research and Development
Administration. FY1977. ERDA 76-63. VC-90.
Washington, D.C.
25. Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc.,
1976. H-Coal Commercial Evaluation FE 2002-12.
Los Angeles, Ca.
26. General Electric, 1976. Study of Advanced
Energy Conversion Techniques for Utility Appli-
cations Using Coal or Coal Derived Fuels. Oral
Briefing on the Results of Task 11. Feb. 17, 1976.
Corporate Research and Development, General
Electric Corp., Schenectady, N.Y.
C-21
APPENDIX D
ECOLOGICAL DATA
■»-»-— —~—~—-«—-«nWlMiiiiil.iiii.iMiK w
TABLE D-l
ESTIMATED REGIONAL CARRYING CAPACITIES
AND PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITIES
REGION
CARRYING CAPACITIES OF
OCCUPIED HABITAT
PRODUCTIVITIES PER
ACRE/YEAR
Appalachian
Eastern Interior
2.19 acres/animal unit/month
10 small mamma Is /acre
1 white-tailed deer/15 acres
(high density areas)
1 white-tailed deer/200 acres
(low density areas)
3.5 songbirds/acre
1 gamebird/4 acres
1 large predator/500 acres
2-3 reptiles-amphibians/
acre
125-130 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
1.7 acres/animal unit /month
10 small mammals/acre
1 white-tailed deer/166
acres
3.5 songbirds/acre
1 gamebird/5 acres
1 large predator/500 acres
2-3 reptiles-amphibians/
acre
125-150 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
Western Interior 2.6 acres/animal unit/month
10 small mammals/acre
1 white-tailed deer/33 acres
3.5 songbirds/acre
1 gamebird/5 acres
1 large predator/500 acres
2-3 reptiles-amphibians/
acre
400 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
Hardwood forest 8.9 tons
Wetlands 17.8 tons
Corn 79.9 bu
Soybeans 26.8 bu
Hay 1.9 tons
Cotton 380 pounds
Wheat 38.5 bu
Oats 48.3 bu
Hardwood forest 8.9 tons
Prairie 5.8 tons
Wetlands 17.8 tons
Com 100.7 bu
Soybeans 32.5 bu
Hay 1. 9 tons
Wheat 38 . 6 bu
Hardwood forest 8.9 tons
Prairie 5.8 tons
Wetlands 17.8 tons
Corn 84.6 bu
Soybeans 25 . 6 bu
Hay 2.0 tons
Wheat 29.1 bu
Cotton 390 pounds
D-l
~iiraBBMfnraraMta*'w'm"B
TABLE D-l (continued)
REGION
Texas
CARRYING CAPACITIES OF
OCCUPIED HABITAT
6. 6 acres/animal unit/month
10 small mammals /acre
1 white-tailed deer/16 acres
3.5 songbirds/acre
1 gamebird/5 acres
1 large predator/500 acres
3-4 reptiles-amphibians/
acre
125-150 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
PRODUCTIVITIES PER
ACRE/YEAR
Hardwood-pine forest
7.1 tons
Prairie 5.8 tons
Wetlands 17.8 tons
Hay 2.3 tons
Wheat 2.3 tons
Cotton 353 pounds
Soybeans 23. 6 bu
Powder River
15.5 acres/animal unit/
month
6-10 small mammals/acre
1 antelope/166 acres
1 white-tailed deer/33
acres
1 mule deer/200 acres
1 songbird/acre
1 gamebird/30 acres
1 large predator/500 acres
2.3 reptiles/amphibians
55 pounds trout/acre-
stream
250 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
Hardwood forest 5.8 tons
Montane evergreen forest
8.0 tons
Sagebrush steppe 1.8
tons
Prairie 6.7 tons
Floodplains 5.4 tons
Hay 1.7 tons
Wheat 2 6.2 bu
Oats 43.0 bu
Sugarbeets 19.5 tons
Green River -
Hams Fork
9.3 acres/animal unit/
month
50-60 small mammals/acre
1 antelope/66 acres
winter range
1 antelope/250 acres
summer range
1 mule deer or elk/125
acres
1 moose/250 acres
Sagebrush steppe 1.8 tons
Desert steppe 2.2 tons
Pinyon- Juniper 5.4 tons
Montane evergreen forest
5.0 tons
Corn 95.8 bu
Hay 2.2 tons
Wheat 23.2 bu
Oats 42.0 bu
Sugarbeets 18.4 tons
D-2
REGION
TABLE D-l (continued)
CARRYING CAPACITIES OF
OCCUPIED HABITAT
Green River- 2.5 songbird/acre
Hams Fork 1 large predator/500 acres
(cont.) 4.5 reptiles-amphibian/
acre
55 pounds trout/acre-
stream
250 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
PRODUCTIVITIES PER
ACRE/YEAR
Fort Union 8.2 acres/animal unit/montb
8-10 small mammals/acre
1 antelope/125 acres
1 wbite-tailed deer/33 acres
1 mule deer/200 acres
1 songbird/acre
1 gamebird/7 acres
1 large predator/500 acres
250 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
Prairie 6.7 tons
Floodplains 5.4 tons
Montane evergreen forest
8.0 tons
Hardwood forest 5.8
tons
Soybeans 17.3 bu
Hay 1.4 tons
Wheat 24.6 bu
Sugarbeets 19.3 tons
San Juan River
22 acres/animal unit/month
4-6 small mammals/acre
1 mule deer/330 acres
2.5 songbirds/acre
1 gamebird/5 acres
1 large predator/330
acres
2.6 reptiles-amphibians/
acre
250 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
Sagebrusb steppe 1.8 tons
Grasslands 0.5 tons
Montane evergreen forest
3.0 tons
Corn 96.6 bu
Hay 3.6 tons
Wheat 35.8 bu
Cotton 720.5 pounds
Sugarbeets 17.8 tons
D-3
TABLE D-l (concluded)
REGION
CARRYING CAPACITIES OR
OCCUPIED HABITAT
PRODUCTIVITIES PER
ACRE/YEAR
Uinta-
Southwestern
Utah
8.3 acres/animal unit/month
4-6 small mammals/acre
1 mule deer/50 acres
1 antelope/150 acres
1 elk/100 acres
2.5 songbirds/acre
1 gamebird/5 acres
1 large predator/500 acres
2.6 reptiles-amphibians/
acre
55 pounds trout/acre-
stream
250 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
Sagebrush steppe 1.8 tons
Mountain hardwood 5.8 tons
Montane evergreen forest
8.0 tons
Corn 95.8 bu
Hay 2.5 tons
Wheat 23.3 bu
Sugarbeets 17.8 tons
Denver-Raton
Mesa
16 acres/animal unit/month
8-10 small mammals/acre
1 mule deer/100 acres
1 antelope/100 acre
2.5 songbirds/acre
1 gamebird/5 acres
1 large predator/500 acres
2.6 reptiles-amphibians/
acre
55 pounds trout/acre-
stream
250 pounds fish/acre-
reservoir
Prairie 7. 6 tons
Pinyon- Juniper forest
5.9 tons
Montane evergreen forest
8.0 tons
Sagebrush steppe 1.8 tons
Corn 100.8 bu
Hay 2.9 tons
Wheat 23.4 bu
Cotton 380 pounds
Sugarbeets 18.6 tons
Sources: Reference Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
D-4
TABLE D-2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES OF THE FEDERAL COAL REGIONS
Region
Fish
Appalachian
Reptiles and
Amphibians
Watercress darter
(E) (1)
U
I
Eastern Interior
Birds
Mammals
Bachman ' s warb ler
(E) (2)
Red-cockaded wood-
pecker (E) (1)
Kirtland's warbler
(E) (2)
Bald Eagle
(E) (1/2)
Peregrine falcon
(E) (2)
Gray bat (F.) (1)
Indiana bat (E) (1)
Eastern cougar
(E) (1)
Red-cockaded wood-
pecker (E) (1)
Kirtland's warbler
(E) (2)
Bald eagle (E) (2)
Peregrine falcon
(E) (2)
Gray bat (E) (1)
Indiana bat (E) (1)
Invertebrates
Birdwing pearly mussel
(E) (1)
Green-blossom pearly
mussel (E) (1)
Tuber culed-blossom
pearly mussel (E) (1)
Fine-rayed plgtoe pear-
ly mussel (E) (1)
Shiny pigtoe pearly mus-
sel (E) (1)
Pink mucket pearly mus-
sel (E) (1)
Alabama lamp pearly mus-
sel (E) (1)
White warty-back pearly
mussel (E) (1)
Rough pigtoe pearly mus-
sel (E) (1)
Cumberland monkeyface
pearly mussel (E) (1)
Appalachian monkey face
pearly mussel (E) (1)
Pale lilliput pearly
mussel (E) (1)
Cumberland bean pearly
mussel (E"> (1)
Yellow-blossom pearly
mussel (E) (1)
Turgid-blossom pearly
mussel (E) (1)
Dromedary pearly mussel
(E) (1)
Orange-footed pearly
mussel (E) (1)
Tuberculated blossom
pearly mussel (E) (1)
Sampson's pearly mussel
(E) (1)
Plants
TABLE D-2 (CONT)
Regions
Fish
Reptiles and
Amphibians
Birds
Mammals
Invertebrates
Plants
Western Interior
Texas
Fountain darter (E)
(1)
U
I
Texas blind sala-
mander (E) (1)
American Alligator
(E) (1)
Houston toad (E)
(1)
Red-cockaded wood-
pecker (E) (1)
Bald Eagle
(E) (1/2)
Whooping Crane (E)
(2)
Peregrine falcon
(E) (2)
Eskimo curlew (E)
(2)
Backman's warbler
(E) (2)
Attwater's greater
prairie chicken
(E) (1)
Ivory billed wood-
pecker (E)
Whooping crane (E)
(2)
Red-cockaded wood-
pecker (E) (1)
Bald eagle (E) (2)
Peregrine falcon
(E) (2)
Indiana bat (E) (1)
Gray bat (E) (1)
Red wolf (E) (1)
Northern wild monkshood
(T) (1)
Red wolf (E) (1)
Texas wild rice (E) (1)
Powder River
Whooping crane (E)
(2)
Bald eagle (E) (1)
American peregrine
falcon (E) (1)
Black-footed ferret
(E) (1)
Green River
Earns Fork
Kendall Warm Springs
dace (E) CD
Whooping crane (E)
(2)
Bald eagle (E) (2)
American peregrine
falcon (E) (2)
Gray Wolf (E) (1)
Black-footed ferret
(E) (1)
TABLE D-2 (CONCLUDED)
Region
Fish
Reptiles and
Amphibians
Birds
Fort Union
San Juan River Apache trout (T) (1)
Whooping crane (E)
(2)
Bald eagle (E) (2)
Tule white-fronted
goose (T) (2)
Peregrine falcon
(E) (2)
Whooping crane (E)
(2)
Thick-billed parrot
(E) (1)
Bald Eagle
(E) (1/2)
Peregrine falcon
(E) (2)
Mammals
Invertebrates
Plants
Black-footed ferret
(E) (1)
Gray Wolf (E) (1)
Northern kit fox* (E)
Gray wolf (E) (1)
Uinta- Woundfin (E) (1)
U Southwestern Utah Humpback chub (E)
I (1)
"-J Colorado squawfish
(E) (1)
Whooping crane (E)
(2)
Bald eagle (E) (2)
Peregrine falcon
(E) (2)
Utah prairie dog (E)
(1)
Black-footed ferret
(E) (1)
Rydberg milk vetch (T)
(1)
Phacelia argillacea
(E) (1)
Denver-Raton
Mesa
Greenback cutthroat
trout (E) (1)
Bald Eagle Black-footed ferret
(E) (1/2) (E) (1)
Peregrine falcon (E)
(2)
Whooping crane (E)
(2)
* Probably not a resident of study area, however, one was trapped in slope County in 1970. (Reference 7)
Sources: Reference Numbers 7, 8, 9, and 10.
KEY
(E)
(T)
(1)
(2)
Endangered
Threatened
Permanent resident
Migratory species
TABLE D-3
NUMBER OF SPECIES (BY CATEGORY) CONSIDERED BY STATES AS
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OP WORTHY OF SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
STATE
MAMMALS
BIRDS
FISH
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
INVERTEBRATES
PLANTS
u
i
00
Alabama
7
11
17
16
Arizona
15
30
23
4
Colorado
6
8
11
-
Georgia
9
13
9
14
Illinois
8
40
13
11
Indiana
14
4
21
21
Iowa
25
28
35
23
Kansas
2
6
6
6
Kentucky
9
5
5
11
Maryland
7
-
-
14
Missouri
15
19
32
15
Montana
2
2
-
-
Nebraska
2
2
2
-
New Mexico
13
34
29
27
North Dakota
7
-
-
-
Ohio
4
7
40
8
Oklahoma
3
7
-
1
Pennsylvania
-
-
4
11
South Dakota
1
-
-
-
Tennessee
4
13
19
3
Texas
14
12
11
9
Utah
36
*
rt
12
Virginia
7
4
-
9
West Virginia
2
3
-
-
Wyoming
5
8
13
5
61
20
17
57
17
17
94
100
28
360
264
360
* All species protected
I
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL FRODUCTIOt: AND
TO WILDLIFE DUE TO HABITAT LCSS BASED ON
NO NEW FEDERAL LEAS I NO --LOW-LEV EL PRODUCTION
197 6-1 985
COAL UCICH
TOTAL
LAHD
COMMITTED
(sere.)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTEKTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(ton.)
RANGE
PASTURE
CORK
(bu)
SOYBEAHS
(bu)
COTTON
(lb. J
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
(torn)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SMALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
AM DIAL
UNITS
northern
26,370
139.849
-
9,274
236,410
52,109
-
32,547
-
8.166
1,846
7,000
264,000
92,000
66,000
53
12,040
Central
14,715
81,242
.
7,405
59,304
27.351
-
3,572
-
-
1,030
4,000
147.000
52,000
37,000
29
6,719
Southern
11,160
59,482
-
4,647
47,476
40,230
36
-
-
-
781
3,000
112,000
39.000
28,000
22
5,096
Eastern
26.055
60,492
-
6.737
898,344
208,751
-
61.983
-
"
1,563
5,000
261.000
91,000
65,000
52
15,326
Wei tern
13,282
32.239
11,672
5,141
156,290
43.790
27
57,742
-
-
398
3,000
133,000
46,000
33,000
27
5,108
Terse
17.108
56,796
33,827
4,532
-
-
190
19.890
-
| 1,026
3,000
171.000
60,000
60,000
34
2,392
Powder
Uver
6,783
2,047
40,157
329
-
-
-
6.032
71
314 1 274
204
61,000
7,000
17,000
14
438
Green liver -
4,992
6,740
6,989
303
1.122
-
-
1,922
73
84 101
BOO
275,000
12,000
22.000
10
537
Fort
3,506
1,013
12,917
599
-
-
-
19,498
-
6.118 . 149
491
32,000
4,000
9,000
7
428
San Juan
2,273
8,375
574
143
453
-
•=1
789
17
4
455
11.000
6,000
6,000
7
41
Uinte- South-
western Utah
2,550
5,947
2,839
137
831
-
-
897
28
26
510
13.000
6,000
7,000
5
307
Raton Ktu
2,196
3,738
9,410
488
6,123
-
<1
5.795
17'
34
439
20,000
5,000
6,000
4
135
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND
TO WILDLIFE DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON
NO NEW FEDERAL LEAS I KG— LOW -LEVEL PRODUCTION
1986-1990
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acre.)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(ton.)
RANGE
( tona )
PASTURE
(tona)
CORK
(bu)
SOYBEAHS
(bo)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
(ton.)
OATS
(bu)
CAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SHALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
northern
24,448
129,671
_
8,599
219,204
48,317
-
30,178
-
7.572
1,711
6,000
244,000
86,000
61,000
49
11,163
Central
15,511
85,637
_
7,806
62,313
28,831
-
3,765
-
-
1,086
4,000
155,000
54,000
39.000
31
7,083
Southern
10,713
57,099
„
4,461
43,574
38,618
34
-
-
-
750
3,000
107,000
37,000
27,000
21
4,892
Eastern
26,253
60,953
_
6,788
905,171
210,338
-
62,454
-
-
1,575
5,000
263.000
92.000
66,000
33
15.443
Western
13,395
32,513
11,771
3.185
157,620
44,163
27
58,233
-
-
402
3,000
134.000
47,000
33,000
27
5,152
Texas
21,519
73,936
42.343
5.701
_
_
239
25,018
-
-
1,291
4,000
215.000
75,000
75,000
43
3,260
Powder
8,455
2.551
30,056
410
.
„
-
7,519
89
392
342
254
76,000
8.000
21,000
17
543
Green River-
7,433
10,034
10.406
451
2,563
_
_
2,966
109
125
151
1.190
409,000
19.000
33,000
15
799
Fort
5,115
1,478
18,343
874
_
_
_
28,446
-
8,923
216
716
46.000
5.000
13,000
10
624
San Juan
3,441
12,679
869
217
685
_
1
1,194
25
-
6
688
17.000
9,000
9,000
10
311
Ulnta-South-
3,412
7,957
3,789
183
1.112
„
„
1,200
38
.
35
682
17,000
9,000
9.000
7
411
Raton Heie
3,431
5,840
14,702
762
9,566
-
<4
9.053
272
-
54
686
31,000
9,000
9,000
7
210
a
h- '
O
TABLE D-6
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AMD
TO WILDLIFE DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON
NO NEW FEDERAL LEAS IKG— MID-LEVEL PRODUCTION
1976-1985
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acre.)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOHEST
(tona)
RANGE
(ton.)
PASTURE
CORN
tbu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUCARBEETS
(tons)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SHALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
REPTILES
PREDATORS
AHIKAL
Appalachian
25.870
137,213
-
9,099
231,954
51.127
-
31.934
-
8,014
1,811
6.000
259,000
91,000
65,000
Appalachian
15,800
87,210
-
7,949
63,661
29,361
-
3,834
-
_
1.106
4,000
15B.0O0
55,000
39,000
Appalachian
15,300
81,553
'
6,371
65,092
55,157
49
-
-
_
1,071
4,000
153,000
54,000
3B.0OO
31
Interior
26,295
61.051
"
6,799
906,619
210,674
-
62,554
_
1,578
5,000
263,000
Interior
16,386
39,773
14,400
6.343
192,815
54,024
33
71.236
492
3,000
164.000
32,707
81,4 76
46,875
6,381
-
^
263
27,562
.
m
1,427
5,000
237,000
83,000
River
8,626
2,542
49,884
409
-
-
-
7,494
89
390
341
250
76,000
8,000
lot Fork
8,210
11,083
11,494
499
2,831
^
_
3,276
121
138
165
1,310
452,000
21,000
Union
4,190
1,211
15,437
716
-
-
-
23,302
_
7,311
178
590
38,000
River
3,100
11,422
783
196
617
-
1
1,075
23
_
5
620
15,000
vcBtrrn Utah
2,793
6,513
3,110
150
910
" .
-
982
31
"
3
560
14,000
7.000
7,000
6
337
~
<1
7,708
231
"
46
580
26.000
7.000
8,000
6
179
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
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acre.)
POTENT
AL PRODUCT I
'ITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(tona)
RANGE
PASTURE
CORN
(bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
(tona)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SMALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/ PRED.T0HS
REPTILES 'KtDATURS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Appalachian
28.125
149,173
"-
9,893
252,172
55,583
-"
34,717
--
8,711
1.969
7,000
281,000
98,000
70,000
56
12,842
Appalachian
18,662
103,033
9,391
75,212
34,688
-"
4.530
--
--
1,306
5,000
187.000
65,000
47.000
37
8,521
Appalachian
16,311
86,936
6,792
69,389
58,798
52
--
1,142
4,000
163,000
57,000
41,000
33
7,448
Interior
28,393
65,921
7,341
978,955
2,274
"-
67,545
1.704
6,000
284,000
99,000
71,000
57
Interior
25,876
62,808
22,739
10,016
30,448
85,312
52
112.492
"-
--
776
5,000
259,000
91,000
65,000
52
Texas
43,684
150.132
86,375
11,573
--
-"
485
50,787
--
--
2.621
9,000
437,000
153,000
153,000
87
River
12.535
3,782
74,210
609
11,146
132
561
506
376
115,000
13.000
31,000
25
Ham* Fork
9. 822
13,259
13,751
596
3,387
3,919
145
165
199
1,570
540,000
25,000
Union
8,517
2,462
31,379
1,456
14.861
361
1,192
77,000
9,000
River
6,430
21,692
1,626
406
1.281
-"
2
47
--
10
1,280
32,000
16,000
17,000
veatern Utah
3,439
8,019
3,829
184
1,121
-"
38
--
35
680
17,000
9,000
9,000
7
i'aton Maaa
4,523
7,699
19,382
1,005
12,610
<1
358
"-
72
904
41,000
11.000
12,000
9
277
a
I
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AMD AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND
TO WILDLIFE DUE TO habitat loss based on
NO NEW FEDERAL LEASING —HIGH -LEVEL PRODUCTION
1976-1985
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAHD
COMMITTED
[acres)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTEKTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(tons)
RANGE
PASTURE
CORN
<bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
OATS
(bu)
GAME
HAMHALS
GAME
BIRDS
SMALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
northern
26, 711
141,673
9,395
239.494
52.789
32,972
8,273
1,870
7.000
267,000
93,000
67.000
53
12,197
Central
14,754
81.457
7.425
59,462
2,724
3,581
--
--
1,033
4,000
148,000
52,000
37.000
30
6,737
Southern
15,970
85,119
6,650
67,938
57.569
51
--
--
1,118
4,000
16,000
56.000
40,000
32
7,292
Ea.tem
25,835
59,983
6.6B0
890,759
206,989
61,460
--
1,555
5,000
258,000
90.000
65,000
52
151,970
Western
16,816
40,817
14,778
6,509
197,875
5,544
34
73.105
--
504
3,000
168,000
59,000
42,000
34
6.468
T**«a
22,649
77,839
44,763
6,000
252
26,332
1,359
5,000
226,000
79,000
79,000
45
3.432
fowder
10,947
3,303
64,809
531
9,736
115
507
442
329
99,000
11.000
27,000
22
706
Green River-
10,106
13,643
14,148
614
3,485
4,033
149
170
205
1,620
556.000
25.000
45,000
20
1,087
Port
7,490
2,164
27,596
1,280
41,654
13,069
317
1,050
67,000
7,000
19,000
15
913
San Juan
4,884
17,995
1,233
308
973
2
1,694
36
--
8
977
24,000
12,000
13,000
15
88
Ulnta-South-
3,248
7,574
3,616
174
1,059
1,142
36
--
32
650
16,000
8,000
6.000
6
391
Raton Mesa
3,577
6,089
15,328
795
9,973
"
<1
9,439
283
56
715
32.000
9,000
9,000
7
219
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND
TO WILDLIFE CUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON
NO NEW FEDERAL LEASING— HIGH-LEVEL PRODUCTION
1986-1990
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAHD
COMMITTED
(acres)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(tons)
RANGE
(tons)
PASTURE
CORN
(bu>
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
CO
SUGARBEETS
(tona)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
CAME
BIRDS
SMALL
HAMHALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UMTS
Northern
Appalachian
40,800
216,400
14,351
365.818
BO, 633
-"
50.363
"-
12,637
2,856
1,000
408,000
143,000
102,000
82
18,630
Central
Appalachian
21,148
116,758
10,642
85.213
39,309
--
5,134
"-
1,480
5,000
211,000
74,000
53,000
42
9,657
Southern
20,912
111,460
8,708
88,962
75,384
67
1,464
5,000
209,000
73,000
52,000
42
9,549
Eastern
Interior
11,554
73,260
8,159
1.087.942
252,809
--
75.065
-"
-"
1,893
600
316,000
110,000
79,000
63
16,561
Western
Interior
30,88 6
74.968
27,142
11,955
363,438
101,830
62
134,273
927
600
309,000
108,000
77,000
62
11,879
T«..
48,676
167,288
96,246
12.896
--
541
56,590
2,921
1,000
487.000
170,000
170.000
97
7,375
River
13,221
3,993
78.337
642
--
-.
--
11,768
"-
613
535
4 no
119,000
13,000
33,000
26
854
Green Rlver-
tUt-.i Fork
11,197
15,116
15,676
680
3,862
--
4,468
139
188
226
1,800
616,000
28,000
50,000
22
1,204
Fort
11,287
3.262
41,585
1,929
62,770
165
19,694
478
1,580
102,000
11,000
18,000
23
1,376
San Juan
9.497
34,973
15,344
599
1,891
4
3,293
70
--
15
1,900
47,000
24,000
25,000
28
960
Ulnta-South-
western Utah
4,487
10,464
4,996
241
1,462
—
1,578
49
-"
45
900
22,000
11,000
12,000
9
541
Denver-
Raton Heaa
5,215
8,877
27,347
1.158
1,454
--
<1
13,761
413
-"
82
1,044
47,000
13,000
14,000
10
320
a
i
TABLE D-10
P0TEK^LTJ;OSSES T° NATl/RAL *M> ^"CULTURAL PRODUCTION MB TO WILDLIFE
DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
LOW-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION
1976-1985
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acrea)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(tana)
RANGE
(tona)
PASTURE
(tons)
CORN
(bo)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lba)
WHEAT
0*0
SUGARBEETS
(tona)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
HAKMALS
CAME
BIRDS
SHALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/ __„„.
REPTILES GATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Appalachian
26,372
139,875
9,276
236,455
52,119
--
32,553
-_
8.168
1,846
7,000
264,000
92,000
66,000
53
12,042
Appalachian
Southern
Appalachian
14,715
11,160
91.242
59.482
7,405
4,647
59,304
47,476
27,351
3.572
"-
1.03O
4,000
147,000
52,000
37,000
29
6,719
Emlcrn
Interior
26,055
59,482
-"
6.737
898.344
208,751
61,983
1,563
5,000
261,000
91,000
^8,000
22
5,096
Interior
13,275
32,222
11,666
5,138
15,608
43,767
27
57,711
398
2,000
133,000
46,000
33.000
Texaa
17.129
58,868
33,869
4,538
-"
-"
190
19,914
1,028
3,000
171,000
60,000
60,000
River
6,783
2,047
40,15"
329
6,032
71
314
274
200
61,000
7,000
Harj Pork
4,992
6,740
6,989
303
1,722
--
1.992
73
84
101
800
275,000
12,000
3. 805
1,099
14,019
650
"-
--
--
21.161
6,639
161
530
34.000
4,000
River
2,273
8,375
574
1,430
453
--
<1
789
17
4
455
11,000
6,000
western Utah
2,550
5,947
2,839
137
831
997
2B
30
510
13,000
6,000
Raton Keaa
2.196
3,738
9,410
488
6,123
<1
5,795
174
34
440
20,000
1
TABLE D-ll
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND TO WILDLIFE DUE
TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON TIE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
LOW-LEVEL PRODUCTION
1186-1990
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acre.)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY' LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
Ctona)
RANGE
(tona)
PASTURE
(tona)
CORN
(bu)
SOYBEANS
<bu>
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
(tons)
OATS
(1>u)
GAME
MAMMALS
CAHE
BIRDS
SHALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/ pRED.I0RS
REPTILES '""KUATUKS
ANIMAL
UNITS
24,805
131,564
-
8,725
222,405
49,022
-
30,619
-
7,68*,
1,736
6,000
24B.OOO
87.000
62,000
50
Appalachian
15,507
85,614
"
7,804
62,496
28.B23
-
3,764
-
-
1.085
4,000
155.000
54,000
Appalachian
10,713
57,099
"
4,461
45,574
38,618
34
-
-
-
7SO
3,000
107.000
37,000
Interior
26,254
60,955
"
6,788
905.205
210,346
-
62,456
-
-
1,575
5,000
263,000
92.000
66,000
Interior
13,390
32,501
11,767
5,183
157,561
44,146
27
58,211
-
-
402
3,000
134,000
Texan
21,400
73,547
42,314
5,699
"
"
238
24,879
-
-
1,284
4,000
214,000
75,000
River
8,472
2,556
50,156
411
-
"
-
7,534
B9
3B9
342
254
76,000
(Una Fork
7,698
10,393
10,777
467
2,655
-
-
3,072
113
129
156
1.232
Union
5,115
1,478
18,845
874
-
-
-
28,446
-
B.925
216
716
1JO00
River
3,480
12,822
176
220
693
-
1
1,207
26
-
6
700
15,000
™.«» Utah
3,508
8,180
3.906
188
1,143
-
-
1,233
39
-
35
702
18,000
RltonrMea.
3,442
5,859
14,749
765
9,597
-
-
9,082
272
-
54
6SB
TABLE 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
Northern
Appalachian
Central
Appalachian
Southern
Appalachian
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
26.430
8.446
137.186
tta»
61.363
. «.3«
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTEKTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
com
(bo)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
OATS GAME
(bu) HAHMALS
8,011
1.000
5,000
240.000
11.810
7-16*
J5.S47
3.0*8 L
m
57*
11-000
_2*Jl_
36
_244_
MB
i
TABLE D-13
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND TO WILDLIFE DUE
TO HABITAT LOSS BASED OK THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
MID-LEVEL PRODUCTION
1986-1990
Appalachian
River
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
101,995
66,681
65,100
61,20*
141,055
4,656
15,479
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
SOYBEANS COTTON WHEAT
(bu) (bu) Ubs) (bu)
724,647
83,133
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
47,716
13,725
SUGARBEETS
7,000
5,000
4,000
6,000
2B0.0O0
252,000
410,000
139,000
631,000
29.000
8,000
70,000
63,000
9,696
6,219
17,000
41,000
9,000
12,000
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND TO WILDLIFE DUE
TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
HIGH-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION
1976-19H5
a
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAUD
COMMITTED
(acres)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
RANCE
{tonal
PASTURE
(tona)
CORK
<bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT 1 SL'GARBEETS
(bu) j (tons]
OATS
ftu)
GAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SHALL
HAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Appalachian
26.648
14.134
9.373
238.929
52,664
32.894 |
Appalachian
14.515
80.137
7.304
58.498
26.980
3.523
12.168
Appalachian
15.915
84.S26
6.627
67.704
57,371
51
000
29
Interior
25.585
59.402
6.615
882.139
204.986
60,865 ' - -
0,000
7.267
Interior
17.924
43.506
15.751
6.938
210.913
59.095
36
77,922
6 .OW
no™
Texas
20.798
71.478
41.123
5.510
231
2,418
(..ML
River
11.760
3.54A
69.627
571
. _
10,459
124
545
Hans Fork
12. 5 39
16.927
17.555
761
4.334
__
5,004
Union
7. Ml
2.180
27.791
1.289
. .
41,949
ta
I WK
River
4.901
le.o^e
1.217
309
976
2
1,700
36
western Utah
T V19
7.716
1.684
177
i.o?a
_ .
1,163
36
■
Ration Mesa
1.641
6.197
15.602
B09
10,151
--
• <«
9,608
288
58
72B
3i.oon
i ono
9 nnn
7
s*i
TABLE B-15
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND TO WILDLIFE DUE
TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON THE PREFERRED PROCRAM ALTERNATIVE
HIGH-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION
1986-1990
COAL REGION
LAND
COMMITTED
(acres)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(tons)
RANGE
(tons)
PASTURE
(tons)
CORN
(bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTOK
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGAR BEETS
(tons)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SMALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/ „„„„
REPTILES PRED*TORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Appalachian
41,381
219,482
"
14,555
371,027
8,178
-
51,080
-
12.816
2,897
10,000
414,000
145,000
103,000
Appalachian
70,984
115, B53
"
10.560
84,570
39,004
-
5,094
-
_
1.469
5,000
210,000
73,000
52,000
Appalachian
22,139
109,094
"
9,219
98,185
79,807
71
-
-
1 1.550
6,000
221,000
77,000
55,000
Interior
31,559
62,742
"
8,160
1,088,115
252,849
-
75,077
_
| 1,894
6,000
316,000
110,000
Interior
28,566
69,338
25,103
11,057
336,138
94,181
57
124,187
-
857
6,000
286,000
100,000
71,000
57
44,683
153,565
88,350
11,638
-
-
496
51.948
-
2,681
9,000
447,000
156,000
River
21,767
6.167
128,866
1.057
-
-
.-
19,358
229
1,009 j 880
654
195,000
Hams Forlt
15,931
21,507
22,303
967
5,494
-
-
6,357
235
268
323
2,548
876,000
Union
10,604
3,065
39.06B
1,813
-
-
-
58,972
-
18,503
446
1,464
95,000
110,000
River
9,337
34,403
472
589
1,860
-
3
3,239
69
_
15
1,868
47,000
western Utah
4.64B
10.B39
5,175
249
1,515
-
-
1,634
51
_
47
930
23,000
Raton Mesa
5,710
9,719
24,468
1,268
1,592
-
<1
14,707
452
_
90
1,342
51.000
14,000
1
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND TO WILDLIFE DUE TO
HABITAT LOSS BASED OH PREFERENCE RIGHT LEASING APPLICATIONS ONLY LEASING
HID-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION
1976-1985
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(tons)
RANGE
(tons)
PASTURE
CORN
<bg)
SOYBEANS
{bu)
COTTON
Ubs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
(tons)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SMALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Northern
Appalachian
Central
25.151
133.399
-"
8,847
225.507
49,706
29,294
"-
31,046
3,826
"-
7.790
1.761
1,103
6.000
4.000
252.000
15B.OO0
88.000
55.000
63.000
39.000
50
12
11.484
7 196
Southern
Appalachian
Eastern
15.064
BO, 291
"-
6,273
64,084
904.606
54,303
210,258
48
62.430
"-
-"
1.054
1.575
4.000
5.000
151.000
262.000
53.000
92.000
38.000
66.0OO
6.R70
15 437
We at em
162.648
51,175
31
67,480
466
3.000
155.000
54.000
39.0O0
1,070
Texas
__
261
27,358
1.412
5.000
235.000
82.000
B2.000
t^*
Powder
7,498
89
391
341
253
76.000
ft. 000
21.000
*A4
Green Rlvrr-
3.31B
122
140
169
1.331
457.000
21.000
17 non
M4
Fort
25,059
7.862
190
631
41.000
5 fWWl
11 000
<V1
San Juan
1
1,073
23
5
619
is. two
R nofi
r nor
«c
Ulnta-South-
_ _
989
31
29
56 3
14. nm
j,n*vi
T.flfH
*
1*
Raton Hob a
1.042
5.178
13.035
676
8,481
--
"
8,027
241
"-
48
608
77 (Wl
ft.mn
n,rwi
*
iax_
i
TABLE D-17
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCriON
AND TO WILDLIFE DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON
PREFEREIJCE RIGHT LEASING APPLICATIONS ONLY LEASING,
MID-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION
19B6-1990
COAL REGION
TOTAL
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFl
LOSS
LAND
COMMITTED
(acres)
FOREST
RANGE
(tons)
PASTURE
(tons)
CORN
(bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
(tons)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
CAME
BIRDS
SMALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Northern
28,118
149. 135
.
9,890
252,109
55,570
-
3,470
-
8,709
1,968
7,000
281,000
98,000
70,000
56
12,839
Central
18,852
104,082
_
9,487
75.977
35,041
-
4.576
-
-
1,320
5.000
189,000
66,000
47,000
3B
Southern
16,456
81,090
_
6,852
70,006
59,321
53
-
-
-
1,152
4.000
165,000
58,000
41,000
33
Eastern
28,103
65,246
7,266
968,957
225,160
_
66,855
_
-
1,686
6,000
281,000
98,000
70,000
56
Western
24,884
60,400
21,868
9,632
292,812
82,042
50
108. 1E0
-
-
747
5,000
249,000
B7.000
62,000
50
9,571
42,891
147,407
84.807
11,363
.
_
4,762
49,865
_
-
2,573
9,000
429,000
150,000
150,000
86
82.824
679
.
12.442
147
648
566
420
126,000
14,000
35,000
28
903
Green River-
9,747
13,158
13.646
592
3,362
.
_
3,8(9
143
164
197
1,560
536,000
24,000
44,000
19
1,048
Fort
8,407
2,429
30.974
1,437
.
_
_
46,754
.
14.669
356
1,176
76,000
8,000
21,000
17
1,025
San Juan
308
385
1,214
2
2.115
45
_
10
1,220
30.000
15,000
16,000
18
552
Uinta-South-
3,625
175
1,061
.
1.145
36
.
11
650
160,000
B.000
8,000
7
392
<1
llr716
351
70
888
40,000
11,000
12,000
9
272
TABLE D-18
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND
TO WILDLIFE DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON
SHORT TERM LEASING, MID-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION
1976-19H5
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acres)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(tons)
RANGE
PASTURE
(tonaj
CORN
(biO
S0YBEAN5
(bu>
COTTON
Ubs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUCARBEETS
(tons)
OATS
(bu)
CAME
MAMMALS
CAME
BIRDS
SHALL
HAHHALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Appalachian
25, tie
133,373
-
8,845
225,462
49,696
-
31.040
_
7,788
1,760
6,000
251,000
88,000
Appalachian
15,722
66,801
-
7,912
63,363
29,223
_
3,816
.
1,101
4,000
Appalachian
15,088
80,418
-
6,283
64,186
54,390
48
_
^
_
1,056
4,000
151,000
53,000
Interior
26,296
61,053
-
6,799
906,654
210,682
-
62,556
_
_
1,578
5,000
263,000
interior
15,637
37,955
13,742
6,053
184,002
51,555
31
67,980
.
_
469
3,000
156,000
Texa.
23,671
81,352
46,804
6,271
-
-
262
27,520
1,420
5,000
River
8,437
2,546
49,949
410
-
.
_
7,503
89
391
341
253
21 000
I-.--.-. Pork
6,238
11,189
11,603
503
2.85B
-
.
3,307
122
139
168
1,326
Union
4,506
1,302
16.602
770
-
-
-
25,059
_
7,862
190
630
River
3,093
11,396
5.781
195
616
-
1
1,073
23
5
weatern Utah
2.822
6,581
3.142
151
920
-
-
992
31
.
29
565
7O0C
Raton Meia
3,042
5,178
13,035
676
8,481
"
<1
8.027
241
-
48
606
27,000
8,000
8,000
6
4,87
to
i
TABLE D-19
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND
TO WILDLIFE DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON
SHORT TERM LEA5IKG, MID-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION'
1986-1990
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acres)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
RANGE
(tona)
PASTURE
(tons)
CORN
(bti)
SOYBEANS
(bo)
COTTON
Ubs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUCARBEETS
(tons)
DATS
(bu)
CAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SMALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/ pREDAT0RS
REPTILES "^DAl-UKS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Appalachian
2B.125
149,473
"
9,893
252.172
55,853
-
34,717
-
8,711 j 1.969
7,000
281,000
9B.000
70,000
56
12,642
Appalachian
IB, 625
102,829
"
9,373
75.063
34,619
~
4.521
-
! 1.304
5,000
1B6.000
65,000
47.000
37
6,505
Appalachian
16.322
66,996
-
6,797
64.435
58,838
52
4.521
-
-
1,143
4.000
163,000
57,000
41,000
33
Interior
28,179
65,424
"
7,286
971.577
225,769
-
67,036
-
-
1,691
6,000
282,000
99,000
70,000
56
Interior
25,243
61,271
22,182
9,771
297,036
83,225
51
109,740
-
-
757
5,000
252,000
8B.0O0
63,000
5D
Texas
42,932
147,547
84,888
11,374
-
-
6,477
49,912
-
-
2,576
9,000
429.000
150,000
150,000
86
River
12,794
3,860
75,74*
621
-
-
-
11,378
134
593
518
384
115,000
13.000
32,000
26
Kama Fork
10,013
13.518
14.016
606
3,453
-
-
3,996
147
168
203
1.402
551,000
25,000
45,000
20
Union
8,626
2,493
31,781
1,474
-
-
-
47,972
-
15,051
365
1,208
78,000
9,000
22,00
17
River
6,341
23,364
320
400
1.261
-
2
2,200
47
-
10
1,268
32,000
16,000
16.000
IS
western Utah
3.311
7,721
3,686
177
1.079
-
-
1,164
36
-
33
662
17,000
8,000
9,000
Raton Mesa
4,454
7,561
19,086
989
12,418
-
4
11.753
353
"
70
890
40,000
11,000
12,000
9
273
TABLE D-20
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO HATUHAL AMD AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND TO WILDLIFE
DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON LEASING TO MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS,
MID-LEVEL PRODUCTION
1976-1985
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acres)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LGSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
RANGE
(tons)
PASTURE
(tons)
CORN
(bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
(tons)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SMALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Hot them
25,101
133,133
_
8,829
225,059
49,607
-
30,984
"
7,774
1,757
6,000
251,000
B8.000
63,000
30
11,462
Central
15.173
83,771
_
7.636
61,150
28,203
-
3,683
; 1,062
4,000
152,000
53,000
38,000
30
6,928
Southern
15.296
81.527
.
6,369
65,071
55.139
49
-
-
"
1.071
4,000
153,000
54,000
38,000
31
6,984
Eattern
26,093
60,581
_
6,747
899,654
209,056
-
62,073
-
"
1,566
5,000
261,000
91,000
65,000
52
15,349
Western
37,392
13,538
5,963
181,272
50,790
31
66,971
-
-
462
3,000
154,000
54,000
39,000
31
5,925
Texas
22.363
76,857
44,218
5,925
-
-
248
25,999
-
-
1,342
4,000
274,000
78,000
76,000
45
3,388
Povder
2,749
53.939
442
-
-
8,103
960
422
368
273
B2.000
9,000
23,000
ia
588
Creen River-
11,174
15,084
15,644
678
3,854
-
4,6 59
164
188
226
1.78B
615,000
28,000
50,000
22
1,202
Fort
4,941
1,428
18,204
845
-
-
-
27,478
-
8,621
208
692
44,000
5,000
12,000
10
603
San Juan
3,508
12,925
886
221
699
-
1
1,217
26
-
6
700
18,000
9,000
9,000
11
318
Ulnta-South-
2.978
6,945
3,316
160
971
-
-
1,047
33
-
30
600
15,000
7,000
8,000
6
359
Raton Hesa
3,367
5.731
14,428
748
9,387
"
<1
6,885
266
"
54
673
30,000
8,000
9,000
7
207
I
TABLE D-21
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PROUUCTION AND TO WILDLIFE
DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASEO ON LEASING TO MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS,
MID-LEVEL PRODUCTION
1986-1990
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acrea)
POTENTIAL PRODUCT1 VITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE
LOSS
FOREST
(tons)
RANGE
(tons)
PASTURE
(tons) J
CORN
(bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
(tons)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
HAMHALS
GAME
BIRDS
SHALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Northern
28,070
148, B81
9,873
251,679
55,455
-
3'., 649
—
8,694
1,965
7,000
281,000
98,000
70,000
56
12.817
Central
18,587
102,619
9,354
74,909
34,548
-
4,512
—
1,301
5,000
1B6.000
65,000
46,000
37
8,487
Southern
16,572
88,327
6.901
65,099
59,739
53
—
1,160
4,000
166,000
58,000
41,000
33
7,567
27,135
63,000
7,016
93,558
217,404
"
64,552
—
1,628
5,000
271,000
95,000
68,000
54
15,962
Western
25,443
61,757
22,359
9,848
299,389
83,885
51
110,610
—
763
5,000
254,000
89,000
64.0OO
51
9,786
Texoo
38,402
131,979
75.931
10,174
„._
S26
44,646
—
2,304
8,000
384,000
134,000
134,000
77
5,818
"Po^r
5.127
100,609
825
, ___.
-
15.113
179
787
688
510
153,000
17,000
42,000
34
1,096
13,910
18,778
19,4 74
845
4,797
.„_
--
5,551
205
234
281
2,226
765,000
35,000
63,000
28
1,496
Fort
2,587
32.975
1,530
-
49,774
—
15,617
378
1,254
81,000
9,000
22,000
18
1,091
San°juan
23,953
328
410
1,295
2
2,255
48
10
1,300
33,000
16.000
17,000
20
589
Ulnta-South-
3,549
8,277
3,951
190
1,157
_„-
-
1,248
39
35
710
18,000
9,000
9,000
14
428
| Denver-
| Raton Mesa
4,803
8,175
20,581
1,067
13,391
—
"
12,674
380
76
960
43,000
12,000
12,000
10
295 |
TABLE I
-22
o
I
I—
CO
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND
TO WILDLIFE DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY COALS
KID-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION
1976-1985
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acre.)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(tone)
RANGE
(tona)
PASTURE
CORN
<bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUCARBEET5
(tons)
OATS
(bu)
CAME
MAHHALS
CAME
BIRDS
SHALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/ „„„„„„
REPTILES GATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Appalachian
25,862
137,170
"
9,097
231,882
51,111
-
31,924
»
8,010
I, BIO
6,000
259,000
91,000
65,000
52
11,809
Appalachian
15,667
86,496
-
7,884
63,141
29,121
-
3.B03
_
_
1,097
4.00Q
157,000
55,000
39,000
31
7,154
Appalachian
14,500
77,284
-
6,038
61,685
52,270
46
-
-
_
1,015
4,000
145,000
51,000
36,000
29
6,621
Interior
25,655
59,564
"
6,633
884,552
205,547
-
61,031
-
-
1,539
5,000
257,000
90,000
64,000
51
15,091
Interior
16,392
39,788
14,405
6,345
192,886
54,044
33
71,262
_
_
492
3,000
164
57,000
41,000
33
*""*■
23,137
79,516
6,130
-
-
257
257
26,899
_
_
1,388
5,000
231,000
81,000
81,000
46
River
8,393
2,533
49,689
407
-
-
-
7,464
88
389
340
250
76,000
80,000
21,000
17
Hama Fork
11,136
15,033
15,590
676
3. 841
-
-
4,444
164
187
225
1,800
612,000
28,000
5,000
22
Union
3,714
1,073
13,684
635
-
-
-
20,655
.
6,480
157
520
33,000
4,000
9,000
7
River
2,747
10,121
694
173
547
-
I
953
20
_
4
550
14,000
7,000
7,000
8
western Utah
2,808
6.54B
3,126
151
915
-
-
987
31
„
29
560
14,000
7,000
7,000
6
Raton Heaa
3,626
6,172
15,538
BOS
10,110
-
<1
9,568
287
58
720
33,000
9,000
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND
TO WILDLIFE DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY COALS
1986-1990
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acres)
POTENT
AL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
FOTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
RANGE
PASTURE
(tona)
CORN
(bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
cottok
(lbs)
WHEAT
(bu>
SUGARBEETS
(tons)
OATS
<bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
CAKE
BIRDS
SHALL
MAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/ PRED.T0RS
REPTILES PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Appalachian
2B.23B
149,772
"
9,932
253,185
55,807
-
34,857
-
S.746
1,977
7,000
2B2.O00
99,000
71,000
Appalachian
18,432
101,763
"
9,276
74,285
34,260
"
4,474
-
-
1.290
5,000
184,000
65,000
46,000
MUU-
15,751
63 ,952
"
6,559
67,006
56,780
SO
-
-
-
1,103
4,000
158,000
55,000
39,000
Interior
27,532
63,922
"
7,119
949.270
220,581
"
65,497
-
-
1,652
6,000
275,000
96,000
69.000
Interior
25,163
61,077
22,113
9,740
296,095
82,962
51
10.393
-
-
755
5,000
252,000
88,000
Texas
40,351
138.667
79,785
10,690
"
-
Ml
46,912
-
-
2,421
8,000
404,000
141,000
River
15.316
4,621
90.675
744
"
-
-
13,621
161
710
620
460
138,000
15,000
Kama Fork
13,792
18,619
19,309
B37
47,570
-
-
5,504
203
232
280
2,200
359,000
Union
6,336
1,831
23,344
1,083
"
-
-
35,236
-
11,056
268
880
57,000
6,000
1
River
6.180
22,770
312
390
1,231
-
2
2.144
45
-
10
1,236
31,000
15.000
we.terr, Utah
3,128
7,294
3,483
168
1.019
-
-
1,100
34
-
32
620
16,000
8,000
Raton Hes*
4,543
7,733
19.467
1,009
12,666
"
<1
11,988
360
"
72
900
41,000
11,000
12.000
9
279
i
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURA1 AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND TO WILDLIFE
DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON STATE DETERMINATION.
HID-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION
1976-1985
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
(acres)
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFE LOSS
FOREST
(tons)
RANGE
(tons)
PASTURE
CORN
(bu)
SOYBEANS
Cbu)
COTTON
(lbs)
WHEAT
<t>u>
SUGARBEETS
(tons)
OATS
(bu)
CAHE
HAMMALS
CAHE
BIRDS
SHALL
HAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Hortherr-
8,837
225.265
49,653
~
31,013
-
7.781
1,759
6,000
251,000
86,000
63,000
50
11,472
Central
81,2*1
8,044
64,419
29,710
-
3,880
--
--
1,119
4,000
160,000
56.000
40,000
32
7.299
Southern
6,169
63,020
53,402
47
-
-
~
1,037
4,000
148,000
52,000
37,000
30
6,764
Appalachian
Eastern
26,(04
61 . 303
6.8Z7
910,377
211,547
_.
62,813
-
--
1,584
5,000
264,000
92,000
66,000
53
15.532
Western
45,623
16,518
7,275
221,174
61,970
38
61.713
"
~
564
4,000
188,000
66,000
47.000
38
7,229
49,940
6,691
„_
—
260
29,364
-
-
1,515
5.QO0
253,000
88,000
as. ooo
51
3,827
-isaz
45,994
377
„
__
—
6,909
S2
360
314
233
70.000
8.000
19.000
16
501
Hams Fork
6,754
9,116
9,456
410
2,329
-
"
2,695
99
113
138
1,080
371.000
17.000
30.000
14
Ui—
Fort
Union
San Juan
4,977
1,438
13,548
IB, 337
928
851
232
732
1
27,679
1,276
27
211
6
700
735
18.000
9.000
10. 000
11
65
Ulnta-South-
6,646
3,173
153
929
—
-
1,002
31
"
29
570
14.000
7.000
7.000
6
343
Raton Mesa
3,104
5,283
13,301
689
8,654
-
<1
8,191
246
-
48
620
28.000
8,000
8.000
6 190
TABLE D-25
POTENTIAL LOSSES TO NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND TO W1LBLIFE
DUE TO HABITAT LOSS BASED ON STATE DETERMINATION.
HID-LEVEL COAL PRODUCTION
1986-1990
COAL REGION
TOTAL
LAND
COMMITTED
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY LOSS
POTENTIAL WILDLIFI
LOSS
FOREST
(tons)
RANGE
(tona)
PASTURE
(tons)
CORN
(bu)
SOYBEANS
(bu)
COTTON
<lba)
WHEAT
(bu)
SUGARBEETS
(tot.3)
OATS
(bu)
GAME
MAMMALS
GAME
BIRDS
SMALL
HAMMALS
BIRDS
AMPHIBIANS/
REPTILES
PREDATORS
ANIMAL
UNITS
Appalachian
Central
28,296
18,877
150,080
104.220
9,953
9,499
76.078
35,087
_
4,582
-
-
1.321
5,000
189. 0D0
66,000
47,000
38
8,620
15.542
82.B3B
_
6,472
66,117
56,026
50
-
"
-
1,088
4,000
155,000
54,000
39,000
31
7,097
29,493
68,475
.
7,626
1.016.8B2
236,296
-
70,162
"
'
1,770
6,000
295,000
103,000
74.000
59
17,349
Western
25,079
60,874
22,039
9,707
295,107
82,685
50
109,027
"
"
752
5,000
251,000
88,00
63,000
50
9,646
"Texas
146,269
B4.153
11,275
_
-
473
49,480
-
-
2,554
9,000
426,000
149,000
149,000
85
64,480
Powder
11,366
3,430
67,290
552
-
-
-
10,108
119
527
460
340
102,000
11,000
28,000
23
733
Green River-
9.408
408
2,318
-
-
2,682
99
113
136
1,080
370,000
17,000
30,000
13
723
Hams Fork
Fort
2,566
32,709
1,516
_
-
-
49, 373
-
15.491
375
1,240
80,000
9.000
22,000
18
1.083
San Juan
6,700
24,686
338
423
1.334
-
2
2.324
49
-
11
1,340
33,000
17,000
17,000
20
607
ULnta-South-
uestern Utah
Denver-
Raton Mesa
3,243
4,272
7,563
7,271
3,611
18,306
174
949
1,057
11,911
-
el
1.140
11.273
36
338
"
ce
648
860
16,000
38,000
8,000
11,000
8,000
11,000
12
9
391
262
APPENDIX E
WATER RESOURCES DATA
TABLE E-l
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL AGGREGATED SUBREGIONS
Region
Aggregated
Subregion
(ASR)
501 Allegheny-Monongahela
502 Pittsburgh-Cincinnati
Little Miami
503 Muskigum-Scioto- Great
Miami
504 Kanawha
505 Licking and Kentucky,
Louisville-Sale ,
Evans ville-Green
506
Wabash
507
Cumberland
Tennessee
601
Upper Tennessee
602
Lower Tennessee
Mississippi
701
Minnesota-Mississippi
St. Croix
702
Chippewa -Mississippi-
Wisconsin
703
Mississippi to Quad
Cities
704 Mississippi-Illinois
705 Mississippi-Kaskaskia-
St. Louis
Souris-Red-
901
Souris-Red-Rainy
Rainy
Missouri
1001
Missouri-Poplar-Milk
1002
Missouri headwaters to
Marias
1003 Missouri-Musselshell
1004 Yellowstone-Bighorn-
Powder
1005 Little Missouri-
Cheyenne-White to Oahe
Discharge Point(s)
Allegheny River at Natrona, Pa., above
Pittsburgh; and Monongahela River at
Braddock, Pa.
Ohio River immediately above Kentucky
River Junction
The junction of each river with the Ohio
River Junction.
Kanawha River at Ohio River junction.
Ohio River at Mississipi River junction.
Wabash River at Ohio River junction.
Cumberland River at Ohio River junction.
Tennessee River at South Pittsburg, TN
Tennessee River at Ohio River junction.
Mississippi River at Prescott , WI
Mississippi River at Wisconsin river
junction.
Mississippi River at Keokuk, IA, and
Des Moines River at Keosauqua, IA
Mississippi River immediately above
Missouri River (Alton, ID)
Mississippi River immediately above Ohio
River (Thebes, ID)
U.S. -Canadian Border (all discharge points).
Missouri River near Culbertson, MT
Missouri River at Virgelle, MT
Missouri River below Fort Peck
Dam, MT
Yellowstone River at Missouri River
junction (Sidney, MT)
Missouri River below Ft. Randall, SD
E-l
nm^mm^m*M«Bml
TABLE E-l
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL AGGREGATED SUBREGIONS (CONCLUDED)
Region
Aggregated
Subreglon
(ASR)
Basin
Discharge Point (s)
Missouri
(concluded)
Arkansas-
White-Red
1006 James-Missouri-Big
Sioux
1007 Upper Platte Basins
1008 Niobrara-Loup-Platte-
Elkhom
1009 Missouri-Sioux City
to Kansas City
1010 Republican-Smokey
Hlll-Blue-Kansas
1011 Grand-Charitan-Osage-
Gasconde-Missouri
1101 White
1102 Upper Arkansas
1103 Cimarron-Arkansas to
Keystone
1104 Verdigris-Neosho-Lower
Arkansas
Missouri River at Sioux City, IA
North Platte River at Lewellan, NE and
South Platte River at Julesburg, CO
Platte River at Louisville, NE, Niobra
River, Verdel, NE
Missouri River at Kansas City, M0 minus
Kansas River at Bonner Aprlngs, KS
Kansas River immediately above Missouri
River (Bonner Springs, KS)
Missouri River above Mississippi River
Junction (Herman, MO)
White River at Black River junction
(Newport, AR)
Arkansas River near Coolidge, KS
Arkansas River at Cimarron River junction
(Tulsa, OK)
Arkansas River at Little Rock, AR
1105
Canadian
1106
Red-Washita
1107
Lower Red
Texas-Gulf
1201
Sab ine-Neches
1202
Trinity-San Jacinto
1203
Brazos
1204
Colorado
1205
Navidad-Lavaca-Guadi
Upper
Colorado
Mission-Nueces
1401 Green-Yampa-White
1402 Gunnison-Colorado-
Dolores
1403 San Juan-Colorado
Canadian River near Whitefield, OK
Red River at Dennison Dam, TX
Red River at Alexandria, LA
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Brazos River near Juliff , TX
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Green River immediately above Colorado
River junction (Green River, UT)
Colorado River immediately above Green
River junction (near Cisco, UT)
Colorado River at Lee's Ferry, AZ
E-2
■ ■-■■ ■■■■:':':■. :;j.fv. <:-■:■;.;;
TABLE E-2
CALCULATED PRESENT AND FUTURE FLOW IN THE UPPER OHIO AND UPPER
TENNESSEE RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING THE NORTHERN, CENTRAL, AND
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN COAL REGIONS
TOTA1
STREJ
FLOW
1975
L985
2000
PERIOD
M
(b)
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCU-
LATED
FLOW(d)
MEAN
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW (d)
MEAN 95%
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE
MENTS(c
CALCU
FLOW
'mean
LATED
(d)
MEAN
95Z
95Z
January
11,700
3,530
128
11,600
186
11,500
3,340
307
11,400
3,200
February
13,900
5,850
127
13,800
186
13,700
5,660
305
13,600
3,540
March
16,000
7,450
130
15,800
189
15,800
7,260
309
15,700
7,140
April
13,000
6,690
131
12,900
188
12,800
6,500
307
12,700
6,380
May
9,090
4,200
135
8,960
194
8,900
4,010
319
8,780
3,880
June
6,550
3,090
140
6,410
199
6,350
2,890
320
6,230
2,770
July
4,740
2,430
143
4,600
206
4,540
2,220
331
4,410
2,100
August
4,160
2,050
143
4,020
205
3,960
1,840
332
3,830
1,720
September 3,350
1,720
135
3,220
195
3,160
1,520
317
3,040
1,400
October
3,390
1,610
133
3,260
190
3,200
1,420
313
3,080
1,300
November
4,830
1,970
130
4,700
190
4,640
1,780
312
4,520
1,660
December
8,210
2,380
131
8,080
193
8,020
2,190
319
7,890
2,060
AnnuaKe
) 98, 800
65,100
1,610
97,200
2,320
96,500
62,800
3,790
95,000
61,300
Note: All flows In 1000s of acre-feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12 .
Basins are ASR 502 and 601.
E-3
TABLE E-3
CALCULATED PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER FLOW IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND
OHIO RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING THE EASTERN INTERIOR AND APPALACHIAN COAL
REGIONS
1975
1985
2000
CALC
FLOW
PERIOD
TOTAL
STREAM
FLOW (b)
MEAN 95%
COMSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS(c)
CALCU-
LATED
FLOW(d)
MEAN
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW (d)
CONSUMP
TIVE
REQUIRE
MENTS(c
ULATED
(d)
MEAN
952
' MEAN
95%
January
21,900
5,800
200
21,700
250
21,700
5,550
500
21,400
5,300
February
29,600
11,200
300
29,300
350
29,300
10,900
500
29,100
10,700
March
32,700
15,900
200
32,500
300
32,400
15,600
500
32,200
15,400
April
35,200
21,800
200
35,000
300
34,900
21,500
500
34,700
21,300
May
23,600
12,600
300
23,300
400
23,200
12,200
600
23,000
12,000
June
18,500
10,100
300
18,200
400
18,100
9,690
650
17,900
9,440
July
13,600
6,760
400
13,200
500
13,100
6,260
900
12,700
5,860
August
7,990
4,120
320
7,670
470
7,520
3,650
910
7,080
3,210
September
6,890
3,960
280
6,610
380
6,510
3,580
750
6,140
3,210
October
6,920
2,450
250
6,670
340
6,580
2,110
530
6,390
1,920
November
9,580
2,640
240
9,340
330
9,250
2,310
530
9,050
2,110
December
13,500
3,970
250
13,280
350
13,200
3,620
550
13,000
3,420
Annual(e)
219,000
126,000
3,220
216,000
4,400 214,000
121,000
7,500 211,000
118,000
Note: All flows in 1000s of acre-feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12
Basins are ASR 505 plus 705 minus 507 , 602, and 1011.
E-4
Mmaummeaaammuum
TABLE E-4
CALCULATED PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER FLOW IN THE MISSOURI AND
ARKANSAS RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING THE WESTERN INTERIOR, POWDER
RIVER, FORT UNION, AND DENVER-RATON MESA REGIONS
row
STRI
FLOV
1975
1985
2000
PERIOD
AM
1 (b)
COMSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS^)
CALCU-
LATED
FLOW(d)
MEAN
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS(c)
CALCULATED
FLOW (d)
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS(c)
CALCULATED
FLOW (d)
MEAN
95Z
MEAN
95Z
MEAN
95*
January
4,360
1,250
170
4,190
200
4,160
1,050
320
4,040
930
February
5,560
1,720
170
5,390
210
5,350
1,510
320
5,240
1,400
March
7,600
2,620
230
7,370
240
7,360
2,380
370
7,230
2,250
April
10,300
3,320
360
9,940
420
9,880
2,900
550
9,750
2,770
May
11,900
4,680
1,300
10,600
1,600
10,300
3,080
1,600
10,300
3,080
June
13,600
6,730
3,500
10,100
4,090
9,510
2,640
4,030
9,570
2,700
July
13,200
9,760
7,500
5,700
9,020
4,180
740
9,760
3,440
0
August
8,720
8,130
6,420
2,300
8,180
539
-50
8,790
-70
-660
September
6,400
4,230
2,650
3,750
3,490
2,910
740
3,560
2,840
670
October
5,220
2,000
690
4,530
800
4,420
1,200
890
4,330
1,110
November
4,740
1,560
210
4,530
260
4,480
1,300
3S0
4,360
1,180
December
3,860
1,270
170
3,690
210
3,650
1,060
330
3,530
940
Annual(e)
95,600
51,600
23,500
72,100
28,900
66,700
22,700
31,000
64,600
20,600
Note: All flows in 1000s of acre-feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12.
Basins are ASR 1011 and 1104.
E-5
TABLE E-5
SABINE
BASINS
ilil) i-KHSllWT AMD FUTURE WATER FLOW IN TH
, NECHES, TRINITY, BRAZOS, COLORADO, AND
CONTAINING THE TEXAS COAL REGION '
E LOWER
NUECES
RED,
RIVER
TOTAL
STREAM
FLOW (b)
1975
1985
2000
■
PERIOD
CON SUMP
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCU-
LATED
- FLOW(d)
MEAN
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
ments(c)
CALCULATED
FLOW(d)
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW (d)
952
MEAN
95%
MEAN
95%
January
4,740
986
250
4,490
280
4,460
706
450
4,290
536
February
6,280
1,370
350
5,930
310
5,970
1,060
510
5,770
860
March
6,290
1,670
610
5,680
460
5,830
1,210
610
5,680
1,060
April
6,990
1,860
1,080
5,910
820
6,170
1,040
960
6,030
900
May
9,610
2,070
1,110
8,500
1,130
8,480
940
1,300
8,310
770
June
6,960
2,170
2,050
4,910
1,930
5,030
240
2,260
4,700
-90
July
4,440
2,130
2,930
1,510
2,590
1,850
-460
2,580
1,860
-450
August
3,150
2,190
4,030
-878
4,030
-879
-1,840
3,060
93
-870
September
3,010
1,370
1,990
l",020
3,890
876
-2,520
1,830
1,180
-460
October
2,510
511
420
2,090
500
2,010
11
670
1,840
-159
November
2,880
535
340
2,540
350
2,530
185
510
2,370
25
December
3,930
642
220
3,710
280
3,650
362
460
3,470
182
Annual (e)
61,500
23,800
15,500
46,000
14,800
46,700
9,040
15,200
46,300 8
640
Note: All flows in 1000s of acre-feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12.
Basins are ASR 1201, 1202, 1204, 1205, and 1107.
E-6
TABLE E-6
CALCULATED PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER FLOW IN THE
YELLOWSTONE RIVER BASIN CONTAINING THE POWDER
RIVER COAL REGION
TOTAL
STREAM
FLOW(b)
MEAN 95Z
1975
1985
2000
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCU-
LATED
FLOW(d)
MEAN
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW(d)
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW(d)
PERIOD
MEAN
95X
MEAN
95Z
January
309
171
8
310
12
297
159
16
293
155
February
400
194
8
392
12
387
182
15
384
179
March
672
310
9
663
14
658
296
18
654
292
April
636
322
39
597
108
527
214
124
512
198
May
1,280
820
278
997
320
945
490
294
982
526
June
2,850 1
,720
497
2,350
744
2,100
973
685
2,160
1,030
July
2,120 1
,200
781
1,340
1,030
1,100
165
993
1,130
202
August
962
684
511
451
798
164
-114
826
136
-142
September
551
321
153
398
383
167
-62
370
181
-49
October
504
317
34
470
132
372
185
135
369
182
November
436
297
8
428
14
422
283
18
418
279
December
328
201
8
320
13
315
188
17
311
184
Annual (e)
11,000 7
,260
2,340
8,680
3,590
7,430
3,670
3,510
7,510
3,750
Note: All flows in 1000s of acre-feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12 .
The basin is ASR 1004.
E-7
TABLE E-7
CALCULATED PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER FLOW IN THE UPPER MISSOURI
RIVER BASIN, CONTAINING THE FORT UNION AND POWDER RIVER COAL REGIONS
TOTAL
STREAM
FLOW(b)
1975
1985
2000
- -
PERIOD
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCU-
LATED
FLOW(d)
MEAN
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW(d)
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW(d)
MEAN
95%
MEAN
95%
MEAN
95%
January
655
309
25
630
34
621
2 75
50
606
259
February
554
180
25
530
37
518
143
52
502
128
March
819
323
28
791
42
777
281
59
760
264
April
1,400
641
67
1,330
175
1,230
466
209
1,190
432
May
2,060
1,530
538
1,520
695
1,360
831
791
1,270
735
June
2,480
1,720
965
1,520
1,430
1,050
292
1,540
942
182
July
3,500
2,830
1,730
1,770
2,450
1,050
378
2,940
557
-110
August
3,030
2,280
1,080
1,950
1,960
1,060
318
2,400
627
-121
September
2,210
1,490
323
1,880
932
1,270
556
1,200
1,010
292
October
1,770
925
72
1,700
307
1,460
618
344
1,430
581
November
1,500
511
26
1,470
46
1,450
465
67
1,430
444
December
766
376
25
741
37
729
339
53
713
323
Annual(e)
20,800
12,800
4,900
15,900
8,150
12,600 4
,660
9,700
11,100
3,100
Note: All flows in 1000s of acre-feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12.
The basin is ASR 1005.
E-8
..
TABLE E-8
CALCULATED PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER FLOW IN THE GREEN
RIVER BASIN, CONTAINING THE GREEN RIVER COAL REGION
1975
1985
2000
TOTAL
STREAM
FLOW(b)
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCU-
LATED
FLOW(d)
MEAN
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW(d)
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW(d)
REGION
MEAN
357.
MEAN
95%
MEAN
95%
January
204
38
12
192
20
183
68
26
178
62
February
250
115
11
239
18
232
97
23
227
92
March
380
123
12
268
20
260
103
25
255
98
April
454
163
23
431
30
424
133
38
416
125
May
896
518
145
751
158
738
360
169
727
349
June
1,210
667
294
914
334
873
333
357
853
310
July
721
442
360
361
370
351
72
405
316
37
August
374
256
169
204
29 7
77
-41
333
41
-77
September
261
179
75
187
146
115
33
169
92
10
October
215
93
17
198
33
182
60
42
173
51
November
204
105
12
192
23
181
82
29
175
76
December
199
82
12
187
22
177
60
28
171
54
Annual (e)
5,260 3
,100
1,140
4,120
1,470
3,790
1,630
1,640
3,620
1,460
Note: All flows in 1000s of acre- feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12.
The basin is ASR 1401.
E-9
TABLE E-9
CALCULATED PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER FLOW IN THE UPPER COLORADO
MAINSTREM AND GREEN RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING THE UINTA - SOUTH -
WESTERN UTAH AND GREEN RIVER - HAMS FORK COAL REGIONS
TOTAL
STREAM
FLOW(b)
1975
1985
2000
REGION
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCU-
LATED
FLOW(d)
MEAN
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW(d)
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS (c)
CALCULATED
FLOW(d)
MEAN
957.
MEAN
95%
MEAN
952
January
376
243
16
360
25
351
218
35
341
208
February
434
283
16
418
23
410
260
33
401
250
■March
491
312
16
475
24
467
288
35
457
277
April
976
573
30
946
40
9 36
533
63
913
510
May
2,280
1,690
306
1,970
316
1,960
1,370
350
1,930
1,340
June
2,890
2,080
598
2,300
633
2,260
1,450
671
2,220
1,410
July
1,540
1,120
661
876
660
8,770
460
695
842
425
August
822
649
377
445
509
313
140
540
282
109
September
568
440
168
399
305
262
135
327
241
113
October
445
284
24
422
37
408
247
51
394
233
November
421
305
16
405
28
394
277
39
383
266
December
387
248
16
371
26
361
222
37
351
211
Annual(e)
11,700
6,560
2,250
9,430
2,630
9,050
3,930
2,880
8,800
3,680
Note: All flows in 1000s of acre-feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12.
Basins are ASR 1401 and 1402.
E-10
TABLE E-10
CALCULATED PRESENT AND FUTURE WATER FLOW IN THE UPPER
COLORADO RIVER BASIN, CONTAINING THE GREEN RIVER - HAMS
FORK, UINTA - SOUTHWESTERN AND SAN JUAN RIVER COAL REGIONS
TOTAL
STREAM
1975
1985
2000
CONSUMP-
CALCU-
CONSUMP-
CALCULATED
CONSUMP-
CALCULATED
FLOW(b)
TIVE
REQUIRE-
LATED
FLOW(d)
TIVE
REQUIRE-
FLOW(d)
TIVE
REQUIRE-
FLOW(d)
MEAN
95%
MENTS (c)
MEAN
MENTS (c)
MEAN
95%
MENTS (c)
MEAN
95%
January
748
172
21
728
36
712
136
48
700
124
February
778
511
20
758
34
744
477
46
732
465
March
816
379
22
794
37
778
342
50
766
329
April
1,310
247
47
1,260
71
1,240
176
101
1,210
146
May
1,650
536
366
1,290
422
1,230
114
465
1,190
71
June
2,010
863
736
1,270
847
1,160
16
930
1,080
-67
July
1,740
907
792
942
893
842
14
950
785
-43
August
1,420
593
447
970
698
720
-105
746
672
-153
September
1,140
357
206
933
411
729
-54
444
695
-87
October
723
194
31
691
63
659
131
77
646
117
November
791
206
31
770
40
752
166
53
738
153
December
815
184
21
794
39
777
145
52
764
132
Annual (e)
13,900
7,100
2,730
11,200
3,590
10,300
3,510
3.960
9,970
3,170
Note: All flows in 1000s of acre-feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12.
The basin is ASR 1403.
E-ll
TABLE E-ll
roPER^ PTTA?TFR«TS™p Tr^™** WATER FL°W(S) ™ ™E "^ AR^SAS AND
UPPER PLATTE RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING THE DENVER-RATON MESA COAL REGION
PERIOD
TOTAL
STREAM
FLOW (b)
1975
CONSUMP- CALCU-
TIVE LATED
REQUIRE- FLOW(d)
MENTS(c) ~^?7^ — -„„,
' MEAN 95%
1
CONSUMP-
TIVE
REQUIRE-
MENTS(c)
985
CALCULATED
FLOW (d)
CONSUMP
TIVE
REQUIRE
MENTS(c
2000
- CALCU
FLOW
LATED
(d)
MEAN
95%
MEAN
95%
Wan
95%
January
122
80
25
97
55
28
94
52
44
78
36
February
139
192
26
114
66
29
110
63
45
94
47
March
141
89
29
113
60
18
123
71
35
106
54
April
138
82
29
108
53
35
103
47
53
85
29
May
352
244
234
118
10
169
183
75
110
242
134
June
1070
905
996
72
-91
778
290
127
662
408
243
July
1450
1380
1550
-103
-172
1480
-35
-100
1650
-203
-270
August
1070
1020
1150
-76
-127
1180
-109
-157
1320
-248
-300
Septembei
430
370
393
37
-23
412
18
-42
468
-38
-98
October
169
113
64
105
49
41
118
72
68
101
45
November
139
96
26
113
70
31
108
65
49
90
47
December
128
92
26
102
66
29
99
63
47
81
45
Annual(d)5350
5240
4540
805
696
4240
1104
1000
4550
800
690
Note: All flows In 1000s of acre-feet.
Footnotes are presented in Table E-12.
""ins are ASR 1007 and 1102.
E-12
TABLE E-12
FOOTNOTES FOR WATER FLOW DATA IN TABLES E-2 THROUGH E-ll
(a) Total Stream Flow is an estimate of the stream flow that would be observed without any
upstream consumption or groundwater mining, but with evaporation, imports, and exports
continuing as at present. It is computed for the discharge point of the aggregated sub-
region (ASR most closely corresponding to the coal region) . The 95% flow represents a
low flow that is likely to occur during 5 out of 100 years (or months) .
(b) Consumptive surface water requirements are the projected water requirements for all areas
upstream of the discharge point (s) of the ASR(s) , including estimated increased evapora-
tion from new impoundments and any changes in inter-basin exports. The actual amount of
water consumed during a particular year may be less than the indicated requirements due
to such factors as insufficient supplies at specific points within the region, unavail-
ability of water of sufficient quality, and operator error or mechanical failure during
diversion. Additionally, during periods of below-normal rainfall, irrigation demands
could be greater than those projected.
(c) Calculated Flow is the difference between total stream flow and the consumptive require-
ments for both average and low flow conditions. The calculated flow for 1975 is the
estimated current stream flow (as adjusted by the WRC) minus the estimated contribution
of groundwater mining. Negative flows indicated water shortages that would have to be
borne by water users. Positive flows do not necessarily imply that the water is avail-
able for use. The actual availability depends on such factors as minimum in-stream
requirements, water quality, and water law as determined by each state and by compacts
between the states (see text).
(d) Annual totals may not equal the sum of the individual months due to accumulated round-off
error.
SOURCE: Adapted from U. S. Water Resources Council, 1978. Preliminary Review Copy, the
Nation's Water Resources — the Second National Water Assessment, Washington, D.C.
E-13
TABLE E-13
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE UPPER OHIO AND
UPPER TENNESSEE RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING THE NORTHERN, CENTRAL, AND
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN COAL REGIONS^
(1,000 Acre- Feet)
WATER REQUIREMENTS CATEGORIES
1975
Agriculture
Steam Electric
Manufacturing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Misc. Other
77
274
819
302
47
83
3
0
0
Total (Avg.) Freshwater
1,610
1985
83
435
1,200
338
49
115
6
0
0
2,320
2000
93
1,170
1,950
371
54
140
8
0
0
3,790
bASRs 501, 502, 503, 504, and 601
Totals may not agree due to independent round-off.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978. Prelimi-
nary Review Copy, the Nation's Water Resources — The
Second National Water Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-14
TABLE E-14
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI
AND OHIO RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING THE EASTERN INTERIOR AND APPALACHIAN
COAL REGIONS3
(1,000 Acre Feet)
WATER REQUIREMENTS CATEGORIES
1975
Agriculture
Steam Electric
Manuf actur ing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Misc. Other
578
496
1,170
683
138
147
8
0
0
Total (Avg.) Freshwater
3,220
1985
755
1,040
1,550
745
148
205
11
0
0
4,450
2000
915
2,910
2,500
805
162
252
17
0
0
7,560
f-ASRs 5 (Tot.) minus 507, plus 7 (Tot.)
Totals may not agree due to independent round-off.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978. Prelimi-
nary Review Copy, the Nation's Water Resources — The Second
National Water Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-15
.■■■■■
TABLE E-15
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE MISSOURI AND
ARKANSAS RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING THE WESTERN INTERIOR, POWDER RIVER,
AND FORT UNION COAL REGIONS3
(1,000 Acre-Feet )
Water Requirements Categories 1975 1985 2000
Agriculture 22,000 26,200 26,300
Steam Electric 140 463 1,060
Manufacturing 283 320 504
Domestic 500 541 589
Commercial 128 134 147
Minerals 246 282 342
Public Lands 206 254 336
Fish Hatcheries 0 0 0
Misc. Other 0 0 0
Total (Avg.) Freshwater 23,500 28,300 29,300
^ASRs 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, and 10 (Tot.).
Totals may not agree due to independent round-off,
Source: Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978. Prelimi-
nary Review Copy, the Nation's Water Resources — The Second
National Water Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-16
TABLE E-16
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE LOWER RED, SABINE,
NECHES, TRINITY, BRAZOS, COLORADO, AND NUECES RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING
THE TEXAS COAL REGION3-
(1,000 Acre-Feet) _____
Water Requirements Categories
1975
1985
2000
Agriculture
Steam Electric
Manufacturing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Misc. Other
,200
11
,400
9
,450
139
373
1
,260
691
1
,200
2
,270
553
619
708
130
140
158
690
734
786
< 1
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total (Avg.) Freshwater
15,400
14,400
14,600
ASRs 12 (Tot.), H06, and 1107.
Totals may not agree due to independent round-off.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978. Prelimi-
nary Review Copy, the Nation's Water Resources — The Second
National Water Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-17
TABLE E-17
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE
YELLOWSTONE RIVER BASIN
CONTAINING THE POWDER RIVER COAL REGION
(1000 Acre-Feet)
.(a)
WATER REQUIREMENTS CATEGORIES
Agriculture
Steam Electric
Manufacturing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Misc. Other
1975
1985
2000
2,335
3,410
3,260
3
38
57
12
13
16
13
13
13
3
3
3
30
41
50
36
43
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total (Avg.) Freshwater
(b)
2,340
3,560
3,450
(a) ASR 1004.
(b) Totals may not agree due to independent round-off.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978. Prelimi-
nary Review Copy, the Nation's Water P.esources — The
Second National Water Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-18
TABLE E-18
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE
UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BASIN, CONTAINING THE FORT
UNION AND POWDER RIVER COAL REGIONS (a)
(1,000 Acre-Feet)
WATER REQUIREMENTS CATEGORIES
1975
1985
2000
Agriculture
Steam Electric
Manuf ac tur ing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Misc. Other
4,610
7,330
7,250
12
62
166
20
21
25
46
47
46
12
12
12
58
80
95
146
195
265
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total (Avg.) Freshwater (b)
4,900
7,750
7,860
(a) ASRs 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, and 1005.
(b) Totals may not agree due to independent round-off.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978.
Preliminary Review Copy, the Nation's Water Resources — The
Second National Water Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-19
TABLE E-19
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE
GREEN RIVER BASIN, CONTAINING THE GREEN
RIVER COAL REGION (a)
(1,000 Acre-Feet)
WATER REQUIREMENTS CATEGORIES
Agriculture
Steam Electric
Manufacturing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Misc. Other
1975
1985
2000
1,010
1,110
1,120
25
54
63
0
0
0
10
10
10
1
1
1
30
40
78
69
80
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total (Avg.) Freshwater (b)
1,140
1,290
1,360
(a) ASR 1401.
(b) Totals may not agree due to independent round-off.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978. Preliminary
Review Copy, the Nation's Water Resources—The Second National Water
Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-20
TABLE E-20
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE
UPPER COLORADO MAINSTEM AND GREEN RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING
THE UINTA AND GREEN RIVER COAL REGIONS (a)
(1,000 Acre-Feet)
WATER REQUIREMENTS CATEGORIES
Agriculture
Steam Electric
Manufacturing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Misc. Other
1975
1985
2000
2,060
2,220
2,230
26
54
101
2
0
1
17
17
18
2
2
2
35
53
108
101
110
117
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total (Avg.) Freshwater (b)
2,250
2,450
2,570
(a) ASRs 1401 and 1402.
(b) Totals may not agree due to independent round-off.
Source: Adapted from U. S. Water Resources Council, 1978.
Preliminary Review Copy, the Nation's Water Resources —
The Second National Water Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-21
. ■■.... :■ . . ..:■■: ■. : .,. . .-.. .■■.,. .. :■ .. ..,...■■■. ■;■
TABLE E-21
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE
UPPER COLORADO MAINSTEM RIVER BASIN, CONTAINING THE
SAN JUAN GREEN RIVER AND UINTA COAL REGIONS (a)
, (1,000 Acre-Feet)
WATER REQUIREMENTS CATEGORIES
Agriculture
Steam Electric
Manufacturing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Misc. Other
Total (Avg.) Freshwater (b)
1975
2,730
1985
3,380
(a) ASR 14 (Tot.).
(b) Totals may not agree due to independent round-off.
Source:
2000
2,490
3,010
3,110
43
119
169
2
1
2
28
30
33
3
5
5
53
81
161
115
134
142
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,620
Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978.
Preliminary Review Copy, the. Nation's Water Resources-
The Second National Water Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-22
TABLE E-22
ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE IN THE
UPPER PLATTE AND UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER BASINS, CONTAINING
THE DENVER-RATON MESA COAL REGION (a)
(1,000 Acre-Feet)
WATER REQUIREMENTS CATEGORIES
1975
1985
2000
Agriculture
Steam Electric
Manufacturing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Misc. Other
,231
3,956
4,082
27
90
213
49
57
97
100
112
128
30
32
38
48
59
68
58
56
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total (Ayg.) Freshwater (b)
4,543
4,362
4,690
(a) ASRS 1007 and 1102.
(b) Totals may not agree due to independent round-off.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978.
Preliminary Review Copy, the Nation's Water Resources —
The Second National Water Assessment. Washington, D.C.
E-23
APPENDIX F
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE
SUMMARIES
I
TABLE F-l
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARY
1976 BASE CASE
(100,000 tons)
(a)
RIXION/STATKS
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Vest Virginia
Northern Appalachian
West Virginia
175 .i
465.
28.3
407.7
1759.6
680.7
Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Central Appalachian
TOTAL
Tennessee
400.0
437.5
167.7
.1.7.
313.9
920.9
_55-8_L
264.0
311 tA 4O1.0
76.2
2068.3
SURFACE
VINF.I)
420.3
298.1
26.6
93.8
838.8
J 2.2 .5
136.0
510.4
32.0
1255.1
16.7
12.0
I Georgia
Southern Appalachian
TOTAL
Eastern Interior
TOTAL
1.9
215.4
234.0
582.4
253.7
258.3
73.2
85.2
308.7
44.2
TOTAL
CONSIWTION
645.9
709.6
91.9
182.4
1629.8
182.4
74.7
STTAM
cenep^vtton
413.4
581.9
48.7
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
129.5
1173.5
182.4
74.7
74.2
175.4
813.1
4.7
1.9
142.1
148.7
273.7
5.1
248.6
506.7
55.5
150.7
259.8
466.0
414.6
458.4
66.0
173.6
496.7
55.5
150.7
192.3
398.5
385.5
334.6
1364.4
60.8
Western Interior
TOTAL
5.3
..237.8.
551.6
290.6
812.9
36.4
S.q
6.2
114.6
140.6
140.6
0.3
3.1
.3.4
60.8
5.0
199.0 1 199.0
1072.0
22rJ.O
0.3
36.4
s.q
3.1
.ILL.-2_
140.6
140.6
6.6
34.8
22.7
78.9
371.3
164.2
1.2
165.4
919.1
225.7
0.3
6.6
34.8
22.7
78.9
369. 0
157.6
1.2
158.8
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
232.5
J.27.7
43.2
52.9
456.3
8.2
1.!
10.0
67.6
67.6
29.0
17.3.8
152.8
2.3
TOT.1L
COAL-RELATFr
population
307.0
232.3
22.3
133.5
695.1
.182,
2.3
AJl.
6.6
91.7
170.9
50.6
495.9
18,1
34.2
101 . 1
153.4
197.1
1 3A.q
111.6
443.6
61.8
i.:
6.9
9.8
14.8
20.3
114.8
_5_9—Z_
1.4
61.1
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of tl\e Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIE?).
TABLE F-l
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARY
1976 BASE CASE
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
(a)
-
I
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
L0W-HTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-FCU"?
popuutrv:
Montana
259.2
-
259.2
13.4
13.4
-
-
-
-
29.6
Wyoming
114.9
-
114.9
48.9
48.9
-
-
-
-
23.1
Powder River
TOTAL
374.1
_
374.1
62.3
62.3
-
-
_
_
52.7
Montana
3.1
-
3.1
17.1
12.3
_
L.L
North Dakota
111.0
_
111.0
75.0
75.0
-
-
-
-
28.7
South Dakota
-
-
28.6
28.6
-
-
_
__
7.1
Fort Union
TOTAL
114.1
-
114.1
115 . 9
115.9
-
-
-
j 40.2
Wyorc Ine,
193.5
_
193.5
48.9
48.9
-
-
-
-
29.8
Colorado
63.4
3.8
59.6
31.0
31.0
-
-
-
-
13.7
Idaho
-
-
_
6.1
6.1
-
-
-
2.0
Utah
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
-
-
-
0.2
Green River-,Ha:r.^
fork TOTAL
256.9
3.8
253.1
86.3
86.3
-
-
-
| 45.7
| Colorado
8.1
7.3
.8
52.0
41.1
-
_
10.9 | 17.6
j New Mexico
10.5
7.3
3.2
0.2
0.2
-
1
i
i 2.7
Denver-Raton Meg,-'
TOTAL
18.6
14.6
4.0
52.2
41.3
_
i -
10.9 ' 20.3
Colorado
?1 .«
21 .8
_
5.0
5.0
"
i -
j 5.2
Utah
79.7
79.7
44.1
24.7
- - i
19.4 '' 25.8
Uinta - Southwestern
i Utah TOTAL
101.5
101.5
_
49.1 29.7 !
19.4 ! 31.0
New Mexico
87.1
87.1
„80.8
80.8
-
-
-
-
27.4
Colorado
1.2
0.2
1.0
4.0
4.0
-
~
-
-
1.0
Utah
-
_
-
0.5
0.5
-
~
-
-
0.1
San Juan Jfiver
TOTAL
88.3
0.2
88.1
85.3
85.3
-
-
-
28.5
(a) Rata In 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U S
Department of the Interior, computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-l
I
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARY
1976 BASE CASE
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
(a)
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
1
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
104.2
_
104.2
70.7
70.7
-
-
-
-
27.0
California
_
25.3
6.3
-
-
-
18.9
4.8
Nevada
_
_
_
51.6
51.6
-
-
-
-
11.5
Oregon/Washington
_
_
_
49.4
49.4
-
-
-
-
10.8
OLlier Wyet
SUBTOTAL
104.2
_
104.2
197.0
178.0
-
-
-
18.9
54.1
Connecticut/ Rhode
_
_
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
-
0.3
Delaware/New Jersey
_
_
„
32.8
32.8
-
-
-
-
7.5
Florida
_
_
_
61.1
61.1
-
-
-
13.8
Maine/New Hampshire/
8.4
8.4
_
_
_
-
1.9
Michigan
-
-
-
298.1
253.3
-
-
-
44.7
62.4
Mlnnesot a/Wisconsin
_
__
_
258.9
248.6
-
-
-
10.4
58.1
Mississippi
16.7
16.7
_
_
_
-
3.9
New York
135.6
84.1
_
_
-
51.5
26.4
North Carolina/
_
279.8
279.8
—
-
-
-'
62.3
Other East
SUBTOTAL
_
_
_
1092.3
985.7
_
_
-
106.6
236.6
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
104.2
-
104.2
1289.3
1163.0
-
-
-
125.5
290.7
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
5681.5
2816.2
2865.3
4211.2
3515.6
-
-
-
695.6
1963.9
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
953.5
120.1
833.4
451.1
420.8
-
-
-
30.3
218.4
B.S. TOTALS
6739.2
2936.3
3802.9
5951.6
5100.0
-
-
-
851.4
2473.0
(a) Data In 100,000 tone of coalj coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived fro« D.S. Department
of the Interior. Computerized Ispact Eatlmatloo Prograa (CIEP) .
TABLE F-2
I
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
RLGION/ST.UES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
siwace
MINED
TOTAL
CONSH-TTIOS
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-RTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL- RELATED
POPULATION
Pennsylvania
1,294.0
918.7
375.3
.821.0
501.6
319.4
466.7
Ohio
420.0
239.4
180.6
729.0
577.4
- -
- -
_ _
151.6
243.1
Maryland
33.0
22.4
10.6
103.0
53.7
49.3
28.6
Vest Virginia
369.0
287.8
81.2
176.0
111.6
64.4
123.9
Northern Appalachian
TOTAL
2,116.0
1,468.3
647.7
1,829.0
1,244.3
584.7
862.3
West Virginia
907.0
707.5
199.5
201.0
201.0
233.3
Virginia
216.0
155.5
60.5
136.0
136.0
74.4
Kentucky
909.0
609.0
300.0
83.0
83.0
191.4
Tennessee
12.0
5.0
7.0
140.0
138.6
1.4
33.0
, Central Appalachian
TOTAL
2,044.0
1,477.0
567.0
560.0
558.6
- -
1.4
532.1
Tennessee
16.0
4.6
11.4
73.0
73.0
! 22.4
1 Georgia
466.0
466.0
103.5
Alabama
250.0
135.0
115.0
500.0
425.0
75.0
168.6
Southern Appalachian
TOTAL
266.0
139.6
126.4
1,039.0
964.0
75.0 i 294.5
Iowa
74.0
74.0
16.2
Illinois
1,278.0
1,009.6
268.4
469.0
417.4
12.2
39.4 i 350.0
Indiana
■ - - .. -
350.0
171.5
178.5
656.0
495.9
160.1 ! 201.5
Kentucky
469.0
253.3
215.7
342.0
315.7
- -
11.6
14.7
153.5
Eastern Interior
TOTAL
2,097.0
1,434.4
662.6
1,541.0
1,303.0
12.2
11.6
214.2
721.2
Missouri
74.0
28.1
45.8
291.0
291.0
80.5
Arkansas
13.0
8.3
4.7
368.0
368.0
82.9
Oklahoma
27.0
6.5
20.5
25.0
25.0
10.0
Kansas
7.0
- -
7.0
19.0
19.0
8.0
Nebraska
201.0
201.0
60.4
Iowa
15.0
9.0
6.0
122.0
119.3
2.7
32.2
Western Interior
TOTAL
136.0
51.9
84.0
1,026.0
1,023.2
2.7
274.0
Texas
663.0
663.0
1,228.0
1,194.8
17.2
16.0
343.6
Louisiana
11.0
11. C
2.5
Arkansas
144.0
144. C
33.3
Texas
TOTAL
663.0
663.0
1,383.0
l,349.f
17.2
16.0
379.4
(a) Data In 100,000 tons of c
Department of the Interio
oal; coal-r
r. Computer
elated popu
ized Impact
lation in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-2
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
(a)
I
REC.TPX/STATES
Wyoming
Povdcr River
North Dakota
South Dakota
Fort Union
Wyoming
Colorado
866.0
1,184.0
2,050.0
5.0
295.0
19.0
319.0
651.0
149.0
Green River-.li in"*;
Fork TOTAL
Denver-Raton Mesa
TOTAL
Uinta -Southwestern
Utah TOTAL
800.0
33.0
17.0
50.0
49.0
251.0
300.0
New Mexico
San Juan River
TOTAL
230.0
20.0
250.0
38.7
38.7
11.2
SURFACE
MIXED
866.0
1,184.0
2,050.0
5.0
295.0
19.0
319.0
651.0
110.3
761.3
21.8
TOTAL
consumption
127.0
39.0
166.0
7.0
145.0
, 69.0
221.0
29.0
1.0
145.0
10.0
185.0
STEAM
r.EXEFATir>N
17.0
28.2
28.4
223.4
251.8
4.6
9.0
21.8
21.1
27.6
197.0
14.0
211 . 0
2.0
181.0
127.0
39.0
166.0
7.0
57.0
69.0
133.0
29.0
1.0
145.0
10.0
185.0
180.5
14.0
SYNTHETIC
HI-lSTu CAS
194.5
2.0
169.1
48.7
225.4
11.0
13.6
236.4
183.0
80.0
1.0
8.0
89.0
171.1
80.0
1.0
8.0
89.0
88.0
1.0
SYNTHETIC
LOW-FITU CAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURKtCAl
COKE
TOTAL
COAI -RtLA:
POPULATli.
16.5
16.5 I
11.9
11.9
111.5
115.2
226.7
4.4
54.7
17.2
76.3
65.9
19.8
32.8
2.4
120.9
55.5
8.0
63.5
8.0
96.6
42.5
3.1
47.4
fa) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (C1EP) .
TABLE F-2
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
(a)
>*1
I
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
L0U-BTU CAS
LIOIIEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
30.0
30.0
201.0
125.4
75.6
- -
- -
44.7
California
70.0
51.0
- -
18.9
14.9
Nevada
11.0
11.0
2.8
Oregon/Washington
51.0
51.0
_ _
- -
- -
- -
11.3
Otlier West
SUBTOTAL
30.0
30.0
333.0
238.4
75.6
18.9
73.7
Connec t icut /Rhode
Island/Massachusetts
58.0
58.0
- -
- -
- -
- -
12.9
Delaware/New Jersey
24.0
24.0
- -
- -
5.8
Florida
101.0
101.0
- -
- -
22.9
Maine/New Hampshire/
Vermont
20.0
20.0
- -
4.4
Michigan
349.0
292.8
- -
- -
- -
56.2
73.0
Minnesota/Wisconsin
441.0
386.8
54.2
96.5
Mississippi
18.0
18.0
- -
- -
- -
- -
4.4
New York
204.0
109.3
94.7
38.5
North Carolina/
South Carolina
346.0
346.0
- -
77.6
SUBTOTAL
1,561.0
1,355.9
205.1
336.0
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
30.0
30.0
1,894.0
1,594.3
75.6
224.0
409.7
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
7,322.0
4,571.2
2,750.7
7,378.0
6,443.0
29.4
11.6
894.0
3,063.5
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
3,769.0
332.3
3,437.2
1,055.0
938.6
88.0
28.4
631.4
U.S. TOTALS
1.1,121.0
9,903.5
6,217.9
10,327.0
8,975.9
163.6
29.4
11.6
1,146.4
4,104.6
(a) &aca in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-re-lafeed population In thousanda of people. Data derived froa U.S. Department
of the Interior, Computerized Inpact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
TABLE F-3
I
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND BSE SUMMARIES
PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
RCGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SI'RFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
steam
generation
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU HAS
LI0UEFAC-
TtON
KF.TALLURfilCAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-REUTETi
POPULATION
Pennsylvania
1,137.0
858.8
284.2
884.0
591.4
19.4
- -
273.2
463.4
Ohio
341.0
245.5
95.5
870.0
656.0
53.1
- -
160.9
265.7
Maty-land
' 87.0
66.1
20.9
109.0
66.5
- -
- -
- -
42.5
43.1
West Virginia
636.0
572.4
63.6
240.0
166.3
73.4
210.9
Northern Appalachian
TOTAL
2,201.0
1,736.8
464.2
2,103.0
1,480.2
- -
72.5
— _
550.0
983.1
West Virginia
821.0
673.2
147.8
133.0
133.0
206.4
Virginia
309.0
234.8
74.2
147.0
147.0
96.8
Kentucky
925.0
684.5
240.5
108.0
108.0
208. 3
I Tennessee
7.0
3.9
3.1
459.0
457.6
- -
- -
- -
1.4
102.1
! Central Appalachian
TOTAL
2,062.0
1,596.4
465.6
847.0
845.6
1.4
613.6
[ Tennessee
4.0
2.0
2.0
91.0
89.7
- -
- -
1.3
25.4
l__ .
I Ceorgla
589.0
589.4
130.1
Alabama
250.0
162.5
87.5
500.0
398.5
- -
11.0
90.5
172.8
Southern Appalachian
254.0
164.5
89.5
1,180.0
1,077.2
— —
11.0
91.8 j^o.j
Iowa
- -
- -
29.0
28.5
- -
0.5 ! 6.3
__ I ■ — —
Illinois
2,307.0
2,076.3
230.7
510.0
442.2
- -
25.5
— —
42.3 i 567.8
Indiana
338.0
256.9
81.1
707.0
514.0
---
22.6
—
- -
170.4 216.1
1 — —
Kentucky
552.0
353.3
198.7
498.0
422.8
- -
- -
59.8
15.4
203.9
Eastern Interior
TOTAL
3,197.0
2,686.5
510.5
1,744.0
1,407.5
48.1
59.8
228.6
994.1
Missouri
105.0
69.3
35.7
279.0
279.0
85.1
Arkansas
17.0
13.4
3.6
907.0
888.9
18.1
- -
- -
200.2
Oklahoma
33.0
14.8
18.2
53.0
53.0
17.3
Kansas
4.0
- -
4.0
67.0
54.4
12.6
- -
- -
18.2
Nebraska
247.0
247.0
77.1
Iowa
12.0
8.4
3.6
198.0
194.8
- -
- -
3.2
49.8
Western Interior
TOTAL
171.0
105.9
65.1
1,751.0
1,717.1
30.7
3.2
447.7
Texas
861.0
- -
861.0
2,281.0
2,249.1
18.2
- -
13.7
598.8
Louisiana
- -
21.0
21.0
4.7
Arkansas
- -
211.0
211.0
48.7
Texaa
TOTAL
861.0
- -
861.0
2,513.0
2,481.1
- -
18.2
13.7
652.2
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department 'of the Interior , computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
TABLE F-3
I
oo
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
(a)
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MIXED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
OCXEPATION
SYNTHETIC
III-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL T0T,,L
cmF C0AL-SLLA7"
] popuutio::
Montana
2,068,0
- -
2,068.0
198.0
112.5
85.5
- -
_ _
232.5
Wyoming
1,932.0
- -
1,932.0
78.0
15.8
62.2
- -
- -
186.1
TOTAL
4,000.0
- -
4,000.0
276-.0
128.3
62.2
85.5
- -
418.6
Montana
5.0
5.0
19.0
2.1
- -
16.9
- -
— _
6.9
North Dakota
395.0
395.0
286.0
204.5
81.5
- -
- -
_ _
96.1
South Dakota
19.0
19.0
135.0
135.0
32.2
TOTAL
419.0
- -
419.0
.440.0
341.6
81.5
16.9
_ _
135.2
Wyoming
996.0
996.0
92.0
29.7
62.3
- -
_ _
_ _
106.8
Colorado
204.0
81.6
122.4
1.0
1.0
- -
- -
- -
30.3
Idaho
- -
99.0
99.0
23.3
Utah
- -
9.0
9.0
_ _
_ _
2.3
Fork TOTAL
1,200.0
81.6
1,118.4
201.0
137.7
62.3
— _
162.7
Colorado
65.0
31.9
33.6
295.0
270.2
- -
_ _
— _
24.8
94.0
New Mexico
35.0
35.0
8.0
8.0
- -
- -|
11.1
TOTAL
100.0
66.9
33.6
303.0
278.2
r— '
24.8 1 105.1
Colorndo
109.0
88.3
20.7
-
1.0
1.0
- -
- - | 24.5
Utah
291.0
256.1 j 34.9! 217.0; 191.4
1 ■■
- - | 25.8 104.2
! Utah TOTAL
400.0
344.4 1 55.6
218.0 | 192.4
_ -j _ J
25.8 i 128.7
Mew Mexico
479.0
4.8
474.2
126.0
69.4
56.6
74.2
Colorado
21.0
12.4
8.6
1.0
1.0
- -
- -
- -
14.4
Utah
9.0
9.0
9.0
- -
- -
- -
2.0
TOTAL
500.0
17.2
482.8
136.0
79.4
65.6
90.6
(a) Data In 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-3
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
(a)
**1
I
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
107.0
- -
107.0
282.0
208.4
73.9
- -
- -
71.0
California
139.0
111.2
27.8
29.7
Nevada
11.0
11.0
2.9
Or egcn/ Washing ton
274.0
274.0
60.0
Other West
SUBTOTAL
107.0
107.0
706.0
604.6
73.9
- -
— ~
27.8
163.3
Connecticut /Rhode
92.0
92.0
20.4.
Delaware/New Jersey
38.0
38.0
9.1
Florida
350.0
350.0
77.6
Maine/New Hampshire/
23.0
23.0
5.1
Michigan
539.0
471.1
67.9
113.9
Minnesota/Wisconsin
331.0
310.8
- -
20.2
76.3
Mississippi
24.0
24.0
5.9
New York
457.0
343.2
- -
— —
113.8
92.6
North Carolina/
213.0
213.0
49.4
Other East
SUBTOTAL
2,067.0
1,865.1
201.9
450.3
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
107.0
107.0
2,773.0
'2,469.7
73.9
229.7
613.9
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
8,746.0
6,290.1
2,455.9
10,138.0
9,008.7
180.5
59.8
888.7
4,019.0
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
6.619.C
510.1
6,109.4
1,574.0
1,157.6
271.6
102.4
50.6
1,040.9
U.S. TOTALS
15, 472. C
6,800.2
8,672.3
14,485.0
12, 636. C
345.5
282.9
59.8
1,169.0
5,673.8
(a) Data in 100;000 tona of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived from O.S. Department
of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (C1EP) .
TABLE F-4
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARY
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
!
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
OEEP MINED
Sl'RFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
CENEPATI1N
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTtI CAS
SYNTHETIC
L0U-BT1T CAS
LI0UEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-REUTFT
POPULATION'
Pennsylvania
1,295.0
919.4
375.6
821.0
501.6
319.4
467.0
Ohio
421.0
240.0
181.0
729.0
577.4
- -
- -
151.6
243.3
Marvland
33.0
22.4
10.6
103.0
53.7
49.3
28.6
West Virginia
368.0
287.0
81.0
176.0
111.6
64.4
123.7
Northern Appalachian
TOTAL
2,117.0
1,468.8
648.2
1,829.0
1,244.3
584.7
862.6
West Virginia
906.0
706.7
199.3
201.0
201.0
- -
233.1
Virginia
212.0
152.6
59.4
136.0
136.0
- -
73.7
Kentucky
925.0
619.8
305.2
85.0
85.0
- -
- -
- -
_ -
194.8
Tennessee
12.0
5.0
7.0
142.0
140.6
1.4
33.4
TOTAL
2,055.0
1,484.1
570.9
564.0
562.6
1.4
535.0
1 Tennessee
15.0
4.4
10.6
75.0
75.0
- -
T- -
22.6
1 Georgia
469.0
469.0
- -
- -
104.2
Alabama
260.0
140.0
119.6
516.0
438.6
_ _
77.4
174.3
Southern Appalachian
TOTAL
275,0
144.4
130.2
1,060.0
982.6
- -
- -
77.4 j 301.1
Ioua
75.0
75.0
Illinois
1,272.0
1,004.9
267.1
468.0
416.5
- -
12.2
- -
39.3 i 348.6
Indiana
345.0
169.0
176.0
657.0
496.7
, - -
160.3 ! 200.8
Kentucky
444.0
239.8
204.2
344.0
317.5
- -
11.7
14.8
150.1
l.tistcrn Interior
TOTAL
2,061.0
1,413.7
647.3
1,544.0
1,305.7
- -
12.2
11.7
214.4
715.9
Missouri
74.0
28.1
45.9
297.0
297.0
- -
- -
- -
81.8
Arkansas
15.0
9.6
5.4
423.0
423.0
- -
- -
- -
95.2
Oklahoma
30.0
7.2
22.8
17.0
17.0
8.6
Kansas
8.0
- -
8.0
18.0
18.0
- -
- -
7.9
Nebraska
195.0
195.0
59.1
Iowa
15.0
9.0
6.0
119.0
116.4
- -
- -
- -
2.6
31.5
TOTAL
142.0
53.9
88.1
1,069.0
1,066.4
- -
- -
- -
2.6
284.1
Texas
640.0
640.0
1,208.0
1,175.4
- -
16.9
- -
15.7
337.9
Louisiana
13.0
13.0
2.9
Arkansas
156.0
156.0
35.9
TOTAL
640. q
640.0
1,377.0
1,344.4
16.9
15.7
376.7
(a) c'nt,1^,!?0'f0?1tOTS,OfCO'll; CMl-reIated Population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Inter lor, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-4
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARY
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
(a)
hrj
I
REGIPK/STATCS
Wyoming
Powder River
North Dakota
South Dakota
Fort Union
Wye ciing
Colorado
648.0
1,400.0
2,048.0
Green Rlver-lri u:
Fcrk TOTAL
j Colorado
New Mexico
Denver-Raton Kesa
TOTAL
Uinta -Southwestern
t-rah TOTAL
Colorado
San Juan River
TOTAL
5.0
295.0
19.0
319.0
623.0
137.0
760.0
33.0
17.0
50.0
45.0
251.0
296.0
230.0
18.0
248.0
STRFACE
M1XM)
648.0
1,400.0
2,048.0
5.0
35.6
35.6
11.2
17.0
29.2
26.1
295.0
19.0
319.0
TOTAL
cnNsryrnnx
623.0
101.4
724.4
21.8
21.8
18.9
223.4
249.5
4.6
12.7
27.6
46.5
225.4
9.9
235.3
129.0
STEAM
GDCEPATin"!
37.0
166.0
7.0
145.0
46.0
198.0
28.0
1.0
141.0
10.0
129.0
37.0
166.0
SYNTHETIC
III-BTU CAS
7.0
57.0
46.0
110.0
28.0
1.0
141.0
10.0
180.0
180.0
187.0
14.0
201.0
2.0
171.3
14.0
185.3
2.0
176.0
164.4
178.0
166.4
80.0
1.0
8.0
89.0
80.0
1.0
8.0
89.0
SYNTHETIC
LOW-DTD CAS
88.0
88.0
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-TO.-."'
rOPl'LATli'':
15.7
15.7
11.6
11.6
225.6
4.4
54.7
12.2
71.3
63.3
18.2
32.0
2.4
115.9
53.4
8.0
61.4
7.4
87.6
95.0
1.8
2.8
42.5
47.1
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-4
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARY
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL(a)
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
l
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
HINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-RTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
42.0
- -
42.0
203.0
126.7
76.3
- -
_ _
_ _
46.3
California
70.0
51.1
- -
- -
14.9
Nevada
11.0
11.0
2.8
Oregon/Washington
48.0
48.0
10.6
SUBTOTAL
42.0
42.0
332.0
236.8
76.3
_ _
_
74.6
Island/Massachusetts
- -
58.0
58.0
+2.9
Delaware/New Jersey
24.0
24.0
5.8
Florida
"" ""
- —
102.0
102.0
- -
23.1
Vermont
— —
20.0
20.0
- -
- -
4.4
Michigan
344.0
288.6
- -
- _
71.9
Minnesota/Wisconsin
429.0
376.2
93.9
Mississippi
- -
- -
20.0
20.0
L R
New York
204.0
109.3
- -
38.5
South Carol ina
346.0
346.0
- -
- -
77.6
SUBTOTAL
— ~
- -
- -
1,547.0
1,344.1
332.9
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
42.0
42.0
1,879.0
1,580.9
76.3
- -
- -
407.5
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
7,290.0
4,564.9
2,724.7
7,443.0
6,506.0
29.1
11.7
896.2
3075.4
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
3,721.0
327.0
3,395.0
1,012.0
896.7
88.0
- -
27.3
616.3
U.S. TOTALS
LI, 053.0
4,891.9
6,161.7
10,334.0
8,983.6
164.3
29.1
11.7
1145.3
4099.2
(*) Data In 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived fro* U.S. Department
of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) ,
TABLE F-5
I
H
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARY (.
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
REGIOS/STATCS
Pennsy lvanla
Maryland
West Virginia
Northern Appalachian
TOTAL
West Virginia
Virginia
Kentucky
1,130.0
341.0
87.0
636.0
2,194.0
820.0
310.0
849.8
245.5
66.1
572.4
1,733.8
672.4
974.0
8.0
j Central Appalachian
I Georgia
2,112.4
4.0
Southern Appalachian
TOTAL
Kentucky
Eastern Interior
TOTAL
260.0
264.0
2,367.0
329.0
235.6
720.8
Sl'RFACF.
minf.d
4.5
1,633.3
2.0
169.0
171.0
2,130.7
250.0
619.0
3,315.0
162.0
23.0
Western Interior
TOTAL
50.0
396.2
2,776.9
106.9
18.2
5.0
15.0
255.0
1,194.0
1,194.0
22.5
10.5
158.1
283.3
TOTAL
cnxsiMPTins
95.5
20.9
63.6
463.3
147.6
74.4
253.2
3.5
478.7
2.0
54. 0
STEAM
CENFPATinN
868.0
109.0
240.0
2,101.0
133.0
147.0
108.0
459.0
847.0
91.0
591.4
654.5
66.5
166.3
1,478.7
133.0
147.0
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
108.0
457.6
845.6
59.7
91.0
93.0
589.0
500.0
1,180.0
236.7
79.0
222.8
538.5
55.
4.8
27.5
5.0
29.0
510.0
707.0
589.0
398.5
1,077.2
28.5
442.2
514.0
498.0
-4-
1,744.0
27 9.0
907.0
53.0
67.0
247.0
4.5
96.9
1,194.0
1.194.C
198.0
1,751.0
'472.8
1,457.5
279.0
58.9
5.3.0
54.4
247.0
194.8
2,281.0
21.0
211.0
2,513.0
1,717.1
2,249.1
21.0
211.0
2,481.1
SYNTHETIC
LOU-BTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TI0N
19.5
52.9
72.4
11.0
11.0
25.5
22.6
48.1
18.1
12.6
30.7
18.2
METALLURGICAL
COKE
273.2
160.6
59.8
59.8
18.2
42.5
73.7
550.0
Data In 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
1.4
TOTAL
COAL-RELATEf>
POPULATION
462.1
265.1
43.1
210.9
981.2
206.1
96.9
217.2
1.4
1.3
90.5
102.3
622.5
25.3
131.0
175.1
93.2
331.4
0.5
6.3
42.3 !
579.2
170.4
I
214.3
15.4
228.6
3.2
3.2
13.7
214.4
1,014.2
92.4
201.1
19.6
18.3
76.8
13.7
50.2
458.4
627.4
4.7
48.7
680.8
TABLE F-5
1
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARY
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
(a)
RECIOX/STATCS
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
CENEPATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-nTU OAS
LIOl'EFAC-
TION
metallurcic.il
COKE
TOTAL
coal-rllat: ~
popuiATti':,
Montana
1,100.0
1,100.0
198.0
112.5
_ _
85.5
144.7
Wyoming
1,950.0
1,950.0
78.0
15.8
62.2
- -
- -
_ _
187.6
TOTAL
3,050.0
3,050.0
276.0
128.3
62.2
85.5
_ _
332.3
Montana
7.0
7.0
19.0
2.1
- -
16.9
_ _
7.3
North Dakota
484.0
- -
484.0
286.0
204.5
81.5
- -
- -
- _
102.5
South Dakota
19.0
- -
19.0
135.0
135.0
32.2
TOTAL
510.0
510.0
.440.0
341.6
81.5
16.9
— _
_ _
142.0
Wyoming
800.0
800.0
92.0
29.7
62.3
- -
_ _
_ _
89.8
Colorado
187.0
74.8
112.2
1.0
1.0
- -
- -
_ _
27.7
Idaho
99.0
99.0
23.3
Utah
9.0
9.0
2.3
Fork TOTAL
987.0
74.8
912.2
201.0
138.7
62.3
_ _
_ _
) ,■■-.,,-.
- - , 143.1
Colorado
65.0
31.9
33.2
295.0
270.2
- _
_ _
__ _
24.8
92.9
New Mexico
42.0
42.0
8.0
8.0
TOTAL
107.0
73.9
33.2
303.0
278.2
24.8 ] 105.6
Colorado
100.0
81.0
19.0
1.0
1.0
- -
- -
— _
1 22.3
Utah
350.0
308.01
42.0! 217.0
191.4
- -
25.8 ■ 115.0
I Utah TOTAL ' 450.0
389.0
61.0
218.0
192.4
_ __
25.8 j H7 1
New Mexico
575.0
5.8
569.3
126.0
69.4
56.6
HI 7
Colorado
19.0
11.2
7.8
1.0
1.0
- _
_ _
_ _
! 13.0
Utah
9.0
9.0
2.0
TOTAL
594.0
17.0
577.1
136.0
79.4
56.6
98.7 j
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
TABLE F-5
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARY ,.
NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
I
Ln
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL- RE LA TED
POPULATION
Arizona
103.0
_ _
103.0
282.0
208.4
73.9
- -
- ~
70.6
California
139.0
111.2
27.8
29.7
Nevada
- -
—
11.0
11.0
2.9
Oregon/ Washing ton
274.0
274.0
60.0
Other West
103.0
103.0
706.0
604.6
73.9
- ~
- -
27.8
163.2
Connecticut/Rhode
92.0
92.0
20.4
Delaware/New Jersey
38.0
38.0
9.1
Florida
350.0
350.0
77. 5
Maine/New Hampshire/
23.0
23.0
5.1
Michigan
- -
539.0
471.1
67.9
113.9
Minnesota/Wisconsin
_ -
- -
331.0
310.8
- -
- ~
— -
20.2
76.3
Mississippi
_ -
- -
- -
24.0
24.0
5.9
New fork
457.0
343.2
- -
- -
113.8
92.6
North Carolina/
213.0
213.0
49.4
Other East
2,067.0
1,865.1
- -
- -
201.9
450.2
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
103.0
103. C
2,773.0
2,469.7
73.9
- -
229.7
613.4
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
9, 334. A
6,473.1
2,864.410,136.0
9,096.0
180.4
59.8
815.0
4,088.5
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
5,698.0
554.7
5,143.5
1,574.0
1,158.6
262.6
102.4
50.6
959.0
U.S. TOTALS
15,135.4
7,027.8
8,110.9
14,483.0
12,724.3
336.5
282.8
59.8
1,095.3
5,660.9
(.) Data in 100.000 ton, of coal, coal-reUted population in chou.«4. of p.opl.. Data derived fro. U.S. Depart-nt
' of the Interior, Computerited Upact Estimation Frograa (CIEP)
TABLE F-6
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PRLA's ONLY ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
hrj
I
H
a-.
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MtNED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CnSSlHPTWS
STEAM
RF.NEFATTnN
SYNTHETIC
Ht-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-DTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-REUTE"
POPULATION
Pennsylvania
1,295.0
- —
1,295.0
• 821.0
501.6
319.4
467.0
Ohio
421.2
240.1
181.1
729.0
577.4
- -
- -
151.6
243.4
Maryland
33.0
22.4
10.6
13.0
6.8
- -
6.2
11.9
West Virginia
368.4
287.4
81.0
176.0
111.6
_ _
_ _
64.4
123.8
Northern Appalachian
TOTAL
2,117.6
549.9
1,567.7
1,739.0
1,197.4
541.6
846.1
West Virginia
906.0
706.7
199.3
201.0
201.0
233.1
Virginia
213.9
154.0
59.9
136.0
136.0
74.0
Kentucky
924.2
619.2
305.0
83.5
83.5
194.3
Tennessee
11.7
4.9
6.8
140.6
139.2
*~ *~
1.4
33.1
TOTAL
2,055.8
1,484.8
571.0
561.1
559.7
- -
1.4
534,5
Tennessee
14.9
4.3
10.6
73.6
73.6
- -
22.3
Georgia
- -
466.8
466.8
103.7
Alabana
250.0
135.0
115.0
505.4
429.6
75.8
169.8
Southern Appalachian
TOTAL
264.9
139.3
12 5.6
1,045.8
970.0
75.8
295.8
Iowa
74.3
74.3
16.2
Illinois
1,270.4
1,003.6
266.8
466.7
415.4
- -
12.1
39.2 | 348.0
Indiana
344.9
169.0
175.9
656.4
496.2
160.2
200.7
Kentucky
444.4
240.0
204.4
342.6
316.2
11.6
14.7
149.9
Eastern Interior
TOTAL
2,059.7
1,412.6
647.1
1,540.0
1,302.1
12.1
11.6
214.1
714.8
Missouri
72.7
27.6
45.0
292.3
292.3
80.7
Arkansas
13.0
8.3
4.7
356.0
356.0
- -
- -
80.3
Oklahoma
28.0
6.7
21.3
23.8
23.8
- -
9.8
Kansas
7.9
7.9
18.3
18.3
8.0
Nebraska
199.4
199.4
60.1
Iowa
15.0
9.0
6.0
120.8
118.1
- -
_ _
_ _
2.7
'31.9
Western Interior
TOTAL
136.6
51.6
84.9
1,010.6
1,007.9
_ _
- -
- -
2.7
270.8
Texas
637.0
637.0
1,218.2
1,185.3
17.1
15.8
339.3
Louisiana
10.5
10.5
2.4
Arkansas
137.4
137.4
31.9
TOTAL
637.0
637.0
1,366.1
1,333.2
--
17.1
-- -
15.8
373.6
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coat-related population In thousands of people. Data derived from U S
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
• TABLE F-6
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND' USE SUMMARIES
PRLA's ONLY ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(continued)
(a)
I
REGIOS/ STATES
PRODtCTION
DEEP MINED
SITU' ACE
NIXED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAfl
nENT.PATroN
SYNTHETIC
1II-BTU CAS
SYNTllEl 1C
LOW-BTU CAS
LIOl'EFAC-
TI0N
METAI.LIRCICAI.
COKE
TOTAL
popi'UTir:
Montana
650.0
_ _
650.0
128.2
128.2
- -
92.2
Wyoming
1.400.0
1.400.0
37.7
37.7
- -
- -
133.6
Powder River
2 050.0
2.050.0
165.9
165.9
_ _
- -
- -
225.8
Montana
5.0
5.0
6.9
6.9
- -
4.4
North Dakota
295.0
295.0
145.0
57.0
88.0
- -
54.7
South Dakota
19.0
19.0
69.2
69.2
- -
- -
17.2
Fort Union
319.0
319.0
221.1
133.1
88.0
76.3
Wyoming
630.0
630.0
27.5
27.5
- -
- -
63.8
Colorado
uq o
38.7
110.3
1.0
1.0
_ _
- -
- -
19.8
Idaho
140.3
140.3
- -
- -
- -
, Z-JZ.
31.8
Utah
9.6
9.6
_ _
- -
- -
- -] 2.3
Green River-i!-i"s
779 0
38.7
740.3
178.4
178.4
_ _
_ —
- -
- -
117.7
Cdorado
33.0
11.2
21.8
196.6
180.1
16.5
55.5
New Mexico
17.0
17.0
- -
13.9
13.9
- -j 8.0
Denver-Raton Meoa
50.9
28.2
21.8
210.5
194.0
- 1
16.5' 63.5
Colorado
9R A
20.6
2.0
2.0
- -t
- -
8.0
Utah
251. C
223.4
. 27.6
176.6
164.9
1
11.7 87.7
[ Uinta -Southwestern
300. C
251.8
48.2
178.6
166.9
_i '
11.7: 95.7
Now Mexico
230. C
4.6
225.4
79.8
79.8
- -
- -
42.4
Colorado
18. (
) 8.1
9.9
1.0
1.0
- -
- -
_ _
2.8
Utah
7.7
7.7
1.7
San Juan River
TOTAL
248. (
) 12.7
235.3
88.5
88.5
- "
- -
46.9
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-6
H
CO
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PRLA's ONLY ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
REGION /STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LI0UEFAC-
TI0N
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
37.8
37.8
201.4
125. i
75.7
_ _
45.5
California
69.7
50. c 18.8
1£ R
Nevada
10.6
Oregon/Washington
48.2
10 7
SUBTOTAL
37,8
- -
37.8
32.9.9
235.4
94.5
71 7
Island /Massachusetts
58.0
58. C
12 9
Delavare/Nev Jersey
24.0
24. C
■i R
Florida
101.6
101.6
?T 0
Vermont
20.0
?n r
4 4
Michigan
344.2
288.2
55 4
7? f)
Minnesota /Wisconsin
433.5
380.2
SI 1
Mississippi
18.8
18.8
L (\
New York
204.0
109.2
94 7
18 S
South Carol Ina
346.2
346.2
77.6
SUBTOTAL
1,550.3
1,346.5
203.4
333.7
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
37.8
37.8
1,880.2
1,582.3
94.5
__
203.4
407.4
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
7,271.6
3,638.2
3,633.3
7,262.6
6,370.2
29.2
11.6
851.4
3,035.6
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
3,746.0
331.4
3,414.6
1,043.0
926.?
88.0
28.2
625.9
U.S. TOTALS
LI, 055. A
3,969.6
7, "85. 7
L0.185.8
8,879.4
182.5
29.2
11.6
1,083.0
4,068.9
(a) Data in 100,000 tone of coal;
r^sr.^.^ i£nt^rp"(csr" of ~|- — der1^ *- v-s- — «
TABLE F-7
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PRLA's ONLY ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
i
H
REGIOK/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MIMED
Sl'RFACF.
MINED
TOTAL
CONSITP1 ION
STEAM
CEXFPATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LI0UEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-REUTri
POPULATION
Pennsylvania
1,130.7
848.0
282.7
884.1
591.5
19.4
- -
273.2
461.7
Ohio
341.0
245.5
95.5
868.0
654.5
52.9
- -
160.6
265.1
Maryland
87.0
66.1
20.9
109.0
66.5
42.5
43.1
k'est Virginia
635.3
571.8
63.5
240.0
166.3
73.7
210.7
Kcrtlicrn Appalachian
TOTAL
2,194.0
1,731.4
462.6
2,101.1
1,478.8
- -
72.3
— —
550.0
980.6
West Virginia
819.7
672.2
147.5
133.0
133.0
206.0
Virginia
308.6
234.5
74.1
147.0
147.0
96.6
Kentucky
969.2
717.2
252.0
108.0
108.0
216.3
Tennessee
7.6
4.3
3.3
474.8
473.4
1.4
105.7
Central Appalachian
TOTAL
2,104.9
1,628.2
476.9
862.8
861.4
1.4
624.6
Tennesse€
3.4
1.7
1.7
91.2
89.9
1.3
25.3
| Georgia
- -
- -
593.4
593.4
132.0
1 Alabama
260.0
169.0
91.0
507.5
404.5
- -
11.1
- -
91.9
176.7
Southern Appalachian
TOTAL
263.4
170.7
92.7
1,192.1
1,087.8
— ~
11.1
93.2 jji.u
1 —
I ova
28.7
28.2
0.5 i 6.3 '
i_
Illinois
2,205.0
1,984.5
220.5
511.3
443.3
- -
25.6
- -
42.4 i 548.3
Indiana
330.4
251.1
79.3
707.3
514.2
22.6
170.5 I 214.7
Kentucky
609.0
389.8
219.2
499.5
424.1
59.9
15.5
213.2
Eastern Interior
TOTAL
3,144.4
2,625.4
519.0
1,746.8
1,409.8
- -
48.2
59.9
228.9
982.5
Missouri
112.5
74.2
38.8
274.0
274.0
84.9
Arkansas
21.0
16.6
4.4
879.5
861.9
- -
17.6
— —
— —
194.8
Oklahoma
45.0
20.2
24.8
50.6
50.6
18.4
Kansas
5.1
5.1
66.4
53.9
- -
12.5
— -
— —
18.2
Nebraska
244.7
244.7
76.4
lowa
9.2
6.4
2.8
196.2
193.1
3.1
49.0
Western Interior
TOTAL
192.8
117.4
75.9
1,711.4
1,678.2
- -
30.1
- -
3.1
Texas
1,164.1
1,164.1
2,248.0
2,216.5
- -
18.0
— —
13.5
617. 7
Louisiana
21.0
21.0
4.7
Arkansas
203.3
203.3
47.0
Texas
TOTAL
1,164.1
1,164 J
2,472.3
2,440.8
18.0
- -
13.5
669.4
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-7
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PRLA'sONLY ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL(a^
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
*i
o
1 REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MIXED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION'
STEAM
RESEPATTOX
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOH-BTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
C0AL-RCL.VT-?
POPULATle1.
Montana
1,100.0
- -
1,100.0
202.2
114.8
_ _
87.4
_ _
145.5
Wyoming
2,450.0
2,450.0
70.2
14.2
55.9
229.6
Powder River
TOTAL
3,550.0
3,550.0
272.4
129.0
55.9
87.4
- -
- -
375.1
Montana
5.0
5.0
17.5
2.0
15.5
- -
- -
6.6
North Dakota
450.0
450.0
282.0
201.6
80.4
99.2
South Dakota
19.0
19.0
146.4
146.4
34.7
Fort Union
TOTAL
474.0
474.0
.445.9
350.0
80.4
15.5
- -
140.5
Wyoming
805.0
805.0
84.7
27.4
57.3
89.0
Colorado
205.0
82.0
123.0
30.2
Idaho
91.2
91.2
21.6
Utah
8.1
8.1
2.1
Green River- il.r:s
Fork TOTAL
1,010.0
82.0
928.0
184.0
99.3
57.3
- -
- -
142.9
j Colorado
65.0
31.8
33.2
287.5
263.4
- -
- -
- -
24.1
93.4
I New Mexico
40.0
40.0
8.1
8.1
- -
12.2
j Denver-Raton Mesa
TOTAL
105.0
71.8
33.2
295.6
271.5
24.1 ! 105.6
Colorado
120.0
97.2
22.8
25.5
Utah
300.0
264.0
36.0
205.3
181.1
- -
- -
- -
24.4 103.4
; Uinta -Southwestern
: Utah TOTAL
420.0
361.2
58.8
205.3
181.1 - - :
24.4 1 128.9
New Mexico
530.0
5.3
524.7
127.4
70.2
70.2
- -
- -
- - i 79.5
Colorado
19.0
11.2
7.8
14.1
Utah
8.1
8.1
1.8
San Juan River
TOTAL
549.0
16.5
532.5
135.5
78.3
70.2
95.4
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-7
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
PRLA's ONLY ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
(a)
I
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL- RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
86.2
86.2
285.0
210.6
74.7
- -
69.6
California
138.9
111.1
- -
27.8
29.7
Nevada
10.8
10.8
2.9
Oregon/Washington
228.4
228.4
50.0
Other West
SUBTOTAL
86.2
- -
86.2
663.1
560.9
74.7
27.8
152.2
Connec t icu t /Rhode
- -
_ _
92.0
92.0
20.3
Delaware/New Jersey
- -
- -
- -
38.0
38.0
-'-
- -
9.1
Florida
350.9
350.9
77.7
Maine/New Hampshire/
23.0
23.0
5.1
Michigan
—
505.9
442.2
63.7
106.9
Minneso ta/Wisconsin
328.5
308.5
20.0
75.7
Mississippi
24.3
24.3
6.0
New York
- -
- -
457.0
343.2
113.8
92.6
North Carolina/
South Carolina
213.0
213.0
49.4
Other East
SUBTOTAL
2,032.6
1,835.1
- -
- -
- -
197.5
442.8
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
86.2
86.2
2,695.7
2,396.0
74.7
225.3
595.0
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
9,063.6
6,273.1
2,791.2
10,068.5
8,956.8
179.7
59.9
890.1
4,032.8
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
6,108.0
531.5
5,576.5
1,538.7
1,109.2
263.8
102.9
48.5
988.4
U.S. TOTALS
15,257.8
6,804.6
8,453.9
14,302.912,462.0
338.5
282.6
59.9
1,163.9
5,616.2
(.) Data in 100.000 tons o£ coal; coal-related population In thousand, of people. Dat. derived fro. U.S. Departs
of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (C1EP) .
TABLE F-8
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
EMERGENCY LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
I
RECIOS/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
CENEPATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-REUTED
POPULATION
Pennsylvania
1,294.7
919.2
375.5
821.0
501.6
- -
- -
319.4
467.0
Ohio
i
420.8
239.9
180.9
729.0
577.4
151.6
243.3
Maryland
33.0
22.4
10.6
13.0
6.8
6.2
11.9
West Virginia
368.2
287.2
81.0
176.0
111.6
- -
- -
64.4
123.8
Nortncrn Appalachian
TOTAL
2,116.7
1,468.7
648.0
1,739.0
1,197.4
- -
- -
- -
541.6
846.0
West Vlreinla
905.9
706.6
199.3
201.0
201.0
- -
- -
- -
233.1
Virginia
212.5
153.0
59.5
136.0
136.0
73.8
Kentucky
918.4
615.1
303.1
83.3
83.3
193.2
Tennessee
11.7
4.9
6.8
140.4
139.0
1.4
33.0
■ Central Appalachian.
TOTAL
2,048.5
1,479.6
568.7
560.7
559.3
1.4
533.1
! Tennessee
15.3
4.4
10.9
73.2
73.2
- -
- -
22.3
1 Georgia
466.0
466.0
103.5
Alabama
260.0
140.4
119.6
503.6
428.1
75.5
171.7
Southern Appalachian
TOTAL
275.3
144.8
130.5
1,042.8
967.3
75.5 297.5
Ioua
74.0
74.0
Illinois
1,272.0
1,005.3
267.2
467.4
416.0
12.2
39.3 348.6
Indiana
i
346.6
169.6
176.8
656.2
496.1
160.1 ! 201.0
Kentucky
452.1
244.1
208.0
342.3
315.9
- -
11.6
1
14.7
151.0
t.istern Interior
TOTAL
2,070.7
1,419.0
652.0
1,539.9
1,302.0
12.2
11.6
214.1
716.8
Missouri
73.9
28.1
45.8
291.8
291.8
80.7
Arkansas
15.0
9.6
5.4
359.8
359.8
- -
- -
- -
81.4
Oklahoma
30.0
7.2
22.8
24.1
24.1
- -
- -
- -
10.2
Kansas
7.4
7.4
18.6
18.6
7.9
Nebraska
199.9
199.9
60.2
lowa
15.2
9.1
6.1
121.1
118.4
- -
2.7
32.0
Western Interior
TOTAL
141.5
54.0
87.5
1,015.3
1,012.6
- -
- -
2.7
272.4
Texas
645.7
- -
645.7
1,221.0
1,188.0
17.1
15.9
340.7
Louisiana
10.6
10.6
2.4
Arkansas
139.7
139.7
32.4
TOTAL
645.7
645.7
1,371.3
1,338.3
--
17.1
15.9
375.5
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U S
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-8
I
S3
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES , v
EMERGENCY LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
RECIOX/ST.-UTS
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MIXED
TOTAL
COSSrSrTKK
STEAM
HHceFATlnS
SYNTHETIC
lll-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-liril CAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RCl^T"?
FOMLATllK
Montana
720.0
- -
720.0
127.9
127.9
98.4
Wyoming
L, 330.0
1,330.0
38.1
38.1
127.6
Powder River
I, 050.0
- -
2,050.0
166.0
166.0
226.0
Montana
5.0
- -
5.0
6.9
6.9
4.4
North Dakota
295.0
- -
295.0
145.0
57.0
88.0
54.7
South Dakota
19.0
- -
19.0
69.2
69.2
17.2
Fort Union
319.0
- -
319.0
221.1
133.1
88.0
76.3
Wyoming
630.0
630.0
27.9
27.9
- -
- -
_ —
63.9
Colorado
140.0
36.4
103.6
1.0
1.0
18.6
Idaho
- -
141.8
141.8
32.1
Utah
- -
9.7
9.7
2.3
Green River- 1'1--^ .
770.0
36.4
733.6
180.4
180.4
- -
116.9
Colorado
33.0
11.2
21.8
196.6
180.1
16.5 | 55.5
i
New Mexico
17.0
17.0
13.9
13.9
Denver-Raton Mesa
50.0
28.2
21.8
210.5
194.0
16.5 1 63.5
Colorado
46.0
26.7
19.3
2.0
2.0
I'tah
251.0
223.4
27.6
178.1
166.3
;
- ~
11.8 88.1
; Uinta -Southwestern
297.0
250.1
46.9
180.1
168.3
- - : ~ ~
11.8 ; 95.6
New Mexico
230.0
4.6
225.4
79.7
79.7
42.4
Colorado
18.0
8.1
9.9
1.0
1.0
i
Utah
7.8
7.8
J
L.I
San Juan River
TOTAL
248.0
12.7
235.3
88.5
88.5
46.9
(a) Data In 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
Data derived from U.S.
TABLE F-8
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
'EMERGENCY LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL(a)
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
I
rO
-P-
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
38.5
38.5
201.3
125.6
75.7
45.6
California
69.7
50.9
18.8
14.8
Nevada
10.7
10.7
2.7
Oregon/Washington
49.3
49.3
10.9
Other West
SUBTOTAL
38.5
- -
38.5
331.0
236.5
75.7
18.8
74.0
Connec tU: lit /Rhode
Island/Massachusetts
58.0
58.0
12.9
Delavare/New Jersey
24.0
24.0
5.8
Florida
101.4
101.4
23.0
Maine/New Hampshire/
Vermont
20.0
20.0
4.4
Michigan
345.8
290.1
55.7
72.3
Minnesota/Wisconsin
435.8
382.2
- -
- -
- -
53.6
95.4
Mississippi
18.7
18.7
4.6
New York
204.0
109.3
94.7
38.5
North Carolina/
South Carolina
346.3
346.3
77.7
SUBTOTAL
1,554.0
1,350.0
204.0
334.6
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
38.5
38.5
1,885.0
1,586.5
75.7
- -
222.8
408.6
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
7,298.4
4,566.1
2,732.4
7,269.0
6,376.9
29.3
11.6
851.2
3,041.3
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
3,733.0
327.4
3,406.6
1,046.6
930.3
88.0
- -
28.3
625.2
U.S. TOTALS
11,069.9
4,893.5
6,177.5
10,200.6
8,893.7
163.7
29.3
11.6
1,102.3
4,075.1
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived fro* U.S. Department
of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) ,
TABLE F-9
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
EMERGENCY LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
I
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATE!)
POPULATION
Pennsylvania
1,132.8
849.6
283.2
884.0
591.4
- -
19.4
— ~
273.2
462.1
Ohio
341.0
245.5
95.5
868.0
654.5
- -
52.9
- -
160.6
265.1
Maryland
87.0
66.1
20.9
109.0
66.5
42.5
43.1
West Virginia
635.5
572.0
63.5
240.0
166.3
73.7
210.8
Northern Appalachian
TOTAL
2,196.3
1,733.2
463.1
2,101.0
1,478.7
- -
72.3
— —
550.0
981.1
Went Virginia
819.6
672.1
147.5
133.0
133.0
- -
- -
206.0
Virginia
309.5
235.2
74.3
147.0
147.0
96.8
Kentucky
963.5
713.0
250.5
108.0
108.0
215.2
Tennessee
7.6
4.3
3.3
459.5
458.1
1.4
102.3
Central Appalachian
TOTAL
2,100.2
1,624.5
475.6
847.5
846.1
1.4
620.3
I Tennessee
3.7
1.8
1.9
91.0
89.7
- -
- -
- -
1.3
25.3
* —
i Georgia
- -
589.4
589.4
131.1
Alabama
260.0
169.0
91.0
; 500.7
399.1
- -
11.0
- -
90.6
175.2
Southern Appalachian
263.7
170.7
92.9
1,181.1
1,078.2
11.0
- -
91.9 331.6 .
Iowa
_ -
- -
- -
28.2
27.7
0.5_[ 6.2
Illinois
2,350.9
2,115.8
235.1
505.3
438.1
25.3
- -
41.9 1 575.1
Indiana
329.6
250.5
79.1
703.3
511.3
- -
22.5
- -
169.5 ! 213.7
1
1
Kentucky
599.8
383.9
215.9
498.2
423.0
59.8
15.4
211.4
Eastern Interior
TOTAL
3,280.3
2,750.2
530.1
1,735.0
1,400.1
47.8
59.8
227.3
1,006.4
Missouri
149.2
98.5
50.7
275.0
275.0
89.8
Arkansas
22. C
17.4
4.6
886.8
869.1
17.7
- -
- -
196.5
Oklahoma
52. C
23.4
28.6
51 .0
51.0
- -
- -
- -
19.5
Kansas
4.7
4.7
65.2
52.9
- -
12.3
— —
~ —
17.9
Nebraska
240.2
240.2
75.3
Iova
14.:
10.0
4.3
192.5
189.4
3.1
48.9
Western Interior
TOTAL
242.2
149.3
92.9
1,710.7
1,677.6
30. C
- -
3.1
447.9
Texas
1.158.C
1,158.0
2,252.5
2.221.C
18. C
- -
13.5
618.0
Louisiana
21.1
21.1
4.7
Arkansas
- -
205.2
205.2
47.4
Texas
TOTAL
1,158. (
) - -
1,158.0
2,478.8
2,447.:
18.0
13.5
670.1
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived fro. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-9
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
EMERGENCY LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
(a)
I
to
RECIPN/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
CEXEPATI^N
SYNTHETIC
III-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-PEl.\Tr-?
POPl'LATIf:
Montana
1,199.9
1,199.9
198.4
112.7
- -
85.7
- -
- -
153.8
Wyoming
1,960.0
- -
1,960.0
71.0
14.3
56.6
187.3
TOTAL
3,159.9
- -
3,159.9
269.4
127.0
56.6
85.7
341.1
Montana
7.0
7.0
17.4
2.0
15.4
- -
6.8
North Dakota
480.0
- -
480.0
279.1
199.6
79.5
100.8
South Dakota
19.0
- -
19.0
152.4
152.4
36.0
TOTAL
506.0
506.0
448 . 9
354.0
79.5
15.4
143.6
Wyoming
850.0
- ~
850.0
83.9
27.1
56.8
92.7
Colorado
192.0
76.8
115.2
28.4
Idaho
90.3
90.3
21.4
Utah
- -
8.0
8.0
2.0
Green River-iHjrv;
Fork TOIAL
1,042.0
76.8
965.2
182.2
125.4
56.8
- -
- -
- -
144.5
Colorado
65.0
31.9
33.2
289.4
265.1
- -
24.3
92.0
New Mexico
41.0
41.0
8.0
8.0
12.4
Denver-Raton Mesa
TOTAL
106.0
72.9
33.2
297.4
273.1
24.3 ! 104.4
Colorado
103.0
83.4
19.6
22.9
Utah
345.0
303.6
41.4
206.6
182.2
- -
- -
- -
24.6
111.9
! Uinta -Southwestern
! Utah TOTAL '
448.0
387.0
61.0
206.6
182.2
_ _! _ _
- -
24.6 j 134.8
New Mexico
565.0
5.6
559.4
125.9
69.4
56.9
- -
- -
- -
82.7
Colorado
19.0
11.2
7.8
13.3
Utah
8.0
8.0
1.8
San Juan River
TOTAL
584.0
16.8
567.2
133.9
77.4
56.9
97.8
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-9
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
EMERGENCY LEASING ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
(a)
i
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
102.3
102.3
281.7
208.2
73.8
- -
- -
70.5
California
137.7
110.2
- -
27.5
29.4
Nevada
10.5
10.5
2.8
Oregon/Washington
233.2
233.2
51.1
Other West
SUBTOTAL
102.3
102.3
663.1
562.1
73.8
- -
- -
27.5
153.8
Ccnucc t icu t /Rhode
Island/Massachusetts
- -
92.0
92.0
- -
20.4
Delaware/New Jersey
38.0
38.0
9.1
Florida
349.9
349.9
- -
- -
- -
— —
77.5
Maine/New Hampshire/
Vernont
23.0
23.0
5.1
Michigan
509.2
445.0
64.2
107.6
Minnesota/Wisconsin
330.5
310.3
- -
- -
20.2
76.1
Mississippi
24.0
24.0
- -
- -
- -
- -
5.9
New York
457.0
343.2
113.8
92.6
North Carolina/
South Carolina
213.3
213.3
49.4
Other East
SUBTOTAL
2,036.9
1,838.7
- -
- -
198.2
442.7
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
102.3
102.3
2,700.0
2,400.8
73.8
- "
225.7
596.5
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
9,240.7
6,427.9
2,812.6
10,054.1
8,928.0
179.1
59.8
887.2
4,057.4
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
5,845.9
553.5
5,292.5
1,538.4
1,139.1
249.8
101.1
48.9
966.2
U.S. TOTALS
15,188.9
6,981.4
8,207.4
14,292.5
12,467.9
323.6
280.2
59.8
1,161.8
5,620.1
(a) Data In 100,000 tone of coal; coal-related population
of tha Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Progr
in thouaanda of people. Data derived fro» U.S. Department
ta (CIEP).
TABLE F-10
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
<n
to
CO
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP HINED
St'RFACE
MINED
TOTAL
COSSlWIInN
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL- RELATE")
POPULATION
Pennsylvania
1,284.3
911.9
372.4
821.0
501 .'6"
- -
- -
319.4
465.6
Ohio
419.5
239.1
180.4
729.0
577.4
- -
151.6
243.5
Maryland
33.0
22.4
10.6
13.0
6.8
_ _
- -
6.2
12.0
West Virginia
367.5
286.7
80.9
176.0
111.6
64.4
123.7
TOTAL
2,104.3
1,460.1
644.3
1,739.0
1,197.4
541.6
844.8
West Virginia
899.8
701.8
198.0
201.0
201.0
- -
- -
- -
232.2
Virginia
204.0
146.9
57.1
136.0
136.0
- -
- -
72.3
Kentucky
810.0
542.7
267.3
83.2
83.2
174.1
Tennessee
11.0
4.6
6.4
140.3
138.9
- -
- -
- -
1.4
32.9
TOTAL
1,924.8
1,396.0
528.8
560.5
559.1
- -
- -
1.4
511.5
Tennessee
15.5
4.5
11.0
73.1
73.1
- -
22.4
1 Ceorgia
f ' —
464.3
464.3
103.2
Alabama
300.0
162.0
138.0
502.8
427.4
- -
- -
75.4
181.0
TOTAL
315.5
166.5
149.0
1,040.2
964.8
- -
75.4
306.6 .
Iowa
76.0
76.0
16.6
Illinois
1,168.5
923.1
245.4
475.7
423.4
12.4
- -
40.0 i 331.3
Indiana
«
338.8
166.0
172.8
655.7 ' 495.7
- - 1
- -
160.0 ! 199.8
Kentucky
453.8
245.1
208.7
342.2
315.9
11.6
14.7
151.6
TOTAL
1,961.1
1,334.2
626.9
1,549.6
1,311.0
12.4
11.6
214.7
699.3
Missouri
19.7
7.5
12.2
292.8
292.8
- -
- -
_ _
74.2
Arkansas
17.0
10.9
6.1
385.2
385.2
87.3
Oklahoma
33.0
7.9
25.1
25.6
25.6
11.0
Kansas
2.2
2.2
19.2
19.2
- -
- -
- -
- _
7.3
Nebraska
205.2
205.2
62.0
Iowa
10.3
6.2
4.1
125.4
122.6
- -
- -
- -
2.8
32.4
TOTAL
82.2
32.5
49.7
1,053.4
1,050.6
- -
2.8
274.2
Texas
502.1
502.1
1,196.7
1,164.4
16.8
- -
15.6
323.7
Louisiana
- -
11.3
11.3
- -
2.5
Arkansas
150.6
150.6
34.9
TOTAL
502.1
- -
502.1
1,358.6
1,326.3
- -
16.8
15.6
361.1
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized ImpacL Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-10
hrj
1
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES - *
MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
RECTOS/ STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MIXED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
nEXEP\TI<l\'
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOU-BTU CAS
LIOVEFAC-
TI0N
^!^TALU-Rf^c.\1.
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-PELA"-)
POPUI.ATII":
Montana
950.0
950.0
130.1
130.1
120.0
Wvoming
1,300.0
- -
1,300.0
40.4
40.4
125.7
Powder River
TOTAL
2,250.0
2,250.0
170.5
170.5
1
Montana
5.0
- -
5.0
7.2
7.2
North Dakota
345.0-
345.0
145.0
57.0
88.0
58.7
South Dakota
19.0
- .-
19.0
80.8
80.8
19.8
Fort Union
369.0
369.0
233.0
145.0
88.0
83.0
Wyoming
971.0
- -
971.0
29.3
29.3
93.8
Colorado
149.0
38.7
110.3
1.0
1.0
19.8
Idaho
- -
150.8
150.8
34.2
Utah
9.7
9.7
2.3
Cn:en River- lU.r.s
1,120.0
38.7
1,081.3
190.8
190.8
150.1
Colorado
53.0
18.0
35.0
206.7
189.3
—
- -
17.4
60.9
New Mexico
7.0
7.0
- -
13.9
13.9
5.8
Denver-Raton Mesa
60.0
25.0
35.0
220.6
203.2
17.4 66.7
Colorado
57.0
33.1
23.9
2.0
2.0
9.2
1 Utah
293.0
260.8
32.2
182.9
170.8
—
l ZJL
12.1 97.0
i Uinta -Southwestern
350.0
293.9
56.1
184.9
172.8
12.1 106.2
! New Mexico
285.0
5.7
279.3
79.8
79.8
48.0
1 Colorado
15.0
6.8
8.3
1.0
1.0
(
Utah
7.7
7.7
1.7
San Juan River
TOTAL
300.0
12.5
287.6
88.5
88.5
52.1
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-10
I
o
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES .
MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
(a)
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL- RELATED
POPULATION
| Arizona
68.0
- -
68.0
202.7
126.5
76.2
- -
48.7
California
69.3
50.6
- -
- -
18.7
14.9
Nevada
- -
- -
10.7
10.7
2.7
Oregon/ Washing ton
- -
- -
53.1
53.1
11.7
Other West
SUBTOTAL
68.0
- -
68.0
335.8
240.9
76.2
- -
18.7
78.0
Connec tlcut/Rhode
Island/Massachusetts
- -
- -
58.0
58.0
12.9
Delaware/New Jersey
- -
- -
24.0
24.0
- -
- -
5.8
Florida
- -
- -
- -
101.0
101.0
22.9
Vermont
— *-
- -
- -
20.0
20.0
- -
4.4
Michigan
- -
351.0
294.5
- -
56.5
73.4
Minnesota /Wisconsin
- -
- -
- -
453.6
397.8
- -
55.8
99.3
Mississippi
18.7
18.7
- -
- -
- -
4.6
New York
- -
- ~
- -
204.0
109.3
- -
94.7
38.5
South Carolina
- -
346,5
346.5,
SUBTOTAL
- -
- -
- -
1,576.8
1,369.8
207.0
338.7
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
68.0
68.0
1,912.6
1,610.7
76.2
- -
225.7
417.6
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
6,890.0
4,389.3
2,500.8
7,301.3
6,409.2
29.:
11.6
851.5
2,997.5
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
4,449.0
370.1
4,079.0
1,088.3
970.8
88.0
- -
29.5
704.1
U.S. TOTALS
11,507.0
4,759.4
6,647.8
10,302.2
8,990.7
164.2
29. S
11.6
1,106.7
4,119.2
(a) Data In 100, 000 tone of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived ffroa U.S. Dapartsent
of tha Interior, Computerized Impact Eatlmatlon Prograa (C1EP) .
TABLE F-ll
COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES ,.
MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL*'
(100,000 tons)
l
RLCIOS/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
CFN'EPATION
SYNTHETIC
IIT-BTU CAS
SYKTIIETIC
LOW-BTU OAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATD
POPULATION
Pennsylvania
1,115.7
836.8
278.9
884.1
591.5
- -
19.4
- -
273.2
459.2
Ohio
341.0
245.5
95.5
868.0
654.5
- -
52.9
— —
160.6
265.6
Maryland
87.0
66.1
20.9
109.0
66.5
42.5
43.2
West Virginia
634.3
570.9
63.4
240.0
166.3
73.7
210.6
Northern Appal aetiian
TOTAL
2,178.0
1,719.3
458.7
2,101.1
1,478.8
- -
72.3
"* —
550.0
978.6
West Virginia
818.0
670.8
147.2
133.0
133.0
205.9
Virginia
308.5
234.5
74.0
147.0
147.0
96.8
Kentucky
832.8
616.3
216.5
108.0
. 108.0
191.6
Tennessee
71.0
39.8
31.2
466.2
464.8
- -
- -
— —
1.4
114.5
Central Appalachian
TOTAL
2,030.3
1,561.4
468.9
854.2
852.8
- -
- -
1.4
608.8
j Tennessee
3.5
1.8
1.7
91.1
89.8
1.3
25.4
Ceorgla
- -
- -
591.2
591.2
- -
- -
— —
""* ™*
131.6
Alabama
300.0
195.0
105.0
503.7
401.5
11.1
- -
91.2
185.8
Southern Appalachian
303.5
196.8
106.7
1,186.0
1,082.5
11.1
92.5
■ 342.8
Iowa
29.7
29.2
0.5
6.5
Illinois
2,104.8
1,894.3
210.5
515.3
446.8
- -
25.8
— -
42.8 t ;:
Ind ] ana
317.2
241.1
76.1
703.2
■511.2
- -
22.5
— —
169.5 i 211.7
]
Kentucky
423.7
271.2
152.5
4 98.8
423.5
- -
59.9
15.5
184.0
Eastern Interior
TOTAL
2,845.7
2,406.6
439.1
1,747.0
1,410.7
48.3
59.9
228.3
932.4
Missouri
22.0
14.5
7.5
283.3
283.3
75.4
Arkansas
23.0
18.2
4.8
940.4
921.6
- -
18.8
— —
— ""
208.3
Oklahoma
47. C
21.2
25.8
54.8
54.8
19.6
Kansas
2.C
- -
2.0
68.5
55.6
- -
12.9
- -
— —
18.2
Nebraska
252.4
252.4
78.7
Iowa
8.2
5.7
2.5
202.3
199.1
3.2
50.3
Western Interior
TOTAL
102..
59.6
42.6
1,801.7
1,766.8
31.7
3.2
450.5
Texas
589.:
!
589.3
2,235.8
2,204.5
17. S
- -
13.4
565.8
Louisiana
22.0
22. C
4.9
Arkansas
219.4
219.4
50.6
Texas
TOTAL
589.:
3
589.3
2,477.2
2.445.S
17.9
13.4
621.3
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-ll
COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
(a)
HI
I
U)
to
RSCIO.W STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MIXED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
MI-BTU f.AS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-RTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-3r.l.'.T".
POPUUTli \
Hon tana
2,326.9
2,326.9
200.0
113.6
86.4
256.5
Wyoming
2,173.0
2,173.0
80.3
16.2
64.0
207.5
Povder River
TOTAL
4,499.9
- —
4,499.9
280.3
129.8
64.0
86.4
- ~
- -
464.0
Montana
5.0
5.0
19.8
2.2
17.6
7.1
North Dakota
495.0
495.0
289.6
207.1
82.5
- -
- -
- -
104.3
South Dakota
19.0
19.0
159.1
159.1
- -
37.5
Fort Union
TOTAL
519.0
519.0
468.5
368.4
82.5
17.6
148.9
Wyoming
1,296.0
1,296.0
95.7
30.9
64.8
- -
- -
133.6
Colorado
204.0
81.6
122.4
30.1
Idaho
■
102.9
102.9
24.2
Utah
8.5
8.5
2.2
Green River- Raws
Fork TOTAL
1,500.0
81.6
1,418.4
207.1
142.3
64.8
190.1
Colorado
91.0
44.6
46.4
303.3
277.8
25.5
98.7
New Mexico
9.0
9.0
8.0
8.0
5.4
Denver-Raton Mesa
TOTAL
100.0
53.6
46.4
311.3
285.8
- -
- -
25.5 ! 104.1
Colorado
136.0
110.2
25.8
! 27.2
Utah
364.0
320.3
43.7: 220.3
194.3
- -
- -
- -
26.2 118.4
Uinta -Southwestern
Utah TOTAL
500.0
430.2
69.5
220.3
194.3
_ _ ( _ _
- -
26.2 ; 145.6
New Mexico
582.0
5.8
576.2
126.9
69.9
57.0
84.6
Colorado
18.0
10.6
7.4
13.9
Utah
8.5
8.5
1.9
San Juan River
TOTAL
600.0
16.4
583.6
135.4
78.4
57.0
100.4
(a) Data in 100, (100 tons of coa
Department ot Lhi' Interior,
1; -:oal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from V'.S.
Computerized Impact Estimation ProRrnm (CIEP).
TABLE F-ll
COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
(a)
I
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
Hl-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
36.8
36.8
284.0
209.6
74.4
64.8
California
• 137.9
110.3
27.6
29.5
Nevada
11.1
11.1
2.9
Oregon/Washington
287.1
287.1
62.8
Other West
SUBTOTAL
36.8
36.8
711.1
609.1
74.4
- -
- -
27.6
160.0
Connect i cue /Rhode
Island/Massachusetts
92.0
92.0
20.4
Delaware/New Jersey
38.0
38.0
9.1
Florida
350.2
350.2
77.6
Maine/New Hampshire/
23.0
23.0
5.1
Michigan
547.0
478.6
69.0
115.7
Minnesota/Wisconsin
- -
347.0
325.8
21.2
78.9
Mississippi
23.7
23.7
5.9
New York
457.0
343.2
- -
- -
- -
113.8
92.6
North Carolina/
South Carolina
213.0
213.0
94.5
Other East
SUBTOTAL
- -
2,090.9
1,887.5
—
204.0
499.8
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
36.8
36. e
2,802.0
2,496.6
74.4
231.6
659.8
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
8,049.0
5,943.7
2,105.310,167.2
9,037.5
181.3
59.9
888.8
3,934.4
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
7,718.9
581.8
7,136.8
1,622.9
1,199.0
268.3
104.0
51.7
1,153.1
U.S. TOTALS
15,804.7
6,525.5
9, 278. S14, 592.1
12,733.1
342.7
285.3
59.9
1,172.1
5,747.3
(a) Data in 100.000 tons of coalj coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S. Department
of the Interior, Computerised Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
TABLE F-12
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
DOE GOALS ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
I
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SI'RFACE
WISED
TOTAL
COXSI'MPTlnx
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
1II-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTH GAS
LI0UEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-FEUTEl
popglatio::
Pennsylvania
1,293.0
918.0
375.0
821.0
501.6
319.4
466.6
Ohio
420.0
239.4
180.6
729.0
577.4
151.6
243.2
Maryland
33.0
22.4
10.6
103.0
53.7
49.3
28.6
West Virginia
369.0
287.8
81.2
176.0
111.6
64.4
123.9
Sortbern Appalachian
TOTAL
2,115.0
1,467.6
647.4
1,829.0
1,244.3
584.7
862.3
West Virginia
910.0
709.8
200.2
201.0
201.0
233.9
Vlrsinla
220.0
158.4
61.6
136.0
136.0
75.2
Kentucky
892.0
597.6
294.4
84.0
84.0
188.6
Tennessee
12.0
5.0
7.0
141.0
139.6
1.4
33.2
TOTAL
2,034.0
1,470.8
563.2
) 562.0
560.6
1.4
530.9
■ Tennessee
7.0
2.0
5.0
48.0
48.0
15.2
1 Georgia
469.0
469.0
104.2
I 'Alabama
214.0
115.6
98.4
509.0
432.7
76.4
162.3
Southern Appalachian
TOTAL
221.0
117.6
103.4
1,026.0
949.7
76.4
281.7
lova
22.0
22.0
. - _
- -
- _
4.8
Illinois
1,257.0
993. C
264.0
483.0
429.9
12.6
40.6: 349.0
Indiana
i
347.0
170. C
177.0
658.0
497.4
160.6! 201.4
Kentucky
430.0
232.2
197.8
343.0
316.6
11.7
14.7
147.8
Eastern Interior
TOTAL
2,034.0
1,395.21
638.8
1,506.0
1,265.9
12.6
11.7
215.9
703.0
Missouri
47.0
17.5
29.1
295.0
295.0
78.0
Arkansaa
14.0
9.C
5.0
378.0
378.0
85.2
Oklahoma
28.0
6.7
21.3
27.0
27.. 0
- -
10.5
Kansas
5.0
- -
5.0
55.0
55.0
15.5
Nebraska
203.0
203.0
60.9
Iowa
14.0
8.^
5.6
144.0
140.8
- -
3.2
36.8
TOTAL
108.0
42. C
66.0
1,102.0
1,098.8
- -
- -
3.2
286.9
Texas
577.0
- -
577.0
1,219.0
1,188.1
- -
17.1
- -
15.8
334.3
Louisiana
11.0
11.0
2.5
Arkansaa
142.0
142.0
32.9
TOTAL
577.0
- -
577.0
1.372.C
1,341.1
'- -
17.1
_______
15.8
369. 7j
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from
Department of the Interior, computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
U.S.
TABLE F-12
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES ..
DOE GOALS ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
i
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
mxr.D
TOTAL
CONSCMPTTOJi
STEAM
CEN'EPATtON'
SYNTHETIC
MI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-RTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-PELATr-:
populatU'::
Montana
864.0
864.0
124.0
124.0
- -
- -
110.6
115.0
Wyoming
1,182.0
- -
1,182.0
39.0
39.0
- -
- ~
_ —
Powder River
2,046.0
2,046.0
163.0
163.0
- ~
— —
"" ~~
225.6
Montana
5.0
- -
5.0
12.0
12.0
- ~
- -
- -
5.5
North Dakota
195.0
195.0
145.0
57.0
88.0
- -
- -
— —
47.4
South Dakota
19.0
- -
19.0
46.0
46.0
- -
- -
— —
12.2
Fort Union
219.0
219.0
203.0
115.0
88.0
- -
— —
~ ""
65.1
Wyoming
971.0
971.0
29.0
29.0
- -
— ~
~ —
93.7
Colorado
149.0
38.7
110.3
1.0
1.0
- -
- -
- ~
- -
19.8
Idaho
148.0
148.0
- -
- -
- -
— ~
33.5
Utah
10.0
10.0
- -1
— —
— —
— — — — —
2.4
f ■ , - ■
Green River- linns
1,120.0
38.7
1,081.3
188.0
188.0
- -
- -
— "~
149.4
Colorado
53.0
18.0
35.0
214. C
196.0
- -
— —
— —
18.0
62.1
New Mexico
7.0
7.0
26. C
26.0
- -
— —
" "
— — j O . 4
Denver-Raton Mesa
60.0
25.0
35.0
240. C
222.0
- -
— —
18.01 70.5
Colorado
43.0
24.9
18.1
2.C
2.0
_ _
- -
/.l
Utah
221.0
196.7
24.3
181. q 169.1
- -
11.9 83.1
\ Uinta -Southwestern
264.0
221.6
42.4
183. C 171.1
r _ j _ J
11.9: 90.2
New Mexico
210.0
4.2
205.8
68.0 68.0
- -
- ~
- ~
■■ -
3/.y
Colorado
11.0
5.0
6.]
1.0 1.0
- -
- ~
- -
— —
1.8
Utah
8.C
8.0
- ■
— —
i .a
San Juan River
TOTAL
221. C
9.2
211.9 77. C| 77.0
— -
■" ~
"*" ~"
41.5
(a) Dita in 100.000 tons of coal; coal-related population In thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
TABLE F-12
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
DOE GOALS ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tans)
(Concluded)
(a)
Hi
I
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIOUEPAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL- RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
66.0
- -
66.0
202.0
126.0
76.0
48.3
California
70.0
51.1
18.9
14.9
Nevada
11.0
11.0
2.8
Oregon /Washing Con
51.0
51.0
11.3
SUBTOTAL
66.0
66.0
334.0
239.1
76.0
- -
- -
18.9
77.3
I si and /Mas sac husetcs
58.0
58.0
12.9
Delaware/New Jersey
24.0
24.0
5.8
Florida
102.0
102.0
23.1
Vermont
- -
- -
- -
20.0
20.0
4.4
Michigan
— —
- -
- -
349.0
292.8
56.2
73.0
Minnesota/Wisconsin
- -
- -
—
435.0
381.5
- -
- -
53.5
95.2
Mississippi
19.0
19.0
4.6
New York
- -
- -
—
204.0
109.3
- -
- -
94.7
38.5
South Carolina
346.0
346.0
77.6
SUBTOTAL
1,555.0
1,35 2.6
- -
_ _
_ __
204.4
335.1
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
66.0
- -
66.0
1,891.0
1,591.7
76.0
223.3
412.4
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
7,089.0
4,493.2
2,595.8
7,397.0
6,460.4
29.7
11.7
897.4
3.034.5
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
3,930.0
294.5
3,635.6
1,054.0
936.1
88.0
29.9
642.3
U.S. TOTALS
LI, 085.0
4,787.7
6,297.4
10,342.0
8,988.2
164.0
29.7
11.7
1,150.6
4,089.2
(,> ^"hi"li«M^ T" °[ Til "-1-"1"0" P°P»l«ion in thou.and. of peool.. tat. derived fro. U.S. D«
ot the Interior, Co»puterli«d I«p«ct Estimation Progra. (CIEP) . '
TABLE F-13
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES .
DOE GOALS ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
I
CO
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
VI NED
TOTAL
cnxswttns
STEAM
CENEPATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
l.OW-BTU CAS
LI0UEFAC-
TI0N
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Pennsylvania
1,184.0
888.0
296.0
884.0
591.4
19.4
- -
273.2
474.6
Ohio
340.0
244.8
95.2
868.0
654.5
- -
52.9
- -
160.6
265.4
M:irvland
87.0
66.1
20.9
109.0
66.5
42.5
43.2
West Virginia
612.0
550.8
61.2
240.0
166.3
73.7
205.0
Northern Appalachian
TOTAL
2,223.0
1,749.7
473.3
2,101.0
1,478.7
- -
72.3
— —
550.0
988.2
West Virginia
824.0
675.7
148.3
133.0
133.0
207 .2
Virginia
310.0
235.6
74.4
147.0
147.0
97.1
K.entuckv ■
914.0
676.4
237.6
108.0
108.0
206.6
Tennessee
7.0
3.9
3.1
458.0
456.6
1.4
101.9
Central Appalachian
TOTAL
2,055.0
1,591.6
463.4
846.0
844.6
1.4 612. »
■1 Tennessee
7.0
3.5
3.5
91.0
89.7
1.3 1 26.1
J .
1 Georgia
- -
- -
589.0
589. C
131.1
Alabama
138.0
89.7
48.3
500.0
398.5
11.0
- -
90.5
145.9
Southern Appalachian
145.0
93.2
51.8
1,180.0
1,077.2
11.0
91.8
303.1
Iowa
2.0
0.5
1.5
29.0
28.5
0.5 ! 6.5
■
Illinois
2,419.0
2,177.1
241.9
512.0
443.9
25.6
- -
42.5 ! 590.1
Indiana
364.0
276.6
87.4
711.0
' 516.9
22.8
- -
171.4 : 222.0
J ■
Kentucky
340.0
217.6
122.4
498.0
422.8
- -
59.8
15.4
170.5
tostern Interior
TOTAL
3,125.0
2,671.8
453.2
1,750.0
1,412.1
48.4
59.8
229.8
989.1
Missouri
55.0
36.3
18.7
283.0
283. f
79.6
Arkansas
19.0
15.0
4.0
941.0
922.2
_. _
18,8
- -
207.9
Oklahoma
15.0
6.8
8.3
55.0
55. (
15.1
Kansas
2.0
- -
2.0
67.0
54.4
12.6
- -
- -
17.9
Nebraska
247.0
77.5
I ova
10.0
7.C
3.0
198.0
194.8
3.2
49.6
Western Interior
TOTAL
101.0
65.]
36.0
1,791.0
1,756.^
31.4
- -
3.2
447.3
Texas
796.0
_ _
796.0
2,258.0
2,226.
_ M
18.1
- -
13.5
588.6
Louisiana
22.0
22.
4.9
Arkansas
220.0
220.
50.7
Texas
TOTAL
796.0
- -
796.0
2.500.C
2,468.
(
18.1
- -
13.5
644.2
(a) Data in 100,000 Cons of coil ; conl-rolntrd population in thousands o£ people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (HEP).
TABLE F-13
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
DOE GOALS ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
(a)
I
w
CO
RECK'N/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
r-ENEPATION'
SYNTHETIC
1II-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-IVTU CAS
LIOl'EFAC-
TION
metallurcical total
coke coal-rclat:-
population
Montana
2,048.0
- ~
2,048.0
198.0
112.5
85.5
- -
- -
230.8
Wyoming
1,913.0
- -
1,913.0
78.0
15.8
62.2
- -
184.6
PovdV.r River
TOTAL
3,961.0
- -
3,961.0
276.0
128.3
62.2
85.5
415.4
Montana
5.0
5.0
19.0
2.1
- -
16.9
- -
- -
7.0
North Dakota
201.0
- -
201.0
285.0
203.8
81.2
81.8
South Dakota
19.0
19.0
90.0
90.0
22.4
tort Union
TOTAL
225.0
- -
225.0
394.0
295.9
81.2
16.9
111.2
Wyoming
1,291.0
1,291.0
92.0
29.7
62.3
- -
132.5
Colorado
204.0
81.6
122.4
1.0
1.0
30.3
Idaho
99.0
99.0
23.3
Utah
- -
-• -
- -
9.0
9.0
2.3
Green River- H.u.\s
Fork TOTAL
1,495.0
81.6
1,413.4
201.0
138.7
62.3
- -
- -
188.4
Colorado
{ _
68.0
33.3
34.7
305.0
279.4
- -
- -
- -
25.6
88.6
| New Mexico
7.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
- -
4.9
Denver-Raton Mesa
TOTAL
75.0
40.3
34.7
313.0
287.4
- -
- -
- -
25.6 l 93.5
j Colorado
77.0
62.4
14.6
1.0
1.0
- -
- -
- -
- - j 13.4
1 Utah
206.0
181.3
24.7
217.0
191.4
- -
- -
25.8 : 88.7
i Uinta -Southwestern
' Utah TOTAL
283.0
243.7
39.3
218.0
192.4
- -J _ _ ■ _ _
25.8 ; 102.1
New Mexico
560.0
5.6
554.4
126.0
69.4
56.6
- -
- -
- -
82.3
Colorado
17.0
10.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
- - | 2.9
Utah
9.0
9.0
- - j 2.0
San Juan River
TOTAL
577.0
15.6
561.4
136.0
79.4
56.6
- - 1 87.2
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
i ~
TABLE F-13
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES ( .
DOE GOALS ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
*1
I
w
REGION/STATES
Oregon/ Washing ton
Other WeBt
Connect icut/Kliode
Island /Massachusetts
Delavare/New Jersey
Maine/New Hampshire/
Vermont
Michigan
Minnesota /Wisconsin
Mississippi
North Carolina/
South Carolina
Other East
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
U.S. TOTALS
83.0
83.0
SURFACE
MINED
83.0
8,445.0
6,616.0
L5, 144.0
6,171.4
381.2
6,552.6
83.0
83.0
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
282.0
140.0
12.0
STEAM
GENERATION
208.4
112.0
274.0
708.0
92.0
38.0
350.0
23.0
538.0
12.0
274.0
606.4
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
92.0
38.0
350.0
23.0
470.2
308.0
83.0
2,273.7
6,234.8
8,591.5
25.0
457.0
289.2
25.0
343.2
214.0
2,045.0
2,753.0
10,168.0
1,538.0
14,459.0
214.0
1,844.6
2,451.0
9,037.4
1,122.1
12,610.5
73.9
73.9
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU GAS
LIOUF.FAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
73.9
262.3
336.2
181.2
102.4
283.6
59.8
59.8
28.0
28.0
67.8
18.8
113.8
200.4
228.4
889.7
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
66.8
29.9
3.1
60.0
159.8
20.4
9.1
77.6
5.1
113.7
51.4
71.5
6.1
92.6
49.7
445.8
615.6
3,984.7
997.8
1,169.5
5,598.1
(„ .... in 100.000 ton. of coal, coel-,.l.ted population in thousand, of people. ».c. n«i„e« ft. .... Depert-ent
of the Interior, Computerised Impact Eettoation Progras. (CIEP) .
TABLE F-14
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
STATE DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(a)
i
o
RfGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
Sl'RFACE
HIKED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-RTU CAS
LI0UEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATEI)
POPL'LATIO':
Pennsylvania
1,288.6
914.9
373.7
821.0
501.6
319.4
465.9
Ohio
420.0
239.4
180.8
729.0
577.4
- -
- -
151.6
243.3
Maryland
33.0
22.4
10.6
13.0
6.8
- -
6.2
11.9
West Virginia
369.2
288.0
81.2
176.0
111.6
64.4
124.0
Northern Appalachian
TOTAL
2,110.8
1,464.7
646.3
1,739.0
1,197.4
541.6
845.1
West Virginia
909.0
709.0
200.0
201.0
201.0
- -
- -
- -
- -
233.8
Virginia
222.8
160.4
62.3
136.0
136.0
75.7
Kentucky
965.5
646.9
318.6
83.1
83.1
201.7
Tennessee
12. A
5.2
7.2
140.2
138.8
1.4
33.1
TOTAL
2,109.7
1,521.5
588.1
560.3
558.9
1.4
544.3
Tennessee
15.7
4.6
11.1
73.0
73.0
- -
22.4
1 Georgia
467.5
467.5
103.9
1 Alabama
214.0
115.6
98.4
501.9
426.6
- -
- -
- -
75.3
160.8
Southern Appalachian
TOTAL
229.7
120.2
109.5
1,042.4
967.1
- -
- -
- -
75.3
287.1.
Iowa
71.6
71.6
15.6
Illinois
1,315.0
1,038.9
276.2
465.3
414.1
- -
12.1
- -
39.1 j 356.2
Indiana
j
349.5
171.3
178.2
654.9
495.1
- -
- -
] 159.8 i 201.3
Kentucky
461.4
249.2
212.2
342.1
315.8
- -
11.6
14.7
152.5
Ta3tGrn Interior
TOTAL
2,125.9
1,459.4
666.6
1,533.9
1,296.6
- -
12.1
11.6
213.6
725.6
Missouri
87.6
33.3
54.3
291.9
291.9
- -
- -
- -
_ _
82.6
Arkansas
14.0
9.0
5.0
360.0
360.0
- -
- -
81.3
Ck I ahoma
28.0
6.7
21.3
24.4
24.4
- -
- -
- -
- -
10.0
Kansas
8.7
8.7
19.0
19.0
- -
- -
- -
~ -
8.3
Nebraska
198.0
198.0
60.0
luwa
19.9
11.9
8.0
■ 118.7
116.1
- -
- -
- -
2.6
32.2
Western Interior
TOTAL
158.2
60.9
97.3
1,012.0
1,009.4
- -
- -
- -
2.6
274.3
Texas
785.7
785.7
1,253.9
1,220.0
_ _
17.6
„ _
16.3
360.1
Louisiana
10.6
10.6
- _
_ _
_ _
— _
2.4
Arkansas
142.0
142.0
32.9
Texas
TOTAL
785.7
785.7
1,406.5
1,372.6
17.6
16.3
395.4
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
TABLE F-14
I
-o
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES , .
STATE DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
REC.ir>S/STATCS
Wyoming
Fovder River
North Dakota
South Dakota
Fort Union
864.0
973.0
1,837.0
5.0
DEEP MTNED
350.0
19.0
374.0
Wyoming
Green River- Hatza
Fork TOTAL
Denver-Raton Mesa
TOTAL
| Colorado
I Utah
* Uinta -Southwestern
426.0
149.0
575.0
53.0
17.0
70.0
43.0
251.0
Utah
294.0
Colorado
San Juan River
TOTAL
309.0
11.0
320.0
surface
MINED
864.0
973.0
1,837.0
38.7
38.7
18.0
5.0
350.0
19.0
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
CEXEVATIIX
374.0
426.0
110.3
536.3
35.0
17.0
35.0
24.9
223.4
35.0
18.1
248.3
6.
5.0
11.2
27.6
45.7
302.8
6.1
308.9
125.0
38.0
163.0
6.6
145.0
82.0
233.6
28.7
1.0
125.0
38.0
163.0
6.6
57.0
82.0
145.6
28.7
142.3
9.8
181.8
1.0
142.3
SYNTHETIC
IU-BTU CAS
9.8
181.8
185.5
13.8
199.3
2.0
169.9
13.8
183.7
2.0
181.0
183.0
79.6
1.0
7.9
88.5
169.1
171.1
79.6
1.0
7.9
88.5
SYNTHETIC
LOU-BTll CAS
88.0
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELA"
POF1 1-ATH".
15.6
15.6 i
11.9
11.9
110.0
96.7
207.6
4.3
58.9
20.0
83.2
46.4
19.8
32.3
2.4
100.9
56.1
7.9"
64.0
7.1
96.0
50.3
1.8
1.7
53.8
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived fro, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP).
TABLE F-14
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
^STATE DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE, 1985 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
(a)
i
ro
REG ION/ STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LI0UEFAC-
TI0N
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATED
POPULATION
Arizona
18.0
- -
18.0
199.9
124.7
75.2
- -
- _
_ —
43.4
California
69.6
50.8
18.8
14.8
Nevada
- -
- -
10.8
10.8
2.7
Oregon/Washington
51.6
51.6
11.4
SUBTOTAL
18.0
— —
18.0
331.9
237.9
75.2
- -
- _
18.8
72.3
Island/Massachusetts
58.0
58.0
12.9
Delaware/New Jersey
24.0
24.0
5.8
Florida
101.7
101.7
23.0
Vermont
20.0
20.0
4.4
Michigan
349.0
292.8
56.2
73.0
Minnesota/Wisconsin
448.9
393.7
55.2
98.2
Mississippi
18.5
18.5
4.5
New York
204.0
109.3
94.7
38.5
South Carolina
346.0
346.0
77.6
SUBTOTAL
- -
1,570.1
1,364.0
- -
- -
_ _
206.1
337.9
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
18.0
18.0
1,902.0
1,601.9
75.2
- -
224.9
410.2
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
7,520.0
4,626.7
2,893.5
7,294.1
6,402.0
29.7
11.6
850.8
3,076.8
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
3,470.0
333.2
3,136.9
1,049.2
933.7
88.0
27.5
605.5
U.S. TOTALS
11,008.0
4,959.9
6.048.4
10,245.3
8,942.1
163.2
29.7
11.6
1,103.2
4,092.5
(■) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived fro* U.S. Department
of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
TABLE F-15
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES (fl)
STATE DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP HINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
ciinsitpi ins
STEAM
GENERATE
SYNTHETIC
llt-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LIOUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
COAL-RELATET
POPULATION
"7, 7 \ ~7 —
Pennsylvania
1,186.0
889.5
296.5
883.9
591.3
— —
19.4
2/3.1
Ohio
341.0
245.5
95.5
868.0
654.5
- -
52.9
160.6
/OH . 9
AT. O
Maryland
87.0
66.1
20.9
109.0
66.5
West Virginia
639.3
575.4
63.9
240.0
166.3
73.7
211 . /
Northern Appalachian
2,253.3
1,776.5
476.8
2,100.9
1,478.6
— —
72.3
549.9
West Virginia
822.0
674.0
148.0
133.0
133.0
Virginia
311.4
236.7
74.7
147.0
147.0
9/ . 1
Kentucky
1,111.7
822.7
289.0
108.0
108.0
242.8
I
Tennessee
9.0
5.0
4.0
436.4
435.1
- -
— —
"" "*
1.3
9/ .5
-p- 4
Central Appalachian
2,254.1
1,738.4
515.7
824.4
823.1
1.3
643.8
I Tennessee
4.5
2.3
2.2
90.8
89.5
1.3
25.3
i Georgia
583.3
583.3
- -
ftft ft
129 . o
14"} 6
Alabama
138. C
89.7
48.3
490.4
390.8
—
10.8
1
Southern Appalachian
142.5
92.0
50.5
1,164.5
1,063.6
10.8
- -
90.1
298.7
lowa
27.4
27.0
0.4
6.0
Illinois
2,659.8
2,393.8
266.0
497.1
431.0
— —
24.9
41.3
1
632 .9
...
Indiana
352.7
268.1
84.6
704.6
512.2
22.5
1 .
1 169.8
1 =r—\ r^—r-
218.2
Kentucky
798. S
511.3
287.6
496.1
421.2
- -j 59.5
lj.4
252 .4
Eastern Interior
3,811.^
3,173.2
638.2
1,725.2
1,391.4
47.4
\ 59.5
226.9
1,109.5
InA 5"
Missouri
287.1
189.5
97.6
271.5
271. f
' 1 tt 7 \
Arkansas
19. (
15.0
4.0
846.2
829.1
16.9
Oklahoma
15. (
6.8
8.2
48.4
13.7
Kansas
7.
- -
7.3
63.6
51.7
12. C
18.0
Nebraska
_
- -
- -
234.3
234.:
73.8
Iova
21.
15.]
6.5
187.7
184.^
-
— *~
3.0
'48.8
Western Interior
349.
< 226.^
i 123.6
1,651.7
1,619.
28.
t - -
3.0
0 — 7~
448.5
ZTS — T
Texas
1,109.
d - -
- 1,109.6
2,264.5
2,232.
1
18.
]
3.6
OlD. z
Louisiana
20.4
20.
H.J
Arkansas
194. £
194.
II
-
- -
— **
45.1
Texas
TOTAL
1,109.
li
- l,109.e
2,479./
2,448.
o T-
18.
*~
13.6
665.8
(a) Data In 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
TABLE F-15
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
STATE DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Continued)
(a)
I
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MIXED
TOTAL
consumption
STEAM
RCXEMTTO!!
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU CAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-RTU OAS
LI0UEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
S TOTAL
COAL-PHUT"':
POPULATION
Montana
1,470.0
1,470.0
192.6
109.4
- -
83.2
- -
_ __
177.1
Wyoming
1,221.0
1,221.0
73.2
14.8
58.3
- -
_ _
_ _
123.6
TOTAL
2,691.0
- -
2,691.0
265.8
124.2
58.3
83.2
- -
300.7
Montana
5.0
- ~
5.0
17.3
2.0
15.3
- -
- -
6.6
North Dakota
520.0
- ~
520.0
274.6
196.3
78.3
_ _
- -
102.8
South Dakota
19.0
- -
19.0
160.1
160.1
37.6
TOTAL
544.0
544.0
.452.0
358.4
78.3
15.3
_ _
_ _
147.0
Wyoming
424.0
- -
424.0
83.9
27.1
56.8
- -
- -
55.8
Colorado
204.0
81.6
122.4
30.1
Idaho
90.3
90.3
21.3
Utah
8.3
8.3
-- 2.1
Frtrk * TOTAL
628.0
81.6
546.4
182.5
125.7
56.8
- -
109.3
Colorado
68.0
33.3
34.7
. 273.1
250.2
- -1 - -
22.9
89.4
New Mexico
35.0
35.0
7.9
7.9
- -
- -
11.1
TOTAL
103.0
68.3
34.7
281.0
258.1
- -1
22.9 '•
100.5
Colorado
77.0
62.4
14.7
Utah 291.0
1
256.1
34.9
208.8
184.2
- -! - - |
24.9 ' 102.4
! Utah TOTAL ' JOO . U
318.5
49.6
208.8
184.2
- - ! 24.9 ; 123.1
New Mexico
613.0
6.1
606.9
123.7
68.2
55.5
87.0
Colorado
17.0
10.0
7.0
13.8
Utah
8.3
8.3
1.8
TOTAL
630.0
1
16.1
613.9
132.0
76.3
55.5
—
102.6
(a) Data in 100,000 tons of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S.
Department of the Interior, Computerized Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
TABLE F-15
REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION AND USE SUMMARIES
STATE DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE, 1990 MEDIUM PRODUCTION LEVEL
(100,000 tons)
(Concluded)
(a)
Tl
-p-
REGION/STATES
PRODUCTION
DEEP MINED
SURFACE
MINED
TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
STEAM
GENERATION
SYNTHETIC
HI-BTU GAS
SYNTHETIC
LOW-BTU CAS
LIQUEFAC-
TION
METALLURGICAL
COKE
TOTAL
C0AL-REI.ATED
POPULATION
Arizona
140.8
- -
140.8
276.8
204.5
72.5
73.1
California
138.2
110.6
- -
- -
- -
27.6
29.5
Nevada
11.0
11.0
2.9
Oregon /Washington
- -
245.0
245.0
53.8
Othet West
140.8
140.8
671.0
571.1
72.5
- ~
- -
27.6
159.3
Connect ten t/Rliod£
- -
92.0
92.0
20.4
Delaware/New Jersey
38.0
38.0
9.1
Florida
348.6
348.6
77.2
Maine/New Hampshire/
23.0
23.0
5.1
Michigan
518.0
452.7
65.3
109.5
Minnesota/Wisconsin
334.3
313.9
20.4
76.9
Mississippi
24.5
24.5
6.0
New York
- -
457.0
343.2
113.8
92.6
North Carolina/
214.0
214.0
49.6
Other East
2,049.4
1,849.9
199.5
446.4
OTHER U.S. - TOTALS
140.8
140.8
2,720.4
2.421.C
72.5
227.1
605.7
EASTERN U.S. TOTALS
9,920.8
7,006.5
2,914.4
9,946.4
8,824.6
— —
177.5
59.5
884.8
4,141.6
WESTERN U.S. TOTALS
4,964.0
484.5
4,479.6
1,522.1
1,126.5
248.9
98.5
47.8
■ 883.2
U.S. TOTALS
15,025.6
7,491.0
7,534.8
14,188.9
12, 372. 5
321.4
J 276.0
59.5
1,159.7
5,630.5
(a) Data in 100,000 tons' of coal; coal-related population in thousands of people. Data derived from U.S. Department
of the Interior, Computerised Impact Estimation Program (CIEP) .
APPENDIX G
CHANGE IN COAL-RELATED
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
TABLE G-l
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE NO NEW 1,1 '
1985 LOW LEVEL
(a)
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
123552
27181
1461
124
618
41143
'15
11
321
259 ■
247
Central Appalachian
14892
3276
176
15
74
4959
2
1
39
31
30
Southern Appalachian
37653
8284
445
38
188
12539
5
3
98
79
75
Eastern Interior
176220
38768
2084
176
881
58681
21
15
458
370
352
Western Interior
65821
14481
779
66
329
21918
8
6
171
138
132
(D
Texas
121767
26789
1440
122
609
40549
15
10
317
256
244
1
i— '
Powder River
79698
17533
943
8"
398
26539
10
7
207
167
159
Green River-Hams Fork
21145
4652
250
21
106
7041
3
2
55
44
42
Fort Union
14662
3226
173
15
73
4883
2
1
38
21
29
San Juan River
5896
1297
70
6
29
1963
1
1
15
12
12
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
21160
4655
250
21
106
7046
3
2
55
44
42
Denver-Raton Mesa
16019
3524
189
16
80
5334
2
1
42
34
32
(a)
Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985.
TABLE G-2
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
1990 LOW LEVEL
(a)
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
-12628
-2778
-149
-13
-63
-4205
-2
-1
-33
-27
-25
Central Appalachian
18284
4022
216
18
91
6088
2
2
48
38
37
Southern Appalachian
-2167
-477
-26
-2
-11
-722
0
0
-6
-5
-4
Eastern Interior
158809
34938
1878
159
794
52883
19
13
413
333
318
Western Interior
16172
3558
191
16
8j.
5385
2
1
42
34
32
o
1
Texas
57237
12592
697
57
286
19060
7
5
149
12U
114
I-O
Powder River
31707
6975
375
32
159
105S8
4
3
82
67
63
Green River-Hams Fork
25138
5530
297
25
126
8371
3
2
65
53
50
Fort Union
21787
4793
258
22
109
7255
3
2
57
46
44
San Juan River
18615
4095
220
19
93
6199
:
2
48
39
37
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
22277
4901
263
22
111
7418
3
2
58
47
.45
Denver-Raton Mesa
23925
5263
283
24
120
7967
3
2
62
50
48
(a)
RepreseuLa change in coal related socioeconomic characteristic between 1985 and 1990.
o
I
U3
TABLE G-3
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATI
1985 MEDIUM LEVEL
(a)
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
137276
30201
1624
137
686
45713
'16
12
257
288 '
275
Central Appalachian
30498
6710
361
30
162
10156
4
3
79
64
61
Southern Appalachian
87980
19356
1041
88
440
29297
11
7
229
185
176
Eastern Interior
184987
40697
2188
185
925
61601
22
16
481
388
370
Western Interior
99756
21946
1180
100
499
33219
12
8
269
209
200
Texas
182345
40116
2157
182
912
60721
22
15
474
383
365
Powder River
112281
24702
1328
112
561
37390
13
10
292
236
225
Green River-Hams Fork
45364
9980
537
45
227
1406
5
4
118
95
91
Fort Union
22435
4936
265
22
112
7471
3
2
58
47
45
San Juan River
12755
2806
151
13
64
4247
2
1
33
27
26
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
42233
9291
500
42
211
14064
5
4
110
89
.84
Denver-Raton Mesa
25617
5636
303
. . _
26
128
8531
3
2
67
54
51
(a)
Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985.
TABLE „-4
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
1990 MEDIUM LEVEL
Cal
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
HOUSING
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
LAW
FIRE
POPULATION
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
BEDS
UNITS
MGD
MGD
TPD
ENFORCEMENT
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
108385
23845
1282
108
542
36092
■13
9
282
228
217
Central Appalachian
76862
16910
909
77
384
25595
9
7
200
161
154
Southern Appalachian
26739
4883
316
27
134
8904
3
2
70
56
53
Eastern Interior
263608
57994
3118
264
iii8
87782
32
22
685
554
527
Western Interior
150384
33084
17 '9
150
752
50078
18
13
391
316
301
Texas
259427
57074
3068
259
' 12'97
86389
31
22
675
545
519
Powder River
91106
20043
1078
91
456
30338
11
8
237
191
182
o
Green River-Haras Fork
24016
5283
284
24
120
7997
3
2
62
50
48
-p-
Fort Union
60200
13244
712
60
301 .
20047
7
5
157
126
120
San Juan River
44293
9745
524
44
221
14750
5
4
115
93
89
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
37062
8154
438
37
185
12342
4
3
96
78
74
Denver-Raton Mesa
38709
8516
458
39
194
12890
5
3
101
81
77
Ca)
Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1985 and 1990.
TABLE G-5
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE
1985 HIGH LEVEL
(a)
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
HATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
149236
32832
1765
149
746
49696
■18
13
388
313
298 ■
Central Appalachian
-6808
-1498
-81
-7
-34
-2267
-1
-1
-18
-14
-14
Southern Appalachian
116688
25671
1380
117
583
38857
14
10
303
245
233
Eastern Interior
157314
34609
1861
157
787
52306
19
13
409
330
315
Western Interior
106146
23352
1255
106
531
35347
13
9
276
223
212
Texas
176745
38884
2091
177
'884
58856
21
15
460
271
353
Powder River
157360
34619
1861
157
787
52401
19
13
409
330
315
Green River-Hams Fork
58640
12901
694
59
293
19527
7
5
152
123
117
1
Fort Union
51760
11387
612
52
259
17236
6
4
135
109
104
San Juan River
30268
6659
358
30
151
10079
4
3
79
64
61
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
65979
14515
780
66
330
21971
8
6
172
139
132
Denver-Raton Mesa
36103
7943
427
36
181
12022
4
3
94
76
72
to
Represents change tn coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985
I
TABLE G-6
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVE (a)
1990 HIGH LEVEL
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
91667
20167
1084
92
458
30525
11
8
238
193 "
183
Central Appalachian
96951
21329
1147
97
485
32285
12
8
252
204
194
Southern Appalachian
33002
7260
390
33
165
10990
4
3
86
69
66
Eastern Interior
225073
49516
2662
225
ll25
74949
27
19
585
473
450
Western Interior
140286
30863
1659
140
701
46715
17
12
365
295
281
Texas
242301
53306
2866
242
1212
80686
29
21
630
509
485
Powder River
59782
13152
707
60
299
19907
7
5
155
126
120
Green River-Hams Fork
20941
4607
248
21
105
6973
3
2
54
44
42
Fort Union
52117
11466
616
52
261
17355
6
4
136
109
104
San Juan River
38015
8363
450
38
190
12659
5
3
99
80
76
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
38296
8426
453
28
191
12753
5
3
100
80
77
Denver-Raton Mesa
28886
6355
342
29
144
9619
3
2
75
61
58
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 19.85 and 1990.
TABLE G-7
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
1985 LOW LEVEL
(a)
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
123542
27179
1461
124
618
41140
15
11
321
259
247
Central Appalachian
14800
3256
175
15
74
4928
2
1
38
31
30
Southern Appalachia. .
37602
8273
445
38
188
12522
5
3
98
79
75
Eastern Interior
176103
38743
2083
176
881
58642
21
15
458
370
352
Western Interior
65576
1 i27
776
66
328
21837
8
6
170
138
131
Texas
121859
26809
1441
122
609
40579
15
10
317
256
244
Powder R,iver
7966/
17527
942
80
398
26529
10
7
207
167
159
Green River-Hans Fork
21124
4647
250
21
106
7034
8
2
55
44
42
i
Fort Union
17243
3793
204
17
86
5742
2
1
45
36
34
San Juan River
5890
1296
70
6
29
1962
1
1
15
12
12
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
21145
4652
250
21
106
7041
3
2
55
44
42
Denyer-Raton Mesa
15 973
3514
189
16
30
5319
2
1
42
34
32
(a) Represents change
in coal rela
ted socioeco
lomic charac
:eristics between 1976 and 1985.
I
co
TABLE G-8
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE^
1990 LOW LEVEL
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
HOUSING
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
LAW
FIRE
POPULATION
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
BEDS
UNITS
MGD
MGD
TPD
ENFORCEMENT
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
-4258
-937
-50
-4
-21
-1418
-1
0
-11
-9
-9
Central Appalachian
18941
4167
224
19
95
6307
2
2
49
40
38
Southern Appalachian
-1719
-378
-30
-2
-9
-572
0
0
-4
-4
-3
Eastern Interior
158503
34871
1875
159 .
793
52781
10
13
412
333
317
Western Interior
17350
3817
205
17
87
5778
2
1
45
36
35
Texas
56518
12434
668
57
283
18821
7
5
147
119
113
Powder River
32365
7120
282
32
162
10777
4
3
84
38
65
Green River-Hams Fork
28540
6279
338
29
143
9504
3
2
74
50
57
Fort Union
19146
3992
215
18
91
.6043
2
2
47
38
36
San Juan River
19722
4339
233
20
9.9
6567
2
2
51
41
39
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
24373
5362
288
24
122
8116
3
2
63
51
49
Denver-Raton Mesa
24954
5490
295
25
125
8310
3
2
65
52
50
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1985 and 1990.
I
TABLE G-9
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
1985 MEDIUM LEVEL
(a)
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
137042
30149
1621
137
685
45635
16
12
356
288
274
Central Appalachian
28458
6261
337
28
142
9477
3
2
74
60
57
Southern Appalachian
83762
18428
991
84
419
27893
10
7
218
176
168
Eastern Interior
188929
41564
2235
189
!»3
62913
23
16
491
397
378
Western Interior
93896
20647
111
94
469
31267
11
8
244
197
188
Texas
184304
40547
2180
184
922
61373
22
16
479
387
369
Powder River
112924
24843
1336
113
565
37504
14
10
294
237
226
Green River-Hams Fork
48623
10697
575
49
243
16192
6
4
126
102
97
Fort Union
25179
5539
298
25
126
8384
3
2
65
53
50
San Juan River
12969
2853
153
13
65
4319
2
1
34
27
26
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
43258
9517
512
43
216
14405
5
4
112
91
87
Denver-Raton Mesa
26780
5892
317
27
134
8918
3
2
70
56 .
54
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985.
I
TABLE G-10
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE ^
1990 MEDIUM LEVEL
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
110426
24294
1306
110
552
36772
'13
9
287
232
221
Central Appalachian
71482
15726
845
71
257
23803
9
6
186
150
143
Southern Appalachian
30391
6686
359
30
152
1012O
4
3
79
64
61
Eastern Interior
241418
53112
2855
241
1207
80392
29
21
628
507
482
Western Interior
149848
32967
1772
150
749
49899
18
13
390
315
300
Texas
233024
51265
2756
233
1165
77597
23
20
606
489
466
Powder River
162450
35739
1921
162
812
54096
19
14
422
341
326
Green River-Hams Fork
36312
7989
429
36
182
12092
4
3
94
75
73
Fort Union
5059-7
11131
598
51
263
16849
6
4
132
106
101
San Juan Riyer
37271
8200
441
37
186
12411
4
3
97
78
75
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
23045
6170
332
28
140
9339
3
2
73
59
56
Denyer-Raton Mesa
36536
8038
432
37
183
12167
4
3
95
77
73
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1985 and 1990.
o
I
TABLE G-ll
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
1985 HIGH LEVEL
(a)
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
148262
32618
1754
148
741
29371
18
13
385
311
297
Central Appalachian
-11449
-2519
-135
-11
-57
-3813
-1
-1
-30
-24
-23
Southern Appalachian
113730
25021
1345
114
569
37872
14
10
296
239
227
Eastern Interior
143779
31631
1701
144
719
47878
17
12
374
302
288
Western Interior
116448
25619
1377
116
582
28777
14
10
303
245
233
Texas
162761
35807
1925
163
8l4
54199
20
14
423
342
326
Powder River
172818
38020
2044
173
864
57548
21
15
449
363
346
Green Riyer-Hams Fork
76842
16904
909
77
384
25588
9
7
200
161
154
Fort Union
52448
11539
620
52
262
17465
6
4
136
110
105
San Juan River
30610
6734
362
31
153
10193
4
3
80
64
61
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
67106
14763
794
67
336
22346
8
6
174
141
134
Denyer-Raton Mesa
36898
8118
436
37
184
12287
7
3
96
77
74
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985.
o
I
TABLE G-12
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE (<^
1990 HIGH LEVEL
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
HOUSING
VATEJL
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
LAW
FIRS
POTOLATIOB
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
BEDS
UNITS
MCD
MGD
TPD
ENFORCEMENT
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
372305
81907
4404
372
1862
123977
45
32
968
782
745
Central Appalachian
176041
38729
2082
176
880
58622
21
15
458
370
352
Southern Appalachian
104693
23032
1238
105
523
34863
13
9
272
220
209
Eaatarn Interior
352236
77492
4166
352
1761
117295
42
30
916
740
704
Western Interior
171049
37631
2023
171
855
56959
21
15
445
350
342
Texas
314813
69259
3724
315
1574
104833
38
27
819
661
630
Powder River
243030
53467
2875
243
1215
80929
29
21
632
510
486
Green River-Hans Fork
43330
9533
512
43
217
14429
5
4
113
91
87
Fort Union
44166
9717
522
44
221
14707
5
4
115
93
88
San Juan River
58237
12812
589
58
291
19393
7
5
151
122
116
Uinta-Southveatem Utah
43722
9619
517
44
219
.14560
5
4
114
92
87
Denver-Raton Meaa
59864
13170
708
60
299
19936
7
5
156
126
120
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1985 and 1990.
o
i
TABLE G-13
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PREFERENCE RIGHT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
1985 MEDIUM LEVEL
(a)
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
127306
28007
1506
127
637
42393
15
U
331
267
255
Central Appalachian
30238
6642
358
30
151
10069
4
3
79
63
60
Southern Appalachian
84395
18567
998
84
422
281Q3
10
7
219
1/7
169
Eastern Interior
184283
40542
2180
184
921
61366
22
16
479
387
369
Western Interior
92126
20268
1090
92
461
30678
11
8
240
193
184
Texas
180815
39779
2139
181
904
60211
22
15
470
380
362
Powder River
112363
24720
1329
112
562
37417
13
10
292
236
226
Green River-Hams Fork
46634
10260
552
47
233
15529
6
4
121
98
93
Fort Union
25189
5542
298
25
126
8388
3
2
65
53
50
San Juan Riyer
12699
2794
150
13
63
4229
2
1
33
27
25
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
42728
9400
505
43
214
14228
5
4
111
90
85
Denyer-Raton Mesa
26714
|
5877
316
27
134
8895
3
2
69
56
53
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985.
I
-p-
TABLE G-14
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TOR THE PREFERENCE RIGHT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
1990 MEDIUM LEVEL
(<0
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
HOUSING
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
LAW
FIRE
POPULATION
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
BEDS
UNITS
MGD
MGD
TPD
ENFORCEMENT
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
121400
26708
1436
121
607
40426
15
10
316
255 "
243
Central Appalachian
79075
17397
935
70
395
26332
9
7
206
166
158
Southern Appalachian
33425
7354
395
33
167
11131
4
3
87
70
67
Eastern Interior
236456
52020
2797
236 .
1182
78740
28
20
615
407
473
Western Interior
147477
32445
1744.
147
737
49110
18
13
383
310
295
Texas
252042
55449
2981
252
1260
83930
30
21
655
529
504
Powder River
126679
27869
1498
127
633
42184
15
11
329
266
253
Green River -Hams Fork
22389
4926
275
22
112
7456
3
2
58
47
45
Fort Union
54947
12088
650
55
275 .
18297
7
5
143
115
110
San Juan River
41601
9152
492
42
208
13853
5
4
108
87
83
Uinta-South^estern Utah
29121
6407
344
29
146
9697
3
2
76
61
58
Denver-Raton Mesa
36200
7964
428
36
181
12055
4
3
94
76
72
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characterics between 1985 and 1990.
1
TABLE xi-15
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE EMERGENCY PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
1985 MEDIUM LEVEL
(a)
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
HOUSING
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
LAW
FIRE
POPULATION
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
BEDS
UNITS
MGD
MGD
TPD
ENFORCEMENT
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
127229
27990
1505
127
636
42367
15
11
331
267
254
Central Appalachian
29192
6422
345
29
146
9721
4
2
76
61
58
Southern Appalachian
86006
18921
1017
86
430
28640
10
7
224
181
172
Eastern Interior
185721
40859
2197
186
929
61845
22
16
483
390
371
Western Interior
93248
20515
1103
93
466
31052
11
8
242
196
186
Texas
181968
40033
2152
182
' '910
60595
22
15
473
382
364
Powder River
112572
24766
1331
113
563
37487
14
10
293
236
225
Green River-Haras Fork
46084
10138
545
46
230
15346
6
4
120
97
92
Fort Union
25214
5547
298
25
126
8396
3
2
66
53
50
San Juan River
12699
2794
150
13
63
4229
2
1
33
27
25
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
42585
9369
504
43
213
14181
5
4
111
89
85
Denver-Raton Mesa
26739
5883
316
27
134
8904
3
2
70
56
53
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985.
o
I
TABLE G-16
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE EMERGENCY PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE'
1990 MEDIUM LEVEL
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
HOUSING
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
LAW
FIRE
POPULATION
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
BEDS
UNITS
MGD
MGD
TPD
ENFORCEMENT
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
121778
26791
1440
122
609
40552
V15
10
317
256
244
Central Appalachian
76551
16841
905
77
383
25491
9
7
199
161
153
Southern Appalachian
29830
6563
353
30
140
9933
4
3
78
63
60
Eastern Interior
255933
56305
3027
256
1280
85226
31
22
665
537
512
Western Interior
151398
33308
1791
151
757
50416
18
13
304
318
303
Texas
351068
55235
2970
251
1255
84606
30
21
653
527
502
Powder River
98110
21560
1159
98
490
32634
12
8
255
206
195
Green River-Haras Fork
24286
5343
287
26
121
8087
3
2
63
51
49
Fort Union
57436
12636
679
56
387
19126
7
5
149
212
115
San Juan River
43590
9590
516
44
218
14515
5
4
113
92
87
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
34425
7573
407
34
172
11464
4
3
90
72
69
Denver-Raton Mesa
36006
7921
426
36
180
11990
4
3
94
76
72
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1985 and 1990.
o
I
TABLE G-17
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CilARACTERISTICS FOR MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS ALTERNATIVE
1985 MEDIUM LEVEL
(a)
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
HOUSING
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
LAW
FIRE
POPULATION
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
BEDS
UNITS
MGD
MGD
TPD
ENFORCEMENT
.PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
1226679
27869
1498
127
633
42184
15
11
329
266
253
Central Appalachian
12413
2731
147
12
62
4134
1
1
32
26
25
Southern Appalachian
93692
20612
1108
94
468
31199
11
8
244
197
187
Eastern Interior
172910
38049
2045
173
865
57579
'.1
15
450
363
346
Western Interior
93248
20515
1103
93
466
31052
11
8
242
196
186
Texas
173267
38119
2049
173
866
57698
21
15
450
364
347
Powder River
125409
27590
1483
125
627
41761
15
11
326
263
251
Green River-Hams Fork
67692
14892
801
68
338
22541
8
6
176
142
135
Fort Union
29417
6472
248
29
147
9796
4
3
76
62
59
San Juan River
16116
3546
191
16
81
5367
2
1
42
34
32
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
50352
11077
596
50
252
16767
6
4
131
106
101
Denver-Raton Mesa
28652
6303
339
29
143
9541
3
2
74
60
57
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985.
o
I
TABLE G-18
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE MEET INDUSTRY NEEDS ALTERNATIVE
1990 MEDIUM LEVEL
(a)
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
HOUSING
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
LAW
FIRE
POPULATION
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
BEDS
UNITS
MGD
MGD
TPD
ENFORCEMENT
.PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
120564
27524
1426
121
503
40148
14
10
313
253
241 '
Central Appalachian
85440
18797
1011
85
427
28452
10
7
222
179
171
Southern Appalachian
31594
6951
374
32
158
10521
4
3
82
66
63
Eastern Interior
206014
45323
2437
206
1030
68603
25
18
536
433
412
Western Interior
152010
33442
1978
152
750
50619
18
13
395
319
304
Texas
222467
48943
2631
222
1112
74081
27
19
478
467
445
Powder River
184395
40567
2181
184
922
61404
22
16
479
387
369
Green River-Hams Fork
34711
7636
411
35
174
11559
4
3
90
73
69
Fort Union
56395
12407
667
56
382
18780
7
5
147
118
113
San Juan River
41529
9136
491
42
208
13829
5
4
108
87
83
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
34639
7621
410
35
173
11535
4
3
90
72
69
Denver-Raton Mesa
32752
7205
387
33
164
10906
4
3
85
69
66
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1985 and 1990.
i
TABLE G-19
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE DOE PRODUCTION PROJECTIONS ALTERNATIVE
1985 MEDIUM LEVEL
(a)
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATES
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
rut
PROTECTIOH
Northern Appalachian
137047
30150
1621
137
684
45637
16
12
356
288
275
Central Appalachian
27423
6033
324
27
137
9132
3
2
71
58
55
Southern Appalachian
74072
16296
876
74
370
24666
9
6
193
156
148
Eastern Interior
177010
38942
3094
177
885
58944
21
15
460
372
354
Western Interior
100429
22094
1188
100
502
33443
12
9
261
211
201
Texas
178250
39215
2108
178
891
59356
21
15
463
374
356
Powder River
112383
24724
1329
112
562
37424
13
10
292
236
225
Green River-Hams Fork
67167
14777
792
67
336
22367
8
6
175
141
134
Fort Union
18355
4038
217
18
92
6112
2
2
48
39
37
San Juan River
9236
2032
109
9
46
3076
1
1
24
19
18
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
38444
8458
455
38
192
12802
5
3
100
81
77
Denver-Raton Mesa
30620
6736
362
31
153
10197
4
3
80
64
61
(a) Represents change In coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985.
(T3
I
o
TABLE G-20
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE DOE PRODUCTION PROJECTIONS ALTERNATIVE ^a)
1990 MEDIUM LEVEL
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MOD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
BJTORCEMENT
rats
PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
115122
25327
1362
115
576
38336
■14
10
299
242 -
230
Central Appalachian
71818
15800
849
72
359
23915
9
6
187
151
144
Southern Appalachian
18049
3971
213
18
90
6019
2
2
47
38
36
Eastern Interior
252582
55568
2988
253
1263
84110
30
21
657
530
505
Western Interior
138873
30552
1643
139
594
46245
17
12
361
292
278
Texas
234630
51619
2775
236
1173
78132
28
20
610
493
469
Powder River
160604
35393
1900
161
803
53481
19
14
418
337
321
Green River-Hams Fork
34073
7496
403
34
170
11346
4
3
89
72
68
Fort Union
39979
8795
473
40
200
13313
5
3
104
84
80
San Juan River
39214
8627
464
39
196
13058
5
3
102
82
78
Uinta-Southvestera Utah
10343
2275
122
10
52
3444
1
1
27
22
21
Denver-Raton Mesa
20349
4477
241
20
102
6776
2
2
53
43
41
(a) Represent, change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1985 and 1990.
a
i
N3
TABLE G-21
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE STATE DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE (a)
,1985 MEDIUM LEVEL
SCHOOL
HOSPITAL
HOUSING
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
LAW
FIRE
POPULATION
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
BEDS
UNITS
MGD
MGD
TPD
ENFORCEMENT
.PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
126607
27854
1498
127
633
42160
'IS
11
329
266
253
Central Appalachian
38092
8380
451
38
190
12685
5
3
99
80
76
Southern Appalachian
77505
17051
917
78
388
25809
9
7
202
163
155
Eastern Interior
192525
42356
2277
193
963
64111
23
16
501
404
385
Western Interior
121166
26656
1433
121
606
40348
15
10
315
254
242
Texas
194228
42730
2297
194
»/l
64678
23
17
505
408
288
Powder River
100592
22130
1190
101
503
33497
12
9
262
211
201
Green River-Hams Fork
35527
7816
420
36
178
11830
4
3
92
75
71
Fort Union
29401
6468
348
29
147
9791
4
2
76
62
59
San Juan River
17228
j790
204
17
86
5737
2
1
45
36
34
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
42626
9378
504
43
213
14194
5
4
111
90
85
Denver-Raton Mesa
27673
6088
327
28
138
9215
3
2
72
58
55
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1976 and 1985.
i
TABLE G-22
COAL PRODUCING REGIONS
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE STATE DETERMINATION ALTERNATIVE (a)
1990 MEDIUM LEVEL
POPULATION
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
TEACHERS
PHYSICIANS
HOSPITAL
BEDS
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
MGD
WASTEWATER
MGD
SOLID WASTE
TPD
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
FIRE
.PROTECTION
Northern Appalachian
133722
29419
1582
134
669
44529
16
11
348
281
267
Central Appalachian
87388
19225
1034
87
437
29100
10
7
227
184
175
Southern Appalachian
9394
2067
111
9
47
3128
1
1
24
20
19
Eastern Interior
329995
72599
3903
330
1650
109886
40
28
858
693
660
Western Interior
109650
24123
1297
110
548
37513
13
9
285
230
219
Texas
230663
50746
2728
231
1153
76811
28
20
600
484
461
Powder River
79667
17527
.942
80
398
26529
10
7
207
167
159
Green River-Hams Fork
8430
1855
100
8
42
2807
1
1
22
18
17
Fort Union
54463
11982
644
54
272
18136
7
5
142
114
109
San Juan River
41891
9216
495
42
309
13950
5
4
109
88
84
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
23888
5255
283
24
119
7955
3
2
62
50
48
Denver-Raton Mesa
21972
7034
378
32
160
10647
4
3
83
67
64
(a) Represents change in coal related socioeconomic characteristics between 1985 and 1990.
HSBKi^U^^^H^^H^BSJflSra
APPENDIX H
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX H
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
H.l INTRODUCTION
The Department of Energy's (DOE) National
Coal Model (NCM) is designed to forecast coal
production, consumption, and prices and to
analyze coal-related public policy issues. It gener-
ates equilibrium solutions through a linear pro-
gramming model which balances the supply and
demand for coal at minimum cost. The model has
a high degree of resolution with 30 supply regions,
35 demand regions, up to 40 possible coal types,
and six consuming sectors. The model is capable of
making both short-term and long-term annual
projections under a variety of policy alternatives
because it is demand driven. This means that users
of the model have the capability of changing such
factors as region specifications, assumed inflation
rates, or assumed growth rates in electricity sales
through modifications in the data base. Such
factors are not a part of the model's structure. This
built-in flexibility and high degree of resolution
allows users to address public policy issues with a
great deal of precision because the model can be
tailored for the analysis to be done. In addition,
the model offers analysts the capability of perform-
ing the sensitivity analyses needed to gauge the
uncertainty surrounding a forecast [1].
The NCM has been used as the point of
departure for determining the levels of activity in
the various phases of the coal cycle.
An allocation algorithm has been employed to
adjust the NCM outputs for use in the present
analysis. This algorithm: (1) translates the 30
NCM coal production areas and 35 consumption
areas to 41 production areas and 53 consumption
areas; and (2) estimates interregional flows from
the 41 production areas to the 53 consumption
areas utilized in this environmental impact state-
ment. This algorithm is further described in
Section H.2.
The third analytical tool employed in the
impact analysis of this chapter is a computerized
program developed for this environmental impact
statement, the Coal Impact Estimation Program
(CIEP). A detailed description of this program is
presented in Section H.3.
H.2 COAL PRODUCTION AND DEMAND
PROJECTIONS
H.2.1 DOE Projections (Demand Assumptions)
Three coal production levels were used to
specify the DOE National Coal Model demand
values— low, mid-range, and high. The level titles
relate to expected coal consumption and the
demand for western coal. Model runs for each
level were made by DOE for 1985 and 1990, giving
six possible level/year combinations. The levels
relate to values assumed for each of the following
parameters:
• Crude oil prices and availability.
• Gas prices and availability.
• Coal labor costs.
• Coal transportation costs.
• Electricity demand growth rates.
• Nuclear capacity.
• Air pollution control regulations and scrub-
ber costs.
• Coal conversion regulations and industrial
coal consumption.
• Synthetic fuel production.
• Local coal provisions.
a Federal leasing assumptions.
The level of each parameter is based upon
assumptions described below. Tables H-l and H-2
summarize the assumptions for each of the three
levels for 1985 and 1990, respectively.
H.2. 1.1 Crude Oil Prices and Availability. The oil
prices for the 1985 low level were developed from
the Project Independence Evaluation System
(PIES) forecasting model. This forecast assumed
crude oil at $13 per barrel (1975 dollars). From this
price, it was then forecast that prices for 0.9
percent sulfur residual oil in Texas would be $2.30
per million Btu, while distillate would be $2.70 per
million Btu.
H-l
TABLE H-l
ASSUMPTIONS FOR
DOE'S 1985 REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION LEVELS
1. Crude Oil Prices
in 1985 ($1975)
2. Gas Prices in
1985 ($1975)
3. Coal Labor Costs
4. Transportation
Costs
5. Electricity
Growth Rate
(1977-1985)
6. Nuclear Capacity
(1985)
7. Environmental
Regulations
• Utilities
Industry
High
$20/bbl
Same as
mid- range
Same as mid-
range except
2%/yr. real
escalation
after 1980
Same as mid-
range
NERC fore-
cast
(5.8%/yr.)
101 GW
Same as
mid- range
Same as
mid- range
Mid-
Jiangs
Low
$15/bbl
Senate
conferees
proposal
UMW settle-
ment with
1%/yr. real
escalation
in the post-
1980 period
Current ICC
rates esca-
lated for
inflation
4.6%/yr.
97 GW
• 85% FGD in
the East
• 60% FGD on
low sulfur
coal
FGD on all
new boilers
greater than
25 MW
$13/bbl
Continuation
of existing
regulations
Same as
mid- range
except zero
real esca-
lation after
1980
1%/yr. real
escalation
over current
rates
3.5%/yr.
84 GW
• 90% FGD on
all new plants
FGD on all
new boilers
greater than
5 MW
H-2
TABLE H-l (concluded)
Mid-
High
Range
Low
8.
Coal Conversion
Regulations
• Utilities
Same as
Regulatory
Existing
mid- range
Program
passed by
conference
committee
Regulations
• Industry
9. Macro-economic
Forecast
(1975-1985)
10. Synthetic Fuel
Production (1985)
11. Exports (1985)
Same as
mid- range
Same as
mid- range
40 million
tons
Same as
mid-range
Boiler only
oil/gas user
tax and
conference
regulatory
bill
DRI TRENDLONG
20 million
tons
71 million
tons
Existing
Regulations
Same as
mid- range
12 million
tons
Same as
tons
UMW
NERC
GW
FGD
ICC
DRI
United Mine Workers
National Electric Reliability Council
Giga Watt or 10^ watts
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Interstate Commerce Commission
Data Resources Incorporated
SOURCE: Reference Number 1.
H-3
TABLE H-2
ASSUMPTIONS FOR
DOE's 1990 REGIONAL COAL PRODUCTION LEVELS
1. Crude Oil Prices
in 1990 ($1975)
2. Gas Prices in
1990 ($1975)
3. Coal Labor Costs
4. Transportation
Costs
5. Electricity Growth
(1985-1990)
6. Nuclear Capacity
7. Environmental
Regulations
• Utilities
• Industry
High
$30/bbl
Same as
mid-range
Same as mid-
range except
2%/yr. real
escalation
after 1980
Same as
mid- range
4.5%/yr
181 GW
Same as
mid-range
Same as
mid- range
Mid-
Range
Low
$20/bbl
Senate
conferee
proposal
UMW settle-
ment with
1%/yr. real
escalation
in the post-
1980 period
Current ICC
rates exca-
lated for
inflation
4.0%/yr.
167 GW
$13/bbl
Continuation
of existing
regulations
Same as mid-
range except
zero real
escalation
after 1980
1%/yr. real
escalation
over current
rates
3.5%/yr.
150 GW
90% FGD on all
new plants
85% FGD in
the East
60% FGD on
low sulfur
coal
FGD on all FGD on all new
new boilers boilers greater
than 5 MW
H-4
TABLE H-2 (concluded )
8. Coal Conversion
Regulations
• Utilities
• Industry
9. Macro-economic
Forecast (1985-1990)
10. Synthetic Fuel
Production
(1990)
11. Exports (1990)
High
S ame as
mid- range
Same as
mid- range
S ame as
mid- range
110 million
tons
Same as
mid- range
Mid-
Range
Low
Regulatory
program passed
by conference
Boiler only
oil/gas user
tax & con-
ference regu-
latory bill
DRI TRENDLONG
55 million
tons
75 million
tons
Existing
regulatory
bill
Existing
regulatory
bill
Same as
mid- range
25 million
tons
Same as
mid- range
UMW
NERC
GW
FGD
ICC
DRI
United Mine Workers
National Electric Reliability Council
Giga Watt or 109 watts
Flue Gas I'esulfurization
Interstate Commerce Commission
Data Resources Incorporated
SOURCE: Reference Number 1,
H-5
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
H.2.1.2 Gas Prices and Availability. Gas prices for
the low levels (1985 and 1990) assumed a continua-
tion of existing regulations. Prices and availabili-
ties for 1985 were based on PIES forecast model
output. Prices and availabilities for 1990 were
based on the PIES mid-range trendlong level
(Series C) with natural gas regulation and $13 per
barrel oil (1975 dollars).
H.2.1.3 Coal Labor Costs. The mid-range levels
(1985 and 1990) incorporated the terms of a recent
United Mine Workers Association (UMWA)
settlement. In addition, they assumed a real
escalation in labor costs of one percent per year in
the post- 1980 period. The low level (1985 and
1990) was the same as the mid-range, except there
was no labor cost escalation after 1980. The high
level alternatives (1985 and 1990) were the same as
the mid-range, except that there was a two percent
annual real escalation in labor costs after 1980.
H.2.1.4 Coal Transportation Costs. The mid-range
and high levels (1985 and 1990) reflect 1977
current Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
rates, escalated at the assumed general inflation
rate of 5.5 percent. The low case reflects 1977 ICC
rates with a one percent annual real escalation.
H.2.1.5 Electricity Demand Growth Rates. Electric-
ity growth rates for each level were as follows
(percent/year):
Low
Mid-Range
High
1975-85
1985-90
4.0
3.5
4.8
4.0
5.8
4.5
For the 1985 mid-range levels, the regional
distributions were developed from PIES Model
Forecast 5, which had a 4.82 percent average
national growth rate. The growth rate for each
PIES region was assigned to each of the compo-
nent U.S. Census regions. Where U.S. Census
regions overlapped PIES regions, the growth rate
for the U.S. Census region was developed as a
weighted average.
The 1985 high level was based on the National
Electric Reliability Council (NERC) forecast,
which assumed an annual growth rate of 5.8
percent. This distribution was also based on
NERC data, and in some cases was quite different
from the PIES regional growth patterns
The 1985 low alternative was developed from
the mid-range level by scaling down the growth
rates. This was done in two steps. First, each
region's growth rate was scaled down by dividing
by the ratio of the national growth rates; e.g., 4.82
percent/4.0 percent = 1.205. These new regional
growth rates were then applied to the 1975 regional
sales to project 1985 sales by region. The national
total and implied growth rates were then comput-
ed. Since this national growth rate was slightly
different than the 4.0 percent target, a second
iteration was required. The new national growth
rate was divided by 4.0 percent, and the quotient
was divided into the regional growth rates. This
process can be iterated until the national growth
rate is not significantly different from the target of
4.0 percent.
The 1990 electricity demands were developed
in a manner similar to that used in the 1985 low
level. For the mid-range alternative, the 1985 mid-
range regional totals were extended to 1990 by
extrapolating regional growth rate by a factor of
1.205. The national total was computed and
implicit growth rate determined. This new national
growth rate was used as a base for a second
iteration on changing the regional growth rates,
and the process was repeated until the national
growth rate of 4.0 percent was reached.
For the 1990 low and high levels, the process
was the same. For each, the 1985 low and high
regional totals were used as a base, and the growth
rates scaled by the ratio of the 1985 national rate to
the 1990 target national rate. The process was
repeated until the national growth rates of 3.5 and
4.5 percent were reached.
H.2.1.6 Nuclear Capacity. Nuclear generating
capacity for these levels was as follows (in
giga watts):
Low
Mid-Range
High
1985
1990
84
150
97
167
101
181
These capacity data were provided by Reference 2.
H.2.1.7 Air Pollution Control Regulations.
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is
defined as 90 percent S02 removal, except that
partial scrubbing would be permitted if annual
average S02 emissions were reduced to a specified
floor:
H-6
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Level
Floor
Low-Range
Mid-Range
High-Range
(lb. S02/MBtu)
0.2
0.5
0.5
The industrial BACT regulations vary by level
as follows. All industrial facilities with greater than
25 MWe capacity are subject to the regulations in
the high and mid-range alternatives. Industrial
facilities with capacity of five MWe or greater are
subject to BACT regulations in the low range level.
These regulations were addressed in the industrial
demand estimates [3].
H.2.1.8 Coal Conversion Regulations and Industrial
Coal Consumption. For utilities, the low level
assumed a continuation of existing regulations.
Combined cycle systems were allowed anywhere.
The mid-range and high levels assumed the
regulatory program passed by the Conference
Committee. Combined cycle systems were prohi-
bited everywhere except in southern California.
Industrial coal demand estimates for 1985
reflected the sum of baseline demand and incre-
mental coal demand stimulated by alternative
regulatory and incentive programs. The sources
and assumptions for the baseline and coal conver-
sion estimates were summarized for each level
below.
Level
High-Range
Mid-Range
Low-Range
Baseline Demand
Coal Conversion
Same as mid-range. Same as mid-range.
PIES Mid-
Range/Trendlong
Level (1/14/78).
PIES Mid-
Range/Trendlong
Level (1/14/78).
Boiler only oil/gas
user tax and
Conference regulatory
bill.
Existing regulations
1985 demand estimates by NCM region were
provided for two sulfur classes and two ranks
(bituminous and subbituminous)[3].
H.2.1.9 Synthetic Fuel Production. Coal demand for
synthetics was based on DOE estimates. These
estimates indicate demand (in 1012 Btu) by end-
product (liquefaction, high-Btu gas, medium-Btu
gas), NCM demand region, coal-type (bituminous
- 11,000 Btu/lb, subbituminous - 9,000 Btu/lb,
lignite - 7,000 Btu/lb), year (1985 and 1990), and
level (low, medium high). Two adjustments were
made to the original estimates. First, demand was
aggregated across end-products, resulting in a
single "synthetics" demand category. Second,
demand from regions AN, KN, and TX were
attributed to the coal-type most prevalent, so that
each region is demanding only one coal-type (see
Table H-3).
H.2.1.10 Local Coal Provisions. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 included a "local coal"
provision (now Section 125 of the Act), which
would permit, under certain conditions, an order
that locally or regionally available coal be used to
comply with SIP requirements. This provision was
not considered.
H. 2. 1.11 Federal Leasing Assumptions. For all three
levels in both 1985 and 1990, it was assumed that
the Federal government would lease enough coal
reserves such that the reserves cheapest to mine
(regardless of ownership) would be mined first.
This assumption has the effect of minimizing total
national costs of coal production, transportation,
and consumption.
H.2.2 Department of the Interior Production
Projections
The establishment of production levels for this
environmental statement was not based on any
one computer run, forecasting model, or other
single mechanical procedure. There was no one
authoritative set of future projections or even
method of projection readily available; hence,
judgmental decisions were necessary. Accordingly,
a number of sources of information were consid-
ered in forming these judgments. These sources
include:
• Department of Energy projections.
• Preliminary Department of the Interior
regional environmental impact statements.
• Coal industry and government forecasts.
• Approved and pending mine plans.
• Current production levels.
• Contractually obligated production.
Based on these factors, the production levels
shown in Tables H-4 and H-5 were developed. The
broadest basis for the state-by-state production
estimates embodied in the preferred program is
found in the DOE coal production forecasts. Those
H-7
TA3LE H-3
PIES AND CORRESPONDING NCM DEMAND REGIONS
CORRESPONDING
PIES DEMAND REGION NCM DEMAND
(CENSUS REGIONS) REGIONS
1. New England
2 . Mid- Atlantic
3. South Atlantic
4. East North Central
5. East South Central
6. West North Central
7. West South Central
i. Mountain
9. Pacific
SOURCE: Reference Number i.
MV
MC
NU
PJ
WP
WV
VM
CA
GF
SF
ON
OM
OS
IL
IN
MI
WI
EK
WK
ET
WT
AM
DM
IA
MO
KN
AO
TX
MW
CO
UN
AN
WO
CN
cs
H-8
TABLE H-4
WESTERN PROJECTED PRODUCTION LEVELS,
PREFERRED PROGRAM AND NO NEW LEASING ALTERNATIVES
(1985 and 1990)
(million tons)
PREFERRED
REGION
LEASING
PROGRAM
NO NEW
LEASING
1985
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Fort Union
16.9
31.9
51.9
16.9
31.9
51.9
Powder River
150.0
205.0
300.0
150.0
204.8
275.0
Green River -
40.0
80.0
130.0
40.0
76.0
99.6
Hams Fork
Uinta -
15.0
30.0
45.0
15.0
29.6
44.5
Southwestern Utah
Denver- Raton Mesa
2.0
5.0
10.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
San Juan River
15.0
25.0
40.0
15.0
24.8
39.7
1990
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Fort Union
21.9
41.9
81.9
21.9
51.0
94.9
Powder River
175.0
400.0
600.0
175.0
305.0
335.0
Green River -
70.0
120.0
175.0
66.5
98.7
119.0
Hams Fork
Uinta -
20.0
40.0
60.0
19.8
45.0
65.0
Southwestern Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
5.0
10.0
15.0
5.0
10.7
15.0
San Juan River
25.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
59.4
77.3
Source: Reference Number 33,
H-9
TABLE H-5
WESTERN PRODUCTION LEVELS, MID-LEVEL ALTERNATIVES
1985 and 1990
(million tons)
COAL
REGION
PRLAs
ONLY
EMERGENCY
LEASING
MEET
INDUSTRY
STATE
DETER-
MEET
DOE
ONLY
NEEDS
MINATION
GOALS
1985
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Fort Union
31.9
31.9
36.9
37.4
21.9
Powder River
205.0
205.0
225.0
183.7
204.6
Green River-
Hams Fork
77.9
77.0
112.0
57.5
112.0
Uinta-Southwestern
Utah
30.0
29.7
35.0
29.4
26.4
Denver-Raton Mesa
5.0
5.0
6.0
7.5
6.0
San Juan River
24.8
24.8
30.0
32.0
22.1
1990
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Fort Union
47.4
50.6
51.9
54.4
22.5
Powder River
355.0
316.0
450.0
269.1
396.1
Green River-
Hams Fork
101.0
104.2
150.0
62.8
149.5
Uinta-Southwestern
Utah
42.0
44.8
51.0
36.8
28.3
Denver-Raton Mesa
10.5
10.6
10.0
10.3
7.5
San Juan River
54.9
58.4
60.0
63.0
57.2
Source: Derived from Reference Numbers 34 and 35.
H-10
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
forecasts were then modified to reflect the regional
configuration adapted for this ES. Insofar as coal
flows and production levels in the DOE-furnished
data required modification, these modifications
were held to a minimum to avoid distortion of the
production and distribution pattern. Where neces-
sary, coal flows were allocated to specific destina-
tion regions on the basis of population, generation
capacity, and industrial demand. Precision at the
level of tenths of a point (equivalent to 100,000
tons) does not have much absolute meaning. Such
small changes in production levels are most
significant in indicating expected relative changes
in production levels among regions and, within a
region, the expected direction of change in produc-
tion from one alternative to another. Table H-6
contains a regional list of all counties considered
during the impact analyses of Chapters 5 and 7. It
should be noted that the counties listed in Table
H-6 vary slightly from the counties delineated in
the regions of Figure 1-1. For a county listing of
Figure 1-1 counties, refer to Appendix J, Table J-l.
H.2.3 Allocation Algorithm and Contraints
The objective of the algorithm is to generate
estimates of production and consumption on a
regional basis when only limited information is
provided about western coal production levels.
The algorithm utilizes an origin/destination (O/D)
coal flow matrix upon which are superimposed
predetermined western coal production levels. The
contents of the O/D matrices are reallocated so
that regional energy demands are satisfied and the
level of coal consumption for each region is
identified. This is done for each Federal coal
management program alternative being consid-
ered. The algorithm uses a translation of the 30
NCM coal production areas and 35 consumption
areas (see Table H-7). The NCM regions are
translated to 41 production areas and 53 consump-
tion areas in this ES (see Table H-8).
The 35 NCM demand (consumption) areas
consist primarily of multistate areas. For example,
the States of Alabama and Mississippi are com-
bined to form the NCM consumption area "AM".
It was necessary to disaggregate this demand
region to its component states in order to more
accurately portray production, transportation, and
consumption impacts.
Coal flows into multistate consuming areas
were allocated among the individual states on the
basis of population, projected level of coal demand
by energy conversion facilities, and existing pat-
terns of coal consumption by industry and steam
electric generation capacity. Specific data sources
used for the disaggregation and allocation of coal
flows included References 4,5, and 6.
For example, in the specific case of Alabama
and Mississippi, it was determined that, on the
basis of the data sources and judgmental factors
listed, the flows of coal into the NCM area would
be distributed 95 percent to Alabama and five
percent to Mississippi.
The major assumptions incorporated in the
"Allocate" algorithm governing consumption lev-
els include:
• Fixed Btu demand within consuming areas.
The level selected reflects national produc-
tion at a low, medium, or high level.
• Coal flows (in Btus) remain constant for
intrastate shipments.
• Tonnage levels of coal flows from origin to
destination vary based upon a representa-
tive heat value for coal in the producing
state.
For each Federal coal management program
alternative analyzed, consumption expressed as a
demand for energy (heat value equivalent) was
assumed to be fixed and represented a particular
mix of energy using facilities within a consuming
region (consistent with the NCM assumptions).
The assumption of coal flows remaining
constant on an intrastate basis was made to
incorporate the fact that local coal supplies
represent a least cost source of coal. If, under a
given program alternative, coal production levels
for a particular state decrease by a given percent-
age, only the levels of coal leaving the state would
be reduced.
Under the various production levels and
alternate leasing programs analyzed, specific levels
of coal flows vary. Reduced flows from one
producing area would be offset by increased flow
from other areas. The heat value in millions of Btu
per ton (MBtu/ton) of coal varies from mine to
mine and from state to state. The actual tonnage
flows from substitute producing states would be
weighted by their relative average heat value.
Accordingly, if the heat value per ton of coal from
a substitute state is higher than the original
supplying state, the actual tonnage flow from the
substitute state would be lower.
H-ll
TABLE H-6
COUNTIES UTILIZED IN FES
APPALACHIAN COAL REGION
Northern Appalachian Coal Region
Maryland
Allegany
Garrett
Ohio
Athens
Belmont
Carroll
Columbiana
Coshocton
Fairfield
Gallia
Guernsey
Harrison
Hocking
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lawrence
Mahoning
Meigs
Monroe
Morgan
Muskingun
Noble
Perry
Pike
Portage
Scioto
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Vinton
Washington
Wayne
Pennsylvania
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Bedford
Blair
Butler
Cambria
Cameron
Centre
Clarion
Clearfield
Clinton
Crawford
Elk
Fayette
Forest
Fulton
Greene
Huntingdon
Indiana
Jefferson
Lawrence
Lycoming
McKean
Mercer
Potter
Somerset
Tioga
Venango
Warren
Washington
Westmoreland
West Virginia
Barbour
Braxton
Brooke
Calhoun
Doddridge
Gilmer
Grant
Hancock
Harrison
Jackson
Lewis
Marion
Marshall
Mineral
Monongalia
Ohio
Pendleton
Pleasants
Preston
Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
H-12
TABLE H-6
(Continued)
COUNTIES UTILIZED IN FES
Central Appalachian Coal Region
Kentucky
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
Bell
Anderson
Buchanan
Boone
Boyd
Campbell
Dickenson
Cabell
Breathitt
Claiborne
Lee
Clay
Carter
Cumberland
Russell
Fayette
Clay
Fentress
Scott
Greenbrier
Clinton
Morgan
Tazewell
Kanawha
Elliott
Overton
Wise
Lincoln
Floyd
Pickett
Logan
Greenup
Roane
Mason
Harlan
Scott
McDowell
Jackson
Mercer
Johnson
Mingo
Knott
Nicholas
Knox
Pocahontas
Laurel
Putnam
Lawrence
Raleigh
Lee
Summers
Leslie
Wayne
Letcher
Wyoming
Magoffin
Martin
McCreary
Menifee
Morgan
Owsley
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Rockcastle
Russell
Wayne
Whitley
Wolfe
H-13
TABLE H-6
(Continued)
COUNTIES UTILIZED IN FES
Southern Appalachian Coal Region
Alabama Georgia
Bibb
Blount
Cherokee
Cullman
De Kalb
Etowah
Fayette
Franklin
Greene
Hale
Jackson
Jefferson
Lamar
Lawrence
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Morgan
Pickens
Shelby
St. Clair
Tuscaloosa
Walker
Winston
Catoosa
Chattooga
Dade
Walker
Tennessee
Bledsoe
Franklin
Grundy
Hamilton
Marion
Putnam
Rhea
Sequatchie
Van Buren
Warren
White
H-14
TABLE H-6
(Continued)
COUNTIES UTILIZED IN FES
EASTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION
Illinois
Adams
Bond
Brown
Bureau
Calhoun
Cass
Champaign
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Coles
Crawford
Cumberland
De Witt
Douglas
Edgar
Edwards
Effingham
Fayette
Ford
Franklin
Fulton
Gallatin
Greene
Grundy
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Henderson
Henry
Iroquois
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Johnson
Kankakee
Kendall
Knox
Illinois (Cont.) Illinois (Cont.) Kentucky
La Salle
Lawrence
Lee
Livingston
Logan
Macon
Macoupin
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Mason
McDonough
McLean
Menard
Mercer
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Moultrie
Peoria
Perry
Piatt
Pike
Pope
Putnam
Randolph
Richland
Rock Island
Saint Clair
Saline
Sangamon
Schuyler
Scott
Shelby
Stark
Tazewell
Union
Vermilion
Wabash
Warren
Washington
Wayne
White
Will
Williamson
Woodford
Indiana
Benton
Clay
Daviess
Dubois
Fountain
Gibson
Greene
Knox
Martin
Montgomery
Owen
Parke
Perry
Pike
Posey
Putnam
Spencer
Sullivan
Vanderburgh
Vermillion
Vigo
Warren
Warrick
Butler
Caldwell
Christian
Crittenden
Daviess
Edmonson
Grayson
Hancock
Henderson
Hopkins
Logan
McLean
Muhlenberg
Ohio
Todd
Union
Warren
Webster
Iowa
Muscatine
Scott
H-15
TABLE H-6
(Continued)
COUNTIES UTILIZED IN FES
WESTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION
Arkansas
Crawford
Franklin
Johnson
Logan
Pope
Scott
Sebastian
Yell
Iowa
Adair
Adams
Appanoose
Audubon
Boone
Calhoun
Carroll
Cass
Clarke
Crawford
Dallas
Davis
Decatur
Franklin
Fremont
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Hamilton
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Humboldt
Jasper
Jefferson
Keokuk
Lee
Iowa (Cont.)
Lucas
Madison
Mahaska
Marion
Marshall
Mills
Monroe
Montgomery
Page
Pocahontas
Polk
Pottawattamie
Poweshiek
Ringgold
Sac
Shelby
Story
Tama
Taylor
Union
Van Buren
Wapello
Warren
Wayne
Webster
Wright
Kansas
Allen
Anderson
Atchison
Bourbon
Brown
Chase
Chautauqua
Cherokee
Coffey
Crawford
Doniphan
Douglas
Elk
Franklin
Greenwood
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnson
Labette
Leavenworth
Linn
Lyon
Marshall
Miami
Montgomery
Morris
Nemaha
Neosho
Osage
Pottawatomie
Riley
Shawnee
Wabaunsee
Wilson
Woodson
Wyandotte
H-16
TABLE H-6
(Continued)
COUNTIES UTILIZED IN FES
WESTERN INTERIOR REGION (Continued)
Missouri
Missouri (Cont.)
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Adair
Jasper
Cass
Atoka
Andrew
Johnson
Douglas
Coal
Atchison
Knox
Johnson
Craig
Audrain
Lafayette
Nemaha
Creek
Barton
Lincoln
Otoe
Haskell
Bates
Linn
Pawnee
Hughes
Benton
Livingston
Richardson
Latimer
Boone
Macon
Sarpy
Le Flore
Buchanan
Marion
Washington
Mayes
Caldwell
Mercer
Mc Intosh
Callaway
Monroe
Muskogee
Carroll
Montgomery
Nowata
Cass
Nodaway
Okfuskee
Cedar
Pettis
Okmulgee
Chariton
Pike
Osage
Clark
Platte
Ottawa
Clay
Putnam
Pawnee
Clinton
Ralls
Pittsburg
Dade
Randolph
Pontotoc
Daviess
Ray
Rogers
De Kalb
Saline
Seminole
Gentry
Schuyler
Sequoyah
Grundy
Scotland
Tulsa
Harrison
Shelby
Wagoner
Henry
St. Clair
Washington
Holt
Sullivan
Howard
Vernon
Jackson
Worth
H-17
TABLE H-6
(Continued)
COUNTIES UTILIZED IN FES
TEXAS COAL REGION
Texas
Anderson
Angelina
Atascosa
Bastrop
Bexar
Bowie
Brazos
Burleson
Caldwell
Camp
Cass
Cherokee
Dimmit
Fayette
Franklin
Freestone
Frio
Gregg
Grimes
Guadalupe
Harrison
Henderson
Hopkins
Houston
Lee
Leon
Texas (Cont.)
Limestone
Madison
Marion
Medina
Milam
Morris
Nacogdoches
Navarro
Panola
Rains
Robertson
Rusk
San Augustine
Shelby
Smith
Titus
Trinity
Upshur
Van Zandt
Walker
Washington
Williamson
Wilson
Wood
Zavala
Arkansas
Miller
Louisiana
Caddo
De Soto
Natchitoches
Sabine
■H-18
TABLE H-6
—°™°™i™»""~"— — nfflMMniiiwiiwiriiiTiifflii|ifliiiHiiii||iii| ' :::■:■■
(Continued)
COUNTIES UTILIZED
IN FES
GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK COAL REGION
Colorado Wyoming
Utah
Idaho
Garfield Albany
Morgan
Bingham
Grand Carbon
Rich
Bonneville
Jackson Fremont
Summit
Caribou
Moffat Hot Springs
Madison
Routt Lincoln
Teton
Park
Sublette
Sweetwater
Teton
Uinta
Washakie
Big Horn
POWDER RIVER COAL REGION
Montana
Wyoming
Big Horn
Campbell
Garfield
Converse
Golden Valley
Crook
Mussellshell
Johnson
Powder River
Natrona
Rosebud
Niobrara
Treasure
Sheridan
Yellowstone
Weston
H-19
•
TABLE H-6
(Continued)
COUNTIES UTILIZED IN FES
FORT UNION COAL REGION
Montana North Dakota
North Dakota (Cont.) South Dakota
Carter Adams
McKenzie
Butte
Custer Billings
McLean
Corson
Daniels Bowman
Mercer
Dewey
Dawson Burke
Morton
Harding
Fallon Burleigh
Mountrail
Meade
McCone Divide
Oliver
Perkins
Prairie Dunn
Renville
Ziebach
Richland Emmons
Sheridan
Roosevelt Golden Valley-
Sioux
Sheridan Grant
Slope
Wibaux Hettinger
Stark
Valley Kidder
Ward
McHenry
Williams
SAN JUAN RIVER COAL REGION
Colorado
New Mexico
Utah
Archuleta
Bernalilio
San Juan
Dolores
Catron
La Plata
Lincoln
Montezuma
Los Alamos
Montrose
McKinley
San Juan
Rio Arriba
San Miguel
Sandoval
San Juan
Sante Fe
Socorro
Valencia
H-20
■
■;
<
TABLE H-6
(Concluded)
COUNTIES UTILIZED IN FES
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH COAL REGION
Colorado
Delta
Garfield
Gunnison
Mesa
Pitkin
Rio Blanco
Utah
Carbon
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
Grand
Iron
Kane
Sanpete
Sevier
Uintah
Utah
Wasatch
Washington
Wayne
DENVER-RATON MESA COAL REGION
Colorado
Adams
Arapahoe
Boulder
Denver
Douglas
Elbert
El Paso
Fremont
Huerfano
Jefferson
Las Animas
Morgan
Park
Weld
New Mexico
Colfax
H-21
TABLE H-7
NATIONAL COAL MODEL SUPPLY AND DEMAND REGIONS (a)
30NCM SUPPLY REGIONS
35NCM DEMAND REGIONS
Pennsylvania (PA)
Ohio (OH)
Maryland (MD)
West Virginia, north (NV)
West Virginia, south (SV)
Virginia (VA)
Kentucky, east (EK)
Tennessee (TN)
Alabama (AL)
Illinois (IL)
Indiana (IN)
Kentucky, west (WK)
Iowa (I A)
Missouri (MO)
Kansas (KS)
Arkansas (AR)
Oklahoma (OK)
Texas (TX)
North Dakota (ND)
South Dakota (SD)
Montana, east (EM)
Montana, west (WM)
Wyoming (WY)
Colorado, north (CN)
Colorado, south (CS)
Utah (UT)
Arizona (AZ)
New Mexico (NM)
Washington (WA)
Alaska (AK)
Maine/Vermont/New Hampshire (MV)
Massachusetts/Connecticut/Rhode Island (MC)
New York, upstate (NU)
Pennsylvania, east/New Jersey /New York,
downstate (PJ)
Pennsylvania, west (WP)
Virginia/Maryland/Delaware/D.C. (VM)
West Virginia (WV)
North Carolina/South Carolina (CA)
Georgia/Florida, north (GF)
Florida, south (SE)
Ohio, north (ON)
Ohio-, central (OM)
Ohio, south (OS)
Illinois (IL)
Indiana (IN)
Michigan (MI)
Wisconsin (WI)
Kentucky, east (EK)
Kentucky, west (WK)
Tennessee, east (ET)
Tennessee, west (WT)
Alabama/Mississippi (AM)
North Dakota/South Dakota/Minnesota (DM)
Iowa (IA)
Missouri (MO)
Kansas/Nebraska (KN)
Arkansas/Oklahoma/Louisiana (AO)
Texas (TX)
Montana/Wyoming /Idaho (MW)
Colorado (CO)
Utah /Nevada (UN)
Arizona/New Mexico (AN)
Washing ton /Or eg on (WO)
California, north (CN)
California, south (CS)
(a) SOURCE: Reference Number 36,
H-22
TABLE H-8
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLY AND
DEMAND REGIONS
41 Department of Interior Supply Regions
I
Alabama
Arkansas-Western Interior
Arkansas-Texas Gulf
Colorado-Green River-Hams Fork
Colorado-San Juan River
Colorado-Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Colorado-Denver-Raton Mesa
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa-Eastern Interior
Iowa-Western Interior
Kansas ■
Kentucky-Central Appalachian
Kentucky-Eastern Interior
Louisiana
Maryland
Missouri
Montana-Powder River
Montana-Fort Union
Nebraska
New Mexico San Juan River
New Mexico Denver-Raton Mesa
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon- Washing ton
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee-Central Appalachian
Tennessee-Southern Appalachian
Texas
Utah-Green River-Hams Fork
Utah-San Juan River
Utah-Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Virginia
West Virginia-Northern Appalachian
West Virginia-Central Appalachian
Wyoming-Powder River
Wyoming-Green River-Hams Fork
53 Department of Interior Demand Regions
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas-Western Interior
Arkansas-Texas
California
Colorado-Green River-Hams Fork
Colorado-San Juan River
Colorado-Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Colorado-Denver-Raton Mesa
Connecticut-Massachusetts-Rhode Island
Delaware-New Jersey
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Ind iana
Iowa-Eastern Interior
Iowa-Western Interior
Kansas
Kentucky-Central Appalachian
Kentucky-Eastern Interior
Louisiana
Maine-New Hampshire-Vermont
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana-Powder River
Montana-Fort Union
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico-San Juan River
New Mexico-Denver-Raton Mesa
New York
North Carolina-South Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon-Washington
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee-Central Appalachian
Tennessee-Southern Appalachian
Texas
Utah-Green River-Hams Fork
Utah-San Juan River
Utah-Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Virginia
West Virginia-Northern Appalachian
West Virginia-Central Appalachian
Wyoming-Powder River
Wyoming-Green River
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
The allocation algorithm utilizes a multiplier
concept to convert projected DOE production
levels in western coal supply areas to the projected
production level of each program alternative. By
prespecifying coal production levels in each west-
ern region, and allowing production levels in non-
western areas to "float" in response to the level of
unsatisfied Btu demands in each consuming state,
a new origin/ destination matrix of coal tonnage
flows was generated. When western coal produc-
tion was constrained, demand was shifted to
eastern producing areas. Since eastern coal has
generally higher Btu content, the actual tonnage
flows from the substitute supply states are directly
proportional (on a MBtu/ton basis) with the
preconstrained flows from the original supply
state. The new O/D matrices were also used to
estimate coal consumption in each coal demand
area for each alternative. Domestic coal consump-
tion was estimated by subtracting DOE projected
coal exports from designated exporting states. In
developing the "Allocate" algorithm, the following
assumptions were used:
1.) The weighted MBtu/ton values were deter-
mined by using the heat value of each NCM coal
category (see Table H-9).
2.) The following heat-value categories are
defined in the NCM.
Coal Category
MBtu/Ton
Assumed MBtu/Ton
Z
26
26
H
23-25.99
24.5
M
20-22.99
21.5
S
15-19.99
17.5
L
15
15
3.) Total tonnage shipped (by category) for
each producing state was determined and ex-
pressed as a percent of total coal produced in that
state.
4.) The category percentages were then multi-
plied by the MBtu/ton value for each coal
category. The multiplication products were then
summed to obtain a weighted MBtu/ton value for
all coal shipments from a given state, as in Table
H-10
5). Western coal region production levels were
determined exogenous to "Allocate". These levels
were fixed and the output of the remaining coal
producing areas allowed to "float" in response to
fixed Btu demand levels in each consuming area.
H.2.4 Transportation Assumptions (Modal Split)
The assumption was made that the majority of
interstate coal movements would be by rail while a
smaller volume of intrastate shipments would be
transported in this way. The remainder of the
intrastate movements would move by barge,
highway, or slurry pipeline, depending on existing
and projected transportation facilities of these
types. Specific modal split information is presented
in Table H-ll.
Due to the dynamic nature of coal transporta-
tion, incorporation of the transportation sector in
the analysis requires a methodological approach
recognizing the inherent differences between static
processes and dynamic flows. In contrast to the
other phases of 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 enviromental impacts. The mea-
sure chosen to determine transportation environ-
mental impact factors is gross ton-miles generated
as a result of transporting coal. In this context,
gross ton-miles consists of the following compo-
nents:
• Net ton-miles - weight of coal times distance
moved.
• Tare ton-miles - weight of transportation
equipment utilized times round trip distance
from mine to destination and return.
The inclusion of tare weight recognizes 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. Within this
context, the following additional assumptions were
used:
1.) Modal Split Assumptions - Gross Ton-Mile
Estimation (see Figure H-l)
2). Interstate Coal Flows - Total gross ton-
miles were calculated on the basis of 100
percent movement by rail. This estimate
was then adjusted for 1976 waterway coal
transport as a percent of total coal moved.
(Waterway transport was deducted from
total gross ton-miles), and total slurry
pipeline net ton mileage added to gross ton-
mile estimates to obtain a revised estimate
of gross ton-miles.
3) Intrastate Coal Flows
H-24
TABLE H-9
WEIGHTED AVERAGE MBTUs/TON 1985 DOE MID-LEVEL PRODUCTION
GEOGRAPHIC UNITS
AVERAGE MBTU/TON
01 Alabama 25.0
04 Arizona 21. 6
05(A) Arkansas (W. Int.) 26
05(B) Arkansas (Tx) 15
06 California 0
08(A) Colorado (G.R.) 22.7
08(B) Colorado (S.J.) 22.7
08(C) Colorado (Uinta) 22.7
08(D) Colorado (D-R) 22.7
09 Connecticut/Maryland/Rhode 0
Island
10 Delaware/New Jersey 0
12 Florida 0
13 Georgia 25.0
16 Idaho 0
17 Illinois 22.7
18 Indiana 21.9
19(A) Iowa (E. Int.) 21.5
19(B) Iowa (W. Int.) 21.5
20 Kansas 24.5
21(A) Kentucky (C. App.) 25.5
21(B) Kentucky (E. Int.) 22.8
22 Lousiana 0
23 Maine/New Hampshire/Vermont 0
24 Maryland 25.6
26 Michigan 0
27 Minnesota/Wisconsin 0
28 Mississippi 0
H-25
TABLE
H-9 (Continued)
GEOGRAPHIC UNITS
AVERAGE MBTU/TON
29 Missouri
21.5
30 (A) Montana (P.R.)
17.5
30(B)Montana (F.U.)
15
31 Nebraska
24.5
32 Nevada
0
35(A) New Mexico (S.J.R.)
21.5
35(B) New Mexico (D.R.)
21.5
36 Mew York
0
37 North Carolina/South Carol
ina
0
38 North Dakota
15
39 Ohio
23.4
40 Oklahoma
21.1
41 Oregon/Washington
0
42 Pennsylvania
25.7
46 South Dakota
15
47(A) Tennessee (CApp.)
24.9
47(B) Tennessee (S. App.)
24.9
48 Texas
15
49(A) Utah (G.R.)
25.1
49(B) Utah (S.J.R.)
25.1
49(C) Utah (Uinta)
25.1
51 Virginia
25.5
54(A) West Virginia (N. App.)
25.5
54(B) West Virginia (C. App.)
25.7
56(A) Wyoming (P.R.)
18.9
56(B) Wyoming (G.R.)
18.9
Source: Reference Number 48.
H-
-26
TABLE H-10
EXAMPLE OF WEIGHTED MBTU/TON CALCULATION
(1)
Coal
(3)
(2)
Production
Category x 10 Tons Avg . MBtu/Ton Total Production MBtu/Ton
(4)
Production as %
(5)
(4)x(3) Weighted
Z
H
109.8
22.0
131.8
26
24.5
83.3
16.7
100.0
21.658
4.091
25.749
(MBtu/ton
average)
Source: Reference Number 35.
H-27
TABLE H-ll
SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS 1985 DOE MID LEVEL
Code region/state
01
Alabama
04
Arizona
05A
Arkansas
05 B
Arkansas
06
California
08A
Colorado
08B
Colorado
08C
Colorado
08D
Colorado
09
CT/MA/RI
10
DE/NJ
12
Florida
13
Georgia
16
Idaho
17
Illinois
18
Indiana
19A
Iowa
19B
Iowa
20
Kansas
21A
Kentucky
21B
Kentucky
22
Louisiana
23
ME/VT/NH
24
Maryland
26
Michigan
27
MN/WI
28
Mississippi
29
Missouri
30A
Montana
30B
Montana
31
Nebraska
32
Nevada
35A
New Mexico
35B
New Mexico
36
New York
37
NC/SC
38
North Dakota
39
Ohio
40
Oklahoma
41
OR/WA
42
Pennsylvania
46
South Dakota
47A
Tennessee
47B
Tennessee
48
Texas
49A
Utah
49B
Utah
49C
Utah
51
Virginia
5 4 A
West Virgini,
54B
West Virgin!*
56A
Wyoming
56B
Wyoming
TOTAL
Gross Ton-Miles
(In million ton miles)
w
TOTAL
X Z Z
WATERWAY PIPELINE RAILROAD
Z
TRUCK
Net Ton-Miles
(In million ton miles)
TOTAL
% % %
WATERWAY PIPELINE RAILROAD
38980
16480
7205
17802
7864
5982
5
893
80073
1929
5159
7617
16455
12310
59698
31771
195
20725
29787
42976
23748
600
462
16156
5435
34767
4277
67079
30002
21788
153026
3751
6239
10127
3417
18662
39249
35964
11842
2730
56929
15945
4965
29538
91562
1925
76
11599
39625
12637
21276
42083
30039
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.11
0
0
0
0.54
0.98
0
0
0
0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.20
0.01
0
0.46
0
0.17
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0.43
0.25
0
0
/
0.09
■0
0.08
0.28
0.07
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
0
0.24
0
0
0
0
0.37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0
0.06
0.27
0
0
o
0
0
0
0.87
1.00
0
0.29
0
0
0.41
0
0
0.10
0
0
0
0.23
0.08
0.94
0.91
0.72
.93
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.76
0.89
0.87
1.00
0.99
0.63
0.45
0
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.93
1.00
0.94
0.73
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.77
0.12
0
0.50
0.71
0.83
0.97
0.57
1.00
1.00
0.87
1.00
0.56
0.72
0.77
0.91
0.90
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.02
0
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0.01
0.03
0
0
0.04
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0.03
0
0.01
0.03
0
0
0.01
22174
9882
♦930
10570
4428
3368
3
503
45734
1086
2905
4289
9265
8242
34358
18332
110
11666
21644
27318
16458
338
260
9088
3060
19576
2380
37733
17707
12268
90456
2547
3497
5702
1924
10508
22063
21143
11162
2730
35423
10998
2906
16740
68474
1084
43
7033
22309
7821
12660
27846
17989
762765
0.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0.13
0
0
0
0.59
0.98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.24
0.01
0
0.51
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0.48
0.30
0
0
0.09
0
0.14
0.41
0.12
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0
0.36
0
0
0
0
0.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
0
0.11
0.39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.92
0
0.46
0.42
0.20
0
0.55
0
0
0.17
0
0
0
0.34
0.14
0.92
0.86
0.59
0.88
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.64
0.87
0.86
1.00
0.99
0.48
0.41
0
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.89
1.00
0.89
0.61
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.74
0.07
1.00
0.02
0.58
0.80
0.97
0.43
1.00
1.00
0.81
0.99
0.51
0.68
0.66
0.86
0.77
%
TRUCK
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0.01
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0
0
0.01
(a) Gross ton-mileage estimates presented here represent the sum of gross ton-mileage for rail, truck and waterway
transport plus net ton-mileage of slurry pipeline transport.
Source: Reference Number 19.
H-28
TONS
THRU STATE
(T)
YES
NO
T X M =
TONMILES
THRU STATE
FOR RAI
WATERWAY
PIPELINE
c
TON MILES
(TM)
. FOR INTRA'
_*/ STATE MOVEMENTS
"\tAKE TONS X.25
= TRUCK
h
.75
RAIL
TONS
COMPUTE WTD
AV (M) MILES
THRU STATE
TAKE TOTAL
TONS SHIPPED
*.18 ^WATERWAY
SHARE (S)
TOTAL TONS
OF COAL
TO BE SHIPPED
P X S FOR EACH
STATE' YIELDS
WATERWAY TONS
STATE RATIOS
PRORATE (P)
)
WATERWAY
TON MILES
(WWTM)
>
(WATERWAY )-
TONS J
'WATERWAY MILES 1
\Ki STATE *■ 2 (M)J
WWTX
MILES
Ml
PIPELINE
TON MILES
(PTM)
TRUCK
T.M.
(TTM)
>
>
TRUCK TONS
X 75 MILES
CALCULATE
REVISED R.R.
TON MILES
TM-WWTM-PTM
< REVISED 'R.R A / PlP^_m \ f ^ \
CZJ
FIGURE H-l
TRANSPORTATION MATRIX-METHODOLOGY (MODAL SPLITS)
H-2 9
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
• 75 percent moved by rail
• 12 percent moved by truck - average truck
haul assumed to be 20 tons moved over 75
mile distance.
• 13 percent minemouth utilization
• Barge transport estimate of gross ton-mile-
age based on same rationale as interstate
flows.
• Slurry pipelines - constant quantity of coal
transported for all alternatives analyzed.
• Rail haul distance between origin and
destination (intrastate and interstate) as-
sumed to be 1.15 times short line distance
to account for rail line circuitry.
H.2.4.1 Ton Mile Analysis - 1985 DOE Mid-level
Consumption Estimates.The methodology devel-
oped to estimate the base case level of gross ton-
mile per state consists of:
1) Identification of a representative ori-
gin/destination matrix for the 1985 DOE
mid-level coal flows.
2) Identifying all coal flows, probable routes,
and length of route within each state
between origin and destination.
3) Calculation of number of trips and coal
tonnage flows within each state.
4) Combination of coal flow, distance, and
transport mode information.
5) Estimation of gross ton-mileage generated
per state for the consumption level repre-
sented in the origin/destination matrix used.
Estimates of gross ton-mileage per state are
presented in Table H-12.
The distribution of gross ton-mileage per state
for each program alternative was determined on
the following basis:
• The 1985 DOE mid-level coal production
consumption used was the base case.
• Production/consumption for each alterna-
tive was derived through use of the "Allo-
cate" program. This produc-
tion/consumption was then divided by the
base case to produce a unique ratio for each
alternative. Table H-13 presents the calcu-
lated ratios for each alternative.
• Base case gross ton-mileage (by mode of
transport within each consuming region)
was then multiplied by the ratio to obtain
revised estimates of gross ton-mileage for
each program alternative.
H.3 COAL IMPACT ESTIMATION
PROGRAM.
In order to identify and evaluate nationwide
coal cycle impacts on a quantitative basis for a
range of alternative Federal coal management
programs, a computerized analytical tool (the
CIEP) has been developed. The CIEP consists of
the following major modules:
• Main Impact Estimation Module.
• Socioeconomic Impact Estimation Module
• Ecological Impact Estimation Module
H3.1 Main Impact Estimation Module.
The five major classes of input information
required to operate the Main Impact Estimation
Module are:
• Production levels
• Transportation levels
• Consumption levels
• Coal cycle flow distribution
• Environmental loading factors
Coal production, transportation, and con-
sumption estimates for each region of the country
are input to the routine to produce numerical
estimates of the major environmental impact
factors. This is done by expressing coal produc-
tion, transportation, and consumption levels as
flows through the coal cycle. Once quantities of
coal flowing into each phase of the coal cycle are
calculated (based on percent distribution) for each
geographic area, the environmental loading factors
are then applied.
H.3. 1.1 Production Levels. Production input flows
in 100,000 ton units of coal are first divided
between surface and underground mining by the
application of percent distribution levels. Then the
resulting quantities are multiplied by a loading
factor to generate impact factors from mining
operations. Also, the production input flows are
divided between crushing and screening and
mechanical cleaning by the application of percent
distribution levels. The resulting quantities ace
then multiplied by a loading factor to generate
impact factors from coal cleaning operations.
These factors are added to generate total impact
factors resulting from production input flows or
are stored to be added to factors generated from
the other phases of the coal cycle (see Figure H-2).
H.3. 1.2 Transportation Levels. Transportation input
flows in billion gross ton-miles of coal transported
H-30
TABLE H-12
SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
1985 DOE MID-LEVEL SCENARIO
(All Values Except Miles In OOO.OOOs)
Miles
Motor
Net Ton-Miles
Gross Ton-Miles
Tons
Waterway
(Round
Pipeline
(One Way
Railroad Carrier
(Weighted (Round Trip
■int.nr
Motor
Motor
Code/Req1on
01 AL
Waterway
Pipeline
Railroad Carrier
20,593 233
Waterway
1,932
Railroad Carrier
36,573 475
Waterway
7.168
Pipeline Railroad
95
Carrier
3.107
Trip)
375
Welqhted) Round Trip)
432
Averaqe)
150
1,348
04 AZ
1,390
8,462
30
15,029
61
5
22
.400
278
7S8
150
05A AR
2,000
2,926
4
5,197
8
25
33
.050
80
179
150
05B AR
1,250
9,320
16,552
25
59
50
316
06 CA
4,428
7,864
11
835
08A CO
08B CO
3,366
3
2
5,978
5
4
84
.030
81
60
150
08C CO
503
893
17
58
08D CO
1,500
44,183
51
78,469
104
15
129
.700
100
685
278
150
09 CT/MA/RI
1,086
1,929
8
10 DE/NJ
2,905
5,159
29
203
530
12 FL
4,289
7,617
16
13 GA
9,265
16,455
67
277
16 ID
3,000
5,242
9,310
10
17
300
627
17 IL
4,176
29,762
420
5,984
52,857
857
6.425
165
5.600
1,300
361
150
18 IN
2,466
15,641
225
3,534
27,778
459
12.329
113
3.000
400
277
150
19A IA
110
195
2
100
19B IA
11,643
23
20,678
47
62
.306
376
150
20 KS
11,150
10,494
18,637
63
39
177
538
21A KY
16,188
11,083
CM
47
23,197
19,683
96
32.540
95
.627
498
234
150
21 B KY,(a>
16,188
270
23,197
_
551
32.540
-
3.600
498
-
150
22 LA(a'
338
600
1
563
23 ME/VT/NH
260
462
2
260
24 MD
9,026
62
16,030
126
64
.827
282
150
26 MI
3,060
5,435
35
174
27 MN/HI
19,576
34,767
55
717
28 MS
2,380
4.227
29
163
29 MO
37,733
32
67,014
65
139
.427
544
150
30A MT
1,900
15,698
109
27,880
222
.38
98
1.453
50
322
150
30B MT
12,268
21,788
56
436
31 NE
9,825
80,631
143,201
63
158
156
1,019
32 NV
996
1,551
2,755
.12
6
83
495
35A NM
3,390
107
6,021
218
32
1.426
214
150
35B NM
5,702
10,127
15
750
36 NY
1,924
3,417
25
155
37 NC/SC
10,508
18,662
44
481
150
38 ND
21,815
218
38,743
506
58
3.307
752
39 OH
5,022
15,605
516
7,197
27,714
1,053
19.316
109
6.880
520
286
150
40 OK
81
10,250
829 .
2
116
1,472
4
.462
63
7
.030
350
163
246
150
41 OR/WA
2,730
_U)
-
10
-
273
42 PA
18,226
16,177
1,020
26,118
28,730
2,081
47.587
77
13.600
765
422
150
46 SD
4,625
6,365
8
11,304
16
<IS
78
.107
185
163
150
47A TN
572
2,334
820
4,145
1.034
22
553
215
47B TN
572
16,155
13
820
28,691
27
1.034
114
.173
553
283
150
48 TX
37,800
29,592
1,082
52,555
2,207
53
54
14.427
713
1,094
150
49A UT
1,084
1,925
9
238
49B UT
49C UT
1,200
43
5,681
152
76
10,089
310
12
1
23
2.027
100
108
485
150
51 VA
22,294
15
39,594
31
103
.200
433
150
54A WV
3,748
3,953
120
5,371
7,021
245
20.200
42
1.600
186
189
150
548 WV
3,748
8,619
293
5,371
15,307
598
20.200
67
3.910
186
259
150
56A WY
9,500
18,346
32,583
73
111
130
330
56B WY
Total
2,480
15,453
56
5,140
103,657
27,445
1036,638
114
10,487
48
64
.747
52
480
150
72,335
101,596
583,694
<«)
(e)
M
69
6,184
2,890
19,763
3.900
r.) Since most of Kentucky's coal moves via waterway, using railroad net ton-miles to estimate waterway ton-miles understated ton-miles since waterway
traffic is 26 percent more circuitous then rail. Railroad ton-miles have been increased by 26 percent for Kentucky.
(b) Assume zero rail ton-miles.
(c) Assume all pipeline.
(d) Insignificant value equals 0.1.
<e) Since tons are unique to a shipment and not a state, tons for rail and barge cannot be added since this would Involve double counting. The same tor
moves through all states on its route.
Source: Reference Number 19.
H-31
TABLE H-13
RATIOS USED IN TRANSPORTATION
(a)
ALTERNATIVES
1976
1985
1990
LOW
MED.
HIGH
LOW
MED.
HIGH
Baseline Year
0.592
DOE Goals
1.0
1.422
No New Leasing
0.875
0.998
1.073
0.094
1.382
1.66
PRLAs Only
0.995
1.38
Emergency Leasing
0.997
1.375
Meet Industry Needs
1.035
1.415
State Determination
1.005
1.362
Preferred
0.871
0.996
1.093
0.897
1.397
1.745
(a)
Ratios based on estimate done for 1985 DOE Mid-level transportation
values by R.L. Banks and Associates, Inc. Ratios derived by adding
total production and consumption tonnage per year for each
alternative and dividing by the same total for 1985 DOE Mid-level
Alternative.
H-32
r PERCENT "\
Vdistrib
JTION/
/" LOADING "\
V FACTOR y
1
PRODUCTION
1
p*> SURFACE
FACTOR
ER,
1 P
/* LOADING \ «-
V FACTOR J
* ►
L-» UNDERGROUND ■
IMPACT
FACTOP.
P
r PERCENT \
/" LOADING \
^ FACTOR J
i h
^DISTRIBUTION^
» MECHANICAL
IMPACT
FACTOR
■ ♦
"
f LOADING \ L
^ FACTOR J
—
§> NONMECHANICAL
IMPACT
FACTOR
■ P
f PERCENT "\
^DISTRIBUTION^
C LOADING >
V FACTOR J
A r
ER2
CONSUMPTION
\
t
., STEAM/
* ELECTRIC
IMTACT
FACTOR
■—¥
/" LOADING \
V. FACTOR J
+ P
A SYNTHETIC
"* GAS
IMPACT
FACTOR
►
f LOADING "\
V FACTOR J
_fc SYNTHETIC
"* LIQUID
IMPACT
FACTOR
}
/" LOADING N
<. FACTOR 7
1 ,
-£> METALLURGICAL
IMPACT
FACTOP.
f PERCENT "\
I DISTRIBUTION J
f LOADING "\
V. FACTOR J
t
ER3
>
TRANSPORTATION
ir
-P RAIL
IMPACT
FACTOR
* ( LOADING \
^. FACTOR J
1 4 1
-p BARGE
IMPACT
FACTOR
f LOADING "\
V FACTOR J
-P TRUCK
IMPACT
1 FACTOR
J f LOADING *\
V FACTOR J
_~, SLURRY
^ PIPELINE
IMPACT
1 FACTOR
h
M 1
I
R
FIGURE H-2
MAIN IMPACT ESTIMATION MODULE (IMPACT FACTOR ESTIMATOR)
H-33
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
are first divided among rail, barge, truck, and
slurry pipeline modes by the application of percent
distribution levels. Then the resulting quantities
are multiplied by a loading factor to generate
impact factors from transportation activities.
These factors are added to generate total impact
factors resulting from transportation input flows or
are stored to be added to factors generated from
the other phases of the coal cycle.
H.3.1.3 Consumption Levels. Consumption input
flows in 100,000 ton units of coal are first divided
among steam/electric, synthetic gas, synthetic
liquid, and metallurgical use by the application of
percent distribution levels. Then the resulting
quantities are multiplied by a loading factor to
generate impact factors from conversion activities.
These impact factors are added to generate total
impact factors resulting from conversion input
flows or are stored to be added to impact factors
generated from the other phases of the coal cycle.
Similar impact factors generated from production,
transportation, and consumption activities are
then added to generate total impact factors
resulting from the coal development activity.
HJ.2 Socioeconomic Impact Estimation Module
The Socioeconomic Impact Estimation Mod-
ule uses estimates of direct construction and direct
operating workers generated by the Main Impact
Estimation Module and applies employment mul-
tipliers to generate estimates of indirect workers.
Then the indirect workers are split into married
and single components by means of a percent
multiplier. The married component is then multi-
plied by the family size multiplier to generate
married workers and dependents. To that, the
single component is added to arrive at workers and
dependents associated with direct construction
workers (see Figure H-3). Similarly the module
processes direct operation workers to generate
estimates of indirect workers and dependents.
The four separate worker and dependent
components are then summed to arrive at a total
worker and dependent population. Total popula-
tion is then multiplied by rates of services and
facilities required per 1,000 population to derive
estimates of:
• Public school children.
• Physicians.
• Hospitals.
• Housing units.
• Water treatment (mgd).
• Sewerage treatment (mgd).
• Solid waste generated.
• Policemen.
• Firemen.
Teachers are calculated by applying pu-
pil/teacher ratios to public school children. Then,
the services and facilities are multiplied by fiscal
multipliers to arrive at fiscal requirements on a
regional basis.
H3.3 Ecological Impact Estimation Module
The Ecological Impact Estimation Module
uses acreage disturbed throughout the coal cycle,
on both a long term and a short term basis,
generated in the Main Impact Estimation Module,
and applies percent multipliers to estimate acres
disturbed by land use category. Acreages disturbed
by category (other than cropland) are multiplied
by productivity multipliers to generate estimates of
natural vegetation (forest, range) lost. Croplands
disturbed are multiplied by a percent multiplier to
generate estimates of acreage, by crop, such as
corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, oats, and sugar-
beets. Each of the agricultural product estimates is
multiplied by productivity estimates to generate
estimates of the losses in primary productivity such
as bushels of corn forgone per acre disturbed (see
Figure H-4).
Density multipliers are also used to generate
potential decreases in wildlife populations. With
the exception of big game (excluding white-tailed
deer), other wildlife are assumed to be equally
distributed over the entire area disturbed. As such,
density multipliers are multiplied by total land
disturbed to give potential decreases in small
mammal, bird, predator, amphibian/reptile, and
deer populations. Estimates of range and pasture
disturbed are multiplied by density multipliers to
give potential decreases in mule deer and antelope
populations, while estimates of forest and wetlands
are multiplied by density multipliers to give
potential decreases in moose and elk populations.
H.4 ENVIRONMENTAL LOADING
FACTORS
The methodology described in Section 5.1 uses
"environmental loading factors" to identify and
quantify environmental impact factors associated
with coal extraction, preparation, transportation,
H-34
/^EMPLOYMENT}
VMUmPLIER/
DIRECT
CONSTRUCTION
UORKERS
C PERCENT "\
I MULTIPLIER)
INDIRECT
CONSTRUCTION
UORKERS
' '
1
C PERCENT \
wwmPUERy
DIRECT
OPERATIONS
UORKERS
(EMPLOYMENT A
\ MULTIPLIER J
1 1
INDIRECT
OPERATIONS
UORKERS
f PERCENT
V MULTI"' '
INT \
piiERy
k:
p- A HARR
L»| sin
/faWysizeN
V^HULTIPLIERy/
M
HARRIED \~
( FAMILY)
( FAMILY)
( FAMILY )
DEPEN-
DENTS
WORKER
DEPEN-
DEPEN-
DENTS
DEPEN-
DENTS
SUBTOTAL
UORKERS
DEPEN-
DENT^
DEPEN-
DENTS
SUBTOTAL
WORKERS
DEPEN-
DENTS
DEPEN-
DENTS
C RATE ^
V MULTIPLIER )
( RATE )
i
('"
( RATE )
I
( RATE )
_3z_
( RATE )
( RATE )
I
( RATE )
( RATE )
I
( RATE )
SERVICES ^™)
FACILITIES
SCHOOL
CHILDREN
f FISCAL N
^MULTIPLIERS^
HOUSING
UNITS
WATER
TREATMENT
SEWERAGE
TREATMENT
SOLID
WASTE
1 FIREMEN I
FISCAL
REQUIREMENTS
(FISCAL )
( FISCAL)
(FISCA-)
( FISCAL)
( FISCAL)
( FISCAL)
*n i
FIGURE H-3
SOCIOECONOMIC ESTIMATION HOOULE
I
DECREASES
IN
WILDLIFE
ANIMAL UNITS
ACRES DISTURBED
SMALL
MAMMALS
n
CROPLAND
SONGBIRDS
CORN
(PRODUCTIVITY
ESTIMATES J
LOSSES IN
CROP PRODUCTIVITY
CORN
Bu/Acre
SOYBEANS
PROD. EST)
±4
SOYBEANS
Bu/Acre
(PBOP-ISP
COTTON
cotton
Bu/Acre
(PROD. EST)
WHEAT
1
WHEAT
Bu/Acre
FIGURE H-4
ECOLOGICAL ESTIMATION SUBROUTINE
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
and conversion. These loading factors relate
specific impacts to 100,000-ton units of coal. This
approach was used in all coal cycle phases with the
exception of transportation. In the transportation
sector, impacts were estimated on the frequency of
occurrence per billion gross ton-miles travelled. By
expressing all impacts in terms of tons of coal,
estimation of impact factors can be readily
accomplished once a coal production level is
determined.
Tables H-14 to H-66 present the environmental
loading factors which were applied to flows of coal
in the particular geographic units assessed in this
ES. In states where no coal production occurred,
(e.g., Florida) the production coal flows equaled
zero. The transportation and conversion flows
were positive, thus resulting in positive impact
factors when the appropriate loading factor was
applied. The following examples illustrate how the
environmental, socioeconomic, and ecologic load-
ing factors were derived.
Environmental loading factors used as input to
the Main Impact Estimation Module were generat-
ed for 17 major categories for the 53 geographic
regions defining the United States (41 producing
regions, overlain with 53 consuming regions).
Additional multipliers were also generated for a
broad range of social, economic, and environmen-
tal parameters estimated in the socioeconomic and
landloss modules. The environmental loading
factors are derived from various literature sources
and then multiplied by input data for production,
transportation, and conversion to produce impact
factors (e.g., impact factors = Flow x Percent x
Loading Factor). The following are examples of
impact factors developed by the Main Impact
Estimation Module.
H.4.1 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)
The loading factor for particulate (TSP) emis-
sions from crushing and screening operations is 24
pounds of particulate per ton coal cleaned without
control devices.1 By assuming 99 percent control
efficiency, the loading factor would be 12
tons/ 100,000 tons. For example in Colorado,
Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region:
Annual coal production in
Colorado
(in 100,000 tons)
Percent coal cleaned
(crushing and screening)
Loading factors
tons/ 100,000 tons
Annual TSP emitted from
crushing and screening in tons
19762 19852 19902
21.7 43 77
71.9 71.9 71.9
12 12 12
188 371 664
H.4.2 Direct Construction Workers
For surface mine construction workers in
Colorado, Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region,
the impact factors are calculated:
Annual coal production X 105 tons
Percent coal mined
by surface methods
Loading factors tons/105 tons
Numbers of workers required
for surface mining
19763
19853
19903
21.7
43
77
0
42
19
3.21
3.21
3.21
58
47
derived from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, [7],
2DOE needs alternative, medium production level.
3DOE mid-level.
The loading factor is based on peak employ-
ment during construction of a 5.6 million ton per
year mine and is estimated to be 180 workers.4
Output of the mine divided into number of
workers produces estimates of construction work-
ers per 100,000-ton capacity. This would be 180
divided by ((5.6 times 106) divided by 105) which
equals 3.2 14.
H.4.3 Direct Operation Workers
The annualized loading factor for underground
mine operators in the Colorado portion of the
Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region is 19.7.5
Multiplying this factor by the coal production
flow results in the following calculation: ^g
Annual coal production in Colorado
in 100,000 tons
Percent mined underground
Loading factor in workers/ 105 tons
Underground miners in Colorado
Applying this same methodology to the direct
construction worker loading factor of 4.8 yields
120 underground direct construction workers for
*Toman et al, 1976,[25]
■^Derived from U.S. ERDA [8]
6DOE mid-level.
43
58
19.7
491
H-37
TABLE H-14
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
ALABAMA
PS
I
OJ
CO
RECOVER
EXTRACT
(100,000
{ &
ION
tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
9469
0.4
2.8
0.3
4.55
0.15
9461
0*
0*
0*
0*
12*
1534*
0*
0*
0*
0*
18*
0*
132*
182.6*
80*
520*
35*
32336*
3.4*
6.47*
1.87*
19.43*
0.07 *
41114 *
122.6*
772.1*
76.0*
490.2*
35.5*
118,732*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
15*
50*
104.5
450*
72
284,141
66.3*
13.3*
23.4*
75.0*
5.3*
163,168
10.7*
8.7*
68.7*
50.4*
1.0*
.05,779
210*
63.5*
10.1*
1.0*
1.8*
25,506*
Water Make-u?: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
0.56**
1.5**
0.75**
0.75**
7.12**
3.12**
4.00**
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
(a)
(a)
(a)
343*
309*
34*
175*
129*
46*
147*
111*
36*
200.3*
53.9*
146.4*
Land Disturbed
(Short-terra) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0*
0*
11.4
3.6
0.85**
0.25**
0.85**
0.25**
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7*
8.2
10.89*
6.53
6.33*
2.9
1.88*
0.56*
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000**
0*
0*
0*
15,792
0*
19,775
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
0*
7,822
4,310
10,432
414
9572
2,213
1985*
0*
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12**
.04**
0.053**
0.011**
0 . 0051**
0.00005**
0.0153**
0.0002**
1.966*
0.2135*
0*
0*
434.4*
47.2*
0*
0*
0.0023*
0.00006*
0.0665*
0.0017*
0.044*
0.0011*
0.1*
0.001*
(trillion Btu)
0.088**
0.088**
.0154**
0.1**
0.3764*
0.4755*
1.3725*
0.45*
0.066*
0.046*
.019*
0.06*
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8**
37.8
3.21**
17.8
7.8**
0.9**
15.6**
2.67**
(a)
22*
(a)
44*
(a)
1346.4*
(a)
10*
38.4*
4.38*
18.1*
12.1*
19.73*
13.15*
14.0*
15.6*
* Repeat for 53 geographical units.
** Repeat for producing geographic units only:
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-15
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
ARIZONA-BLACK MESA
I
CO
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
CO
0
0
0
0
0
8533
.4
2.2
.25
3.6
.45
8529
0
0
0
0
12
1277
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
85.5
450
120
236,856
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,149
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
3.68
1.84
1.84
6.079
6.023
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
7.1
2.2
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
7.9
10.89
6.32
6.33
2.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
28,568
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,036
3,527
17,388
338
15,954.
1,811
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
22.7
3.21
4.9
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-16
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
ARKANSAS - WESTERN INTERIOR
i
O
RECOVER
EXTRACT
(100,000
1 &
ION
tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9252
.7
3.8
.45
6.25
.5
9245
0
0
0
0
12
1475
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
399
450
104
273,211
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
L56.893
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
101,710
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acra/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
19.0
3.4
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.1
10.89
4.05
6.33
2.34
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
13,855
0
12,650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,298
16,458
15,069
1,580
13,827
8,451
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
. 00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0,06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
...
4.8
12.3
3.21
L2.9
7.8
0.9
—
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-17
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
ARKANSAS - TEXAS
X
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8173
.2
1.45
.15
2.15
.6
8169
0
0
0
0
12
1182
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
76
450
72
218,570
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
125,514
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
81,368
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
7.1
0.7
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.5
10.89
4.36
6.33
2.53
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
13,855
0
12,650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,822
3,135
10,432
301
9,572
1,610
1985
. 0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.21
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
. 00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
0
3.21
3.6
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-18
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
CALIFORNIA
RECOVER
EXTRACT
(100,000
i &
ION
tons)
REFINING S
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
C02
0
0
0
0
0
8533
0
0
0
0
0
8529
0
0
0
0
0
1277
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
28.5
450
48
236,782
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,368
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
Uj (Short-term) acres
.p~ Land Disturbed
W (Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6. 33
1.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8256
1568
11,102
150
10 , 104
805
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
. 00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
(trillion Btu)
0
0
0
0
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-19
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
COLORADO - GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Unde rground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8533
.45
2.35
.3
3.85
.4
8529
0
0
0
0
12
1277
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
57
450
40
236,782
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,149
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/f t
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
5.048
4.48
.56
1.5
0-75
0.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
7.1
1.3
0.85
0 .25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.2
10.89
4. .14
6. '33
2.41
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
20,737
0
7,167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4345
2351
5796
226
5318
1207
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
. 00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
25.2
3.21
4.1
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-20
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
COLORADO - SAN JUAN RIVER
I
4>
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8533
.4
2.2
.25
3.6
.45
8529
0
0
0
0
12
1277
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
76
450
72
236,856
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,149
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acr«/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
3.68
1.84
1.84
6.079
5.51
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
7.1
2.2
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
7.9
10.89
6.32
6.33
2.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid fc°ns)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
20,737
0
7,167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7822
3135
10,432
301
9572
1610
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
22.7
3.21
4.9
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
IS. 6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-21
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
COLORADO - DENVER-RATON MESA
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8533
.45
2.35
.3
3.85
.4
8529
0
0
0
0
12
1277
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
28.5
450
48
236,782
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,368
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
3.68
1.84
1.84
5.048
4.48
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
14.3
3.0
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.5
10.89
4.36
6.33
2.53
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
20737
0
7167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8256
1568
11012
150
10104
805
L985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0513
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
J00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
27.7
3.21
5.8
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
IP
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15. .6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-22
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
COLORADO - UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH
i
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9252
.45
2.35
.3
3.85
.4
9248
0
0
0
0
12
1475.
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
95
450
<?4
273,211
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
156,893
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
101,710
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
3.68
1.84
1.84
6.079
5.51
56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146 4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
5.2
1.1
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.3
10.89
5.01
6.33
2.91
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
20,737
0
7,167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6953
3919
9274
376
8509
2012
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0065
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Wo rkers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
19.7
3.21
6.0
7.8
0.9
15.6 .
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.93
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
I
TABLE H-23
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
CONNECTICUT - MASSACHUSETTS - RHODE ISLAND
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons}
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
CO,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9608
0
0
0
0
0
1574
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
161.5
450
80
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167.352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108.491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1,8
25.506
2
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6.33
1.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8691
6662
11,592
640
10,636
3420
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
0
0
0
0
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-24
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
DELAWARE - NEW JERSEY
a
I
00
RECOVERY 4
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
0
0
0
0
0
9608
0
0
0
0
0
1574
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,11*
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
161.5
450
80
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6.33
1.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8691
6662
11,592
640
10,636
3,420
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0
0
0
0
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
—
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-25
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
FLORIDA
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles
)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
0
0
0
0
132
3.49
122.6
0
15
66.3
10.7
210
CO
0
0
0
0
182.6
6.47
772.1
0
50
13.3
8.7
63.5
SOx
0
0
0
0
80
1.87
76.0
0
266
23.4
68.7
10.1
NOx
0
0
0
0
520
19.43
490.2
0
450
75.0
50.4
1.0
TSP
0
0
0
0
35
0.07
35.5
0
88
5.3
1.0
1.8
co2
9395
9388
1516
0
32,336
41,114
118,732
0
280,496
161,076
104,423
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
10.89
6.33
1.88
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
4.1
3.27
1.9
.56
(Long-term) acres
By-Product Solid (tons)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,560
12,750
11,700
1985
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,972
1,054
5,634
0
Wastes (active)
Accidents
0
0
0
0
1.966
0
434.4
0
.0023
.0665
.044
.1
Fatalities
0
'0
0
0
.2135
0
47.2
0
.00006
.0017
.0011
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0
0
0
0
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
38.4
18.1
19.73
14.0
Workers
Direct Operation
0
0
0
0
22
44
1346.4
10
4.38
12.1
13.15
15.6
Workers
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-26
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
GEORGIA
W
I
o
RECOVERY 6,
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9469
.4
2.8
0.3
4.55
0.15
9461
0
0
0
0
12
1534
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
104.5
450
72
284,141
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
163,168
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
105,779
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
11.4
3.6
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
8.2
10.89
6.53
6.33
3.8
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
23,711
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7822
4310
10432
414
9572
2213
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
37.8
3.21
17.8
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.93
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
I
TABLE H-27
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
IDAHO
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
REFINING 6.
PROCESSING
(100 000 Mmsi
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground Surface
Mining Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
CO,
0
0
0
0
0
8533
.45
2.35
.3
3.85
.4
8529
0
0
0
0
12
1277
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
57
450
40
236,782
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,149
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
5.048
4.48
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
7.1
1.3
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.2
10.89
4.14
6.33
2.47
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
26,770
0
153
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4345
2351
5796
226
5318
1207
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
25.2
3.21
4.1
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-28
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
ILLINOIS
I
to
RECOVER'
EXTRACT
(100,000
r &
:on
:ons)
REFINING 6.
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
.0
0
0
9395
.7
3.8
.45
6.25
.5
9388
0
0
0
0
12
1516
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
266
450
88
280,496
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
161,076
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
104,423
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
9.5
1.6
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
3.2
10.89
2.5
6.33
1.45
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
5,427
0
18,902
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,560
10,972
12,750
1,054
11,700
5,634
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1 . 966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
19.2
3.21
11.2
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-29
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
INDIANA
Hi
I
CO
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons')
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
CO.
0
0
0
0
0
9395
.7
3.8
.45
6.25
.5
9388
0
0
0
0
12
1516
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,73;
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
266
450
88
280,496
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
161,076
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
104,423
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
2
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46 .
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
9.5
1.6
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
3.2
10.89
2.5
6.33
1.45
1.88
.56
3y-Product Solid tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
4,840
0
17,306
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,560
10,972
12,750
1,054
11,700
5,634
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.4755
1.3725
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
19.2
3.21
11.2
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-30
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
IOWA - EASTERN INTERIOR
I
■P-
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
9°2
0
0
0
0
0
9395
.7
3.8
.45
6.25
.5
9388
0
0
0
0
12
1516
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
266
450
87.9
280,496
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
161,076
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
104,423
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200,3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
9.5
1.6
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
3.2
10.89
2.5
6.33
1.45
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
10,890
0
8,494
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,560
10,972
12,750
1,054
11,700.
5,634
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.'011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
19.2
3.21
11.2
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
39.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-31
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
IOWA - WESTERN INTERIOR
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons) -
IMPACT
underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9252
.7
3.8
.45
6.25
.5
9245
0
0
0
0
12
1475
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5 •
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
399
450
104
273,211
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
156,893
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
10 1 , 7 10
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-ur : Acre/f t
Evaporative
Effluent
3. 887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
19.0
3.4
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.1
10.89
4.05
6.33'
2.34
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
27,590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,298
16,458
15,069
1,580
13,827
8,451
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.•on
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
12.3
3.21
12.9
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H- 32
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
KANSAS
K
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9252
.7
3.8
.45
6.25
.5
9245
0
0
0
0
12
1475
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
399
450
104
273,211
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
156,893
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
101,710
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
- Ill
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
19.0
3.4
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.1
10.89
4.05
6.33
2.34
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0.
0
0
0
0
28,186
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,298
16,458
15,069
1,580
13,827
8,451
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.Oil
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
12.3
3.21
12.9
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside model.
TABLE H-33
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
KENTUCKY - CENTRAL APPALACHIAN
W
I
In
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles
)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
.4
2.8
.3
4.55
.15
9604
0
0
0
0
12
1574
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
209
450
64
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167.352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108.491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
129
46
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
11.4
3.6
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.4
10.89
5.12
6.33
2.97
1.88
.56
Sy-Product Solid (tons)
Hastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
17,399
0
8,009
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6953
8621
9274
828
8509
4427
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
0.088
0.088
.0154
.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
24.1
3.21
12.3
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-34
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
KENTUCKY- EASTERN INTERIOR
3d
I
CO
RECOVER
EXTRACT
(100,000
If &
ION
tons)
REFINING 6,
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
0
0
0
0
0
9395
.7
3.8
.45
6.25
.5
9388
0
0
0
0
12
1516
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
266
450
88
280,496
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
161,076
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
104,423
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
9.5
1.6
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
3.2
10.89
2.5
6.33
1.45
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
10,890
0
8,494
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,560
10,972
12,750
1,054
11,700
5,634
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
. 00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
19.2
3.21
11.2
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15 .'6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-35
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
LOUISIANA
I
Ln
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
, PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles
)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
0
.2
0
0
132
3.49
122.6
0
15
66.3
10.7
210
CO
0
1.45
0
0
182.6
6.47
772.1
0
50
13.3
8.7
63.5
SOx
0
.15
0
0
80
1.87
76.0
0
76
23.4
68.7
10.1
NOx
0
2.15
0
0
520
19.43
490.3
0
450
75.0
50.4
1.0
TSP
0
.6
12
18
35
0.07
35.5
0
72
5.3
1.0
1.8
co2
81 73
8169
1182
n
37,336
41.114
118.732
0
218.570
125.514
81 , 368
?s,snfi
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
5.887
4.46
1.5
7.12
0
0
0
(a)
343
175
147
200.3
Evaporative
2.94
3.9
.75
3.12
0
0
0
(a)
309
129
111
53.9
Effluent
2.94
.56
.75
4.00
0
0
0
(a)
34
46
36
146.4.
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
0
7.1
.85
.85
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
10.89
6.33
1.88
Land Disturbed
0
0.7
.25
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
5.5
4.36
2.53
.56
(Long-term) acres
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
3000
0
28,073
0
0
0
0
0
7822
10,432
9572
1985
By-Product Solid
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3135
301
1610
0
Wastes (active)
Accidents
3.12
.053
.0051
.0153
1.966
0
434.4
0
.0023
.0665
.044
.1
Fatalities
.04
.011
.00005
.0002
.2135
0
47.2
0
.00006
.0017
.0011
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
4.8
3.21
7.8
15.6
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
38.4
18.1
19.73
14.0
Direct Operation
0
3.6
0.9
2.67
22
44
1346.4
10
4.38
12.1
13.15
15.6
Workers
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-36
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE/VERMONT
W
I
ON
o
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
0
0
0
0
0
9608
0
0
0
0
0
1574
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
161.5
450
80
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,532
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
2 00 ..3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6.33
1.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8691
6662
11,592
640
10,636
3,420
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0
0
0
0
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-37
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
MARYLAND
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
.4
2.35
.3
3.9
.15
9608
0
0
0
0
12
15 74
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
161.5
450
80
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
9.5
3.3
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.3
10.89
5.01
6.33
2.91
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
22,420
0
1,603
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8691
6662
11,592
640
10,636
3,420
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088 .
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
33.4
3.21
10.4
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
... - .. -
14.0
15.6
<a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-38
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
MICHIGAN
I
S3
RECOVER
EXTRACT
(100,000
I &
[ON
:ons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9395
0
0
0
0
0
9388
0
0
0
0
0
1516
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
266
450
88
280,496
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
161,076
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
104,423
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25.506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
.147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6.33
1.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9560
10,972
12,750
1,054
11,700
5,634
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0
0
0
0
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-39
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
MINNESOTA - WISCONSIN
I
ON
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons')
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground Surface
Mining Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
CO
0 o
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
9395 9388
0
0
0
0
0
1516
0
0
0
0
0
0
132 3.49
182.6 6.47
80 1.87
520 19.43
35 0.07
32,336 41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
266
450
88
280,496
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
161,076
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
104,423
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
.34
175
129
46
.147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6.33
1.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9560
10,972
12,750
1,054
11,700
5,634
1987
0
Accidents
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
r37 64
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
(trillion Btu)
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
L4.0
L5.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-40
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
MISSISSIPPI
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge_
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8533
0
0
0
0
0
3529
0
0
0
0
0
1277
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
15
50
57
450
40
236,782
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,149
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53,9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
8.2
10.89
6.53
6.33
3.8
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4345
2351
5796
226
5318
1207
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
(trillion Btu)
0
0
0
0
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operdtion
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-41
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
MISSOURI
I
— _ — _ — . — .
RECOVERY (,
EXTRACTION
(100 000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
...
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
lechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
o-
0
0
9252
.7
3.8
.45
6.25
.5
9245
0
0
0
0
12
1475
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
.0-
0
0
0
0
15
50
399
450
104
273,211
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
156.893
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
101.710
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
705.506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
19.0
■ 3.4
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.1
10.89
4.05
6.33
2.34
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
13,390
0
8,217
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,298
16,458
L5.069
1580
13,827
8451
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
0.088
0.088
.0154
.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
12.3
3.21
12.9
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
1'4.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
-
TABLE H-42
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
MONTANA - POWDER RIVER
IMPACT
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8316
.45
2.35
.3
3.85
.4
8313
0
0
0
0
12
1218
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
6
0
0
0
15
50
47.5
450
72
225,856
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
129,698
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
84 081
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
Water Make-Lp: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
5.711
5.151
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146 4
1
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
2.2
0.6
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.9
10.89
4.68
6.33
2.72
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
28,564
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7822
1959
10,432
188
9572
1006
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
046
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
0
3.21
4.1
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
L346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
•UHO ■"'
18.1 L9.73
12.1 L3.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-43
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
MONTANA - FORT UNION
a
CA
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miJ.es)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
CO
0
0
0
0
0
8173
.45
2.35
.3
3.85
.4
8169
0
0
0
0
12
1182
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118.732
0
0
0
0
0
o
15
50
38
450
56
210,570
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
125.514
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
81.368
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25.506 .
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
6.299
5.739
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-terra) acres
0
0
4.8
0.5
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
3.6
10.89
2.83
6.33
1,64
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (iractive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
28,564
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6084
1567
8114
150
7445
805
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
. 00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
0.088
0.088
.0154
.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
0
3.21
3.3
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-44
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
NEBRASKA
W
I
oo
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9252
.7
3.8
.45
6.25
.5
9245
0
0
0
0
12
1475
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32.336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118. 719
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
399
450
104
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
•5.3
156 893
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
19.0
3.4
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.1
10.89
4.05
6.33
2.34
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
21,572
0
6,048
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,298
16,458
15,069
1,580
13,827
8,451
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
. 00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
12.3
3.21
12.9
7.8
0.9
15.6
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-45
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
NEVADA
Pd
I
VD
RECOVERY S
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons')
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
CO
0
0
0
0
0
8316
0
0
0
0
0
8313
0
0
0
0
0
1218
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32 , 336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
47.5
450
72
225,856
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
129,698
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
84,081
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-v.p: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6.33
1.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7822
1959
lo,432
188
9572
1006
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
. 00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.011
Operating Energy
0
0
0
0
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-46
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
NEW MEXICO/ SAN JUAN RIVER
IMPACT
EXTRACT
(100,000
ION
tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8533
.4
2.2
.25
3.6
.45
8529
0
0
0
0
12
1277
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
76
450
72
236,856
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,149
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
3.68
1.84
1.84
6.079
5.51
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
M Land Disturbed
1 (Long-term) acres
o ' —
0
0
7.1
2.2
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
7.9
10.89
6.32
6.33
3.67
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
25,270
0
3,301
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7822
3135
10,432
301
9572
1610
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
22.7
3.21
4.9
7.8
0.9
•
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-47
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
NEW MEXICO/DENVER-RATON MESA
Hi
I
-J
H
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
. PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air EmlsBlotiB (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
CO
0
0
0
0
0
8533
.45
2.35
.3
3.85
.4
8529
0
0
0
0
12
1277
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
-50
28.5
450
48
236,782
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,368
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
3.68
1.84
1.84
5.048
4.48
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
14.3
3.0
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.5
10.89
4.36
6.33
2.53
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
25,270
0
3,301
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8256
1568
11,012
150
10,104
805
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
0.088
0.088
.0154
.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
27.7
3.21
5.8
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-48
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
NEW YORK
I
-J
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
A±r Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
0
0
0
0
0
9608
0
0
0
0
0
1574
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
161.5
450
80
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
.147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6.33
1.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8691
6662
11,592
640
10,636
3,420
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
0011
.1
.001
(trillion Btu)
0
0
0
-±21&L~„
.4755
.1,3 7 25
.45
.066
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-49
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
NORTH CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA
M
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
0
0
0
0
0
9604
0
0
0
0
0
1574
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
209
450
64
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6.33
1.9
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6953
8621
9274
828
8509
4427
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0
0
0
0
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-50
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
NORTH DAKOTA
-!>■
RECOVER
EXTRACT
(100,000
Y &
ION
tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8173
.45
2.35
.3
3.85
.4
8169
0
0
0
0
12
1182
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
■o
0
0
0
15
50
38
450
56
218,570
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
125,514
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
81,368
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
6.299
5.73
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
4.8
0.5
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
3.6
10.89
2.83
6.33
1.64
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (Inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
23,219
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6084
1567
8114
150
7445
805
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
. 00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1 .
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
0
3.21
3.3
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
.06
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-51
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
OHIO
I!
I
Ln
RECOVERY 6,
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
0.4
2.35
0.3
3.9
0.15
9608
0
0
0
0
12
1574
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
161.5
450
80
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
0.56
1.5
0.75
0.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
9.5
3.3
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.3
10.89
5.01
6.33
2.91
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
20,574
0
11,280
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,691
6,662
11,592
640
10,636
3,420
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
0.04
0.053
O'.Oll
0.0051
0.00005
O.0153
0.0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.044
0.0011
0.1
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
0.0154
0.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
0.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
33.4
3.21
10.4
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
1
19.73
13.15
14. C
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H- S 2
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
OKLAHOMA
til
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
RKFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(bil lion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
• 0
0
0
0
9252
0.7
3.8
0.45
6.25
0.5
9245
0
0
0
0
12
1475
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.0
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
399
450
104
273,211
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
156,893
10.7
8.7
69.7
50.4
1.0
101,710
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
0.56
1.5
0.75
0.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
19.0
3.4
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.1
10.89
4.05
6.33
2.34
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
21,572
0
6,048
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,298
16,458
15,069
1,580
13,827
8,451
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
0.04
0.053
0.011
0.0051
0.00005
0.0153
0.0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.044
0.011
0.1
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
0.154
0.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
0.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
12.3
3.21
12.9
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-53
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
OREGON - WASHINGTON
I
-J
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8316
0
0
0
0
0
8313
0
0
0
0
0
1218
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.2
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
47.5
450
72
225,856
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
129,698
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
84,081
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
4.1
10.89
3.27
6.33
1.9
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (Inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,822
1,959
10,432
188
9,572
1,006
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.044
0.0011
0.1
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0
0
0
0
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
0.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1,346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-54
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS 1-ROM
PENNSYLVANIA
W
I
oo
RECOVERY (,
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
0.4
2.35
0.3
3.9
0.15
9608
0
0
0
0
12
1574
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43'
0.07'
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
161.5
450
80
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
0.56
1.5
0.75
0.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
9.5
3.3
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.3
10.89
5.01
6.33
2.91
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
10,735
0
15,442
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
8,691
6,662
11,592
640
10,636
3,420
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
0.04
0.53
0'. 011
0.0051
0.00005
0.0153
0 . 0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.044
0.0011
0.1
0.001
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
0.0154
0.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
0.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
33.4
3.21
10.4
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1,346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-55
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
SOUTH DAKOTA
I
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
•(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic 1
Gas 1
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8173
0.45
2.35
0.3
3.85
0.4
8169
0
0
0
0
12
1182
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
38
450
56
218,570
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
125,514
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
81,368
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up : Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
6.299
5.73
0.56
1.5
0.-75
0.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
4.8
0.5
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
3.6
10.89
2.83
6.33
1.64
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
23,219
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,084
1,567
8,114
150
7,445
805
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
0.04
0.053
0.011
0.0051
0.00005
0.0153
0.0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.044
0.0011
0.1
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
0.0154
0.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
0.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
0
3.21
3.3
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1,346.4
C«3
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
18.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-56
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
TENNESSEE - CENTRAL APPALACHIAN
ffi
00
o
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
0.4
2.8
0.3
4.55
0.15
9604
0
0
0
0
12
1574
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49 i
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
112.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
209
450
64
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
6.299
5.73
0.56
1.5
0.75
0.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
11.4
3.6
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.4
10.89
5.12
6.33
2.97
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
19,163
0
5,992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,953
8,621
9,274
828
8,509
4,427
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
0.04
0.053
(5.11
0.0051
0.00005
0.0153
0.0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.044
0.0011
0.1
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
0.0154
0.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
0.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
24.1
3.21
12.3
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1,346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-57
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS l'KOM
TENNESSEE - SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
W
I
CO
RECOVERY 6,
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing & . .
." Mechanical
Screening
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9469
0.4
2.8
0.3
4.55
0.3
9461
0
0
0
0
12
1534
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32 , 336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
104.5
449.6
72
284,141
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
163,168
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
105,779
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
0.56
1.5
0.'75
0.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
11.4
3.6
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
8.2
10.89
6.53
6.33
3.8
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
19,163
0
5,992
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,822
4,310
10,432
414
9,572
2,213
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
0.04
0.053
0.011
0 . 0051
0.00005
0.0153
0.0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.044
0.0011
0.1
0.001
1
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
0.0154
0.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
0.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
37.8
3.21
17.8
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1,346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
1
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-58
ENVIRONMENTAL LOABIHGS FROM
TEXAS
I
03
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8173
0.2
1.45
0.15
2.15
0.6
8169
0
0
0
0
12
1182
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3^49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
76
450
72
218,570
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
125,514
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
81,368
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
2.9
0.56
1.5
0.75
0.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
3
J
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
7.1
0.7
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5.5
10.89
4.36
6.33
2.53
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
28,073
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,822
3,135
10,432
301
9,572
1,610
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
0.04
0.053
0.011
0.0051
0.00005
0.0153
0.0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.0
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.044
0.011
0.1
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu) .
0.088
0.088
0.0154
.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
0
3.21
3.6
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1,346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-59
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
UTAH _ GREEN RIVER-FJWS FORK
PC
3
00
RECOVERY
EXTRACTI
(100,000 t
Dns)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles
)
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining .
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steaia
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
MetEl-
lur£ical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
0
.45
0
0
132
3.49
122.6
0
15
66.3
10.7
210
CO
0
2.35
0
0
182.6
6.47
772.1
0
50
13.3
8.7
6 3.5
SOx
0
.3
0
0
80
1.87
76.0
0
57
23.4
68.7
10.1
NOx
0
3.85
0
0
520
19.43
490.3
0
450
75.0
50.4
1.0
TSP
co2
0
85 33
.4
8529
12
1277
18
0
35
32,336
0.07
41,114
35.5
118,732
0
0
40
236,782
5.3
135,974
1.0 1.8
88,149 ! 25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
5.048
4.48
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147 200.3
111 53.9
36 ! 146.4
Land Disturbed
0
__ _— —
7.1
.85
.85
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
10.89
6.33
1.88
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
0
1.3
.25
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
5.2
4.14
2.4
.56
(Long-term) acres
By-Product Solid (cons)
3000
0
14366
14151
0
0
0
0
4345
5796
5318
1985
Wastes (inactive)
Ey-Product Solid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 351
226
1207 0
Wastes (active)
1
Accidents
3.12
.053
.0051
.0153
1.966
0
434.4
0
.0023
.0665
.044 .1
Fatalities
04
.011
.00005
.0002
.2135
0
47.2
n
.00006
.0017
i .0011 .001
Operating Energy
i
.088
.088
.0154
0,1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
4.8
3.21
7.8
15.6
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
38.4
18.1
19.73
14.0
Wo rke r s
Direct Operation
25.2
4.1
0.9
2.67
22
44
1346.4
10
4.38
12.1
13.15
15.6
Workers
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-60
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
UTAH-SAN JUAN RIVER
i
GO
RECOVERY 6,
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
. PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
co?:versio>:
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8533
.4
2.2
.25
3.6
.45
8529
0
0
0
0
12
1277
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118.73?
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
76
450
72
236,056
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,074
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
3.68
1.84
1.84
6.079
5.51
.56
1.5
.75
.56
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
7.1
2.2
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
7.9
10.89
6.32
6.33
3.67
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
Q
0
14366
0
14151
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7822
3135
10432
301
9572
1610
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
.00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
.00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu) .
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
22.7
3.21
4.9
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-61
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
OTAH-UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH
HI
I
c»
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9252
0.45
2.35
0.3
3.85
0.4
9248
0
0
0
0
12
1475
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32 , 336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
95
450
64
273,211
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
156,893
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
101,710
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
3.68
1.84
1.84
6.079
5.51
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
127
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
5.2
1.1
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.3
10.89
5.01
6.33
2.91
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
14,366
0
14,151
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,953
3,919
9,274
376
8,509
2,012
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
0.053
0.011
0.0051
0.00005
0.0153
0 . 0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
o
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.044
0.0011
0.1
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
0.0154
0.1
.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.065
0.046
0.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
19.7
3.21a
6.0
7.8
0.9
15,6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
L.346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-62
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
VIRGINIA
I
00
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
.Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
.4
2.8
.3
4.55
.15
9604
0
0
0
0
12
1574
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
722.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
209
450
64
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
11.4
3.6
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.4
10.89
5.12
6.33
2.97
1.88
.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
15404
0
10715
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6953
8621
9274
828
8509
4427
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
. 00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
. 00006
.0665
.0017
.044
. 0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
.088
.088
.0154
. .1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
24.1
3.21
12.3
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15. e
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-63
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
WEST VIRGINIA-NORTHERN APPALACHIAN
a
i
00
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
0.4
2.35
0.3
3.9
0.15
9608
0
0
0
0
12
1574
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32 , 336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
161.5
450
80
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167,352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108.491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25.506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
0.56
1.5
0.75
0.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
9.5
3.3
0.85
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.3
10.89
5.01
6.33
2.91
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
10,777
0
16,749
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,691
6,662
11,592
640
10,636
3,420
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
0.04
0.053
0.011
0.0051
0.00005
0.0153
0.0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.0
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.0665
0.0017
0.44
0.0011
0.1
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
0.0154
0.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
0.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
33.4
3.21
10.4
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
r
(a)
1,346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-64
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
WEST VIRGINIA - CENTRAL APPALACHIAN
a
i
03
00
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINIKG &
. PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Hining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
9612
.4
2.8
.3
4.55
.15
9604
0
0
0
0
12
1574
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32,336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
209
450
64
291,427
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
167.352
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
108,491
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ ft
Evaporative
Effluent
5.887
2.94
2.94
4.46
3.9
.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4,00
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
11.4
3.6
.85
.25
.85
.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
6.4
10.89
5.12
6.33
2.91
1.88
.56
By -Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3000
0
0
0
10777
0
16749
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6953
8621
9274
828
8509
4427
1985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
.04
.053
.011
.0051
. 00005
.0153
.0002
1.966
.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
.0023
. 00006
.0665
.0017
.044
.0011
.1
.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
.088
.088
.0154
.1
.3764
.4755
1.3725
.45
.066
.046
.019
.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
24.1
3.21
12.3
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-65
ENVIR0NJ1ENTAL LOADINGS FROM
WYOMING-GREEN RIVEU-HAJ'S FORK
I
00
RECOVERY &
EXTRACTION
(100,000 tons)
REFINING &
PROCESSING
(100,000 tons)
TRANSPORTATION
(billion ton-miles)
CONVERSION
(100,000 tens)
IMPACT
Underground
Mining
Surface
Mining
Crushing &
Screening
Mechanical
Rail
Barge
Truck
Slurry
Pipeline
Steam
(Elect.)
Synthetic
Gas
Synthetic
Liquid
Metal-
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
CO
SOx
NOx
TSP
co2
0
0
0
0
0
8533
0.45
2.35
0.3
3.85
0.4
8529
0
0
0
0
12
1277
0
0
0
0
18
0
132
182.6
80
520
35
32 , 336
3.49
6.47
1.87
19.43
0.07
41,114
122.6
772.1
76.0
490.3
35.5
118,732
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
50
57
450
40
236,782
66.3
13.3
23.4
75.0
5.3
135,974
10.7
8.7
68.7
50.4
1.0
88,149
210
63.5
10.1
1.0
1.8
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
Evaporative
Effluent
0
0
0
5.048
4.48
0.56
1.5
.75
.75
7.12
3.12
4.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(a)
(a)
(a)
343
309
34
175
129
46
147
111
36
200.3
53.9
146.4
Land Disturbed
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
(Long-term) acres
0
0
7.1
1.3
0.35
0.25
0.85
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
5 2
10.89
4.14
6.33
2.4
1.88
0.56
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
By-Product Solid
Wastes (active)
3,000
0
0
0
26,770
0
153
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,345
2,351
5,796
226
5,318
1,207
1,985
0
Accidents
Fatalities
3.12
0.4
0.053
0.011
0.0051
0.00005
0.0153
0.0002
1.966
0.2135
0
0
434.4
47.2
0
0
0.0023
0.00006
0.665
0.0017
0.44
0.11
0.1
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
.0154
0.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
Direct Operation
Workers
4.8
25.2
3.21
4.1
7.8
0.9
15.6
2.67
(a)
22
(a)
44
(a)
1,346.4
(a)
10
38.4
4.38
18.1
12.1
19.73
13.15
14.0
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
TABLE H-66
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADINGS FROM
WYOMING-POUDER RIVER
W
I
o
RECOVERY &
REFINING &
EXTRACTION
PROCESSING
TRANSPORTATION
COM
ERSI0N'
(100,000
:ons)
(100,000 tons)
(billion
.on-;r.ile;
)
(100,000 tons)
IMPACT
Underground
Surface
Crushing &
Rail
Barge
Slurry
Steam
Synthetic
Synthetic
Metal-
Mining
Mining
Screening
Pipeline
(Elect.)
Gas
Liquid
lurgical
Air Emissions (Tons) :
HC
0
0.45
0
0
132
3.49
122.6
0
15
66.3
10.7
210
CO
0
2.35
0
0
182.6
6.47
772.1
0
50
13.3
8.7
63.5
SOx
0
0.3
0
0
80
1.87
76.0
0
47.5
23.4
68.7
10.1
NOx
0
3.85
0
0
520
19.43
490.3
0
450
75.0
50.4
1.0
TSP
0
0.4
12
18
35
0.07
35.5
0
72
5.3
1.0
1.8
co2
8316
8313
1218
0
32 , 336
41,114
118,732
0
225,856
129,698
84,081
25,506
Water Make-up: Acre/ft
0
5.711
1.5
7.12
0
0
0
(a)
343
175
142
200.3
Evaporative
0
5.15
0.75
3.12
0
0
0
(a)
309
129
111
53.9
Effluent
0
0.56
0.75
4.00
0
0
0
(a)
34
46
36
146.4
Land Disturbed
0
2.2
0.85
0.85
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
13.7
10.89
6.33
1.38
(Short-term) acres
Land Disturbed
0
0.6
0.25
0.25
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
5.9
4.68
2.72
0.56
(Long-term) acres
By-Product Solid (tons)
Wastes (inactive)
3,000
0
26,770
153
0
0
0
0
7,822
10,432
9,572
1,985
By-Product Solid
0
0
Wastes (active)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,959
188
1,006
0
Accidents
3.12
0.053
0.0051
0.153
1.966
0
434.4
0
0.0023
0.0665
0.44
0.1
Fatalities
0.04
0.011
0.00005
0.0002
0.2135
0
47.2
0
0.00006
0.0017
0.0011
0.001
Operating Energy
(trillion Btu)
0.088
0.088
0.0154
0.1
0.3764
0.4755
1.3725
0.45
0.066
0.046
.019
0.06
Direct Construction
Workers
4.8
3.21
7.8
15.6
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
38.4
18.1
19.73
14.0
Direct Operation
Workers
0
4.0
0.9
2.67
22
44
1,346.4
10
4.38
12.1
13.15
15.6
(a) Addressed outside the model.
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
this region. These operation and construction
worker numbers provide the basis for calculating
total population by using the Socioeconomic
Impact Estimation Subroutine. Specifically, as-
suming 1 .4 indirect workers per direct worker, a 75
percent married workforce, and a 2.5 person
average family size,7 the following estimates are
made.
Underground Workers
Workers and Dependents
Direct operation
Direct construction
Indirect operation
Indirect construction
491
120
687
168
Total
1,043s
255
1,467
jm.
3,116
7,058
2.1
15
This results in a population of 3,116 related to
underground mining ,m Colorado, Uinta-South-
western Utah Coal Region , for the 1985 DOE
mid-level production. When these assumptions
and methodologies are applied to all phases of the
coal cycle, the total population in the region related
to coal production amounts to 7,058.
Remaining socioeconomic characteristics are
estimated per 1,000 population units. For example:
Total population
Policemen required per 1,000 population
Total policemen required
Similar calculations are shown in Table H-67
for other socioeconomic variables. It should be
noted that numbers tabulated in other sections of
this report may vary slightly from this example
since they are related to production level changes
between 1976-1985 and 1985-1990.
H.4.4 Acreage Disturbed
Since specific locations for the various activi-
ties required for coal development were unknown,
a land-use forecast was developed for each region
and used as a tool to display potential impacts to
the natural environment.
Loading factors (multipliers) for land disturbed
to produce 100,000 tons of coal were developed as
a function of acreage, coal seam thickness and
average yield per acre-foot.
In Colorado, Uinta Southwestern Utah Coal
Region, average coal seam thickness is 1 1 feet, and
average yield is 1,750 tons per acre-foot of seam.
This yields a multiplier of 5.2 acres for each
100,000 tons of coal required. In 1985, 94 acres
would be disturbed per 100,000 tons of coal. This is
obtained as follows:
Annual coal production in Colorado
in 100,000 tons 43
Percent surface mined 42
Loading factor 1*2_
Land disturbed short-term (acres) 94
When these assumptions and methodologies
are applied to all phases of the coal cycle the total
land disturbed (short-term) would be 156 acres.
These acreage-disturbed impact factors pro-
vide the basis for calculating the potential losses of
plant and animal productivity by using the
Ecological Impact Estimation Module.
Once the total number of acres for each time
period was determined, a percentage was allocated
to various land uses as presented in Table H-68.
The assumption was made that development
would occur in currently undeveloped or open
areas, and not in urban or built-up areas.
Acres by land-use category were multiplied by
productivity estimates (Table H-69) to determine
potential losses due to land disturbance. Potential
losses to wildlife due to habitat loss were deter-
mined by multiplying total acres disturbed for each
time period by estimated population densities. (See
Tables H-70 and H-71.)
As an illustration, 8,446 acres were estimated
to be required for coal development in the Powder
River Coal Region under the medium production
level of the preferred alternative in 1985. Of this
total, 455 acres (five percent) were allocated to
cropland, 91 acres (one percent) to pasture, 7,463
acres (88 percent) to range, 73 acres (one percent)
to forest, and 364 acres (four percent) to wetland
or bottomland forest (see Table H-68). These
numbers were analyzed outside the subroutine to
allow for the entire time period under consider-
ation.
Following this initial allocation, cropland was
further divided into acres by crop, based on major
crops grown in the states occurring in the region
(see Table H-72) as follows:
Wheat
287 acres (63 percent)
Hay
150 acres (33 percent)
Oats
9.1 acres (2 percent)
Sugarbeets
4.6 acres (1 percent)
'Derived from U.S. ERDA [7]
875 percent of 491 is 368 married and 123 single. The married force
including their dependents are 368 x 2.5 + 920. Thus, the total of all workers
(married and single) including their dependents is 920 + 123 = 1,043.
H-91
TABLE H-67
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES ESTIMATED NUMBER
Public School Children 1,553
Teachers 33
Physicians 7
Hospital Beds 35
Housing Units 2 350
Water Treatment (mgd) 1
Sewage Treatment (mgd) l
Solid Waste (tpd) 18
Firemen
14
H-92
TABLE H-68
PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND DISTURBED ALLOCATED TO VARIOUS LAND-USE CATEGORIES WITHIN EACH REGION
Coal
Region
i
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
Powder River
Green River-flams Fork
Fort Union
San Juan River
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Denver-Raton Mesa
Cropland
(%)
Pasture
a)
Range
(%)
Forest
(%)
Wetland
(%)
32
9.5
-
57
1
21
18.0
-
60
1
28
14
-
55
2
68
11
-
15
5
52
11
15
17
5
22
8
34
28
8
5
1
88
1
4
4
1
70
24
1
37
2
54
2
5
2
1
50
45
1
3
1
62
33
1
21
1
56
21
-
TABLE H-69
ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVITY PER ACRE FOR NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL CROP
K
I
•c-
Wetland/
Bottomland ... ... ... ... „ ^ ,
Forest Range Pasture^ Corn ' Soybeans ' Cotton ' Wheat ' Sugarbeets ' Oats *
(tons/acre) (tons/acre) (tons/acre) (bu/acre) (bu/acre) (lbs/acre) (bu/acre) (tons/acre) (tons/acre)
Coal
Region
Upland
Forest
(tons/acre)
Northern Appalachian 8.9
Central Appalachian 8.9
Southern Appalachian 8.9
Eastern Interior 8.9
Western Interior 8.9
Texas 7 . 1
Powder River 8.0
Green River-Hams Fork 5.4
Fort Union 6.9
San Juan River 3.0
Uinta-Southwestern Utah 6.9
Denver-Raton Mesa 8.0
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.8
5.8
6.7
2.1
6.7
0.5
1.8
7.6
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.3
1.7
2.2
1.4
3.6
2.5
2.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
100.7
84.6
95.8
96.6
95.8
100.8
26.8
26.8
26.8
32.5
25.6
17.3
380
390
353
720
380
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.6
29.1
23.3
26.2
23.2
24.6
35.8
23.3
23.4
19.5
18.4
19.3
17.8
17.8
18.6
48.3
48.3
48.3
43.0
42.0
42.1
(a)
(b)
Hay production
Based on the acreage crop yields for the states occurring in each region.
Sources: Reference Numbers 37, 38, 39 and 40.
TABLE H-70
ESTIMATED DENSITIES OF WILDLIFE PER ACRE IN THE VARIOUS REGIONS
Coal
Region
Game Birds
Small Mammals
Birds
Amphibians/
Reptiles
Large
Predators
Northern Appalachian
0.25
10
3.5
2.5
0.002
Central Appalachian
0.25
10
3.5
2.5
0.002
Southern Appalachian
0.25
10
3.5
2.5
0.002
Eastern Interior
0.20
10
3.5
2.5
0.002
Western Interior
0.20
10
3.5
2.5
0.002
Texas
0.20
10
3.5
3.5
0.002
Powder River
0.03
9
1.0
2.5
0.002
Green River-Hams Fork
0.16
55
2.5
4.5
0.002
Fort Union
0.14
9
1.0
2.5
0.002
San Juan River
0.20
5
2.5
2.6
0.003
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
0.20
5
2.5
2.6
0.002
Denver-Raton Mesa
0.20
9
2.5
2.6
0.002
SOURCES: Reference Numb
ers 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44.
TABLE H-71
ACRES REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ONE LARGE GAME MAMMAL OR ONE ANIMAL UNIT
I
White-
Coal
tailed
Mule
Pronghorn
Animal
Region
Deer
Deer
Antelope
Moose
Elk
Units
Northern Appalachian
14
-
-
—
_
2.19
Central Appalachian
14
-
-
-
—
2.19
Southern Appalachian
14
-
-
-
-
2.19
Eastern Interior
166
-
-
-
-
1.7
Western Interior
33
-
-
-
-
2.6
Texas
17
-
-
-
-
6.6
Powder River
33
200
166
-
-
15.5
Green River-Hams Fork
-
125
66
250
125
9.3
Fort Union
33
200
125
-
_
8.2
San Juan River
-
333
-
-
-
22.0
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
-
100
-
-
100
8.3
Denver-Raton Mesa
-
100
100
-
16.3
SOURCES:
Reference Numbers 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44.
TABLE H-72
PERCENTAGE OF CROPLAND ACRES ALLOCATED TO THE VARIOUS CROPS WITHIN EACH REGION
i
vO
Coal
Region
Corn
Soybeans
Cotton
Wheat
Oats
Sugarbeets
Hay
Northern Appalachian
35
23
-
10
2
-
28
Central Appalachian
24
33
-
3
-
-
40
Southern Appalachian
19
48
6
-
-
—
27
Eastern Interior
50
36
-
9
-
-
4
Western Interior
27
25
2
29
-
-
16
Texas
-
31
29
23
-
-
15
Powder River
-
-
-
63
2
1
33
Green River-Hams Fork
9
-
-
43
1
2
44
Fort Union
-
-
-
60
11
-
27
San Juan River
10
-
5
47
-
2
35
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
11
-
-
49
2
36
Denver-Raton Mesa
13
-
-
1
53
—
2
31
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
By multiplying acres by average yields per acre
for the respective crops, (Table H-69), an estimate
of the potential agricultural production loss can be
determined.
Crop Acres
Wheat 287
Hay 24iw
Oats 9.1
Sugarbeets 4.6
Average Yield
26.2 bu/acre
1.7 tons/acre
43.0 bu/acre
19.5 tons/acre
Potential Loss
7,520 bushels
255 tons
391 bushels
90 tons
Similarity, by multiplying acres allocated to
range and forest (upland and bottomland) by rate
of potential production (Table H-69), productivity
losses for natural ecosystems can be determined.
(See Table H-73)
Potential loss of wildlife due to habitat loss was
estimated by the module by multiplying typical
population densities (Tables H-70 and H-71) by
the number of acres disturbed. (See Table H-74.)
The above potential losses in natural and
agricultural productivities and wildlife reflect the
short-term effects due to total land conversion
during 1985. To determine potential losses from
1976-1985, land disturbed by mining was multi-
plied by ten to give an estimate of total mining
land required, and added to estimates of land
required for coal cleaning and conversion industry.
Actual losses would be determined by site-specific
characteristics, and the acres actually subjected to
the direct and indirect effects associated by
specific activities.
H.5 DERIVATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
LOADING FACTORS
H.5.1 AIR EMISSIONS
H.5. 1.1 Recovery and Extraction. The air emissions
from mining 100,000 tons of coal were calculated
as follows.
Air emissions from surface mining operations
are generated from the use of diesel equipment.
Emissions from underground mining operations
are assumed to be negligible because of the wide
use of electrical equipment. Table H-75 shows the
air loading factors for the coal regions that were
derived from U.S. Energy, Research, and Develop-
ment Administration. [8]
H.5. 1.2 Coal Cleaning (Beneficiation).
10Acres of pasture were assumed to be equal to hay in productivity; 241
acres reflects total of 150 acres allocated to hay production plus 91 acres
allocated to pasture.
Coal cleaning is the process by which undesir-
able materials are removed from bituminous and
anthracite coal and lignite. The coal is screened,
classified, washed, and dried at coal preparation
plants. The major sources of air pollution from
these plants are the thermal dryers. The average
particulate emisions are: 24 lb/ton of coal cleaned
without control, and by assuming 99 percent
control efficiency, particulate emissions would be
12 tons/ 100,000 tons of coal crushed and screened.
For mechanically cleaned coals, the emission
factor would be 18 tons/ 100,000 tons of coal
cleaned. [7]
H.5. 1.3 Transportation. The loading factors for coal
transportation systems are based on gross ton-
miles transported (which incorporates the coal
weight plus weight of equipment, as well as the
weight of equipment that returns empty). The next
step in the methodology is to calculate total gross
ton-miles on a state-by-state basis. This is accom-
plished through calculation of route lengths for
origin/destination flows of coal. Total ton-miles
per state were expressed on the basis of 109 gross
ton-miles. Multipliers were then calculated in
terms of impacts generated per billion (109 ) ton-
miles.
Because of their widespread use, transporta-
tion facilities are responsible for a large share of air
pollutant emissions in many areas of the United
States. Typical unit train emissions have been
estimated at 18.5, 6.5, and 4.7 pounds of nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon re-
spectively, per train mile of travel (for long-haul
rail) [7].
Similarly, emissions from tugs, trucks, and
locomotives (short haul) are based on emission
factors derived from U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency [8]. These factors are listed in Table
H-76. These numbers are converted into pounds
per gross tons-miles transported.
H.5. 1.4 Steam-Electric Power Plants. Coal is
burned in a wide variety of furnaces to produce
heat and steam. Coal-fired furnaces range in size
from small, hand-fired units with capacitites of 10
to 20 pounds of coal per day to large, pulverized
coal-fired units which may burn 300 to 400 tons of
coal per hour. Based on emission factors listed in
H-98
— ■WI^^MBiMMMM^MMimilW TU .
TABLE H-73
PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES FOR NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS
Vegetation
Acres Rate of Production Potential Loss
Range 7,463
Upland Forest 73
Bottomland
(Forest-Wetland) 364
6.7 Tons/Acre
8.0 Tons/Acre
5.4 Tons/Acre
50,000 Tons
600 Tons
1,970 Tons
TABLE H-74
POTENTIAL LOSS OF WILDLIFE DUE TO HABITAT LOSS
Population
Small Mammals
Song Birds
Game Birds
Predators
Amphibians /Reptiles
Large Game
Mule Deer
Antelope
White-Tailed Deer
Estimated Density
Acres
Total Individuals
Lost
9 Individuals /Acre 8,446^a^ 76,000
1 Individual/Acre 8,446 8,400
0.03 Individual/Acre 8,446 250
0.002 Individual/Acre 8,446 17
2.5 Individual/ Acre 8,446 2,100
0.005 Individual/Acre 7,463(b) 37
0.006 Individual/Acre 7, 463(b) 45
0.03 Individual/Acre 8,446 253
(a) Total acres.
(b) Acres of range.
H-99
TABLE H-75
AIR EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE MINING
(pounds)
(a)
EMISSION
I
o
o
SOx
NOx
Particulates
CO
Hydrocarbons
COAL REGION
Northern Central Southern Eastern Western
Appala- Appala- Appala- Inter- Inter-
chian chian chlan ior ior
600
7,800
300
4,700
800
600 600
9,100 9,100
300 300
5,600 5,600
800 800
(a) All loadings per 100,000 tons of coal mined
Source: Reference Number 8.
900
12,500
1,000
7,600
1,400
Texas
900
12 , 500
1,000
7,600
1,400
300
4,300
1,200
2,900
400
San Juan
River w/
Black
Mesa
Green
Uinta- River-
S.W. Hams
Utah Fork
Denver
Powder Fort Raton
River Union Mesa
500
7,200
900
4,400
800
600 600
7,700 7,700
800 800
4,400 4,700
800 900
600
7,700
800
4,700
900
600 600
7,700 7,700
800 800
4,700 4,700
900 900
TABLE H-76
AIR EMISSIONS FROM MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
(miles/gallon)
EMISSION
LONG-HAUL RAIL (DIESEL)
FEEDER RAIL
TRUCK
TUG
so2
2.85(a)
0.57
0.0062
0.29
NO
X
18.5
3.7
0.04
3.0
CO
6.5
1.3
0.063
1.1
HC
4.7
0.94
0.01
0.54
TSP
1.25(a)
0.25
— _
0.0029
0.011
Long-haul Rail - unit trains of 100 cars - 10,000 ton capacity.
Feeder Rail - 20 cars of 100 tons coal capacity each - 2,000
ton capacity. 0.1 miles/gallon was assumed-.
Truck
Tug - Barges
20 tons capacity highway trucks. 150 tons
capacity short haul.
As many as 36 barges of 1,500 tons capacity each
54,000 tons per trip and 0.09 miles/ gallon used.
the Feeder Rail amount (five locomotives
SOURCES: Reference Numbers 7 and 45.
(a) Was assumed five times
vs . one) .
H-101
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Table H-77, the loading factors are found in Table
H-78.
Steam-electric power plants are assumed to
emit pollutants at a rate equivalent to the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS). This as-
sumption is conservative, since NSPS are subject
to revision and would presumably be made stricter
as control technologies improve. Furthermore, the
assumption that facilities emit at NSPS discounts
the possibility that many plants may emit at a rate
lower than regulations require, especially because
of better coal characteristics. Therefore, estimates
of the cumulative air impacts should be on the high
side.
The emission factors for sulfur oxides and
particulate for different geographic units are
estimated based on coal characteristics listed in
Table H-79.
H.5.1.5 Gasification and Liquefaction Processes. The
two important sources of air emissions from coal
conversion and combustion plants include:
• Process operations, and
• Auxiliary operations (operations that result
in burning fuel).
Process operations occur in enclosed and
pressurized systems and emissions from pump
seals, joints and flanges, among others. The
amount of such emissions would depend upon
maintenance operations carried out on the sys-
tems, safety controls installed to prevent leakage,
collection systems installed, and treatment of vent
gases. Since commercial-scale plants have not yet
been built in the United States, the information
regarding the composition and the amount of some
emissions is not readily available in the published
data. However, it is assumed that under normal
operations some emissions from process operations
would not be significant as compared to emissions
from auxiliary operations. Therefore, for the
purpose of this report, only the auxiliary opera-
tions are considered in estimating air emissions
associated with coal conversion plants. Unit plants
for each of the technologies considered in this
report have been defined by the U.S. Energy
Research and Development Administration [7].
To determine the emissions from auxiliary
operations, it is assumed that all auxiliary power is
generated by the burning of coal (or another fuel
equivalent). The amount of coal that would be
consumed for auxiliary operations by individual
unit plants depends upon the type of coal and its
Btu content. The amount of coal to be used for
auxiliary operations is a fixed portion of coal
consumption by the unit plant. Coal consumption
by the auxiliary operations is estimated to be:
• Gasification process: 18 percent of total
coal consumption (average of Hygas and
CO2 acceptor processes),
• Liquefaction process: 11.2 percent of total
coal consumption, based on H-coal (direct
hydrogeneration process).
For gasification, an average input feed rate of
16,846 tons of coal per day and 28,454 tons of coal
per day for Hygas and C02 acceptor processes
respectively, yielded the following emission esti-
mates:
Tons of Emissions
per
Pollutants
22640 tons
100,000 tons
HC
15
66.3
CO
3
13.3
so2
5.3
23.4
NOx
17
75.0
TSP
1.2
5.3
Similarly the emissions for liquefaction were
based on the H-Coal process (see Table H-80).
H. 5.1.6 Metallurgical Coal. Two processes are used
for the manufacture of metallurgical coke, the
beehive process and the by-product process.The
by-product process accounts for more than 98
percent of the coke produced [8]. Air emissions are
based on Tables H-81 and H-82.
H.5.1. 7 Delivery. Air emissions in this phase of the
coal cycle result from heavy duty, gaseous fueled
internal combustion engines which are used in the
oil and gas industry for driving compressors in
pipeline pressure boosting systems, and in gas
distribution. Loading factors for gas lines were
derived from publications of the U.S. Enviromen-
tal Protection Agency [8] and the U.S. Energy
Research and Development Administration [7].
The following factors per 100,000 tons of coal
equivalent are obtained:
HC: 0.663 tons
CO: Negligible
SOx: 0.3315 tons
NOx: 0.5525 tons
TSP: Negligible
There are no air emissions from the distribu-
tion and transmission of electricity or from
H-102
TABLE H-77
EMISSION FACTORS FOR BITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION
WITHOUT CONTROL EQUIPMENT
W
o
CO
Furnace Size
106 BTU/hr
Heat Input
(a)
Greater than 100
(Utility and Large
Industrial Boilers)
Pulverized
General
Wet Bottom
Dry Bottom
Cyclone
10 to 100 (Large
Commercial and
General Industrial
Boilers)
Spreader Stoker^)
Less Than 10
(Commercial and
Domestic Furnaces)
Spreader Stoker
Hand -Fired Units
Particula
tesb>
lb/Ton
Coal
Burned
16A
13A<e>
17A
2A
13A<«)
2A
20
kg/MT
Coal
Burned
8A
6.5A
8.5A
1A
6.5A
Sulfur
Oxides
(c)
lb/Ton
Coal
Burned
1A
10
38S
38S
38S
38S
38S
38S
38S
(c)
kg/MT
Coal
Burned
19S
19S
19S
19S
19S
19S
19S
Carbon
Monoxide
lb /Ton
Coal
Burned
10
90
kg/MT
Coal
Burned
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5
45
Hydrocarbon
lb/Ton
Coal
Burned
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
3
20
i*
kg/MT
Coal
Burned
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.5
1.5
10
Nitrogen
Oxides
lb/Ton
Coal
Burned
18
30
18
55
15
6
3
kg/MT
Coal
Burned
9
15
9
27.5
7.5
3
1.5
(a)l Btu/hr = 0.252 kcal/hr.
(b) The letter A on all units other than hand-fired equipment indicates that the weight precentage of
ash in the coal should be multiplied by the value given. Example: If the factor is 15 and the ash
content is 10 percent, the particulate emissions before the control equipment would be 10 times 15,
of 160 pounds of particulate per tons of coal (10 times 8 , or 80 kg of particulates per MT of coal).
(c)s equals the sulfur content (see footnote b above) .
(d)*ixpressed as methane.
(e)wlthout fly-ash reinjection.
(f)For all other stokers use 5A for particulate emission factor.
(g)Vithout fly-ash reinjection. With fly-ash reinjection use 20A. This value is not an emission
factor but represents loading reaching the control equipment.
SOURCE: Reference Number 7.
EMISSION
HC
CO
so2
NO
x
TSP
(a)
TABLE H-78
AIR EMISSIONS FROM COAL COMBUSTION
LBS /TONS OF COAL (NO CONTROLS
(Tons/100,000 tons)
U)
CALCULATED TONS/100,000 TONS
OF COAL FIRED (WITH CONTROLS)
(b)
0.3
(15)
1.0
(50)
38S
(1900S)
18
(900)
16A
(800A)
15
50
95S
450
8A
(b)
The letter A on all units other than hand-fired equipment indicates
that the weight percentage of ash in the coal should be multiplied
by the value given. Example: If the factor is 15 and the ash content
is 10 percent, the particulate emissions before the control equipment
would be 10 times 15, or 160 pounds of particulate per tons of coal
(10 times 8, or 80 kg of particulates per MT of coal). S equals the
sulfur content.
Assumes 95 percent S0x control, 99 percent TSP control, 50 percent
NO^ control, and 0 percent CO and HC control.
Source: Reference Number 7.
H-104
TABLE H-79
I
o
COAL CHARACTERISTICS BY REGION
SAN JUAN
RIVER
(including UINTA- GREEN
NORTHERN CENTRAL SOUTHERN EASTERN WESTERN Black Mesa S.W. RIVER- POWDER FORT DENVER-RATON
CHARACTERISTIC JSEKw APPALACHIAN APPALACHIAN INTERIOR INTERIOR TEXAS Field) UTAH HAMS FORK RIVER UNION MESA
% Surface
Mining C a)
43
40
37
75
75
100
63
100
100
100
20
Ash Sulfur
ratio (%"> by
weight^
10:1.7
8:2.2
9:1.1
11:2.8
San Black(c)
Juan Mesa
13:4.2 9:0.8 River Field 8:1.0
9:0.8 15:0.9
5:0.6
Raton
9:0.5 7:0.4 Denver Mesa
6:0.3 13:0.5
Geographic
Units
PA
OH
WV (A)
MD
WV XB)
VA
KY (A)
TO (A)
AL
IL
IN
KY OO
IA (B) TX NW (A) AZ CO (C) CO (A) MT (A) MT (B) CO (D) CO (D)
MO, KS AR (B) CO (B) UT (C) WY (B) WY (A) ND NM (B)
AR (A) LA UT (B) ID SD
OK, NE UT (A)
(a) Source: Reference Number 46.
(b) Source: Reference Numbers 15, 47, and 48.
(c) Arizona State is not included in the San Juan River Region.
TABLE H-80
AIR EMISSIONS FROM COAL LIQUEFACTION PLANTS
AIR
POLLUTANTS
EMISSION
LEVELS
Tons/20,773 Tons
of
Coal(a)
Tons/ 100
,000 Tons of Coal
HC
-
10.7
CO
1.8
8.7
so2
18
68.7
NO
X
10.5
50.4
TSP
'— ' ' ' ' .. ■ ■ ■ ~J»
0.2
1.0
(a)
Coal Feed: 20,773 Tons per Day.
Source: Reference Number 8.
H-106
TABLE H-81
f
o
EMISSION FACTORS FROM METALLURGICAL COKE MANUFACTURE
WITH CONTROLS (a)
Particulates
Sulfur (c)
dioxide
Carbon
monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen
oxides (NO2)
Ammonia
Type of operation
lb /ton
kg/MT
lb /ton
kg/MT
lb /ton
kg/MT
lb /ton
kg/MT
lb /ton
kg/MT
lb /ton
kg/MT
By-product coking
Unloading
Charging
Coking cycle
Discharging
Quenching
Underfiring
Beehive ovens
0.4
1.5
0.1
0.6
0.9
200
0.2
0.75
0.05
0.3
0.45
100
0.02
4
0.01
2
0.6
0.6
0.07
1
0.3
0.3
0.035
0.5
2.5
1.5
0.2
8
1.25
0.75
0.1
4
0.03
0.01
0.015
0.005
0.02
0.06
0.1
2
0.01
0.03
0.05
1
(a) Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight of coal charged.
(b) Expressed as methane.
the coal charged to oven is transferred to the coke-oven gas; (3) about 40 percent of coke-oven gas is
burned during the underfiring operation and the remainder is used in other parts of the steel operation
where the rest of the sulfur dioxide is discharged - about 6 lb/ton (3 kg/MT) of coal charged; and
(4) gas used in underfiring has not been desulfurized.
Source: Reference Number 7,
TABLE H-82
AIR EMISSIONS FOR COKE PRODUCTION
TONS/100,000 TONS OF COAL BURNED
EMISSIONS LBS /TONS OF COAL WITHOUT CONTROL WITH CONTROL
HC 4.2 210 210
CO 1.27 63.5 63.5
S02 4.02 202.5 10.1
NOx 0.04 2 1.0
TSP 3.5 175 1.8
Source: Derived from Reference Number 7.
H-108
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
electrically driven pumps that operate gas or
pipelines.
liquid
H.5.2 Water Use
Water is a major resource required in coal
development. It is required in (1) mining opera-
tions and revegetation, (2) coal preparation, (3)
transportation, and (4) conversion processes. The
largest water consumption is the evaporation of
water used in cooling and in pollution control. On
a per-unit Btu basis, more water is evaporated for
cooling electric power generation plants than in
synfuel processes [9].
H. 5.2.1 Recovery and Extraction. The principal
categories that consume water in coal mining are
dust control for roads, mines, and embankments
and revegetation of reclaimed areas. However, the
mine location and the type of mine, surface or
underground, would strongly influence the quanti-
ty of water consumed.
Water sprayed for dust control in the mine and
on the road are based on rainfall and evaporation
rates and are calculated based on area disturbed,
evaporation rate, rainfall rate, and wetted area
rate.
Using the above relationship, and based upon
the evaporation rates of:
(1) 45 inches/year for Fort Union Coal Region;
(2) 54 inches/year for Green River-Hams Fork
and Denver-Raton Mesa (GR/Denver)
(3) 61 inches/year for San Juan River and
Uinta-Southwestern Utah (SJ/Uinta)
(4) 49 inches/year for Powder River Coal
Region,
The water requirements would be:
lb of water/lb of
coal
mined (surface)
acre-ft/ 100,000 tons
Fort Union
0.055
4.047
GR/Denver
0.038
2.796
SJ/Uinta
0.052
3.827
Powder River
0.047
3.459
Eastern Areas
0.03
2.208
The loading factor for surface mining results
from adding 0.0306 lb water per lb of coal for
revegetation. It is also assumed that 75 percent of
the water used for revegetation and 100 percent of
the water used for dust control evaporates. There-
fore, the effluent loading factor for surface mining
is (0.25 multiplied by 2.252) or 0.56 acre-ft per
100,000 tons. This methodology results in the
following loading factors for the extraction phase
of the coal cycle (see Table H-83).
H. 5.2.2 Coal Cleaning (Beneficiation). In coal
preparation plants, dust is generated during load-
ing and unloading, breaking, conveying, crushing
and general screening, and storage. Water is used
to control fugitive dust, and to wash the coal to
lower the ash and sulfur content. Jigging is used in
over one-half of all coal-washing facilities. The
water loading factor for crushing and screening is
one lb of water/50 lb. of coal or 1.5 acre-ft/ 100,000
tons of coal [10]. For mechanically cleaned coal
most of the wet washing is done by the jigging
process (63 percent in 1975). The amount of water
needed is 270 gpm per 696 TPH cleaned, or 7.12
acre-ft/ 100,000 tons cleaned which is divided as
follows: 3.12 acre-ft/ 100,000 tons evaporative, 4.0
acre-ft/ 100,000 tons effluent.
H.5.2. 3 Transportation. The transportation of coal
via slurry pipeline consists of pumping finely
powdered coal mixed with water. By assuming 50
percent by weight water use, then 100,000 tons of
coal would require 50,000 tons or 36.8 acre-ft, of
water.
H.5.2. 4 Steam Electric. The amount of coal
consumed by 3,000 MWe power plant is 8,154,255
tons/year, and the annual water requirements for
the plant are 28,000 acre-ft/year [9]. Thus, water
required per 100,000 tons of coal is 343 acre-ft. Of
the 343 acre-ft, 90 percent is evaporated (309 acre-
ft) and the remaining 10 percent (34 acre-ft) is
effluent.
H.5.2. 5 Synthetic Gas and Liquid. Loading factors
were derived from a publication of the U.S. Energy
Research and Development Administration [7].
The water make-up per 100,000 tons coal gasified
is 179 acre-ft, the effluent portion of which is 46
acre-ft. The water make-up per 100,000 tons of
coal liquified is 147 acre-ft, the effluent portion of
which is 43 acre-ft.
H.5.2. 6 Coke Plant. The water use in the by-
product process for the manufacturing of coke is
mostly for quenching coke, and for cooling
purposes. Cooling water use is 107 gal/ton coke
and quench water use is 350 gal/ton coke of which
123 gallons are evaporative and 227 gallons are
effluent. Therefore, total water make-up is: 107 +
H-109
TABLE H-83
WATER LOADING FACTORS FOR EXTRACTION PHASE OF COAL CYCLE
COAL
REGION
SURFACE
EFFLUENT SURFACE (a)
U.G. (b)
U.G.
EFFLUENT (c)
Fort Union 0.56
Green River-Hams Fork/
Denver-Raton Mesa 0.56
San Juan River/
Uinta-Southwestern Utah 0.56
Powder River
Other Regions
0.56
0.56
6.299
5.048
6.079
5.711
4.460
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
5.88 (d)
1.84
1.84
1.84
1.84
2.94
Water requirement for miners is included in the socioeconomic section,
(a) Water required for dust control and revegetation.
(b) For 'underground mining 50 lb. /1, 000 lb. coal or 3.68 acre/ft ./100, 000
tons of coal.
(c) Assume 50 percent of water used is effluent.
(d) Source: Reference Number 50.
H-llo
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
350 = 457 gal/ton coke of which 123 gal/ton
evaporate and 334 gal/ton are effluent [11].
Converting the above to acre-ft/ 100,000 tons of
coal and assuming 70 percent conversion from coal
to coke [12] results in the following loading factors:
• Water make-up: 457 gal/ton coke or 200.3
acre-ft/ 100,000 tons of coal
• Effluent water: 123 gal/ton coke or 53.9
acre-ft/ 100,000 tons of coal used, and
• Evaporative water: 334 gal/ton coke or
146.4 acre-ft/ 100,000 tons of coal used.
H. 5.2,7 Delivery. There are no water uses in this
phase of the coal cycle.
H.5.3 Acreage Disturbed
H.5.3.1 Surface mining. The number of acres
required to produce 100,000 tons of coal is based
on average coal seam thickness and average yield
per acre-foot of seam. The calculations for the
Colorado-Uinta Coal Region are: 100,000 tons of
coal divided by (11 feet (seam thickness) times
1,750 tons/acre-ft) which equals 5.2 acres.
Regional variations in average coal seam
thickness produce different loading factors that are
shown on individual loading factor sheets. Acres
disturbed by underground mining operations are
negligible.
H.5.3. 2 Coal Cleaning (Beneficiation). A loading
factor for land required for coal cleaning was
derived from a 1,000 ton/hour (24,000 ton/day)
plant sited on 75 acres of land [49]. This loading
factor is 0.85 acres/ 100,000 tons coal cleaned.
H.5.3. 3 Rail Transportation. A loading factor for
rail transport of 32.4 acres/mile was derived from
an average railroad right-of-way width of 268 feet
[7]-
H.5.3. 4 Truck Transportation.
A loading factor for land required for truck traffic
was derived from average right of way width in a
typical roadway network [7]. An average right-of-
way width of 75 feet would take 9.1 acres of land
per mile of roadway.
H.5.3. 5 Coal Slurry Pipeline. One pipeline (48 inch
diameter) could require up to 13 acres of land per
mile, while two pipelines sharing a common right
of way could require up to 15 acres per mile [7].
Additional land would be required for support
facilities such as pumping stations and coal slurry
dumping basins. For a coal slurry pipeline, each
pump station, including dump basin and water
reservoir would require about 40 acres per 100
miles of line [13].
H.5.3. 6 Steam Electric. A loading factor for a
steam-electric generating plant was derived based
on the assumption that 500 acres of land is
required by a plant which burns 10,000 tons a day
[7]. This loading factor is 13.6 acres per 100,000
tons of coal mined.
H.5.3. 7 Synthetic Gas. A loading factor for a
synthetic gas plant was derived based on the
assumption that 900 acres of land are required by a
plant that consumes 22,640 tons of coal per day [7].
This loading factor is 10.9 acres per 100,000 tons of
coal mined.
H.5.3.8 Synthetic Liquid. A loading factor for a
synthetic liquid plant was derived based on the
assumption that 475 acres of land would be
required by a plant that consumed 20,773 tons of
coal per day [7]. This loading factor is 6.3 acres per
100,000 tons of coal mined.
H.5.3. 9 Coke Plants. A loading factor for a
metallurgical (coking) plant was derived based on
the assumption that 60 acres of land would be
required by a plant that consumed 10,000 tons of
coal each day [14] . This loading factor is 1.89 acres
per 100,000 tons of coal mined.
H.5.3. 10 Transmission Lines. A loading factor of
18.2 acres per mile was derived for a transmission
line based on an average right-of-way of 150 feet
[7].
H.5.3.1 1 Liquid and Gas Pipelines. A loading factor
for pipelines of 15 acres per mile was derived based
on an average right-of-way width of 125 feet [7].
H.5.4 Solid Wastes
H.5.4.1 Recovery and Extraction. For underground
mining, the amount of inactive wastes generated is
approximately three percent of the coal extracted
[15].
For surface mining, solid wastes generated are
returned to mining pits. Active wastes are not
removed until the coal cleaning phase.
H.5.4. 2 Coal Cleaning (Beneficiation). Data used to
estimate the amount of solid waste generated
during crushing and screening and mechanical
H-lll
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
cleaning were provided in [12] and [15]. The
amount of solid waste generated by crushing and
screening assumed to be equally proportional to
the mechanical cleaning waste data.12 Also,
national mechanical cleaning data show that the
ratio of solid waste to clean coal is 40 percent [12].
Therefore, where no data are available for me-
chanically cleaned coal, the 40 percent ratio was
used.
Data tabulated in Table H-84 were taken from
the two sources listed above or derived according
to the previously mentioned assumption.
Waste values are multiplied by 1,000 to yield
tons of solid waste per 100,000 tons of coal mined.
For example, the loading factors for Alabama
(Southern Appalachian Coal Region) are 15,972
and 19,775 ton per 100,000 tons of coal for
crushing and screening, and mechanically cleaned
coal, respectively.
H.5.4.3 Transportation. No solid waste is generated
during coal transportation activities.
H.5.4.4 Conversion. The quantity of inert and
active wastes generated during coal conversion is
related to the ash and sulfur content of the coal.
Ash sulfur ratios were determined in Table H-85
[7, 16]
H.5.4.5 Steam/ Electric Plants. Inert (ash) and
active (sludge) solid wastes are produced at a rate
of 10,429 and 1 1,756 tons, respectively, per 100,000
tons of coal converted when using coal having 12
percent ash and three percent sulfur content coal
[17]. Assuming a directly proportional relationship
between ash, sulfur content and solid waste
generation, Table H-86 presents quantities of inert
and active wastes produced per 100,000 tons of
coal mined.
For example, the loading factor for Alabama
(Southern Appalachian Coal Region) is 7,822 tons
of inert waste per 100,000 tons of coal burned.
H.5.4.6 High Btu Gasification. Coals with an ash :
sulfur ratio of 10.8 percent to 3.9 percent are
known to yield 2,155 tons of inert solid waste (ash)
and negligible amounts of active waste per 16,846
tons of coal processed [7]. Assuming a directly
proportional relationship between ash content and
solid waste generation, Table H-87 presents esti-
12The amount of solid waste from mechanical cleaning divided by coal
cleaned mechanically equals the solid waste from crushing and screening
divided by coal crushed and screened.
mates of quantities of inert wastes produced per
100,000 tons of coal mined.
H. 5. 4.7 Low Btu Gasification. Coals with an ash to
sulfur content ratio of 7.2 percent to 0.6 percent
are known to yield inert (ash) and active (dolomite
and sulfur compounds) solid wastes at a rate of
2,583 and 1,860 tons, respectively, per 28,434 tons
of coal processed [7]. Assuming a directly propor-
tional relationship between ash and sulfur content
and solid waste generation, Table H-88 presents
estimates of quantities of inert and active wastes
produced per 100,000 tons of coal processed.
High and low Btu values were averaged to
obtain gasification loading factors (See Table H-
89). For example, the loading factor for Alabama
(Southern Appalachian Coal Region) is 10,432
tons of inert waste for 100,000 tons of coal (10,064
plus 10,800 divided by 2).
H.5.4.8 Synthetic Liquid. Coals with an ash to
sulfur ratio of 9.12 percent to 4.45 percent are
known to yield 2,015 tons of inert solid waste (slag,
soot) per 20,773 tons of coal processed [7].
Active wastes (dolomite, sulfur compounds)
are generated at a rate of 1,860 tons per 20,773
tons of coal processed. Assuming a direct propor-
tional relationship between ash and sulfur content
and solid waste generation, Table H-90 presents
estimates of quantities of inert and active wastes
produced per 100,000 tons of coal mined.
For example, the loading factor for Alabama is
9,572 tons of inert waste per 100,000 tons of coal
liquefied [2,015 times 100,000 times 9 divided by
(20,773 times 9.12)].
H. 5.4.9 Coke Plant. During coke making, 200 acre-
feet of water are normally required per 100,000
tons of coal processed [11]. Of this, about 146.4
acre-feet become effluent. The average concentra-
tion of suspended sediments in effluent is approxi-
mately 50 ppm solids. Other solids generated are
ash and slag from the coking process. Therefore,
tons of solid are calculated to be 1,985 tons per
100,000 tons of coal processed.
H. 5.4. 10 Delivery. No solid wastes would be
generated during delivery phase of the coal cycle.
H-112
TABLE H-84
COAL CLEANING DATA
(1000 tons)
Col. 3
Col. 5
Col.l
Col.l
Waste From
Col.l
Total Coal
Produced
(Mined)
Col. 2
Mechanically
Cleaned
Coal +
Col. 3
Solid
Waste +
Col. 4
Non-Mech .
Cleaned
Coal +
Col. 5
Solid
Waste +
Col. 6
Non-
cleaned
Coal
Waste From
Mech. Cleaning
(% of Total
Coal Produced)
Non-Mech .
Cleaning
(% of Total
Coal Produced)
ALABAMA
35,144
11,228
6,950
8,966
5,550
2,450
19.775
15.792
ARIZONA
9,780
0
0
6,986
2,794
0
0
28.568
ARKANSAS
664
211
84
230
92
47
12.650
13.855
COLORADO
11,400
2,043
817
5,911
2,364
265
7.167
20.737
GEORGIA
97
0
0
57
23
17
0
23.711
ILLINOIS
78,679
45,120
14,872
12,957
4,270
1,460
18.902
5.427
INDIANA
32,271
19,402
5,585
5,425
1,562
297
17.306
4.804
IOWA
859
0
0
593
237
29
0
27.590
KANSAS
667
471
188
0
0
8
28.186
0
KENTUCKY:
Eastern
116,978
23,764
9,369
51,626
20,353
11,866
8.009
17.399
Western
69,908
19,814
5,938
25,404
7,613
11,139
8.494
10.890
MARYLAND
3,430
137
55
1,923
769
546
1.603
22.420
MISSOURI
7,192
1,478
591
2,407
963
1,753
8.217
13.390
MONTANA
30,871
0
0
22,044.
8,818
9
0
28.564
NEW MEXICO
12,279
1,016
406
7,769
3,108
0
3.301
25.270
NORTH DAKOTA
11,090
0
0
6,437
2,575
2,078
0
23.219
OHIO
68,634
14,108
7,742
25,732
14,121
6,931
11.21 5
20.574
OKLAHOMA
3,968
601
240
2,139
856
32
6.048
21.572
PENNSYLVANIA
113,973
42,572
17,600
29,595
12,235
11,971
15.442
10.735
TENNESSEE
10,964
1,642
657
5,253
2,101
1,311
5.992
19.163
TEXAS
15,296
0
0
10,734
4,294
268
0
28.073
UTAH
9,738
3,444
1,378
3,498
1,399
19
14.151
14.366
VIRGINIA
48,064
12,875
5,150
18,511
7,404
4,124
10.715
15.404
WASHINGTON
5,237
3,735
1,494
0
0
8
28.528
0
WEST VIRGINIA
150,790
63,139
25,256
40,628
16,251
5,516
16.749
10.777
WYOMING
32,574
124
50
21,799
8,720
1,881
0.153
26.770
Durce: Reference Numbers 11 and 14.
TABLE H-85
ASH : SULFUR RATIOS
GOAL REGION
ASH: SULFUR RATIOS
BY WEIGHT PERCENT
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
Powder River
Fort Union
Green River-Hams Fork
San Juan River
Black Mesa Field
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Denver
Raton Mesa
10
: 1.7
8
: 2.2
9
: 1.1
11
: 2.8
13
: 4.2
9
0.8
9
0.5
7
0.4
5
0.6
9
0.8
15
0.9
8 .
1.0
6 :
0.3
13 :
0.5
Source: Reference Numbers 15 and 8,
H-114
TABLE
H-86
, .
■rnnmnnTir»raren™mnmmnMi wamm - ■ — — — -——-—-—
INERT AND ACTIVE WASTES
PRODUCED BY
STEAM-
■ELECTRIC
PLANTS
SOLID
WASTE
(TONS)
COAL REGION
INERT
ACTIVE
Northern Appalachian
8,691
6,662
Central Appalachian
6,953
8,621
Southern Appalachian
7,822
4,310
Eastern Interior
9,560
10,972
Western Interior
11,298
16,458
Texas
7,822
3,135
Powder River
7,822
3,135
Fort Union
13,036
3,527
Green River-Hams Fork
6,953
3,919
San Juan River
4,345
2,351
Black Mesa Field
7,822
1,959
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
6,084
1,567
Denver
5,214
1,176
Raton Mesa
11,298
1,959
Source: Reference Numbers
8
and
15.
H-115
TABLE H-87
PROJECTED INERT SOLID WASTE PER HIGH BTU GASIFICATION PLANT
COAL
INERT SOLID WASTE
"
REGION
(tons)
Northern Appalachian
11,183
Central Appalachian
8,946
Southern Appalachian
10,064
Eastern Interior
12,301
Western Interior
14,537
Texas
10,064
Powder River
10,064
Fort Union
7,828
Green River-Hams Fork
5,591
San Juan River
10,064
Black Mesa Field
16,774
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
8,946
Denver
6,710
Raton Mesa
14,537
Source: Reference Numbers 8 and 15,
H-116
TABLE H-88
PROJECTED INERT AND ACTIVE WASTE PER LOW BTU GASIFICATION PLANT
COAL REGION
INERT
SOLID WASTE (TONS)
ACTIVE
SOLID WASTE (TONS)
Northern Appalachian
Central Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
Texas
Powder River
Fort Union
Green River-Hams Fork
San Juan River
Black Mesa Field
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Denver
Raton Mesa
12,001
9,601
10,800
13,200
15,601
10,800
10,800
8,401
6,000
10,800
18,002
9,601
7,201
15,601
1,279
1,656
828
2,108
3,161
602
376
300
452
602
677
752
225
377
Source: Reference Numbers 8 and 15.
H-117
TABLE H-89
AVERAGE INERT AND ACTIVE WASTES PER GASIFICATION PLANT
INERT ACTIVE
COAL REGION SOLID WASTE (TONS) SOLID WASTE (TONS)
Northern Appalachian 11,592 1,279
Central Appalachian 9,2 74 1,656
Southern Appalachian 10,432 828
Eastern Interior 12,750 2,108
Western Interior 15,069 3,161
Texas 10,432 602
Powder River 10,432 376
Fort Union 8,114 300
Green River-Hams Fork 5,796 452
San Juan River 10,432 602
Black Mesa Field 17,388 677
Uinta-Southwestern Utah 9,274 752
Denver 6,956 225
Raton Mesa 15,069 377
Source: Reference Numbers 8 and 15,
H-118
TABLE H-90
INERT AND ACTIVE WASTE FOR SYNTHETIC LIQUEFACTION PLANTS
INERT
ACTIVE
COAL REGION
SOLID WASTE (TONS)
SOLID WASTE (TONS)
Northern Appalachian
10,636
3,420
Central Appalachian
8,509
4,427
Southern Appalachian
9,572
2,213
Eastern Interior
11,700
5,634
Western Interior
13,827
8,451
Texas
9,562
1,610
Powder River
9,572
1,006
Fort Union
7,445
805
Green River-Hams Fork
5,318
1,207
San Juan River
9,572
1,610
Black Mesa Field
15,954
1,811
Uinta-Southwestern Utah
8,509
2,012
Denver
6,381
604
Raton Mesa
13,827
1,006
Source: Reference Numbers 8 and 15,
H-119
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
H.5.5 Fatalities
H.5.5.1 Recovery and Extraction. The average
surface mining fatality rate is 0.011 fatalities per
100,000 tons mined; the average deep mining
fatality rate is 0.04 per 100,000 tons mined. These
loading factors were derived from Table 39 in
Injury Experience in Coal Mining 1975, Mining
Enforcement and Safety Administration [17].
H.5.5. 2 Coal Cleaning (Beneficiation). Loading
factors were based on the following assumptions:
• 1975 total coal processed = 374.1 x lC^tons
(raw coal).
• 1975 total man-hours worked = 29.130 x
106 hours.
• Averaged processed coal per man-hour =
12.84 tons/man-hour.
• Average man-hours necessary to process
100,000 tons (raw coal) - 100,000 divided
by 12.84 = 7787 man-hours.
• Average fatality rate (coal cleaning plants)
= 0.31 fatalities per 106 man-hours or 0.031
fatalities per 100,000 man-hours.
• National average fatalities per 100,000 tons
of raw coal processed = (7786 divided by
105)x 0.031 =0.0002.
• For crushing and screening plants fatality
rates are assumed to be 1/3 those for
mechanical plants, or 0.00005.
H.5.5. 3 Transportation. Loading factors were based
on the following assumptions:
• 0.2135 fatalities per 10 billion gross ton-
miles traveled by unit trains.
• 47.2 fatalities per 10 billion gross ton-miles
traveled by trucks.
These factors were estimated on the methodol-
ogy set out by Bliss [18] and data supplied by
Banks [19].
H.5.5. 4 Conversion. The steam electric power plant
fatality rate was derived from fatality data present-
ed by Bliss [18] and equals 0.00006 fatalities per
100,000 tons of coal consumed.
Fatality rates for gasification and liquefaction
plants are 0.0017 fatalities per 100,000 tons used in
gasification plants, and 0.0011 fatalities per
100,000 tons used in liquefaction plants [7].
H.5.5. 5 Coke Plants. Coke oven fatalities are
estimated to equal 0.001 per 105tons of coal loaded
into coke ovens. This loading factor is derived
from standards promulgated by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor [20, 21].
H.5.6 Disabling Accidents
H.5.6.1 Recovery and Extraction. Estimates of
disabling accidents resulting in man-days lost were
developed for each coal production state. In states
where data was insufficient to make accurate
estimates of disabling accident rates per 100,000
tons mined, national data was substituted. The
data supporting the accident loading factors is
contained in Reference 17.
H. 5.6.2 Beneficiation. The estimates of total dis-
abling accidents in the beneficiation sector were
derived from the same data source as for mining
and extraction.
H.5.6. 3 Transportation. Estimates of coal-related
disabling accidents in the rail and truck transport
sectors of the coal cycle were derived from data in
Reference 18. To simplify estimation processes, it
was assumed that the level of disabling accidents
in the slurry pipeline sector of the coal cycle was
statistically equivalent to zero.
H. 5.6.4 Conversion. Estimates of the level of
disabling accidents occurring in the various con-
version sectors of the coal cycle were derived from
estimates and data in Reference 18.
H.5.7. Man-days Lost
Estimates of the man-days lost as a result of
the disabling accidents projected in the various
sectors of the coal cycle are based upon data in
References 17 and 18.
It was assumed that:
• Each fatality was the equivalent of 6,000
man-days lost
• Disabling accidents in the mining and
beneficiation sectors resulted in an average
of 141 man-days lost per accident.
• Rail-sector disabling accidents resulted in
an average of 59.5 man-days lost per
accident.
• Truck-transport sector disabling accidents
resulted in an average of 45.4 man-days lost
per accident
» Based upon National Safety Council esti-
mates [51], an average of 102 man-days are
lost per accident occurring in other phases
of the coal cycle.
H-120
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
H.5.8 Operating Energy
The operating energy consumed in the coal
fuel cycle includes:
H.5.8.1 Recovery and Extraction. The overall
operating energy required for coal extraction is
four percent of the Btu content of marketable coal
[23, 24].
Based on an average of 22 million Btus per ton
of coal, the loading factor for coal extraction is
0.088 trillion Btus/100,000 tons of coal
[0.04(22xl06xl05>].
H.5.8. 2 Refining and Processing (Beneficiation). The
operating energy required for crushing and screen-
ing coal is 0.7 percent, and for mechanically
cleaned and dried coal is 4.6 percent of the Btu
content of coal [23, 25]. Therefore, the loading
factor for coal crushing and screening is 0.0154
trillion Btus/100,00 tons of coal [0.007 (22x10* xlO5
)], and for mechanical cleaning is 0.1 trillion
Btus/100,000 tons of coal [0.046 (22xlO*xl05)].
H.5.8. 3 Coal Transport. The operating energy
required in the transportation sector is measured in
Btus consumed per ton-mile transported and is a
function of the mode of transportation as follows
[32]:
• 670 Btus/ton-mile for rail transport or or
0.670 trillion Btus/billion ton-mile;
• 680 Btus/ton-mile for barge transport or
0.680 trillion Btus/billion ton-mile;
• 2800 Btus/ton-mile for truck transport or
2.8 trillion Btus/billion ton-miles, and
• 450 Btus/ton-mile for slurry pipe line, or
0.450 trillion Btus/billion ton-miles.
To account for empty return trips of transpor-
tation equipment, it is necessary to adjust the
above numbers to Btus consumed per gross ton-
mile transported. Thus, the loading factors are
[19]:
• 0.67 divided by 1.78 or 0.3764 trillion
Btus/billion ton-miles for rail transport;
• 0.68 divided by 1.43 or 0.4755 trillion
Btus/billion ton-miles for barge transport;
. 2.8 divided by 2.04 or 1.3725 trillion
Btus/billion ton-miles for truck transport,
and
. 0.45 divided by 1.0 or 0.45 trillion
Btus/billion ton-miles for slurry pipelines.
H.5.8.4 Coal Conversion and Utilization. The
operating energy measured in Btu input to coal
conversion facilities is: three percent for steam
electric power plants [24], 2. 1 percent for gasifica-
tion plants, 0.9 percent for liquefaction plants [7],
and 2.7 percent for coke plants [11]. Based on 22
million Btus per ton of coal, the loading factors
are:
. [.03(22 times 106 times 105 )] or 0.066 trillion
Btus/100,000 tons of coal for steam electric
power plants;
• [0.021(22 times 10s times 105 )] or 0.046
trillion Btus/100,000 tons of coal for gasifi-
cation plants;
• [0.009(22x1 06 xlO5 )] or 0.019 trillion
Btus/100,000 tons of coal for liquefaction
plants, and
• [0.027(22x1 06 xlO5 )] or 0.06 trillion
Btus/100,000 tons of coal for coke plants.
H.5.8. 5 Delivery. Losses in transmission and
distribution facilities occur between the electric
generating plant busbar and the appliance or piece
of equipment which operates on electricity. These
losses are approximately nine percent of the total
electricity transmitted. However, substation and
transformers use only one percent of the electric
load transmitted [6]. Therefore, the loading factor
is 0.022 trillion Btus/100,000 tons of coal. To
operate liquid pipelines to and from refineries, 2.3
percent of the equivalent heat content of oil is
consumed; and to operate gas pipelines, 2.9
percent of the equivalent heat content of gas is
consumed [23]. Therefore, the loading factors are:
0.0506 trillion Btus per 100,000 tons of coal
equivalent for oil lines, and 0.0638 trillion Btus per
100,000 tons of coal equivalent for gaslines.
H.5.9 Operation and Construction Employment
H.5.9.1 Recovery and Extraction. The loading
factor is based on peak employment during
construction of a 5.6 million tons per year mine
and is estimated to be 180 workers. Thus, 3.21
construction workers would be required per
100,000 tons annual output.
Approximately 50 percent more workers are
required for underground mine construction, i.e.,
4.8 construction workers per 100,000 ton annual
output.
Loading factors for direct operation workers
are:
• Underground Miners — Loading factors for
underground miners are derived by utilizing
H-121
itt-ji&MJ.gBS^afaaa:
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
the number of miners required to mine
100,000 tons of coal per day [7] divided by
365 days per year. These numbers vary
according to mine characteristics and, there-
fore, yield different loading factors for each
of the coal regions. In Alabama, the loading
factor is 37.8.
• Surface Miners — The same methodology
was applied utilizing the number of surface
miners required to mine 100,000 tons of coal
per day divided by 365 varying by region
[7]. In Alabama, the loading factor is 17.8.
H.5.9.2 Refining and Processing. During the con-
struction of a coal preparation plant, the peak
construction force is 150 men.
In 1975, there were 388 mechanical cleaning
plants. They cleaned a total of 374.1 x 106 tons
(raw) coal. Average yearly tonnage cleaned per
plant equals 964,180 = 9.64 in 100,000 ton coal
units [23, 27]. 150 man-years peak construction
effort divided by 9.64 = 15.6 man-years of
construction effort per 100,000 ton unit of coal.
For crushing and screening plants, assume 1/2 the
work force spread over two years. For example, a
75 man peak labor force divided by 9.64 = 7.8
man-years construction effort per 100,000 ton unit
of coal crushed and screened [28],
Total man-hours worked in 1975 was
29.13097 x 106 hours [29]. Total tonnage
cleaned = 374.1 x 106 tons. Therefore, 7,812 man-
hours are required per 100,000 tons of coal
cleaned, or 12.84 tons/man-hours.
Assuming an eight-hour shift and a 365-day
work year, one man-year = 2,920 man-hours.
Therefore, 2.67 man-years of effort are required to
clean a 100,000 ton unit of coal [29, 30].
For crushing and screening plants, operational
workers are estimated to be one-third of those for
mechanical cleaning plants or 0.9 man-years per
100,000 ton unit of coal.
H.5.9.3 Transportation. Loading factors for direct
construction workers are:
• Rail — Construction workers were derived
from a U.S. Energy Research and Develop-
ment publication [8] and equal 300 con-
struction workers per 1,000 miles of track.
• Truck — Highway construction workers
were derived from the same publication [8]
and equal 170 workers per 1,000 mile system
with three years to build.
• Slurry Pipeline — Pipeline construction
workers were derived from [13] and equal
4,900 workers per 1,036 miles of pipeline.
Loading factors for direct operation workers
are:
• Rail — Rail operator loading factors as-
sume a unit train of 10,000 ton capacity
traveling 1,000 miles round trip. Also, a six
day turn around time results in approxi-
mately 60 trips per year and 110 total
operating employees per one million train-
miles. These assumptions yield 22 employ-
ees per billion gross ton-miles.
• Truck — This factor assumes a 25 ton
capacity truck unit traveling 150 miles
round trip and three trips per day requiring
1.35 employees per unit or 1,346.4 employ-
ees per billion gross ton-miles [31].
• Barge — Barge loading factors assume
21,000 ton capacity (14 barges) per 500 mile
round trip and 24 employees per 3.5 day
round trip or 44 employees per billion gross
ton-miles [31].
• Slurry Pipeline — This factor assumes a
capacity of 25 billion ton-miles per year and
239 employees or 10 employees per billion
net ton-miles [13].
H.5.9.4 Steam Electric (Construction). Loading
factors for steam electric construction workers are
based on the assumption of a 1,000 MWe coal
fired power plant which consumes 10,000 tons of
coal per day [32]. Also, the peak construction work
force amounts to 1,400 workers [33]. Using a
100,000 ton unit of coal results in a loading factor
of 38.4 workers per 100,000 tons of coal consumed.
H.5.9.5 Synthetic Gas (Construction). Synthetic gas
loading factors are derived from data of two
gasification plants, one consuming 16,846 tons of
coal per day and the other consuming 28,434 tons
per day. It also assumes a 1,500 man peak
construction work force [8]. These assumptions
yield 18.1 workers per 100,000 tons of coal
consumed.
H.5.9.6 Synthetic Liquid (Construction). This factor
assumes a liquification plant which consumes
20,773 tons of coal per day with a peak construc-
tion force of 1,500 workers [8]. This yields an
H-122
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
estimate of 19.73 workers per 100,000 tons of coal
consumed.
H. 5.9.7 Coke Plants (Construction). The peak labor
force for coke oven construction is 180 men [28].
Loading factors are based on:
• Average number of plants under construc-
tion = nine million tons of coke capaci-
ty/year.
• 9 million tons of coke - 12,857,000 tons of
coal.
• 1975 average number of plants = 62.
• 1975 coke production was 56,494,000 tons.
• Therefore, average coke production per
plant equals 91 1,193 tons.
• Therefore, to produce nine million tons, an
average of 10 plants is required.
• Total peak construction labor required for
10 plants equals 10 times 180.
• Total construction labor expended = 1,800
divided by 128.57 equals 14.0 man years per
100,000 ton-units. [23, 28, 34].
H.5.9.8 Steam Electric (Operation). Loading factors
for steam electric operation workers are based a
1,000 MWe coal-fired power plant which con-
sumes 10,000 tons of coal per day [32]. The
operating work force of the plant is 160 employees
[32]. These assumptions yield an estimate of 4.38
workers per 100,000 ton coal unit.
H.5.9.9 Synthetic Gas (Operation). Synthetic gas
loading factors are derived from averaging data of
two gasification plants. One consumes 16,846 tons
of coal and the other consumes 28,434 tons per day
[8]. Based upon an operating force of 1,000,
calculations yield 12.1 workers per 100,000 of coal
feed.
H.5.9.10 Synthetic Liquid (Operation). This factor
assumes a liquification plant which consumes
20,773 tons of coal per day with an operating force
of 1,000 employees [8]. This yields an estimate of
13.15 workers per 100,000 tons of coal feed.
H.5.9.11 Coke Plants (Operation). Assuming a
coking efficiency of 70 percent, the average coal
used per man-hour equals 2.1938 tons. For 100,000
tons of coal, an estimated 45 man-hours (100,000
divided by 2.1938 equals 45,581.8) would be
needed to produce 70,000 tons of coke. This is
equivalent to 15.6 full time employees.
Thus, the direct employment multiplier for
metallurgical coal (coking) is 15.6 per 100,000 tons
ofcoalused[22].
H. 5. 9. 12 Delivery.
Direct Construction Workers:
• Transmission-line construction workers
were estimated to be 300 workers per 100
miles of line [8].
• Pipeline (liquid) construction workers for
liquid pipelines were estimated to be 1,150
workers per 1,000 miles of pipeline [8].
• Pipeline (gas) construction workers were
estimated to be 1,150 workers per 1,000
miles of pipeline [8].
Direct Operation Workers:
• Transmission Operation workers were esti-
mated to equal 20 workers per 100 miles of
line [8].
• Pipeline (liquid) operation workers were
estimated to equal 115 workers per 1,000
miles of pipeline [30].
o Pipeline (gas) operation workers were esti-
mated to be 139 workers per 1,000 miles of
pipeline [30].
H.6 AGRICULTURAL OPPORTUNITY
COST DERIVATION METHODOLOGY
This analysis focuses on estimation of mone-
tary costs of trade-offs made if coal development
occurs. It is limited to areas where at least partial
market information exists.
The opportunity cost of coal production is
equal to foregone outputs that could be obtained
from the alternative employment of resources
used. These resources include land and other
natural resources, labor, and capital. Capital is a
highly mobile resource with a national market.
With respect to capital, there is very little differ-
ence at the margin between returns "with" coal
development at a particular location versus "with-
out" coal development. Labor tends to be geo-
graphically committed to a far greater degree than
capital. Most workers tend to stay in one city or
town for long periods of their lives; most usually
move only when a substantial change occurs in
their lives. Thus, if coal resource development were
to decrease employment opportunities significant-
ly, it would be necessary to consider that fact as
one of the costs of development. This cost would
H-123
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
then be added to other development costs to
obtain the total costs of coal development.
When considering the opportunity cost of
labor, we are assessing the value of labor resources
in alternative productive uses. Labor resources
would freely move within coal development areas
and workers could freely choose their employment
activity. It is likely that, given the high wages paid
in the mining industry, opportunity costs for labor
will be less than wages in coal mining and related
activities. Under these conditions, opportunity
costs will be generated by those who could be
employed in the coal mining industry but elect not
to do so.
Land resources are totally fixed, both in
location and amount. The opportunity costs of
land resource use are the value of outputs foregone
due to coal development. The most substantial
opportunity costs occur in agricultural production.
Surface mining will result in substantial losses in
agricultural output per acre mined (Table H-91).
Values presented in Table H-91 represent the
annual gross revenue return per acre to the
agricultural sector, by state. Some double counting
is inevitable because sales within the farm sector
are not netted out.13 Double counting results in
overestimation of the value of final agricultural
products produced. The degree of over estimation
is related to the interdependence of a region's
agricultural sector with respect to both agriculture
itself and also other sectors of the economy (e.g.,
trade, services, etc.).14
Although the opportunity cost estimates pre-
sented in Table H-91 overstate the time level of
such costs, they represent the maximum annual
agricultural opportunity cost per acre of land used
for production of coal. It is assumed that, in the
foreseeable future, rehabilitated land will not yield
agricultural output commensurate with premining
levels of production. It is anticipated that, for each
acre of land required for coal development in each
region, the annual opportunity cost approximates
the values presented in Table H-91. The estimates
presented can be refined in two specific ways.
First, by estimating a single value that can be
compared to the total resource value of the coal;
13 The use of the national input-output table or a regional input-output
table might be used to estimate intra-agricultural transactions.
14 Input-output models could also be used in this case to estimate sales of
other sectors to agriculture.
15 Capitalized value is computed by dividing the yield of an investment
and second, by estimating values appropriate to
the state within the production region that specify,
for the community at-large, the opportunity costs
resulting from foregone agricultural outputs as
land resources are withdrawn from agriculture and
utilized in the production of coal. To make the
comparison of the total resource value of coal, it is
necessary that the annual agricultural output per
acre be converted to a measure of present value. In
the course of future analyses, the present value of
land used in coal production can be compared to
the present value of land in agricultural produc-
tion. To estimate the present value of land in
agriculture, we have estimated the capitalized15
value of land for each state within the production
regions. The capitalized value assumes that the
return to farmers as a result of agricultural
productive activity is 100 percent of gross returns.
This of course, is not true, but by making such an
assumption we can estimate the upper bound for
the opportunity costs of land in agriculture. Thus,
this analytic framework also enables separate
estimates of agricultural factor payments and
expected values of agricultural opportunity costs.
The upper limit of the present value of agricultural
opportunity costs of land not including externali-
ties are presented in Table H-92. The application
of information on regional earnings in agriculture
as a percent of the gross value of agricultural sales
reduces the upward bias in the Table H-92
estimates. The resulting value is no longer an
upper limit, but, rather, is an estimate of the
average agricultural opportunity cost of land.
Regional agricultural earnings used in this
analysis are estimated to equal 18 percent of the
value of all agricultural products sold for all
regions.16 This is an approximation of the national
average and has not been varied among the coal
production regions. The loss of these earnings is an
additional estimate of agricultural opportunity
costs. The generation of information about the
level of value-added in agriculture for each coal
production area will allow more specific estimates
of agricultural earnings and accordingly, opportu-
nity costs. Once calculated, these revised estimates
which in this case is taken to be the average value of agricultural output per acre
of all land by the interest rate.
16 Estimated as a simple average of data for Sector 3: meat, animals and
miscellaneous livestock products and Sector 5: feed grains, and grass seeds
Table C-l in U.S. Water Resources, Guidelines 5 [35].
H-124
TABLE H-91
MAXIMUM AGRICULTURAL OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF MINING, SHOWING CAPITALIZED
VALUE OF ALL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD PER ACRE OF ALL LAND (a)
(1974 dollars')
Northern Appalachian
Pennsylvania 522
Ohio 863
West Virginia 86
Maryland 980
Central Appalachian
West Virginia 86
Virginia 377
Kentucky '• - • 493
Tennessee ........ 353
Southern Appalachian
Tennessee
Georgia
Alabama
Eastern Interior
353
500
346
Iowa . 1765
Illinois 1308
Indiana 1131
Kentucky . 493
Western Interior
Iowa 1765
Missouri . 522
Arkansas 566
Oklahoma 362
Kansas 703
Nebraska 763
Powder River
Montana 64
Wyoming 47
Green River - Hams Fork
Colorado 41
Wyoming 26
Idaho 563
Utah 77
Fort Union
Montana 150
North Dakota 263
South Dakota 99
San Juan River
Arizona 10
New Mexico 16
Colorado 75
Utah 12
Uinta - Southwestern Utah
Colorado 45
Utah 58
Denver - Raton Mesa
Colorado 694
New Mexico 50
Texas
Texas 336
Arkansas 566
Louisiana 415
(a) Assumes interest rate of 10% - 1974 dollars,
H-125
TABLE H-92
MAXIMUM DIRECT AND INDIRECT AGRICULTURAL OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF MINING <»
— Hq7A r7n11aT-o)
Northern Appalachian
Pennsylvania 799
Ohio 1338
West Virginia 118
Maryland 1499
Central Appalachian
West Virginia 126
Virginia . . 535
Kentucky 700
Tennessee 501
Southern Appalachian
Tennessee , 505
Georgia 715
Alabama 516
Eastern Interior
Iowa 2524
Illinois 1831
Indiana 1663
Kentucky 725
Western Interior
!°wa 2524
Missouri 809
Arkansas 855
Oklahoma 547
Kansas 1090
Nebraska 1068
Powder River
Montana 90
Wyoming 68
Green River - Hams Fork
Colorado 59
Wyoming 39
Idaho . „ 805
Utah 116
Fort Union
Montana H6
North Dakota 350
South Dakota 132
San Juan River
Arizona 15
New Mexico 23
Colorado 109
Utah 117
Uinta - Southwestern Utah
Colorado 65
Utah 69
Denver - Raton Mesa
Colorado 1055
New Mexico 72
Texas
Texas 501
Arkansas 798
Louisiana 606
(a)Present sum of the capitalized value of all agricultural products sold
per acre of all land from Table H-91 and the indirect component; regional
earnings dependent upon agricultural output per acre of all land.
H-126
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
will reflect the wide differences in the agricultural
sectors of the various coal producing areas.
To this point in the analysis, externalities
(indirect effects) have not incorporated in the
estimation of opportunity costs. The next step in
the analysis is to examine the indirect conse-
quences of reducing the agricultural land base
within each coal region. Such reductions are
external to the agricultural sector and are the result
of interdependence in regional economies. It is
assumed that surface mining will reduce output by
the average capitalized value shown in Table H-92
and that "regional final demand" will be also
reduced by this amount. While external decreases
in output in the agricultural sector are generated
by coal mining, e.g., fewer farms result in reduced
demand for tractors, in many instances these
decreases may be offset by increased coal industry
demand for comparable goods and services. The
estimates presented in Table H-93 represent the
maximum total direct and indirect changes in
regional earnings resulting from the use of one acre
of land for mining activities. From the estimates
presented in Table H-93, it is possible to estimate
expected values of total capitalized agriculture
opportunity costs including direct and indirect
costs within a coal producing region. These
estimates are presented in Table H-94.
It must be emphasized that the agricultural
opportunity costs presented are estimated for an
average acre of land in each coal region, regardless
of current use and without knowing the precise
location of potential mining activities.
H.7 REFERENCES
1. ICF, Incorporated, 1977. Coal and Electric
Utilities Model Documentation, 2nd edition.
Washington, D.C.
2. 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.
3. Energy arrd Environmental Analysis, 1978.
Unpublished data. Arlington, Virginia.
4. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1978. Annual
Survey of Manufactures 1976-Fuels and Electric
Energy Consumed-Standard Metropolitan Statis-
tical Areas, by Major Industry Group. Bureau of
the Census, Washington, D.C.
5. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977. Statisti-
cal Abstract of the United States 1977. Bureau of
the Census, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
6. Edison Electric Institute, 1978. Statistical
Yearbook of the Electric Utility Industry for 1976.
New York, New York.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Second Edition. AP-42. Research Triangle Park,
N.C.
8. U.S. Energy, Research & Development Ad-
ministration. Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment-Coal Research, Development and Demon-
stration Program. Washington, D.C.
9. Argonne National Laboratory, 1977. National
Coal Utilization Assessment. An Integrated As-
sessment of Increased Coal Use in the Midwest:
Impacts and Constraints. Volume I and II.
Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Energy. ANL/AA-11
(Draft). Argonne, Illinois.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1974. Development Document for Effluent Limita-
tions Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Steel Making Segment of the
Iron and Steel Manufacturing-Point Source Cate-
gory. Washington, D.C.
11. Westerstrom, L.W., and R.E. Harris, 1975.
Coal-Bituminous and Lignite. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook,
Washington, D.C.
12. Bechtel Corporation, 1974. Draft Environ-
mental Impact Report. Prepared for Energy
Transportation Systems, Inc., Coal Slurry Pipeline.
San Francisco, California.
13. White, I., 1978. Personal communication.
Koppers Industry, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
14. Hunter, T., 1978. Personal communication.
Private consultant, McLean, Virginia.
15. Hamilton, P.A., D.H. White, Jr., and T.K.
Matson, 1975. The Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by
Sulphur Content, 2. The Western States, Bureau of
Mines Info. Circular 8693. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
H-127
TABLE H-9 3
ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF MINING (a)
(1974 dollars)
Northern Appalachian
Pennsylvania 144
Ohio 240
West Virginia 21
Maryland 269
Central Appalachian
West Virginia 22
Virginia 97
Kentucky 126
Tennessee 91
Southern Appalachian
Tennessee 92
Georgia 129
Alabama 92
Eastern Interior
Iowa 455
Illinois 329
Indiana 300
Kentucky 131
Western Interior
Iowa 455
Missouri 146
Arkansas 154
Oklahoma 98
Kansas 197
Nebraska 192
Powder River
Montana 17
Wyoming 12
Green River - Hams Fork
Colorado 10
Wyoming 8
Idaho 144
Utah 21
Fort Union
Montana 38
North Dakota ...... 63
South Dakota 24
San Juan River
Arizona . ,
New Mexico
Colorado
Utah . . .
3
4
20
3
Uinta - Southwestern Utah
Colorado 12
Utah 13
Denver - Raton Mesa
Colorado 190
New Mexico 13
Texas
Texas 89
Arkansas 143
Louisiana no
(a) Includes capitalized values of regional agricultural earnings (direct
plus indirect) per acre of all land.
H-128
TABLE H-94
VALUE OE ALL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD PER ACRE OE ALL LAND
(1974 dollars) .
Northern Appalachian
Pennsylvania 52.24
Ohio 86.28
West Virginia 8-64
Maryland 97.94
Powder River
Central Appalachian
West Virginia
Tennessee
Southern Appalachian
Tennessee
Georgia .
Alabama
Eastern Interior
Western Interior
8.64
37.70
Virginia
Kentucky „„
35.28
35.28
50.04
34.59
176.52
,130.76
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana UJ.09
Kentucky ^,JJ
Iowa .
Missouri
Arkansas .....••
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska 7b'lb
176.52
, 52.18
. 56.57
. 36.23
. 70.34
Montana
Wyoming
Green River - Hams Fork
Colorado
Wyoming .
Idaho . .
Utah .
San Juan River
6.
43
4.
68
4
14
2
.58
56
.31
7
.70
Eort Union
Montana 14.95
North Dakota 26.34
South Dakota 9-91
1.03
1.56
Arizona
New Mexico
Colorado 7 • 48
Utah i-20
Uinta - Southwestern Utah
Colorado ^'^
Utah 4-79
Denver - Raton Mesa
Colorado 69-31
New Mexico 4"96
Texas
Texas . •
Arkansas .
Louisiana
33.60
56.57
41.48
H-12 9
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
16. Commission on Natural Resources, 1 975 . Air
Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control.
Prepared for Committee on Public Works. U.S.
Senate Committee Print Serial No. 94-4. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
17. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Injury
Experience in Coal Mining, 1975. Division of
Mining Information System, Health and Safety
Analysis System, Denver, Colorado.
18. Bliss, C, P. Clifford, G. Goldgraben, E.
Graf-Webster, K. Krickenberger, H. Mahar, and
N. Zimmerman, 1976. Accidents and Unscheduled
Events Associated with Non-Nuclear Energy
Resources and Technology. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. M76-68 The
MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia.
19. Banks (R.L.) and Associates, 1978. Rail
Ton/Mileage Calculations Based on ICF/DOE
Midlevel Projections for 1985 Coal Production.
Unpublished Data. Washington, D.C.
20. U.S. Department of Labor, 1978. Mine
Injuries and Worktime, Quarterly January-March
1978. Mine Safety and Health Administration,
Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado.
21. U.S. Department of Labor, 1976. Inflation
Impact and Analysis of the Proposed Standard for
Coke Oven Emissions, 29 CFR 1910. 1029.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Washington, D.C.
22. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977.
Minerals Yearbook 1975. Volume I. Metals,
Minerals, and Fuels. Prepared by Bureau of
Mines. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, D.C.
23. Council on Environmental Quality, 1973.
Energy and the Environment - Electric Power.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. &
24. Nunenkamp, D.C, 1976. Coal Preparation
Environmental Engineering Manual. Prepared by
J.J. Davis Associates, McLean, Va. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C.
25. Toman, N.E., N.L. Dalsted, A.G. Leholm,
R.C. Coon and F.L. Leistritz, 1976. Economic
Impacts of Construction and Operation of the
Coal Creek Electrical Generation Complex and
Related Mine. North Dakota Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, North Dakota State University,
Fargo, North Dakota.
26. Cooper, F., 1978. Personal communication.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
27. U.S. Department of Interior, 1975. The
Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by Sulphur Content:
Vol. I, The Eastern States (IC 8680) and Vol. II
The Western States, (IC 8693). Bureau of Mines'
Washington, D.C.
28. Stanford Research Institute, 1975. Manpow-
er, Materials, Equipment, and Utilities Required to
Operate and Maintain Energy Facilities. Prepared
for Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, Ca. Available
from National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia.
29. Old West Regional Commission, 1974. Envi-
ronmental Impacts of Alternative Conversion
Processes for Western Coal Development. Thomas
E. Carroll Associates, Washingtton, D.C.
30. Bisselle, A., A. Binder, R. Holberger, L
Morrow, R. Pagano, D. Parker, S. Sasfy, and R.
Stneter, 1975. Resource and Land Investigations
(RALI) Program: An Approach to Environmental
Assessment with Application to Western Coal
Development. The MITRE Corporation, MTR-
6988, McLean, Virginia.
31. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1977. Guide-
lines 5. Regional Multipliers. Washington, D.C.
32. Browne, T.D., and E.F. Harvey, 1975.
Wyoming Energy Consumption-Minerals, Fuels,
Electrical Generation and Agricultural Sectors.
Bickert, Browne, Coddington and Associates, Inc.,
Denver, Colorado. Prepared for Dept. of Econom-
ic Planning and Development, State of Wyoming.
33. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. 1985
and 1990 Production Levels for No Leasing
Alternative. Unpublished Data, Bureau of Land
Management, Washington, D.C.
34. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. 1985
and 1990 Production Levels for Alternative 2
(Leasing of PRLAs Only) and Alternative 3 (Short
Term Leasing Only). Unpublished Data, Bureau of
Land Management, Washington, D.C.
H-130
IMPACT ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
35. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. 1985,
1990 DOE/ICF Mid Level Production-Unpubl-
ished Data. Bureau of Land Management, Wash-
ington, D.C.
36. ICF, Incorporated, 1978. The Demand for
Western Coal and the Sensitivity of the Demand to
Key Uncertainties. (Draft Report). Prepared for
the Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
37. Rodin, L.E., N.I. Bazilevich and N.N.
Rovzov, 1975. Productivity of the World's Main
Ecosystems. In: Productivity of World Ecosys-
tems, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C.
38. Olson, J.G., 1975. Productivity of Forest
Ecosystems. In: Productivity of World Ecosys-
tems, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C.
39. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974. Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed De-
velopment of Coal Resources in the Eastern
Powder River Coal Basin of Wyoming. Bureau of
Land Management, Washington, D.C.
40. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977. Agri-
cultural Statistics, Washington, D.C.
41. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. Draft
Environmental Statement - Development of Coal
Resources in Southwestern Wyoming, 3 Vols.
Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
42. Allen, D.C, 1962. Our Wildlife Legacy.
Funk & Wagnalls Company, New York, New
York.
43. Kendeigh, S.C., 1974. Ecology. Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
44. Taylor, W.P. (ed.), 1969. The Deer of North
America. Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, Penn-
sylvania.
45. U.S. Senate, 1977. National Energy Trans-
portation, Volume I-Current Systems and Move-
ments. Report Prepared by the Congressional
Research Service Accompanied by Maps Jointly
Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey and the
Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.
46. U.S. Federal Energy Administration, 1975.
U.S. Coal Resources and Reserves. Monthly
Energy Review, National Energy Information
Center, Washington, D.C.
47. Glazer, F., A. Hershaft, and R. Shaw, 1974.
Emissions from Processes Producing Clean Fuels.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research
Triangle Park, N.C.
48. ICF, Incorporated, 1978. DOE Leasing run,
1985 (Model run of 4/9/78), Washington, D.C.
49. Radian Corporation, 1975. Description of
Extraction, Processing/Conversion and Transpor-
tation Modules, Vol. II, McLean, Va.
50. Gold, H. and D.J. Goldstein, 1978. Draft
Water Related Environmental Effects in Fuel
Conversion, Prepared by Water Purification Asso-
ciates for the Department of Energy, Washington,
D.C.
51. National Safety Council,
Facts. Washington, D.C.
1978. Accident
H-131
APPENDIX I
EXISTING LEASES AND PRLAs DISCUSSION PAPER
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Memorandum
To: Under Secretary
,~A\
... V
Through: Assistant Secretary, Land and Water Resources fi
From: Director, Office of Coal Leasing, Planning ard'tcordl'nation
Subject : Discussion paper on Departmental management of existing coal
leases and preference right lease applications
I.
INTRODUCTION
A major element of any new federal coal management program would be a com-
petitive coal leasing process. Much of the analysis in the Department's
draft environmental statement on the federal coal management program
focused on this element. Another significant element of the program is
how the Department proposes to treat existing leases and pending noncom-
petitive preference right lease applications. The role of these leases
and applications is discussed throughout the draft environmental statement
(DES). The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the material in
the statement and other relevant information about this second element
of a coal management program to ensure that those who are interested in
these matters will have thorough and convenient access to the necessary
material. The Solicitor's Office has been asked to give expedited con-
sideration to the legal questions identified in this memorandum, and
this office will prepare any necessary issue option documents on the
policy issues that are outlined in this memorandum, and that may arise
out of the conclusions reached by the Solicitor's Office on the legal
questions. The memorandum will first discuss why existing leases and
pending lease applications are important to federal coal management and
then go on to discuss the specific steps that have been and will be
taken in managing them.
Ao
SIZE OF THE MATTER
As of October 1978, there were 533 federal coal leases containing an
estimated 17 billion tons of coal. Sixty-seven percent of these reserves
are surface mineable, while thirty- three percent are mineable by under-
ground methods. All but 66 of the 533 leases are located in the six
1-1
principal coal regions in the western United States. Table I, taken frart
Chapter 2 of the DES, shows the region, number of leases, acreage, and
amount of coal under lease broken down according to the principal coal
areas. In 1977, annual production from these leases was slightly over
50 million tons.
As of March 1976, there were 172 applications for preference right leases
pending before the Department, containing an estimated 9.9 billion tons
of coal, 3.5 billion tons of which is estimated to be surface mineable,
and 6.4 billion tons of which is mineable by underground methods. Table
II, also taken from Chapter 2 of the DES, shows the number of applica-
tions, the acreage and amount of reserves, again broken down by region.
B. IMPORTANCE TO COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Forecasts of future coal use in the United States predict that both
national coal use and western coal use will increase over the next 15
years. While demand growth rates in these forecasts vary and may change,
the certainty of increased demand and the need for increased coal pro-
duction cannot be denied. Federally-owned coal makes up 25 to 30 percent
of all national coal reserves and 60 percent of western coal reserves
It thus has the potential to influence levels and distribution of national
coal production.
Only a little more than one percent of federally-owned coal acreage has
been leased. Even if no additional coal was competitively leased, how-
ever, the estimated 26.9 billion tons of leased coal and coal subject to
noncompetitive lease application could significantly add to national coal
production. Using the crudest and most optimistic estimate of annual
coal production potential from these lands, that is, assuming that all
coal can be economically and environmentally mined , the coal in existing
leases and pending applications could supply 670 million tons annually *
for 40 years. A more realistic estimate of production from existing
leases is that they are capable of producing in the neighborhood of
360 million tons annually by 1985. The Department calculates from
approved and pending mining plans that lessees have planned production
at around 310 million tons annually by 1985. Existing preference right
lease applications, if granted, would likely produce not more than 100
million tons annually by 1990. By comparison, 1977 production from
federal leases was only 50 million tons. The magnitude of this pos-
sible increase underscores the importance of focusing on what role
these leases and lease applications may play, and what policies and
procedures the Department will adopt to ensure that they are managed in
an economically and environmentally sound manner.
II. EXISTING LEASES
There are several important issues concerning existing leases. How
are they considered in setting regional leasing targets? How will
1-2
unsuitability criteria be applied? Hew do the diligent development and
continued operation standards work? Are there any constraints on assign-
ing lease rights? One other important issue, application of the interim
and permanent programs adopted under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, is, of course, addressed very extensively in the environ-
mental statement on that program and in regulations developed to carry
out the mandates of that Act. Simply stated, however, operations on
all federal leases will comply with that Act unless it authorizes an
exception.
A. REGIONAL LEASING TARGETS
An integral part of the preferred alternative is a process to decide
hew much coal should be leased competitively. The process of setting
regional production goals and leasing targets starts with comparisons of
likely production from all possible sources, with projections of demand
derived from computer models developed and operated by the Department of
Energy. It then proceeds with consultations with state governments, the
industry and the public to modify the computer-derived estimates with
other projections and estimates, and specific reasons for leasing or
not leasing certain types of coal or in certain locations. Finally, the
environmental and socio-economic impacts of specific levels of leasing-
influenced development will be studied for each of the Department's coal
regions where leasing might occur. This process requires the Department
to have informed estimates of likely production from all lands, including
existing leases. The Department will use a variety of outside sources
to gather this information, including the information published by the
Department of Energy, the National Coal Association, and the Keystone
Coal Manual. For existing leases, the Department has relied, and will
continue to rely, heavily on estimates from pending and approved mining
plan applications as well as inquiries of and conversations with lessees.
To make certain that this information is both easily available and accurate,
the Department has developed an automated coal data system which, for
the first time, centralizes all information on coal leases. The informa-
tion in the system should contain the best available estimates of planned
and potential future production frcm coal leases.
Table III, taken from Chapter 2 of the DES, is derived from information
in the automated coal data system. It is the source of the statistics
recited above: that planned 1985 production from coal leases in approved
or pending mine plans will be around 310 millions tons per year; and,
combined with Table 2-21 in the DES, that likely 1985 production from
federal leases will be over 360 million tons per year. These figures
are derived from a systematic canvass of all leases existing in early
1978 by the Geological Survey's mining supervisors. Information on
potential production was broken down into five lease categories: (1)
leases with approved mining plans; (2) leases with approved mining
plans to which modifications are pending; (3) leases with mining plans
1-3
jMa!M^ialii-.wigt-,i;«i«
pending approval; (4) leases on which no mine plan has been submitted,
but for which the lessees have discussed a plan with the Geological
Survey; and (5) leases for which there are no development plans of any
kind known to the Geological Survey.
Estimated production frcm the first three lease categories was included
in the 310 million tons per year "planned production8' figure, with the
understanding that the actual figure could vary substantially. Production
from leases in the first category is the least likely to change from the
planned amounts; the leases are likely to be exempt from unsuitability
prohibitions and variation in amount of production, though allowed under
the approved plans, is constrained by the resource conservation and
sound mining method principles that governed initial approval of the
mining sequence. Planned production from leases in the second category
is less certain, of course, but still quite reliable. Significant mine
plan modifications might increase as well as decrease production, although
environmental assessments of major modifications may delay the planned
production. The third lease category embraces planned production that
will occur, but its timing is less certain. As a rule of thumb, lessees'
plans were not systematically revised in calculating these quantities
of planned production, even though the Department knows, and other users
of this information should realize, that conforming the pending plans to
the interim performance standards of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement caused, as conforming the plans to the permanent program
regulations will cause, some delay in reaching planned production levels
and some possible loss of production to meet those environmental standards.
Potential production from leases in the fourth category became the
additional "likely production" set out in Table 2-21 of the DES— some
57.3 millions tons per year in 1985. Potential production from leases in
the fifth category was not included in 1985 production estimates at all.
The likely production information on leases, as well as all other infor-
mation, will be publicly available and will be used by the regional coal
teams who participate in the work on setting regional production goals
and leasing targets.
B. UNSUITABILITY OF LANDS
1> How the criteria are applied.
The preferred unsuitability criteria under consideration for adoption as
part of the federal lands program under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) , 30 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. , and as part of the
federal coal management program, were established by Secretarial decision
on October 3 and November 2, 1978. (The 24 criteria are set out in
section 3461.2 of the example regulations, Appendix A to the DES.)
Those criteria finally adopted would be applied to all federal coal
lands. SMCPA mandates the Secretary to review all federal lands for
1-4
nMnmnmnifnTniimii mi i ■niiiiiiMmnniBTTirTMiiiiiiiiiMiWiyimi iiinirmwimiflMTP"""— "^piwmiHmr^-5
unsuitability and it allows citizens to petition for and against desig-
nation 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) of SMCRA requires the Secretary to review all federal lands,
even though many coal areas are under the land managing jurisdiction of
another agency, principally the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers.
By adopting the principle that the unsuitability criteria are best applied
to federal lands in the land use planning conducted by each federal sur-
face management agency, the Department has set 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 en lands they administer just as the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) will on land it administers. For any agency that does not have the
resources to conduct such a review, the Secretary would remain obligated
to complete this review.
Section 522(b) of SMCRA goes on to say that the Secretary will condition
leasing on, or withdraw frcm leasing, lands that are found to be unsuitable
for all or certain types of mining. For lands under the administration
of other agencies, the conditions may be imposed by the Secretary or by
the surface management agency when it consents to coal leasing on "its"
lands. (Section 3 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976
(FCLAA) , 30 U.S.C. § 201(a) (2) (B) ( iii) . ) For lands already leased, the
Secretary will of course consult with the surface management agency in
approving a mine plan on the lease, so that step will be the focus for
the application of conditions to implement the unsuitability criteria.
While the discussion below focuses on the federal lands review process
with respect to lands administered by BLM, it is applicable as well
to lands administered by other federal agencies, whether the other
agency is applying the Department's unsuitability criteria under a
cooperative agreement or whether BLM is doing so for the other agency's
lands.
2 . The relationship between the federal lands review and the designation
process.
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 administer the statutory petition process. (Issues A3
and A2, Appendix B to the Federal Register Notice of December 8, 1978.
43 Fed. Reg. 57662, 57666.)
1-5
. _ . .■.,■■„'. ,..,':^ !.„■■:....:
The federal lands review under section 522(b) of SMCRA, it must be em-
phasized, is not a program for the designation of lands as unsuitable
for mining. Formal designation of federal lands as unsuitable, discussed
in greater detail below, will occur only in response to a petition to
designate under section 522(c) of SMCRA. The results of the federal
lands review, rather than "designation" under 522(c) of SMCRA, will be:
(a) land-use planning determinations, or trade-offs between competing
resource values and land uses; and (b) unsuitability assessments or
land-use planning recommendations to condition any leasing or mining, or
to withdraw the lands from leasing. This conclusion is derived directly
from the statutory definitions of the terms used to describe the petition
and designation process under subsection 522(c), and the differences in
the federal lands review under section 522(b).
A lessee ' s right to produce from a lease could be affected by both the
federal lands review and the petition process. The SMCRA forbids the
Department from approving a mining plan for lands that have been designated
as unsuitable. In the absence of a petition, the Department's preferred
alternative is not to approve a mining plan for an existing lease until
after it has reviewed the leased lands for possible unsuitability. This
is consistent with the President's direction in his Environmental Message
to the Congress and an accompanying memorandum to the Secretary for the
Department to take steps necessary to deal with environmentally unaccept-
able lease problems. (Vol. 13 Compilation of Presidential Documents
782,, 787 (1977).) Thus,, review of the unsuitability of leased lands
could take place either through the land-use planning process under
section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) ,
43 U.S.C. § 1712, which is the primary vehicle for the federal lands
review, or another surface management agency's planning process, through
the petition process, or through the mine plan approval process.
In some instances, the Department lacks legal authority to designate as
unsuitable, or prevent the mining of lands in existing leases. The
Department's preferred unsuitability criteria have their origin in a
variety of legal mandates and the authority to regulate existing leases
varies under these different authorities. In designing the preferred
alternative, the Department has drawn legal prohibitions, agency policies
and executive order directives into a single framework for the purpose
of simpler administration of the federal lands review. For example,
criteria which stem from section 522(a) of SMCPA, the direct source of
the concept of "unsuitability criteria," cannot be applied to lands on
which an operator is in production on August 4, 1977, or to operations
for which "substantial financial and legal commitments" had been made by
January 4, 1977. Standards which derive from section 522(e) of SMCRA
cannot divest "valid existing rights." Table IV, which should be thought
of as an explanation and supplement to Table 3-1 in the DES, lists each
proposed criterion and its statutory source. It also indicates whether
1-6
TABLE IV
PROPOSED UNSUITABILITY STANDARDS:
THEIR SOURCES AHD LIMITATIONS
CRITERION
(Proposed Rule Section)
1-1. Lands in federal land
preservation systems
(National Parks,
Wildlife Refuges and
Trails
1-2. Buffer zones around
such land
1-3. Lands in Custer
National Forest
[3461.2(a)]
STATUTORY
SOURCE 1/
b. 16-PCLAA
522(a)(3)-
SMCRA
Clean Air Act
522(e)-SMCRA
NATURE OF
CRITERION
a. 522(e)-SMCRA; a. mandatory
b. mandatory
discretionary
mandatory
EXEMPTIONS
valid existing
rights; surface
coal mining opera-
tions existing on
8-3-77
none
522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/
valid existing
rights; existing
surface coal
mining operations
DERIVATION OF
EXCEPTIONS
operations that
involve no sur-
face coal mining
operations
(522(e)(2)(B)
proviso- SMCRA)
H
I
-^1
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 j§eq. ; 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. § 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 IV - page 2
I
CO
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, puDlic
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 1/
a. 715-SMCRA;
b. 522(e)(4)-
SMCRA
a. 522(e)(4) and
(5) -SMCRA
b. 522(a)(3)(B)
a. 603(c)-FLPMA;
b. 522(a)(3)(B)-
SMCRA;
c. National Forest
Management Act;
d. Wilderness Act
a. 522(a)(3)(B)-
SMCRA;
b. 201-202-FLPMA
a. 522(a)(3)(C)-
SMCRA;
b. 715-SMCRA
NATURE OF
CRITERION
a. mandatory
b. mandatory
EXEMPTIONS
valid existing
rights; surface
coal mining
operations exist-
ing on 8-3-77
a. mandatory
a. valid existing
rights; surface
coal mining
operations exist-
ing on 8-3-77
b. discretionary b. 522(a) (6) -SMCRA 2/
a. mandatory
in most cases
b. discretionary b.
c. discretionary
a. 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 non impairment
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
TABLE IV - page 3
I
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
threatened or en-
dangered species
[3461. 2(i)]
10. Lands in designated
critical habitat
. for state threatened
or endangered
species
[3461. 2(j)]
11. Lands containing
bald or golden
eagle nest, and
buffer zone
[3461. 2(k)]
STATUTORY
SOURCE 1/
NATURE OF
CRITERION
EXEMPTIONS
DERIVATION OF
EXCEPTIONS
a. 522(e)(3)-SMCRA; mandatory a. valid existing National Historic
a,w,eM) ' rights; surface Preservation Act 3/
mining operations
existing on 8-3-77
b. National Historic discretionary
Preservation Act
522(a)(3)(B)- discretionary 522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/
SMCRA
522(a)(3)(B)-
SMCRA;
Antiquities Act
Endangered
Species Act
201, 202 and
302(b)-FLPMA
a. Eagle Protec-
tion Act;
b. Endangered
Species Act
discretionary 522(a) (6) -SMCRA 2/ discretion
mandatory
discretionary
a. mandatory
b. mandatory
none
Endangered Species
Act 3/
valid existing
rights
discretion
none
Eagle Protection
Act 3/
Endangered Species
Act 3/
TABLE IV - page 4
CRITERION
STATUTORY
NATURE OF
DERIVATION OF
(Proposed Rule Section)
SOURCE 1/
CRITERION
EXEMPTIONS
EXCEPTIONS
12.
Lands containing
bald or golden
eagle migration or
wintering roost, and
Eagle Protection
Act;
Endangered
Species Act
mandatory
none
Eagle Protection
Act 3/
Endangered Species
Act 3/
buffer zone
[3461.2(1)]
13.
Lands with falcon
cliff nesting site,
a.
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act;
mandatory
none
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act 3/
and buffer zone
b.
201, 202-FLPMA
Endangered Species
H
including prey
Endangered
mandatory
Act 3/
1
H
habitat
Species Act
O
[ 3461.2 (m)]
14.
Lands that are high
priority habitat
a.
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act;
a. mandatory
none
a. Migratory Bird
Treaty Act 3/
for migratory birds
b.
Fish and Wild-
b. discretionary
b. discretion
of high federal
life Coordina-
interest
tion Act
[3461. 2(n)]
15.
Lands that are
habitat for high
interest resident
a.
Fish and Wild-
life Coordina-
tion Act;
both
discretionary
a. none
discretion
wildlife in state
b.
201, 302(b)-
b. valid existing
[3461.2(o)]
FLPMA
rights
■\
TABLE IV - page 5
CRITERION
STATUTORY
NATURE OF
DERIVATION OF
(Proposed Rule Section)
SOURCE 1/
CRITERION
EXEMPTIONS
EXCEPTIONS
16. Lands that are
a.
522(a)(3)(C)-
all
a.
522(a)(6)-
discretion
i inland wetlands
SMCRA;
discretionary
SMCRA 2/
{ 3461. 2 (p) J
b.
Fish and Wild-
life Coordina-
tion Act;
b.
none
c.
E.O. 11990
(May 1977),
National Environ-
mental Policy Act;
c.
none
d.
Federal Water
Pollution Control
d.
Env ironmental
Protection Agency
H
1
H
H
Act
or Corps of
Engineers per-
mitted activities
17. Lands in 100-year
a.
522(a)(3)(C)-
all
522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/
discretion
floodplains
SICRA;
discretionary
[34€1.2(#}
b.
c.
522(a)(3)(B)-
SMCHA;
E.O. 119S8
(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 IV - page 6
CRITERION
(Proposed Rule Section)
19. Lands containing
National Resource
Waters, and buffer
zones
[3461. 2(s)]
20. Lands containing
prine farm land
soils
[3461. 2(t)]
| |
I 21. Lands in alluvial
[^ valley floors, where
mining would inter-
rupt or preclude
farming , or
materially damage
water systems
[3461. 2(u)]
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)]
STATUTORY
SOURCE 1/
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
510(b)(2)-
SMCRA
522(a)(3)(A)-
SMCRA;
522 (a) (5) -SMCRA
mandatory
discretionary
EXEMPTIONS
. Environmental
Protection Agency
or Corps of
Engineers per-
mitted activities
, 522(a) (6)-SMCRA 2/
522 (a) (6) -SMCRA 2/
operations pro-
ducing or per-
mitted in year
before 8-3-77
limited to a.
above
none
DERIVATION OF
EXCEPTIONS
discretion
515(b) (7)-SMCRA;
discretion
510 (b)(5) -SMCRA
none
522(a) (6) -SMCRA 2/ discretion
MB
TABLE IV - page 7
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
H
it is mandatory or discretionary, and what exemptions it carries, and thus
what its probable effect on existing leases will be. These are the criteria
adopted as the preferred alternative last fall after the Department field
tested the initial draft criteria in the summer of 1978 and modified the
test criteria in response to the results of the field testing.
It must also be emphasized that assessment of lands as subject to an
unsuitability criterion does not mean (exemptions aside) that no mining
may occur there. The federal lands review is to assess whether the
lands are "unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal mining
operations." (Section 522(b) of SMCRA (emphasis added).) While the term
"surface coal mining operations" does include "surface operations
and surface impacts incident to an underground coal mine" (section 701(28)
of SMCRA), it is clear that some unsuitability assessments will result
in recommendations only against leasing for, or prohibitions against,
mining of certain types. These considerations will be an integral part
of the application of the unsuitability criteria (either in land-use
planning or in the mine plan approval process) , or in the designation of
lands in response to a petition.
3 . The federal lands review.
As stated above, the review of federal lands administered by BLM will occur
either as a land-use planning function or in the process of mine plan
approval. 1/ 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 responsible 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 designating 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 or she would make.
1/ It could also occur during other activities such as lease readjustment
depending on the timing of those activities.
1-14
The responsible official would make his assessment on the best available
data that can be obtained given the time and resources available to pre-
pare the land-use plan. The description in the plan would explain whether
additional data would be likely to affect significantly the conclusions
reached about unsuitability. The plan would also disclose when in activity
planning, lease sale, or post-lease activities the necessary data would
be obtained. When the data are finally acquired, the responsible official
would then be required to make public the resulting assessment concerning
unsuitability and the reasons therefor and provide opportunity for public
comment before that assessment is adopted. Any changes which either
result from a petition process for designating land unsuitable or or are
warranted by additional data acquired in any activity planning or mine
plan review process would be made without formally revising the plan.
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 would pro-
duce hydrologic or surface effects on Federal lands to which an unsuitability
criterion applies, those lands would be considered unsuitable unless the
conditions exist to permit an exception.
The unsuitability review process is set out in two instruction memoranda
frcm the Director, BLM. Instruction Memorandum (I.M. ) 79-76 (November 8,
1978), published at 43 Fed. Reg. 57664 (December 8, 1978), instructs
the coal state BLM offices how to apply the criteria to lands in completed,
approved management framework plans (MFPs) . Because the criteria and
exceptions selected by the Under Secretary for the preferred program are
changed significantly from the criteria and exceptions originally field
tested by the task force, the Department determined that they should be
field tested anew as part of their application in selected BLM planning
areas before any final decision on them is made by the Secretary. Fur-
thermore, the procedures for these field tests were designed to ensure
that the criteria and exceptions would receive attention not only from
the land management agencies' planners, but also from interested user
groups and the public. The field tests are being conducted in Alabama
and in 20 coal areas in 10 planning units in Colorado, Montana, Utah,
and Wyoming, and the results will be made available to the public in the
form of supplements to existing land-use plans. The supplements will
be published in May of this year and 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 supplements
which will have been published before the Secretary's decision.
Subsequently, I.M. 79-139 (December 15, 1978), published at 44 Fed. Reg.
2201 (January 10, 1979), instructed the coal state BLM offices how to
incorporate application of unsuitability criteria into ongoing and
future planning processes. While I.M. 79-76 dealt with formulating a
1-15
tnaHHMKHHa
discrete MFP "supplement" en unsuitability, I.M. 79-139 describes which
steps in unsuitability assessment are to be taken at which steps in the
existing BIM planning process: during inventory, during mapping, at public
participation points, and during multiple-use trade-off determinations.
Both completed "supplements" and ongoing planning products will be subject
to revision and supplementation to accommodate any changes in the un-
suitability criteria, both in the coal program decision and in the future.
The ongoing tests have been carefully structured to simplify their revision
or supplementation if standards change. The review may be done for leased
as well as unleased lands.
To repeat, the assessment of unsuitable areas in the land-use plan is
not the formal designation that may result from a petition under section
522(c) of SMCRA. In addition, the assessment of unsuitable lands in
the land-use planning process will have different consequences for unleased
and leased lands. For unleased lands, as described above, the planners
will then determine whether or not to exercise any applicable exception
to a criterion. The Department will not further consider for leasing
those unleased lands with identified problems, and on which it chooses
not to assert an identified exception.
The assessment that leased lands are unsuitable, however, means that
the Department applies all exceptions to the criteria in question.
Again, this may happen either in the course of land-use planning or in
response to submission of a mine plan on the lease. If any exception
applies, the Department will allow mining subject to any conditions or
mitigating measures inherent in the exception. If no exception applies,
however, the Department will proceed to the final "screen" and determine
whether the lease is exempt from the application of the criterion in
question because, for instance, the operator has made substantial financial
and legal commitments to the lease. If the lease is exempt, the assessment
that the lands are unsuitable will still not prevent mining. Only if
the leased lands are not exempt, that is, not "grandfathered" from adverse
application of the criteria as valid existing rights or as an operation
to which "substantial financial and legal commitments were made," will
the Department then continue to prohibit mining, and the Department
may formally designate the lands as unsuitable in response to a petition
under section 522(c) of SMCRA.
4 . Mine plan approval.
If land-use planning has not been completed on a leased tract at the time
a mine plan is submitted for approval, the unsuitability criteria will
be applied to the lands as part of the approval process. The environ-
mental analysis or impact statement on mine plan approval will document
the application of the criteria and their exceptions to the leased lands,
whether the criteria were applied during prior land-use planning or as
part of the mine plan review.
1-16
vL^,._;^:.:' __::,■::-
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 on the value which the criterion is designed to protect.
If no change could be made and some or all of the proposed operation
could not occur consistent with the criterion, the Department would decide
whether the operator was exempt from application of the criterion. If he
is not, the Department will condition or prohibit operations on some or
all of the leased lands when it acts on the mine plan.
The mine plan approval process, whether under 30 CFR Part 211 with
Geological Survey as the lead agency, or under the SMCRA permanent pro-
gram regulations with OSM as the lead agency, will contain public parti-
cipation procedures (especially if an environmental impact statement is
completed on the plan) comparable to those applicable to land-use planning.
5. Petitions to designate federal lands.
Apart from application of the unsuitability criteria in land-use
planning and in response to a proposed mine plan, the designation process
may be initiated by a petition to designate lands as unsuitable under
section 522(c) of SMCRA. Petitions will be filed with CSM under the
division of responsibilities established on July 5 (Issue A2, Appendix B
to the Federal Register notice of December 8, 1978). 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 allega-
tions. 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 requirements, designation as unsuitable,
rejection of the petition, or termination of a prior designation must
occur within one year. The year provides the time in which the BLM (or
other surface management agency) will substantively review the petition,
and if necessary and possible examine the tract, and in which a public
hearing on the petition will be held and a written decision rendered.
The petition process is not limited in application, and appears to apply
to leased as well as unleased federal coal lands, subject of course to
the exemptions set out in SMCRA: that the application of criteria derived
from section 522(e) is subject to valid existing rights; and that the
application of criteria derived from section 522(a) does not apply to
operations in existence on August 4, 1977, operations permitted under
SMCRA, and operations to which substantial financial and legal commitments
were made prior to January 4, 1977. Thus the unsuitability of leased
lands may be assessed under this process without any mine plan pending,
or without any land-use planning process occurring. Conversely, the
lessee may petition to have any designation of the leased lands as unsuit-
able for coal mining terminated under the same petition process and time
limits. The surface management agency's response to OSM's referral to
1-17
■■.. iiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiimiiMiwwiiiii—miMi^iiiM
it of a petition will of course be easier and quicker for lands on which
land-use planning has occurred, since the inventory of the lands and
analysis of the criteria on those lands will already have occurred.
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 surface
management agency, controls the outcome of the petition process. It may
be that certain lands which are not found to be unsuitable in land-use
planning may be designated unsuitable upon petition, and conversely,
lands deemed unsuitable by the surface management agency may not be
designated unsuitable upon petition. This is possible because the unsuit-
ability 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
carrying out the environmental purposes served by the criteria. Section
522(d) of SMCRA requires OSM, prior to designating federal land unsuitable,
to prepare a "detailed statement on (i) the potential 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." 30 U.S.C. § 1272(d). In order to assure the greatest consistency
between OSM's unsuitability designations and BLM's land-use planning
unsuitability assessments, the BLM's draft coal management regulations
require that the same "detailed statement" be made by BLM to document its
unsuitability assessments when it adopts a land-use plan. (Draft 43 CFR
3461.4-3.)
6 . Exchange of unsuitable lands.
The Department has some limited authority to issue new coal leases,
coal lease modifications, leases for other minerals, or lease bidding
rights in exchange for the relinquishment of outstanding coal leases or
preference right lease applications. This authority can be exercised
in some cases where the Department finds that it would be in the public
interest to shift the impacts of mining operations from the lands under
lease to other lands, or to relieve lessees of lease obligations on
leases wholly or partially unmineable because of unsuitability assess-
ments or designations. What follows is a description of the Secretary's
existing exchange authority, a discussion of the substantial limitations
on this authority, , and a discussion of the issues involved in the
Department's present policy toward exchanges, which further limits the
number and class of cases in which the Department is likely to consummate
an exchange.
a. Existing authority. Congress has authorized the outright exchange
of certain federal coal leases within alluvial valley floors for leases
outside alluvial valley floors (section 510(b)(5) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. §
1260(b)(5)). Although this authority can be exercised whether or not
the lessee has had a surface mining permit rejected for the leased lands
1-18
(Memorandum of November 2, 1978 from Associate Solicitor, Energy and
Resources, to Director, Office of Coal Leasing, Planning and Coordination
(OCLPC) "Legal Issues in the Draft Coal Regulations"), it has potentially
narrow application. The only leases on which such lease-for-lease exchanges
can be based are those on which the operator neither was producing coal
in 1976-77, nor had a permit to do so from the state regulatory authority,
but on which he had made substantial financial and legal commitments to
an operation prior to January 1, 1977. The size of this class of operators
is as yet undetermined.
Outside of alluvial valley floor lease exchanges, the Secretary has the
authority, under regulations promulgated over a year ago, to accept
the relinquishment of a federal coal lease and in exchange: (1) to
issue a federal lease for sodium, potassium or phosphate; (2) to modify
another existing coal lease to include additional acreage; (3) to issue
bidding rights for the value of the relinquished lease, which could be
redeemed in payment of all or any portion of a bonus bid on a competitive
coal lease sale; or (4) any combination of the above. (43 CFR Subpart
3526, December 23, 1977, 42 Fed. Reg. 64346, example regulations 43
CFR Subpart 3435 (DES Appendix A-22-23).) It is also possible under
the existing rules for a sodium or other non-coal lessee to exchange
his lease or preference right lease application for coal lease modi-
fications or bidding rights, as well as another non-coal lease.
Prior to the enactment of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of
1976 (FCLAA) on August 4, 1976, the Secretary had the authority to issue
exchange coal leases in the same manner as he can continue to do with
sodium, potassium and phosphate leases. The Congress provided in the
FCLAA, however, that coal leases could only be issued by competitive
bidding, and removed from the coal leasing provision the general authority
to issue leases by "such other methods as [the Secretary] may by general
regulations adopt" that remains in the sodium, potassium and phosphate
provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act, and which was used to promulgate the
exchange lease regulations for other minerals. The Department requested
general coal exchange leasing authority in the 95th Congress, but failed
to receive it. The Senate passed such provisions, including a provision
that adopted the Department's policy toward coal exchanges discussed below,
but the House enacted authority to consider only a few named coal lease
exchanges. The House version prevailed. (S. 3189, the Act of October 30,
1978, 92 Stat. 2073. See 124 Congressional Record S 18754, S 18755
(October 13, 1978), remarks of Senator Jackson.)
b. Limitations on existing authority. There are difficulties with
effecting lease exchanges under existing law that may eventually motivate
the Department to return to the Congress with a request for general coal
lease exchange authority. Since the alluvial valley floors of the West
have not been mapped, it is not certain how many such exchange lease
cases there may be. The Department has read the section 510(b)(5) proviso
1-19
to authorize lease exchanges even though the entire lease is not in an
alluvial valley floor (Memorandum of November 2, 1978, cited above,
"Legal Issues on the Draft Coal Regulations"), but the substantial
financial and legal commitments threshold may still restrict the number
of operators who will ever be eligible for an exchange lease under this
authority.
Unless and until competitive coal leasing is resumed on a regular basis,
there is little incentive for an operator to seek bidding rights. Even
should coal leasing be needed, it might not occur in regions or locations,
or in types of coal, that the holder of existing leases on unsuitable or
potentially unsuitable lands would be interested in seeking through bidding
rights. Exchange leases of other minerals are of interest, of course,
only to companies which mine minerals other than coal.
Coal lease modifications are attractive only if operations on the original
lease acreage are not likely to be limited or prohibited by application
of the unsuitability criteria. Thus they are likely to be considered
by lessees who have other federal leases that either are operating, and
are thus grandfathered from the application of most of the unsuitability
requirements, or are not operating but are on lands likely not to be
found unsuitable. 2/ No modification or modifications to a coal lease
can add more than 160 acres, or the original lease acreage, whichever
is less, to the lease. (90 Stat. 1090-91, 30 U.S.C. § 203.) The acreage
a lessee could acquire by modification is thus limited by the number of
existing leases he holds that could be modified. The coal in a 160-acre
modification might well not be equal to the value of an unsuitable lease
that would be relinquished in such an exchange.
This discussion demonstrates that there is some authority to deal with
some cases of existing coal leases on lands assessed or designated to be
unsuitable for coal mining operations, or on which land-use planning
decisions indicate that mining operations should not occur. At the same
time, this discussion demonstrates that: each specific exchange will be
a complicated, detailed matter that can only be proposed after case-by-
case examination of a land-use plan, mine plan approval application, or
2/ The Congress did amend section 3 of the Mineral Leasing Act
?S/k;S'J* ? 203, to the 95th Con9ress' to change the language of section
-U(d) of the PCLAA, which required that the original coal lease that
had acreage added by modification had to conform to all the provisions
of the PCLAA, including the higher minimum royalties and the statutory
diligence requirements. Section 3 of the Act of October 30, 1978, made
the imposition of revised diligence terms on the original lease dis-
cretionary with the Secretary, and prohibited the increase of the royalty
rate on the original lease until its normal twenty-year readjustment
Pub. L. No. 95-554, section 3, 92 Stat. 2074.
1-20
a petition bo designate leased lands unsuitable; and 2) the Department
may require additional general coal lease exchange authority before
exchanges are seen as a viable management tool.
c. Policy issues in exchanges. Neither section 510(b)(5) of SMCRA, the
alluvial valley floors provision, nor the Department's exchange leasing
regulations require the Secretary to consummate or even to consider an
exchange in any given case. Thus, initiation of an exchange remains
within the informed discretion of the Secretary. The existing exchange
regulations do not contain any specific standards for the exercise of
this discretion; rather, they prescribe procedures designed to ensure a
soundly-based conclusion that an exchange, in a given case, is in the
public interest. (See 43 CFR 3526.1(b) and (c).) The following discussion
is designed to illuminate classes of cases in which exchanges will and
will not be likely to be considered.
Leases issued prior to August 4, 1976, on which the lessee does not dili-
gently initiate production in compliance with the applicable regulations
and lease terms will be subject to cancellation. (These requirements
are discussed in part C below.) Cancellation of coal leases is accom-
plished by initiation of a suit to cancel the lease by the United
States in the federal district court for the district in which the
leased lands are located. (30 U.S.C. § 188(a).) Such action will be
appropriate in any case of a lease maintained in violation of its
terms or applicable regulations, whether or not the lands have been
designated or assessed as unsuitable for all or any type of coal mining
operations. For instance, some leases require the lessee to submit a
mine plan within three years after readjustment. If a lease was re-
adjusted in late 1976 and a mine plan is now due for the lease in late
1979, the Department probably would not consider an exchange for the
tract unless a mine plan was filed in a timely fashion or the lessee
otherwise made reasonable efforts to begin production. Even if the
lands in such a lease are eminently likely to be designated or assessed
to be unsuitable, the Department will not normally initiate an exchange.
Rather, the Department will wait until late 1979, and if no mine plan
is timely submitted, will seek cancellation of the lease for violation
of its terms.
In contrast, there will be cases where a potential lease operation will
be exempt (as discussed above) from the application of the Department's
unsuitability criteria, even though the criteria would have applied to
prevent the leasing and development of the tract if the lands were un-
leased . In these cases the Secretary is quite likely to initiate an
exchange, since the unsuitability criterion applicable to the lands is
an expression of the public interest in how public lands should and
should not be managed and developed. If the lessee were willing to
agree to an exchange, the Department would be able to shift the impacts
of coal mining from a tract en which the Department's formal position
1-21
was that mining should not occur to acceptable lands elsewhere, if
the lessee were unwilling to enter into an exchange, he could mine his
existing lease.
Between these two extremes lie the more difficult cases, in the case
of a lease on which both: (1) the lessee has diligently engaged in
development activities, especially by the submission of a mine plan for
approval, is in no other way in violation of the lease, and is not
exempt from the unsuitability criteria; and (2) the Secretary designates
or assesses all or significant portions of the tract as unsuitable for
the contemplated type of coal mining operation, the Secretary could
initiate exchange proceedings. Is it in the public interest tc^ixchanqe
a SaSf 2 a1CSSe Wliere the Departirant could lawfully prevent mining of
part of the lease without compensating the lessee? A lessee who (1)
intends to develop his lease and (2) is not in violation of any lease
diligence requirement will not be able to develop parts of his lease if
he cannot meet the requirements of SMCRA. The Congress, in establishing
the unsuitability concept, did not authorize the Department to "take" or
condemn lease rights. Unsuitability standards, however, like Clean Air
Act or Water Pollution Control Act standards or tax or health laws, can
limit or control the manner in which the lease can be developed, or
whether it can be developed at all. The lessee would eventually be
laced with the fact that because a mine plan cannot be approved on the
lease, he will violate the diligent development requirement of his lease.
Just as in the case of operations that cannot be permitted under the
Clean Air Act or other laws, the lessee would be unable to operate and
eventually the lease would be subject to cancellation.
In letters to both of the Congressional Committees, the Department
requested that the Congress make it clear that the generic exchange
^ uri? contained ^ the bill could be applied only to leases on
which the unacceptable impacts of mining could not be prevented or
acequately mitigated under the authority of SMCRA or other federal law.
Letter of June 27, 1978, from Deputy Assistant Secretary Wicks to Senator
Jackson; letter of July 24, 1978, from Assistant Secretary Martin to
P^hpfKT UdSli Under.this P°licy an exchange could be consummated
either because the operation was exempt from the application of unsuit-
ability criteria or other SMCRA authority, or because the unacceptable
adverse impacts would be socio-economic in nature or affect environmental
S1^,"0 incorporated into the unsuitability criteria, and would not
be subject to direct regulation under SMCRA or other environmental laws.
The Senate incorporated this amendment as subsection (i) of section 1 of
S. 3189. S. Rep. No. 95-1169, at 6, 10 (August 1978). These letters
stand as statements of Departmental policy in these cases.
The passage of S. 3189 in a form (P.L. 95-554, 92 Stat. 2073) that does
not speak to generic exchange authority leaves the Department with its
prior discretionary authority intact. If the Department altered the
policy expressed in the June 27 and July 24 letters, it would then have
1-22
iramiffiM
the difficult task of establishing policies, either by regulation or by
case-by-case action on such leases, to govern the cases of lessees who
cannot mine because they are not exempt or excepted from the unsuitability
criteria applicable to their leases. Any policy must answer these
questions about exchanges of this type. 3/ What is the value of the
relinquished lease which cannot be mined? If the value of a lease
that the Department can lawfully prevent from being mined is zero, is
the Department giving away something in exchange for nothing? Is it
appropriate to exercise discretion to avoid the risk of an eventual
determination that an unsuitability criterion cannot constitutionally
be applied to a lease pre-dating its establishment? While we may be
able to establish objective criteria for determining which cases are
proper for exchanges and which are not, we may also find that this set
of problems may eventually motivate the Department to return to the
Congress for generic, clarified exchange authority.
V~^h¥l:61figres¥~clearly authorized the Department to consummate exchanges
In cases where private coal could not be mined because of the alluvial
valley floor mining prohibition in SMCRA. In fact, the Congress directed
the Secretary to establish a program for the exchange of title to
federal coal lands in exchange for the conveyance to the United States
of private coal subject to the alluvial valley floors mining prohibition
(section 510(b)(5) proviso of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. § 1260(b)(5)). At the
same time the Congress did not speak to the question whether the authority
should be exercised only when necessary to avoid a taking, or whether it
should be exercised to avoid ever having to establish the existence or
nonexistence of a taking in an alluvial valley floor mining prohibition.
Thus the Congress never spoke to questions related to the exchange value
of a tract on which the Secretary could lawfully prohibit mining. While
the Congress did not direct the Secretary to establish a program for the
exchange of federal leases subject to the alluvial valley floor mining
prohibition, its intention to give the Secretary as much authority with
lease exchanges as it gave him with private land exchanges seems clear.
The exchange leasing regulations for coal lease modifications and bidding
rights discussed above, however, are derived from discretionary authority
granted the Secretary by the Mineral Leasing Act, and there is thus no
Congressional direction to follow in this regard. The generic exchange
authority passed by the Senate but deleted from the enacted version of
S. 3189, the Act of October 30, 1978, would have superseded the Department's
lease bidding rights exchange regulations, but left the lease modification
and inter-mineral exchange regulations intact. S. Rep. No. 95-1169, on
S. 3189 (at 6).
1-23
7' Potential legislation for purchase or condemnation of lw^g.
The exchange authorities set out above do not, however, include the
authority to compel an exchange. The procedure is mutually voluntary,
and the exchange will be consummated only if both the United States and
the lessee are satisfied by its terms. In cases where the lessee is
unwilling to consider an exchange proffered by the Secretary, or the
Secretary and the lessee are unable to agree on the location or value
of exchange tracts or rights, an operation which is exempt from the ap-
plicable unsuitability criterion will go forward unless the Secretary
suspends the lease in order to seek legislation authorizing him to prevent
the operation. ^
The Secretary has no generic condemnation authority over private interests
in public lands and resources. Congress in 1976 gave the Secretary the
authority to condeim rights-of-way "only if necessary to secure access to
public lands." (Section 205(a) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1715(a).) In 1978
Congress gave the Secretary the authority to terminate (in effect cancel)
Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases. (Section 204 of the Outer
i ?^ /n w nt\ Shelf Lands Act Amendments of September 18, 1978, 43 U.S.C. §
1334(a)(2).) There is no comparable authority, however, for "onshore"
federal mineral leases. This authority for federal coal leases was part
of the same provision dealing with the exchange of federal coal leases
^7« ^k00?9^3 S Slled to enaCt "■ ^rt of S' 3189' ^ Act of October 30,
1978, Pub. L. No. 95-554. The processes of approving mine plans, and
assessing and designating leased lands unsuitable for coal mining, or
rejecting petitions for designation, will be followed closely in the
Department to determine whether coal lease condemnation authority, or
the authority to compel the exchange of lease rights, should eventually
be sought from the Congress in order to implement successfully the pur-
poses of the unsuitability concept as a land-use planning and environmental
protection mechanism.
C. DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS ON LEASES ISSUED PRIOR TO AUGUST 4, 1976.
The FCLAA established diligent development and continued operation
requirements for all federal coal leases issued after the passage of the
FCLAA on August 4, 1976. Many of these requirements were derived, if not
flV'u^L the dili9ent development and continued operation requirements
established by the Department for all existing leases^ regulations
issued in May 1976. The FCLAA requirements are applicable, however,
only to the some 9 leases issued since August 4, 1976. All of the 525
or so existing leases that were issued prior to August 4, 1976, are
subject to the diligence requirements established on May 28, 1976. (41
Fed. Reg. 21780.) The regulations were revised on December 29, 1976 to
reflect the co-existing requirements of the May regulations for pre-FCLAA
leases and the new requirements governing post-FCLAA leases. (41 Fed
1-24
Reg. 56644.) The May regulations establish two discrete sets of require-
ments, diligent development standards and continued operation standards,
which we will refer to below collectively as "diligence requirements."
Because the administration of the May regulations will govern the develop-
ment of the 500 plus leases to which they apply, their provisions and
the issues in their administration are of significance to the Department.
Following a discussion of the issues in their administration, the pro-
visions of the December 1976 regulations to implement the FCLAA are
discussed.
1 . May 1976 requirements.
First, the regulations state that, for the purposes of the regulations,
each lease is automatically a "logical mining unit" (LMU). (43 CFR
3500. 0-5 (d) (1977) .) Thus, diligent development and continued operation
requirements apply, strictly speaking, to an LMU, rather than a lease.
The second requirement of the May 1976 regulations is the "diligent
development" requirement that production of coal in commercial quantities
from each LMU must begin within 10 years of the effective date of the
rules. (43 CFR 3500. 0-5(f ) (2) (1977).) The regulation defines "commercial
quantities" for this purpose as one-fortieth or 2 1/2% of the LMU reserves.
Third, the May 1976 regulations also imposed the "continued operation"
requirement that after commercial production begins, one percent or more
of the lease reserves be mined annually. The annual percentage is to be
calculated on a three-year basis, to allow for fluctuations in production
levels that may be expected to occur. (43 CFR 3500. 0-5 (g) (1977).)
Fourth, the May regulations authorize the Secretary, at the request of a
lessee, to combine the lease with other federal leases or private lands
to form a larger LMU. This combination of leases or lands allows pro-
duction on other federal or nonfederal lands that are part of the lease
LMU to count toward compliance with these regulatory requirements govern-
ing federal leases. The ability to credit production on some lands
against production obligations of other lands promotes more sensible
development frcm both economics and resource conservation perspectives.
The example regulations in the DES carry these diligence regulations
into the new 43 CFR Group 3400 verbatim. In the absence of rulemaking
by the Department of Energy (DOE) these rules would be repromulgated as
they stand in June. DOE has transmitted draft regulations that would
establish new milestone requirements, like the three-year mine plan
submission requirement of the FCLAA, on existing leases, but it has
drafted no changes in the requirements set out above.
2. Extensions and modifications of requirements.
The Secretary can, in the course of administering existing leases, modify
these requirements for any specific LMU as follows. First, the ten-year
period for achieving diligent development may be extended (upon application
1-25
by the lessee) for the length of time development is significantly
impaired by: strikes or acts of God; administrative delay not caused by
the lessee ( such as completion of an environmental impact statement) ; or
extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances (coal price or market
condition fluctuations do not qualify). (43 CFR 3520.2-5(c) (1977).)
Second, the Secretary has the discretion under the existing regulations
to extend the ten-year period up to five more years upon application by
the lessee if the extension period is necessary: to complete work on an
advanced technology process (such as gasification or liquefaction); to
develop a very large mine (over 2 million tons per year underground or 5
million tons per year surface mining at the initiation of production) ;
or the firm commitment of the LMU coal to a use or sale after the ten-year
period.
Third, it appears that the Congress in enacting section 6 of the PCLAA
(30 U.S.C. § 207, as amended), did not repeal the Secretary's authority
to suspend federal coal leases and all operations and obligations
totally under section 39 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. § 209). 4/
This type of section 39 suspension, authorized only in the interest of
conservation of the natural resources, suspends the lease in its entirety,
not just the running of diligence obligations. (43 CFR 3503.3-2 (e) . )
Thus, if the Secretary were to order or consent to a suspension of this
type under section 39 during the fifth year of the ten-year period in
which diligent development must be achieved, and the suspension lasted
two full years, no rental or advance minimum royalty obligation would be
owed en the lease, and the lease would, upon termination of the suspension,
still be in the fifth year of the running of its diligence requirements.
The statute is silent on how the Secretary is to exercise the discretion
granted by section 39 to suspend leases, and the Department has never
delimited that discretion by regulation. E^g., 43 CFR 3503. 3-2 (e) (1977) .
It is clear, however, that it is a broad authority, and is applicable
to the situations described in the preceding paragraphs on extending
or modifying the diligence requirements, as well as situations not
embraced by those other authorities, such as administrative or judicial
delay in taking action on timely development plans.
At the same time the Congress left almost wholly intact the Secretary's
other type of suspension authority under section 39 of the Mineral Leasing
Act— the authority to "waive, suspend, or reduce the rental, or minimum
4/ Section 6 of the FCLAA, 30 U.S.C. § 207 (1976) , and the provisions it
amended, 30 U.S.C. § 207 (1970), are the sources of both the diligence
requirements and of the extension and modification authorities discussed
above. Section 39, however, is not limited in application to coal leases,
and was only slightly amended by the FCLAA.
1-26
royalty, or reduce the royalty on an entire leasehold . . . ." 30 U.S.C.
§ 209. This authority may be exercised Oienever it is necessary "to
promote development, or whenever ... the leases cannot be successfully
operated under [their] terras." This authority is now limited solely by
the further provision that the Secretary cannot "waive, suspend, or
reduce advance royalties." Section 14 of the FCLAA, 30 U.S.C. § 209
(emphasis added). Advance royalties are royalties paid in lieu of con-
tinued operation under the lease.
Finally, the Secretary has the authority to "extend" or "modify" the
diligence requirements by waiving violations of the lease terms and
governing regulations. Such a waiver may occur formally, in writing,
under the authority set out above to waive payment obligations, or under
the Secretary's general discretionary authority to administer leases
in the public interest. In addition, a prosecution of a violation of
a lease term, including a diligence requirement, might be temporarily
"waived" or deferred by the Secretary's decision not to recommend
initiation of a suit to cancel the lease or by the Justice Department's
prosecutorial discretion to decline to initiate a suit requested by
the Secretary. It must be noted, however, that the lease terms them-
selves have provided that a violation of the lease is not waived by the
Department except in writing to the lessee (e.g., sec. 6(a) of 1920 lease
form, 47 L.D. 489, 498 (1920)), and that the waiver extends only to the
breach actually waived (sec. 3(e) of 1956 and 1967 forms).
Because of these authorities to extend and suspend the operation of the
diligent development and continued operation requirements, it is difficult
to quantify in any reliable fashion how much federal coal will be produced
from what existing federal coal leases and when the production might
commence, except by reference to the intentions of existing lessees. In
addition, because of the manner in which the lease terms on diligent
development and continued operation were administered prior to the issuance
of the May 1976 regulations, there is not a substantial body of precedent
en how these authorities are to be exercised. In the years immediately
preceding the June 1, 1986, deadline for the initiation of commercial
production frcm every existing federal lease LMU, the Department may have
to "write the book" on how the Secretarial discretion to extend or suspend
these requirements will be exercised.
3 . Issues in implementation of diligence requirements.
Three more elements complicate establishing the timing and quantity of
federal coal production over the next few years from existing leases in
a systematic, reliable fashion. Resolution of the issues in the following
discussion, and administration of the requirements set out below, will
require substantial effort and cooperation among BLM, other offices of
the Department, and the Department of Energy.
1-27
a# Readjustment of lease terms. Each existing coal lease is subject to
readjustment every twenty years after issuance. For leases which will
be readjusted in the near future, a number of changes in lease terms
will be made that may greatly affect the lessee's plans with respect to
development of his existing leases, (i) The royalty rate on production
will increase to at least 12 1/2 percent of the gross value of the coal
produced for surface-mined coal and at least 8 percent for underground
coal. The first figure is statutory; the second regulatory (30 U.S.C. §
207, as amended; 43 CFR 3503.3-3(b) (1977)). This compares to current
royalty rates as low as five cents per ton, the former statutory minimum
royalty, and more commonly ten or fifteen cents per ton on many leases
that are now or will soon be subject to readjustment. 5/ (ii) The
lessee will be required to submit a mine plan on the Tease not later
than three years after its readjustment. 30 CFR 211.10(a)(1) (1977).
This statutory diligence requirement was not an element of the Department's
May 1976 regulations, but will be imposed so that each lease maintained
after readjustment is consistent with the FCLAA. (30 U.S.C. § 207(c)
as amended.) (iii) The lease will be expressly conditioned to be subject
to the Department's unsuitability criteria.
Around 85 leases are currently subject to readjustment, and around 250
more existing leases will be subject to readjustment through 1986. Of the
leases now subject to readjustment, about 51 leases had their twentieth
anniversary date prior to the passage of the FCLAA. Some lessees in
administrative proceedings now pending have challenged whether the BLM
has the authority to readjust these leases at all, and if it can, whether
the readjustment can include the imposition of FCLAA royalty and mininq
plan submission requirements, or only those royalty and diligence require-
ments applicable prior to passage of the FCLAA. The appeals have been
briefed, and await decision by the Board of Land Appeals. If the Board
affirms the BLM's position, the lessees may still seek judicial review
of the issue.
b* Problems in enforcing the May 1976 regulations. Our analysis of the
regulations has led us to ask the Solicitor's Office to answer a series
of complicated questions dealing with the enforcement of the May 1976
diligence requirements. In brief, these questions relate to two central
themes: (1) are the May 1976 regulations in any way inconsistent with
the Mineral Leasing Act itself?; and (2) how do the individual
lease diligence terms relate to the May 1976 regulations?
The first theme is derived from the limitations in the Mineral Leasing
Act itself on the Secretary's authority to cancel a coal lease, found in
section 31(a) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. § 188(a). The second theme is derived
5/ Lessees who are unable to operate successfully under this higher
Crelso"!^^)^!^ to ^^ *" ^^^ redUC6d' 3° U*S-C- § 2°9; 43
1-28
frcm potential inconsistencies between the diligence provisions of specific
leases issued between 1920 and 1976 and the diligence requirements of the
May 1976 regulations. The Department, in promulgating the May 1976
regulations, made a number of assumptions about the nature and viability
of the lease terms related to diligence that require close examination
before any definite strategy for the enforcement of diligence requirements
can be settled upon.
Without exploring the specific questions that inhere in these themes, we
can set out the three possible scenarios that will unfold on the issue of
enforcement of diligence requirements. First, if the questions raised in
our analysis thus far are resolved to show that the May 1976 regulations
were well-founded and enforceable, we will have the situation described
above: existing leases will either be in production on June 1, 1986 or
be subject to cancellation. If the questions asked lead to the answer
that the May 1976 diligence regulations are by and large unenforceable,
the Department will then turn to enforcing the diligence terms in the
existing leases. Depending on the answers to a series of questions about
the meaning of the lease terms themselves, this scenario may result either
in the Department having the authority to enforce diligence requirements
more strict than those in the May 1976 regulations, or the Department
having to await lease readjustment before it can impose any effective,
enforceable diligence requirements at all.
To summarize, there are three possible conclusions to this examination of
the enforcement of diligence requirements: 1) the May 1976 diligence
regulations may be enforced intact; 2) the Department will have the
discretion to enforce lease diligence requirements at least as strict as
the May 1976 regulations; or 3) the lease diligence terms will be found
to be ineffective and the Department will have to await lease readjustment
before it can impose effective diligence requirements.
The three possibilities are not as clearly distinct from each other as
this summary indicates, and the Department may be in each of the three
situations with respect to different classes of leases. We foresee this
result because of changes in the diligence and other terms in the lease
form, including changes made in 1956 and 1965 during the Department's
most significant period of leasing. For example, the May 1976 regu-
lations may be enforceable with respect to the more recent (post-1965)
leases even if they are unenforceable with respect to earlier leases.
For another example, changes in the lease diligence terms in 1956 and
the manner in which the changed terms were administered may have rendered
some diligence obligations in later leases unenforceable while the terms
of earlier leases may still be fully enforceable. Thus each of the three
possible situations outlined above with respect to enforcement of diligence
obligations may, in the end, tum out to apply to some leases issued
during certain periods on certain forms, or previously readjusted in a
certain manner. The three situations, however, are the simplest accurate
1-29
characterizations of the postures in which the Department could stand
when the questions that have been asked of the Solicitor's Office have
been answered. Vfe have asked the Solicitor's Office to give the questions
that must be resolved to determine our diligence enforcement policies its
highest priority.
c. Role of Department of Energy. While the Secretary remains solely
responsible for the administration of existing leases, including the
administration of the existing diligence regulations, only the Secretary
of Energy is now authorized to promulgate regulations under the Mineral
Leasing Act "which relate to the . . . establishment of diligence require-
ments for operations conducted on Federal [coal] leases . . .." (42
U.S.C. § 7152(b), (b)(3).) Thus any regulatory changes enacted on DOE's
initiative, and any regulatory changes the Secretary of the Interior
might seek after full consideration of the issues set out above, are the
responsibility of the Secretary of Energy after consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior. (42 U.S.C. § 7153(b).) As noted above, DOE
has transmitted for Departmental review regulations that would establish
new milestones to be met by a lessee in order to be diligently developing
his lease.
D. DILIGENT DEVELOPMENT AND CONTINUED OPERATION ON LEASES ISSUED AFTER
AUGUST 4, 1976.
Congress' revision of section 7 of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. §
207, in section 6 of the FCLM (90 Stat. 1087), has meant that all leases
issued since August 4, 1976, and earlier leases readjusted after August 4,
1976, are subject to somewhat different diligence and continued operation
requirements than leases issued prior to August 4, 1976, which were dis-
cussed above.
1 . FCIAft requirements.
The first requirement of the FCLAA is almost identical to the Department's
May 1976 regulations: the lessee must be producing coal in commercial
quantities in the tenth lease year. Any lease which is not producing at
that time shall be terminated. ■'Commercial quantities," undefined by the
statute, is defined by the December 1976 regulations implementing the FCLAA
to mean one percent of the LMU reserves. (43 CFR 3500.0-5(f ) (1) (1977).)
In contrast, the Department's May 1976 regulations defined "commercial
quantities" for the purpose of measuring diligent development as two and
one half percent of the LMU reserves. In addition, the lessee must
produce at a rate that will result in the exhaustion of the reserves in
forty years from the date of approval of a mine plan.
Second, the December 1976 regulations require continued operation in an
amount equal to the pre-FCLAA lease requirements: production of one
1-30
percent of the LMU reserves annually, with computation on a three-year
basis. (43 CFR 3500.0-5(g) (1977).)
Third, a provision of section 5 of the FCLAA, 30 U.S.C. § 201(d)(6),
authorized the Secretary to require each (post-ECLAA) lessee to form a
logical mining unit (LMU). The Secretary so provided in the December
1976 regulations. (43 CFR 3520. 2-6 (a) (1977).) Thus the diligent de-
velopment and continued operation requirements apply to an LMU, strictly
speaking, rather than a lease. To restate what is also true of LMU' s
containing pre- FCLAA leases, this allows: (1) production on nonfederal
lands that are part of the lease LMU to count toward compliance with
these regulatory requirements; and (2) federal leases to be combined
into a single LMU for purposes of more sensible development from the
perspective of both economics and resource conservation. (43 CFR
3520. 2-6 (b).)
Fourth, the Congress added the milestone requirement that the lessee submit
a mine plan within three years of lease issuance. (30 CFR 211.10(a)(1)
(1977).)
Fifth, the FCLAA has a separate, independent "diligence" requirement that
will apply no matter what is the eventual resolution of the questions on
the relationship between the lease and regulatory diligence requirements.
Section 3 of the FCLAA prohibits the Secretary from issuing a lease to
anyone who holds (or is affiliated with one who holds) a lease that has
been held for ten years and is not producing coal in commercial quantities.
(30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(2)(A).) This provision applies to leases issued
before and after the FCLAA, and becomes effective on August 4, 1986. The
Secretary has no authority to accelerate or delay this date; only the
Congress can change it.
2 . Extensions and modifications of requirements.
Section 7(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. § 207(b)), although
amended by the FCLAA, continues to authorize the Secretary to accept
advance minimum royalty payments in lieu of continued operation. The
statute requires the payments to be set on a fixed reserve-to-production
ratio. Unlike the earlier lease clauses, however, the statute limits
the number of years in which advance royalties can be accepted to ten,
and prohibits the lessee frcm offsetting the advance royalties paid in
the first twenty lease years against actual production royalties owed
after the twentieth lease year.
The diligent development and continued operation requirements may be
extended for the length of time operations "are interrupted by strikes,
the elements, or casualties not attributable to the lessee." (30 U.S.C.
§ 207(b).)
1-31
-- . . -
The Secretary retains the authority to suspend a lease in its entirety
in the interests of conservation under section 39 of the MLA (30 U.S.C. §
209.) This authority is discussed in part C.2.(c). above with respect to
earlier leases.
The Congress' revision of the diligence requirements did not, however,
leave the Secretary with the discretionary authority to defer compliance
with the diligence and continued operation requirements in cases of
advanced technology demonstration, development of large-scale mines, or
firm delivery commitments for the lease coal after the ten-year period,
as set out in part C.2.(b). above. (43 CFR 3520. 2-5 (c) (2) .)
Although there are currently only 9 newly- issued and 11 readjusted leases
subject to these provisions, it is again evident that it is difficult to
predict with certainty when, within the ten-year period after issuance,
a given lease will become productive. There is only the assurance that
each lessee will submit its mine plan not later than three years after
lease issuance, and produce coal in commercial quantities in the tenth
lease year, or the lease shall be terminated.
3. Issues in implementation of diligence requirements .
Leases issued after August 4, 1976, do not contain specific provisions
for diligent development and continued operation like those in older
leases discussed at length above. Rather, they simply incorporate as
the diligence requirements the applicable regulatory requirements, that
is, the regulations issued December 29, 1976, to implement section 6 of
the FCLAA, 30 U.S.C. § 207 (1976). (41 F.R. 56644.) Thus they present
no issues of potential conflict between lease terms and regulatory
requirements.
In addition, leases issued after August 3, 1977, are clearly and now
expressly subject to the Department's unsuitability criteria, so that
issues related to the exemption of lands from those criteria will be
less likely to arise.
Finally, new leases as well as old are subject to the transfer of rulemaking
authority related to diligence to the Department of Energy. To the extent
these diligent development and continued operation requirements are not
required by law, they are subject to amendment by the Secretary of Energy
on his own initiative or at the request of the Secretary of the Interior.
E. ASSIGNMENTS OF LEASES.
Many leases are not presently held by those who first received them.
Because there have been assertions that an undesirable speculative resale
market exists in federal coal leases, the Department has begun to consider
whether it should take any action to control the assignment market. In
1-32
turn, this requires the Department to examine its authority to deny or
condition approval of lease assignments, especially on non-producing
leases where the transfer would not clearly promote prompt development
of the lease.
Section 30 of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. § 187, provides, "That
no lease issued under the authority of this Act shall be assigned or
sublet, except with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior." This
authority appears on its face to be without limitation, in contrast to
the limited authority to disapprove oil and gas lease assignments con-
tained in section 30a of the Act, 30 U.S.C. § 187a, under which the
Secretary can only disapprove assignments where the assignee is unqual-
ified to hold the lease or is unbonded.
Up to now, the Department has examined assignments only to assure com-
pliance with a specific group of public purposes. First, the Department
requires the assignor's lease account to be in good standing. All accrued
rental and royalty obligations must have been paid, and any known viola-
tions of lease terms must be resolved, including compliance with reclama-
tion or other environmental stipulations. (43 CFR 3506.2-4.)
Second, the Department is expected to examine and approve the assignee's
qualifications. This includes: (1) computing acreage holdings to
assure compliance with 43 CFR 3501.1-4 (b) (1) ; determining the qualifi-
cations of the holder under the corporation or association information
and citizenship requirements of 43 CFR Subpart 3502 (43 CFR 3506.2-2);
(3) receiving a sufficient bond frcm the assignee, or consent from
the assignor's surety to the substitution of the assignee on the bond
(43 CFR 3506.2-3); 6/ and (4) evaluating whether the outstanding private
royalty interests exceed fifty percent of the federal royalty interest
(43 CFR 3503. 3-2 (c)(3)).
In addition to these considerations governing approval of assignments,
the Assistant Secretary, Energy and Minerals, has asked the Solicitor's
Office whether the statutory requirement that assignments be approved (30
U.S.C. § 187) allows the introduction of other considerations into the
approval process. Specifically, could assignment approval be conditioned
on acceptance of adjustment to the royalty, rental, or diligent develop-
ment and continued operations provisions of the lease? As noted above,
the general lease assignment provision, in contrast to the provision
related to the assignment of oil and gas leases and Secretarial approval
6/ For partial assignments, both the remaining interest of the assignor
and the assignee's interest must be properly bonded. Bonding for recla-
mation liability will soon become an OSM function, and will drop out of
consideration by BLM in approving assignments. OSM will have separate
regulatory provisions governing the assignment of OSM permits to mine,
and the rights and obligations attached to them.
1-33
of such assignments, 30 U.S.C. § 187a, is on its face without limitation.
The existence of additional authority to condition approval of assignments
could be of significance. If the answers to the questions posed in the
diligence discussion above indicate that the May 1976 requirements and other
lease diligence provisions may not be imposed on pre-FCLAA leases until
the twenty-year readjustment comes due, some of those diligence policies
might be implemented through the process of approval of lease assignments.
If the authority to condition or disapprove assignments for reasons not
currently in the Department's regulations exists it might be exercised
to prevent speculative sale and resale of coal leases even if none of the
questions raised in the diligence discussion above are resolved in a manner
that would frustrate existing diligence and continued operation policies.
In any event, formulation of the issues suitable for policy guidance in
this area must await legal guidance on the existence of any relevant limi-
tations on the Secretary's authority to condition or disapprove assign-
ments.
One policy that might be established in the exercise of additional author-
ity to condition approval of assignments is review of assignments by the
Justice Department for any inconsistency with the antitrust laws. Section
15 of the FCLAA requires antitrust review of lease issuance and readjust-
ment. (30 U.S.C. § 184(1).) It does not expressly prohibit antitrust
review at other points in the life of a coal lease.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY STRATEGY.
1. Background.
As the Department completed its first programmatic coal leasing environ-
mental statement (ES), and began to implement the Energy Minerals Activity
Recommendation System (EMARS) (43 CFR Subpart 3525), it divided the
major federal coal areas into regions and initiated studies of impacts
of proposed federal coal development in each of the designated regions.
The focus of each study was a Departmental projection of the probable
level of federal coal leasing under the EMARS, and the probable level of
federal coal development ( through coal mine plan approvals by Geological
Survey). The regional ES's discuss the cumulative impacts of different
levels of specific lease issuance or mine plan approval decisions the
Department might make. The Department did not, however, propose "coal
development plans" for the regions covered in the statements.
At the same time, each regional statement includes site-specific analyses
of each discrete proposal within the region that constitutes a major
federal action. Same of the site-specific analyses may require supple-
mental work, to the extent the mine plans have been prepared and ana-
lyzed without fully accounting for the performance standards now applic-
able under SMCRA. The cumulative impacts of the several site-specific
1-34
proposals and the relation of each to expected non-federal regional coal
development is embraced in the regional analysis portion of the regional
ES.
At the time of the issuance of the District Court injunction in NRDC v.
Hughes, the eight regional ES's included site-specific analyses of
some 32 mine plan approval applications. They also considered new
competitive coal leasing proposals. Because the injunction prohibited
taking any action, directly or indirectly, to implement the program for
new leasing, the Department ceased processing coal lease applications
(except those which met the court's short-term criteria), and ceased work
on all analysis in the regional ES's directly and exclusively related
to new competitive coal leasing at a specific site. Specifically, the
enjoined EMAFS nominations, proposed leasing activities and the identifi-
cation and study of leasing tracts were deleted. In lieu of specifically
studying the proposed new leasing tracts in each region, the Department
is calculating regional, cumulative impacts based on alternative coal
development scenarios that might result from development of existing
leases and possible new federal leasing, although at least one develop-
ment scenario in every statement is based on no new federal leasing.
When the regional ES's are completed this year, the Department
will have to make decisions on the 32 mine plans within the eight
regions. In addition, there are three applications for mine plan
approvals outside the areas covered by the regional ES's. These plans
are being covered by separate site-specific ES's.
2. Mine plan approval under the new program.
If no new leasing is found to be required by the new programmatic
study, environmental study of the development of existing leases would
proceed in the context of the existing completed regional or comprehen-
sive environmental statements. In other words, a site-specific environ-
mental statement would be prepared by Geological Survey (or by OSM when
it assumes this aspect of its function) as a lead agency in the approval
of mine plans, especially for surface mines. The regional or cumulative
impacts of the proposed operation would in many instances already be
analyzed as part of an alternative development scenario of regional
development. The regional impact portion of the mine plan ES would
normally be limited to an analysis whether the proposal's impacts signi-
ficantly depart from a regional development scenario already fully studied.
Only if it is not would a full exploration of non-site specific matters
be required. This is consistent with the newly revised Council on
Environmental Quality regulations governing compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . (40 CFR 1502.20, 1508.28(b), 43 F.R.
55978 (November 29, 1978).)
1-35
If new leasing is found to be required, the Secretary's preferred alter-
native would be implemented by region-by-region identification of need for
leasing, and regional tract delineation, ranking, selection, and sale
scheduling. An integral element in the tract ranking, selection, and
sale scheduling process, of course, will be environmental study of the
tracts delineated in the regions where leasing will occur.
While half of the environmental study in this process will examine the
impacts of developing the delineated tracts, the other half will be an
examination of the regional impacts of the regional leasing proposal.
The regional impact portion of the environmental study may, to the
extent that the regional leasing proposal is consistent with a level
of development that has already been studied in an the existing compre-
hensive ES, be simplified by the use of the analysis in the existing ES.
The more fully developed regional environmental analysis will include
a discussion of development of existing leases and may incorporate any
pending mine plans as site-specific impact studies in the regional
new-leasing statement. The Department may not have to do another environ-
mental statement on mine plan approval for new leases; the specific and
regional impacts should already have been fully discussed for NEPA pur-
poses. Fresh environmental study of mine plans on existing lease cannot
be avoided. It may be simplified, however, either by treatment of the
mine plan on a site specific basis in a regional leasing ES, or if the
timing of the studies prevents that, by use of the regional impact analysis
from the prior comprehensive or regional leasing ES in the separate ES
on the mine plan.
In regions in which no new leasing is necessary, environmental analysis
of mine plans on federal leases could continue just as it has occurred
in the regional ES's now being completed with no leasing proposals in
them. Finally, if a mine plan is submitted on a lease that is outside
all areas in regional environmental studies, it will be studied discretely
unless there are other coal development proposals before the Department
that would justify or require joint study.
III. NONCOMPETITIVE (PREFERENCE RIGHT) LEASE APPLICATIONS
A. REGIONAL LEASING TARGETS
The process by which regional leasing targets will be established is
set out in part II. A. above. Potential production frcm preference right
leases will be one important component of the expected regional produc-
tion predictions frcm which leasing needs will be derived. As was indi-
cated in Part I above, preference right lease applications embrace lands
that are estimated to contain 9.9 billion tons of coal. The amount of
that coal that will finally be leased and developed is and will be un-
certain for some few years, since the applicants' entitlements to leases
have not yet been determined, and the process of lease adjudication under
1-36
the Department's May 1976 regulations defining "commercial quantities" of
coal incorporates environmental analysis under NEPA. Table V, also taken
from Chapter 2 of the DES, shows the Department's best estimate of po-
tential production from lands now under preference right lease application.
It, like the table of planned production from existing leases discussed
above, is derived from a systematic examination of pending lease applica-
tions.
B. UNSUITABILITY OF IANDS
1. How the criteria are applied.
The preceding discussion on the applicability of the unsuitability criteria
to existing leases is generally applicable to preference right lease appli-
cations, but there are some significant differences. Most of the differences
are derived from the fact that the noncompetitive lease applicant's right
to the lease had not yet been adjudicated at the time the SMCRA was passed,
so that application of the criteria will occur during, and as an integral
part of, adjudication of the right to a lease.
Lands in preference right lease applications will have the criteria
applied in the development of a land-use plan, or supplementation of an
existing land-use plan, for the area if either action occurs prior to
adjudication of the lease right itself. Application of the criteria
will first be completed, then the exceptions to any relevant criterion
will be applied. (The exceptions to each proposed criterion are set out
in section 3461.2 of the example regulations with each criterion.) If a
criterion applies, and no exception applies, the Bureau of Land Management
or other surface management agency will determine whether the lease
application is exempt from the criterion because of the source of authority
for the criterion. As indicated in Part II.B.l above, some criteria are
subject to no exemptions, the application of some criteria is subject
to "valid existing rights," and some criteria do not apply to the mining
of lands on which mining permits have issued or in which substantial
financial and legal commitments have been made.
If land-use planning, or the supplemental application of the unsuit-
ability criteria to lands in existing land-use plans, has not occurred
on the applied for lands at the time of lease right adjudication, the
criteria will be applied as part of the adjudication process. Under the
regulations for determining whether the applicant has discovered commercial
quantities of coal, and thus has a right to a lease, the applicant first
makes a showing containing the geological information about the thickness
and quality of the coal deposits discovered during prospecting. (43 CFR
3521. 1-1 (b) (1977).) The Department then does a technical and environmental
assessment designed to evaluate the applicant's showing and develop any
necessary environmental protection or reclamation stipulations that the
Secretary intends to impose on the lease. This latter step will include
1-37
application of the unsuitability criteria and their exceptions, and the
determination whether the lands are exempt from the criteria. (See 43
CFR 3521.1-4, 3521.1-5 (1977).)
In this process, the determination that a criterion applies, but that
an exception would also apply if appropriate mitigating steps were taken,
could lead to the recommendation of a specific lease stipulation. Con-
sistent with both the unsuitability process and the lease adjudication
process, the Department would submit the recommended lease terms and
stipulations to the applicant to allow the applicant to formulate his
final showing, which includes estimates of the costs and revenues from
the potential lease operation subject to those terms and stipulations.
The adjudicator would then determine whether the applicant has discovered
commercial quantities of coal and is entitled to a lease. (43 CFR 3521. 1-1 (c)
(1977).) This process was approved (although not in direct reference to
unsuitability) as complying both with NEPA and the noncompetitive leasing
provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act in Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) v. Berklund, 458 F. Supp. 925 (D.D.C. 1978), appeal pending.""
For example, the land could be assessed as a wilderness study area by
the BLM, but because an underground mire is involved, stipulations to
control the location of the mine portal and surface facilities, and
mining method stipulations to prevent or mitigate subsidence, would
assure nonimpairment of wilderness suitability. The relevant exception
to the criterion would be found to be applicable, and the applicant's
entitlement to a lease would be determined en the basis of those stipu-
lations.
2 . Unsuitability designations.
As would be the case with existing leases, formal designation of lands
would be a separate step from application of the criteria, and would
occur only in response to a petition. With respect to lands in noncom-
petitive lease applications, the petition process could occur either
prior to the adjudication of the lease right, by itself or during land-use
planning, or in the adjudication process itself. The environmental
assessment on the lease application might, for instance, recommend that
certain areas of the tract be assessed or designated unsuitable for all
or certain kinds of surface mining operations. One of three things
would then occur.
First, if the lease applicant is exempt for whatever reason from assess-
ment or designation of those applied for lands as unsuitable, the Department
may seek to initiate an exchange of lease rights for that area or, if it
appears to be in the public interest, the entire lease. Exchanges are
discussed in greater detail below. If the lease applicant were unin-
terested in an exchange, then the lands could not be designated unsuitable
1-38
nor mining prohibited, and adjudication of the lease application would
have to proceed. Even though raining on that area or in that manner
could not be prohibited by formal designation, the Secretary could still
include reasonable mitigating stipulations in the proposed lease on which
the applicant would make its final showing.
Second, if the lease applicant is not exempt from designation, formal
designation as unsuitaole or prohibition would occur and the lease appli-
cant could elect whether to delete the unsuitable lands from the applica-
tion as adjudication proceeds. This is the Department's construction of
the language of the former preference right leasing provision, 30 U.S.C.
§ 201(b) (1970), that
if . . . the permittee shows to the Secretary
that the land contains coal in commercial
quantities, the permittee shall be entitled to
a lease . . . for all or part of the land in
his permit. (Emphasis added.)
In our view, the U.S. District Court in NRDC v. Berklund did not reject
this construction. (458 F. Supp. at 938, discussed in Memorandum of
November 2, 1978, cited above, "Legal Issues in the Draft Coal Regulations.")
The "costs" and "revenues" of mining the prohibited tract or of mining in
the prohibited manner would simply drop out of the calculations leading
to the determination of "commercial quantities," and the lands would not
be leased.
Third, if the lands are designated as unsuitable or mining is prohibited,
and the applicant chooses not to delete them from the application, the
Department will have to formulate a method for determining the costs
and revenues of mining a tract or deposit that would be included in
the lease, but which the lessee would be prohibited from mining unless
and until (i) improvements in mining or reclamation technology brought
the land or deposit under an exception and the designation as unsuitable
or mining prohibition was terminated; or (ii) the unsuitability criteria
are amended to delete the criterion prohibiting mining on the tract or
deposit in question.
The two immediately preceding options in this section 2 raise an issue
that deserves discussion at this point. The noncompetitive lease appli-
cant's application for a lease is a "valid existing right" saved from
the repeal of the noncompetitive leasing provision of the Mineral Leasing
Act by section 4 of the FCLAA, 90 Stat. 1085-1086. This "valid existing
right," the fact that the noncompetitive lease applicant has the right
to adjudication of his entitlement to the lease, and a right to the lease
if he is found entitled, does not mean that the applied for lands are
automatically exempt from the application of the unsuitability criteria.
In other words, the right to have entitlement to a lease adjudicated is
1-39
substantially different frcm and substantially less than an unencumbered
right to a lease that contains no restrictions on the lessee's authority
to mine certain coal or to mine using certain methods. Thus, a company's
holding a preference right lease application alone is not "substantial
legal and financial commitments" that would exempt the applicant frcm
unsuitability designations based on criteria derived from section 522(a)
of SMCRA, where that phrase for exemptions is found. More importantly,
the pendency of a preference right lease application is not per se the
existence of a "valid existing right" to mine that would exempt the
lease applicant from designation of the applied for lands as unsuitable
because of criteria derived from section 522(e) of SMCRA, where that
phrase for exemptions is found. The crucial distinction the Department
has concluded the Congress intended in the application of these criteria is
the difference between a valid right to mine that land or to mine it in
a certain manner and a valid right to have one's entitlement to a lease
determined .
For instance, the Congress could not have intended to give noncompetitive
lease applicants greater protection from unsuitability designation than
it gave to existing lessees. This is especially true in light of the fact
that the Department has long held that a noncompetitive lease applicant
may earn a right to a lease, but that he does not have the right to a
lease containing any specific terms or on any specific form. (Montana
Eastern Pipe Line Co. , 55 I.D. 189, 191 (1935).) It is clear to"the~
Department that the Congress may alter the terms under which leases will
be issued after a certain date and that those terms will apply to non-
competitive as well as competitive leases issued after that date. Thus
the Department regards noncompetitive leases issued after August 4,
1976, as subject to the royalty and diligent development requirements of
section 6 of the PCIAA (30 U.S.C. § 207, as amended), and leases issued
after August 3, 1977, as subject to the unsuitability assessment and
designation authorities of section 522 of SMCRA, except as the Congress
itself limited the coverage of section 522. (See Memorandum of November
2, 1978, cited above, "Legal Issues in the Draft Coal Regulations.")
3. Petitions to designate lands.
The petition process established by section 522(c) of SMCRA applies to
lands under preference right lease application as well as it does to any
other lands. The process itself is amply set cut in Part II. B. 2. above,
and need not be repeated. How actual designation applies to noncompetitive
lease applicants and lands in those applications is set out in the section
above (III.B.2.). The filing of a proper petition on lands in a preference
right lease application will probably activate the technical and environ-
mental assessment for adjudication of that lease application, since the
examination of the lands in response to the petition, and the findings
to be made after any hearing on the petition are, as discussed above, an
integral part of the determination of appropriate lease stipulations,
and thus of the commercial quantities determination.
1-40
4 . Exchange of unsuitable lands .
The same authorities set out and discussed in Part II. B. 3. above are
applicable to exchanges arising out of noncompetitive lease applications:
lease application for coal lease if the lease application is in an alluvial
valley floor; lease application for other mineral lease, coal lease
modifications or future lease sale bidding rights if it is not. In
addition, on October 30, 1978, the Secretary was authorized to consummate
a "lease" exchange for 8 preference right lease applications held by
Utah Power and Light Company in the Kaiparowits Plateau area of Southern
Utah. (Section 1(a) of P.L. 95-554, 92 Stat. 2073.)
The same difficulties that attend lease-for-lease exchanges also attend
the exchange of a preference right lease application for a lease but
soma additional questions arise. The Department's December 1977 exchange
regulations require that the Secretary determine that the lease applicant
has a preference right to a lease before he can consummate an exchange.
With the class of exchanges motivated by the fact that the lease applicant
is exempt frcm designation of the lands as unsuitable though criteria
clearly apply to the lands, this presents no problem. When the Secretary
determines, upon the applicant's final showing, that the applicant dis-
covered commercial quantities of coal on the lands, the lease would
issue unless an exchange is proffered and consummated (or legislation to
prevent the mining by condemnation or otherwise is sought).
In cases where the unsuitability criteria do apply, the requirement that
the right bo a lease must be determined may moot the exchange. When the
lease applicant demonstrates that he is entitled to a lease even when the
costs of complying with protective or mitigating stipulations are con-
sidered, and even if the applicant deletes portions of the lands frcm
the application or some types of mining are prohibited by designation,
the motivation for an exchange may be gone. The lease applicant will
have designed an approximate plan of operation to complete its final
showing, and will have committed itself to that extent to that operation.
It will also have a clear concept of the economic desirability of the
operation. Frcm the Department's view, it does not on its face appear
to be in the public interest to try to prevent (by exchange) operations
for which the operator has demonstrated that he can mate a profit even
when all reasonable environmental protections and mitigating measures
are taken in account in that determination.
The motivation for an exchange is strongest prior to assessment or
designation of the lands as unsuitable and determination of the right to
a lease. The applicant seeks to avoid the risk of being found to have
no right to a lease, and to avoid the time and expense of formulating
and establishing the economics of a plan of operations it is not interested
in carrying out. The United States seeks to avoid the risk that the
applicant will prove commercial quantities and proceed to mine the tract
1-41
in question, and to avoid the time and expense of an environmental assess-
ment, or possibly an environmental statement, to formulate lease terms
and protective stipulations for a lease on lands which no one wants to
have mined.
As was stated above, the present exchange regulations require that the
determination of entitlement be made before an exchange may be consummated.
The formulation of policies whether to delete this requirement or not
must await guidance on two questions: (a) is it lawful for the Secretary
to determine the existence of coinmercial quantities of coal without having
completed the procedures set out in the May 1976 commercial quantities
regulations (43 CFR Part 3521); and (b) is it lawful to issue a lease or
lease rights in exchange for the relinquishment of a preference right
lease application on which a commercial quantities determination has not
been made?
5 . Unclaimed, undeveloped lands.
There is one additional complicating factor in the process of noncom-
petitive lease right adjudication, the impact of which is not yet
quantified. While it is not strictly an "unsuitability" question, it
will affect how many lease applicants will be entitled to leases and
how much acreage is eventually leased in response to preference right
lease applications.
The coal prospecting permit provision of the Mineral Leasing Act, prior
to its amendment in 1976 by the FCLAA, authorized the issuance of permits
only on "unclaimed, undeveloped" lands. The preference right lease appli-
cations now pending before the Department are derived frcm permits
which were issued without any showing by the applicant or finding by
the Department that the lands were "unclaimed" and "undeveloped."
In Solicitor's Opinion M-36893, 84 I.D. 442 (1977), the Solicitor con-
cluded that permits (and preference right lease applications based on
them) issued on "claimed" lands were potentially void for those lands.
That opinion chiefly dealt with the threshold question whether that
statutory phrase was still viable or had been repealed by implication.
Since the Solicitor concluded that the statutory phrase was still viable,
the BLM has asked a follow-up series of questions about: (1) the meaning
of the term "undeveloped;" (2) what types of claims may void a lease
application— currently valid claims, claims valid when the permit issued,
or mere subsisting locations; and (3) what procedures should be used
to resolve the potential conflicts. This last question asks whether
the lease applicant must contest the mining claim, whether the BLM must
challenge the validity of the permit or whether the mining claimant must
challenge the permit.
1-42
All coal preference right lease applicants were directed in August and
September 1977 bo submit title abstracts for the permit lands to establish
whether any mining claims exist on the lands. BLM needs to have the
answers to its follow-up questions, however, before it can integrate
this step into the process of adjudicating rights to leases on those
applications found to contain lands subject to mining claims. BLM
Coal Task Force 124 reported in May 1978 that abstracts submitted for
118 applications revealed 20 applications overlying 465 mining claims.
C. DILIGENT DEVELOPMENT AND CONTINUED OPERATION
1. What requirements apply?
As set cut in the unsuitability discussion above, the Department has
long maintained that a preference right lease applicant has no right
to a lease containing specific terms or on a specific lease form.
(Montana Eastern Pipe Line Co., 55 I.D. 189, 191 (1935).) Both competitive
and noncompetitive leases issued prior to August 4, 1976, were issued on
the same forms subject to the identical diligence and royalty require-
ments—those established by section 7 of the Mineral Leasing Act. (30
U.S.C. § 207 (1970).) Likewise, the Department regards both competitive
and noncompetitive leases issued after August 4, 1976, to be subject to
the same lease requirements — those established by section 6 of the FCLAA.
(90 Stat. 1087, 30 U.S.C. § 207 (1976). Memorandum of November 2, 1978,
cited above, "Legal Issues in the Draft Coal Regulations. ")
The requirements of the FCLAA for diligent development and continued
operation are set out in Part I I.D.I above. They are fully applicable.
In addition, the authorities to extend and defer compliance with these
requirements are identical for preference right and competitive leases.
These are set out in Part II. D. 2. above.
2. Issues in implementation of diligence requirements.
The current lease form does not contain specific diligence provisions.
Rather, it incorporates the applicable regulatory diligence requirements.
These leases are, of course, subject to the authority of the Department
of Energy to promulgate regulations related to diligent development and
continued operation. They are also subject to the requirements of SMCRA
with respect to the permitting of operations and, consistent with the
exemptions discussed above, the application of unsuitability criteria,
including the petition process. There are some points worth mentioning
about operations under preference right leases.
First, in the course of establishing his right to the lease, the applicant
will have devised something which approximates a draft plan of operations
1-43
for the lease. Because of that investment and the momentum the adjudica-
tion process will provide, the Department assumes that preference right
leases issued during the program may be developed more promptly than
existing leases on which there is not even the requirement to submit a
mine plan in three years. This may not be true in every case, but it
will be a consideration in the formulation of potential coal supply
predictions in regions where preference right leases are being issued.
In any event, as new leases, preference right leases will be subject to
the requirement that a mine plan be submitted in three years.
Second is an issue that is not strictly a diligence matter, but it
is certainly a matter to be considered when production frcm potential
preference right leases is factored into regional coal supply and demand
evaluations. The revised section 7 of the Mineral Leasing Act establishes
minimum royalty requirements, but it establishes no maximums. (30 U.S.C.
§ 207 (1976).) The statute does not provide that preference right lease
applications must be processed on the assumption that the statutory
minimum royalty will be applied to the lease. Clearly the establish-
ment of a policy to impose higher royalties could have major impact.
For instance, all preference right lease applications could be adjudi-
cated using the minimum royalty figures to determine the applicant's
entitlement to a lease. As a matter of policy the Department would then
calculate what higher royalty, if any, should be set in the lease to be
issued in order to capture for the United States the fair market value
of coal leased noncompetitively. On leases that meet the commercial
quantities test without any more than the reasonable profit that earns
the entitlement to a lease, the royalty would be set at or near the
minimum rates. On leases where the minimum royalty rate would allow the
lessee a substantial surplus or windfall profit, the royalty would be
raised above the minimum accordingly.
Policy on this question is important for two other reasons. First, a
similar issue is present in the readjustment of existing coal leases.
It appears that readjustment of royalty may be the opportunity for the
Department to establish its right to the fair market value of produc-
tion from leases, especially nonproducing leases, that were issued non-
competitively or "competitively" for insignificant bonuses. Second,
policy in this area must be mindful of the fact that some land owners,
who hold coal that is most properly developed in conjunction with
federal leases, provide in their private leases that the applicable
royalty will be that established in the federal lease for the adjacent
federal coal. Any policy to maximize royalty payments on such leases
may directly result in increases in the cost to the lessee of private
coal being developed in conjunction with the federal lease, which may be
passed directly to the utility company or other purchaser of the federal
and nonfederal coal.
1-44
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY STRATEGY
In NRDC v. Berklund, 458 F. Supp. 925 (D.D.C. 1978) , which is now before
the Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court held that the National
Environmental Policy Act fully applies to preference right lease issuance.
It held that the Secretary's lack of residual discretion to reject an
application once he determines that the applicant has shown commercial
quantities of coal on the lands does not render NEPA inapplicable. It
also held that the scope of the "proposed action" on which the Department
must determine whether an environmental statement is required is the
whole lease and potential operations thereon, not just the portion of
the proposal with respect to which the Secretary has the discretion to
formulate lease terms and mitigating measures. Unless and until the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reverses Berklund,
the Department will follow its directives on how to implement NEPA
in preference right leasing.
1 • NEPA compliance and unsuitability determinations.
As set out above, the adjudication of a preference right lease applica-
tion includes an environmental assessment of the potential operation.
Whether this assessment will be a formal environmental statement will
be determined, using normal NEPA standards and considering the full
scope of the impacts of the potential lease operations, in response to
the applicant's initial showing regarding the coal discovered in the
tract. Again as indicated above, the unsuitability criteria will be
applied, exceptions considered, and exemptions evaluated, as part of
this environmental assessment. The imposition of protective stipulations
on lease operations or the designation of some or all of the lands as
unsuitable for some or all types of mining operations will be considered
as mitigating measures and alternatives, respectively, in this analysis.
Exchange of lease rights or legislation to authorize lease- for- lease
exchange or purchase of the lease rights may be alternatives considered
in the analysis.
Complete environmental analysis of potential lease operations will thus
be completed as part of the adjudication of the applicant's entitlement
to the lease.
2. Mine plan environmental analysis.
Because of the full environmental study that will have been completed in
the process of lease adjudication, mine plan approval may be shortened
and simplified. To the extent that the mine plan submitted for approval
does not deviate from that studied in lease issuance, and to the extent
that adjudication of the entitlement to a lease included the costs of
compliance with lease stipulations and predicted performance conditions
related to proper reclamation under SMCRA, no duplicative environmental
1-45
analysis or impact statement will be required. Only where the mine plan
deviates from that studied in lease adjudication, and where the OSM's
participation in predicting permit terms cannot be complete, or the recla-
mation standards change (or unsuitability designations are terminated),
will n&f environmental review or a new environmental statement be required.
Even though a different agency (Geological Survey or OSM) will be the
lead agency on this analysis, the process of surface mining permit or
mine plan approval should be vastly simplified by the environmental
review completed during lease adjudication.
3 . Relation to program environmental studies.
If adjudication of a preference right lease were occurring while a regional
environmental statement were being completed for proposed competitive
lease tracts in that region, the assessment for the preference right lease
could become part of that regional study, most likely as a site-specific
study as part of the regional lease sale statement. It would then be
treated much like a site-specific study of a mine plan on an existing
lease is treated in one of the current regional environmental statements.
Under the third program alternative, in which preference right leasing
would occur to the exclusion of competitive leasing (DBS Ch. 3.1.3), the
Department could do case-by-case environmental study, or in areas con-
taining numerous preference right lease applications, "regional" preference
right leasing environmental statements could be formulated. Whether the
latter would be a sensible strategy would depend on how the priorities
for the adjudication of the pending preference right lease applications
would be established: according to degree of potential environmental
damage; according to regional demand; or according to length of time
pending.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Two things are immediately clear on examining the status of existing fed-
eral coal leases and preference right lease applications: they may con-
tribute significantly to meeting coal production goals in the regions
where they are; and their administration may well require a significant
share of the Department's manpower and resources that are devoted to
coal.
Another point, however, is also evident from the preceding text: the
administration of existing leases (and to a lesser extent preference
right lease applications) is subject to substantial uncertainty until a
number of legal and policy issues are resolved. Until a comprehensive
road map to application of the diligence requirements on existing leases
is developed, it will be difficult to predict when existing leases will
come into production until mine plans are submitted for them. Until
existing land-use plans in federal coal areas have been supplemented
with updates that apply the Department's unsuitability criteria, it will
1-46
be difficult to predict how severely they will affect development plans
and production potential from existing leases and lease applications,
and what sorts of challenges may be mounted to their application.
The Solicitor's Office has been asked to give expedited consideration to
the legal questions identified above, and this office will prepare any
necessary decision option document on the policy issues that are outlined
above, and that may arise out of the conclusions reached by the Solicitor's
Office on the legal questions.
Steven P. Quarles
cc: Assistant Secretary, Energy and Minerals
Assistant Secretary, Policy, Budget & Administration
Director, Bureau of Land Management
Director, Geological Survey
Director, Office of Surface Mining
bcc:
Docket DER RF DER Onshore Minerals RF
S. Quarles (OCLPP&C) C. Rech (BLM)
LGMcBride : sal : 3-14-79 :x4803
Rewritten :LGMcBride/SQuarles: sal : 3-20-79 : x4803
L. McBride
R. Uram
1-47
APPENDIX J
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
This appendix lists the counties which are located
either partially or totally within the regional boundaries
indicated in Figure 1-1. These are the counties presently
intended for the official description of the Federal coal
production regions should the preferred program be adopted.
Except for minor variations they are basically those listed
in Appendix H, Table H-6 (the list of counties utilized in
this statement for impact analyses). The Federal coal
production regions were chosen on the basis of major coal
basins, transportation networks, similar regional
destinations, etc., after formulation of the CIEP impact
matrices. The minor differences in counties would cause no,
or extremely trivial, changes in the impact projections.
J-l
TABLE J-l
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
APPALACHIAN COAL REGION
Northern Appalachian Coal Region
Maryland Ohio
Allegany
Garrett
Athens
Belmont
Carroll
Columbiana
Coshocton
Fairfield
Gallia
Guernsey
Harrison
Hocking
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lawrence
Mahoning
Meigs
Monroe
Morgan
Musk in gun
Noble
Perry
Pike
Portage
Scioto
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Vinton
Washington
Wayne
Pennsylvania
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Bedford
Blair
Butler
Cambria
Cameron
Centre
Clarion
Clearfield
Clinton
Crawford
Elk
Fayette
Forest
Fulton
Greene
Huntingdon
Indiana
Jefferson
Lawrence
Lycoming
McKean
Mercer
Potter
Somerset
Tioga
Venango
Warren
Washington
Westmoreland
West Virginia
Barbour
Braxton
Brooke
Calhoun
Doddridge
Gilmer
Grant
Hancock
Harrison
Jackson
Lewis
Marion
Marshall
Mineral
Monongalia
Ohio
Pendleton
Pleasants
Preston
Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Taylor
Rucker
Tyler
Upshur
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
J- 2
^^^^m^^m^^^aHmm^- -^isgsEiaaumisiMEmBam^mBmBSXmBulm^
TABLE J-l (continued)
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
Central Appalachian Coal Region
Kentucky
Bell
Boyd
Breathitt
Carter
Clay
Clinton
Elliott
Floyd
Greenup
Harlan
Jackson
Johnson
Knott
Knox
Laurel
Lawrence
Lee
Leslie
Letcher
Magoffin
Martin
McCreary
Menifee
Morgan
Owsley
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Rockcastle
Russell
Wayne
Whitley
Wolfe
Tennessee
Anderson
Campbell
Claiborne
Cumberland
Fentress
Morgan
Overton
Pickett
Roane
Scott
Virginia
Buchanan
Dickenson
Lee
Russell
Scott
Tazewell
Wise
West Virginia
Boone
Cabell
Clay
Fayette
Greenbrier
Kanawha
Lincoln
Logan
Mason
McDowell
Mercer
Mingo
Nicholas
Pocahontas
Putnam
Raleigh
Summers
Wayne
Wyoming
J- 3
TABLE J-l (continued)
FEDERAL
COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
Southern Appalachian
Coal
Region
Alabama
Georgia
Tennessee
Bibb
Catoosa
Bledsoe
Blount
Chattooga
Franklin
Cherokee
Dade
Grundy
Cullman
Walker
Hamilton
De Kalb
Marion
Etowah
Putnam
Fayette
Rhea
Franklin
Sequatchie
Greene
Van Buren
Hale
Warren
Jackson
White
Jefferson
Lamar
Lawrence
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Morgan
Pickens
Shelby
St. Clair
Tuscaloosa
Walker
Winston
J-4
i
!
i
i;
TABLE J-l (continued)
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
EASTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION
Illinois Illinois (cont.)
Adams
Bond
Brown
Bureau
Calhoun
Cass
Champaign
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Coles
Crawford
Cumberland
De Witt
Douglas
Edgar
Edwards
Effingham
Fayette
Ford
Franklin
Fulton
Gallatin
Greene
Grundy
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Henderson
Henry
Iroquois
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jersey
Johnson
Kendall
Knox
La Salle
Lawrence
Lee
Livingston
Logan
Macon
Macoupin
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Mason
McDonough
McLean
Menard
Mercer
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Moultrie
Peoria
Perry
Piatt
Pike
Pope
Randolph
Richland
Rock Island
Saint Clair
Saline
Sangamon
Schuyler
Scott
Shelby
Stark
Tazewell
Union
Vermilion
Wabash
Illinois (cont.)
Warren
Washington
Wayne
White
Will
Williamson
Woodford
Indiana
Benton
Clay
Daviess
Dubois
Fountain
Gibson
Greene
Knox
Martin
Montgomery
Owen
Parke
Perry
Pike
Rosey
Putnam
Spencer
Sullivan
Vanderburgh
Vermillion
Vigo
Warren
Warrick
White
Kentucky
Butler
Caldwell
Christian
Crittenden
Daviess
Edmonson
Grayson
Hancock
Henderson
Hopkins
Logan
McLean
Muhlenberg
Ohio
Todd
Union
Warren
Webster
Iowa
Muscatine
Scott
J-5
TABLE J-l (continued)
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
WESTERN INTERIOR COAL REGION
Arkansas
Crawford
Franklin
Johnson
Logan
Pope
Scott
Sebastian
Yell
Iowa
Adair
Adams
Appanoose
Audubon
Boone
Calhoun
Carroll
Cass
Clarke
Crawford
Dallas
Davis
Decatur
Franklin
Fremont
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Hamilton
Hardin
Harrison
Henry-
Humboldt
Jasper
Jefferson
Keokuk
Lee
Lucas
Madison
Mahaska
Marion
Marshall
Mills
Monroe
Montgomery
Page
Pocahontas
Polk
Pottawattamie
Poweshiek
Iowa (cont.)
Kansas
Ringgold
Anderson
Sac
Atchison
Shelby
Brown
Story
Chase
Tama
Chautauqua
Taylor
Coffey
Union
Doniphan
Van Buren
Douglas
Wapello
Elk
Warren
Franklin
Wayne
Greenwood
Webster
Jackson
Wright
Jefferson
Johnson
Leavenworth
Linn
Lyon
Marshall
Miami
Morris
Nemaha
Osage
Pottawatomie
Riley
Shawnee
Washington
Wyandotte
J-6
TABLE J-l (continued)
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
WESTERN INTERIOR REGION (Continued)
Missouri
Missouri (cont.)
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Adair
Jasper
Cass
Atoka
Andrew
Johnson
Douglas
Coal
Atchison
Knox
Johnson
Creek
Audrain
Lafayette
Nemaha
Haskell
Barton
Lincoln
Otoe
Hughes
Bates
Linn
Pawnee
Lat imer
Benton
Livingston
Richardson
Le Flore
Boone
Macon
Sarpy
Mayes
Buchanan
Marion
Washington
Mcintosh
Caldwell
Mercer
Muskogee
Callaway
Monroe
Nowata
Carroll
Montgomery
Okfuskee
Cass
Nodaway
Okmulgee
Cedar
Pettis
Osage
Chariton
Pike
Pawnee
Clark
Platte
Pittsburg
Clay
Putnam
Pontotoc
Clinton
Ralls
Rogers
Dade
Randolph
Seminole
Daviess
Ray
Sequoyah
De Kalb
Saline
Tulsa
Gentry
Schuyler
Wagoner
Grundy
Scotland
Washington
Harrison
Shelby
Henry
St. Clair
Holt
Sullivan
Howard
Vernon
Jackson
Worth
J-7
TABLE J-l (continued)
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
TEXAS COAL REGION
Texas
Anderson
Angelina
Atascosa
Bastrop
Bexar
Bowie
Brazos
Burleson
Caldwell
Camp
Cass
Cherokee
Dimmit
Fayette
Franklin
Freestone
Frio
Gregg
Grimes
Guadalupe
Harrison
Henderson
Hopkins
Houston
Lee
Leon
Texas (cont.)
Limestone
Madison
Marion
Medina
Milam
Morris
Nacogdoches
Navarro
Panola
Rains
Robertson
Rusk
San Augustine
Shelby
Smith
Titus
Trinity
Upshur
Van Zandt
Walker
Washington
Williamson
Wilson
Wood
Zavala
Arkansas
Miller
Louisiana
Caddo
De Soto
Natchitoches
Sabine
J-8
SUUBHBSaS
TABLE J-l (continued)
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
GREEN RIVER-HAMS FORK COAL REGION
Colorado
Grand
Jackson
Moffat
Routt
Wyoming
Albany
Carbon
Fremont
Hot Springs
Lincoln
Park
Sublette
Sweetwater
Teton
Uinta
Washakie
Big Horn
POWDER RIVER COAL REGION
Montana
Big Horn
Garfield
Golden Valley
Mussellshell
Powder River
Rosebud
Treasure
Yellowstone
Wyoming
Campbell
Converse
Crook
Johnson
Natrona
Niobrara
Sheridan
Weston
Utah
Morgan
Summit
J-9
TABLE J-l (continued)
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
FORT UNION COAL REGION
Montana
Carter
Custer
Daniels
Dawson
Fallon
McCone
Prairie
Richland
Roosevelt
Sheridan
Wibaux
Valley
SAN JUAN RIVER
North Dakota North Dakota (cont.) South Dakota
Adams
Billings
Bowman
Burke
Burleigh
Divide
Dunn
Emmons
Golden Valley
Grant
Hettinger
Kidder
McHenry
Colorado
Archuleta
Dolores
La Plata
Montezuma
Montrose
Ouray
San Juan
San Miguel
McKenzie
McLean
Mercer
Morton
Mountrail
Oliver
Renville
Sheridan
Sioux
Slope
Stark
Ward
Williams
Butte
Corson
Dewey
Harding
Meade
Perkins
Ziebach
New Mexico
Bernalilio
Catron
Lincoln
Los Alamos
McKinley
Rio Arriba
Sandoval
San Juan
Sante Fe
Socorro
Valencia
Utah
San Juan
J- 10
BMH^HHHB
TABLE J-l (continued)
FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION REGIONS BY COUNTY
UINTA-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH COAL REGION
Colorado
Delta
Garfield
Gunnison
Mesa
Pitkin
Rio Blanco
DENVER-RATON MESA COAL REGION
Colorado
Adams
Arapahoe
Boulder
Denver
Douglas
Elbert
El Paso
Fremont
Huerfano
Jefferson
Las Animas
Morgan
Park
Weld
Utah
Carbon
Duchesne
Emergy
Garfield
Grand
Iron
Kane
Sanpete
Sevier
Uintah
Utah
Wasatch
Washington
Wayne
New Mexico
Colfax
J- 11
APPENDIX K
LETTERS OF COMMENT
■BaoB^nna^^^nwuHaji
..■ ._■_...;:,,, .,v_:....-.._
INTERMOUNTAIN EXPLORATION COMPANY
P.O. Bt.K473
wider City. Nevada 89005
(702)293-1098
January 16, 1979
Office of Coal Management (IdO)
Bureau of Land Management
Room 3610
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. Z0Z40
0J0
Comments on Draft Envi:
ntal Statement
Federal Coal Management Program
There is absolutely no way this company can afford
the time and manpower to review the above "draft". Neither
can be begin to comply with existing regulations on surface
mining of coal. We are immediately terminating any and all
existing participation or exploration in the coal industry.
Very truly yours,
■malf
1103 - 2fith Avenue. South
Fargo, North Dakota 58103
January 22, 1979
Bureau of Land Management
lBch and C Streets
Washington, D.C. 20240
Good Morning'
On January 10 In Bismarck, North Dakol
ina Steven P. Quarles and his associates discu,
the proposed Federal Coal Management Program, .
Of' the details of the program as presented in
want (DES) dated December 1978. As a citizen
ing our environment, with full recognition of
pensive energy plays in maintaining a desirsbl
017
I had the privilege of h.
ss the principal features
and I have been studying i
the Draft Environmental Si
|.'|-L!|i,p::i-
al f
ulc of this com
nagement program
I feel compelled 1
I believe that a well planned program is absolutely essential, because
the nation needs more coal production to help reduce its dependence on pe-
troleum fuels. Since the Federal Government owns a large part of the national
(JOB] reserves its actions may have significant effects on industry's capacity
to produce coal. Also I believe that a good program established by legisla-
tive and executive action would be preferable to one that grows like Tonsy
out of a hodge-podge of court decisions. The "preferred program" described
In the DES is in every respect more desirable than any of the alternate pro-
grams described. None of them would be acceptable either because they ignore
the nation's need for the coal or because they fail to fully protect the
public Interest In a valuable public resource.
Despite my general approval, I have some grave reservations about cer-
tain parts of the plan, some of which seem to contradict its basic aim, that
is, to insure that the Federal Government contributes Its fair share of the
energy resources needed for society. The "unsuitablllty criteria." it seems
to me are likely to prevent the development of federal coal rather than to
provide appropriate safeguards for its orderly development a!
tent with National energy needs- Individuals or groups uho \
all future new mines could claim that one or another of the I
criteria as written could be applied to virtually every traci
coal land no matter where located. For example, the criteri;
effect, that any land which might be considered suitable for
Federal Land System, a Wilderness Study Area, or a
considered unsuitable for coal mining" - not just
sh to block
.suitability
of federal
■ ting Uildei
unneeesiary restriction Is in connection with leasing of coal
rarm lands," presumably because such land Is more valuable to
:armiilR than for energy production. Nothing could be farther
th The value of agricultural production chat might bv lost to
coal develop
ment would be only a small fraction of one percent of tile local
, even if mining were to keep the land out of agricultural pro-
minently. It Is absurd, of course, to assume that truly "prime
land could i
ot be reclaimed so as to produce all or most of Its pre-minlng
potential.
unnecessary restriction la the provision for allowing the sur-
i. l,av« final i.r lrr..vo.;ib:^ veto power over Che k-iisiiiH of 1 uJ-
era! coal.
Dcspite assurances en the contrary, this stems to me to give th
rightfully belongs to the government. Trui
compensated for any and all damages done b;
nal word as to whether federal coal should
The che
ckerhoord pattern of coal land
of the west
:urther complicates the proble
interests wi
:h the tacit approval of an Ad
hostile ro m
ining could effectively confis
in such rhe.c
terboard areas bv preventing t
thus blockln
-, access to the private coal.
In clos
ing. I wish to state th.it I am
1 have no f:
nancial interest in either coo
do not want to see any irresp
ment either
despoil the landscape by strl
ny ■
"owned" by any co,
electric power except as a
sponsible company, or unit of gover
ling without using prouer rec
lamation procedures. However. T b*U*ve the reclamation laws, both state
and federal, are fully capable of protecting the public Interest, There i«
no need for the Federal Coal Management Program to further restrict the
actions of mining companies who are operating In oreaa where federal coal
ownership is common.
, certain elements of the plan is that in al-
, lease or not lease a particular tract of
judgement alone, without mucl
; of the matter. I would be
language for parts of the final DES if
: every case
why I <
the de<
land i
pleased i
, the basis of sul
to Che practical or economt'
> suggest less reatrii
you think it would be appropri
Sincerely you™,
i McMartln
LUESTEflR COAL CI
mm una
HE-SI !«:.'!! 3i
019
January fill, 1979
Office of Coal Management O1
Bureau of Land Management
18th and C Streets- H W
Washlnrton, D.C 2021j0
Deal' i
Western Coal Co. supports the objectives in the Dopartnm-.t
Alternative. We object, however, to the methods proposed 1
them. We hope the Preferred Alternative la adopted, with s
which are proposed below, since it is unquestioned that rei
be^in, at least in New Mexico.
However, we trust the new leasing prog;
this ES. A mining plan as full of mistakes a
prompt dismissal of the person who prepared I
11 he
> (•
, the
In fact, although portions of this ES e-re very well doi
treatment of checkerboard lands and their associated problems, and tfcS
approach oroposed toward land use planning), thin appears to be not a
leasing document, but rather a non-Leasing" document. This non-leasing
bias la supported by erroneous data which imply Impacts far greater than
those which other Department documents have predicted.
One particular shortcoming of this ES, and one which was acknowledged by
Mr. Bob'Uram of the Department's Solicitor's Office in Albuquerque on
January 3, is that the Preferred Program still leaves the opportunity for
parties who would not be the developer or a tract for which there is only
one logical market (e.g., a tract adjoining a power plant) to involve them-
selves in competitive bidding. This party, if their bid were the highest,
instead of developing the proDerty, could act as broker or middleman
for the coal despite the most stringent diligence criteria, Torcing the
ultimate user - the consumer - to pay far more than the coal is actually
A major deficiency is that leasing levels are proposed to be baaed on
government projections of demand, rather than on the surply/dcrauml mechamsn
of a Tree market. In your Preferred Program you are trying to draw a thin
line, but you even admit that your projections may be faulty. I subrrlt
that this program, with its obvious strong points, will ultimately be far
stronger and more equitable if It leases based on
.ctual demand, with t
K-l
Office of Coal Management
January 2*, 1979
participation mid input rrom each state and the mining and utility industries
»n.l nut on projections of need. In fact. Table 5.? points this fact out,
III 1985, 5 of the 7 regions show industry needs to be greater than DoK targets
So. if tbpse are correct, leasing to Beet DoE targets will fail to meet in-
dustry needs- This obvious discrepancy rust be addressed.
Heutt-rr
. the Department inclui
j timetable for the planning/
.... -idontiricatioo/lear.inff/envircmtroiitiil assessment process to include *
guarantee for meeting this timetable. The proponed process uppeors avrully
mplicated and unwieldy, and the cool and utility Industries would like sow;
guarantee that this ambitious program will be c
i a timely fashia
Figure 1-8. The boundary
f the Star Lake-Bi;
B. Table 1-5- Does not discuss hew these federal lows have contributed
to reduced and more costly production of federal coal. ES's are
supposed to be objective, and objectivity demands that this be
Figure 2-1. This map is illegible
smaller maps.
I suggest it be made intc
Table 2-5. The Hospah KKCRA is left out.
Para. 2.5-3- Pails to discuss regulatory delays as a Tactor i
ducing the growth rate or nuclear power.
Pftra. 2-5-5.6. The last sentence mentions "other development:
Table 2-23. How were these PRLA reserves estimated? Httw vei
"recoverable reserves without legal or environmental questioi
see the methodology in thi
Office of Coal Management
January 2U , 1 979
Tt would be useful 1
Table 2-2li. Total surface-mi neabl e reserves in the San Juan Basin
are approximately € billion tr.ns, according to the Hew Mexico
Bureau of Mines. Yet this table ststes that I. billion tons alone
are on Indian lands. This figure is very questionable, and should
be checked both with the USCS Conservation Division in Formington
and with the Nv Mexico bureau of Mines.
Table 2-?5. The BLH's Proposed Action in the Star Lake-Bisti
Regional ETS only projects 11 million tons as 1990* I iraximum
production. Yet this table states that 32 Billion tons will be
produced Just from noo-rederal coal in 1990. The methodolory for
generating these numbers should be put in the Appendix so its
adequacy can be determined. This JigUW of 32 million tons is but
one example of choosing an exceptionally high fifcu™ to «h©w that
any leasing of federal coal is unnecessary.
Tabic 2-27. The figure of 2,560 acres is used here and in
Para. 2-7.3 as the minimum acreage of nonfederal cool in a
contiguous block that could be developed. On January 3 it was
pointed out to Deputy Secretary of the Interior Freudenthal thut
this figure is much too small Tor Hew Mexico. The smallest
proposed or permitted mine Tor steam coal in the San Juan Basin
is 6,095 acres. Mr. Freudenthal stated that this figure of 2,560
acres was derived from Wyoming and Montar.a. This figure end
the accompanying analysis must tc revised, as Mr. Freudenthal
assured us it would be.
?E5" ?'6-1' Thft Dnrt M Bt»tes thlrt r«*«-*l leases issued before
1970 and not ln production by I986 will be cancelled. Asst Sec
or Interior Guy Martin has written that leases would not be re-
voked if the failure to produce is due to regulatory delay. Th*
malysis should reflect this.
; Kade using da1
from RLM Distric
Table 2-29- This table *
Orficer which has in many coses changed drastically, both in
nd tonnage. 1 suggest the Districts be contacted to
: data. For example, in the Sun Juan I.ivci
1 ton figure gi*en for 1965 production J
-1 tons, and the total in column 3 is mc
provide more |
Region the 8.5 millloi
more likely 1.2 miliic
likely to be ?5.2 millii
Table 2-30. Column k gives a rtgure of 11.3 million tons. This
5.^^" ":C"1"ed uoine — " «"'■ **=>> the BUt'l Albuquerque
District acknowledges can't be developed individually. Or miners at
all without the development or adjacent coal. This figure murt
be revised downward considerably.
Pora. 2. 8. ?. This paragraph does not acknowledge recent develop-
ments on the Navajo Reservation which appear to foreclose reason-
able development opportunities.
Para. 3.5.2. This paragraph states that energy G
could reduce demand. But DOE's Policy and Evaluation Division is
examining ways to increase both metallurgical and steam coal ex-
ports as part of its FY-81 coal strategy. So, hew do exports
lit into regional demand estimates? This should be addressed.
Page 2-1*9. The top paragraph en the left appears to have been
as^Uten PreptirBtl0n or in Printing. It is Incomprehensible
Pace 2-1*9. The third paragraph U
3isti Regional BR stutes, net all 1
would live in urban areas.
Para 2.6.3 This paragraph should 1
Illegal for the Secretary to make 1
and that Congressional legislation
misleading. As the Star Lake
if tie coal-related employment
^knowledge that it is prerenl
cchanges Of existing leasea,
is necessary to give him this
of Coal Management
authority. This authority, by the way, is
Should be eddressed as a means of reaching
Preferred Alternative.
Para 2,8. a. This paragraph states that inc
increase competition in the coal industry,
state how stifling to competition have tee!
1970 and listed in Table 1-5. This lack o'
causes, by the way, has been acknowledged 1
ment's Anti-Trust Division. Age,in, ar. obj<
this.
rely needed, and
I goFls of the
the laws issued since
competition and its
1 the Justice Depart-
etive ES should discuss
Page 2-51. The second paragraph i
? point
alsc
81. Par*. 3.1.1.
Prograa:
irbled and 1
added to tl
s Preferred
Add on exchange authority to allow the Secretary to
retain coal lands which may have other greater values.
:ng to assure cheap
2?. Figure 3-5. I suggest the Department ackrowledge that this 5-poinl
multiple-use planning process should havt- one additional step:
{$) "Remaining area acceptable for future leasing activity
may be economically unsuitable for mining due to its
1 have input to the
Provisions should be made to allow a ]
needed size and reserves of a tract.
■ Para- M.S. It is true that the economy of the San JUfcfi River
ftegion is closely tied to energy. But, according to the Star
Lake-Bisti Regional EIS, government accounts for the most employ-
ment, with 21. PJ of regional employment and 8«,35 of total in-
come in 1977. This is completely at variance with the data
given in Table UlO.
Para I*. 8. a. The Draft Programmatic states that regional population
is relatively low; recreation is showing "significant" growth;
land ownership lE primarily" federal; only "a small percentage"
of land is private; in "many" communities lack of housing is
extreme. These are urquanti f led words, and should be quantified.
Similar examples of this lack of quantification can be round
throughout this Draft ES.
Para «.8.8. This paragraph discusses water as a limit on develop-
"*"* uTL^*; But " fails to mentton that by the mid-1980's
ever 1.0. 000 acre feet of water may te available Iron the de-
watering of deep uranium mines.
Of Coal MiiiiUtrcment.
January 2li , 1 g7l>
Para. I|,B.8. Thft paragraph also fails to mention the work force
potentially available from a 5-eounty unemployment rate pf 12.?!
in 1977, as the Star Lake-Bisti Regional ES states.
Para. S. 1.2.1. This paragraph should acknowledge that other
-esourco developments {e.g., uranium in northwest New Mexico)
icrgy demand by I985 of more
Table 5-6- No units or a
Para. 5.2-2.3. This paragraph States that "surface mining
operations would produce oigr-ifieantly greater geologic impacts
than underground mining." However, USCS Open File Report 78-I173
States that in the Vest err Powder River Basin, underground
is more geologically damaging if proper surface mining reclamati
procedures ore followed. This Draft rrogrammatic should be con-
sistent with other Department of Interior documents .
;ng
30. Table 5-12- 1990 figures are the some for the San Juan Riv,
Region and for the Uinta-Southvest Utah Pegion. One or the
other is wrong.
31. Table 5-12. This Table also predicts water requirements for
mining in the San Juan Fiver Region as 62,500 acre Test at the
middle range in 1990. However, the Star Lake-Bisti Regional EIS
states that this demand will be only 14,488 acre feet in its
high-level scenario. This discrepancy must be addressed, Tor,
again, it implies impacts which other Department documents dis-
pute as being too high.
32. Para. 5.2.3.2. This paragraph discuzses post-mining habitat
losses, but does r.ot address habitat gains which are likely with
successful reclamation. Again, a subtle hint that impacts will be
greater than ttey actually will be.
33- Figure 5-3 shows 1
3*1, Para, s.1,.9 implies KMABS II was btycotted by all envirow -ntal
groups. This was cot the case or.d should be so stated. For the
BLM s Chaco Planning Unit alone, twe envircnmental groups irade
nomination!:.
35. Para. 7.2. The 85X recovery factor here conflicts with the 90J
recovery factor given in Table C-ll. These should agree.
36. Table 7-1. Production figures given again conflict with those in
the Star Lake-Bisti Regional EIS.
Appendix A, Sample regulation 31-72. l-l(c) .
subsidiary companies of railroads?
Does this apply t
K-2
llllllllllillllllllMlilllllllllllllWIMIMIWHillnli
■
Office of Coal Manage:
January til, 1979
Figure C-5 shows 5 spoil Posa between mininp; and reclamation.
This conflicts vlth OSM Interim and Proposed Final Regulations.
Table C-l. The fiGure of 1,750 tons per acre-foot conflicts vith
the figure of 1,770 tons per acre-foot which must he used ac-
cording to USCS General Coal Mining Order No. 1. lated July 3, 19?»-
The following data wtre ackrovlcdped as erroneous by Mr. Uram,
Mr. Van der Walker, and Mr. Moore on January 3, 1979 at the
informal meeting in Albuquerque, These, too, must be corrected,
since they imply a productivity Trom the San Juan Sarin that
simply is far from accurate.
u. Table P-J, page 0-3. The Figure of 11. 01* aerer/anlnal
unit/year is acknowledged by the BLM' 1 Albuquerque
District ao inaccurate. The figure Riven by the BLM
for the Star Lake-Bisti Region is 12.53 acres/animal
nMT./pnnt.h. The figure eiven in the Programmatic should
be revised.
I. For saeeiruth steppe the Programmatic Rives a figure of
1.6 tons of productivity per acre. The BLM's Albuquerque
District vas unable to provide an accurate figure, but
cutimated that 1,000 pounds per acre wculd be excessive.
a Fur draislands the Prorramms-.tie gives a productivity of
ll 5 tons per acre in the San Juan Basin. A 1971* figure
for intensive hay production in Illinois (FES Related to
t.hi- Proposed Braidwood St&tior., dor.e \>y Commonvcalth
Edison and accepted by AivC ) predicts only 2-92 tons of
productivity per acrs. To suggest that the Sun Juan
Bt.sin is ?X as productive as the heartland of mid-America
is ludicrous.
a. Table D-l also civ" productivity fieurer for corn, hay,
uhec.t, cotton, and sugarbeete. None of these crops are
presently crc«n on any potential coal lands in the San
Juan Basin. The current use and likely end use tt these
lands Is grazing. Moreover, cotton is grown in New Mexico
no farther north Char. Socorro, 60 miles south of Albuquerque.
Table F-l ««y* 27,fe00 people, or 165 or the population Of north-
vest Ueu Mexico is eoal-relatcd population. The BIM's Star Lake-
Bisti Regional E1S states that only 3,!*T5 P«Ople vere coal-related
in 1977, and this includes basic and non-basic and Indirect
employment plus families. This discrepancy must be addrei
carriBd further in later table;
socio-economic impacts will be far grea'
Ufifiests that coal -related
■ than they actually will.
h%. Table G-2 differs enormously Tram apt roxiaatsly similar tuhles
the star Lake-Bisti Regional ETS. For example, even the 193
low level coal-related population rivi
) in th< V'rof.ranmatit
I of Coal Manafc-cment
January 2h , 1979
more than 80S greater than the equivalent figure given In the
Regional EIS. These discrepancies must be addressed.
"li. Table 1-1 shows reclamation costs to be $2,900/acre. Our ex-
perience at our 5an Juan Mine shows such costs to avercge ap-
proximately 55,200/acre. I suggest this table be revised
through contacting the surface mine operators in the San Juan
Basin.
Ii5. Table 1-1. The heading on the right-hand column is wrong- *t
Should not be "Total $/aere."
1*6. Table 3-3 gives an average dollar cost/ton of coal mined as 9s
for reclamation. Our experience suggests! this figure is 264 -
20* per ton. This table can also b« easily revised through
contacting the surface mine operators in the San Juan Basin.
Western Coal Co. supports the objectives In the Department's Preferred
Alternative. Western hopes this Pr*ferred Alternative is adopted with tY
amendments we have suggested. But we hepe the new leasing program is not
as full i*f flaws as this document clearly is-
S:'ncerely,
r,eorge G. ByeHr
Environmental and Regulatory
Coordinator
Mr. Jack Kennedy
Director, Minerals Div:
State Land Office
PO Box 111* 8
Santa Fe, NK 87501
~~x
E«"Tijn Orchard
Hot(hki*s, Colo. E
Phone B72-3547
:,lr. Steve luarrels, jireetor
Office ol Coal L.-aSfftg flttflBlltg and Coordinat
United States MjartttmtX of the Interior
.aaiiinstoii, J.C. 20423
jttai- -r. joarrel*:
032
As a real-lent and na <1« grower in jlotchaias, located in i,i«
Vortli Fork of tb« SonilieOO Stiver 'alley, I have -rave concerns for
the future of Llio agricultural industry in J«ita County. The magni-
tude of coal developments projected is far more than Uiis small
area can accomodate an.! still Taaintain any semblance of its beauty
an agricultural productivity. The projected A.lCO hit* tfunmson mine
alone villi, throw t.ie county into a $&,0u0,0QU deficit annually. (Please
see Vol. I, Cnapter 4, page *tfv (chart I'd Ion Liv.i mat pas*) of the
.ieat Central EIS.) 0Ui:t frightening adverse results are listed at
great ien.jtu in tne same test "antral LIS Vols. I and II.
In t.ie Jraft HS for the ,,'estern Coyl Leasing i'roj,ramatic is a
par-i'raph on page 3-.il Wflieh ad.resses Thresholds - ecological and
socio-econo'iic. .low can a person or a governmental entity go ubuut
rtuaealinif a socio-cconor.iiu threshold stuiy for Its NOrin .-'orkV If
resources otn^r 1st an coal are to be preserved, such a study appears
to be imperative.
! he citizens uf i.ie North tf'ork have not gutted lor actions to
stop coal develoj.ient. »ii«jy reel the coal aliOUld be Mined if Lie
country needs it, and i-iey are also well aware of lub Jobs coax mining
provides, Vhat tliey desire is phased development over many r""u
l years, auch a plan wo.ild allow agriculture and
and cojl to be ::.ined for future generations as well as
•rations.
ution to esntti
Any
pro'
cqjireraeiits to reuues'
ina Eastman
2
chlciss, Colorado 91419
an
High Country /~~
"Vj.Citizens Alliance
P.O. Box 1066 Cnsted Butte, Colorado 81224
February 1, 1979
042
Office of Coal Management (140)
Bureau of Land Management
18th and C Streets NW
Washington. D.C. 20240
COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD CONCERNING THE ORAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
ON THE FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DATED DECEMBER 1978. PREPARED
BV THE UNITED STATE5 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MAN-
AGEMENT.
In reviewing the PES for the Federal Coal Management Program we have
been impressed by the thorough and conscientious manner in which the require-
ments of applicable Federal laws have been incorporated in the proposed
management program. Both the DES document and the management approach could
well serve as models for others. We commend the Department of the Interior
for a major step toward management of the public lands for the greater public
good.
While the technical aspects of administration and documentation are
superior, we are concerned that the full potential of the proposed program
may not be achieved because of questionable assumptions, biases, and weak-
nesses which must inevitably affect implementation. In essence, we feel that
excellent tools will be applied to incomplete purposes. In the following
paragraphs we outline our concerns and suggest corrective revisions to the
Preferred Program.
Our first three concerns arise from the fear that past excessive leasing
and its various costs will be perpetuated under the Preferred Program (though
perhaps to a lesser degree) despite the professed intent to exercise good man-
agement. Wc suggest that this deficiency in the Preferred Program can be
corrected by three modifications: use of measures of real market demand rather
than DOE production targets as a basis for lease offerings, continuation of the
moratorium on competitive leasing through 19BS. and progressive tightening of
due diligence requirements to minimize the ratio of leased reserves to annual
production.
Our first concern is that DOE production targets (which have little direct
relation to economic need) are translated to forecasts and Interpreted as de-
mands which must be satisfied by production from old and new leases. Another
way to describe this kind of "management" is to say that If leases are sold to
K-3
Li-Tf 1ce of Coal Management
Bureau of Land Management
Pag* 2 - 2/1/79
meet DOE goals, then coal will be produced irrespective of market demand This
is neither good logic nor good economics and can easily lead to excessive leas-
ing The expedience prior to 1970 is proof that more leases do not necessarily
lead to more production. If increased cnaT consumption Is desired, then DOE
must stimulate demand which in turn would call forth greater production; but
attempting to stimulate demand by increasing supply Is putting the cart before
the horse — -.nere is just not that much leverage through price elasticity at
the leasing level. The Department of Interior is obliged to be ready to support
DO: goals, and planning must include at least this potential, but the actual
offering of leases should be triggered by realistic measures of market demand --
not wishful thinking. A strong policy statement to this effect is needed.
Our second concern is with the large backlog of existing leases and PRLAs
ana with the costs associated with excessive leasing (section 2.8.1). The DES
takes the position that this problem will vanish spontaneously in 1986, and in
the meantime an aggressive leasing program can be initiated. We feel that it is
poor policy to increase significantly the number of excess leases, even in the
Short term. We conclude from the DE5 that careful management of existing leases
PRLAs, emergency leases, and exchanges through 198S (while continuing the current
moratorium on new competitive leasing) would pose little risk to meeting national
needs ,n either 1985 or 1990. The DES seems to assume that cancellation of leases
in i986 will create an abrupt discontinuity in production potential that can only
be avoided by new leasing prior to that time. The fallacy in this position is
that production estimates are based on current intentions, leading naturally to
a shortfall in the 'anger term. What will actually happen over the years as the
planning horizon recedes is that lease holders will re-evaluate their future
markets and modify their plans accordingly. Thus real market needs will be satis-
fied through 1990 and beyond. A great advantage to continuing the present morator-
ium on competitive leasing is that the Land Use Planning and Management aspects of
the Preferred Program (see figure 3-10) can be established prior to diverting re-
sources to extensive now leasing, thus providing for a smoother start up. The
only disadvantage of this modification to the Preferred Program is that new
operators could not enter the Federal coal lease arena, but this should not have
a significant affect on competition in the coal business over the few years in-
New competitive leasing should only be resumed in conjunction with large
listing idle leases.
:ancellati(
Our
' third concern is with the criteria for due diligence which are now inade-
quate to their intended purpose of keeping Federal resource management in the hands
or r0deral land managers. At issue is the ratio of the amount of coal reserves in
OHtSUiKhnfi leases to the amount of coal produced annually. This ratio is, in
if feet, the number of years of Federal coal production under private control or
viewed in another way. it is a built in time delay limiting the implementation of
new federal policies. Taking leased reserve figures from Tables 7-71 and 2-23 and
annual production figures from Tables 2-20 and 2-21, we get a ratio of 74 (years).
This high figure can be a serious impediment to resource management. Following
lease cancellations tn 1996 tne ratio will drop to about 3D (reflecting the 30 year
mfn* life assumption used throughout, the DES). Al tuning that after 1966 a regular
leasing program is matched to market demands, and if the current 40 year mine out
aineo. then the ratio ot leased reserves to annual production
requirement
Office of Coal Management
Cureau of Land Management
Page 3 - 2/1/79
could gradually drop toward 20. This is the lowest possible figure under current
rules. By comparison, the petroleum industry for many years maintained (by choice)
a reserve/production ratio of about 10 in order to best balance market risks from
both the demand and investment aspects. The coal industry has historically main-
tained a higher reserve/ production ratio, and past Federal leasing practices allowed
companies to lock up vast reserves, thereby essentially eliminating this aspect of
risk. This is a kind of Federal subsidy which has no justification-. The costs of
leasing too much coal are vividly describee1 in section 2.8.1. The leased reserve/
annual production ratio allows quantification of "too much" and should be recognized
explicitly as a management factor at all levels - local, regional, and national.
Furthermore, this ratio should, as a matter of policy be reduced to the lowest
possible value consistent with economic development of coal resources. Ideally,
coal should be leased 1n response to need, and production should be brought to a
stable level and maintained for the life of the mine. To this end we suggest that
negotiations be initiated with DOE to revise due diligence requirements as follows:
the current 40 year mine-out should be reduced to 35 years with provision for future
*i year reductions as experience with planning horizons indicates (the goal being
to gradually reduce the leased reserve/ annual production ratio); for new mines and
major expansion of existing mines, the current provision for review of mine devel-
opment plans within 3 years should be expanded to require full production at 10
years with immediate cancellation of that portion of the lease that could not be
mined at the then prevailing production rate within the mine-out period (the goals
being to discourage speculation and to stabilize coal production and the local
economy); for old mines a review of each LMU should occur at 10 year intervals with
production over the preceeding 10 years used to project future production and with
immediate cancellation of that portion of leases within the LMU which would not be
expected to be mined within their mine-out times (the goals being to stabilize
production growth rates and to leave Federal resource managers in control of major
changes); and the present requirements for \i of production at 10 years and a mini-
mum of 1( per year thereafter should be replaced by a requirement to maintain at
leas: 7% of production annually once production begins (the goals being to reduce
UCCntSmiC and environmental impacts of token development undertaken principally for
the purpose of maintaining the lease while minimizing impacts of Start and stop
operation). In short, the policy on leases should be use it or lose it.
Our remaining concerns arise from the fear
public land use (both commodities and amenitieri
tion because of over emphasis on coal production
can be corrected by deferring decision on suitab
jreater coordination with other agencies, by strong.
t Other potential benefits of
X receive inadequate considera-
te suggest that this deficiency
of controversial tracts, by
nee on impact mi ti-
, by uni form requii
unos Unsuitability Cri
Our fourth concerr
exceptions, leave so much discretion i
abuses and non-uniform application are inevitable •
additional litigation. Furthermore, the recommended LUCs are deficient in the areas
of socio-economic impacts and reclamation potential, The concept of the LUC is
excellent, but both the criteria and their implementation need further refinement
(ments for all operators, and by refinement of recommended
"ia, management guidelines, and regulation,
that the Lands Unsuitability Criteria, with their
no's of local land managers that both
■ leading almost certainly to
Office of Coal Management
Bureau of Land Management
Page 4 - 2/1/79
In the area of implementation, we feel two changes are necessary: the simplistic
choice between suitable and unsuitable needs to be expanded to include a deferred
category for which there is sufficient coitroversy to warrant further study (the
goal being to make suitable tracts availaLle for leasing as soor as possible
while deferring more detailed examination af controversial tracts until needed
W until management resources permit); coordination with and concurrence of other
parties having land management responsibilities must be made mandatory, to include
ndei-dl and state agencies, local governmental entities, and surface owners <is
tpyUaAXn (the goals being to insure consideration of competing beneficial land
J —.ify controversial tracts).
:« and ■
Our fifth concern is that management program q^als will not be achieved
because of inadequate enforcement. The heart of the new management approach is
mitigation of social, economic, and environmental impacts In one way or another.
As we read current laws, if'impacts cannot be mitigated adequately, then mining
Shall not occur. Land managers will attempt to screen tracts prior to offering
leases for bid. but ultimate responsibility for mitiqation must lie with the
purchaser. To enforce this responsibility we feel two new requirements are needed'
tne mine development plan submitted by the lease holder should include proposed
measures to mitigate all anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts
(to Include arranging for front money where necessary) with documentary evidence
lufficljftt to support the reasonable conclusion that tne proposed measures would be
itiectWfiH, and the prior record of a bidder or lease holder should be admissable
for consideration by the land manager in deciding such matters as whether to accept
or reject a bid. whether to approve a development plan, or whether to require the
posting of a bond.
Our sixth concern is that the management program is seriously weakened by
exempting certain governmental entities from full compliance. We feel that all
-ual mining should be conducted under the same rules irrespective of who does the
m.ning.
Our seventh and final concern is that a potentially outstanding management
program will be critically compromised by undue haste in implementation. Some
compromise may already have occurred through premature use of recommended LUCs in
current land use plann.ng; additional compromise may occur in the near future if
regulations are adopted without adequate public input and without adequate con-
sideration of competing resource management plans, and a fatal compromise will
occur if new competitive leasing is initiated before prior steps in the management
program are brought into full compliance with new procedures and policies Con-
siderable WOflj remains to be done in refining such areas as LUCs, management guide-
lines, exemption policies and enforcement policies and in incorporating these matters
into regulations. We feel that these remaining efforts should be conducted with
[h,r ' * "re that- so evidently preceeded publication of the 0ES. Since the DES
fails to support the urgent need for new competitive leasing prior to 1986, we feel
that the current moratorium should be continued at least until the othei
of the new management program are fully Implemented.
In summary, the generally superior quality of both the DES and the Preferred
Management Program is compromised by weaknesses which are likely to lead to mis-
management through both excessive coal leasing and inadequate consideration of
aspects
Office of Coal Management
Bureau of Land Management
Pag? 5 - 2/1/79
competing land uses. We have proposed co-rective revisions to the Pr,
Program which, though seemingly minor in the context of the total planum*
and management effort, are nevertheless critical to its success. Our most impor-
tant conclusion is that the Preferred Program should be modified to continue the
current moratorium on competitive leases through 1985. thereby allowing Department
resources to be concentrated on refinement and implementation of other Program
aspects which must of necessity precede resumption of leasing.
//,
£ m&f
Dick Wingerson
Chairman. Technical Committee
Guy Martin
Brad Klafehn
Kirk Cunninghar
Mark Welsh
K-4
mmreMMfflfmnMWnin M
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE A- 95 CLEARINGHOUSE
»T*T« PLANKING OFFIC
:^8E
STATE OF VERMONT
MOHTF«LlIR. VERMONT «W1
047
MEMORANDUM
From:
Date:
Office of Coal '(an a cement (lto)
Bureau of Land Management
19th and C Streets. N.W.
Washinpton, D. C. 703«0
John r.. Holmberc State A-95 Cooi
rehrvurv 5, 1979
t;.<*-
Subject: ■***< Env
i Federal Coal Management Program
As the State Clearinghouse under OMB Circular A-95
we hav? notified othor public agencies with a possible
interest in your: Draft Environmental Statement.
VEEMOWT STATE ENOtGY 0F71CE
PAVILION OFFICE BUILDING
MONTFEUEB, VERMONT 06602
T»L 803 838-2768
MEMORANDUM
TO: John E. Holaberg, State A-95 Coordinator
FROM: Vermont State Energy Office
DATE: February 5. 1979
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Scitrarnl - "Federal Coal Management Prof
In 1975. 0.71 of the fuel consumed In Vermont wu provided by
coal.
The poor condition of Vermont's railroads is a factor which
operates against a near Cera, increased use of coal In Vermont.
The enormous expense required to rehabilitate old lines and lsy new
track in order to provide an adequate delivery system will continue
to be • barrier for the forseeable future.
The above and the fact that Vermonters are, to an Increasing
degree, turning to wood, a native "alternative" fuel resource, for
heating their homes and producing electricity, provide the basis for
the general nature of my remarks to fallow.
Since this review is a response to a draft environmental
ststement I will not comment on the wisdom of lncressed reliance on
coal as an Interim step in an overall national energy strategy.
The Vermont State Energy Office feels that every energy resour
should be given serious consideration with an in-depth analysis of 1
potentinl Impact on every facet of society and the natural environme
The pilot coal liquefaction project presently funded by the
D.O.E. Is Of interest to Vermont. A recent National Academy of
Science report indicates that by 1990 3.5 million gallons of oil
could be produced from coal if the present experiments prove success
This 15% of the anticipated demand for oil in that year would be
FEB 0 S IS79
n investment in facilitii
nsumptlon of 370 million
the Administration hope
of 100 billion dollars an.
ns Of coal above the 1 .2
ill be used in 1990.
The figures qi
dollaru for this pn
harmful energy reso
The fuaslblli
by the National Eue
Office in their rep
by the Academy indie
f attaining the goals for coul production
Plan was evaluated by the General Account
"An Evaluation of the National Energy Pla
sued In July of 1978. I refer
In the report the CA0 also
teibility of greatly increased
to th
.port.
I also refer the reader
of Increased Coal Utilization
Institutes of Health In 1977
after David Rail, director of
Health Sciences.
This draft environment
1990 solar energy will
crisis determined to bi
ied pessimism about the
coal production while maintaining
"The Health and Environmental Effc
a report issued by the National
commonly known as the Rail Report
e National Institute of Environment
that by the ye
be wi
Statement determin
mtrlbute more than one or two percent
itlng requirements of the U.S. In a
loral equivalent of war this nation woi
se to devote its available resources to the rapid development
relatively benign energy source rather than pursuing programs
the environmental tradeoffs for the net energy gain arc
cptable.
Office of Coal Management (HO)
Duh.mii Of Und Management
IBth and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, O.C. 20240
Ti53
He: Comments Concerning U.5. Department,
of the Interior Dcatt Environmental
Statement Federal Coal Management Progr;
I. GENERAL REMARKS
There can he but one alternative to a federal coal leasing progrcm.
That one alternative is no federal coal leasing program. The alternative
of no federal coal leading program is simply not available to the U.S.
Deportment of the Interior for two reasons:
(A) Interior is charged with the statutory responsibility of managing
the coal resources o»ned by the federal government, and
IS! The federal coal resources are so massive it would be gross mis-
management not to have a program.
Ths
:ional Environmental Pre
i well as federal actior
on Act (NEPA) appliea to federal
'herefore, whatever program interi<
;nvironmcntal Statement (ES) on
i program.
Cor federal coal leasing, it is totally in
for leasing" as a prerequisite for a program. At such time as Interior
proposes to actually lease federal coal under its program the question
of the "need to lease" might be raised. However, if the question of the
"need to lease" is raised at that time the question can only be considered
in response to a complaint alleging that Interior, in offering leaG03,
is acting "arbitrarily and capriciously" because there is "no need to lease".
In that situation, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiffs to show
that Interior is acting arbitrarily and capriciously in proposing to actually
lease federal coal, a most difficult burden for the plaintiffs given the
weight which the courts quite properly ascribe to the expertise of agencies
acting within the areas of their assigned responsibilities. Also, the
plaintiffs, not Interior, would have the burden of proof to show there
is "no need-.
The "need for leasing" is not a proper matter to consider in the ES
on Interior's Program. Judge Pratt to the contrary notwithstanding, under
no circumstances can the "need for leasing* be considered a prerequisite
for a federal coal leasing program. Interior's program should be a pro-
gram which is valid and appropriate under present laws applicable thereto
covering leasing of federal coal whenever Interior decides to loaae and
regardless of the frequency or volume o£ leasing.
Charles W. Morgolf
21«0 9th Street
Boulder, Colorado B0302
K-5
II. MRDC vs. HUGHES
Under the U.S. Constitution and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, it
is improper ami inappropriate, if not unconstitutional, for the Executive
Branch (Department of the Interior) to permit the Judicial Branch (Judge
Pratt) to require the Executive Branch to address the question of the "need
lot leasing*.
(a) The Executive Branch, by a number of Acts of the Legislative Branch,
has been granted both the authority and the responsibility to
JCCes owned by the united States
manage the lands and mineral
|b) Leasing of federal
the
of the need to leai
sponsibility of Interior as the agency designated to manage
iUty Of Interior.
proper
coal owned by the United Sti
(C) The determination Of the need to lease, when, and in what quantltlea,
are determinations that cannot constitutionally be delegated to
the Judicial Branch. Nor can the Executive Branch properly submit
even to inquiry by the Judicial Branch as to the determination
of 'need', let alone feel It necessary to justify such determina-
tion to a federal judge as a prerequiE "
program.
(d) Judge Pratt acted improperly, if not unconstitutionally, in re-
quiting Interior to demonstrate to him the "need for further leasing".
Interior acted improperly, if not unconstitutionally, in recog-
nising any authority on the part of the Judicial Branch (Judge
Pratt) to require a showing of 'need".
> preparing a leasing
If i
nisi
:tve agency, in carrying out its statutory responsibilities,
acts -arbitrarily and capriciously- that is one thing. When that is alleged,
the burden rests on the plaintiff to show by convincing evidence that ouch
is the case. That was not the issue in NRDC vs. Hughes.
In short, it is no business of the Judicial Branch to inquire into,
let alone ait In judgment on, the "need for leasing". The authority, the
responsibility, and the duty to determine the "need for leasing" reposes
upon the Executive Branch alone. So long as the Executive Branch, in making
its determinations, docs not act arbitrarily and capriciously it Is simply
no business of the Judicial Branch.
How the Executive Branch ext
charges its management responsibi
III. HEED FOR LEASING
Unless the federal go
coal industry, the federal
quantify the "need for lea
:an anyone else) competently
lational trends can be programmed; low, medium,
and projections can be made. However, coal (at
present) is still mined by independent producers (large and small) making
independent decisions to do so. And coal (at present) is still purchased
by users (large 1
of business, or i
'eral slti
small) making independent decisions to do
i may have no alternative except produce <
:oal or go out of business. Other produce
The decisions individual businesses make are usually based on economic
considerations known at the time the decisions must be made and are largely
unpredictable much in advance of the time when the needs are known and the
plans of the individual business dictate a decision be made. (For example:
Will there be coal slurry pipelines someday? When? To "where" and from "where"?
The "from where" has much to do with the quality of the coal. The "to where"
could significantly affect the "delivered price" by offering a significant
alternative to the rapidly escalating rail rates, will there be technological
"break-throughs" favorably affecting the economics of what today's conventional
wisdom says are the economic parameters for Studies, forecasts, and projections,
or the viable Choices available to the market place when the Individual pro-
ducer/user decisions ate made by them tomorrow?)
Coal is not mined by individual producers because some national forecast
says the nation's coal industry will produce a certain tonnage nationally.
Coal is not purchased by individual users because some national forecast
says the nation's coal users will use a certain tonnage nationally. On the
contrary, unless the federal government contemplates nationalizing the coal
industry (and the industries that use coal), coal will be mined only when
and where it can be mined and marketed by individual producers at a profit
capital employed. It will be mined in the quan-
lling to gamble on as to a production rate,
s of their ability to market that produc-
tioi
i profit.
rith the rlsi
lual producers i
individual esi
Similarly, coal will be purchased by userB only when individual users
determine they need BTU's, and they decide the quantities they need and they
decide that coal is their preference as the source for the needed BTU's.
Thus, a sale of coal to one user by one producer may preclude, or reduce,
production (or planned production) by another producer, or increase such
Other producer's "risk" in going ahead with a mine or an expansion of an
existing mine.
There arc many laws, rules and regulations impacting the individual
business decisions to be made by coal producers. No computer model or pro-
gram can predict in a meaningful way the many decisions the market place
will make which still determines whether specific producers will go In to
the coal business, or open new mines, or shut down or expand existing nines.
(For example: OSM has recently reported that Strict and immediate enforce-
ment by OSK of just one of the new regulations dealing with non-conforming
' --suit in the loss of annual production of 107 million tons
Of I
al.)
There are many laws, rules and regulations impacting business decisions
to be made by coal users and potential coal users. No computer model or
program can predict in a meaningful way the many decisions the market place
will make which still determines whether specific users will use coal at
all, or discontinue or expand their use of coal. (For example: new plant
locations, and expansions of existing plants, are highly dependent upon
EPA/State air regulations. Whore, who and how large will future Clasi
Arras be? What areas will become the "non-attainment* areas tomorrow c
ten or twenty years from now? The planr. of users and potential users )
already been significantly affected by the changes which the Clean Air
Amendments of 1977 made in the Clean Air Act of 1970.)
In NRDC vs. HUGHES
the so-called -fact- thi
able" coal under lease.
Pratt to an additional !
nearly 200 applications
both the plaintiffs and Judge Pratt made much of
it there is presently some 16 billion tons of "recovcr-
Rcferoncc was also made by the plaintiffs and Judge
1 billion tons of "recoverable* coal involved in the
pending for Preference Right Leases.
Whatever validity such i
technological and economic ii
produced and sold at a profit
ments have little to do with
But, today, two addii
Jtimates may have, that validity rests upon
JeSsments. ("Technology", meaning can the coal
inology. "Economic", meaning can the coal be
,) Today, technological and economic assess-
Jetermining recoverable reserves. To be sure,
• with present technology and mined and sold
rable reserves.
■al legall;
>al that ii
available to mine?
legally available to mine legally
As any knowlodgable coal producer today recognii.es, all estimates of
"recoverable" coal reserves based only on technological and economic assess-
ments, no matter how good, are irrelevant , incompetent and immaterial esti-
mates Of actual recoverable reserves. NO one, today, can possibly state
(quantify) the nation's coal reserves recoverable under existing leases not
yet in production. It is even more preposterous to state what coal reserves
are recoverable under pending Preference Right Lease Applications because
no one in or out of government knows what PRLA's will even be finally Issued.
As to existing leases not yet in productioi
knows whether he will be legally able to mine tl
he has all of the local, state and federal perm:
engineers can, of course, deteCMine the coal rei
which can be recovered with present technology,
mates can even be made as
coverable. But, no coal
coal _is legally available
known until all required permits are in
i no holder of ouch a lease
I coal leased to him until
:s in hand. Competent mining
;rves covered by the lease
Reasonably reliable esti-
that aay be economically re-
ecoverable today until it ^s known that the
ine and legally mineable and that can not be
ily then, <
recoverable
an accomplished fact. Then,
be determined today.
No one, in or out of government, has applied all of the local, state
and federal laws, rules and regulations involved in determining whether coal
can legally be mined to each of the presently existing federal coal leases
not yet in production. Even if it were possible to do this (which it is
not), and even if this had been done, no one In or out of government can
provide assurance that no member of the public will challenge the conclusions
reached as to each existing federal coal lease not yet In production thus
"found" to meet all of the local, state and federal laws, rules and regu-
lations making ouch coal legally ;
U.ible
i and legally mineable.
of the
approximately
520
prespn
wee
of the
491 O
the
total) ,
715,
100 ac
pre
ently under lease, ar
lea
scs is
che
existin
I leases, cove
nus
comply
with all Of t
e local, s
t L 0
s which
have become effect
ivp ^.i
pre
ently u
dor lease is
., 1-,.
mined
ntly existing federal coal leases located
f these existing leases (about 95* of
res of the total of about 788,000 acres
sued before 1970. Thus, about 95* of
90t of the total acreage under lease,
tote and federal laws, rules and regula-
rise those leases were issued if the coal
:er of fact, over 400,000 acres of federal coal lands were
years 196S through 1969 (a five year period). This represents
more than S0» of the total federal acreage under lease. Since S to 7 years,
at a minimum would be required to get from the "lease issuance stage" to
the -production stage", tew of these leases could have become mince before
the enactment of all the laws, rules and regulations with which leases must
now comply for the leased coal to be mined.
Certainly the lessees who acquired leases pr tor to 197Q did not select
the lands leased to them based on any knowledge that those leased lands would
meet all of the requirements of all of the local, state and federal laws,
and regulations subsequently enacted in order to be able to legally
As |
leased ir
I the I
Inu
ley have under leasi
IV. LEASING
: Program must comply wi
Legislative Branch. Interior's Progri
of NEPA and requires a 'legally adequi
ES do not depend upon justifying the *
itself i
if it t
affecting the human envlri
a number of laws enacted by the
for leasing falls within the purview
' ES. The Program and the required
■d to lease". Furthermore, leasing
lajor federal action significantly
Prior to 1970, the issuance of a federal coal lease granted to the
lessee the legal right to mine the leased coal. The lessee had the legal
right to mine the leased coal regardless of whether there was split ownership
of surface and minerals. (The lessee, of course, was obligated to pay for
any damages caused by the lessee's mining operations.)
Thm
• of ;
■aae today is of I
onmental significance
i piece of paper. It
I today has any effect
:ry simple; Today, the
than publishing the Federal Register
is preposterous to assert that the iasuant
whatsoever on the human environment. The
lessee of federal coal {under existing lea
that may someday be issued) has absolutely no legal right"to~mlne"federal
coal leased to him by reason of holding a lease to that coal. Today, the
federal lessee has only the exclusive right to try and obtain a legal rigl
to mine the leased coal. The lessee must obtain the legal right to mine
the coal leased to him within a specified period of time or he will lose
the lease. No guarantees come with the lease that the lessee will be c
ful in obtaining the legal right to mine the leased coal. The federal goveri
ment makes no representations or warranties that the federal coal leased
to the lessee Is legally available to mine or., if legally available to mine.
K-6
that the leased coal is legally mineable. Mo refunds ate given the lessee
if he (g unsuccessful in obtaining the legal right to mine the coal leaned
exclusively to him.
With respect to leasing, the facta of life today ace:
(a) gpon issuance of a federal coal lease, the lessee will necessarily
have to rlo fat mote drilling than was done by the federal govern-
ment prior to leasing. Such drilling is necessary to prepare a
mine feasibility study including the development of a competent
mine plan and reclamation plan. BeEote the lessee can drill on
his lease, he will have to prepare a drilling program and obtain
the approval of the U.S. Geological Survey (USCS) for the drilling
program. USGS, prior to Approving the leasee's dtilling program,
will request an Environmental Appraisal Report (EAR) from the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . BLM will undertake an EAR whethei
or not the surface involved is owned by the federal government.
(In fact, BLM will prepare an EAR even if the surface is entirely
owned by the lessee.) Assuming BLM finds no endangered species,
such as the "loco wead", in the drilling program area, and |
all Other laws, rules and regulations constraining drilling
ties are satisfied, dtilling can then proceed.
ng
drilling may <
;al Mining Unit
(The "theory"
However, intei
a coal deposit forming a
: that interior will lease
arantee i
: be doing the mining
If the lease is not an wu,
in immutable economic laws st
risk his capital to develop
'111
lility study
Even assuming the lease is an LMU, u
is completed, based on competent drilling dati
quality analyses, the lessee does not know what his coets will
be in mining the coal. This information is necessary in order
to have 30me realistic idea of what the coal must sell for to
justify risking the capital investment in developing a mine. A
realistic idea of mining costs and required selling price, as well
as reliable data on coal quality, are essential in determining
the prospects for marketing the coal j_f it is produced. Of course,
other potential coal suppliers may exist for the same market the
lessee is seeking to serve. If the lessee finds, as well he might,
that the price he must get for his coal (to justify the risk of
investing his capital in opening a minel is not competitive with
other producers, his hoped for market may disappear — and with
it the lessee's plans to mine the coal leased to him.
Assuming the lessee's proposed mine is not ruled out by the economic!
of the market place, the lessee then has the exclusive right to
start down the long, long 'oad of trying to obtain the legal right
to mine the coal leased to him. This means the approval of a
special use permit from the county where the lease is located.
It also means getting the approval of various state agencies having
t, ignoring county and state considerations and
rules and regula-
jst convincingly
ly defend in court against a cttiien suit;
plan and reclamation plan comply with at
jurlsdictii
confining this discussion onl
tions, the lessee of federal
or a new lease awarded someti
demonstrate (and t
that the lessee's I
least all of the following federal laws:
iunty and state ex
to federal laws,
ial (whether it b<
I in the future) I
The Cle<
The Clean Air
The Cle;
The Cle;
al Environmental Policy Act
Alt Act of 1970
: Act Amendments of 1977
i water Act
i Water Act Amendments
The Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
The Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974
The Historic Preservation Act
The Solid Waste Disposal Act
The Toxic Substance Control Act
The Water Pollution Control Act
The water Pollution Control Act Amendments
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969
The Mine Safety and Health Act Amendments of 1977
The Federal Land Policy Management Act
of 1977
There are. Of course, a number of Other federal laws (and State
laws on similar subjects), and the federal agencies which admini-
ster these laws have regulations. There are many rules and regu-
lations of federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the President's Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) , the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) , the Corps
of Engineers ICE), the U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service (USPWS) ,
the U.S. Forest Setvice (USPS), the Occupational Safety and Health
Admlnlsttation (OSHA) , and, most recently, the Office of Surface
Mining (OSM) . These agencies are issuing new rules and regulations,
and revising rules and regulations frequently. In determining
whether coal is legally available to mine and legally mineable,
matters of such critical importance as "prime agricultural land"
and "alluvial valley floors" are still unresolved. Then there
are, and will be, administrative interpretations of rules and regu-
lations and, no doubt, judicial decisions regarding administrative
until nftor they have
in hand all the local
foregoing, it can be stated categorically
r they will be able to mine coal from a f<
gone down the long, long roaii above descr;
state and federal permits required to be
not possibly be a sign if icant impac t on tt
I there is, in fact, coal that is_ legally
n not be known by the federal govern-
ment, or by a lessee of federal coal, until the lessee has in hand all of
the required permits. In the process of obtaining all the required permits.
a legally adequate *s i t"-speci f il
prepared before the proposed mini
the approval bj£ the federal qovei
nvironmental impact stai
an will be approved. Tt
nt of the mine plan, nol
federal action signifii
THE PROGRAM
While the only alternative
tseif, as the Draft ES indicat-
ives.
On Page 3-32 c
A. MAXIMUM ECONOMIC RECOVERY
I Draft ES, the question posed i
ilate maximum ei
in land (all s<
lust be mined) i
As any competent mining engineer knows
new data becomes available, as the opera
i mine, new ideas rfevelop, new problems i
> presented. Given the very limited MOV
available to the Department prior to lea
i remotely possible for the Department
a mine plan is an ongoing process.
ir gains actual experience operating
t encountered, new opportunities
: of drilling data that will
ing, how can it be considered
> determine "all aeams which collect-
vcly are profitable
not guessing) mining
uality data for all
he ability to design
earns, the market fot the ci
f other matters prerequist1
ine
in i
Interior will not mine the i
risk. Certainly Interior will n<
collectively are profitable to m:
Of mining should they tutn out t<
arriving at its decision concern
write the selling price if it tui
Interior determined in arriving ,
TO make such a determination requires knowing
■am thicknesses for the entire ore body, all
I extent Of oxidation, the extent of burn &EM
i possibly mine both surface and underground
■ the production rate of the mine, and a host
:o being able to justify the capital investmei
it represent and warrant the sean
.ne. Interior will not underwrit
i be greater than Interior decern
ing mining costs. Mot will Inter
:ne out the coal cannot be sold a
it its decision concerning profit
the price
bility.
I am not suggesting that Interior should make such representations and
nties, and underwrite any errors in its determination of profitability.
simply trying tn point out the utter-Colly of presuming that the element
deve lopmei
.1 be able to produce and sell
i will not commit capital to the
lably confident he can produce and
at a profit. The level of confidence needed to put capital
at risk is not acquired with the acquisition of the lease. Based on Interioi
policies during the past few years, one would conclude that Interior feels
it can determine the mining cost and production rate of the proposed raining
operation, and determine the selling price of the coal to be mined. With
that information in hand. Interior then calculates the "profitability" of
the proposed operation, determines what Interior thinks is a fair rate of
return for the operator, calculates "present value" and sets the minimum
bonus acceptable and the production royalty. How these determinations can
be made at all prior to leasing is a mystery to me — as I'm sure it is to
any other engineer in the business of actually producing coal. That any
one can possibly think theEe determinations can be made with the limited
drilling data Interior will have available ia completely confounding.
Being realis
lumber", set a n
:ie, I recommend no minimum bonu
imber (unrelated to "fair market
what the minimum acceptable
minimum because Interior cat
>r, If there must be a
it value") and advertise It
xius is. (There really is
eject any and all bids anywa;
lot in the bonus. The "bonus'
The "value* in coal is in its production
should simply be a way of determining who gets the lease. Since the real
value Lb In the production of coal, the production royalty is what is im-
portant. On surface coal, 12>)t is now the statutory minimum. Interior
is obviously tempted to increase that percentage by how Interior assesses
the "profitability* of the proposed mine. As mentioned earlier, Interior
really can not do this realistically. Interior may feel they have been
K-7
"coupe1
potitl'
-10
. by netting production royalty I
>jfi.j.
u9i-.f
ybovo 12!jl for some recent
les. However, such saleo, while advertised as "c<
way "competitive". On the contrary, under Judge
's order only one company could really qualify to be the succeasfu'
rr. Aa to "fair market value", the company that wants to keep an e'
going, and which needs "by-pass" coal to do it, has no choic- but I
iB ■&! SBlaU block being put up (or lease regard less of whether the"
JHE rate is 12ijl or 16%%. (Of course, the company does not absorb I
« royalty. Whatever the royalty, it is included in the price of tl
1 and the public ultimately pays the higher royalty.)
The real "test" of whether^ Interior can i
production royalties above UHl for surface cc
coal will come when truly competitive blocks are
that time there may even be bidders, no matter hi
will the lease actually go into production? The
the answer to that question and it will do so at
the competition the lessee then faces, {12S» of i
ally lease federal <
1 and HI for undergi
e offered for lease
al ;
nigh the royalty. But,
irket place will provide
\ething ia more than IS"}*
The impression one go
determine "suitability" is
for coal lands, such lands
effort should be made to q
C. LANDS UNSUITABLE
S from reading all the criteria to be used to
that when no other "values" can be identified
will be considered for leasing. At least some
much "Roadless Areas", "Scenic Areaf
"Natural Areas", "Endangered Species Areas", "Nigra
the nation can afford. Some effort should also be made to determine "cost/
benefit" ratios for such "acea3" vs. coal development.
For example. Table 5-73 on page 5-154 indicates that the "Lands Unsuit-
able Field Test Summary" shows Montana to be 1001 Historic Lands, 96.2*
High Interest Habitat, 99.94 Private Surface/Federal coal. So much for
Montana.
I also thought the authority for setting forth <
mine "suitability" or "unsuitability" rested on statt
instances. Table 5-72 indicates the "authority" rest!
Policy", not Acts of Congress. In the case of "Crit<
the "authority" rests on "Departmental Policy" and a
legislation. Query, suppose Congress decides not to
legislation establishing "a National Register of Mati
happens then to "Department Policy"?
According to Seel
"whether the Departmer
which specify how, wh<
the Solicitor's opinic
authority to regulate end-use. Meanwhile, the
use is under continuing study.
D. END-USE CONSIDERATIONS
, 3.3.7 on page 3-41, the Secretary is considering
ihould condition new coal leases with stipulations
or bj£ whom coal would be consumed" , Apparently,
being developed r
ibject of regulating end-
VI. CONCLUSIONS
ill be found by Judge ?ca
Interior will therefore have a "legally defensible" coal leasing
program. It by_ no means follows that the Program will produce
new leases.
Even if leasing finally does occur under Interior's Program, it
bv_ no means follows that there will be production of coal from
As the title of the Draft ES acknowledges,
ative" is much more than a federal coal leas;
title calls it a Federal Coal Management Program,
massive mineable coal deposits owned by the U.S. which "overhang"
the coal industry and the markets for the coal industry; given
the mine shutdowns occurring in the east as the OSM regulations
are applied and the costs of complying with OSM, EPA, OSHA and
other agency regulations become apparent; and given the necessity
for significantly increasing coal production to stand any chance
for our Nation to avoid economic disaster resulting from physical
shortages of energy or from the Nation's inability to afford
higher volumes of higher priced oil from overseas] knowledgeable
people will recognize the Proposed Program is more than a Coal
Management Program. It is a coal control program. By reason
of th« foregoing, it is a National Coal Control Program.
: the government w
ke available; wrier
ned; how it will b
11 determi;
the coal will be c
Query; if Congress
beyond what the "E
coal Is needed;
to make lt available; what
ly how, where, and by whom
£/(&'£* J.4- fll&Vkfy-
Cooncfl Of Cncrgy Resource Tribes
• Washington, D C 20036
(202) 466-7702
February 9, 1979
Mr. Frank Cregg
Director, Bureau of Land Management
U. S. Department of the Interior \ '.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Cregg;
I would like to offer the following comments concerning the
Department of the Interior's Draft Environmental Statement (DES)
for the Federal Coal Management Program on behalf of the Council
of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT). CERT is an organization of 25
energy resource-owning Indian tribes. Resource management is a
major concern and responsibility of tribal governments, as tt Is
for Federal government. I would first like to state that the
preferred alternative described in the DES reflects the Depart-
ment's Intention to design a truly comprehensive resource manage-
ment program. The preferred alternative ia a vast Improvement
over previous efforts of the government to manage its resources,
and we commend the Department for that.
CERT Is concerned
alternative, firs
clpation in the pr.
The Department has
Include states and
coal leasing and di
i few elements of the preferred
there is no provision for tribal parti-
am except as a part of the general public.
de a commendable and appropriate effort to
( In decisions concerning federal
i development.
Indian tribes. In fact, they often have interests that are in
direct conflict with tribal interests. Many CERT tribes, especial-
ly those in the Powder River, San Juan River, and Port Union coal
producing regions are very near and in acme cases, virtually
surrounded by, land bearing federal coal. Development of that
coal would have a profound Impact on the natural, social and
economic environments of these reservations. Trlbsl governments
are responsible for managing the Impacts of energy development on
our reservations. We want and need to coordinate our efforts
with the federal program, but to do this we must be directly
Involved In your planning process.
Federal agencies, when developing programs, often do not
Include provisions for the participation of Indian tribes —
usually not out of Ul-wlll but merely as an oversight. When
that happens, tribes are often Ignored and have tremendous dif-
ficulty participating In federal agency decisions.
CERT therefore urges you to make explicit provisions for
tribal participation In the program. Tribes should be given the
opportunity to participate In the ranking and selection of
tracts, setting regional production targets, land-use planning,
and assessing Impacts. Attached to this letter Is a list of our
suggested modifications to the sample regulations to allow for
active tribal participation.
Indian tribes should have been given the opportunity to
participate in the development of the DES and the preferred
alternative. Perhaps the lack of tribal participation accounts
for the Inadequate treatment In the DES of the significant
Impacts of the program on those tribes located near federal coal
regions. We feel that greater attention should be paid to those
Impacts in the section on regional Impacts.
Finally, CERT is encouraged to see the Department Is com-
mitted to assuring that the government receive a fair return for
Its coal. We live In the West. We know the land and the re-
sources. We know their value. And we know the true cost of
mining. Indians, like all Americans, share in the ownership of
federal coal. When the owners receive less than a fair return for
their coal It Is a subsidy by ordinary citizens to Industry.
The CERT tribes know this very well. For too long we
allowed our coal to be developed through standard form leases at
standard royalty rates. We know better then that now. We've
looked sround and have found that most other countries that own
and produce minerals do so under agreements that are far more
sophisticated than those In this country — agreements that
allow for greater control and a greater return for the resource
owners. Tribal governments are learning from other countries and
CERT feels that the United States government ahould take steps to
follow their lead. Therefore, CERT atrongly supports the Depart-
ment's Intention to remain flexible concerning the forms and
terms of agreements and to use discounted cash flow analysis to
determine fair market value.
Although we do realize that the federal government's
flexlblty in designing agreements for the production of federal
coal ia somewhat constrained by requirements of various laws, we
hope that you will strive to maximize the benefits of coal produc-
tion to its owners within those laws.
K-8
In closing, I would once again like to commend the Depart-
ment for an effective effort to develop a comprehensive coal
management program. We hope that these comments ultl be helpful
In further refining that program.
RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS OF THE "EXAMPLE"
REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF
INDIAN TRIBES IN THE FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT PROCRAM
Proponed language changes are underscored
I. Fart 3420 - Cooperative Leasing
(I) 3420.0-2 Objectives
... and to ensure that Federal coal la developed In consulta-
tion, coop«ratlon. and coordination with the public. State, local.
and tribal governments, and involved Federal agencies.
■ 6 Consultation with Sn
and Ind:
, Trib.-::
■eforc making formal determination of lands acceptable for further
onsideration for leasing, the Bureau of Land Management shall
:onsult with the State Governor and the State agency charged with
he responsibility for maintaining the State's unsuitability pro-
admlnlstc
or proximal to the bounda
■L.J!
of a comprehend
ive land-use
cini; prepared bv the Buroi
! .:■]
Land Management
,,f I..!,
i Kanaaement shall consult
wit
i the tribal eov
:rnment to
(3) 3120.3 Regional production targets
3420.3-1 General
The Secretary In consultation with the Secretary of the Department
of Energy, affected State Governors, Indian Tribes, and other con-
cerned partlt-s shall establish . . .
(4) 3420.3-2 Evaluation of Coal Needs
Add new subsection
fcl The Secretary shall discuss the prel
iminarv regi
onol coal
production cantata with affected Indian
:rtbes seeki
-.■.■ their views
about the adetjuacv o!" [hi; estimates and
sue Rusted
evlsions.
The Secretary shall n.irt idil nrlv seek th
1 tribes vli
ws regarding
ch« relationship between th* regional pr
oduction ta
Rets and
pot on t tfj soccioecononic culls lde
The existing subsections c,d
(5) 3420.4-4 Regit
3420.4-4(c)(l) The
ng. selection,
■n, and Scheduling
d scheduling ptocai
I hy the authorized officei
Govarm.r(s) within whose Stata(s) the region is 1.
conciliation with representatives of all affected Indian Ti
Federal surface management agencies.
ibI (
■sultatli
. . . the Secretary shall formal 1;
of those States within which Federal coal leaae sales are under
consideration. The Secretary gUO shall formally consult with any
Indian tribefs) that would be .if fee ted by any Fedar.il coal lease
aolcs . . .
(7) 3420. S-2 Consultation with Governor and Indian Tribes
Add itaw subsection (c)
iefore .ldoptlnj; a regional 1.
ult with the f
shall consult with t
Lbal *o
yernments which .i.h. ■■■-■: .-ire:-.':
within or proximal t
the !.
nds which may by leased. The Secre-
rlhes .
Specifled period of time to comment.
not less than 30 dav
or mar
• than 60 days, before issuing, a final
y potei
tlal Federal coal lease sale that WQUXt
affect the tribes.
II. Fart 3460 Em
3461.2 Criteria for designating land unsuitable for all or certaii
types of coal mining
(1) (b)<2)(1)(A) with the concurrence of the State or Indian Tribe to
which the site, structure, or object is of regional or, local sijjiii'
(2) h(Z)(l) the area or ■
(3) j(l) Lands containing habitat deemed critical
plant or animal species listed by a Stati
pursuant to State or Tribal
sldered t
liable foi
endangered or thn
n (1) Federal lands which the land management agency and the State
or Indian Trlbe(sJ Jointly agree arc fish and wildlife habitat for
resident species of high interest to the State or Indian Tribe(s) and
which are essential for maintaining these priority wildlife species
shall be considered unsuitable for coal mining. Such lands may
include appropriate buffer zones as determined jointly by the land
aanagement agency and the State or Indian Trlbe(s).
(5) (x)O) a buffer zone of Federal lands necessary Co provide protec-
tion for any adjacent area designated as land unsuitable for raining
by the State or on Indian Lands shall be considered as land
i for
ning.
(2) ... The buffer zone may be modified or eliminated where
land management agency, in consultation with the State or Indl;
Tribe, determines that all or parts of the tone are not necess;
to protect the designated area.
(7) 3961. 4-1 Consultation with Local and Tribal Governments
Prior to designating Federal lands unsuitable for all or carta]
types of surface mining operations, the Secretary shall consuli
with the appropriate State, local, and Tribal agencies.
K-9
LIAMP. CLEMENTS. JR.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
January 22, 1979
s>, is
U. 5. Department of Energy
Economic Regulatory Administration
Office of Fuels Regulation..
Washington, D. C. 2D461
Gen Clemen:
The DraTt Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to the anticipated
Federal Coal Management Program haa been reviewed by interested Statu
agenciea in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. Your State Environmental Impact Statement Identifier Number is
E1S 8-012-011.
56
The detailed comment:
General Land Office,
enclosed for your inl
The Budget and Planning Offit
this document. If this Of£i<
please do not heaitate to coi
of the Texas Department of Water Resource*, the
nd the Texas Department of Agriculture are
ippreciaten the opportunity I
Sincerely,
f'l
fe /LiMJtbl
Tom B. Rhodes. Director
Budget and Planning Office
EX6CUTIVE 0«ICE BUILDING
Tl.XAS IMiPARTMliNT 01 WATl.it KISOURCtiS
ms
).,. H r.,'...,ll
January 5, 1971)
Mr. Hoy IbRaa, Acting Director
Governor's Budget and Planning Offici
Executive Office Building
411 West 15th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
<?
tf>
iVw
«*
j*
Subjei
U.S. Department of the lntcrioi
laivironBootai Impact Statement
DcCCwbCr 1973. (State of Texas
, Bureau of land Management-- Draft
-- Federal Coal Management Program,
Reference: l-IIS-8-01 2-011 J .
Dear Mr. Italian:
!n response to your December IS memorandum, the Texas Department of Water Re-
sources (TUWK), has reviewed the subject draft environmental Impact statement
CDCJS) which analyzes various alternative federal coat management programs.
Including the Department of the Interior's own tentatively-preferred alternative,
iind to asses* the environmental impacts of each alternative. 'Hie PLUS is pro-
[jTOflnBtiC ill scope; it discusses national and interregional Impacts associated
wi til the Federal coal management program . The assessment of impacts involving
use of the Department of Energy's National Coal Model, includes coverage of the
12 coal Supply regions of the U.S., 3 production levels Ci-C., "low", "medium",
and "high"), 7 alternative management strategies, 2 projection periods (i.e.,
IDS 5 and 1WD), 5 phases of cool product ion -and -use cycle, and 27 impact cate-
gories. The subject DPS also includes a set of illustrative regulations which
could be used to implement the coal management program.
Tltt rttal aspect en the U.S. Department of the Interior's preferred alternative
program provides that all major decisions relative to the future leasing of
Federal coal lands be done as an integral part of the federal land-use and
activity 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
Coa] Leasing tatodfflonts Act of 1976, and the Forest Service, Department oT
Agriculture under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 19u0 and the National
Forest Management Act of 1976, Furthermore, the Federal coal leasing program
would rely directly on the Department of Energy's national energy projections
to establish the quantity of coal to be mined. The preferred alternative pro-
gram emphasizes State, local government , and public participation in all aspects
of the program.
Mr. Roy ilogai
January D, IS
Tage Two
TDWR offers the following review comments with respect to the Texas l!onl Region
from the standpoint of TWR's statutory State-wide functions, respousibil ities,
and interests relative to water resources planning, development, and io;;i*1;ir iori:
1 . PaaC* 3-6, 5-36.
tuwk invites attention to the following specific items in the
Hi'.lS relative to water resources which impact significantly 011
the State of Texas;
a. The analysis of water availability L* hased on
preliminary data pertaining to water flow and
consumptive water use compiled hv the U.S. Water
Resources Council (WRCj (i.e., u'.S. Water Resources
Council, 1378 (Preliminary Review Copy) ■■ "The
Nation's Kater Resources-- The Second National
Water Assessment!', kasilinjjton, D.C.I. See fffilS
at page 5*26, section 5.2.2.6, fourth paragraph
under the caption "V.'atcr Impacts".
I>. The 1)I;!S presents water resources data, including
total stream!'] ow, and estimated present and future
water requirements correspond in <i to the WRC's Texas-
(lulf ajmrejitated subrcgions (ASR) 1107 (Lower Red
River liasin), 1201 [SablM-Sechos Basin), 1202
(Trinity-San Jacinto Basin), 1203 [ftrasoi River
RpSin), 1204 (Colorado River Basin), and 120S
(Navidad - Guadalupe - Mission - Nueces Basin)
(See Appendix E of the DEIS at pages E-2 and V.-b).
liven though the said water availability data and the related pro-
jection methodology arc presented with nwierous conditions and
cautions regarding the validity, applicability, and practicality
Of the data arid methodology, TDWR has norc fundamental objections
to the tWC of the said 1VRC preliminary data. TDWR's review com-
ments, suggested revisions, and point-by -point assessment relative
to KRC's draft review report on the "Second National Water Assess-
ment", were presented in letter dated August 2S, 1978, to the
-Secretary of the Interior. A copy of the said August 25, 1978
letter is attached for ready reference, and special attention is
invited to comment 12, thereof. TDKR has been advised that WRC
and the Department of the Interior are taking appropriate action
to resolve the important problems and questions) raised in tlio re-
view of the Second National Writer Assessment.
Mr. toy Ibgan, Acting Director
January 5, 1070
['age Three
Because the Texas floal Region is not one of the elttht coal regtoiw
for which the Department of the Interior is preparing separate,
detailed environmental impact Statements, (sec DFI.S at page 3.1',,
section 5. 1.1.7, fourth paragraph under caption "Meeting the Ho-
qulrcnoilts of tlie National laivironmental Policy Act".), TUMI
suggests that final version of the subject progranniat ic environ-
mental impact 8 1 at CO On t include assurances that revised, coordinated
KRC data relative to the Texas-Gulf Region water availability
and demand will be used. TDlvTi emphasizes that the Second National
Assessment without substantial revision of the data will net be
useful in determining the present and future adequacy of Texas
water resources, and that the use of these unreviscd data in rtHjnr
energy-related programs may unavoidably and seriously hamper the
solution of energy-related problems. Unfortunately, the use of
WRC's ASR aggregated water resources data appears to generalize
water data beyond the puint of being useful. 'Ihe aggregate,
generalized data tend to portray conditions as covering a much
broader area than they actually do.
2- !>^es 7-)_,_ -2, section 7.1.1.5 ("Water Resources")
TDWR believes that the programmatic water resources Impact analysis
on pages "-1 and 7-2 should include the followinji points:
a. Thr consumptive use of water by secondary or
induced energy - related or industrial activities
(e.g., "mine -mouth" steam electric generating
p'.ijits) may further degrade water quality in
certain streams and rivers by increasing dissolved
solids concentrations and by reducing the assimi-
lative capacity for other pollutants as a consequence
of reduced streamflows.
b. Recent Federal regulations mandating the use of
sulfur removal techniques on all new coal-fired
power plants will substantially increase both
water cunsuiiipt ion and the amount of sulfur-hearing
sludge that must be disposed.
c. The cumulative effect of Federal regulations which
involve increased water demands and consumptive
water use in energy-related activities, is cause
for Concern in water-short areas such as certain
portions of the Texas Coal Region, as the national
coal production and conversion programs are escalated.
TDWR believes that the feasibility of mitigativc
actions should.be considered with respect to federal
regulations which do not provide the necessary engineering
K-10
Mr. Roy iklgaii, Acting Director
January 5, 1970
Page lour
flexibility to adapt energy - related activities to
local, geologic, climatic, and hydrologic con-
ditions. For example, the revised national standards
for thermal discharges from electric power plants do
not appear to provide the maximum, reasonable latitude
for engineering flexibility in the design of cooling
systems. This flexibility would permit the optimum
selection and use of cooling systems [i.e., wet
cooling towers, single-purpose cooling reservoirs,
once-through cooling on multiple-purpose reservoirs,
streams, or estuaries, and dry cooling systems, etc.)
which would provi.'e the most desirable balance between
water conservation (including minimum water consumption)
and environmental protection.
The recent Surface Coal Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977, and the proposed implementing Federal
Relations 30 CFR Chapter VII, contain stringent pro-
visions relative to water resources in connection with
surface mining operations and mined-land reclamation
operations which do not appear to adequately recognize
the unique, local geologic, climatic, and hydrologic
limitations of the Texas Lignite Coal Region. TDM
submitted review comments on the said proposed 30 CFR
Chapter VII, in letter of November 9, 1978, to the
Office of Surface Minim; Reclamation and Enforcement,
Department of the Interior, through the Budget and Plan-
ning Office, Office of the Governor.
TDWR appreciated the opportunity to participate in the interagency review of the
subject document, pursuant to the provisions of circular No. A-95, Office of
Management and Budget. TDWR will continue to work closely with all agcnci.es
concerned to ensure reasonable consistency and compatibility between energy
and water resource planning, development and management, within the purview
of our statutory, state-wide responsibilities and interests.
t
fc/tkrvcy Davis
Executive Director
Attachment as stated
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER. RESOURCES
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
A. L nlick.Chiirmjn
Robcn ln.Jw.v,,,!.,
1XA5 WATER COMMISSION
.al Water Assessment
August 25, 1978
The IbnoraMc Cecil D. Andrus
Secretary of the Interior
C Street
Washington, D.C. 2U240
Dear Secretary Andres:
The Texas Department of Water Resources :
regarding "11k Virion's Water Resources ■
by the U.S. Water Resources Council.
Our review of the above-mentioned documents lias identified serious problems
which we be) tew will severely impinge upon the usefulness of the assessment
to assist Federal l'rogi\im Managers, tlie Administration, and the Congress
in establishing and implementing water resource policies and programs. It
is our view that if this material were used to establish and implement water
[wlicies and programs, the welfare of people in Texas as well as other areas
of the nation would he seriously harmed. From our review of the assessment
reports, as well as our experiences and knowledge acquired as a regional
assessment Sponsor for the Texas Gulf region and from our active part icipat im
in assessment activities for the Arkansas-White-Red and the Rio Grande region;
and FrOW our review of those parts of each ro|*>rt that pertain to Texas,
we present the following observations and comments.
1. The twenty-one regional sponsors that performed the work
and developed information relating to the stale/regional view
point fur the specific problem analysis are not identified.
We understand that approximately one-half of the So. 5 million
assessment budget was devoted to developing the state/regional
viewpoint In the specific problem analysis phase of the assess-
ment, yet the reports reflect principally the federal view
as written by various federal agencies.
■Illf I
'Hie Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Page 2
Water Resources Council. The text of the nrigin.il repot t
was transmitted to the Council on November 14, 1977 ond
wns written on the basis of the state/regional viewpoint
as set forth in the Department's draft planning document
entitled "Continuing Water Resources Planning and Develop-
ment for Texas" and from information supplied by Louisiana
and New Mexico relative to parts of those states which lie
within the Texas Gulf region. In our review of the draft
copy of this report as issued by the Water Resources Council,
we have found tliat the state/regional viewpoint as originnl V;
set forth in the text and figures has been almost entirely
replaced with information developed by federal agencies. We
feel that the federally prepared data are erroneous in many
instances and in other instances are not supported and
appropriate I y qualified and explained. Replacing the state/
regional information with the federally-developed information
ho:, resulted in two kinds of errors occurring as a consequence
of significantly different dnta replacing the original
information; i.e., the context of statements and the
accuracy of statements. As on indication of the signifi-
cant difference* in the information, please refer to page 12-38
in the Texas Gulf regional rcjiort which reads as follows:
"Domestic withdrawals are projected to average 1,62] million
gallons per day (the state/regional value was 3,179 million
gallons per day), by the year 2000, an increase of 414 million
gallons per day (the state/regional value was 1,953 million
gallons per day) or 54 percent (The state/regional value was
157 percent) above the 1975 level." Exaarples of such gross
discrepancies can be found throughout the Texas C-ulf, Arkansas-
Wliitc-Hcd and Rio Grande regional rc[>orts "here the state/
regional data h;ive been replaced with what we consider to be
totally unrealistic and inaccurate information.
We do note, however, that Sections (C) Problems, (D) Summaw,
and (U) Conclusions and Recommendations regarding the federal
role in water resource planning and development, data and
research, and institutional factors in eacii of the three
regional reports listed above were based upon information
contained in the state/regional viewpoint. InJs fact is not
explicitly Stated nor is it stated that the information
was derived from national future information. Consequently, to
avoid any confusion and to correctly inform the renders we
strongly suggest the basis of the information contained in
those sections of the regional reports be correctly identified.
The Honorable Cecil U. Andrus
Page 3
The Texas Culf regional report also contains significant
errors in the stroumflow and water use data. In Table 1
page 12-46, line one, the "national future" (NF) c;
(Strcamflow at Outflow Points) for 1975 is 12,26b t
gallons per day while the "State Regional Future" (SRH)
te
nl lion
compute the i
,„ 6,220 million gallons per day. The reason for
this significant difference is that different probability levels
were used in computing the national data from those used to
onal value. As the footnote in Table \
itatc/rcgional value was based upon a probability
of the Slrcamflow being exceeded 9S percent of the time.
However, it is not apparent from the table or the table foot-
notes that the national future estimate was based upon an
HO percent probability level. Tills can only 1«J determined
from an analysis of the Statistical Appendices (Volume A-2,
Part I, Page IS).
Also the state/regional water withdrawal value and consumptive
use values set forth in Tabic 1, page 12-46, were bused upon
average conditions and should have been incor]>oratcd in
Table 2, page 12-47 as opposed to indicating that the values
were not estimated.
In an effort to help correct this material and to aid the
Water Resources Council in their understanding of the state/
regional estimates for inclusion in the final report, we
have prepared three correct tables (copies enclosed). Hie
attached Tahles 1, 2, and 3 set forth information concerning
conditions for average, tlie 80 percent streamflow probability
(the national future "dry" year condition), and the OS percent
streamflow exceedence probability for both the national
future information and the state/ regional information,
respectively; i.i'., in the corrected tables, "apples" are
compared witli "apples," and "oranges" with "oranges." In
the Water Resources Council's assessment report, the Council
is comparing then- "apples" with our "oranges." Two of the
footnotes on the enclosed tables have been altered to reflect
What we believe to be better definitions of the "national
future" and the state/regional future." Where the "national
future" has been defined ah the Water Resources Council's
estimate of 197S and most probable future conditions, we
have deleted the words "more probable." Tor the State/
regional future definitions, we have exchanged estimates
K-ll
iTiHiiiiiiiiniiiiiffliMiiniwwir
Hie Honorable Cecil D. Andnjs
Cage 4
b> «W°ral sponjon rotlocttas l«tr»M desires «|
»™ ?' t0- ' "I"0"31 sponsor's (Tesns Dananmit of Waier
Resources) estates of 10« and futu„ conditions.
be SSK h"3' ??SB "'"">«»> «* appropriate footnotes
to iS ta ,M> ■'" ™V.*' "J*4*™* "!•«" P".ainh,e
SSSS as Mr™
SbSTSffS-'iS! st,'eamnow «■»«* ^ BKl' of the enclosed
EUIBS Wil] also demonstrate another of our major concern-;
LJlfki « variation between the average annual conditions
of the" d ifcEHS prf,bi"t>' «^encA-ond,tionS, ai™ "all
wt m L ''"d conci,,;110^ Set forth in the written
«ch "f tS t hr m ?! aW"ry HL""°rt' Pn"fl ' thT«& V and
iden of the three regional reports pertaining ro Texas art
based upon average condition*! in Ws £]» uveraro V
M'nceTL'r.'Tf i-°f?istoriCal «"J^<™ «™ty evSr occur.
Since there is significant variation from year to year. Therefore
it is highly inejifireprUto to base water resource wliciw
&£3£?%, 32\Mit,l""U mam, All such analyses and
Hl'usefl/rl'r11111^^1^111 U" ^ '"■ *« '■ Introdui-ti*.
repons, c early reflect, upS the int^Uy u»J MESS?
of the estimate* to which it refers mfqxm the entire !SSM.
oSconSr^^ 'rrh:',,S J1?"*' wc tav« continually voiced
There are several pointl made in the Texas ifclf red
report pertains l0 specific problem which w, f«
mislead^,; and require clarification. These arc-
(U]
Page 12-51, paragraph 2; The statement is made that:
"Some cities within the Dallas-Forth Worth mctroplex
and the City of Corpus Christi are facing short-term
water supply problems." Since this statement is not
true of the Cities of Dallas or Fort Worth, wc surest
that the word "smaller" be inserted between the words
"some" and "cities"; i.e., "Some smaller cities...".
R&uo 12-51, jiaragraph 2: The Statement is made that:
'These existing supplies will not be able to satisfy
forecasted water requirements to the year 2000, and unless
additional reservoirs are constructed, severe water
shortages may occur." While strictly speaking this
ma/ be true, to avoid giving a distorted view of the
Dallas-Forth Worth metroplex, we suggest that the
following sentence be added at the end of
jiaragraph 2: "However, this fact is well-recognized,
and is being addressed in existing local long-range
water supply plans."
Pago 11-96 , paragraph 2: The statement is made that;
"On the basis of projected needs, however, supplies
available from existing reservoirs in the area,
existing diversion facilities from Lake Tawakoni in
the adjacent Sabine River Pasta, and completion of
authorized federal projects will allow the region to just
b;.rely keep pace with growing water needs." Of course,
the first question is "based on whose projected needs?"
Therefore, we recommend that the al>ove sentence be
replaced with the following: "On the basis of State/
regional projected needs, supplies available from existing
lvservoirs in the area, existing diversion facilities
from i-ake Tawukoni in the adjacent Sabine River Basin,
and completion of authorised federal projects will
allow the region to meet its water needs to the year 2000."
1'age 12-36, jiaragraph 2: The first sentence refers to the
[imposed raw water Conveyance facilities from Like
i'alesiinc to Pallas hut omits any mention of the proposed
second raw hater transmission line from Lake Tawakoni to
Dallas. We suggest that the last sentence be reworded
■v- follows; "Construct, jn of nrojxjsed additional raw water
conveyance facilities from Lake Tawakoni in the Sahinc
River husin and from Lake Palestine in the Kechcs lliver
Has in to the City of Dallas will provide additional
Supplies when completed."
the Honorable
Page 6
c. Cages 12-iiG, hater Quality Problems -- lUl las-
Fort Worth Area {Trinity River and Tributaries] ■ Texas
[Problem Identification Number J). Although this section
describes the proMvfll, it falls short Ol telling the whole
story. In a report of this type, re lYivi.cc should also
be made to solutions and progress toward those solution';.
Accordingly, we request the addition of a summary paragraph
as follows; "All ot the major wastewater treatment plant
owners in the upper Trinity River Basin arc currently
upgrading their treatment facilities which when completed
are expected to result in a significant improvement
in the quality of the Tri. ;ty Nivcr."
f. Page 12-R7, |iuragraph 1; The statement i- made that:
"Downstream Ol' major treatment plant discharges, sludges
that contain high concentrations of carbon, nitrogen
and phosphorus accumulate on the river bottom." Since it
has not Ken proven unequivocally lhat hentluc deposits
in the river are due primarily to wastewater sludges,
we suggest that this sentence he reworded as follows:
"At sonic points, sludges that contain high concentrations
of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus accumulate on the nver
bottom."
The state,' regional information for the Texas Uilf region contained
in the statistical appendix Volume A-I (economic, social, and
environmental data) is totally In error. The correct infor-
mation can be found in the Texas Oil f Sjiecific Problem Analysis
Activity IV Report which was transmitted to the Council
December 19,1977.
We have serious questions about a statement which appears on
page 5! of the draft document entitled "Part II Water Manage-
ment Problem Profile." The statement is as follows: "In
reviewing surface water sujiply conditions of the nation It is
not apjiarcnt that there arc regions with sufficient amounts of
truly excess water supplies to be tranferred to the Texan
High Plains and other ground water mining areas." This
conclusion has been stated without explanation of method, or
supporting evidence. Our studies and assessment of data and
reports published by various federal and state agencies
lead US to believe the statement quoted above is inaccurate.
The map on page 46 of the "Summary Keport" has been over-
simplified to the extent that in our opinion it is inaccurate.
Thus, we recommend that it be removed from the report.
The Honorable Cecil t).
Page 7
Another major concern with the draft reports relates to the
fish and wildlife instream flow approximation* . In the
explanatory notes contained in the statistical appendix, Volume
A-3 Water Supply and Use Analysis, it is stated that fish anJ
wildlife instream flow approximations "are based on judgemental
estimates of monthly streamflow required at subreyion.il out-
flow jxnnts to maintain habitat for aquatic and riparian
plants and animals." We strongly question the accuracy of
these "estimates" and recommend they be deleted Tram the
tables since the authors apparently recogni:e their inadequacy
and have clearly stated that additional studies are needed
to obtain better data for state, regional, and subregional
Pi
mg.
10. I he Dinted States Department of Commerce, Maritime Adminis-
tration review of "Part III Functional Uses oT Water," Oiaprer
Water Requirements for Navigation (pages 210-231) revealed
tugree. Comments are quoted
several points with which they di:
for your information.
"Some of the material on page 211 is not clear and other
points are oversimplified. The Implication is that water
transix.rtar.ion organizations are not iWpcflSlblo because
they use Commodity movements" as a basic economic indicator
We contend that port and waterway authorities are aware
that their existence is not solely self-serving. They
provide economic benefits to the immediate area and to
far-flung hinterlands. In so doing, they must consider water
supply and environmental interests. Those same interests
have performed an excellent and worthy task by educating
Jiort interests about environmental concerns. It remains
a simple truth, however, that while ports occupy a very
small percentage of the area under question, their
economic contribution is generally the most significant.
"A misleading impression is possible on jiage 211. The
decline of water transportation did occur with the advent
of railroads. The railroads essentially bought up their
water competitors and did not try to develop them The
passage of the Panama Canal Act in 1912 began the revival
of inland waterbome transport by divorcing railroads from
the ownership of the water carriers and by conferring
authority on the ICC to act in the public interest.
"Wc take issue with the statement on page Z30 'The
waterway system of the United States is essentially
K-12
; v.=.V :'-«n>W. tr. . BHvt .!■» ,-« ■ --^
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Page 8
Complete. .. "and with the Huulifled prediction, 'A
limited number of improvements in port and harbor approaches
may be made' A trading nation, even one with a favorable
balance of payments, should not consider that it has
attained The optimum in transportation technology. The
possibility of improvement shouLd not he written off.
"We also note that
not mentioned. Dec
modes:
he <
BTU's per ton-mile by ir.odc
Water SOU
Rail ?S0
I'll* i,B5(l
Truck 2,\m
"As long as inland water transjwrt is free of non-compensatory competition,
its economic advantages [and disadvantages) will be appropriately
obvious."
11. The Conclusions stated on pages 43 and SU of the "Summary
Report" contain some statements that arc unclear, some
that arc inappropriate to the is:;ue addressed, :md some
that we do not feel arc supported by the data raid analyses
of the assessment, Comments pertaining to our questions
about the conclusions are as follows:
a Integration of Water Quality and Quantity Management:
It is our impression that Miter quality protection requires
major investments, regardless of the time lit which it is
done, and thus we feel the first sentence of this
conclusion is somewhat misleading as it is now phrased.
The second sentence of this conclusion contributes
further to the confusion by assorting that "Aggressive
programs directed at water quality management should have
been initiated before major depletions occurred as a
result of industrial and agricultural development and
urbanization. " We perhaps could concur that in some
Instances water quality management programs should have
been initiated earlier in time, but we fail to comprehend
the reference to, "depletion." Thus, we suggest that
this conclusion statement be reconsidered,
The Honorable Cecil U. Andrus
Page 9
[inviromnental Quality: The assessment analyses procedures
and data did not include methods whereby effects, "... in
the planning and decision making process...*' could be
evaluated. Thus, we do not feel that the conclusion is
supportable by the work of the assessment.
Integrated Ground Water Management: The following conclusion
is stated: "A major deficiency is the result of past failure
to provide institutional arrangements and to plan for
integrated management of ground and surface waters. Critical
ground water problems have emerged in the High Plains of
Texas north to Colorado and Nebraska, in central Arizona,
and pans of California. The problem might have been
avoided if interrelationships between ground and surface
water hod been taken into account."
Since the High Plains area of Texas has no major
Streams, and natural recharge to the final lull Aquifer from
precipitation is negligible, we question how the problem
of ground water decline could have been avoided by
institutional arrangements for integrated management of
ground and surface water. Since there arc no significant
surface water resources in this area, the statement quoted
above is useless as a water resource problem solving
statement and is highly misleading to the reader. Thus,
WC recommend that the statement quoted above from the
conclusions be substantially revised to place emphasis
u|)on the im|>ortant contribution that these regions are
making to Che nation's food and fiber supplies. Such a
statement, based on the facts as contained within the
aavCMwent, would thereby recognize the need to give
serious attention to finding a long-term solution to the
water supply problems of the areas where exhaustion of
the ground water supplies is threatening a significant
part Of our nation's source of food and fiber. The
High Plains Ogallala Study, P.L. SM-S87, is directed
toward finding such a solution for the High Plains area
referenced above.
P.iilurc to Adopt (sic) Policies to Changing Conditions:
The procedure* and data of the assessment did not address
this Issue; thus, wo feel that no analyses have been per-
formed which leads to or supports this conclusion and it
there ton: should he deleted from the report. (Lvcn though we
■lt.t feci lliis is an appropriate or supportable conclusion
of the a«ses sunlit , wo argue that it is enly logical for
those who <:Ucr into long or short to mi agreements with
The Honorable Cecil C. Andrus
Page 10
the federal government or any other entity to resist
changes in such agreements or changes in the policlu.'
underlying the agreements. Such agreements impinge Upon
capital asset values, employment, income, and local
community tax bases).
Hoodplain Management: This conclusion recognizes a
serious problem. No reference is made as tc the signifies
benefits that structural flood protection has produced nor
does the conclusion statement recognise the need for improi
forecasting of "flash flood" type storns, improved monitor;
and warning systems for those who reside in flash flood"
threatened environments, or the potential problem* and
inadequacies of, "...nonstructural alternatives in the
control and alleviation of flood damages."
Major Water Development j The conclusion that water
development and management programs have contrlh'.tpd to
national objective! of economic development should perhaps
be the leading conclusion of the report. However, it
should be expanded to include recognition that water
development has also contributed to improvements in the
environment including control of floods in the systems
referenced, provided perennial streamflow in areas where
BtreamflOW was previously intermittent, and made lnrg" am;
inhabitable by people who would otherwise he crowded
into the megalopolises of the nation.
Sharing of Hcsponsibilitics: The implication is given "hat
water resources programs arc largely Funded from federal
sources. Since the assessment did not address this Usuu,
the conclusion is not supportable. In Texas,- fnr the
period 1972-1976, more than 70 percent of average
annual expenditures for fresh water supply development
were supplied from local and st8r"
D sources of funds.
Integrated and Comprehensive Planning: The opening statement,
"except for some sections of the country, there is now nil
water crisis." is highly misleading, hiring the lp7<i-]tP7
period, the entire western United States and large areas
in the southeast suffered from a drought so severe that
the Congress enacted special legislation that provided
hundreds of millions of dollars for use in making drought
relief loans and granting financial assistance to communities
and individuals. Thus, wc do not understand how the
conclusions of this assessment can present a statement
Thfl Honorable Cecil I). Andrus
Page 11
such as that quoted above. Wc recommend that the problem of
drought be explicitly included as one of the major problem
of water supply to which water resources planning and
development programs must be addressed.
i. The future: the statement is made that, "Population hai
not grown at the rate anticipated, and the projections of
future water requirements for this Second Assessment are
considerably lower than those made for the Hirst Assessment."
Although this may be true at the national love], it is
misleading in that it fails to recognize the major and
extremely significant population dislocations and shifts
among hydrologic regions, as a result of the energy crisis
and associated technological and employment adjustments.
as well us population shifts for other reasons, all or winch
impinge in major way? upon regional demands for water supplies
and water quality protection. In many regions these
development pressures are encountering water resources Mild
other public service supply problems which local communities
were unable to foresee in time to avoid a crisis, and now
that such problems have arisen, a large number of local
communities affected are unable to solve these problems
and meet their immediate needs. We recoiiroond that the
statement quoted above be revised to recognize this type
of regional water resources problem. The assessment
identified a number of regions where the problem exists.
Another of our major conccins with the usefulness of information
set forth in the assessment materials lies in the original
delineation made by the Water Resources Council dividing the
nation into l\. water resource regions. I;ach of these areas
were seemingly arbitrarily defined to approximate a major
drainage or hvdrologic area and therefore, except in the
six areas of the nation containing river basin commissions, do
not consider the boundaries of any political subdivision such
as a state, county, City, or other political entity which has
jurisdiction over the use and development of water. To
our knowledge there is no one existing legal political entity
in the Arkansas-White-Red region, Texas Gulf region, or Rio
Crande region that has sole jurisdiction concerning water
matters. Rather, in each of these regions there arc numerous
local, state, and federal entities that arc concerned with water
matters. Planners and decision-makers at each of these levels of
responsibility require water and related information for their
respective areas (state, county, cities) as well as for
homogeneous subareas within their areas of legal responsibility.
To date, Texas' experience with national assessment as well as
related data such as the OBERS projections tabulated and published
K-13
each of tin- w.Uer rusi
i that no one could usi
i the accuracy nf
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
hy the H.iler Resources Council fur
regions contained in Texas has beei
Information even if we could belief
The tabulations of data for these hydroyraphit
state lines, have not provided information necessary 'for federal"
state, and local area planning or Operations To bo useful
for these planning purposes, accurate tabulations must be
developed which recognize the jurisdictions of political
subdivisions. To accomplish these purposes, the State of Texas
has engaged in a vigorous planning and data acquisition program.
Consequently, we feel that the assessment and related information
published by the Water Resources Council for areas not in accord
with accepted political boundaries is unacceptable for water
resource planning. Me further recommend that the various ferieral
agencies engaged in w.Uer resource planning and development nnt
be mandated by the Water Resources Council to use this typo of
information for planning purposes as is now the case. This view
is supported by the fact that for the past several years various
federal agencies have on numerous occasions requested from the
State of Texas detailed water and related information to supple-
ment or make sense out of the assessment and related tabulation;
which these agencies are required by the Council to use for
planning purposes.
We believe that your timely consideration of the above issues is particularly
important since the President in his water policv initiatives has recently
called for increased state participation in the federal decision-makin,;
process. In this regard, we look forward to wnrkinp, with you and the
Water Resources Council to develop prop.rams and information which will
be beneficial to the federal, state, and local decision-making process,
es (3)
Texas Congressional Delegation
Governor Dolph Briscoe
Lieutenant Governor William P. Hobby
Speaker of the House Bill Clayton
Lindon Williams, Chairman of Senate Natural Resourc.
Committee
Tom Craddick, Chairman of House of Representatives ,
Resources Committee
Harry McAdams, Director, Office of State/Federal Re
Texas Water Development Hoard Members
Joe Carter, Chairman. Texas Water Commission
STREAMPUW AND \-X\TM USI-; DATA
TOR 80i EXCHEDHNCB CWDTTKW5
VtiUJMf-TRIC DATA (mpd)
Dry Year Conditions
Strenmflow at Outfit
12,2Ui 11,900
Polntsfs;
Freshwater Withdrawals 18,299 10,510 17.02(1 15,212
Agriculture
Steam-Electric
Manufacturing
Domestici'
Conine rcial
Minerals
Public Lands
):ish Hatcheries
Other
Freshwater Consunptic
Agriculture
Steam-Electric
Manufacturing
Domes tic!/
Conme re I al
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Other
Ground Water Withdrawals 7 ,222 7,172
Reservoir Evaporation 1,289 1,743
13,091 7,597
8,161
6,726
10,005
7,487
8, SIS
2, 262
1 1 ,29ft 12,4311
4,961 NU
1.964 1,289
S,3M
1,972
Inatrcani Approximation
Fish and Wildlife
" (55? J **» mi l2Qi demands may exceed ASft water supply in future dry years,
1/ SRF doncsuc water use includes commercial and institutional requirements.
NE - Not Estimated
NA - Not Available
NF - National Future, The Water Resources Council's estimate of 1975 and
future conditions.
SRF - State/Regional Future, the regional sponsor's (Texas Department of Water
Resources) estimate of 1975 and future conditions.
STREAMFUW AND WATER USE
AVERAGE ANNUAL CONDITIONS
VOLUMETRIC DATA (mgd)
Mean Annual Conditions
Streamflow at Outflow
Pointfs)
Freshwater Withdrawals
Agricul ture
Steam-Electric
Manufacturing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Other
Freshwater Consumption
Agriculture
Steam-El ectne
Manufacturing
Domestic
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Other
Ground Water Withdrawals
Reservoir Evaporation
Inst ream Approximation
Fish and Wildlife
28,270 26,368 23.SS9 22,097 23,137 18.1S2
16,925
11,718
724
1,931
1,207
10,510
7,397
296
1,177
1,427
NA
15,930
9,530
1.000
2,560
1,380
317
13,212
8,230
712
1,466
2,556
NA
234
o
10.22S
7,794
270
1,003
467
103
10,005
7,487
5S1
1,485
15,538
7,655
2,262
2,443
1,621
300
1,245
10,530
6,328
16,391
9,. 199
J .508
2,273
3,379
NA
284
1,073
1,936
7.22Z 7,1^2 NU 4,961 NE 3.398
1,289 1,743 1,289 1,964 1,289 1,972
117
NE 22,917
NE
- Not Estimated
- Not Available
' KStoSmL^" """ """"" Cou"c,1's e"™t° °f lMi ■"
" SS'S!?"*1 ',"'""■ thC :"'""al W>or,»a«xts Uci.art.ient of
•Htm- Resources) estimate of 197S and future conditions.
STREAMFLOW AND WATER USE DATA
FOR 951 EXGBBDENCE CONDITIONS
JUIMETRIC DATA
Dry Year Cond
tions
Streamflow at
DllTfl
Point (s)
Freshwater Wit
hdraw
Agricul two
Steam- Electr
1C
Manufacturing
Domestici/
Commrrcial
Minerals
i'uhlic Lands
Fish Hatcher
Other
6,305* 6,220* 1,643' 1,949* 1,540 -1,996*
1,177
1,427
17,026
10,628
1,000
2,560
1,380
317
1,133
1,466
2,556
2,262
2,443
1,621
Freshwater Consumption-'
Agriculture
St cam- Electric
Manufacturing
Domestici'
Commercial
Minerals
Public Lands
Fish Hatcheries
Other
Ground Water Withdrawals
Reservoir Evaporation
Instream Approximation
Fish and Wildlife
12,464
8,161
11,193
10,005
11,296
6,726
8,761
7,487
7,094
8,558
270
357
994
572
387
1,003
551
1,915
413
794
467
1,485
541
1,936
0
7,222 7.172
1,289 1,743
NE
1.96]
1,289 1,964
22,917 NE 22,917
NE 3,398
1,289 1,972
A.SRs 12BS and 1204 demands may exceed ASR water suppTyTn- Future dry yea"
1/ 5RF domestic water use includes commercial and institutional requirement:
£/ Assumed dry year conditions for NF
NE - Not Estimated
NA - Not Available
NF - National Future, the Water Resources Council's estimate of 1975 and
future conditions.
SRF - State/Regional Future, the regional sponsor's (Texas Department of Wai
Resources) estimate of 197S and future conditions.
K-14
General
Land Office
AUSTIN. TEXM7B70I
BOO ARMSTRONG. COMMISSIONER
Environmental Management
1700 N. Congress
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: S12/A75-6902
J-'.r. Kennith G. Gordon i^W'*'1'
Ecorror ir Development .md Transportation ■, ,■'■ '■'. '
BudOflt and Planning Office
Office of the Governor
Executive Office Building
411 rfest 13th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
He: Draft Environmental Statement: Federal Coal Management Program
Dear Mr. Gordon:
Members of the General Land Office have reviewed the report on the Federal
Coal Management Program. We favor the "preferred program" as compared to
the alternatives considered.
This agency concurs with the Implementation of this project and we have
checked the Agency Review Transmittal Sheet accordingly.
A. J. Rishnn
Telephone: 512/475-1540
Approved: S/g&w A&&bat*ff\
Mike RightoSe*"
Program Manager/Director
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
JJ REAGAN V. BROWN. COMMISSIONER / P. 0. BOX 12H47 / AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLO iJER M/F
c 0 mments
wo have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the Fcdei
ftanatfaaon* PSOflrw and recognise BW monumental task involved.
Considerable attention tl given in the statement
o: sources. Wu would like to add the following sugg—
oe given to protect prime and unique agi
activities; 12) That consideration he given to the concontr.
a* generating plants which plan to utilize coal or lignite to fire their m i
Some recognition o£ the cossibilUy of "acid rain" should be given: and <)) T
emphasis be ffiVM to technologies which do not rehire "strip mining.
impact on agriuultul
(1) That considerate
il lands in the initiation of Bin:
;he concentration of industries si
Person Conducting Review (Signature)
Agency Text,s p^arcracr.t of Agr:
CU r. ■•/-//-..
JL
Dite 12-20-76
DNA-Peoples legal Services. Inc.
r,57
(-OMH1 NTS OH THE DRAFT EKVI RQNMEMTAL STATEMENT
FEDERAL COAL. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
There are numerous comments I wish to make here, most of them
addressing specific sections of the Draft Environmental Statement.
First, however, I would like to make two more general comments on what
I feci are serious inadequacies in the statement.
The primary, and I think most serious problem with the Draft
Environmental Statement, is that it totally ignores the issus o£
cumulative impacts which 1 know face the San Juan River coal Region
and which I presume may be present in other coal areas as well. As
you should be well aware, no development takes place in a vacuum.
When an area faceB extensive coal development on the one hand and
extensive uranium development on the other, as the San Juan River Region
does, any discussion of the impacts of one type of development is virtu-
ally useless without a thorough consideration of the other type.
Treatment of topics such as water impacts, socio-economic impacts or
air quality impacts are fatally flawed without analysis of the cumula-
tive impacts of all development planned for one area. I will discuss
further the need for investigating and addressing cumulative impacts
in the specific comments I will make later.
The second general, but very important, issue I would like to
raise is that although some very sound ideas are set out in the Draft
Environmental Statement concerning the mitigation of impacts, especially
social, economic and cultural impacts, through extensive planning and
consultation with those affected by the proposed development, the
LETTER REGARDING DES
PAGE TWO;
people of at least one area, the San Juan River Coal Region, have
already been precluded from participation and will not benefit from
these planning mechanisms because the Bureau of Land Management has
already prepared and is ready to approve an Environmental Impact
Statement for a large portion of that region, the Star Lake-Bisti
region. In the preparation of the Star Lake-Bisti Statement planning
mechanisms such as those set out in this Draft Environmental Statement
were not followed, and although the statement deals primarily with the
construction of a railroad spur and transmission lines, it is a cer-
tainty that if the construction is approved and completed the Star Lake
Bisti Region will effectively be designated as one destined for massive
coal development. The large expenditure necessary for the construction
of the railroad spur and transmission lines will make development of
the area invetable.
Unless the people in the San Juan River Coal Region are assured
Of the benefits of the planning process set out in this Draft Environ-
mental Statement by the postponement of approval of the Star Lake-Bisti
Coal Environmental Statement until compliance with the planning process
of the final Federal Coal Management Program can be assured, serious
problems of unequal treatment under the program are raised, especially
as they relate to those people in the San Juan River Region.
I will now discuss some specific problems to be found in the
Draft Environmental Statement, which I will take up in order of their
appearance in the statement.
PAGE 3-8, TABLE 3-1:
The listing and discussion of the unauitability criteria contain
no system for objectively ranking the various criteria as they apply
to specific areas. As the criteria, and the application of them, are
K-15
presented in the Draft Environmental Statement, an agency may make a
primarily subjective decision as to the suitability of an area for coal
mining without complying with any uniform system of determination. A
system such as this, with no absolute standards for decision-making,
is one that will result in unequal determinations dependent on such
factors as personal pcrferences, local consensus or industry pressures.
An objective ranking system should be instituted to insure objective,
uniform decisions.
PAGE 3-18;
In discussing the planning mechanism used by the Bureau of Land
management in determining an area's potential for development the
following statement is made;
"Areas may be eliminated [from coal development consideration)
where surface owners indicate definite preferences against the
leasing of the deposits underlying the private surface. Application
of this final screen would be at the option of the local land
manager, and it would not be applied where a consent had previously
been granted by a landowner".
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act o.f 15177 provides
that the consent of the owners of private surface overlying federal
coal must be obtained before surface mining may begin (Section 714).
Therefore allowing the local land manager to essentially override the
preferences of the surface owner in designating the land suitable for
development, causes serious problems in the application of the law.
By designating land, the surface of which is owned by people who oppose
surface mining, as suitable for coal development consideration, the
local land manager would create a situation where tremendous pressures
to consent to the mining would be brought on the surface owners by
the Bureau of Land Management has committed the area to massive coal
development without employinq any consideration of what level of
development the area can accomodate. Again, the people of the San
Juan River Region are being denied the benefits of a final Federal
Coal Management Program.
PAGE 2-24;
Since virtually all of the owners of private surface in the San
Juan River Coal Region are Navajo Indians who speak little or no
English, some discussion of how the rights of these people under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act will be protected should
be included. Details about the translation of the actual results of
a consent under the Act should be included in order to insure that
these people really know what they are consenting to. No discussion
of this problem appears in the Regional Statement and it is of such
significance that it should be discussed in the final version of this
statement.
PAGE 3-41:
The discussion of compliance with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act is troubling for the same reasons that I
have set out above. While the plan is to provide a two-level system
of Environmental Impact S ta'tements , one national and interregional and
one site-specific and intraregional, both applying the provisions of
the Federal Management Program, compliance with the Act is threatened
by the preparation of the Star Lake-Bisti Statement and the committ-
ment of resources which will be the Inevitable result of approval of
that statement. Unless the final statement on this area is delayed
and modified to comply with the final federal Coal Management Program
serious questions about the Management Program and its compliance with
NEPA are raised.
industry and government agencies wishing to develop land already
designated as suitable. In this way the owner's right to choose which
is guaranteed by the Act is interferred with, The Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act does not include a provision for the over-
riding of the surface owner's decision by any governmental agency.
The spirit of the law is violated by allowing the local land manager to
override the surface owner's preference in designating land as suitable
for coal development.
There is also an inconsistency with the planning process mandated
by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act here. The surface
owner must be consulted during the planning process and since there is
no provision for override of the surface owner's decision on the final
lease, it should be presumed that no opportunity for override in the
planning process is allowed either,
A consistent interpretation and application of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act is called for. Confusion and unequal
application of the law will result if present Bureau of Land Management
policies are not made consistent with the Act. The final Environmental
Statement should reflect a resolution of this problem.
PAGE 3-21:
The discussion of Threshold Development Levels again raises a
problem I discussed earlier here. The statement is made that the
threshold concept would be "particularly appropriate when considering
socio-economic impacts". The point is made that a certain area may
only be able to support a certain level of development.
Certainly the San Juan River Coal Region is an area where thres-
hold development is of vital importance. Yet by preparing, and pre-
sumably approving, the Star Lake-Bisti Coal Environmental Statement,
LETTER REGARDING DES :
Pagu Six:
I win discuss the problems contained in the discussion of
water impacts all at once, even though the pages I will be citing
are dispersed throughout the Draft Environmental StaBftmant.
PAGE 3-20:
Section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
sets out certain standards for the protection of the environment. One
of the standards set out is that the protection of all aquifers be
provided for.
In the San Juan River Coal Region, especially in the San Juan
Basin where most of the coal acitivity of the Region will take place,
coal development win probably depend exclusively on water from the
existing aquifer. However no discussion of how the aquifer will be
protected is included in this section, since aquifers provide the
only water supply for much of this region, discussion of mitigation
measures is imperative.
PAGE -1-31 :
The statement is made here that "potential evaporation exceeds
normal precipitation by a factor of 6 or more" in the San Juan River
Region. Certainly this factor has a direct relationship upon the
recharge to aquifers used for coal development. Yet no discussion of
the total effects of massive dewatering and minimal recharge is con-
tained anywhere in the Draft Environmental Statement.
PAGE 4-33:
The statement is made here that water from the aquifers likely
to be drawn upon in coal development are of "poor to fair quality".
This is a mistatement, as the Westwater Canyon member of the Morrison
Formation which is the aquifer most likely to be used in coal development
Jn contains excellent drinking water used by the Crownpoint area,
K-16
LETTER REGARDING DES ■
PAGE SEVEN;
impacts to this aquifer will affect the only good drinking water avail-
able in the San Juan Basin. Substantial impacts such as this should
be treated more fully in the final statement.
PAGE 4-36:
The statement at issue here is that water will be "a stringent
limit on development". How stringent a limit water will be must be
more fully discussed and here we run into the problem of cumulative
impacts. Given the massive uranium development planned for the San
Juan River Region and_ the equally massive coal development there is
no doubt that water will be an absolute limit on development. Discus-
sion of this limitation is imperative.
PAGE 5-7:
In the Coal Impact Estimation Program no mechanism for determin-
ing or mitigating impacts to water quantity is included. Since the
reduction of water quantity in the aquifers of the San Juan River
Region is a certainty given the development planned for the area, this
issue should be addressed in any estimation of coal impacts,
PAGE 5-26:
Under the section dealing with wnter impacts the problem of
cumulative impacts is very serious. According to the figures in Table
5-10 water demands in the San Juan River Region from coal development
could range from 30,000 to 52,000 acre feet per year depending upon
the alternative chosen. It is a fact that in the San Juan Basin,
where most of the coal development in the Region will take place, the
only water available for coal development will come from the Westwater
Canyon aquifer. Claims that water can be obtained from the sun Juan
River are unrealistic and misleading. Information from the New
Mexico State Engineer's Office and the United States Geological Survey
reveal the following facts.'
Extensive uranium mining is planned for the San Juan Basin during
the same time period in which coal development is planned. The
uranium ore in this area is located in the Westwater Canyon aquifer.
Therefore water must be pumped from the aquifer in order that wining
may take place. Dewatering rates of 2,000 to 3,000 gallons per minute
are common and rates up to 10,000 gallons per minute have been report-
ed. The total quantity of water pumped out of the Westwater canyon
by presently proposed mines could exceed 40,000 acre-feet per year
by 1983. The effect of this dewatering will be to lower the water
table of the Westwater Canyon by as much as 1,500 feet within a 50
mile radius of the mining operations. Artesian pressure will also
be reduced or eliminated so pumping will become a necessity. Since
the Westerwater Canyon is from 2,000 to 3,000 feet below the surface
to begin with, this lowering of the water level effectively makes
pumping any water remaining in the aquifer to the surface an engineer-
ing and financial nightmare.
In the Draft Environmental Statement is a water budget of anywhere
between 30,000 and 52,000 acre feet per year for coal development in
spite of the fact that in the San Juan Basin uranium development alone
could realistically deplete the aquifer. There is a very real possi-
bility that there will be no water available for coal development in
this area. Any discussion of water impacts without consideration of
this fact is incomplete and totally unsatisfactory.
PAGE 5-28:
The discussion of water rights here should include the problem
of Indian title to groundwater. The complexity of the issue, the
problems of competing interests between the state and Indian water
rights and the fact that no final determination of the ownership of
the water underlying much ot the coal in the San Juan River Coal Region
should be addressed in any discussion of the feasibility of coal
development in that region.
PAGE 5-41:
AS I have pointed out above no discussion of the availability
of water for coal development in the San Juan River Region is suffi-
cient without addressing the realities of the situation which are:
1) Virtually every drop of san Juan River water is already
allocated and it is probable that none will be available for
coal development.
2) Coal development in the San Juan Basin will have to depend
entirely on water from the Westwater Canyon aquifer.
3) Cumulative demands on this aquifer will raise a very real
possibility that no water will be available for coal development.
The problems raised here with respect to the water impacts of coal
development go to the initial question of whether the entire San Juan
River Coal Region should be considered at all for any development.
These impacts should be discussed at the national level and should
be included in the final Environmental Statement for the Program.
These problems should also be discussed at the regional level.
Again, the Star Laka-Bisti Coal Environmental Statement does not
address any of these problems. If the regional statement is-approved
and implemented the area will be committed
knowledge that there will be sufficii
i development without the
ater to support that develop-
I will discuss the problems in the statement concerning reclaim-
ability of the land all at once even though the references to this
problem are dispersed throughout the statement.
PAGE 4-33:
Although the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act mandates
LETTER REGARDING DES:
PAGE TEH:
reclamation of lands which have been mined, and although the statement
here describes the soils of the San Juan River Region as "shallow,
saline and erodable" , no substantial discussion of the actual methods
for reclaiming this type of soil is made.
PACE 4-34:
The statement "all areas may be reclaimed if topsoil can be
replaced and adequate moisture is available". This type of meaningless
jaaertion makes a mockery of the whole process of mitigating environ-
mental impacts. Of course all areas can be reclaimed if those condi-
tions are present. By by facts stated in this Draft Environmental
Statement, the San Juan River Coal Region is one of fragile topsoil
and virtually no precipitation. The possibility that reclamation may
not be possible should be discussed as well as the resulting possibility
that with no, or minimal, reclamation coal development may well force the
migration of all those people living in the area to be developed.
Here the statement is made that all mined land must be reclaimed.
However by looking at the reclamation potential set out for the San
Juan River Coal Region it is apparent that there is no certainty that
reclamation may be achieved. By disguising the reclamation potential
for the region in the number -6.9, a reader could be led to believe
that there is some hope for the area. But an examination of the cri-
teria used to reach that number combined with the realization that the
scale of reelaimability runs from -8 to +8, reveals that there is a
real possibility that land in this area will not be restored to its
prior use, grazing. The possibility that land will not be reclaimed
effectively must be included in the final statement or the people in
this area will have only an apology as mitigation of this problem.
K-17
I will now address several separate problems in the order in which
they appear in the Draft Environmental Statement.
PAGE 4-3 J:
The San Juan River Coal Region is one of exceedingly complex
land status. The discussion here should include a description of
these various categories of land which include: Tribal trust land.
Tribal fee land. Individual Indian allotments, Executive Order Land
(set aside for exclusive Indian use and occupancy). Public Domain
Land, Private Land and State Land. Each of these types of land is
administered differently and by different individuals and agencies
of the Tribal, State and Federal governments. To merely state that
moat of this land is "Federal" land is to minimize the difficulties
inherent in land use planning in this area. The difficulties are so
great that a tri-partite agreement had to be reached between the
Navajo Tribe, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs for the management of the area of proposed coal activity.
This agreement and the problems which caused it to be adopted should
be included in the final statement.
PAGE 5-50:
Any discussion of air quality impacts in the San Juan River Region
must include the effect of the cumulative impacts of uranium mining
and milling.
PAGE 5-B2:
The discussion of impacted communities is inadequate in the follow-
ing respects:
1) Although it is stated that a growth rate of more than 10%
on small communities would require special planning, no dis-
cussion is made of what effects any population increase would have on
areas where there are essentially no services, as would be the
case throughout the San Juan River Region.
2} No discussion is made of impacts on communities where there
are no services, no housing and no private land on which to
build these things.
3) No discussion is included about the boom-bust phenomenon
experienced in areas which have sudden development but which
have no structure to hold the influx of people after the develop-
ment is over.
t) No discussion is included about the effects of increased
population on Indian communities, where English is not spoken
and traditional lifestyles are dominant.
These issues must be addressed in the final statement.
PAGE 5-85:
The discussion of papulation increases is faulty because it does
not take into consideration that population increase will most often
take place in areas away from the major population centers. Especially
in the San Juan River Region, the population increases will take place
where there are no established communities, and therefore the impact
of increased population will be much greater than estimated in the
Draft Environmental Statement.
PAGE 5-94:
The evaluation of where the work force for coal development will
come from is based on the assertion that agricultural workers will be
available for the work. In the San Juan River Region there are virtu-
ally no agriculturce workers to draw upon. Virtually all employees
in the coal development will have to come from outside the area. This
influx of outsiders constitutes a considerable impact and shoud be
LETTER REGARDING DES:
PACE THIRTEEN
discussed.
PAGE 5-94:
The evaluation of impacts to agriculture based on the dollar
value of the productivity of an area does not allow consideration of
the very real impacts to areas where people grow or raise only enough
to support themselves. These situations must be addressed.
PAGE 5-94:
A discussion of who will bear the financial impacts of coal
development in Indian communities should be included here. Much coal
activity is planned for Indian areas which are not on a reservation
and the issues of who will bear the costs is pertinent h£;re.
PAGE 5-96:
Here again there is a problem of what will be done in Indian
areas with no tax base.
PAGE 5-115:
There must be a discussion of the impacts of coal development
in areas where there are no existing paved roads. The following
statement points out the inadequacies of the Draft Environmental
Statement in this regard:
"Perhaps the most important impact would be the perceived, rather
than actual, impact of truck traffic on a local community-in terms of
traffic volume, noise and vibrations, coal spillage and visual impacts".
This irresponsible statement points out that whoever wrote
this Draft Environmental impact Statement has no perception of problems
outside the scope of suburban life where this statement might have
some validity.
In the entire San Juan Basin, that area of the San Juan River
Coal Region where most coal development will take place, there are
two paved roads, neither of which comes near the areas to be developed.
The impacts of traffic related to coal development in this area are
tremendous and must be addressed,
PAGE 6-1;
The discussion of the implementation of the President's mandate
on comprehensive planning through cooperation with the state govern-
ments points out a problem. Virtually none of the area to be developed
for coal in the San Juan Basin is subject to state or strictly federal
control. The absence of a mechanism to involve members of the Indian
communities in the planning process effectively precludes these
people from participation in the process. Mechanisms must be devised
and implemented for this participation or the effect of the absence
of such mechanisms must be addressed in the final Environmental
Statement.
PAGE 6-3:
The statement is made here that the changes brought about by
coal development will bring about long-term opportunities for impacted
communities. In many areas the changes will actually spawn ghost
towns and the eradication of traditional lifestyles. These end
results should be discussed in detail in the final Environmental
Statement.
This concludes my comment on the Draft Environmental Statement
for the Federal Coal Management Program. I trust the points I have
raised will be reflected in the final Environmental Statement.
Very truly yours.
Lisa G„ Gmuca
Law Clerk
K-li
prepared by Carolyn R. Johnson
Public Lands Institute
RkW- ' 'I"1"""'
VH"t? tv 1740 Hieh Slrccl, Denver. Colorado 80218
•^uSm"* Telephone 303-388-4171
COMMENTS
on the
PROPOSED COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
and
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 5TATEMENT
058
This programmatic statement and the preferred alternative represent an Im-
provement over previous coal management statements and programs. Pll to—ends the
Department for recognltlng the need for a federal coal management policy and for
integrating coal management with land use planning.
We strongly urge the Department to issue a new draft statement. This
draft uses questionable assumptions for analyzing the need for leasing, contains no
truly programmatic alternatives, and erroneously describes the environment and
analyzes Impacts, Because these problems are so massive, the reader and the
decision-maker are mis-informed about the nature of the program and its expected
impacts. Thus, the draft must be redone and public comment solicited once again.
Our comments are organited into a section which describes some inadequacies
of the draft statement and preferred program, and a section which analyzes and re-
vises the lands unsuitabilHy criteria.
DESCRIPTION OF INADEQUACIES
Assessment of the Need for New Leasing
The analysts of national need for leasing is based on several questionable
and Illogical assumptions:
1. It presumes that national need can be determined on a regional level
at a later date (p. 3-4. 5). however. Judge Pratt in the NRDC v. Hughes
Public Lands Institute
not coal management - which is the subject of this statement. Federal coal
management can include leasing but extends to many more activities than coal
leasing alone, such as land use planning, us. of non-coal resources, management of
existing leases, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, etc.
Following are examples of how the alternatives fail to be legal program-
matic alternatives.
,. »n federal leasing alternative (Sec, 8.1,8). This means no leasing
until 1985. It is not inconsistent with the preferred alternative which is
described as "should any leasing be contemplated" (p. 3-6. Sec. 1.1.1.8).
2. Process outstanding, preference right lease applications. (Sec. 3.1.3)
The discussion state,, "this alternative is not necessarily inconsistent with the
preferred program or with the alternative of leasing to meet 00E production goals."
(p. 3-7)
3. Emergency leasing. (Sec. 3.1.4) This is the same management as that ,n
the -emergency leasing" phase of the preferred alternative (p. 3-6). The lease
terms would differ slightly.
4. le.se to satisfy industry's indications of need. (This may be a
true alternative but not enough Information is given to determine how management
would differ from the preferred alternative through all probable steps. It appears
to concern only lease tract selections.
5. s„t. determination of leasing levels. (Sec. 3.1.6) This is illegal
because present statutes mandate the responsibility for leasing to the Department
of Interior. This is admitted in the statement, "Both structures would require Con-
gr.sslon.1 action to amend the governing statutes, especially FLPMA and SMCRA."
(p. 3.14). It differs only in one small aspect from the preferred alternative.
state selection of the amount and timing of new leases.
6. umJtjMB OOF production goals. The description states that the
Public Lands Institute
specifically ordered the Department to consider the need for any leasing in the new
programmatic statement. To be legal and useful to the decision-maker, the assess-
ment must be on a national level first.
2. The analysis makes a circular argument. The DOE National Coal Model,
which 1s the basis for the conclusion that federal leasing 1s needed, uses a least
cost model. One of the presumptions in that model is that federal leasing will be
resumed to make available least cost coal (p. H-7. Sec. H.Z.I. 10).
3. The statement justifies additional federal leasing and production of
western coal because of more rapidly Increasing western demand for coal (p. 2-10).
Yet the projection of production and consumption in Tables 5-2 and S-3 show western
production grows at twice the rate of western consumption between 1976 and 1990.
State participation.
The preferred alternative sets up a special role for state participation
in coal management (p. 3-26, Sec. 3.2.5). While the States would be "consulted" at
many points, there is no discussion of their corresponding responsibilities. He
believe that the States and governors should be given the same participation rights
as the general public and Industry, and no more. Although the statement is made
that the states' role stops "short of providing them veto power over Federal
decisions." the "governor would also be informally consulted prior" to a decision to
lease. In practical political terms they will assume a veto power over coal deci-
sions. As the recent battle over water projects has shown, giving the states some-
thing for nothing establishes a habit that is almost impossible to change.
Alternatives.
The selection and discussion of alternatives in the statement 1s seriously
deficient. Most of the so-called alternatives are not true programmatic management
alternatives at all but are leasing pieces that may differ slightly from the small
leasing part of the preferred management alternative. They concern leasing only.
Public Lands Institute
Department of Interior "would not call for any adjustment in those (DOE) projec-
tions." (p. 3-14) and the Department max make s00,e adjustments in the 00E projec-
tion under the preferred program;
"Biennially the Department of Energy (DOE) updates its
national coal production targets ... These targets would
be submitted to the Department of the Interior. The De-
partment would review and. if necessary, adjust the por-
tion of the national targets which applies to the eight
regions containing Federal coal." (Emphasis added.)
(p. 3-5, Sec. 3.1.1.2.)
In conclusion, real alternatives were not chosen, and those chosen are
not sufficiently described for the reader or the decision-maker to understand the
possible courses of action.
Start-up Special Considerations, (p. 3-28)
The preferred alternative is based on the sound principle of Integrating
coal management with land use planning for all resources. While the principle is
sound, the execution of that principle, as proposed, misses the mark and misses
so badly that the principle is lost. The major problems with the preferred
alternative are the hasty schedule, which calls for lease sales in mid-1980, and
the premature use of the program now, without waiting for the proper decisions to
be made. This haste creates massive problems 1n all program areas. For example,
this does not allow enough time for the District BLM offices to put into effect
the new land use planning system.
Instead, adoption of the real, preferred alternative 1s put off and the
"start-up special considerations" (p. 3-28) phase Is substituted for up to 15
years, according to the proposed planning regulations (1601 .6-3(c)). This substi-
tute is nothing less than the activities done under the old system. EMABS (Energy
Minerals Activity Recoimiendation System), dusted off and Injected with life again.
As the basis for EMARS activities, land use plans for federal coal
resource areas were hastily developed. BLM at that time worked under the policy
K-19
Public Lands Institute
that promoting coal development on the public lands was its mission. During the
development of these land use planS[ coal was tne prfnQ reSour<.e> and mny ^
responded to industry nominations of proposed lease tracts. The management needs
and uses of other resources were addressed only if they did not conflict with coal
development. If conflicts arose after the plan was completed, then the plan was
quietly altered to accomodate coal, at the expense of other resources. For
example, the Williams Fork, Colorado, plan in its original version called for BLM
to manage the Little Yampa Canyon of the Yampa River as a candidate for Wild and
Scenic River status - kept true of developments. When the W. R. Grace Corpora-
tion selected the canyon as its economically favored route for a railroad to serve
its Colowyo coal mine, BLH altered the land use plan without public notice to
acconmodate the railroad, other feasible and less damaging routes were available,
but BLM saw Us mission as serving the coal company's every whim. A canyon was
destroyed.
The existing plans are based on Information that is poor or lacking on
some resources such as non-game wildlife populations and needs, and they
deliberately ignore information on other resources such as agricultural values on
private lands overlying federal coal.
The results of this land use planning are proposed to be continued under
the "start-up considerations phase." The plans will be overlain with the thin
veneer of the lands unsuitability criteria. Lands unsultabllity criteria is a
much needed management tool which we fully support. As proposed, the criteria are
weak and Ignore important kinds of impacts, but these can be corrected with
rewriting. However, their effectiveness depends on the quality of the land use
planning system, which forms the foundation. Use of the criteria cannot redress
the deficiencies of the planning system, just as one can't patch a crumbled
foundation. Yet these criteria are being used now, before public comment and
Public Lands Institute
rewriting, before a coal management system has been chosen, before compliance with
the national Environmental Policy Act, and before new land use plans have been
written using tne multiple use-sustained yield mandate of FLPMA (Federal Land
Policy and Management Act).
These problems are caused by the adoption of the 1980 lease schedule.
Vet the Department 1s able to lease in situations of need under the court agreement
no- and lease sales could be held In 1980 under that agreement, if it was still in
effect. The case for a rush Is not justified and furthermore, the schedule pre-
empts and undercuts the goals the Department says it wants to achieve.
Description of the environment and analysis of impacts.
The description of the environment and analysis of environmental impacts
section are misleading, contradictory, erroneous and perfunctory. We have
selected reclamation in the West to illustrate these problems, but another com-
ponent would serve as well, such as socio-economlcs. wildlife, water, air, etc.
1. The optimism on the potential for reclamation success in the West
defies the environmental facts. For example, 0n page 4-34. it is stated regarding
the San Juan Region:
"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."
This optimism is not backed by the facts presented
in very short supply:
"Annual precipitation average less than 10 inches for
most of the region ..." (p. 4-31), and "Groundwater in
the region is generally of very poor to fair quality
where it is available," (p. 4-33);
the statement.
the topsoil is poor:
"The major limitations of the region's soils are shallow-
ness, salinity and erodability." (p. 4-33);
Public Lands Institute
and the climate is severe:
"Potential evaporation exceeds normal precipitation
by a factor of 6 or more." (p. 4-31).
2. The optimism on the potential for reclamation success 1n the West defies
history. On page 5-32, a table entitled "Time Required to Reclaim Mined-Land
(Western Regions)" states, by area, that very precise amounts of time are needed
to reclaim to rangeland and cropland. For example, it states it takes 9.6 years
in the Powder River area and 14.1 years in the San Juan area to reclaim to range-
land. Neither in the text nor the table are any areas cited as living proof of
successful reclamation to rangeland, according to the standards of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act and regulations. "Rangeland" reclamation is
not defined. It can mean introduced annual grass species; native perennial
grasses, forbs and shrubs; regular applications of fertilizer, water, and/or
herbicides.
3. Sources on western reclamation are misinterpreted. For example, the 1974
report by P. E. Packer is referenced throughout the reclamation sections. However,
Packer looked at only three components: soils, precipitation and vegetation from
the standpoint of stabilizing the site — not reclamation — and his work predated
and did not include sufficient field trials to determine reclamation success
according to SMCRA. His work represented an early effort and in no way attempted
to be anything more than preliminary work.
4- The statement neglects to meaningfully discuss the impacts of land
disturbance and reclamation on other components. For example, the discussion of
wildlife and reclamation on p. 7-8 is nonsensical. It does not describe reclama-
tion using native species useful to wildlife, only "young stands of pine (5 to 15
years)," although pine would be inappropriate for many Western areas. Such as the
Powder River Basin.
The wildlife section purports to be part of an analysis of long-term
productivity losses versus short-term use of lands (p. 7-6). It concludes that
"any surface mining operation would result in a temporary loss of habitat for
certain species." The implication is that the wildlife go Into suspended anima-
tion or conveniently move away until their habitat or living space is reclaimed.
They don't, they die. And some species may never reinhabit the area.
Furthermore, the discussion of reclamation in the west to "rangeland" is based on
the table on p. 5-22. discussed above, and the discussion fails to point out that
reclamation to replace wildlife habitat in the west, if it can be done, takes
50-100 years. To date, it has not been done (oral communication, February 5, 1979,
Harold Tyus, Office of Biological Services, U. 5. Fish and Wildlife Service).
In sum. the sections on description of the environment and analysis of
impacts are written in the philosophic vein of Pollyanna. They should be com-
pletely rewritten to present the facts and present logical conclusions derived
from those facts.
T7
See "Wildlife in America," by Peter Hatthiessen, 1959. Viking Press. This is a
comprehensive history of American wildlife that vanished or became so rare that
last-ditch protection barely saved then from extinction. It covers the period
since White man's arrival in North America.
K-20
flBlmmmmlmaaMimm
Western Colorado Resource Council Inc.
Boi 201 HoicbkiM, Celo. 81419
Phone (303) 872-3902
059
February 12, 1979
>'r. H. Hobert Koore
director {140)
Cffiee of Goal foar.agement
Bureau of Land Kanagement
SeDartment of the Interior
13th ann G Streets, £.»/.
nashington, li.C. 20240
SMT tol*« koore:
2hl western Colorado Resource Council, Inc. has reviewed the
d»ft Federal Co&l KaMgOMAt PTOgraOl Environmental Statement
(•-"3) and submits the following comments for the record. Kn-
closed with the comments is a copy of the testimony presented
av Karfc Ml»h on behalf of the Resource Council at the January
24, 1979 HS hearing held in Denver, Colorado.
Our comments are directed towards those portions of the E5
eoncerni-.g special leasing ooportuni ties, surface owner consent,
emerrency leasing, the lands unsui tability criteria*, and other
matters.
Special Leasinr Opportunities
Chanters STTTaSw J. 2.° refer to tne provision for special
leasing onsortunities for rural electric cooperatives, non-
profit corporations and feoeral agencies required^in JSectior. 2UJ
of tne Federal Coal Leasing ^mendments^
the LS does not adequately analyr-
eate the significance this type
i erred program.
.■.hen the Secretary selected the preferred program last June (Sec-
retarial Issue Paper - the Formation of Proposal for tne Cc
Prograraatic environmental Impact Statement)
"puoi'.c uoi;'" Lea:
program and that
Tne details concerning possible priority for special leasing
opportunities and the percentage of leases to be offered to
oublic bodies sre non-existent.
:n addition, the system for considering and processing lease
tracts for oublic oody leasing must include end-use considera-
tions Tne' department seems unwilling to adopt a policy which
of 1975 (FCLaA).
ublic body" leasing or indi
leasing will have in tne pre-
re deiiaetl mat
in? would be a major component of the leasing
ts use would be encouraged.
•under separate cover
February 12, 1979
Rr> H. Robert Koore
Page Two
would considfr end-use of the coal resources, but these end-
use considerations could easily be considered in determining
if a specific tract should be considered for a special leasing
opportunity.
Surface Owner Consent
Surface owner consent is a major element in the preferred pro-
gram and is of vital importance because of the fact that more
than half of the federal coal in the infest underlies private
surface.
A major objection to the surface owner consent policy described
in the KS is that the consent process continues up to and beyond
the tine the land is leased, and the Department can ignore a
surface owner's refusal of consent and lease the coal under his
surface.
Surface owner consent should be obtained early in the planning
process, and if it is not obtained, the tract or area should
be eliminated for further consideration for leasing. The surface
owner consent (SOC) provisions of 5M0&A are obviously for the
benefit of land owners who do not want their land disturbed by
mining. To allow split-estate tracts without SCC to proceeo
through various "screenings" in the leasing process places ex-
treme "pressure on the land owner who may feel he has no choice
but to finally give his consent.
Emergency Leasing
'i'he So-callec emergency leasing described in thciS would perpe-
tuate many of the deficiencies of the various short-term leasing
policies adopted by the department during the last eight years.
The criteria an applicant would have to meet assures continued
manipulation and speculation on the part of the coal industry-
They place the Department in a role of reacting to industry-
initiated proposals. Again it will be industry which dictates
the time and place for federal coal development.
In western Colorado we have many examples where companies develope
small private and federal lease holdings adjacent to large areas
of federal coal in anticipation of receiving a larger federal
lease. Although the amount of coal reserves on tnese small pro-
perties do not justify the company's financial investment
do assure that the mine will r..--ve to shut down if ai
lesse cannot be obtained from the federal government.
If the criteria required to obtain an emergency lease remain as
T-roposed, we will be assured that the speculation will continue
Changes in the criteria dealing with the number of years a company
;merge
production prior to filing
must be in
bf»8ie of f«v»*
applicant's inability to foresee the need for leaeral eoa.
r.re necessary.
•'-9 ePCt that the lease tr*-ct would hove t're unsuitn'oility
criteria allies to it is meaningless becvase of the oroaa
Pxce-t-ons «,ftd tfr* amount of discretion allowed the local
uire-er.t that the sr-le be compatiole with tne
j WO nrotection at oil, because the plans
"only rrovice faidanct" or Cftr- oe c"ft"'~etl t0 accomodate non-
compatible pror-osals.
'ha re-'
•"inri the draft H5 to be totally inadequate m aescnoing
e*-ieed for leasing, the preferred, program, «t<r a.U«rn»UV8
:- tic im^cts that a coal management program will have on
the i.est
Than* yoi
I'B/xh
iincl.
■ consideration of this matter.
.Sincerely,
Tim Srater, President
western Colorado Resource Council,
Western Coiorac-o Resource Council Inc.
Boi 201 HoiehlU., Colo.81419
Phone (303) 872-3902
STaTEKoNT OF MARK WELSH on behalf of ASTEBJI COLORADO RESOURCE CCUKCIL, INC.
RE: drift programatio environmental lUttunt for the Federal Coal M*ftftE,B:ont
Program
Denver. Colorado
January 2^*, 1979
I. INTRODUCTION
Hy nam is Mark Welsh and I an testifying here today on behalf of th»
western Colorado Resource Council, Inc. The Resource Council i* a memberahlp
corporation baaed in hotohklas. Colorado, we believe tliet the Interior D-part-
wnt needs to develop a responsible federal coal policy, and speoifieally, a
policy which la responsive to the agricultural, social, and environmental values
of the Mat.
My comments will bo directed towards portions of the draft proRramitic
environmental statement which address the laauea of nMd for additional leasing,
the preferred alternative, lend* unsulUblllty criteria, and start-up considera-
tion*.
II. HAS THE DEPARTMENT jU&QUVreLi IDENTIFIED THK HEED FOR ADDITIONAL LSASXSGT
In the sections dealing with the need for additional federal coal
leasing, the Dapartawnt appears to ha»a aceapt*d DC£ pro>cUons whara it la
convenient, and dlsrvgardad tboa\ whara they war* not aonvonlont.
In Saotion 2.6, tba Intarior D»p*rta»nt hmbi to h*v» concludad that
naed »ay bo dlffloult to prov«. but tn*t It Is bettor to leasa too «uch than
not enough.
In Section 2.3.1. the assumption la Bade that aotttal producUon of coal
Is not llkoly to oocur unUl five (5) to ten (10) years after Issuance of a
Ld*M. W* qussUon thla MauapUon. In Colorado, we have numerous examples
of einas produolni aotl within two years of receiving a lease. The lead tie-
needed to get • sdne In production la often exaggerated, in aeourete lead tlaa
la needed In order to determine need— (tie longer the lead tie*, the sooner the
new)).
This section quite aocuretely states thet "... the failure of the
Department to show a Deed for leaalnc mi cited by the oourt in MP.DC v. Hughaa
K-21
STATED N'T OF MASK WELSH
January 24. 1979
statement of mm «lsh
January 24, I979
as a principle defect in the previous coal leasing programatic ES. "
Judge Pratt's Order and Opinion of September 27. 1977 requires thai
the Department justify the need for new leasing prior to the adoption of a
new program. Tne ikipartmunt apparently does not share this view. This is
evident from a statement made Oy Robert Uram (Solicitor's Office. D01) during
the January 5. 1979 public information meeting in Grand Junction. Colorado.
In response to a question regarding need, Mr. Uram stated that "1 don't think
that the inLerior Department has to be able to demonstrate need to lease
00*1. . .If the Department thinks It could promote competition, if it thinks
it has better land than can be developed more than private land . you can thinl.
of lots of reasons in the public interest to lease." (Attachment 1)
wto are disturbed by such statements ana tend to view the Department's
argument for need as merely a juggling of figures and acceptance of questionaol
assumptions needed to support its desired conclusion that leasing is needed.
III. PREFERRED PROGRAM: General Comments
The Resource Council is especially concerned about the reliance on the
oureau of Land Management's land use planning system for making major decisions
in the federal coal management program. „, reoognizo that the integration of
coal management in the planning system is required by Congressional legislation
A primary concern is the fact that the new Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPKAj regulations are being unduly influenced by the prioritization of
only one resource - COAL. Theoretically, it may be a good idea to use the
planning process to make leasing decisions, but it is essential that the new
land use planning system is firmly in place before tne Secretary formalizes
.ltiple
the Department's leasing policy. The FLPMA regulations must in
use of all resources (agriculture, water, wildlife, timber, rec:
others), contain adequate provisions for areas of critical envli
corn, increase puollc participation, and accurately reflect KEPA
In addition, old plans oust not be grandfathered.
oecause tne preferred program is based, in large part, on
planning sysWm, wo must ask — what is the real purpose of a lai
and how would a specific plan regulate the Management of ooal7 |
ktioi
plan,
m <3)U
of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act (P.L. 94-37?) states 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 compatlole
with such plan." (emphasis added).
Under the present land use planning system and the proposed FLPKA
regulations, almost any leasing proposal would be "compatible" with the plan.
The reason for this is that the BU claims that MF7s provide guidance, not
mandatory instructions.
i would like to cite an example, under the present polloy, showing tna
probably any leasing proposal can be found to bo compatible with the oLM pla*
-In 1976. a short-term lease application for over 2,200 acres was
filed in the North Fork Valley. At that time, the management frame,
work plan restricted short-term leases to 480 acres or less. let.
in July, 1977, the District Manager determined that the coal lease
application was compatible with the plan.
Under the proposed KLPMA regulation!
as usual. Section 1601.6-3, Changing the I
plans to oe amended §t
with the original plai
The essential elements of good land Use planning, such as the applica-
tion of adaquaU unsuiUbility criteria, aulUple use management of resources,
surface owner consent, tnd the development of soclo-eaonomlc thresholds are
meaningless and offer no protection if land use plans ean be ignored or libera]
modified.
The final FLPMA regulations must come to grips with this issue ar,Q recof
ntn the real purpose of MFPs. '* strongly urge the Department to adopt regu-
lations Which require that land us* plans be mandatory. If land Use plans givt
general guidance only and can be ignored at the convenience of non-compatible
proposals, then we will question whether coal development Is eontrolled by land
use plans, or are land use plans controlled by coal development.
IV. LA,\LS UNSuITA-ilLlH CRITERIA
The tS states that the critical decision curing the land use planning
process is the application of tne lands unsult.bility criteria. Me are i„
the same thing - businoi
Management Plan, allows
> that specific proposi
i will 1
longer be in t
STxauum of x*wc ^lsb _4_
January 24, I979
complete agreement with tnls statement, but the present criteria are
unacceptable.
Major problems with the criteria fall into two (2) categories
A) the exceptions; and,
d) Lhe omissions of off-site impacts.
ning will
needed.
The exceptions are so broad and vaguely worded as to make mem meaning
less. The exceptions give too much discretion to the local sLti,
The general exception for underground mining ignores the severe lmpaeti
associated with underground mining. TMs exception states that federal lanos
that will be mined, where the mining will result in no surface erfects. will
bo considared suitable. How is it going to be determined that there will be
no surface effects in a given area7 The general exception goes on to state
tnat tne unsuitability criteria will be applied where undergi
produce surfaoe affects. A concise definition of surf*ee ef
and it should Include the definition of "surfaoe coal mining
Section 710 of SHCrU.
The criteria are limited to on-site non-cumulatl'
teria do not apply to off-site socio-economic impacts. This approach is extr
narrow and must be changed. The Department must incorporate into the critari
1) off-site access and development problems; 2) ability of local Communities
to provide necessary social services; 3) tne "carrying capacity" of an area:
4) water usage, and the probable diversion of agricultural water to municipal
istrial usest and many other social and economic factors needed to da-
whethar an area is suitable for mining.
Chapter 3 states that land uso planning will be respo.
communities and land owners affected by federal ooal develop:
prove impossible to achieve if off-tract criteria are not developed. Js are
told that surface owner consultation and consent, along with a multiple use
analysis, will provide the opportunity to consider these off-site impacts. b<
those of us in Astern Colorado are left unprotei
1 impac
and 1
to local
This will
Section 3.2.4.1 states
I by this
■ apply to underground
S?A3£«EST OF KARX 'pteLSH -5-
January 24, I979
rt'e have little faith that the dLM's multiple use analysis in the lane
use planning process will do more than briefly consloer and then ignore impact
to other resources ana the local communities. This lack of faith is based on
our oxparionou with tho 1977 minerals revision of the North Fork MFP. Tn«
multiple use analysis resulted in a recommendation tnat many specific tracts
be rejected for further consideration for leasing because of major resource co
flicts and unacceptable impaots on local communities. The status of these
"reject" tracts was later changed by the state Director so as to allow tneir
development.
Although the Resource Counoil recognizes that all screening of coal
lands cannot take place in any one step of the planning process, we encourage
the Department to make appropriate changes in the unsuiUbility criteria to
eliminate deficiencies identified in these and other comments.
V. 5PECJAL STAr-U? CONSIDERATIONS
The Resource Council is concerned about the legality of the special
start-up considerations described in SecUon 3.Z.6 of the ES. The first para-
graph of this section states that "Huch of the general resource inventory and
land use planning required under procedures described above will have been aom.
plated or will be well begun by the date of publication of the final version
of this statement."
In plain English, these start-up considerations include;
A) Use of existing land use plane;
0} The premature application or the unsuiuhllity oriterle; and.
C) 19»0 Lease Sale Date.
A) EXISTING LAND USE FLANS.
The Department should not rely on existing MFPs because many of them
were prepared under EKARS. In addition, these plans were adopted without the
benefit of FLPHA, and might remain that way for 1$ years (1601.6-3(e)). It
is probable that these plana did not comply with the 1600 series manuals, and
none of the plans complied with NEPA. Also, many MfTe have been criticised
because of lack of data in the unit resource analysis, excess of discretion,
limiteo time for preparing plans, and laok of public involvement. For these
K-22
UBMflBHnHBBSi^nHZEa
STATEMENT OF HARK WELSH -6-
January Z<*, 1979
and other rations, it la obvious that tha Dapartetnt should toss tha old
HTPs out &nd start with & elean slate.
BT PREMATURE /PpLICATIOH OF UKSUITASILrri CftJIKRIA.
The application of unsui lability criteria should ba halted bacausa of
Uu following rcasoni" :
1. Tha criteria we part of tba preferred program and should not be
applied until tba criteria are in final for* and a coal prograM in affect.
2. Tba oritarla ara baing appliad prior to publio oosaaant.
3. Tba final criteria oould bo diffarant tbaa tba propoaad oritarla.
k, Tba Dapartntnt la looking itaalf into tba prafarrad alternative.
and will bo unabla to seriously oooaldar otbar alternatives.
5. Tba ELM dooa not ban an adaquata data basa.
6. Tha oritarla ara baing appliad to tan (10} priority laaaing araas.
7. Tha oritarla ara baing appliad to existing approved (tfPa. aoaa of
which should not haw baan approved.
8. Instruotlorfl atata that application of tha oritarla " . . .should,
in affaot, oonfira prior planning deolaioni." (F.H. No. 79-**, Oot. 13. 1978).
9. Tha oritarla ara baing appliad to (approximately 900,000 acres)
acraaga auffiolant to result in at laaat forty (40) potential laaaa tracts in
Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah (F.H. 78-85, Sapt. 21-78).
10. Tba November. 197& to hay 1, 1979 lahadula violates NEPA and tha
Distriot Court's Ordar in NRflC v. Hughe ■ (Attachment 2, Tarria latUr of aov.
24, 1978).
C. 1980 LEASE SALE DATE.
Theen ■ tert-u; considerations would not ba necessary if tha 1980 coal
laaaa sale data was not ao rigid. Both tha publio and tha Department would
benaflt if this laaaing data were abandoned io that D01 oould taka tha tie*
to "do It right" and develop a satisfactory ooal policy without frantically
trying to moat political deadlines.
Unfortunately, wa ara doubtful that D0I will halt Its application of
tho .unaultahlllty oritarla and abandon tha otbar start-up oonsida rations.
A draft Instruction «mo froai tha Dlractor to tha State Oiraotoro concerning
STaTaWMT G* HJLK UKISS -7-
January 24, 1979
planing for tha prafarrad alternate maksi it perfectly clear how i-portent
is tba sdd-1960 laaco Sale schedula. A major portion of tba sobadula pertain,
to ne« rational- 1* ro-dar Uit, Qlnto-Southwe.t Utah, and Graan Rlv-r-
H* aa Fork. Tha memo raada. In part, "em hew also baan given par-iaaion
to delate elamente frcei tha prafarrad alternatiTa if naoasaary to hold a
1980 sala."
Thl« sawo, the December 8. 1978 Federal Bagiater notiea for tha unsult-
ebUitj criteria, tba memos doos-mntUg aalaoUoa of araas for applying tba
criteria, end no t-too- subtle thraats by an Interior Department official, leave
no doubt aa to which direction tha Department is heeding.
la andlng my tostinony. I would like te aaka ao-athlng Just aa olaar
H all tbosa Bureau nmmoa-thet tha naw program looks Uka a glorlflad EKARS.
or. aa thaj call it In hmnhi«gton,"S<» of EJURS-. And whan m know of raaarka
Department offldsla to tha affaot that "It's too bad what ia going to happan
to that nice little vaUny-. - can only conclude that tha Interior Dapartemnt
might ba abla to changa a prooass. but is unabla te influence tha and result.
So, la whoaa hands doss that rest?
Thank yew far your
tits* and oonaidaratlon.
nark l*lah
Waatam Colorado Rasouroa Council, Inc.
HtzM
060
OlORADO OPEN SPACE COUNCIL 1325 DELAWARE ST. DENVER.COLO. S0204 303 573-9241
BoyvsWTS of thb Colorado orsx sries ccu:;cil ki::ing workshop on thf.
DRAFT BKVIBOHKENTAL STATWEKT, FKDERAl COAL IttMAflnXEKT PROG HA K
These comments supplement the oral end written statements presented by
the C0SC Kininr '-iorkahop ot the January 85, 1979 Denver hearing.
I, OVERVIEW
It is difficult to overestimate the importance to Colorado and the West
of having e sound federel coal msnarement program in place. For too Ions:,
federsl lands - and especially federal Usds contoinina! coal - have b. en
osnared in a hsp.viasri fashin.i which h(\a catered to the latertdta of user
industries, Asiong other thinM, this has resulted in the issuance of hundreda
of federal co»l losses oont.ininK billions of tons of coal. These leases, of
oours-t, were issued st industry's behest end without much thoupht to environmental
considerations. Pr^duct.on froo these leases alone will couse vast ehsnfes ir.
our reirion. Those cheats ere already happening in many ■"»'
approved mines are signlficsntl;
[..-edicts thst this la only the 1
niistinft leases is slated to he
clmoot six times it by 1990. M
jerally-
1 production, yet the Draft £S
U Western coal production from tnose
rly four times the 1976 level by 1965 and
e told this will occur even without leasee.
?uite understsndably, our masibors sre preatly concerned with these projections,
especially in lifrht of the DeDartment of Interior's propensity to lease coal
on^ to exercise littla control over the rate end timing of development from
existing leases. The Department's premature implementation of the lands
ability criteria, the purpose
of which in to prepure for lei
,-.-,<_■:
year, end such actions as proceedinc wi
even though five of the six mining plan
thourh Administrations have chanp-ed. In
actions have remained the same.
This is the legacy which the Depar
Final '.■.'est-Central Colorado Si
e invalid end obsolete tall us
or'o cool management policies 1
nust face up to if hopes to huild
3 st*ie-widc en"ironmcnial coordinating council
public confidence in and ret acceptance for a cool raonorement program. ir effect
what is needed io for high-level Interior officials to rein in the bureaucracy,
whicn is eomforteble doing w>it it has always done - expediting conl development.
Field rersonnel up to the Etadr Dirrcloro mu.rt be river, the mesrsre loud »nd
clear that BI.K io enterinr into s new ere of lend iranarement, snd tnen the
Burrau must do so. Old hsbits and accustomed Mftya of land nonaremenl will not
die easily, but we sre hopeful that it can be accomplished ^f Washinrton truly
wants to see it done.
?r.e formulation of a comprehensive coal -nananement program for the public
lands offers sn outstanding and unioue opportunity to correct the errors of the
past. Any new program, however, must he hased on the following premises:
1) Cosl ia out. one of the meny valuable resources of the public lands.
It io not the dorr.inont resource and planning for the public lsnds must not
be ollowed to revolve around it. Secause of this basic concept, the cobI
ir.snace^cnt proxrem should not precede or tafce precedence over the formulation
and implementation of e propram for manafing the public lands on a wnole,
2) Just es coal management U but one component of the larger iss--e of
pubUe lands msnsgemsnt, so is coal leasinp merely one componen- of coal manage-
ment. To lost eight of this fact and let either of these relationships ,:et
reverted would be a serious mistske. The upshot of lettinp cool leseing dominate
coh! nanapement or coal nenapement dominate lend management can only be to prolonp
the :ime it takes to got s workable syoter in place.
Si The primary poal of aehievir.r comprehensive, equitable, and environ-
mentally sound management of the public lands, and therefore of cool as well,
connot itself be achieved by t-e time of the 1980 Presidential election. This
can occur only with the writing and implementation of new land use plans based
on those principles. However, we sre convinced thst s system for achievinp that
goal can be firmly in place by then. This can happen, thouph, only if the
Depsrtment is willing to take the necessary time and effort on the next year
to develop such an acceptable land r.-inegement propram. Operating on a politically-
motivated timetable ie sure to be self-defeating, for Interior as k
the coal industry and the public.
Previous attempte to develop cosl propramn have failed becausi
tried to fight egsinst these princir?es.by bowinr to o wronply-per.
Judpecents and by letting coal leasir,- take orecedef.ee over both ci
and lend use planning. From the Draft SS or.d the Department's reli
it opoears thst the currant idainiart ration io falling into KM oam,
11 ss for
the Depart
ment
ived pollt
ical
1 msi:opem«
«
ed action:
K-23
HHHHaaam^nBnHBHBHIHBBB
n,r, u „« ...... why th. o.„rt».nl ah0„lri ,tt alM ^^ >p4o_
K« therefore .urgest that the Depart.ont:
- ..b.„don 1U objective of hojdinr r.a.^c „,,, >M„ ,„, ^.^ ^^
•-o hav. an acc.pt.M. sy.ter, to, c,pr.h.r.i.. l,.,d „„ ,l.n.i„r „a „,i
r.n.re.ort in place by then.
- r»»d«„„.,n, «-.„„,„, th. ,w„,iM „, tM TOid for |t##tw_
- innate father leasing, when it in sn.wr to be necesa.ry. only on
th. ba.i, of . new pl...i„, „.,„„ lr .eeord.nc. witn FLfrj ,„d only „„»«»,
to lar.d u'e plans developed under that .yjjtfla.
».'Mr .11, traditionally, fed.r.i „., no:i=y tom,s „«„ .,,., alrr„„,
fro. federal water polio, in that both were un.ound boondogrl... But th. C.rt.r
M.ir1.-.r.tion was c.urare.u, .nonrh ,„ r„„d.»ent.ll, revise f.d.r.l w.„r pp11=y
bri.rinr i, i„ ..cr „lt„ th„ ...logic ,„d economic realities of th. present
The .ffort „. successful. ,„ i. tn. U„ f„. tn. Ad„i„l.,„,lo,t ,. ,1M1,„,
re.io, :.d.r.l coal- and land-man.,..^-, policy. Conor..,., throurh rUM .nd
=e Federal Coal Leasing Amendment. «ct, .,.. ol.ar.d th. way for in. Department
to t.k. th, nec....ry st.ps. taw i, i. on], , ..tt.r of your will to do so.
''•it look forward to otinp active partners in tr,at endeavor
::. •'"-': tp tDM:zor.;.i federal scaj. -*..:• ins
■■ th. Denver h.erinf we presented a hritf anelyfi:: of tr.e discussior if
need :or Mrttwr leaeir.* whlc,. t- f0u-d in (bt Kg 0ur conclusioK WSB t,B. ^
''<* di-curr-ion of .-e#d was .rossly i-ncCUra-e and unrealistic, sr.ri tr.et a
r.-so.acl. ansly^s of tn. .„*;}„« would r««iM a fundamental revivor, of
the study, assumptions. K. .-ill MM r;c,, out 0.Jr eritU,e ... pr#glM ^.^
for r,e r.»rtM«'C benefit, but r.,,,er. to add (hit BwM DUE.r>l, M„ or:3v
he-ir. to touch upon the problems v.-r.ic- tr.i- £. V ,rB;v-:j p]- .cecj Bt,--a...
■.] f--c.-ec-.ions in tr.e TS of conl demand ar; supply ore be„ec on tn. ful]
■MUM --.- -n^wer to tr.e oiies'-ion t-.ey'-r- a.-,:.]
inBDprocri.1-... 4- analysis of neec bases 0.- V
need :c .Mfp mor* cob] when you aspurre t.-.r- ~<
BSIuKptier ttr,t :.-.. ~epart»en- r-.-ir-.ed v-'i- ■ «
B. The entire field of possible environment.! constraint.
■■ coal
Lr circularity fe obviouply
lault of
_. J ^.^ ^...ivhMtiKoi wu:iflLrai^,fl on coal
prodnntion 1. O.ilt.d in th. E.i'n an.ly.in of n..d. Tb. DOE »od.l i. pr...ntly
onabl. to d..l with thin ml ioport.nt ..ri.bl.. Th./"nJ;ron..nt.l .o,t"
"Mob it oon.idero i. th, efr.c .hi,h flu. f.. d.a»lfuri„tion h.a on th. pri..
of coal. Th. .od.l in not .ouipp.d to deal with ..toal phy.lcal or .nviron«.nt.l
constraint, on coal production. It asju.es th. tot.l .ub..r.l.ne. of environ.
mental consid.r.tionn to the economic, of »l..«t coat" coal production. By doing
•o, th. mod.l ....... tb.t n.tlon.l ...Milt. ar... will „i.t, ,„d ipj... , t„.
K five, no indlc.tion th.t this will not b. .llow.d to occur .. .
future Deporto.nt.1 decision..
»»t only doe. the DCE .od.l f.i] to t.k. s.riou.ly th. .ff.ct of .n.lron..nt.l
eonstr.lnt. on co.l production, but th. r.m.ind.r of th. D.p.rt.«nt'. .n.ly.is
perpetuates this error, as well. W. Bre even told explicitly th.t it la a
"».n.r.l ..thodolorie.l ....option" (p. 5-l)of th. otudy th.t .nviron..nt.l co.flioti
between co.l davelopraect and otner resources do not e.l.t. "D.v.lop.tnt of otn.r
r..ourc». i„ the r.c.r.l co.l ...ion. will not aiCniflc.ntl, int.rf.re with co.l
d.v.locnent under the Fed.r.i coal r.anafr.ment prorr..." (p. 5-3).
Thi. ...umption of no .n.iron».r.t.l conflict, i. tr.n.p.r.ntl, f.ll.oloo.. '
IT coal lavelor^c^t will not ' .i.nirie.rtly interfer." with th. d.v.lopa.nt or
oth.r r.sourc. (wildlife, wilderness, .«„ie and ...th.tic ..lu... w.t.r.h.d,
.fricultur.), th.n th.r. 1, no need to writ, .p EIS on .n, ph..« of co.l d.vel-
op..nt since th.r. would n.v.r b. any .«!„,, associated with co.l oini„, .„!.,
would .i.nific.ntly .ff.ct th. .u.lity of tb. huu. .n.ironm.nt. Such .n ...u.p-
tion turn. th. world on It, n.,d and in tr.. b.r,r.in «!,.. . li.r out of Judj.
Pr.tt, who.. M.»or.nduH Opinion in KFIC ,. Hucb.. st.t.d: "Th. .nviron.,.nt.l
conoeouenee. of .r.y national coal le.sir.p pro.ram cannot b. geineaid.. .."
Tb, Ei'a .naly.i. of n..d for le.slng, tbo.ph, .tte.pt. to do pr.cl.,1, th.t.
Thi. r..ult. in . mo.t curious schltophr.nic attitud. within tb. Dr.ft.
*• learn in one .eoticn of tn, KB th.t th.r. .re no ..ultlpl. use conflict,
.ri.in, fror. co.l d.,.;op..nt »„d th.t tni, f.ct.r car. b. igpor.d in ...s.ing
futur. 1...]. „f co.l .uppi, and d.,.nd, wbil. lr. other p.rte of th. doou..nt
Interior pi... u. .„ infor..tio., overload of tn, environ..nt.l ,ff.c,s of co.l
with urn. upon. t.M. or "r..ldu.;r". fc, ,., ... ,pp.r.ntl, h.„ „. r.l.tion-
ship to each other end tr.e sr is fnr fror clear
mtiss of numbers which it :.»?. s-.r.erD ;ed. Secause
addit:c,n: co-: deveiorTPnr (j.. %.*%, U, 1.7), „, ar, supposed to believe tha
iceming how it will us. the
, . . though
this, even/the ES says that
• ff.l
upended -nini
i do
38]
b thin problem .e
the neeeer-ary water vi.ll coae \ roir som.whe in;
economic cost, or del,y. To pu; it n:iicll.v,
of the =S'o treatment of nil environmental v
C. A furtner assumption of th# Z?, ie t
or,ortaroS wil] not B4p,iri«a«y di = tcr: th.
r.dfral coal manap.in.nt Dro.-ram. '■ (p, 5.3),
will inhibit the doublir,,- of coa] aroduction
stat.d roal and one ©I tne gggu of :nc pref.
Common senoe, th. industry, and the r.en«
with this blithe assunp-.ion. Tor .x.r.pli , 01
J0Ur"Bl "n ° '■■ont-oaM story entitled "Ine,
Proposes Tacea Vyriad Pi-obl.m8; Amonr Them. ,
portation, and Industry's fiesirta.iee." The a
Cnrter'a plan to increase coal use sirnific
Cn closer scrutiny, it look* alaoes imoossi
everyone recorrr.izer reel-world COcstrainle
except the Department.
Chainan Louis Kenk n.j stated -..-.at his co»
i-- "critically snort of carp and locoootive;
Um Co. USA, ha* stated t,at 'Tne limit.t;
by this fact and that it wil]
erion, thereby shiftinrr production
cn as th. East). In this example,
witnout any environmental or
tnio scenario - which ia typical
*-ues and resources - de fien belief.
'.at "Leber, .ouipment, end capital
projected levels or timinr of the
In oth.r words, none of th.s. factors
by 1905, which Is President Carter's
orred alt.rnativ..
?ral Accountinp Office all disanree
1 June 9, 1977, tr.e Wall Street
•eaainr Us. of Coal as President
^ine Capital, Pollution, Trene-
rticle bejran: "At first. President
tly by I9fl? seemed difficult,
e." Once apain, it is typical that
the demand and supply of coal
-al '
31.
ation will not be a problem stonds
spokesmen. aurlinpton Northern
>ny, a leadm.- transporter of co.l,
', and Sandall I-.eyer, President of
in (on nroducin/t Western coal) i»
• 11 street Journal. Feoruory lr., ]o-,<
Exacerbatinp this rrobleir , of course, i
which will he r.nuirtd to huild uc the railr
to hardle and move a six-fo3d ineresfi. i- ■>
time neriod 19?6-ir-9o. Aeeordin- to tr.e El,
movement by railroad will increase ot an eve
ton-mile., in 197,; to ;7? billio, t^.^^^ ±
3:.rr.rinr increare eau-e in? finar.cinr- or e
BS analyais of supply and demand levois; "Ve.
and tee railroad industry timlf (n. e-ion ^,
estimate in th. Tr is that tr... lndustrv will
■ al im
'or/c
u the hape Quantities of capital
oads- coal haulinr capabilities
stem coal production over the
durinr that time period, coal
-. faster rate: from 110 billion
i 1990 (p. 5-109). Will this
ruipsent problems? "No," nays the
■," say omer portions of the E£
• H3). The moat con..r».tiVe
reouire £1? billion just to nake
p. :--115). This will m
»nd whi
! -Ll\* vari»'»lec included in the
> model 'r. assumDtions
iorrespond to t.-.e real situation
chore for an industry wltont finonciu] strenr-tn
0 rate of return on e<v-ity inventment of 2:;,
Sino* eoal trar=port«tion costs 1
DOE model, it is instructive to see .-.
in the ir.duntrv. Firs- of alS we 'Pl. -■
B±., we nee ...a. .r,- -tfl-.-nnre iipuroc. are 'msed on
1977 1C~ rates escaled at an ir.f'Btior ra"e o' "i "W r— a
-i-.-unor. re.e o. 5.5^. Cne does not need to be
an economist to know '.r.nz our nre--ent )n'"i»--n. ^..
our pre. ent in..f...on rates are significantly hifr^er,
.nd that by 1,00 ,„. differ.nc, between tn, two could nave .„ appr.ci.bl. .ff.ct
on co.l ro.e,.nt whicn, of course, if not r.fl.ct.d in th. DOE .od-1 as ore-.ntly
it.r.t.d. FPrth.r.or.. th.«. l?-7 „•« ,re, .ccordm, to th, railroad indu.try,
.ros.ly in.d.nu,,. to «„.„.. tn, c.nlt.l „p.„,ion which th.y „..d. I„ ..rly
1976, for .....!., Burlinpton i.orth.rn .no Southern P.cific .ppll.d to th, ICC
for perrission to raise their co- r»ui,r. r.,-. cw ... ,,
*v. . -".lire rates 5<f* or. the Wyoming to 5an Antonio
run. Tr.ey er.-ued tf.at they need. d tr.e rat. ir.creaae to be able to raise capital,
but opponent said t.*.#! such a boost would nave a serious effect on efforts to
incree.-e coal production oecauso it would wioe out tn. coap.titive edvant.re of
coel relative „ Other fuels. Kali .'trt.t JcurnaL fey l6, 1976. p. l7. ^ .s
nowhere an.lyz.s thi, argument, probably b.c.ua. it u..s .v.n older rates. The
TOE model -houie be re^alibratei
the more basic problem that th.
orocably oeeauae it uses cv
accordinrly. Of course, even this will not solv
code] and t.-.e Es'a analysis of need in peneral
enuipment shorta«s and timing problems of
1, end additional lines to increase coal haulace
:cs of the railroad industry to e
is. of the cos] industry itself,
.k ouoted in the Wall Street .Inur
buildin.- e.~ouph cars, loeci
by sore SCO^ by 1990.
The £.ft,s estimater of the capital
Weaterr capacity, nowev.r, pale nesin*
A UP Pyreau of Yines study, fer exa-pl.
a. e.timetin* that even to r.acr. 968 B-»f«. tons per year by 1985 C-pproxi-a
eaual to the "low scenario") would reouire a capital inv.stB.r.t of Sf-5.5 billion.
Tt would also d.m.nd tr.e trsir.in, of =51,000 n.w miners. Wall Str.et JoUrn.i
September ?6, 1977, p. 2S. Thi, is ra incredibly difficult hill to fill in
the next six years. No wonder, then, that th. General AceouBtinK Office
concluded th.t dcublin.- coal production to 1.2 billion tone by I9S5 is impossible,
• r.d tha*. reaohinf even on. billion tons would oe very difficult. Id.
Yet, the Tlraft E3 assumea that achievinr tne hiRn.P of the'two levels will
tol, or equipment problems. It merely easumes
iblerr
:xist
iay
K-24
m colly bankrupt assumptions, and. of
otaer? which we have not diseucrerl :.»Tf , ti" -i consistent and rross underestimation
□ r the harriers to con] i-eveicprrer.L. This r. turn lends to projections of coal
d'-velcrment wh:c.\ m*Vly inflate the exnectcd levels of 3upply and demand,
thereby aervlnp to "justify" additional co^l iMaintf. From junt the fororoinf
it is clear that DC I h»r= fa'leri to Mtatjifi', n real and prerisin(- need for Ice.iir.r,
But we do not need to rely only or. t-e assumptions underlying tne analysis in
order to discredit it, for tr.e actual result » of the analysis itself are subject
to attack. Indeed, tne work of ir.dcpendani forecasters showe tnat the ZZ estimates
Of supply and demand are all hi** by »(. ordrr of narnitude in ti.at the IS
respectively .
"he Report of the National "osl Policy Iroiec-., for example, lists there
tr.ree estimates of 19?' coal Erocuctior. [pj». 15°-lcC):
SUM (197^) 865-3066 million ton;;
'■■orkuhon on Alternative Enerry
Ptr»ttrl*n
lit DejwrtBieet of tecTtre*
r'inM *nd QftC renor-r. nttO'.ti -irove nlno confirm tnst ti.e "low" lr<'65 scenario
it: ti.-a one raort likely -.c re r-hc:ed, er.s tint the "r.edlur." is unotlair.acle .
SiKilarly, a 1977 Cff.cc o' ~.cc r.oLory - ■ sersmen. report on the, ..ationa". \n«rry
Plan Stated, that "'.he Jtveln 0' jo-eriic -jpriy rro-ectcc i.-. tfl* Plan reprener.l
tit* upt-er linattF of cacacity, or.r! 3'JTtlivc of all fuels ore likely tc- fa:' below
tne Fla-'s oroiuotior tar-eta," ',?. '' . !lce« tne "." "mediur." and ":.i.-.-" rcensri
• TSnTOjciKBte the'projecUor. of eoal una ar.ii tr.erefore renrencnt the "upper licit
of
we should 't rie».:
Wit* the lr: ".
. ;o*r r.umner,-.
:au\6 Msc f»vo a: irsae'
to ri--e "only" to t-e 1 1
•'<"'., it .-eenr rc.;ar...r.li
01 i,uu.*», -j,_i --BKnr'ahle ranees would be.
obviou^y celled for, hut it does 8iir»at wr.at reasoname tp
n „,;;,. .... «, ».».*..« 1.« — ■« «« "'™:;:;;;\i:rt:r:ii;L»
th. r.rv.lou. «' eorout.r. &»«»» ■"»"• however, "«'•"" an
„=.n,rio should not r.jr.»« 'he ""•*" «■» °f ■"••"»" l" *"" °' "' ""'
„,„«.. .01.li h.v. round .tot it «"1 »« »"«•*»• " ™"r' °"0'; * '
■. ,h.ull b« •»• one moo' li*.l» " i"v»Iop. Th..
Instono the "medium" scenario should ee -ne oni
<»h iri ^^ annlvai." of need,
or.oen-.ly is not tl.. eo.e with tr.e ... ■»«■' .„,-,„ ,., lot. ,„,i,s!
„„.. ,.* end 5-5 oren.nt ».. »•«' .«^1« !■•**« '" ° "« » * *
C.ep.e- e rive, the io.nen.ion «h.t if W.I.1 >•■* « »» » " »«
o^ooetio, .m «, — » •- -;-•»» -; :iv; a::;:P„„ .,
j' .* =nri hlirS ItilO rroauction levels would recuire •*«"«
.!T.«* .. .?...r.rh ...! p»*».i...."*.« '•««- i-i- -»" "-; ^"
ItX.1., in .eni.vin, »'■ d.«l«-«." <»■ »-»»>■ '"" *"""" ^
, . — 1. '■^ante- 5 whicr. snows tr.at BVBK ^ITH .10 BE»
contradicted by tfl« m-o^.^. ■■ -«i ■«• • ^ ^ ^ r ^..
ivasi»:3 ;:atic;ial psodu:tioi: '.■■ill K ,:i-t:::" . <■' ■ ■>- ° "— "
:;!Z'..;. .-r.--,-iV- KSDim- -™^IC ITS 1990! Tr.e priory difference between
. :.:. --.*.. .t-- — - . .rTu.ti ve 'or lDO0 is that
th, „ ... le.ninr .1»»M>1« »nd =■• pnef-.-ned .l.ernetive for
., „. „,, ....njy .".ntnin'lted oro^nd th. v.«tlo:.. 10r «U iOo
°!"..ttl-"' would cone out .:' t» Powder »».r rencr. wkW.1 -" '" »'-'
. .lM„,tl„ .,,,..)-, i--r rronuctio.
i_creni'r-1y f.ord under tne r,o ..e> *
riflinr Tor 57 rrillior tor.S in- t* 3« million ■
„•«]• if no national s.ortfal' eve, if the I?9C "«.»«" wa, 1.
wile- 3ee-r iniucasibly hirh.
'" Vavinr t,US failed -.0 dero-r: r«- e -. acv-al r.eec for «.-
?' ir.cr^a^e coirpctition ir. th* coal ir.cu.-tr;; ar.d
»; ie neceer.Bry anyway to rrocesr rSLAt--.
7r.P«* a1-- «•*«>?' -° ena'nli.- . re-nor.? for 'MBirx, rfltntT 01
r-roC ;f r.eec, --r.ese "r.-wer.:: nrOMJ t — »■ c°^' ' ." ^
--»»••. ■>- wn»t Interior re»l"r w-ir-- l« do - lea..c,
- • „.uii--vp tV'.lB' •'."■■' -I1"' ""'• 3ri1 "fi
1 9c . Hu : t r. i :
ntlKt not and will not be :.ut\iec--»d to tr.e ls.jw«tfl of u fe'.eml leasinr prorram
on the hosin of DCI ratior(*lif.»tiM».
Ir.te-ior armer tr.it len.-ir.- r .aula ^>e rerur-ed because it "offers airnif-
icant lerel and adiririr rntivn ndvnr.t»<!ee" for tr.er. elves (t, 2--<5) . The detailfi
of thia «d/r.itted?y eel :-r,ervir.,- fir-urer.t nre contn:-,cd ir. total in tiiree p»ra <*.!•» phi
tr.at i: -eeds a full-.-=cule lea.-.lr./- rro«-rnr in order 10 issue Pk'J1.. If tnat ie
to
■■jo, t!'.M why is there a Renarr,:? DltitriMtivo ir, tile SC oevoted/proce.^r.in," PRLAs?
If a full motile lensinr rrorran recl'y ±« needed to process and issue 1'RLAr;, ther.
there could be r.o separ.-te |]ta-natiV« whic:. would accoiriplini. the same tr.inr:.
The other two supr.orjod renror.n for renewed losainr cannot witnstand scrutiny,
assumea t.-.at Interior k-iov* wr.at [Jir.irM it wanin to oseourapa. The ?■" riveo no
indicattor, tr.at Ir.ter.or nan '.-;' .;.- hrovrledr-e. Without tr.it>, Dt : eennot herin ti
ynow -.he Mtttt of the -"urro.-ed rrohleffi whiff.-, it ir, tryinr to i^olve. Nor is
i: clesr tnat if Sftt 'enartner.'. kr.ew w.-.a; constituted an "inp.-oved pattern
of develop-ent". that JaaaiCff i? tr.e or.ly, or the nosi desirable ,' way to achieve
"uararouo option." cr.tr t.-.ar leer-.iar exist if DOI cru:.y wonta to dir-ct
develonrrent. It could rure:.or:e leases, desii-r.ate tr.err, unsuitable for mini.-iR,
formulote l*nd une <plazr wr.ic would ;rchihit development after certain thresnoldo
ere reacted, ure ita powers to den.V access to applicants, redesignate eir nua'/ity
re<-i0!!3, afrresaively ouraue P."." ravifwa,, deny mir.inf- plans, designate wilderness
areas ar.d areas of critical e.-.i" ronirental concern, and arrressivel; oxcrcise
its trust resrcnaibilit-ea towg-d Ir.oie; tribes. The list poes on and on.
The tellir.s point, nowever, ir. tr.at Interior's disoussior. of the ways to promote
desirable development totally irnores means ruetl as these to control unwanted
development. Rather, it concentrates on iasuinr- more leases so tb»t it can
"contrc!" dCVVlCSKer* cr t-.one leader while the unco.-.t -oiled development continues
to be uncontrolled, Thie doesn't cake rrjcr, sense.
Similarly, the arrv-jent falter? that leasing is n^cesrary to increase
competition- It ir r.ot tV«r. clearly estatilisr.ed ti. a' /competition is a r.ajor
nroMes in the conl industry. 3ut if tr.ir. wore a cor.corn of the t-overnment ,
here Brain, it has r.umerour rrean?. at i".r filsncj*". by which to resolve the problem.
It could, for irntancp, ru-.-ue vertical or :ierizontei divestiture, prohibit
«.«.« 0f a certain so.— . 1 use thl rowers ertaalishea ir. J-ection 5C1 of fSSttA
to rtery rijrhts-of-way whici would rive applicant? unfair cor.netitive advan-
tsrefi, moke the Justice Denartr.ent 'c OBtilrvai review of lease renewals and
rf-H.'^rtrrerts ir.een somethinr rather than the? pro forma t.-e'j t.rcnt tncy're rive;
IM1K I .'*■ >ction 15 of the »dera] Coal learinr ».- endr-er.tr; . ct of 1976),
enforce tr.e provision of tne r-'ineral Leasicr Set waiflfl "arn conrron carrier
rB'-lroarit from obtaininr federal leases, and conduct 11. afrcscive antitrust
r-.'Viev v:.t-r lease ansipn.Tents arise. Seosurco rue:, at those would appear to
re ff.UBf, /.ore effective near.s of promotint- competition tnan ltaainf;. As d-.'scr:
;r t.*,» '"■, the Interior approach to a-titrurjt if applied, for exarple, to
tee r-eel industry, would not oe to oreak up tr.e risnts wr.icn are tne cause
or tea problem, r.nt:»r it would r.e to m-,ke Rdditi»Ml lucrative contract-
ftVailltMa to tne.-.
If tr-.e r^ttOrtKent ;.t serious about makinir any of there extraneous aritu-
-.0 ae.-ievc the«» '"Oals and include tnat analysis in til* Final 7.Z.
_"r. addition, the ;>partner.t cu-t fu-darentnlly re-do its analysis of neei
by correc'.inr fe errors noted anove as well as tnose identified by ot.'.ers.
This in esser.tial for makinp an accurate determination of tne need for leasir.i
or. a rrorTamnatic level. It la not sufficient to correct tnese defects cu-in,
tne preparation of the repional stote=er.ts envisioned under the prcferrec alt.
rstive, It r.ust be done now. Failure to fundamentally restructure tr.e El's
ar.alyris of need will jeopardise not .iurt the pre •». staten.ent, but alsc the
futurt Serionai F:::s whic- will s.iere tr.e sar.e a.'.rumptions so tne rrorrorr.matic
(p. S-5/. Interior sinply cannot make a reasor.arle de termination of need
critica: 'v exa-.ine projections of coal d- velopiren- done by otnor rvtponniblt
onrties end clearly state how they r-'-ate to tr.e rtrJTOa in tr.e "3 ana the
reanons for the difference. The deter-ir.at ion of need is too impor'.ar.t an
is.-ue to r-e aecidec on the bssifi of only one projection when many more are
available.
in. -■:::.,-=f'-"":t cf RHflTS'S L2Afr.^
Tenoite t'- title of the proposed trrorrar, t.-.e "rcdcrel Coal >:er.erer.er.t
Prorrs--, the concept of raanaccrrert of federal coal lands - as opposed to
the lencir.r of federal coal lands - has beer fiver, snort snrift in the ~3.
The r.a-Or ertviooio of tne rrorrarr. should rtcnlfully be tne S-.o nc reme n t of
rede
K-25
under lease. The Department if. well aware of tne rtn:istier. rerardinp: tnt
rroductior capability of its leaped lands, and ve wil] not repent then: ner*.
'■■ut :p (ftta thfl lepsrtnent stil1 fins not .'Vced up to itr- resr-onsibil Itlo"
;.t ndTirir-.er tr.er.e lands. ?h» treatment of t.-.?- ■-.,-;'. ir. four paru.-niphs
of tr.e 7." 1'r. *■-? to 6) would "e IdUj-heble w»re it no: rucn a serious nrd
cor.:ir:ui-.,- problem. Although ti.a rlrvelonf-Tt of existmr leasee can easily
cause t'\u>l or i-renter environren tel iTpnci..' be compared to leasts issued
u-dar a sew troTur, HI has sr.own no initiative to develop the desperately
reedet: regrr :o control the liminr and di- iri butior. of coal d- veloosent on
".'he exter; to wnic: tne Terror oT.cricad in the
car. a "u:.«,-«««r.', rrorrir: in easily seer, by exaitinin.'
Tirorrar. Tfl« six are "alternatives" only in so far e
.•: to the preferred
of lenses to be issued or tne laer.tiiy rf the rortv who determine.-, lessinr
leve.'f. ?s» six ore: no leafir;-, lease I'KLAs only, leaff only "emerreney
leaser", : etrt to satisfy industry, lease to satisfy states, and lease to
rt.ti.-fy T.Z-. ?he only alternatives fourc in the S-" .ire leajinr (■] tv t,':'iv«s
Ir* adclticr to t.iore six, Cr.apior *i i.3v.\lttVA eir.it "rut-al terr.et ives ar.or.,-
solicy is-ues." Kere, three ;f t:.e ■;-'.: ;r* b-.tL-C»c; e 'o e::-.s;.*;,- usses,
'• ■ '■'.: ■ -■ fatutority re-uir«d. "r.e testier, for t.-.err. if. not wr.ether they
foald :* artlied, but how t.-.e. ■■i'luld ':»- ncrliec. "rie options for defirinr
.t»xi— jr eeorosic recovery anc due dili-er.ee are fairly c"ese?y cire^sserired
ry lawi foriru") tinr and aeclyirr a fer-".»nl ":ar.nr rro Tar i? sore orar. ended .
rut lher*> Trterior is ctrtfu: 10 ro:< tria! vnt a^rjictlinn o :" t.a;;,- of '.;,r
er't^ri* to tyistinjr lea.-es .r di-cre-.ior.ery or. t:,> part of -...<■ >sre--ary.
■'urt.-.fnrri', those criteria are nein- a'p--*0' r.ow v.*-.- .-.ou: uucllc partictca I :i
and tr.ey v*re formulated wil\o:.t purine 3articipE".;or.. i.lso . orronr tin
.-u'fplfrr.-'-ives, the lands 3Mrjit»i-.£lii;y erit«fi» i.lor.e ,-.-ivc no alternative
;ar.fus--e -roro ed for '.f.e--.. ■'.*' of -.:.;• asCr up to tv eor.elusio- teal trte
7'esRrt-er.t ir ;,a: i-■ter■e.-■.'-■■ ,■ -j? -. r.< :- .• • o ;e elo? * -".-.'■ ■ tr.er.-. rlar.
■'Xir:
■ir.li-tio:, re--u-r«f icr
"■sssin.- Dve..ric-'.
environraental concern and how differing inte-prate tiona of that concept could
■ff.et existing leases. i"»rh»pr most importantly, the BS utterly f.ils to
dercrihe or analyze possible mec nanism., for centr-olli-r developoa„t on existinr
U.M.. The notion of threshold Units i£ )»ft in a conceptual .tit. and the
E8 rives no indication ars to wV-.nt ihe upper limits of environfflental depradation
for a region -1^1 be. A-- noted above, t.le B.1 icplicitly condones national
sacrifice areas, ever thourn trey would certainly be inconsistent with t-e
mandate of F3JW w-,ici. directs CL!1 to MU.rt tne public lands on the basis of
multiple-use, aeaninr: "...a co^hination of balanced and diverse resource
.. .and balanced and I
onioi
iflcement of the various resources
airoent to the nroductivity of the land " Section 103(c).
the ES treats development up to the level of the -'no ne; lesainr"
t virtually all mine r.lans
irnative as inevitable, and seers to sucr
ixistinp leases «433 oe four.d acceptable.
Obviously, the prcr'ran, described in tr.e
ES's own words: "The or-fe
system of ■-tdpral coal mar:.
(.i, S-^eHeiBpriasis aided).
designed cnly to address
nnrenent - tnat of coal leasing. In tne
ram is desij-ned as a s-.ert-to finish...
f new comoetitively-hold coal leases."
pose is not to raenore esr.jtinr leches.
s seen
Clearly, perhao;
Deoi
ent or tr,e tenia of eximinr ^'ranarernent Frorscwork Pi
Acoordinr to Section 5.*.^^^^ and t.-.e recer.tly-pronosee rerulstion
to ircle-rent the lard use/ercvi'ion-, of ••L:.,,A, ex._s.„1Tlc M?r-S would contin
ir, effect for up to 1? yctm fror now. zr. a aizearle portion of the coal
retrions, KPI% were revised ir. lr-?7
coal rrorrair wnie:; , of course, tie
Interior proposes to let t
Kuor. a ctro-ery is incredible
recorr.iied that Taj.y of th« critici
reanouts to irrrlerent tno old "yAPf.
:-.e court r,as now four.d to be invalio. let
clonn stand despite recoj-nized dota inad cuac:
±t T-epartrent itself nan exn-eaoly
*"* ^r'* ».,-r true. Ar interagency
■-ed th« STf syntec:
irivolvpr .
• i-.r.er -ui
7.- ov-rp' 1 econi
■ use values in
« ■■" BufcUo 1-nc, «.."•'•" " '^ e*n:"^' the *•■ =-»i«-- tnnt a»Mr.Btnt
«eM-IB returr. or r ,< -rtD;er, ani's „!''" TV "l] /.^ '"" "*•"•'
Mres-e, ,rif0rT „d corrr,.er . ■ ^ •■ W>> ^ tot «1M
V»KU U,ds, wnlc^ ,r, -" ,,;(- ""'" , ■«**«« tl.« of t,>
"■ "•■Pi-« torn ooR.I
■■:- rar.Bremer".
"hi? -rocedu.-e ;
■c- sails for effective pubJic par
RfliB,- -rocess. ;-or te|_ .. nnT,„
"° nanpen, tnt value:
■tioi nation
'lues employed
-. rst-iar :M- i.#, iapiicit, M wi;,
»*(! tht statut,- and tne ^reau's olannl-r
tf.e r.:jrp process as tne basis for itE
or several years.
e BM aj'««Si^ fcr. is uould be ,Br
M Cre cf
-r-errent nrorra-, W.iW vltk .J^r
a-7M others v;il] rc de6lirp ,
' coaeasta, for'
- under Ft"K* in rlBcft
■c would eaan < re.leet:.
ensive discuaoion or a
«*-.»,.-. ::::::r-r::;t;;::: jr.-"-
houie
und Bines
O.-.I. would r.c: be know.-, -^r
'■-d -o ft aopaied refcrr
s t!;OCi:i,ed1 b
tna lease let i
o nine plan.
ror-jTreteri.
. cover er.dii
IMM itaMr whic,
f --'■•pre-- to the
'ror I,*,inr a.- w-:; nr r.inir.r vr.ile Co.-.rress is cor.sidcrinr the
Co.: lewin,- in -..uav B,eBii wtil,o unacu:jie:)]v ieOD3rdijie .neir
Wi'di--se«n atai,-:.--tior.. --,2r -•■•.
: w-ici, COPI :ird.'
ed in "oloraoo under tr.i
in tns proosed '.-,'ent
ecomrrendec vildcrnern
sdditi.
■-ive.- t.-t rtclaixabiliv MBlwic« ir. the a'1.' as
'JceerTior. tavli *v» t-.. <.--'BC- . <■ jnY. v .^
he -n-r.au n-s u-;i; l«n to rtco^r.d a.-«, for wilder^,
r.tir.:j, solicit tS.-. Con,r.sr c,„ld fir,, desire
»r wildtrre.-,. W»P w 3e, =„ninr |fcM ^^ cou]
rion itself, rinci
a status, it iF
res a study area
desirrated a: In'.e as,
' he allowed if -.he nurf
«•» ruioorce at=te.< that aiinin-
e recloi-ed within five "ear*
-- « aoc= tt tc4f iriBt8r;c#,
iiv^H1^*10 ""^'T/:' rtc:>i"abiUiy " «« "■-. =i"i-r in th,
orr-. er-a of ..e o-ado cotlc conti-ue up io 19°S. ft lo: -f
could r-e done ►»*«■*- ^«-. .,rrj .„ -=,.»»■( »- --. (* ■
• ■;.., esoeeia.... <. i; were 0 r-Lri-
tne intent of Pl*Kj could
circurvented ar-d the crea re declnrtd |
tual rtellM
MlM, -s mo.-.: ir. t i, re.-ion are.
-or prtoervation
w..-cn is tr.e likely outcome.
<*) '.prlieation of t.-.- Japdr unr ui tarility orlt*<
r«: rerirte- rn-.ice allay our Boast Mr.
should b» hnl ted.
:alf of COHC and ot
ne nor the Teceroe:
K-26
NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL
al9 5loplcion Bldg
billmgi Ml 5PI0T
(406}2«B-ll5i
f,e!d Oli.ce
PO lo»8U6
Glondive, Ml 59^30
(406) 365-2525
e^&i
COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BY
NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL
f>61
The Northern Plains Resource Council (NPRC) endorses the
objectives of th« proposed coal management program as stated
under section 3423.0-2 (page A-10) of the example regulations
Coal leasing should take place only pursuan-
resource management policy, in compli
safeguards designed ta protect society ana the
comprehensive
ith the laws and other
ronment .
The federal government owns 60% of the western coal reserves,
and an additional 2Dl relies on the availability of complementary
federal coal for production. Clearly the actions of the federal
Government in its management of federal coal will determine the
ISSTSiwhi! western states. The broad sweeping effects of
the proposed coal management program, will affect the lives or
millions of westerners for decades to come.
With this in mind, NPRC has examined the proposed program
and the draft environmental statement (DES) and has the following
1) The statement fails t
cerns about recl.iimability of
antively address
lands.
ely Ear too heavily
2) The statement and preferred pre,.-
on the Department of Energy's production targets in IMHlnithl
need for federal leasing an<\ -in fact, the DES does not demonstrate
the need for additional leasing by 1980.
3) The statement undervalues the productive ability of west-
ern lank. This in conjunction with the inadequate assessment of
reclamation in the West, results in a vast underestimation of the
long term loss of productivity and renewable resources.
4) The preferred program carries over the acquisition of sur
I— owner consent until after the le.se sale U.via« Op.n th. po-
mumental waste of time and money on planning and
intimidation Of landowners by large
tential fo:
environmental assessmen
mining companies.
5) In the rush to me
the Department of Interior
,d-19B0 target date for lease sa.
elementing the proposed program
inn any public comment and Secretary's approval,
' lation of the requirements of the
clear
National Environmental Policy Act.
6) The mid-1980 lease sale target date effectively implements
much of the EMARS planning process by necessitating reliance on
existing land use plans and industry nominations.
7) A vital component of the preferred program, comprehensive
land use planning, is an unknown variable at this point as rule-
making pursuant to the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act
lags behind the establishment of the management program.
8) The environmental statement dops not adequately assess the
social and environmental impacts of the proposed program.
9) The preferred program does not adequately provide for con-
sideration of cumulative social and economic impacts of leasing
federal coal. The question of how, where and when the coal will
be consumed (its end-use) is critical to this consideration.
10) The preferred program should include provisions for
denying federal leases to companies or individuals that are in
violation of performance standards established under the Surface
Mine Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
11) Proposed regulations for Lands Unsuitability Criteria
(We are submitting separate comments on LUC) are, by the Depart-
ment's admission, geared to meet DOE production targets. We find
this objective in formulating LUC to be wholly unacceptable. It
violates the legislative mandate of SMCRA and the President's May,
1977, environmental message ordering the Secretary of lnteri<
lease "only those areas where mining is envirc
and compatible with other land uses." It ever
quirement in the example regulations (p. A-12,
that regional production targets shall not be
lishing the areas acceptable for leasing.
lly acceptable
contradicts the re-
Section 3420.3-1)
onsidered in estab-
RECLAIMABILITY
of reclamati'
date. The H<
ous assessmen
The DES paints one of the rosiest pictun
potential for western lands that we have seen i
them Great Plains bears the brunt of this speciou:
Assertions that range land in the Northern Great Plains can be
reclaimed in B-10 years and cropland in 5 years (some places as
soon as one year) (pp. 5-17, 5-23) fly in the face of existing
evidence. Reclamation has yet to be shown successful in Montana.
The estimar.e that (p. 7-8) rangeland can be restored to pro-mining
productivities in 5-15 years on the Northeri
unfounded speculation. Yet on chis assumpt
implement a program to lease tens of thousa;
coal for surface mining in this .irea.
t Plains is utterly
, DOI proposes to
of acres of federal
NPRC Comments
Page Three
Attempts to achieve reclamation m Montana have been fraught
with problems. High levels of n.olybucnum from buried spoil;, have
appeared in legumes (i.e. sweet clover) on reclamation plots at
Colstrip. Livestock, particularly cattle, can be weakynod, ster-
ilized and oven die from an imbalance of the element of molyb-
denum in their dieta.
Introduced grasses on strip mined land have failed to demon-
strate an economically viable cattle carrying capacity. Experi-
ments by Montana 8t»t« University researchers showed a lower
average weight gain for steers arazed on mined land than for steers
on native range. Further, when ail of the steers were grazing over
the mined lind in the fall, thosa that hud summered on native range
actually lost an average of .200 pound.* pot day.
Efforts to reclaim rangeland to a permanent diverse cover of
primarily native IpoC!**, as requir.-d by Montana law, have not yet
shown success - the jury is still out. No bond? have been
in the state of Montana for strip mine reclamation.
ed
Experiments on reclaimina
do not look promising. Applies
izor (as ordinarily used in the
duce anythwere near the average
rip mines to cropland in Montana
ns of 10-20 times as much fertil-
ea) on mined lands failed to pro-
elds for the county.
Erosion has created gullies six feet deep on reclamation
plots at the Western Energy mine at Colstrip, Montana. The nature
of the soil - loose, undi f ferentiatcd profile, with poor capacity
for holding moisture - makes it highly susceptible, once disturbed,
to erosion.
The DES is biased towards western coal- A case in point is
the assessment of long term losses of productivity (p. 7-6). It
proposes to protect the agriculturally productive Eastern Interior
and Western Interior coal regions by leasing federal coal and shift-
ing production to the western U.S. One need only turn the page to
discover that reclaiming to cropland in the Eastern Interior coal
region could occur as quickly as one to two years. Factors such as
annual precipitation, soil composition and demonstrations of suc-
cessful reclamation in the East and Midwest lend some credence to
that statement. Yet, the preferred program would pass over this
region in favor of the West where reclamation is still dubious.
Very probablv, western coal or its products would be marketed in
the industrialized and populous Western Interior and Eastern Inter-
ior regions. (This i's not to advocate increased surface mining in
those areas. An adequate determination of need, coupled with an
established national policy to encourage deep mining of coal would
probably obviate or substantially diminish the need forlarge
creases in surface mining, anywhere. It's merely
thu inconsistencies of the analysis.)
illustr.
NPRC Common
Page Four
The amount of cropland that wou'd be disturbed in each region
is used to determine the loss of agricultural productivity for the
purpose of comparing alternatives to the preferred program (p. 7-7).
As a result, the farm lands of the East and Midwest significantly
outweiyh the productive grasslands in the West, which are not
included in the comparison. The Powder [liver region, with 104,000
acros to bo mined by 1990 under t>u preferred program (medium level),
according to this assessment-would suffer a loss in agricultural
productivity of only 548,000 over tnat period.
The CES unrealistically aasunma complete restoration to
original productivity of disturbed lands in the Fort Union and
Powder River regions by 1990. The statement is m.ide that "all
strip minea land is assumtd to be potentially reclaimable" (p. 7-6)
in assessing the long term environmental consequences of the coal
management program.
The material on reclamation and the assumptions on wh.ch the
environmental assessment is based grossly diminish the validity of
the DES.
DOE PRODUCTION TARGETS AND DOI ASSESSMENT OF NEED
Tho Department of Energy coal projections target the Northern
Great Plains (Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota) to become the larg-
est coal producing section of the country by 1990, exceeding both
Appalachia and the Midwest. Slight modifications and adjustments
by the Department of the Interior do not alter the relative level
of coal production to be borne by this area. In fact, DOI's pro-
jections for coal production on the Ft. Union and Powder River coal
regions combined are actually highej than DOF's, according to the
DES {pp. 2-28 - 2-29 and pp. 5-11 -'"5-10) .
Medium Level Demand Projections - NGP Coal
DOI Preferred Progr
1990 416.7 441.9
DOE's coal production targets are based on national macro-
ecnomic variables such as employment and income. The model takes
into account effects of other energy sources and environmental
5, and shifts these assumptions in pre -determined ways
at high, medium, and low levels of coal demand.
One of DOE's assumptions is high availability of cheap western
coal through the leasing of federal coal reserves. Ironically, DOI
turns around and uses this model to demonstrate the need for leasing
huge amounts of western coal.
■egula
K-27
NPRC Comments
Pago Pivo
Thtf model assumes commercial production (7-27 full size plants
•* -.atural gas (SNG) from coal by 19B5, the chances of
At the most there might be one plant {American Mat-
in Mercer County, North Dakota), which at this point
is is particularly pertinent to western coal
o^ections assume a viable and thriving SNG
chnologica! and economic problems with SNC indi-
cate there is small likelihood of larqe
1995 (if ever) with or without federal
which I
looks doubtful,
demand where the I
industry by 1985. Te
ale SNG production before
Ther.
a techniqu'
Further, i
numbe:
is no i
idence that DOE's modeling has been tested by
... _j "backcasting" to assure its reliability,
assumes an energy future which ia like the past, only
are higher. Such an assumption is increasingly dis-
credited by energy planners and forecasters.
sta
cursorily
most a
End-use modcli
(among them A
.oned in the DES. 'The tcchn
which is already being
isas, Oregon, and Calif o
■nployed
■al
«=ivl's serious
by doe and 001. It provides by far the
- — ------»**«^.._._ u^^n^ion uy u\jc ana uui .
most accountable and responsive forecast* „, ,
2£2L - ??f!£°Yl"iy imP°rtant in light of the rapidly changing
energy outlook in the United States and a changing national ener
icrgy outlook
policy emptiasiz
maarvatii
The DOE econometric model inherent
western coal as the least costly alterno
social considerations are given no stanr7
may affect the ecnomics of energy produc
'ors surface mineable
Environmental and
ixuept insofar as these
Other costs, particu-
larly those that are not accrued" by the raining companies,
long term losses or productivity on mined land, are- not considered
in the model.
A May, 1978, study by the Montana Energy and BUD Research and
Development Institute estimates total Montana coal production to
meet both in-state and out-of-state market demands will be 40-45
million tons per year in 1985. This amounts to approximately one-
half the 1985 medium level production figure for Montana in the
preferred program - 87.1 million tons per year. It is also well
below the G5.3 million tons per yujr i.rojected in DOl's no-new-
leasing, medium-level production scenario.
Finally, the DOE model assumes mine-mouth conversion for
western coal, deceptively indicating a large western market for
coal. Much of that energy will be exported in the form of elec-
tricity (and possibly SNG) to other regions of the country for
actual consumption. Defining coal converted in the West a<! coal
consumed in the West is misleading and biases the conclusions of
whether and where to lease federal coal towards western regions
SURFACE OWNER CONSENT
f„a °nly t*% °C the total fedG«! coal acreage has federal sur-
face ownership as well. Consequently, Lhe role of the private
process. °Wner ** Critlcally important in the Department's planning
— 's be con-
This is the appro-
it that
reference against the
the land should be
The preferred program proposes
suited during the land use planning p
priate stage to consider surface owners' wishe
?fi2( '"I*? own*r* indicate a definite preference
leasing of deposits beneath their surface, the "
removed from further consideration for leasing
stirerK,*- 3-»» *» — -»- » . ££&?£
*.*i«iU ** int?l*™"« that the surface owner who has stated a
2hnu?J Section to the leasing of his subsurface mineral"
afaction\s bo ?1 lMM? ^ ^ D^™ent of Interior. Such
owner reSUlt " ei(ortitant Pressure on the land-
vears Tin SS^K^6.0' Interior "*« h.va spent months, possibly
essnents S ►n*^^1?™1"9 a™ «"*™*9 environmental ass-
™tTr '^ Y ° ?** the tract sale voided when a staunch surface
owner will not capitulate on a key tract The situation V.!^
itself to conflict, confrontationand trouble for all pities?
We strongly adhere to the positi,
er has indicated he will not consent t
screened from further activity planning
social and economic impacts and mitigation
SQ(.ift I^™S failS t0 s"b5tan"voly address the problems of
socio- economic impacts of leasing federal coal, and the preferred
program avoids establishing any guidelines or specific require-
ments to include these effects in decision-making. re1Uire
The DES shows a complete misconception of the nature of
term ^ *" J° a"ten,ents "**> "«HU the change offers ong-
^stress hasn^n^f;0t ?" corUnitiCS ln ^stion! short-term^*
oibtress has too often oeen the more visible i
The long-term benefits of extraction of a nonr
particularly by r*
dubious
pov
newable
(p. 6-4)
icuiariy by scrip raining in an area where reclamation is
ous, will very likely be the "bust" of unemployment and
NPi<c Comment!
Page Seven
The DES goes so far as
tiont effort (top of p. 6-5)
enjoy an economic boon with ;
measure.
i eheerf illy luagowt a public rela-
, in coordination witli the few who
industrialization, as a mitigation
Since much of the federal coal lies in rur.,1, agricultural
Lw!£j£° 1"troductio" °* «** «nl« will radically'.Uer the
character and economy of the communities. State and local gov-
ernments anjtgg public, should be involved in determining9
i'riL ■ leasln5" Guideline, or standard, on levels of social
and ecnomic impacts that can bo borno in an area should be devel-
The concept of threshold limits, wh
in the DES (p. 3-21), is vital. Without I
communities (e.g. Gillette and Colstrip) i
burden in meeting production targets bccai
establishment of a mining industry Threi
deflect exorbitant levels of iftduttfial'
Not only the effects of
effects of existing
factor to consider
ch is given sho
hill some areas
ill carry an exorb
se of the existing
holds should serve
tion in a specific
md
leasing a proposed tract, but" also the"
nmg and industrialization should be a
judging whether to lease further
Rowder River Basin Resource Council
48 North Wain Sheridan, Wyo. 62801 (307) 672-5809
22 January 1978
COMMENTS RFGARDING THE DHEiWlNATIOM OF NEED AS SET FORTH IN THE DRAFT
EHVI-MWEITAL IWV&lfr, frnFRAL COAL i'JWAfiWEHT '5%dam
,'62
The Draft Environmental Sta'.enent for the proposed Federal Coal '
Program gives four reasons in support of an alleged r,?ed for renewed federal
coal leasing. Only one of these reasons sets forth an actual need to develop
Ceil resources; the remaining three are matters of policy.
1. Leasing to Meet National Energy Objectives. During development of the
DES, we were assured that projections of toal production supplied by the
Department of Energy would be scrutinized and modified by the Department of
Interior. We see little evidence of such scrutiny in the DES or the Memorandum
of Understanding between the Secretaries of the respective Departments as
described in Appendi* B of the DES. Uhi'le we realize that production targets
may he modified in the face of environmental constraints, it is poor policy to
think in terms of meeting production goals set unreasonably high by a production-
oriented agency; in such a situation, failure to meet goals will be percieved
as the fault of too many environmental regulations rather than a more realistic
assessment of what was needed in the first place.
?- Leasing to Promote More Desirable Patterns of Coal Development. There
seems to be an assumption in this section that because land is in the public
domain, it was undesirable to homesteaders and others interested in making a
living for themselves on the Western frontier. While this may have been true
in the economy of the early West, much of the land over federal minerals in
eastern Wyoming now supports viable ranching operations; moreover, this land
1s no less precious to those who live on It than land anywhere else in the
K-28
"%'?:r river basin resource council
comments regarding determination of nefh
page 2
United States. What is described as a desirable pattern of coal development
Is, for all practical purposes, a designation of the Powder River Coal Region
as a "national sacrifice area". If the higher projections for the Powder River
-egion are actually realized, offsite environmental and socioeconomic impacts
will make it impossible for ranching operations to continue in Campbell County.
.combined
"he/ieffects of fugitive dust, water consumption, fragmentation of range from
electricity and rail lines, and competition for labor and credit ■will put the
ranchers out of business -- or take away their desire to continue trying.
There is also a statement in this section to the effect that because of
the thickness of the Powder River coal seams, only one acre of land will have
to be reclaimed per given quantity of coal, as compared to 5 acres in the East,
This statement implies that It is, therefore, more
efficient to mine Powder River coal. What this statement ignores is the fact
that it is much harder to reclaim that one acre due to minimal rainfall and
and other adverse conditions, especially wind, whereas in the East this reclama-
tion might be accomplished much more expediently.
3. Leasing for legal and Administrative Purposes. We agree that the
Department should have the flexibility to offer new leases to holders of PRLfis
situated in areas obviously unsuitable for coal mining. However, a new federal
leasing program can be limited to just that purpose, rather than encouraging
additional development of federal coal reserves.
4, Leasing to Increase Competition in the Coal Industry. It seems almost
humorous to talk about competition in the Western coal industry when nearly all
of the mining operations are owned and operated by multinational energy corpora-
tions. "New" companies are not presently prevented from entering the market,
because, as the DES points out, they can buy existing leases and PRLAs from
PW.?. RIVER BASH K50URCE COUNCIL
COWiTS OH DETERMINATION OF NEED
page 3
their present holders. In any cast, transportation of Western coal to Its
ultimate customers is handled through a regulated, monopolistic rail system,
so the notion of a "private market functioning in the most socially beneficial
manner- {page 2-«). i.e., .the best product at the least cost. Is essentially
a myth. Within any one area such as the Powder River Coal Region, the costs
of production from one mine to another will be pretty much the same, and the
freight costs will even out the rest.
Further Miscellaneous Cements:
One thing that is particularly disturbing about DOI's reliance on DOE's
production projections is the fact that these projects are based on a set
of assumptions which do not include conservation measures. This is a serious
omission in light of the .emphasis which will be placed on conservation In
the National Energy Plan II, and also when considering that we have now
arrived at a level of scientific expertise which shows us that we are Inex-
cuasahly wasting most of our non-renewable energy resources. It is awful ,
enough to think of the environmental and socioeconomic effects that increased
■rifling activity will have on the Powder River Basin; It Is even worse to think
that perhaps all that activity wasn't even necessary.
Earlier, the lack of DOI analysis of DOE production targets was criticized.
Perhaps one way to deal with this problem would be to allow certain avenues of
public input into the target-setting process. Presently, there is no opportunity
for the public to study and comment on production targets during the'formulatlng
stages. A mechanism to solicit and evaluate public Input on this phase of the
coal management process would provide a different perspective and make the final
determination more reflective of real needs.
Finally, DOI relies on one sort of node!, an econometric model, to assess
the demand for coal production, Tlierfr are Other '-inris of models, particularly
end-use models, which generally produce different determinations. There is
no examination in this o*S of the different models and the merits of each.
we feel that such an exa ruination should be carried out in the HES, because
lie federal coal management program hinges on the nenand for coal. If there
are different ways to assess that denand, then the public has a right to know
about and to evaluate those ways.
In conclusion, 1 would like to state that we believe that a coal management
program is necessary. However, we also believe that "coal management" Is not
synonymous with "coal leasing". The Powder River Coal Region is already
suffering severely from the environmental and .socioeconomic impacts of existing
mining operations. If DOI plans to exacerbate that situation through additional
federal coal leasing, then 1t must take responsibility for the cumulative
effects. as part of its management program.
Again, accurate determination of need is critical to the residents of the
Powder River Coal Region, who will be the most severely affected by the imple-
mentation of this program, even in a scaled-down form. Therefore, we have
to know that when additional coal leasing takes place in the Powder River
Basin, it will be predicated on the most realistic assessment of demand and
that all reasonable alternatives for meeting that demand have been exhausted.
«^**Jfc4iV W*« fat***4
Subsidiary ol
Coutal Stains
Gas Corpofibon
LOW A Williams
Resomce Aequishon
g Coaatal StatM
I Energy Company
Nine Groonway Plaza J] q£
Houston. ToMas 77046
t 713)877.6406
February 12, 1979
Office of Coal Management
Bureau of Land Management
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Sir:
These comments are submitted by Coastal States Energy Company in response
to the Draft Environmental Statement for the Federal Coal Management Pro-
gram. Coastal States Energy Company, a subsidiary of Coastal States Gas
Corporation, owns and operates the southern Utah Fuel Company Mine near
Salina, Utah. In recent years the Southern Utah Fuel Company Mine has be-
come the largest single underground coal mine west of the Mississippi. Last
year the mine produced 1 1/2 million tons of coal, all from federal leases
and all from a single production portal.
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement and find it to be gene-
rally well written and thorough. We recognize the difficulty in assessing
a "Program" rather than a clearly defined project. We believe it adequately
covers the issues! that it needs only minor changes and that those who are
responsible for drafting the statement are to be commended. We do have some
serious problems with the federal <™i management program but these problems
are not so much with the statement itself as it is with the complex system
of laws, regulations and court decisions within which the drafters of the
statement were forced to operate. These problems are discussed in more detail
later herein.
Recently, rrwirt-ftl States successfully bid on a federal coal lease covering
lands immediately adjacent to our SUFCo mine and so we are well aware of the
problems, difficulties and delays with respect to leasing federal coal and
have based our comments on our experiences.
The mining of this new lease from our existing operation would require no new
portals, no new surface facilities and no new transportation systems. There
was no environmental, political or administrative controversy regarding our
specific application. In fact, there was widespread support. Since this is
an underground mine, we did not have to address the national concern over
strip mining. We had no issues involving preference right lease applications
as this was an application for a competitive sale under the so-called short
K-29
Office of Coal Management
February 12, 1979
Page 2
term criteria. We were not guilty of holding huge amounts of federal acreage
for speculation. Wc were not faced with obtaining permits for starting up a
new mine. The mine was already operating and had been for more than 30 years.
It does need additional reserves in order to maximize recovery of the total
reserve, to replace depleted reserves, to maintain employment, to provide
opturun utilisation of existing facilities, to satisfy an increasing demand
for our low-sulfur coal and for overall sound manaoerent of a growing operation
constrained within lease boundaries largely unrelated to the geoloqv of the
area.
Even though the lease sale had widespread support, it required more than four
years of effort from the date of the application to bring this tract to sale.
Finally, the lease sale was held; we bid and won. After nearly three mart; mont-hs
our lease was issued with an effective date of January 1, 1979, just 51 months
following the date of our application. Presently we still cannot mine this
^ra2J5eCaU5e "* 0£fiCG of Surface Mining has not approved our mine plan. We
do nope that it does not cake several months more to obtain approval to becin
mining. vr "^
The cause of our frustration is readily apparent. During the four years to
brinq this application to lease sale, we made numerous visits and telephone
calls to various governmental officials. Many were ooncemed and helpful, es-
pecially those in Utah. But it seems that those who are dedicated are hamstrung
by an unwieldy, nearly unworkable system.
What obstacles hinder the dedicated governmental worker and what creates the
nearly unworkable system which we now have? We believe it is the vast array
of new laws and regulations which are amended and revised even before they are
clearly understood and implemented. The question then becomes how can we deal
with these new laws and regulations to make a better system.
We would like to have seen considered as serious national policy options, such
alternatives as seeking repeal or at least clarification of much of the environ-
mental legislation of the past ten years and also consideration of a policy
that eventually would convey ownership of all federal coal into private hands
There has been much made over the "fact," the accuracy and meaning of which
is still in dispute, that a disproportionate amount of federal coal is under
lease relative to the amount produced from federal lands. Further that spe-
culation is rampant and that industry is withholding federal coal from market
for self-serving reasons. This line of reasoning usually arrives at the con-
clusion that consequently there is no need for any additional federal leasing
in the for5eeable future.
Wa believe this to be a gross misinterpretation of the situation and that the
conclusion is in error. To us, the fact that 93.5% of national coal production
in 1977 came from non-federal lands does not suggest we discontinue federal
leasing. Instead, it strongly suggests that in order to increase produel ton
from Federal lands, the lands should be under non- federal control. Leasing
is at least a step in that direction and the fact that onlv 791,000 acres
are under lease of the 11.5 million federal acres within Known Recoverable Coal
Office of Coal Management
February 12, 1979
Page 3
Resource Areas, which in turn is only a small part of the approximately 100
million acres of ooal rights owned by the federal government, borders on the
criminal for a nation hungry for domestic energy sullies. Just imagine the
furor if a private corporation held such dominant control of a resource and
similarly refused to allow it to be developed! And regarding speculation, we
can think of no better way to encourage speculation than to withhold the major
—that is certain to drive up the price of
We believe that coal leasing in and of itself is not a major federal action,
causes no environmental effects whatsoever, and therefore should not be the
subject of an ongoing national debate. The many new laws, if they accomplish
anything at all, certainly insure that any new mining proposal which survives
all that maze of red tape, permits and requirements and is lucky enough to
someday become an operating mine, is going to have a minimum amount of adverse
environmental impact. Accordingly, it appears that a federal coal lease has
long since ceased to convey the full right to mine coal. Rather, it is merely
one of the first of a long series of requirements and by itself carries no
environmental impact.
It is heartening to see that under all the various alternatives analyzed and
discussed, coal mining and coal usaqe will increase. The Environmental Statement
discusses the laws and regulation which will mitigate the environmental effects
of increased coal leasing and mining if such occurs. We believe that coal pro-
duction can increase and be carried on in an environmentally aceeptally manner.
The American public needs increased coal production, carried out in an environ-
mentally acceptable manner at the lowest cost possible. We believe this lowest
cost is obtainable only in a competitive market system. Much of the increased
coal production must come from federally owned coal deposits. If this new pro-
gram does lease federal coal, even more coal than is needed, and allows this
newly leased coal to be mined, adequate production levels will be maintained.
If not enough coal is leased, other marginal deposits such as in private coal
areas will be developed to. help make up the shortage— possibly at greater cost,
including environmental ones.
If sufficient ooal is leased and a rational system of permit approval evolves,
coal production will be increased as markets develop. Increased coal production
means more jobs especially in economically depressed areas. For exattple, in
Sevier County, Utah, since 1974, while expanding our Southern Utah Fuel Company
Operation, the per capita personal income increased from 53,600 to 35,500, an
increase of 53 percent. During that same period, employment at our mine in-
creased from 28 to more than 200. Taking into account the multiplier effect
of primary jobs, which we understand is at least 5 to 1, i.e., 5 additional jobs
for each primary job, total jobs provided are about 1000. Compare that to Sevier
County's closest neighbor in which there are no mining jobs available. In Sanpete
County, Utah, during the same period, the per capita income went up from $3,400
to only S3, 900, an increase of only 15 percent. This is an exanple of the posi-
tive effects of ooal development which the Environmental statement tends to ignore.
Office of Coal Management
February 12, 1979
Page 4
One of the primary objectives stated by the Department of the interior in
announcing its intention to prepare a new Environmental Imoact Statement
for the Federal Coal Leasing Program last year was to develop such a document
which would be legally defensible not only in terms of genera] NEPA require-
ments, but specifically to meet the objections to the earlier version of such
a statement listed by Judge Pratt in the NRDC v. Hughes decision. This State-
ment would certainly seem to have met that objective very well and it is diffi-
cult to imagine how a successful suit could aqain be brought against the ade-
quacy of the programmatic impact statement.
Unfortunately, the Statement would also seek to establish a leasing program
which would exaggerate and institutionalize many of the unnecessary delays and
frustrations which have characterized the abortive efforts over the past several
years to establish and administer a similar program. Again, it is acknowledged
that many of the delays and limitations placed on federal coal leasing are not
discretionary with the Department because they have been established clearly
by the bewildering array of federal legislation which has been passed in the
last few years to directly affect federal coal leasing and/or general use of the
public lands. Nevertheless, much of the following comments are criticisms of
those elements of the preferred alternative discussed in the Statement which would
seem to unnecessarily and perhaps unlawfully, minimize the amount of coal avail-
able for federal leasing in the first instance while maximizing the delays in
issuing any type of federal coal lease and, ultimately, the risk that any such
lease will not be issued on terms and conditions which are reasonably acceptable
to any operating company. Although the following comments will deal specifically
with such criticisms, it is appropriate in these introductory remarks to ela-
borate briefly on the primary concerns of the amount of land that would be avail-
able tor leasing and the time schedule for such leasing.
With respect to the amount of federal coal which will ultimately be available
under the preferred alternative for the federal coal leasing program, it must
be observed with deep regret but not with a great deal of surprise that the
Department's present position is apparently that, if all the various government
agencies to be directly or indirectly involved in leasing cannot, among themselves,
or try virtue of public corment think of any_ reason for excluding a tract of federal
coal land from leasing, the tract in question might possibly then be considered
for a lease sale. Some specific parts or characteristics of the preferred al-
ternative which would seem to unnecessarily restrict the amount of federal coal
available for leasing arei
1. Designation, by means not fully discussed and probably not quantifiable
of only those reserves of "medium and high potential" as available for
leasing;
2. Apparent reliance on existing Known Recoverable Coal Resource Areas
(KRCRAs) as defining the areas in which future federal coal leasing
will be considered, even though the present KRCRAs include a very
small portion of all of the federal lands that are known to contain the
ooal resources; and
Office of Coal Management
February 12, 1979
Page 5
3. Implementation of no less than 24 separate unsuitability cri-
teria for elimination of otherwise qualified federal lands from
any future consideration for leasing by what will apparently be
a much more uncompromising application of such criteria than is
mandated by law and which has been experienced in the past.
The preferred alternative would also seem to take every opportunity to maxi-
mize the delay in offering any lease or leases for sale even under the so-called
short-term or emergency leasing procedures. Although some public hearings and
the preparation of environmental impactment statements are required by law or
court decision at various levels in any federal coal leasing program, it should
be recognized that only those hearings, impact statements and other procedures
which are absolutely required should be followed and that efforts to involve
or increase the involvement of any particular interest in a decision-making
process should be done only through the required procedures and not by consis-
tently taking the option of requiring another public hearing or another impact
statement or supplement or addition to an existing impact statement.
It is encouraging that the Department is thinking in terms of a definite cycle
for leasing, whether that be the initial &*-year cycle or the more regular
four-year cycle but it is very difficult to believe that such a schedule can
be maintained unless much more specific and strict tiro schedules are imposed
at every step during the planning and leasing procedures. Probably the most po-
tentially significant delay in full implementation of any federal coal leasing
program is the Department ' s desire to wait for the completion of general land
use planning for each western coal region by all appropriate land management
agencies as well as the completion of more limited land use planning efforts
*5 !l! » wllderTles5 r^iews presently being conducted by the Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management. Although such a delay is not clearly des-
cribed in the Statement, it would seem to be implicit in the various references
to the use of the basic land use planning procedures of the appropriate agencies
as the foundation for any and all future federal coal leasing. However, there
would seem to be no mandate in any law that such a delay be required There
would certainly seem to be ample opportunity for proceeding wrth^cme coaf
leasing in a region or regions, or portions thereof, if any serious attempt is
going to made to meet the need projected in the Statement tor coal from new
federal leases by 1985 and 1990. It is difficult, if not impossible, to con-
ceive of a meaningful land use planning effort which could be completed on a
region in time to accommodate the two-year or the four-year federal coal leasing
At least one more general observation needs discussion at this point, particu-
larly since it is not a subject that is directlv discussed or referred to in
Zl ^ft^]t' .* revlcwlj>9 **• Statement as a whole, it would appear that
the Department is succumbing to the temptation of using the new federal coal
leasing program, in whatever final form it might take, as a tool for general
land use planning in the Western United States, perhaps partly out of frustra-
tion for not having received any legislation from Congress which would mandate
such comprehensive planning even for the exploitation of all minerals in the
K-30
Office of Coal Kanagetnent
February 12, 1979
Page 6
public lands. It is sincerely hoped that this perception is inaccurate
and a statement flatly to the contrary would be received with great relief
in the final impact statement.
Any attempt to use what is really a rather limited land use planning effort
related to federal coal leasing to set the framework for the much broader
problems which result from rapid growth in sparsely populated areas such as
most Of the Western United States would be an effort doomed to result not
only in failure of the specific planning program used to try to accomplish such
larger objectives, but also in the creation of many more problems and the gene-
rating of much more controversy than was ever hoped to be solved or avoided by
the initial planning program. A federal coal leasing program should not be
used to do more than meet the Nation's need for additional federal coal in a
manner which is as environmentally acceptable as feasible. Any program so
limited to planning for one industry, however influential that industry may
be on the future growth of an area, cannot possibly hope, even indirectly, to
plan and mitigate adverse impacts from other growth- stimulating industries,
such as tourism, without hopelessly stagnating and failing to achieve even the
nore limited objectives of direct concern to the planning program.
We have enclosed herewith specific oaiments which address particular sections
of the statement.
Very truly yours.
Loren A. Willi;
LAWidh
Enclosure
spft-ific cowans
rnmj. wwsran- PB0GHM4
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
Chapter 1.
The first paragraph of Section 1.1.2 refers to the solicitation of public
comnant as occurring not only throughout the evaluation of the draft environmental
impact statoBent over several months, but even after the final statement is
issued. The taking of add<t<'-"i comments after the final statement would
seam to nerve no useful purpose since anyone interested in making consents
would have had ample opportunity to do so during the consideration of the draft
environmental impact stateeent.
Section 1.1.2 also describes the various alternatives briefly and reveals
vividly in its summation of the preferred alternative that offering tacts for
leasing would be the last alternative after all other land use options have been
exhausted. It is felt that this was not the intent of either the Congress or
the Administration in placing emphasis on rapidly increased developmant of cool
in the Nation which the Statement actaiowleages must, to sane significant degree,
be baaed on new federal leasing. If it is the opinion of the Department that
sew legislation demands the assignment of the lowest priority to coal leasing
then it would be necessary in explaining the preferred alternative to provide a
detailed discussion of that legislation. Furthermore, it would be mast enlight-
ening to have a discussion of what, if any. Legislative authority there is for
putting such usee as the establishment of recreational areas above that of coal
leasing.
The description of the preferred alternative in this Section also indicates that
regional production targets would be "derived from" the production goals prepared
by the Department of Energy. This reference and other references In the State-
ment suggest that the production goals established by the Departnent of Energy,
in apparent contradiction to the language of the Departnent of Energy Organi-
zation Act, would only be treated as suggestions by the Department of the
Interior and could be nedifiad by that Department or completely ignored. The
Msmorandum of Understanding in Appendix B to the Statement which deals specifi-
cally with this subject is not clear on which Department would have the ultimate
authority to determine production goals. It is vitally important to industry as
well as to impacted communities and local and state government bodies that the
authority for setting and maintaining such production goal* is clarified.
Section 1.1.4 suggests that, although the Department will complete ongoing
regional environmBntal impact statements, it contemplates the preparation of at
least an environmental analysis for each and every coal lease and mining plan
which would probably result in the initiation of a full environmental impact
statement for most such leases and plans as well as new regional impact state-
ments and revision and updating of the prograoratic impact statement. Such a
procedure again requires unnecessary delays. As is evident from Figure 1-2,
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
most of the major areas where coal mining is planned or can be expected to occur
in the West are currently covered by a regional environmental impact statement
that has either been completed or is in some stage of preparation. Even with
significant new leasing in any particular region, much of the information that
has already been presented or has been collected for ongoing regional impact
statements can be used for any new additional leasing in the area. This infor-
mation includes general topics such as climatic conditions, reclamation charac-
teristics and certain socio-economic considerations. It is urged that the
Departnent make it clear in the final progranmatic statement that wherever
possible, such informnticn will be incorporated by reference and that ongoing
regional impact statements will be only supplemented or updated where new leasing
is provided, in order to minimize delay.
It is acknowledged that there could be instances in which so little coal activity
has been reviewed in existing impact statements and bo much more activity is
prOCpesd in a particular region that an entirely new regional impact statement
is necessary. However, experience with already completed regional environmental
impact statements indicates that in all probability most new leasing in the regions
can be accomplished by update or supplement to the regional environmental impact
statement for the area without the delay resulting from' the preparation of an
entirely new statement. Similarly, the preparation of an environmental analysis
should not require the extensive public notice and hearing leguiremente of a full
environmental impact statement. "3iis is particularly true if such analyses are
going to be prepared for even the smallest lease or mining plan. The Department
should seriously consider establishing guidelines for the accelerated review of
leases and mining operations which are small, either in the amount of tonnage to
be produced or the amount of acreage to be disturbed. Also, detailed guidelines
are nnriVil on just at what stage in the preparation of a regional impact state-
ment additional specific mining projects will not be included in the regional
analysis and what effect, if any, that would have on the schedule for permitting
such projects which would be subject to site specific analysis or a site specific
environmental Impact statement in any event.
There would seem to be no apparent reason for preparing an individual site
specific analysis for each federal coal lease being offered, sinoe the issuance
of the lease itself is not an action which in and of itself results in the dis-
turbance of any surface ex any other adverse impact on the environment. Further-
sore, preparation of m analysis or impact statement for a lease only results in
duplication of effort and more unnecessary delay when the very same impacts
have to be analyzed in only slightly more detail when a mining plan for the
same lease is analyzed or reviewed in an impact statement soon thereafter. At
least the process of reviewing the lease and the mining plan ought to be remained
or if an analysis or impact statement is prepared for the lease, it should only
be supplemented or updated to include specific or different impacts peculiar to
the mining plan proposed which were not adequately reviewed at the til«e the
lease was considered.
The last paragraph of Section 1.2.S does suggest that the Department will be
using much of the information generated by ongoing regional impact statements
Coastal States Energy Ccnpany
February 12, 1979
for the environmental analysis of any new federal leases to be issued in the
same area in the future. If this is indeed the intention of the Department,
as reoonnended in the above comments, then the Departnent should make this
Cjeaj and should definitely state that it intends to maximize the reuse of such
information so as to minimize delays and duplicate efforts.
Section 1. 3 deals with the authority for the federal coal leasing program ant"
the restraints on that leasing in general. In reviewing this Section, one hat
to be impressed by the incredibly strict controls which have been placed by
federal law on all aspects of coal mining and particularly mining on fadsrrl
ooal lands. At the son* time, it is rather odd that the Department of tha
Interior with all the legal authority at its disposal to so oontrol f*dex*l ooal
mining, taafla oompelled to take the rather timid alternative of restecict.'.va
leasing which is not even designed to meet industry or market demand or the De-
partment of Energy production goals. Perhaps, this attitude is the only approach
which has any practical chance of avoiding irore protracted litigation from en-
vironmentalist groups. However, the Department should seriously consider modi-
fying the Statement in its final form to argue that even if it finds it necessary
in future years to accelerate production to neet demonstrated need which would
nnre closely approximate industry demand and/or Departnent of Energy production
goals, it is justified in doing so. This will be true because any such ooal
development will, by law, occur under the most Strict conditions requiring that
any such leasing be done to give the governjnent the fair market value for the
coal, to require absolutely that that coal will be leased to companies which
will shortly thereafter be compelled to develop the resource, and to mitigate
environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible. All of these results will
occur without reliance on the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior or any
lower gennmcent officials.
Section 1.3.1.3 described the Surface Mining Control and Bsclamntion Act of 1977
as an Act which would transfer to the States which properly qualify, the prisnry
responsibility for administration and enfmoament of the Act. This is indeed
an accurate statement of what was intended in that Act, and certainly what was
Intended by the Congress as reflected in the appropriate legislative history.
However, the currently proposed final regulations issued by the Office of
Surface Mining have created a great deal of oontroversy on many points, including
the apparent desire by that Office to maintain as much of its direct authority
over coal mining, not only on federal coal lands but on private coal lands
despite any assumption by the States of that authority as contemplated by the
Act. It is hoped that the final progranmatic impact statement makes it clear
that any such retention of authority by the Office of Surface Mining is not
consistent with SMCRA and must be rejected.
Section 1.3.2.1 describes the joint and separate responsibility* of the De-
partment of Energy and the Department of the Interior as specified in the De-
partment of Energy Organization Act. It is apparent from the brief description
divan in this Section that many more areas of conflict or potential conflict
exist between the teo Departments in exercising their relative responsibilities
K-31
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
than just the area of production goal netting which is the subject of the
Memorandum of understanding in Appendix B. Therefore, it is certainly necessary
that an effort be node in the final environmental impact statement to delineate
as much as possible the relative areas of responsibility and a timetable for
how such responsibilities will be exercised so as to not result in any unneces-
sary delay in the processing of a lease sale. It is realized that the potential
conflicts of this nature are not the result of the action or inaction of either
Deportment, but the difficulties inherent in the provisions of the Department
of Biergy Organization Act. Nevertheless, such potential conflicts have the
prospect of creating considerable delays due simply to the problem of trying to
determine who in what Department should make what decision and when in the pro-
cessing of any new federal coal leases for sale.
In the second paragraph of Section 1.3.3.3, reference is made to the fact that
S-Cha gives the Office of Surface Mining little discretion in enforcing the pro-
visions of that Act. Such a statement would certainly cere as a surprise to
the drafters of final regulations for that Office and the critics of those
regulations which are being hotly debated at this time. It would seem that the
Office of Surface Mining has scmehow developed the attitude that the Act gives
them a lot more discretion in formulating regulations and implementing the
various provisions of the Act than the drafters of this Statement and other
agencies of the Department of the Interior recognize. It might very well avoid
a lot of extensive Litigation if the Department would, from the higher levels
of the Department, work directly with the Office Of Surface itLning to assure
that the regulations which it develops are indeed within the tight authorization
granted to the Office by SCRA.
Section 1.3.2.4 refers to the authority Of the Forest Service to add terms and
conditions to coal leases on lands to protect resource and environmental values.
The Forest Service should be given the opportunity in the preparation of the
final impact statement to suggest what, if any, additional terra and conditions
it might consider standard stipulations and the authority for the addition of
those stipulations. It would appear that the draft Statement has covered vir-
tually every legal authority which would apply to unsuitability of Lands for
mining and the imposition of required environmental protection tern's in all
federal coal leases. Therefore, it would be interesting to see what jflftLtiOBll
authority the Forest Service has and how it might propoee exercising that
authority to further restrict or add to the cost of mining in national forests.
Also, it is not clear from the text of this Section whether the Department of
Biergy is considered to still have its veto authority Over terms and conditions
suggested by the Forest Service under the general authority of that Department
to veto federal lease terms pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act.
Coastal States Biergy Company
February 12, 1979
Chapter 2.
Section 2.2 (page 2-3} mokes reference to the fact that although the vest
najority of low-sulfur coal reserves are in the western coal stated, there are
substantial low-sulfur reserves of coal in the East. This fact has been mis-
construed by many critics of renewed federal coal leasing to indicate that such
low-sulfur coal in the East is a readily available and viable alternative to
expendad federal coal leasing. As is stated in the same Section 2.2, such
low-sulfur eastern coal is by and Large of metallurgical quality and it should
be pointed out in the final environmental impact statement that most of these
metallurgical reserves are owned by steel corporations std produced through
"captive" nines only for the steal mills of the parent corporation, under such
circumstances, it is obvious that these Low-sulfur Eastern metallurgical coal
reserves are not available as a viable alternative to increased leasing of
low-sulfur steam coal reserves in the wast. Furthermore, the metallurgical
coal reserves which are not owned by steed corporations in the East are either
committed to Long term contracts to steel corporations or would not be economi-
cally mineable as steam coal. In any event, it would be folly to rely en this
reserve of low-sulfur coal to fuel power plants and industrial boilers, thus
depriving the nation's Steel industry of one of its basic raw materials. Metal-
lurgical coal can be used to generate electricity, but steam rrnl cannot sub-
stitute for metallurgical coal in steel making.
Cn the same page of Section 2.2, it is stated that the mining of federal t*i
will be concentrated in existing KflCHAs. Yet these Areas presently include only
17.1 million acres and cannot be expected to include more than 25 million acres
when all mapping is completed at a date which is apparently indefinite at the
present time. As already mentioned above, it would appear that the Department
has decided not to significantly expand these areas and to restrict new coal
Leasing to those areas. This would seem Logical until it is realized that the
acreage covered by the various Areas is only a very small part of the approximately
100 million acres of coal lands owned by the united States in the West. A com-
parison of Figures 1-1 and 2-1, showing the general coal fields of the Western
United States and the 1QCRAS in the same region, respectively, clearly display
the enormous and unjustified disparity between the present size of these Areas
and the actual areas known or reasonably inferred to contain coal resources.
By starting with the KSCKAs as the areas in which coal leasing must occur, the
Department has already and without any detailed industry input, excluded at
least throe quarters of fl»A>rai coal Lands frcm leasing. This situation mint.
be rectified in the final impact statement with appropriate recognition of the
fact that new and expanded KPCRAs can and will be developed to include any
federal coal Lands otherwise suitable and available for Leasing.
Section 2.4 (page 2-LO) discussed the effect of recent changes in federai air
pollution standards for coal-fired power pLants with the incredulous conclusion
that: " (O)verall demands 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. " Although most demand for western
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
coal will apparently corre from coal-burning facilities in the west, it is indi-
cated in Section 2.6.2 (page 2-25) and in the accompanying Table 2-18, that
the Department of Biergy has projected "substantial amounts" of western coal
to be shipped to the East by 1985 and in even larger amounts (as much as 299
million tons} by 1990, with such amounts representing a significant portion
(as much as 30%) of total western coal production, by 1990. Therefore, the
deliberate attempt in the recent Ciean Air Act Amendments to artificially in-
crease the price of western coal by the imposition of stricter sulfur emission
regulations with no pretense of benefiting the public health and welfare is
and will remain a significant adverse factor in the expansion of western coal
development in general. The sentence before the sentence quoted above from
Section 2.4 attempts to mitigate such harsh effects by stating that the new air
standards would not apply to power plants coming on Line until after 1983.
Such an observation offers little to change the conclusion as to the severity
of the effect of new clean air emission requirements on western coal production
since many of the plants which are scheduled to come on line after 1983 are
already well into the planning stage, including censideratiens as to contracting
for adequate supplies of coal.
Section 2.5.5.1 (page 2-23) concLudes with a sentence to the effect that un-
certainty about Legal ownership of coal seam methane gas and production rights
for that gas are Inhibiting its production. This is indeed the case in the
East, especially, but it also points out an opportunity for the Department to
determine within its existing authority whether newly issued federal CTMl
leases or readjusted federal coal leases will include such gas and the right to
produce it, thus mitigating if not eliminating future problems in producing
such a valuable fuel from federal coal Lands.
Section 2.7.L.3 makes reference to the fact that soma Preference Right Lease
Application holders will never be issued a lease because they have failed to
meet all the legal requirements of such applications by filing them on Land con-
taining mining claims. This statement is apparently based on a recent Solicitor's
Opinion which strains to construe Language in the relevant statutes concerning
such applications on "unclaimed" Land as requiring that that land was not subject
to mining claims at the time of application. Aside from the fact that this
Opinion is based on such questionable legal authority and will almost certainly
be challenged repeatedly by holders of applications rejected on this ground, it
is only fair that the Department should provide in the final impact statement,
either by regulation or as part of the final judgment in MKDC v. Hughes, that
such holders of applications on areas with prior mining claims will be given an
opportunity to either show the invalidity or subsequent abandonment of such
mining claims. The rejecting of applications on this ground is particularly
difficult to support since past practices of the Department consistent with
the Multiple Mineral Development Act have clearly recognized that it was the
intent of Congress to accemmodate and not to restrict the development of
locatable minerals (i.e., acquired by mining claims) and leasable minerals on
the same tract of public mineral land.
Section 2.8.1 speaks In general terms of the anticipated time schedule from the
issuance of a new lease to actual production under the new leasing program. It
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
is sincerely hoped that the time schedules for the approval of the mining plan
as well as the initial completion of land use and environmental planning are
accurate. However, it must be observed that if they are to be, there must be
a major streamlining of the present maze of "red tape" which has resulted in
the processing of most mining plans and environmental analyses taking consider-
ably longer than the schedules mentioned in this Secticn. It would be most
comforting to prospective appLicants for new federaL coal Leases if the De-
partment would endeavor in the final impact statement to impose some type of
strict schedule coordinating all the various public hearings, comment periods
and inter-agency reviews and planning that must occur before a lease is issued
and afterwards before all of the federal authorizations are obtained to CBBMM1
mining.
On page 2-44, the observation is made that since western mining is expected to
be almost entirely surface mining, except in the Uinta-Southwestem Utah Coal
Region, the production from the underground PRLAs which can be processed under
the NKDC v. Hughes settlement agreement will not contribute significantly to
total production. This admission would seem to graphically point out the need
for renegotiating the settlement agreement in OTEC v. Hughes, to the extent
that it restricts not only surface mining from PRTAa but surface mining from
emergency and by-pass Leases, either directly or implicitly. Again with the
myriad of laws protecting the environment, especially from the adverse effects
of surface mining, there can no longer be any excuse for refraining from develop-
ing coal by whatever methods best suit the extraction of the particuLar reserves
In question.
In general. Section 2.8.L does a good job of supporting the need for additional
federal coal leasing to the extent that such need is quantifiable. This support
should be more than enough to satisfy the objections raised by the Court in
HRDC v. Hughes. It is particularly comforting that the Department has made it
clear that its projections are just that, and that the program will remain
flexible enough to not only reduce the amount of coal leases to be offered under
the new program, if such reduction is necessary, but also to be equally adaptable
to increasing the number of leases if the need should prove greater than the
projections relied upon for the preferred alternative for the new program.
unfortunately, however, Section 2.8.1 concludes with four paragraphs seeking
essentially to summarize the balance between the problems created by Leasing
too much federal coal or leasing too little federal coal to meet actual future
demands. It is concluded that when in doubt, the federal government would be
better off leasing less federal coal relative to denwnd than more. Ihis con-
cluoion fails to appreciate the numerous and serious consequences of leasing
lees coal than can meet actual future demand in terms of the increased price of
electricity and virtually all consumer goods which would contribute significantly
to inflation not only in the regions most directly affected, but throughout the
country.
Cn the other hand, the disadvantages of leasing more cool than what is needed
to meet actual future demand are exaggerated in this portion of Section 2.8.1.
K-32
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
The First such disadvantage is stated as a depression of the bonus bids of farad
tor mrii cool leases uo that the government fails to realise the fair serket
value for its coal. It should be noted that the antxnt of ircney that the
government has and can reasonably expect to obtain from any ere lease aa a
bonus bid io only a very small fraction of the total value received by the
government by issuing that lease in terms of production royalties and taxe*
collected. Furthermore, such bonus bids will continue to be regulated in the
new program so that no bid would be accepted and, therefore, no leaee ieaued,
unless the bid satisfied a minimum asount which was predetermined as Deflecting
the fair market value of the lease. Furthermore, elsewhere in the Statement
the Deportmant spends a great deal of time discussing alternate competitive
bidding systems which would to nemo extent remove or further diminish, reliance
on the lease bonus as even partially achieving the fair market value of the
lease. Consequently, it is difficult to support the conclusion that an sines
Of leases offered would result in so much less compensation being paid to the
government in lower bonus bids that the resulting loss would not be rare than
offset by the total gain realized when even a few such leases are developed.
Another reason given for diligently avoiding leasing more than what ic nnceeeary
to meet the actual demand is that such a procedure would give the federal
government less control over where the coal is developed. This stateasnt ignores
the myriad of laws which give the govemrent authority after a lease is issued
to still determine the how, when and where of coal production from the various
leases. Certainly, any less direct control over where mining takes place would
be more than compensated for by the existing authority under these later to
regulate auch mining through mining plan approval and indirectly through approval
of, for example, rights of way in the construction of major transportation and
power line faciliUes. Finally, it is argued that the strict enforcenent of
diligent development and continuous operation criteria in a situation where an
excess number of iMsSM were issued night force coal companies to rush leases
into production prematurely. Again, the ability to approve, delay the approval of,
or reject mining plans where such a "mad rush" threatens, would certainly provide
the government with enough authority to prevent any such adverse effects.
It should also be noted that opting to err on the side of leaaing insufficient
coal would be much mora likely to result in a rush to develop existing federal
coal leases and nonfederal coal which, as recognized in Section 2.8.2, would
carry a host of potential adverse effects and would greatly increase •peculation
and the probability of inefficient operations en these other reserves. Sections
2.B.2, 2.8.3 and 2.8.4 provide fr^'<"i'-T"1 arguments and support of the basic
conclusion that it really is mare advantageous to lease more reserves than might
actually be needed in the future rather than leasing in a manner which would not
meet that need. It is hoped that the Department in the final impact statement
will give serious consideration to making clear a preference for leasing more
rather than leaaing less, although it is recognized that keeping the Statement
for these sections in its present form would probably make it leas susceptihle
to challenge by critical environmental groups.
Coastal States Energy Ccapany
February 12, 1979
Section 2.9 begins with a statement to the effect that it was the intent of
Congress in the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 that the new
federal leasing be dons 'at a rate meeting market needs for new supplies."
Again, this would tend to negate the Department's apparent position that it is
better to learn less than what is necessary to meet those needs rather than to
lease more. That Act certainly is more reasonably read as en expression by
Congress that, considering the extensive laws and regulations which will mitigate
the impacts of coal mining on any leases and the diligent dsvelopnent and con-
tinuous operation requirements which will compel the production from or termi-
nation of leasee, the risks involved in leasing more than what may be actually
necessary are mere imaginary than real.
Ins third paragraph in Section 2.9 indicates that the Department's preferred
alternative production goals are as low as they are primarily due to the De-
partment's reliance on the EMMS-inspired production goals announced by existing
and would-ba operators on federal lands. This is indeed a curious justification
for lowering production goals particularly since earlier in the Statesent with
the initial discussion of such production goals it was Indicated that the De-
partment had, not without some justification, discounted the sane industry
production estimates as in some cases nothing more than wishful thinking. Tha
Department should reassess the lowering of production goals from new federal
leasing in reliance on the admittedly inflated production goals from some
existing federal leases or Preference Sight lease application areas.
Cn page 2-51, comments axe made concerning the coordination of the federal coal
leasing program with existing public land use planning processes indicating
that the federal coal leasing program would have to wait for the completion of
these planning processes. >s referred to above in the general catmentLS, this
decision could result in paralyzing delay for the new federal coal leasing
MOaasa particularly if long range studies such as the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment wilderness review and the similar review being conducted by the Forest
Service tor the second time must be completed before the govemnent would feel
comfortable in proceeding further with federal coal leasing in the areas under
study or in adjacent areas. Such general statements undermine the confidence
of the Industry in the Deportment's numerous promises in the Statement as to the
time schedules anticipated for federal coal leasing in general and, in particular,
the schedule for the ccnpletion of planning which is preliminary to any new
coal lease sales.
Also, this part of Section 2.9 assures the reader that the numerous unsuitabil-
ity criteria based on the preservation of recreation areas, wildlife habitat,
agricultural resources, etc. , will be administered in a way to flexibly accom-
modate federal coal leasing, however, published reports (discussed in Section
5.4.8, p. 5-141) have indicated that the application of a somewhat stricter set
of unsuitability criteria to lands in Montana and Wyoming resulted in the ex-
clusion of approximately one-third to one-half of all federal coal lands other-
wise available for leasing. It would appear from this result that there is
little if any real flexibility in the application of such criteria to the extent
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
that it would seriously seek to balance new federal coal leasing with other
land mil It is hoped that in applying such criteria that the government will
keep in mind that federal coal lands, however defined, occupy a very small
portion of all public lands available for multiple use in the West and that
within those federal coal lands, only a small portion will be offered for lease
as needed to maintain any projected production goals. Therefore, the overall
effect on, for example, wildlife habitat, of the issuance of a particular
lease or a few leases in a region should not be viewed as relative to the re-
maining federal ooal land available for leasing but should be viewed in terms
of all federal lands in the region available for wildlife habitat preservation.
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
Chapter 3.
Section 3.1.1 describes the general characteristics of the preferred alterna-
tive for the proposed federal coal losing program. In general, this dis-
cussion should satisfy the requirements resulting from the decision in fflPC v.
Hughes that any proposed federal coal leasing program be described in surfT-
cTenTdetail.
There are, however, several points concerning this program which are disturbing
to industry. First is the apparently inflexible requirement that all necessary
land use planning involving the identification of coal lands, the application
of the numerous unsuitability criteria and the nebulous resource trade-offs
be completed before the activity planning state can proceed which involves re-
gional production targets, preliminary tract identification and ranking and
the preparation of regional envirormental irrpact statements. Considering the
teius of millions of acres of land involved even if new coal leasing is restricted
to existing KBCRAS, it is difficult to believe that the Department can maintain
the schedule for resuming actual lease sales within eighteen nonths after the
adoption of a coal leasing program. In fact, related land use planning efforts
by the primary public land administrative agencies, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment and the Forest Service, concerning wilderness designation would seem to
make it absolutely impossible to keep such a schedule. It is imperative in the
final impact statement that such doubts be addressed and that the details of
the preferred alternative be expanded to include specific assurances, with
surrrnrting illustrations, that such a schedule can be accommodated.
Section 3.1.1.1 deals in detail with the various planning systems of the pre-
ferred alternative, under the Land Use PLanning portion of this Section the
first criteria for screening out areas unacceptable for new federal coal leasing
would be areas that do not contain coal reserves of high to moderate development
potential. It is not clear what authority or justification the Department is
relying on in applying this criteria which is presented as distinct from the
general unsuitability criteria and every other factor suggested by law or regu-
lation which should affect the potential development of coal reserves. Apparent-
ly, the Department is attempting to substitute its engineering and marketing
judgement for that of the industry and this is not warranted. The economic
potential for the development of reserves aside from clear legal restrictions,
is constantly changing and the federal government cannot hope to have as much
information concerning current market conditions or have sufficient expertise
to predict future market trends as will potential lease bidders throughout the
industry. Since this screening criteria is so nebulous, it would be appropriate
to include in the final impact statement, at the very least, acme detailed justi-
fication for this screening criteria along with an example of how the criteria
might be applied over and above all other restrictions and limitations on new
federal coal leases to exclude property which would otherwise qualify for a lease
sale.
In the same section on Lard Use Planning, a very diaturbing implication is left
that the Department will indirectly engage in population control, presumably
only at the instance of a state government request, by deliberately limiting
K-33
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
coal production from a region regardless of other factors and of the market
demand in order to accomplish an artificial maximum Limit on population in
that area. It is unknown what, if any, authority the Department could claim
for such action but it would certainly be necessary for the Department to
elaborate on this suggestion in the final impact statement and particularly
to discuss what, if any, public input would influence a decision to so control
a region's population ever, without the request of any state government.
The next portion of Section 3.1.1.1 discusses the Activity Planning stage of
the proposed preferred alternative. Although public participation throughout
the process is necessary and the objective of giving ample opportunity for that
participation in the Statement is commendable, it is felt that the same desired
result could be obtained without a proliferation of public hearings. Such public
hearings are usually events in which little opportunity is given for reasoned,
in depth analysis of the problems to be discussed simply because of time con-
straints on each speaker. Furthermore, any of the speakers that are really
serious in commenting or influencing a government decision on the subject of
the hearing invariably submit written comments in which everything that was
said at the public hearing is repeated plus, usually, the much more valuable
detailed information and opinions relevant to the federal actions being consi-
dered. Therefore, it is suggested that, unless absolutely required by law, the
Department refrain from holding hearings throughout the coal regions at each
and every opportunity. Instead written comments only should be solicited with-
in reasonably short time periods before the proposed decision or decisions axe
to be made.
The Activity Planning discussion also refers to the preparation of regional
environmental impact statements in which tuct delineation, ranking and selection
would be discussed. It is felt that it is equally important to involve public
ccoment, and especially industry participation, either by means of the same
regional ELS or by means of preliminary written public comment on selection of
coal lands, application of unsuitability criteria and resource trade-offs. How-
ever, it is not suggested that these additional decisions would require any
additional comment or other delay but could be integrated with the consideration
of the other elements of Activity Planning which will also be the subject
of regional environmental impact statements.
Section 3.1.1.6 describes briefly the policy preferred for processing of Pre-
ference Right Lease Applications. The central variation of this process from
past procedures would be that these applications would be required to make a
showing of commercial quantities twice: once, before any lease stipulations
are suggested and presumably in the traditional manner of determining commercial
quantities and a second time, after the economic effects of the environmental
stipulations are attached. It is indicated that these environmental stipulaticxic
would not necessarily be those which are required by law but could be specific
stipulations tailored to the particular application. This seems to suggest that
the Department by strenuous special stipulations could preclude any determina-
tion of commercial quantities in the second showing. Furthermore, the very
basis for requiring a second showing of commercial quantities is not explained
in the Statement and there appears to be no legal justification for it.
coastal States Energy Company
Pebruary 12, 1979
Another feature of this process is the preparation of environmental impact
Statements on the la— WW of the leases themselves. If the applicant satis-
fies the double test for showing commercial quantities, it would appear to be
beyond the Department's legal authority bo mngirtar in an environmental impact
statement the standard no-action alternative as well as other alternatives to
the issuance of that lease since the Department, would then be m^iii^i to
issue a lease and would have discretion only as to the lease stipulations.
If the Department is referring to an environmental impact statement on a choice
of alternatives between these stipulations and not on a choice of alternatives
whether to then issue the lease or not, such a distinction ought to be made
clear in the final impact statement.
Section 3.1.1.8 describes how an anergency leasing system to maintain existing
mines or to permit the mining of otherwise by-passed federal coal would be co-
ordinated with the broader federal coal leasing program proposed. The purpose
of this emergency leasing program is to respond quickly enough to situations
in which a broader long range leasing program would result in the loss of pcO
or caplovment unfairly. However, it is apparent from reading this section
that since the emergency program could not proceed until the complete land use
planning stage is finished that such "emergency" leasing would, for at least
the next few years, offer no relief to coal operators who would otherwise be
in a position to benefit, and to benefit the government, by mining coal that
might otherwise be lost. The need for such comprehensive land use planning
before such emergency leasing, which is certainly going to be on a very United
basis either in terms of the acreage in any particular lease or the cumulative
effect in any region, would seem to be unjustified. It should be enough that
if the emergency lease is not clearly in conflict with the likely land use scheme
for the area that the lease could proceed without such crippling delay
The insistence that an environmental assessment be made for each such emergency
lease, presumably with a public hearing requirement and resulting delays, is
likewise unjustified. It would seem from the discussion of emergency leasing
under the preferred alternative that such a system would completely replace
any emergency leasing which is not now permitted under the settlement agreement
in NBDC v. Hughes. Serious consideration ought to be given to preserving that
portion of the settlement agreement which now permits such emergency leasing
rather than redoing essentially the same program in the form of a component of
the long-term coal leasing program.
Table 3-1 describes in general terms the twenty-four separate unsuitability
criteria all of which would be applied to each and every tract of federal coal
lands considered for new leasing under the proposed program. In reviewing this
criteria it must be again stated that is would appear that the Department's
new coal policy is that: "When in the slightest doubt, don't lease." That is,
if the collective imaginations of all the government officials and public in-
terest groups which will be influencing the application of this unsuitability
criteria cannot exclude coal leasing on the basis of using the land fox anything
else then that land will have an opportunity to be further considered for possible
eventual leasing. It would seem that assigning what amounts to the lowest
possible priority to federal coal leasing on any tract of unleased federal mal
lands is completely contrary to numerous expressions of Congressional and Adminis-
tration intent to greatly increase coal production for federal lands.
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
Certain of the more potentially significant unsuitability criteria deserve
specific attention because in seme respects all or almost all of them are
felt to be overly broad or poorly conceived. The first criterion deals
with Federal Land Systems and indicates that all federal lands which are
recommended for inclusion in preservation systans such as the Wilderness
Preservation System vould be automatically excluded from further considera-
tion as unsuitable for coal mining. Taken literally, this would mean that
all lands in National Forests presently under review in RARE II process would
automatically be given no consideration for coal leasing as well as all lands
under the administration of the Bureau of Land ftonagement which are presently
being inventoried for review as potential wilderness areas. Hie Bureau of
Land Management review will not necessarily be concluded until the year 1990.
Clearly, such an automatic exclusion witfeut opportunity for appraisal by in-
dividual land unit or particular lease tract to determine if indeed there is
any potential for further review and designation is unwarranted and could elimi-
nate vast tracts of federal coal lands unjustifiably.
The criterion concerning Rights-of-Way and Easements would, with certain excep-
tions, exclude portions of "federal lands" as unsuitable for coal mining which
are within any rights-of-way and easements or within surface leases for just
about any use. Since the terra "federal lands" is used in the text to describe
lands in which the United States owns the coal but private interests own the
surface, the application of this criteria would require initially the torren-
dous task of reviewing title to all private surface over federal coal to identify
such rights-of-way, easements and leases. Apparently, the existeree of a sur-
face agricultural lease even by one who would not otherwise be granted surface
owner protection would be enough to completely exclude an area from future coal
mining and particularly from strip mining. There is no legal justification
for this situation and this criterion must be strictly limited to landowners
otherwise protected by SMCRA so that it is not readily abused by groups which
could obtain such rights-of-way or easements for nominal prices in the hopes of
delaying or completely blocking federal coal production from the land in question.
The criterion related to Wilderness Study Areas has the same problems as those
discussed for the criterion related to Federal Land Systems above.
The dual criterion related to State Lands Unsuitable for mining and State Proposed
Criteria would seem to have the potential effect of requiring the Secretary of the
Interior to abdicate his authority and discretion in the leasing of federal coal
lands to the State in which the federal coal lands are located. Again, there
appears to be no legal justification for this extreme result and it is contrary
to the clear intention of congress that the Secretary retain primary authority
and discretion for leasing such lands with considerable state participation but
not control.
The criteria concerning both federal and state designated endangered species
would not seem to allow for the flexibility which has characterized the resolu-
tion of problems related to most applications of the Endangered Species Act since
its enactment. Envircrtental groups and the Administration fought tte amertfrent
of the Endangered Species Act in the last Congress on the basis of statistics
which indicated that of the thousands of instances in which the Act created a
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
conflict with development of any kind, including numerous coal mining opera-
tions, the government, public interest groups and the private companies in-
volved were able to work out compromises which did not result in the serious
modification or prohibition of the development. However, when one considers
that the application of criteria only scmewhat more strict than the criteria
presented in the Statement resulted in the exclusion of one-third to one-half
of coal lands in sections of Montana and Wyoming as unsuitable for coal mining
based largely on identification of endangered species and critical wildlife
habitat, it would appear that these two criteria are going to be applied in
the proposed alternative for the long range federal coal leasing program with
an inflexibility that would not permit similar compromises but would completely
prevent the development of coal operations on the lands in question. If these
implications are indeed an accurate reflection of what tr*; Department is pro-
posing in this Statement, then that should be made clt^r and a justification
should be presented in detail for departing from what has been a rather success-
ful and reasonable past practice.
The last criterion which deserves particular mention is the one related to re-
claimability. In the text the discussion of reclamation assumes unusually long
time periods (ten to fifteen years) for reclaiming to legally required condi-
tions. Apparently this time period really assumes that the initial vegetation
will not be completely compatible with surrounding vegetation in undisturbed
lands and that reclaimability means the slow natural progression of grasses
from neighboring undisturbed lards to establish dominance over and eliminate
other native grasses which are required by law to be planted in the disturbed
areas. Obviously, putting the burden, as it is apparently is placed, on the
operator or potential lease bidder to prove such reclaimability would require
long term tests that could greatly frustrate any renewed federal coal leasing
in the next decade. Certainly, the Department could not have intended such a
result. It is hoped in the final impact statement that this area of concern
will be clarified by making it definite that compliance with existing federal
reclamation requirements will be all that is necessary to prove reclaimability
and that the land will not be completely withheld but that flexibility will be
applied to conduct test mining operations to give a potential operator or biAfcr
ample opportunity to prove reclaimability of the tract involved when such proof
is necessary.
Section 3.2.3 briefly discusses the use of coal production targets. Although
the Department professes to place great reliance on industry participation in
the entire coal leasing program, this discussion indicates that the Department
will not even seek expressions of industry interest in particular tracts for
leasing purposes until after all of the various criteria have been appli^J
for determining which lands in a region are acceptable for consideration for
leasing. That is, industry would not really be able to effectively participate
or would not be listened to until after the nost important and far reaching
decisions concerning the availability of coal lands to the industry had already
been made. There is absolutely no justification for this procedure. SixA a
situation would give non-industry groups, many of which are and will remain
adamantly opposed to any significant new leasing, an opportunity to unfairly
inf luenoe the thinking of government decision makers at the most critical
initial stages of planning.
K-34
b
9KOiraHaBNUfflHBaBN91HBaBln9HBflniulH8^Hni!^B«HBBnl
Coastal States Energy Conpany
February 12, 1979
Aloo, there Beans to be no reason why the use of production targets, which
should already be known to the government officials conducting the land use
planning, can not be considered in the general land use planning process.
If the Department is serious in treating coal leasing equally with other land
uses then the justification for permitting the consideration of production
goals throughout the land use planning process would seen to be apparent.
Also, it must be noted that several of the unsuitability criteria contain
exceptions which apparently rely on the method of mining that would be used
and/or on proof that the mining would not adversely affect the environment in
certain ways or would not adversely affect other property interests. It is
difficult to understand how the land use process is going to proceed to deter-
mine fairly what land is acceptable for mining by applying this criteria with-
out significant industry input. There would be no indication from industry
what if any interest there is in conducting particular types of mining on tracts.
The exclusion of such tracts might depend on the type of mining as well as the
degree to which potentially adverse environmental affects can be mitigated
through industry suggestions for relocation of roads and other facilities.
These facilities may be otherwise erroneously assumed by the planners to be
XoCJstlbto only on certain lands with unacceptable inpacts on the environment.
Section 3.2.1 (p.3-lB) makes reference to guidelines of the Federal Land Policy
and Management tat which include the giving of priority to designation and pro-
tection of areas of critical environmental concern. Such areas have been high-
ly favored recently by some of the environmentalist groups as representing a
rrwr^ny^it^i between industry and environmentalists in the battle over designa-
tion of lands for wilderness preservation. It is of course uncertain at this
time how much land otherwise available for new federal coal leasing would be
segregated as a result of the designation as areas of critical environmental
concern, however, it is initially puzzling that this type of land use designa-
tion is not specifically listed or discussed in any of the unsuitability criteria.
hopefully, this can be construed to confirm that areas of critical environmental
concern will be treated as wilderness areas are in the Statement, namely, as
areas which automatically prohibit new federal coal leasing. There is nothing
in FLPMA which would suggest that such areas should be treated like wilderness
areas. It would be very helpful if the Department made clear in the final im-
pact statement that areas of critical environmental concern will not be auto-
matically excluded from consideration for new federal coal leasing.
Also on Page 3-18 the land use planning process for excluding lands as unaccept-
able for consideration for coal leasing is again described but this time it is
stated that land would not be excluded in favor of another use unless that other
use was clearly superior bo new federal coal leasing. This statement is easily
lost among the many statements which would indicate to the contrary that new
federal coal leasing has been given a very low, if not the lowest, priority
among all other land uses. The final environmental impact statement should
correct this confusion by consistently stating that federal coal leasing will
not be eliminated as a possible land use in favor of any other land use unless
that alternate use is clearly superior to coal leasing.
At the end of Page 3-18 the final paragraph refers to the fact that the land
use plans would be updated only every five to seven years. This would appear
Coastal States Energy Cospany
February 12, 1979
to be inconsistent with the long term four-year cycle of new coal leasing.
Presumably each new lease sale would require at least a review and possible
update or supplement to the land use plans to reflect changed conditions par-
ticularly as regards criteria which previously applied to exclude lands from
mining.
Section 3.2.1.1 describes the unsuitability criteria. In the third paragraph
Of that Section a statement is made to the effect that Section 522 (a) (3) of
SM2RA lists certain specific criteria for determining lands unsuitable Cor
coal mining including those lands considered renewable resource lands which
are described in the Statement as including "aquifers". This would suggest
that, since most coal seams near the surface in the West are acknowledged in
another part of the Statement to be aquifers that these seams would automati-
cally be excluded. A more careful reading of this section of SMCRA indicates
that aquifers would be excluded only if the operations would result in a "sub-
stantial loss or reduction of long-range productivity of water supply...."
Section 3.2.1.4 concerns the concept of threshold development levels. It is cer-
tainly hoped that such threshold development levels are not going to be consi-
dered fixed for all time if once made. Rather, it should be made clear that
with changing population patterns which may not be controllable through coal
leasing, such threshold levels may have already been exceeded with no harm to
whatever environmental condition is to be protected. Therefore, the level of
leasing can be increased on the basis of this new evidence. Also, in situations
where, for example, critical wildlife habitat is destroyed by other activity,
such as timbering or accidentally by forest fires, it it hoped that the land
use plan will promptly be revised to remove the threshold that otherwise con-
strained additional coal leasing.
Section 3.2.3 discusses setting of regional production targets and refers to
the fact that the preferred alternative would use the near and mid-term national
production targets already set or to be set by the Department of Energy. This
Bounds as though the alternative considered in this Statement to lease to meet
the Department of Energy goals will be a part of the preferred alternative even
though statements are repeatedly made that the Department does not prefer such
a syston at this time.
Section 3.2,4,4 lists several alternatives being considered for sale and bidding
procedures for new federal leases. The sliding scale royalty bidding would
increase the percentage royalty with the value of the coal. With coal prices
expected to continue to rise, this method would probably insure that ssurginal
deposits or small areas of logical mining units would be increasingly by-passed
by companies. The profit sharing method would probably be the worst of all
worlds for both the government and the operators since the government would
effectively have nationalized the portion of the coal mining industry engaged
in mining new federal leases requiring an horrendous new bureaucracy.
The fixed rental method would probably not reflect a return of fair market
value to the government over the long term period.
Section 3.2.5.2 summarizes the general public participation in the proposed
program. Again, it oust be emphasized that submission of written comments are
much more effective than public hearings and do not waste as much time.
Section 3.2.7 describes the emergency leasing system. The primary objection
to this system is that there is hardly time to respond to true emergencies
or by-pass situations. Although some tiJTK^-consuming planning is eliminated,
the sale of an emergency lease would apparently take years or almost as long
as a typical long-term new federal coal lease.
Section 3.3 discusses various issues and alternatives to decisions tentatively
made in the preferred alternative for the coal leasing program. Much of the
material discussed here has already been oonmented upon in earlier sections.
However, some of the particular options considered here deserve further attention.
Section 3.3.3 indicates that existing leases and preference right lease applica-
tions will be the subject of environmental stipulations which are clearly stated
as expected to result in the exclusion of part, or perhaps even all, of the leases
for mining. Apparently, the Department would resort to condemnation by regulation
if an exchange or outright condemnation would prove too expensive or time-con-
suming. This would appear to be the Department's policy as the answer to its
continued inability to obtain all the authority it would like for exchanges and
condemnations from Congress despite repeated efforts. The Department should dis-
cuss in the final impact statement what, if any, compensation would be paid to
preference right lease applicants or an existing lessee for such condemnation
by regulation. The Department is reminded that although government bodies have
had increased authority in recent years to regulate private property it is still
a fundamental principle that regulation which becomes an outright prohibition
of any use of property amounts to a cordemnation requiring payment of just com-
pensation.
Section 3.3.4 suggests that in dealing with split-estate leasing the Secretary
would attempt to regulate the amount of compensation paid for surface owner
consent through some vague notion of fair market value while publicizing all con-
sents. If such publication would include the details of the cempensation to be
paid to the surface owner, the Secretary may find it indeed difficult to restrain
any rapidly spiraling cempensation to surface owners. All of the surface owners
who had not yet given a consent but who would be willing to do so, would ask for
at least the compensation which was paid to the highest paid surface owner whose
consent was already published. Such high compensation may be totally out of line
with any realistic notion of fair market value or the rest of the marketplace
simply became the landowner in question had an unusually high bargaining power
relative to the particular operating company.
Section 3.3.6 discusses — 1— economic recovery and notes that the Secretary
considered five definitions of this term. These five definitions should be
spelled out and explained with their relative advantages and disadvantages.
Table 3-3 (Page 3-32) jJaBUW only three alternative*, including the preferred
option of requiring maxima economic recovery of all coal seems which are collec-
tively profitable. Before industry can react properly to the selection of this
definition, it would be helpful to take a typical properly in the West whether
learned or unleaaed and describe how this definition would be applied. It is
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
feared that the Department will require the mining of thin seams relatively
close to large seams which would greatly increase the production of waste
rock, minimize efficiency (particularly of underground mining] and perhaps
create unsafe conditions both inside the mine and for the surface disturbed
directly or indirectly by the more extensive mining. In effect, the Depart-
ment is seeking to substitute its engineering knowledge, which is relatively
limited, for that of industry which has for decades functioned well to recover
as much coal as could safely and efficiently be extracted. It should not be
the function of any government agency in this time of spiraling inflation to
encourage inefficient resource extraction of any mineral on the excuse that to
do so is necessary ro recover as much of the mineral as possible under general
conservation principles.
Of all the disturbing provisions in the Statement, Section 3.3.7 clearly has
the potential for the most damage to maintaining a competitive and efficient
coal industry for this Nation capable of responding to the energy needs of the
public at large. Here, again, is an excellent example of the Department attempt-
ing to use a coal leasing program to accomplish a lot more than simply leasing
federal coal in a manner to meet increased needs while doing so in an environ-
mentally acceptable manner. These relatively limited objectives are the only
objectives for which the Department has any authority to pursue in this State-
ment. It clearly does not and should not have any authority to determine the
end use of the coal to be produced. The market place has functioned remarkably
well in determining such use. When the government interferes by price controls
or end-use controls, such as in the natural gas industry, the results are in-
evitably much worse than the problems sought to be solved. It is hoped that
the Department will reflect upon the past misnl location and wasteful use of such
of the natural gas consumed in this country which was for decades encouraged
by the federal government and realize that such und-use controls are perhaps the
most inprovident and irresponsible of all considerations studies in the formu-
lation of a federal coal leasing program.
Section 3.3.9 concerns the relative detail of stipulations for environmental
protection which would be attached to a particular lease prior to sale and then
to any mining plan submitted upon lands covered by that lease. The only comment
on this procedure is that it would be a great disservice to the objectives of
the coal leasing program if the stipulations attached to the mining plan were
significantly different or more restrictive than those attached to the lease.
A bidder for the lease has, in all fairness, a right bo know that the mining
plan stipulations will not be so different from the lease stipulations or from
typical mining plan stipulations that a significant quantity of the coal he
had expected to mine is rendered unminable.
In Section 3.4 there is a brief discussion of numerous on-going studies which
are Jf i II w>1 as clarifying procedural details and which will apparently not
be the subject of any further ispect statements. Although the Deportment is
not encouraged to increase the number of impact statements for any reason, it
is felt that these studies are so isportant to industry and other public interests
K-35
i
Coastal States Energy company
Fehcuary 12, 1975
that failure to at least provide an adequate public consent period for
them could seriously jeopardize the legal defensibility of the entire
federal coal leasing program as well as result in an inequitable situation
in which parties most knowledgeable in the areas specifically being studied
would not be given the proper opportunity to influence the decisions of
the Department.
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1579
Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 deals with a rogion-by-regicn description of the general environment
in each coal region of the nation. Since our attention is primarily with the
Injita-Soulhwee te rn Utah Coal Region, we will concentrate our comments on the
section of Chapter 4 related bo that region only.
It should Initially be observed, however, that as regards the unsuitabiLity
criterion of reclairaabiliby, several cements are made far the separate regions
which indicate that enough knowledge has already been generated to prove that
such reclaimability is usually not a serious problem. See, for example, the
ujhumiL in the third full paragraph on page 4-30 to the effisct that none of the
regions are particularly fragile and that with proper soil and vegetative
management all can be reclaimed to a near original stats following mining.
Presumably, the Department will not lose sight of this admitted fact in re-
quiring proof of reclaimability in any region.
Hear the end of Section 4.9.1 on page 4-38, the discussion is directed to the
reclaimability of lends in general and particularly in the Uinta-Scuthwsetem
Utah Coal Region. In stating that the reeeeding process may take several years
during the drought cycle, the Department is apparently raking the unrealistic
assumption that mines cannot be expected to have a water supply available for
irrigation during the reeeeding process. Cn the contrary, a coal mine simply
cannot functicn without an adequate water supply for many purposes including
hydromulching and other reclamation processes.
Ihe second paragraph on page 4-38 refers to the deterioration of ocraa wa^rsheos
in this regicn as a result of overgrazing by domestic livestock and big gams
animals. Presumably, therefore, the Department will not be so sensitive to
relatively small scattered impacts on wildlife habitat as a result of the pre-
dominantly underground coal mining which is expected to occur in the Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Regicn. Furthermore, it is hoped that this paragraph does
not suggest that coal mining companies will have to bear significantly higher
reclamation costs in order to compensate for such overgrazing, much of which
occurred not only with the consent but the encouragement of federal land use
agencies over the past several decades.
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
Section 5.1.2. discusses the assumptions made by the Department for analyzing
future regional impact of the proposed federal coal leasing program.
One Of these assumptions expects that the production goals established by the
Department of Qiergy will be met. However, in several instances early in the
Statement the Department of the Interior indicated that it would not expect to
meet these goals by its preferred alternative. Therefore, it would appear that
the assumptions determining the environmental impact of the coal leasing program
are deliberately based upon the "worst case" situation. Although typical of
erndronmental analyses, such a situation is not at all appropriate here since
the Department has made it clear that the worst case is not preferred and that
the preferred alternative will probably be selected with rather insignificant
changes if any program ie initiated by the Secretary.
Another one of these assumptions is that no significant delays will be experienced
by operating companies in obtaining any and all of the myriad authorizations from
federal, state and local agencies. The industry would like nothing more than to
be able to believe thi3, but based upon past experience and the incredibly complex
procedures of tTfi proposed federal coal leasing program, it ought to be apparent
that such an assumption i3 unrealistic. Furthermore, it is dangerous because it
permits the Department to avoid focusing attention on the many instances in which
delays could be decreased by assuming that such delays will not occur or will not
create a problem.
The Department is in general to be commended for the wide range of alternatives
discussed in this Chapter based upon innumerable assumptions and recognition of
Ehe limitations of quantifying all impacts. This is a basically realistic approach
which should tend to support the legal defensibility of the Statement. It must
again be noted, however, that far too much attention is paid to developing what
are admittedly unrealistic "worst case" projections for environmental impacts.
Although such projections may now have become OS—OB to environmental analyses,
it is important in any environmental statement and in particular in one of such
far-reaching implications as this Statement, that the Department repeat emphat-
ically with each presentation of "worst case" data or environmental impacts that
these extremes are very unlikely to occur and are presented only far the sake of
bracketing and putting some kind of limit on what would otherwise be a hopelessly
vague and ■aiquantifiable analysis of environmental impacts. The Department has
done this in several cases in Chapter 5. It can only be enphasized that in the
final impact statement the Department should avoid any opportunity to give those
who would be opposed to renewed federal leasing the ability to quote statements
which would appear to insure that the impacts will be incredibly extreme?. Sur*.
quotes are commonly used in public hearings and discussions with ia!ws media in
an attempt to scare local officials and local citizens into believing that any
coal development in their area will have devastating consequences.
Section 5.2.1. discusses land disturbance and reclamation in general terms.
Although this section is helpful in finally putting into proper perspective the
relatively smell amount of disturbance which will be experienced in western
coal regions relative to the rest of the country, it does contain some distor-
tions and inconsistencies which should be oarrected in the final impact statement.
Coastal States Energy Ccmpany
February 12, 1979
Cn page 5-17, at the bottom of the first column, reference is mode to estimates
of land which would normally not be reclaimed. Curiously, this estimate con-
siders land occupied by buildings and coal conversion and processing plants as
lands most likely not to be reclaimed. It should be noted that these lands are
fully bonded for reclamation and, in the sense that the salvage of the buildings
might pay for the reclamation itself, have as good or better chance of being
reclaimed by the appropriate state authority or contractors working with that
authority, if necessary, than any otter areas. Furthermore, concentrating on
such areas as unreclaimable indicates that the Department would expect a larger
proportion of surface directly disturbed by underground coal mining to he
unreclaimed relative to that expected to be unreclaimed as a result of surface
mining. There is no basis for such an assumption particularly since on the same
page under "Heclamation Potential," the flat statement is made that all mined land
will be reclaimed. It would seem that this statement is directly contrary to the
assumptions which are the basis for the estimates in Table S-B.
Also under the discussion of "Reclamation Potential," the statement is mode that
reclamation to maintain mined range land production levels could take as much as
five to fifteen years. This statement is supported by citation to only one study
which was dene in 1974 before most large surface mining operations in the West
had been studied or given adequate opportunity to demonstrate reclaimability
under subsequently much more strict reclamation requirements on the state and
federal levels. This weakly supported statement can result in a great deal of
needless controversy concerning reclaimability as well as unnecessary expense
and bonding difficulties for operators.
Later in the same Section (page 5-23, the sixth full paragraph) , the statement
is made that irrigation cannot be considered a solution for all mines in semi-
arid regions simply because water rights are "usually not available." This
statement is contrary to the experience of virtually every mine operator. Hater
rights are relatively expensive to develop or obtain anywhere in the West, yet
we know of no mine operator who has been unable to acquire such rights either
directly by purchase or by appropriation. Presumably this statement is based
on a miscomprehension of western water law and the realization that most states
cnruiirtnr all or almost all of their watersheds to be fully appropriated already,
which may be the case on paper but not in reality.
In the second paragraph of page 5-24, the incredible statement is made that the
primary surface disturbance associated with underground mining is a lowering
of the surface in the area mined (subsidence) to depths which vary from a few
feet to "hundreds of feet." We believe it would come as a great surprise to
anyone in the industry to be made aware of areas in which underground mining has
resulted in subsidence of hundreds of feet. Even considering the very thick,
shallow deposits in the Powder River Basin which often exceed 100 feet and
assuming that somehow that coal might be mined by underground mining techniques
not yet developed, it still defies the imagination to determine how such
mining would lower the original elevation by hundreds of feet. Such seemingly
innocuous statements made in such an offhand manner are just the kind of state-
ments which will be taken out of context by groups unused to any new cool
operations in the West to try to scare thee* who might otherwise support new
leasing into believing that the consequences of that leasing could be devas-
tating. Furthermore, the very next paragraph of the Statement recognizes swell
K-36
Coastal States Energy Ccmpany
February 12, 1979
factors and discusses typical lowerings which indicate that the Department,
although using swell factors which are lower than those usually experienced,
recognizes that the effects of subsidence in changing surface elevations are
really not that serious.
Cki page 5-25 at the top of the second column the statement is mode that increased
mining might result in uncontrolled fossil collection. This statement, althouj-i
really of minor environmental impact, is rather farfetched in that surface mine
properties, for a variety of reasons, including the liability of the sane
operator for the safety of the surrounding populace, are simply not left open
for anyone to run across the property gathering fossils or otherwise having free
access to pit areas and other disturbed lands.
The first tuo full paragraphs on page 5-26 discuss briefly potential conflicts
between oil and gas development and ooal mining. Unfortunately, it would seem
to be the attitude of the Departjrent that such potential conflicts will often be
resolved by requiring that one resource be developed to the exclusion of the
other. Such a decision will rarely prove necessary. In the northern Appalachian
Coal Rsgion, there have been hundreds of thousands of wells drilled over the post
100 years, yet that region has been and remains one of the prime coal producing
areas in the country. Of course, it cannot be said that such dual development
has never resulted in actual conflicts concerning recovery of one mineral or
the other. However, the Department of Energy and the Bureau of Nines have
developed techniques for mining through abandoned wells even in underground
coal mines and there are many alternatives which can accomodate both Methods
of resource extraction without excluding one or the other in the sane tract.
This conflict is particularly important in the West, where many of the prise oil
and gas producing areas in existence and that can be expected to be discovered
will be in areas with important federal cool reserves. Any program which sets
up an "all-or-nothing" battle between oil and gas interests and ooal interests
can only result ultimately in loswwn of these critical resources to both indus-
tries and the Nation as a whole.
Oh page 5-41 is a discussion of the projected consumptive water requirements
in the Upper Colorado River Basin. This discussion concludes with an observation
which is made for other regions to the effect that the Water Resources Council
figures relied upon in the Statement, ore probably exaggerated by a "double
count" which includes general use, plus coal development. The Statement should
present mere reasonable water consumption statistics based en efforts to elim-
inate this double count, failure to do so, even with the express recognition
that the double count may exist, again gives critics of the coal leasing program
and of western coal development in general the opportunity to capitalize on a
very sensitive subject in the Meat by using exaggerated figures for water con-
sumption to imply that municipalities and agricultural activity will be severely
deprived of water if additional ooal leasing occurs. Even though the Depart-
ment tries to put the exaggerated water consumption into perspective by describ-
ing it also as a percentage of low-flow total water availability, it is felt
that *»mnn«i efforts are necessary to prevent this very sensitive subject
from being misunderstood.
In the third full paragraph on page 5-53, the implication is left that Western
coal uniformly has more radioactive material in it than Eastern coal. He know
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
of no authorities to support this ixpiication, and would suggest that the
Department clarify this to indicate that since both eastern and western coals
vary widely in quality and trace element content, such a statement concerning
radioactivity cannot be applied across the board to all western coal.
In Section 5.2.4.1, a lengthy discussion is made of the assumptions used in
projecting the population increases due to the new federal coal leasing and the
resulting socio-eoonomic impacts. On page 5-83 (second column) and Dear the
beginning of page 5-85, are consents which indicate that these impacts assumed
are based on increases in population which combine short-term increases due to
major construction as well as long-term employment in coal mines and supporting
Similarly, these Impacts are based on figures which do not reflect any assump-
tions concerning the number of new people which would come into an area and
the number of jobs related to new federal cool leasing which would be filled by
present residents of an area. These two factors greatly exaggerate the socio-
economic impacts of new federal coal leasing. This is particularly true in
areas such as central Utah, where certain counties which would be directly
impacted by new federal coal leasing are experiencing relatively high levels of
unemployment or underemployment which would be alleviated by coal development
without many of the related environmental impacts that occur when new residents
move into a rather sparsely-populated area. Therefore, it is urged that the
Department make a concerted effort in the final impact statement to relate
current unemployment figures to influxes of population resulting from new fed-
eral coal leasing to develop not just the "worst case" picture again, but also
to show to what degree the enplcyinent of existing residents in coal development
projects and/or supportive services would reduce the projected environmental
impacts. Many residents of the West are particularly opposed to any develop-
ments which would bring in large numbers of "outsiders . " It is important to
public support of the new federal coal loosing program and to the blunting
of any opposition based on population increases that the Department put such
population increases in proper perspective by indicating to what extent existing
residents might reduce in-migraticn problems.
The population increase figures assumed by the Department are apparently in
direct conflict with statements made on page 5-87, at the beginning of
Section 5.2.4.2 to the effect that the principal Bource of labor for western
cool development con be expected to be western workers in agriculture and to
a lesser degree, in the construction industry. Here the Department is acknow-
ledging that many existing residents of the West will be available to fill ooal
development-related jobs, thus making the exaggerated assumptions of the amount
of in-migraticn even more unrealistic.
Again on page 5-94 [bottom oE first column) , reference is made to Table 5-54 as
containing projected increases in population due to construction of coal
development-related facilities. These comments recognize that part of the
increase is due to a national surge in construction of new oombustion facilities
but it also notes that the data is based on the assumption of the passible
development of significant numbers of synthetic fuel plants. Earlier in the
Statement, the Department clearly stated that, in general, its environmental
impact policies contained in Chapter 5 will be based on the assumption that
the end use* of ooal would, during the unforeseeable future, not vary signifi-
Ooastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
cently from the present uses which ore primarily for the generation af
electricity and secondarily for conventional industrial boiler use with neg-
ligible or no synthetic fuel development. There would appear to be no
justification for making on exception to this general observation in analyzing
population increases. To assume significant population increases from synthetic
fuel plants can be unnecessarily alarming to existing resident - in regions to
be impacted by any new federal coal leasing program.
In Section 5.2.4.4 (the second full paragraph en page 5-96), the basis for
projecting fiscal impacts en state and local government agencies is described
as being based on admittedly overstated population shifts which assume, incred-
ibly, that all population shifts would be interstate. It continues to be
confusing and frustrating for the Department to be making assumptions on one
page and then contradicting the some assumptions with completely unjustified
assumptions on the next page. Although it might be helpful to present the
"worst cose" scenario for physical impacts in order to avoid any criticism that
the Statement is inadequate far failing to at least mention all potsdhLi impacts,
it is basic to an objective analysis that the Statement also demonstrate what
the Department considers to be the most likely situation so that published
reports of the Statement or comments taken out of context by groups mii.mil to
new federal coal leasing programs will not unduly alarm state and local govern-
ments to enact new taxes or increase existing taxes in preparation for problems
based on wholly unrealistic assumptions.
Again, in Section 5.2.5.1, the analysis of transportation impacts deliberately
sets forth only the worst case situation in which the vast majority of coal is
moved by railroads with a variety of resulting impacts. The Department should
try to develop again a "most likely" impact scenario because even where dis-
cussions are relatively brief and it is clearly stated that they are on the
worst oases basis, a reader is likely to lose sight of that in attempting a
detailed review of the bewildering amount of data contained in the Statement.
The last paragraph on page 5-113 mokes the incredible statement that it is
possible to construct major new rail lines without prior authorization from
the federal government. In support of this statement is a footnote reference
to a publication based solely on one section of the Interstate Commerce Act.
We are aware of no major roil lines that have been constructed cur that are
proposed for construction which could avoid getting any authorization from the
federal government. Even in instances where rail lines have been built as spur
lines by ooal companies, the oonstructicn was the subject of at least an environ-
mental analysis or an environmental impact statement ha^inp it was associated
with one or more ooal mine developments which in themselves required some
federal authorization. Therefore, the fears expressed in this part of the
Statement would seem to be wholly unfounded and unnecessarily raise problems
for new ooal development in the West.
As is noted in the closing sentence of this Section, such considerations have
far-reaching wocla.1 and political implications which can only be considered
by Congress and not in an environmental impact statement en only one of a
number of activities which will affect the population growth and result in
anvironmsntal impacts in the West. This Section vividly portrays just a few
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
of the many serious problems which would be created by any end-use control
system so that it is difficult to understand why the Department is expending any
effort in further consideration of this option.
Section 5.4.5 discusses diligence and continuous operaticn requirements. This
section opens with a brief statement as to the advantages for strictly applying
such requirements. It should be noted that the imposition of end-use controls
would significantly decrease if not eliminate most of these advantages.
Also in this Section, the Department continues to stress the fact that many
existing leases are not producing. Although it is not disputed that some of
these leases have been and continue to be held for speculation, it should tim
be noted that it was only within the last five or six years that there was any
real market incentive for the development of western ooal in general. Further-
more, as has already been noted in the Statement many of these leases exist in
units too small for economic development or in areas where development would
be prohibited or unduly costly because of environmental consideration? . To
this list of aonstraints beyond the control of the lessees of ncn-producing iMsms
must be added the fact that in the past five or six years "the rules of the game"
for federal ooal leasing and the stipulations under which mining could be con-
ducted, if at all, hove been changing oonstantly and significantly. In view of
these facts and the statements made at the top of the second column on page 5-133
concerning the long lead time to the opening of mines even under the best of
conditions, it can be seen that many of the leases which were not developed are
and perhaps will remain so because of circumstances beyond the control of
either the lessee and/or the Department.
Also on page 5-133, is a discussion of alternatives to the present diligent
development and continuous operation requirements. It is puzzling why the
Deporbnont of the Interior is concerning itself with such altenatives since
it acknowledges at the beginning of this discussion that the authority to adopt
any such alternatives is totally the responsibility of the Department of Energy.
Section 5.4.7 discusses the apparent preferred alternative definition for
"maximum economic recovery" which ireguires that recovery be based an the mining
of all collectively mineable seams in a property. While it is advantageous
that a coal company have the option to mine all seams within one property rather
than leasing separate Beams to different companies, such an election should be
based, as reflected in the third alternative discussed in this Section, on sound
engineering practices which con be readily adapted to changing mining technology
and economics. Any profit-making company such as a coal oompany which invests
huge amounts of capital in its projects cannot realistically be expected to act
to reduce the return on that investment by failing to mine the T^^ximm amount
of ooal from each seam which con be safely and efficiently mined.
Section 5.4.8 discusses unsuitability criteria development. Although it is not
expressly stated in this Section, it is assumed that the task force field studies
and reports applying the draft criteria would be available to the public. These
field tests as described in the third full paragraph on page 5-141 were applied
in sections of Montana and Wyoming to indicate an exclusion of cne-third to cne-
half of the available federal coal resources. Thin result is all the mare
K-37
i^SaaHHBHUBHH
CM5U1 States Energy Company
rsbruary 12, 1979
incredible and unrealistic when viewed with the fact that such exclusion did
not apply all twenty-four unsuitability criteria even though seme of the
criteria have since been modified to permit more leasing. As discussed above,
it would appear that the criteria, particularly that related to endangered
species and wildlife habitat, is being applied most rigidly and without excep-
tions or compromises which have been so often experienced in past development
impacts on such aspects of the environment. It is hoped that the Dapartment
will consider a wholesale review and revision of the unsuitability criteria
to minimize the amount of coal which would be excluded while meeting the clear
mandates of relevant legislation. In the final statement, the Department
should include an analysis of the same areas to which the draft unsuitability
criteria was applied so that the industry and public in general can have a
clear concept of just how and to what extent that criteria in its final
proposed form would exclude federal cool resources from development.
Coastal States Energy Cccpany
February 12, 1979
Chapter
6.
Chapter 6 summarizes many of the adverse impacts already discussed and deals
primarily with mitigation of thooe impacts. A few of the statements made in
this Chapter seem to conflict with previous sections of the Statement which are
supposedly being summarized in this Chapter.
Cn page 6-3, the statements in the second paragraph of the second column suggest
all environmental stipulations to be attached to a particular lease and mining
plan would be determined prior to the lease sale. Earlier descriptions of the
lease sale and mining plan approval process indicated that at both levels the
Department would anticipate attaching special stipulations although most of the
stipulations would occur prior to lease sale as is only fair to the lease
bidders, mis inconsistency should be clarified in the final impact statement.
Cn page 6-5 in the first column nine principal factors are listed which are
to be considered in evaluating any impact of the proposed decisions discussed
in this Statement. One of those factors is labeled "cost internalization" and
refers to the extent to which costs of all adverse impacts can be borne by the
producing company or passed through to energy consumers, this statement per-
petuates the popular myth that large corporations should be made to bear the
brunt of costs which would be completely absorbed by them. In fact these costs
simply add to the price of the coal or the product produced by the coal such
as electricity and so all of these costs can be expected to ultimately be
passed through to the energy- consuming public. This should be made clear in
the final Statement so that members of the public are not eager to adopt or
support provisions which would unrealistically increase the price of the coal
cn the mistaken belief that in so doing their individual coat of energy consump-
tion or of coping with the environmental impacts of coal development are reduced.
It is true that costs nay be shifted into the operator's internal oost structure,
so that such costs might be hidden from the public but to suggest that doing so
"relieves" the consumer from these costs is simply not true.
Near the bottom of the first column cn page 6-7 is a statement to the effect
that although consideration has been given to requiring operators to provide
financial assistance to communities and government bodies through direct lease
stipulations, the Department has determined that "it does not appear to be
legally possible...." It is hoped that the Department will give no further
consideration to such an obviously unlawful use of lease stipulations.
i environmental consequences of the
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
This Chapter reviews briefly the lony I
proposed coal leasing program.
Unfortunately, some statements in this Chapter tend to unjustifiably and un-
necessarily exaggerate such consequences. For example, in Section 7.1.1.2 the
long term effects of mining on soils is discussed with the conclusion that some
areas of the West would require hundreds of years for natural processes to
reestablish fertile soils. This must assume that the disturbance of those
soils will result from activity which will be clearly in violation of SMCfiA
which emphatically requires the segregation of all soils and the return and
stabilization of all soils on mined areas. Perhaps this statement is referring
to soil disturbances resulting from general population growth which are not
controllable by operating companies. Under such circumstances, it should be
made clear that this is not the responsibility of operating companies.
Again, such extreme statements unnecessarily alarm all those who are already
very concerned about increased coal devclop^Hit in the west and particularly
agricultural interests. If space does not allow objective explanation of such
statements then they should not be made in the first place. Such statements are
even more incredible in view of other comments made in portions of the Statement.
For example, in Section 7.1.2 (at the beginning of p. 7-3), it is flatly stated
that mining simply would not be allowed in the first place cn lands which could
not be reclaimed and that bonding to insure reclamation would certainly continue
after mining in areas where reclamation was particularly difficult.
In Section 7.1.3 (second full paragraph of the second column on page 7-3) a
statement is made to the effect that prospects for higher wages in coal develop-
ment areas would attract new people which would necessarily exceed the demand
for labor and cause increases in unemployment. This statement would appear to
be contrary to all experience to date with coal development in the West. The
final impact statement should explain on what basis the Department asserts
this statement since it is assumed in other parts of the Statement that coal
development would severely decrease current unemployment rather than result
ultimately in an increase of unemployment.
Section 7.2 contains a statement at the end of the first paragraph of that
Section which indicates that the Department's policy of maximum economic re-
covery would somehow reduce the natural Limitations cn current mining technology
which results in relatively low resource recovery in underground mines. It is
obviously very important to industry to know exactly what methods the Department
might contemplate to accomplish this. Surely the Department is not going to
consider requiring, for example, in an existing mine which acquires a new
federal lease, that a completely new or significantly changed method of mining
be then used to result in increased resource extraction. If the method of
mining currently being used is reasonable in view of present technology, there
is no need to require the wasteful investment in all new underground equipment
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
may not prove to be a technology for higher
much more detailed elaboration of this
to completely change to what may
resource recovery. In any event,
suggestion is necessary in the final impact statement or else the suggestion
should be eliminated entirely.
Section 7.3.3 discusses productivity of lands as affected by reclaimability.
Again as in Chapter 5, statements are made which indicate that even though
existing laws require adequate bends to insure the ultimate removal of all
structures erected on lands disturbed by coal mining, it is assumed that some
of the structures will be left and the land so disturbed will never be re-
claimed. It is not clear how or why the Department makes this assumption and
it is certainly contrary to the express provisions of SH3A.
In that same Section (on page 7-3) , statements are again repeated to the effect
that reclamation will require from five to fifteen years in most areas. These
statements are based on studies which were either conducted when there was
little if any information available to accurately assess reclamation efforts
on western coal mines or before the implementation of the strict reclamation
requirements of applicable state statutes and S'CRA. These statements should
be modified in view of these developments if for no other reason than that
such assumptions left uncontested can result in enormous burdens to operators
by extending and increasing bending requirements unnecessarily. Such costs
are, o£ course, passed on to the ultimate consumer of energy and products
produced fron coal.
K-38
BBWamawmsmmaUUMim
miEaHUHMraHBHHBH«»HaB^HH^BHJBUBiHraHEKBaHHBHH
Coastal States Energy Company
February 12, 1979
Chapter
Section B.l describes in part several BMBOTaafla of meters tanding which are ox
will be eMSCUted by the various federal agencies with often overlapping authority
for various portions of tlie federal coal leasing program. Although no deadline
is suggested for the completion and publication of these memoranda, it would
surely be highly desirable that such memoranda be available to the public for
OPHBint before or at the tine of publication of the final ijipact statement.
Respectfully submitted.
A7L
Us
CCASTAL STATES ENEFGY COMPANY
l/P
*W*.y
BURLINGTON NORTHERN
resources Division
Director
Bureau of Land Management
U. S. Department of the
Interior
Washington, D. C. 2O2A0
176EJ51 FilihSuwit
Si. Paul, Minrwou 66101
Telephone 1617) 296 2121
February 12, 1979
Sir
."■67
Crltert
Lorentz
Sta teme
Departi
sugges
of txll
we real
such coi
Conseq
bounds
clarlf I
the Resources Division of Burlington Northern
ts on the Federal Coal Unsul tabl 1 1 ty Interim
so enclosed is an extract from Mr. N. M.
separate consent on the Draft Environmental
nt of the proposed Federal Coal Management Program.
ent of Interior representat Ives have stated that
ed changes In the criteria be within the constraint
ting statutes and regulations. Thus, while our
■Ight prefer wholesale revision of some criteria,
lie that the Department cannot seriously entertain
on the
apply'
Morthei
of the
ment Pi
clear)-
ently, our comments attempt to stay within the
of present legislation and generally recommend
tlon of the criteria. We also want to urge that
terla contain provisions requiring due diligence
part of land management agencies res pons I Me for
g the provisions of the criteria.
of Its ownership of Western coal, Burlington
n Inc. Is Interested In the wording and application
unsultabl lity criteria. The Federal Coal Hanage-
ogram can best be Implemented if these criteria are
stated and fairly applied.
ery truly,
E. E. Thurlow
Assistant Vic
Coal and Mine
STATEMENT OF NORMAN M. LORENTZSEN
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BURLINGTON NORTHER
STATLKE.iV OF n'ORMAi;
LOREWTZSEU
I am iJOKKAH K. LOmiTtSEt:, President and Chief executive
Officer of Burlington riorthern Inc. My business address is
176 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101.
This statement is submitted in response to a request from
the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, for corments on the draft environmental statement for the
Federal coal management procram (DES).
General Information
Burlington Northern Inc. is a major railroad which, includ-
ing its subsidiaries, serves some 19 States from Chicago through
the Midwest and North Central Plains to the Pacific Northwest
and from Denver to Galveston, Texas. Burlington Northern is
also a natural resources company due, in part, to the land hold-
ings of one of its predecessor companies, the Northern Pacific
Railway Company. This statement will separately address trans-
portation and natural resources aspects of the DES.
Froa the perspective as a major Western rail carrier,
Burlington Northern is vitally concerned with development of
Western coal. In general, the DES greatly overstates environmental
K-39
impacts arising from the transportation of coal by rail carriers,
especially in the West.
Coal Production Estimates
Comments on coal production estimates are limited to
impacts arising from the Powder River Basin Region because
it is this area which will have the most significant impact
on Burlington .'Jorthem. Because of the limited time available
to review this lengthy document, we have not attempted to
analyze other regions.
Estimates of coal production from the Powder River basin
Region are considerably too high. The high probability placed
On the "medium" level scenario for the preferred program
(Table 5-2, page 5-10 of the DES> is overly optimistic. In
planning for projected increases in volume of coal transporta-
tion, Burlington tlorthern conducts a comprehensive research
effort to predict future coal traffic from the Powder River
Basin. The basis for this planning effort is primarily utility
demand as expressed by present and future customers beginning
with rate quotation requests by utilities exploring the use
of Powder River Basin coal. We also look closely at the plans
of the mines we serve and the contracts in effect between mines
and their customers. Such analysis convincingly leads to pro-
jections more in the range of the "low" scenarios mentioned
in the DES rather than the "medium" level which is favored
in the DES.
For example, our internal analysis predicts that total
Powder River Basin coal production in 1985 will not exceed
175 million tons. This production may be as low as 133 million
tons if full-control scrubbing requirements are promulgated by
the Environmental Protection Agency. By contrast, the subject
DES assumes a total of 205 million tons for the same territory
in 1985 (Table 2-5, page 5-10).
Our projections are further substantiated by the most re-
cent demand forecast (August 1976) issued by the National
Electric Reliability Council (attached as Table SN-1) . This
forecast indicates a total demand from all Western Regions of
290 million tons in 1985. In view of these forecasts, the
■medium" projections used in this subject DES are highly
illogical.
A further illustration of wide discrepancies and over-
estimations occur in the supply-demand flows shown in Figures
5-4 and 5-5 (pages 5-107 and 5-108, respectively). These
charts depict expected coal flows in 1985 and 1990. Figure
5-4 shows a total of 131 million tons in 198S from the Powder
River Basin. Figure 5-5 indicates production of 329 million
tons in 1990. No evidence supports this tremendous 250% spurt
in demand in a five year period. The coal volume predictions
used in this DES do not appear to give sufficient weight to a
number of factors which affect the competitiveness of this
region's coal vis-a-vis other fuels as well as coal from other
regions in the U.S. There are a number of developments cur-
rently in the offing which are now significantly tipping Che
competitive balance away fron, Powder River coal as may well
reduce drastically even the "low" scenario.
Among these developments are laws pertaining to pollution-
control, especially the "best available control technology"
regulations currently being formulated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as a result of the 1977 amendment to
the Federal Clean Air Act. The proposed regulations would
require that ail new coal-burning power plants be required
to install expensive scrubbers to remove at least 85* of the
sulphur dioxide produced. This requirement would apply regard-
less of the sulphur content of the coal being used. The DES,
pace 2-10, does recognize some impact of full-scrubbing regu-
lations but dismisses the threat as unimportant to the West.
The legislative history of the Clean Air Act suggests ~o some
that it was the intention of the Congress to foster the pro-
duction of Eastern coal from underground mines at the expense
of the Western surface mine production despite the fact that
now the cheapest way for many utilities to reduce sulphur
emissions is to use low sulphur coal from the latter source.
If the new regulations go into effect, however, the attractive-
ness of Powder River Basin coal will be sharply diminished as
higher-sulphur "local" coals could be used for mine mouth
generating plants or would not have to be transported as far
This would nc doubt result in major cu
mine expansion and new openings in the
to the power ;
tailnent of p:
Western regions. The precise extent of this shift in fuel
sources is not predictable until EPA settles on final regula-
tions which it is required to promulgate no later than March 12,
1979 by court order. If they are comparable to those now pro-
posed, the effect on Western production will be severe. Uur-
lington Northern is presently planning on future coal movements
to Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida, Michigan,
Indiana, Illinois and other eastern and southern states. Moat
of these moves are in jeopardy if low-sulphur coal is penalized
by full- scrubbing provisions. As noted On page 2-10 of the DES,
these utilities would likely turn to lignite or midwestern bi-
tuminous coal which, though higher in sulphur, are closer and
thus cheaper to transport than coal from the Powder River Basin.
Legislation and regulations restricting surface mining
could be a factor which will reduce production from the Powder
River Basin. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 provides stringent guidelines governing surface mining
of coal. These may well serve to restrict mining activities
and reduce the amount of coal that could otherwise be recovered.
Until implementation of regulations and state programs are es-
tablished, it is not possible to predict what effect this Act
will have on western coal developments. There is also concern
that substantial delays could result from the complex environ-
mental assessment, hearing and permit processes before mining
could begin.
K-40
Financial considerations may also dictate against predicted
development of Powder River Basin coal. Surface mining is capi-
tal intensive. Tremendous amounts of invested capital are needed
just to begin operations. Mining firms may be very reluctant to
invest in this region given the uncertainties surrounding the
use and production of Powder River Basin coal.
Another potentially restrictive development is the recent
proposal of the U.S. Department of Transportation that a 50-
eents-per-ton surcharge be added to coal prices in order to
help pay for (1) highway reconstruction at Appalachia to fa-
cilitate coal haulage and (2) rail-highway crossing improve-
ments. If enacted into law , this would place a disproportionate
burden on lower-priced western coal because of its relatively
lower BTU-per-ton yield, and would affect the competitiveness
price relationships with coal from other regions. Additional
increases in western coal prices could be caused by the imposition
of severence taxes by states. Western states are becoming much
more sensitive to the depletion of coal reserves. Wyoming sever-
ence taxes are relatively low at present, but future tax increases
would negate the competitive advantages of this coal-producing
region.
Federal leasing policies will, of course, have some effect.
Although the DISS recognizes these policies as a constraint and
points out the high dependency of the Powder River Uasin coal
on Federal lease expansion, the projections reflect an overly-
optimistic outcome of Government policy in this area.
As stated, further development of Powder River Basin
coal is strongly dependent upon its competitive relationship
with coals with a higher BTU content or from regions closer
to major markets. This relationship can be sharply altered
by new technology in mining and in fuel-burning processes,
by improvements in the availability of other energy sources
and by new laws and regulations which are being developed
and implemented. Any projections, especially those beyond
1965, should recognize these high potentials for diminution
in production.
IMPACT OF RAIL CARRIERS
Inflated estimations of coal production from the Powder
River Basin will cause a significant overstatement of impacts
from coal transportation by rail carriers. Impacts attributed
to rail operations in the Powder River Basin region are exag-
gerated throughout the DES and presumably are high for other
regions as well. Track capacity, gaseous omissions from com-
bustion of locomotive fuel and other impacts are dependent on
coal volume transported and the system for transportation. All
of the above factors appear to have been calculated based on a
unit train consisting of 100 cars. In actuality, most Burlingtoi
Northern unit trains are and will be comprised of 110 cars.
giving a train capacity of 11,000 tons. Ignoring for now dif-
ferences in coal volume projections, the faulty assumption of
a 100-car train leads to numerous erroneous conclusions. Track
capacity, for example, is stated as the number of trains per
day over a track segment before congestion occurs. Generally
tonnage hauled is not considered. Thus, the amount of coal
which could be transported over a given line segment per day
would be greater in 110-car trains than in 100-car trains.
The DHR indicates that certain rail links may have short-
falls in capacity to haul future coal traffic. Tabic 5-62,
Potentially Constrained Rail Links, page 5-110, specifically
identifies two Burlington northern routes which allegedly will
be unable to handle expected traffic volumes, because refer-
ence Ho. 77 was omitted from the resource list at the end of
Chapter 5, we are unable to analyze the assumptions which
lead to the "capacity shortfall" conclusion. The DES does
recognize on page 5-109 that the railroad industry has ex-
pressed willingness to expand line capacity to accommodate
projected increases in coal traffic. Capacity on the Burlington
Northern route east from Gillette to South Dakota border (through
Clifton) is adequate for current traffic levels and additional
track is planned for this segment in the near future. The
second Burlington Northern route mentioned (from Frannie Junc-
tion to Cheyenne) is not on an existing or planned route for
unit coal trains and, therefore, the expectation of a severe
capacity shortfall is puzzling, A portion of this route from
Orin Junction to '.'heatland, Wyoming is a coal route for which
improvements to increase capacity are also planned in the near
future. In light of the railroad industry's expressed willing-
ness and plans to expand capacity of rail lines to meet pro-
jected coal traffic. Table 5-62 has only marginal significance.
It would be more accurate and informative to include in this
table information indicating track capacity after projected
improvements have been made .
The DES purports to compare energy consumed by various
modes of transportation in moving coal from production facilitie:
to other locations on the coal cycle. See pages 5-116 and H— 54 .
The estimations of operating energy expended by railroads and
slurry pipelines are not only inaccurate but are completely
Out of proportion. The recent task report on coal slurry pipe-
lines prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment predicts
slurry pipeline operation would consume about 920 BTUs per net
ton-mile versus only 400 BTUs for rail transportation of the
same quantity. Office of Technology Assessment, 1978, A Tech-
nology Assessment of Coal Slurry Pipelines. Washington, D.C.,
Volume II, Part 2, page 205. Burlington Northern's own experi-
ence with unit coal train service indicates a figure slightly
lower than 400 BTUs per ton-mile. The DES energy consumption
rates of 670 BTU for rail carriers and 450 BTU for slurry pipe-
lines are unsupportable.
K-41
The effect of these errors is cumulative. Overestiraetion
of one aspect of rail operations creates error in the computa-
tion Of other impacts and compounds errors that might be made
in the latter area. This can be illustrated vividly by review-
ing projections for air emissions from unit train operations.
Fuel consumption is a major factor in determining gaseous
emissions.
Paragraph a. 5. 1.3 Transportation, page H-34, «tates that
typical train emissions have been estimated at 16. 5 pounds of
nitrogen oxides, 6.5 pounds of carbon monoxides, and 4.7 pounds
of hydrocarbons per train mile of travel. Such casual use of
national estimates does not provide a valid measure of locomotive
emissions for a specific region. Fuel consumption and gaseous
emissions are related to train speed, track grade, train load
and many other operating conditions. This is particularly mis-
leading when juxtaposed with the statement that transportation
facilities are responsible for a in roe share of air pollutant
emissions in many areas of the United States. This glib declara-
tion begs the conclusion that rail carriers alone are responsible
without help from automobiles, trucks, and other "transportation
facilities."
A more reasonable and logical measure relates gaseous emis-
sions to fuel consumption. The following factors were provided
by the manufacturer of the locomotive most likely to be used
in unit train service in the Powder River Basin region.
NQjc 33.33 gm/lb. fuel
CO 4.43 gm/lb. fuel
HC 1.31 oro/lb. fuel
At a fuel consumption rate of 400 BTUs per ton-mile, gaseous
emissions from "long haul rail" would be as follows:
Emission
Corrected
Long Haul Rail*
Table H-22
Lonq Haul Rail
HO*
3.3 lbs. /train
mile 18.5 lbs, /mile
CO
0.45
6.5
HC
0.13
4.7
It's safe to assume that all other estimates of emissions related
to combustion of locomotive fuel in the DES are similarly exag-
gerated.
Table H-22 is also subject to criticism because without very
careful review it is highly misleading. It purports to compare
air emissions from various modes of transportation but does not
compare equal volumes of coal transported by each. Fuel con-
sumption used for calculation of emissions is also inconsistent
with relative energy consumption for the various modes stated
on page 5-116. It stretches credibility that one mode of trans-
portation which allegedly consumes the same BTUs to transport
a ton of coal as another mode (670 B'i'Us for rail and 680 BTUs
for barge) suddenly consumes 3500 times the fuel volume per
Calculation;
et tons, ,1 lb. fuel, ,x_gms pollutant, , 1 lb.
In ' ll9,75l} BTu' ( lb. fuel J {2200 gms
unit of coal transported (50 gallons of fuel to transport 10,000
tons one mile by rail versus 0.02 gallons of fuel to transport
10,000 tons one mile by tug).
One transparently incorrect conclusion regarding environ-
mental loadings from coal transportation is the assumption that
coal slurry pipeline operations would not contribute to air
emissions. See, for example, Tables H-65 on page H-84 and
H-B9 on page H-108. Although a pipeline is powered by electricity
and may not visibly produce emissions along its line, generation
of that electricity does cause air emissions. Moreover, these
emissions are localized around power generation facilities. Fail-
ure to include emissions from electricity generation necessitated
by slurry pipeline operation, distorts environmental impacts of
the various modes of transportation.
Based on those factors indentified above, all estimates
in this DES of air emissions from transportation as they relate
to the Powder River Basin are suspect and should be given little
weight. Regarding rail carriers, emission factors from loco-
motive combustion are inaccurate, fuel consumption estimates
are contradictory, unit train length was shortened and total
coal to be transported is excessive. The bottom line is not
a "worst case" estimate of impact, but a totally improbable result.
COAL SLURRY riPHLIIJIlS
The DES makes only passing reference to slurry pipelines
because certain constraints on slurry transportation are unre-
solved. This avoidance of slurry pipeline issues is hardly
justifiable in a presentation which undertakes to forecast
such nebulous topics as coal demand and effects of coal demand
in 1990. Slurry line proponents themselves represent that
slurry line construction is a certainty in the early 1900's.
In light of the serious environmental risks posed by slurry
pipelines - especially the diversion of Wyoming's scarce water
resource - careful treatment of these environmental impacts
seems required.
Many years ago, the former Northern Pacific developed a
surface mine at Colstrip, Montana, to provide coal for its
steam locomotives. In 1971, the Company voluntarily initiated
a reclamation program for the mine site although it was under
no legal obligation to do so. Thio program, which involved
approximately 1,000 acres of land, has now been completed and
is generally regarded as being successful.
Burlington Northern supports reasonable Federal legisla-
tion and regulation which axe designed to encourage energy
K-42
development consistent with sound environmental considerations.
Wherever possible, we believe the States should be permitted to
administer the specific programs within the national policy.
Burlington Northern does not mine its coal properties at
the present time; instead through the years it has leased approxi-
mately one-half of its eubbituminous and lignite coal reserves to
other companien under long-term contracts. The following comments
are from the perspective of an owner of fee and mineral rights
interests in Western coal that is intermingled with Federal coal
properties.
President Carter's national energy plan, announced in April,
1977, listed seven National energy goals to be achieved by 1985
to end this Country's dependence upon foreign oil. The DES, in
response to the President's Plan and existing legislation, such
as the Department of Energy Organization Act, the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act, and the Federal Coal Leasing Amend-
ments Act of 1976, includes an elaborate regulatory framework
for implementing a Federal coal leasing program to meet the ex-
pected and dramatic increased demand for principally low sulphur
Western coal. The DES also adds certain environmental criteria
for excluding Federal lands from coal leasing which are not
mandated by the numerous Federal laws listed on Table 1-5 of
the DES and it provides a comprehensive plan for Federal manage-
ment of coal, including consideration and possible restrictions
on where the coal may be sold.
The difficulty in centralizing the decision-making machinery
in the Federal Government with respect to coal developments,
which is admittedly a long-range process, and coal management
can perhaps best be shown by two recent and conflicting develop-
ments. The problem in Iran today emphasizes the need to minimize
the Nation's dependency upon imported oil. That unsettling event
and others like it that may occur in the future cannot be predicted
with certainty. Secondly, the newspapers have reported recently,
including The hall Street Journal on February 7, that the electric
utility industry is not expanding as rapidly as had been expected.
Among the reasons given for the lower expansion rate is the con-
servation of energy and the utilities' need for substantial new
capital, environmental requirements, problems in obtaining rate
increases, and new Federal requirementa for scrubbers to meet
air quality standards. These reports suggest that the demand for
coal, especially low sulphur Western coal, will not be as great
as stated in the DES. These two developments, and others like
them, prove how difficult it is to plan in detail the systematic
development of coal production and marketing for the entire
country.
We do not expect that Western coal production will increase
as rapidly as the projections contained in the DES. Therefore,
we believe that a less elaborate regulatory scheme for Federal
coal leasing can be developed which can be more responsive to
the changing demand for Federal coal while at the same time
protecting the public's interest in competitive bidding, the
environment, and expeditious development of Federal leases.
We do not believe that it is necessary or advisable for the
Government to inject itself into the marketplace for Western
coal or to add another layer of discretionary environmental
regulations on t.op of the existing environmental regulatory
f ramework .
The initial step of the "preferred program.," described in
the DES, consists of land use planning utilizing the planning
systems already in existence in the Federal land management
agencies. In this process, there would be a determination of
the lands unsuitable for mining and a determination of lands
considered more valuable for other uses. We believe it is im-
perative that the coal industry and private mineral interest
owners be consulted during this planning process, in addition
to the State Governments, because of the substantial effect the
selection process will have on adjacent or contiguous private
and State owned reserves. If Federal reserves are withdrawn
from development without sufficient consideration of adjacent
reserves or effects on those reserves, the remaining parcels may
be fragmented or too small to be economically developed. For
example, Burlington Northern has substantial ownership checker-
boarded with Federal lands in Montana and North Dakota. Those
reserves cannot be considered in many instances to be logical
mining units without the adjacent Federal coal and the same
would be equally true for the Federal reserves if our coal is
not developed. Thus unilateral Federal decision that the Federal
coal is unsuitable for mining could make the mining of our coal
uneconomic. To deny the opportunity to share in this decision-
making process would be tantamount to confiscation of our prop-
erty without compensation.
Congress in recent years has enacted several major pieces
of legislation which are designed to protect the environment,
not the least of which is the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977, which is commonly acknowledged as being a
comprehensive environmental protection plan. Since its passage,
the issuance of a Federal coal lease does not guarantee the
lessee the right to mine because it must still obtain a permit
under the Act and comply with its stringent requirements. Bur-
lington Northern recognizes that the Department of Interior in
formulating the new program must comply with certain statutory
provisions contained in that Act and other statutes which restrict
its freedom of choice in specific areas. Nevertheless, several
Of the 24 criteria dealing with environmental matters contained
in the DES, any one of which can determine unsuitability for
leasing, have been added at the discretion of the Department of
Interior. In addition to these criteria, there is a further
•election process in which trade-offs on a site-specific basis
are considered between coal production and other potential uses.
Among the uses which would be chosen ao being clearly superior
K-43
raUBnBSHBHB^nHnBHnaUHm^^Sa
to coal production are prime recreation sites or campgrounds.
We question whether adding non-mandated environmental criteria
is appropriate in view of the existing comprehensive statutory
and regulatory safeguards. we also believe that several of the
criteria should be modified to provide specific ascertainable
standards for applying the criteria to minimize confusion and
administrative delay.
Turning r.ore specifically to certain of the 24 criteria,
it is proposed that lands recommended or being studied for in-
clusion in National Recreation Areas, the national Park, Notional
Trails, h'ationai Wildlife Refuge, .'.'ationai Wilderness Preserva-
tion and national Wild and Scenic Rivera Systems would be ex-
cluded from coal leasing. We believe thut these lands should
not be so arbitrarily excluded, or, alternatively, that the re-
source and applicable criteria should be considered as part of
the normal study and planning process for such lands. The proposed
environmental impact statement for any Federal lands within such
areas should not be the principle vehicle for determining whether
the Federal lands should be excluded from the leasing program.
Further, the Company believes that the Federal land management
agencies should exercise due diligence prior to nominating and
including additional Federal lands in the Wilderness system.
Similarly, the Company believes that it would be advisable
to maJie the DES more specific to exclude scenic areas and his-
toric lands and sites from coal leasing only if the areas arc
actively under consideration for such classification. Criteria
should be included to aid in determining which Federal lands
are suitable for study as "natural areas," "National Natural
Landmarks" and for determining "roost and concentration areas"
for bald and golden eagles and falcon cliff nesting sites. The
DES should also include defined terms for "high priority habitat"
and "high Federal interest" for purposes of the criteria relating
to migratory birds. Specific standards for determining areas
deemed unsuitable for coal mining by Federal and State fish and
wildlife agencies should be added to the DES .
With respect to the criteria relating to floodplains, the
definition of "riverine" floodplains should be limited to streams
which have a perennial flow of a specified minimum discharge.
This would permit development of Federal lands which are dry or
ephemeral streams since there would be no local dependence on
the stream for irrigation, fisheries, water supply or navigation.
He believe that the criteria for establishing a buffer zone
Of Federal land adjacent to State lands designated by a State
as being unsuitable for coal mining should be combined, and suit-
able guidelines added for selecting such lands.
Under existing mining reclamation laws and regulations, the
mining of coal generally will represent only a temporary dis-
turbance of the surface. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriati
for the criteria set forth in the DES to include guidelines for
identifying Federal lands having prime farmland soils and to
exclude only lands with soils which are not rcclairable that
are actually under cultivation or planned for cultivation within
a prescribed period of time. Vie believe that the portion of the
criteria on alluvial valley floors relating to lands outside such
valley floors which would materially damage the quality and
quantity of surface and underground water systems supplying
the alluvial valley floors should be administered by a qualified
organization such as the U.S.O.C, Water Resources Division, the
Soil Conservation Service, private consulting concerns, or by
means of joint studies by such entities.
The criteria relating to reclaimability provides that as
information becomes available. Federal lands found not to be
reclaimable pursuant to the Surface Mining Reclamation Act stan-
dards can be withdrawn. We believe that Federal lands should be
judged by the data in existence at the time leases are entered
into.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the draft environmental statement for the Federal
coal management program as it relates to Western coal has greatly
overestimated future production from the Powder River Basin region
and perhaps from the entire Western region. Because of this over-
estimation of coal production and the use of erroneous fuel con-
sumption and emission factors, the DES exaggerates environmental
loadings and other impacts from rail transportation of Western
coal.
The Federal coal management program itself should be re-
designed to involve private landowners in the planning process
at an earlier time than proposed. Environmental criteria used
in site selection should be more clearly and definitively statei
and limited to implementing existing statutes, preferably under
the jurisdiction of one designated agency.
To provide a more accurate picture of Western coal pro-
duction and transportation Lhe final environmental statement
should reflect the changes outlined above.
Respectfully submitted,
I.orman M. Lorentzs^en
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 12, 1979
K-44
TABLE bfc-1
(Lxcl. Li3"«)
1000 'Cons)
year
1919
1980
19B1
19B2
1983
1984
1985
. current lim «• *
PEABODY COAL COMPANY
<••■ L ITBElt «*..6UITt l*IO
wilJniNOION, D C- IOOM
February 13, 1979
u£9
Office of Coal Management
Bureau of Land Management
18th and C Street*, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20240
Gentlemen:
Peabody Coal Company wishes to provide comment on the
Draft Environmental Statement (DES) on the proposed Pederal
Coal Management Program published December 15, 1978. The
comments contained herein have been reviewed by the
Environmental Quality, l*gal , and Corporate Planning
diviaiona of Peabody, as well aa our Rocky Mountain Division
staff.
While the Draft Environmental Statement appears to be
adequate in most respects, Peabody Coal Company find* a
number of specific deficiencies which are described in the
attached chapter-by -chapter review.
In general, and with the corrections we note, we
believe the statement is sufficient to meet the requirements
of NEPA. However, we want to take this opportunity to
comment on some aspects of the proposed coal management
program (hereinafter celled "preferred program") which we
find troublesome and which may render the program unworkable
in its present form.
The principal difficulties with the preferred program,
from Peabody's point of view, include the following:
1. We believe the exclusion of early expressions of
interest from potential bidders unnecessarily and
greatly compounds the work requirements of the
affected agencies, with resulting manpower and -
budgetary implications. It will also consume more
time than would be necessary under a more focused
study effort.
2. The "unBuitability" and "resource trade-off" tests
for prospective coal lease areas will be conducted
in the abBence of technical and market information
which only industry sources can provide.
3. The proposed intertract bidding process does not
seem to account for relative differences in the
costs of extraction, processing, transportation
and reclamation when comparing potential lease
tracts.
4. The proposed application of the unsuitability teat
and the land-uae planning requirements on existing
leases may not have a basis in law, nor would the
imposition of end-use requirements on new leases
seem to have a legal foundation.
5. The utilization of regional production goalB has
no rational relationship to coal market circum-
stances. Moreover, the goala do not seem to be
the driving force behind the proposed leasing
system, but merely planninq targets.
6. The imposition of maximum economic recovery (MEB)
rates, as suggested in the DES, will require the
Department to predetermine a rate of return on a
proposed mining venture. By stipulating recovery
of "all coal seams which are collectively profitable,"
the Department will have to establish a margin of
profit for mining ventures on new leases. This
constitutes a major change in government policy
with market and productivity consequences.
Some of these program deficiencies can be corrected
without major revision of the preferred alternatives. We
urge the Department to consider altering the sequence in
which certain s t at u tori a ly -man dated functions are carried
out. Rather than complete the land-use planning and unsuita-
bility tests prior to tract selection, we believe the
Department should accept expressions of interest from the
private sector, on a tr act-by- tract basis, prior to completion
of the land-use planning phase. This will substantially
reduce the number and scope of potential coal areas for
which detailed coal-related environmental information is
needed. Furthermore, by withholding final judgments on the
suitability or unsuitability of prospective lease areas
until after specific lease tracts have been selected, and
more detailed analysis is afforded, the possibility of over-
coming or mitigating some of the unsuitability standards
would be substantially improved.
Along with the refinements suggested in our detailed
comments, these two changes — both well within the permissi-
ble limit of current law — would go a long way toward
making the preferred program workable. Without the suggested
change in sequence, and the corrections noted, we cannot
envision the program functioning in a manner that will fulfill
the President's directive to "manage the coal leasing program
to assure that it can respond to reasonable production goals."
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed
Federal Coal Management Program and urge your careful
consideration of the comments and recoomendatione contained
herein.
Very truly yours
Harrison Loesch
^<.v*-L.
Attachment
HL:dl
K-45
Peabody has found the background chapter to be historically
correct, for the most part. The background information is
presented in a succinct and readable form, so that readers
not familiar with federal coal management can gain an elementary
understanding of the program. The list of "Federal Laws
Affecting Coal Development and Energy Conversion" (Table 1-5,
page 1-17} does not list the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA) , though both statutes are mentioned elsewhere in the
statement.
Section 1.3.2 (Interagency Relationships in Federal Coal
Management) fails to mention the role of the Department of
Justice, which under the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act
(FCLAA) must approve each coal lease, prior to issuance. The
Department of Justice is also obligated by statute (Section 8
of FCLAA) to report annually on the status of competition in
the coal industry, with particular emphasis on federal coal
leasing. An argument can be made that the absence of new
leasing or unnecessary constraints on new leasing would have
significant anti-competitive implications. The statement
fails to discuss this issue, and does not mention the studies
and approvals required by law which deal with the anti-trust
questions involved in any federal coal management program.
The discussion of the role of Western, including federal,
coal is reasonably objective, providing some data on the
effects of various modes of federal coal management (i.e. ,
issuing PRLAs , production from existing leases, etc.), Peabody
has only a few specific comments to offer.
The tables on pages 2-28 and 2-29 (Tables 2-17 and 2-18)
providing production and consumption projections for Western
coal do not match. For example, in the 1985 high case,
consumption of Western coal ia estimated at 519.9 million
tons, while production in that instance is estimated at only
507.3 million tons. We assume the difference in based on
the fact that the production figures do not include the
states of Arizona , Washington and Alaska. Perhaps the
definition of "Western coal" in the consumption table (Table
2-1B) should be clarified in the final environmental impact
statement.
One of the more serious difficulties in the chapter
concerns the estimates of time required to bring a lease
into full production (2.B.1, page 2-43). The statement
estimates that mine plan development will take from one to
three yearo. In fact, new requirements under SMCRA may
require at least one full year of data collection before an
application can be submitted. Given seasonal work difficulties.
and the time required to synthesize the collected data and
complete engineering, it will take approximately eighteen
(18) months, at a bare minimum, to prepare a mine plan for
submission to the government.
The statement also estimates only one year for mine
plan approval by the various regulatory authorities. The
implication is that only "in some cases" does the approval
process consume more than one year. Past experience has
shown that approval within one year has been the rare
exception rather than the rule. An average approval time
of eighteen (18) months might be more realistic.
The estimate of time consumed between approval and
"full operation" of a new mine is given as two (2) to three
(3) years. This period of time may be reasonable if one
is estimating the start of production, but it will require
another two (2) or three (3) years from initial production
to achieve the full planned level of production, especially
for the larger Western mines.
A more realistic time frame from lease issuance to
full production might be seven (7) to ten (10) years, rather
than the four (4) to seven (7) years provided in the statement.
The recent study on federal leasing conducted by the General
Accounting Office* (GAO) provides an estimate of four (4) to
fifteen (15) years from lease to full production.
Any miscalculations in the average time required to
•U.S. Coal Development: Promises - Uncertainties, U.S. General
Accounting Office, September 22, 1977, page 4.11
bring new federal coal leases into the nation's energy matrix
will obviously skew the production estimates listed in
Chapter Two (Tables 2-20 and 2-21) and the impacts of coal
production provided in Chapter Five of the statement.
We strongly suggest a revision of the time estimates of
the post-leasing activities.
General Comments
In general, Peabody finds the Draft Environmental Statement
(DES) and Chapter Three, in particular, to be a succinct
description of the preferred program and it3 alternatives.
Drafters should be complimented on a well-organized exposition
of the proposed program.
The most serious failure of the program description is
the lack of detail concerning the actual process for ranking
and selecting lease tracts (3.1.1.1) after the land-use planning
activities have been completed. Another shortcoming is the
absence of definition concerning the establishment of maximum
economic recovery requirements (3.1.1.2). As a result of
these and other omissions, potential bidders are provided
insufficient information about the circumstances under which
new federal coal leases may be offered.
The statement does not provide estimates of the time
required to fulfill each of the various steps in the leasing
process. We are assuming that because of the new land-use
planning process proposed by the Bureau of Land Management,
K-46
HLUSHUHHHUH
the implementation of a new leasing system, described as the
preferred alternative, will take a considerable amount of
time. There are at least two (2) environmental impact state-
ments in the process: one for land use, and one for activity
planning. With the other steps involved, the entire process
could consume years, rather than months. If the leasing
process is as lengthy as it would seem from the present
description, then the impacts associated with the new system
for the 1985-1990 time frame may be overestimated. We hope
the final statement will provide an indication of the time,
frames involved in each step of the proposed process for
leasing coal.
Specific Comments
3.1.1 - The Preferred Program
Peabody finds the major elements of the preferred Federal
Coal Management Program appropriately described, though there
is little indication as to who would carry out the functions
listed in the flow chart IFigure 3-1, page 3-3). More informa-
tion about which offices (BLM state offices, BLM Washington
office. Secretary's office, etc.) are to carry out each of
the major functions would help reviewers better understand
the procedural aspects of the program.
3.1.1.1 - Planning Systems
The principal weakness of the discussion on land-use
planning is the absence of definition concerning the screening
process for coal leasing. Then
about lands not containing coal reserves with "high to
moderate development potential" or lands declared unsui
no serious misunderstanding
for leasing under the provisions of SMCRA, though we have
serious reservations about the latter. However, the
statement that areas which "are considered to be of higher
value for other uses as determined by multiple-use, resource
management trade-off decisions' would be eliminated frosi
further consideration for leasing does not provide an
understanding of either the criteria or the mechanism by
which comparative land-use values are to be judged. Clearly,
economic considerations are not prominent in the trade-off,
since much of the federal land containing coal has no other
potential use rivaling coal development on economic grounds.
Hence, the "higher value" must refer to environmental, social,
or aesthetic considerations which are not spelled out in the
DH) ■
Unsuitability
Detailed comments on the unsuitability criteria proposed
in Chapter Three will require more time than is now afforded,
and Peabody Coal Company will await formal rulemaking proceedings
to provide such comment -
In a general sense, however, we find the criteria seem
to exceed the intent of Congress I SMCRA) . Indeed, if tables
in Chapter Five (page 5-154) are any indication, the criteria
would prohibit coal leasing on an almost wholesale basis.
While there is some merit in reviewing potential lease
areas for "unsuitability" before the lease is executed, it
should be noted that relatively little technical information
is available until a mine plan is actually developed. Hence,
until the latter s1
information which i
of harmful effects
ge, there is little or no available
uld or would form the base for mitigation
f mining -- mitigation which would render
an area entirely suitable for such activity, even though
pre-lease informatiqn might lead to the opposite conclusion.
More importantly, by placing the unsuitability test
in sequence prior to an expression of area interest on the
part of industry, and, for that matter, even prior to any
preliminary tract selection by the Department, the workload
is grossly and unnecessarily compounded, especially with
the detailed tests which would be required by the use of
the proposed criteria. Moreover, the unsuitability test may
well be reapplied during the mine plan review phase after the
lease is issued. Hence, the earlier unsuitability review
could be duplicat ive. .
Activity Planning
In the paragraphs describing Activity Planning, there
are no criteria provided by which preliminary tracts would
actually be selected. The statement says that the selection
process would be "based primarily on considerations of
technical coal data resource conservation considerations
and surface ownership patterns." Further details are
provided in Section 3.2.2.1, but in neither instance does
the statement indicate how the considerations would be used
to establish and delineate specific tracts. For example,
we cannot determine whether "consideration" of land ownership
efers to Interior's stated policy of leasing only
patt.
i where the government (or mining companies) owns
the surface, or whether it refers to leasing to form logical
units for mining in conjunction with fee coal or state-
leased coal.
While Section 3.2.2.2 does indicate that comments will
be sought on the relative merits of individual tracts under
consideration for leasing, there is little indication of
the weight to be given to various tract characteristics
(i.e., low sulfur content vs. wildlife habitat).
Section 3.2.2.2 also implies an effort to disperse
rather than concentrate leasing. The statement is made that
"selection of the first tract (in an area) might preclude
selection, or lower the priority of, other highly ranked
tracts." The long-tern effects of a policy of dispersing
coal development in the West could increase coal transporta-
tion costs, create socioeconomic difficulties, and exacerbate
environmental problems (longer spur lines, duplicated service
and support facilities) . The implications of such a policy
deserve additional analysis.
The process of ranking potential tracts on a region-
wide basis "and not separately within each land use planning
area," assumes that all land-use planning areas within the
region have completed plans, with all the required NEPA
statements, etc. Ranking and comparing tracts in a region
is relatively meaningless if significant number of tracts
(not otherwise declared unsuitable) are unavailable beeause
K-47
ID
the planning is incomplete or inadequate. An early indication
of market interest could be used to help schedule planning
activities on the public lands. The preferred alternative
precludes such indications until well after planning is
presumed complete.
3.1.1.2 - Regional Production Targets
Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of the statement,
and the preferred program itself, is the reliance on
regional production targets as the driving mechanism for
the program. The establishment of targets in the so-called
"major production regions" implies that the coal market is
cordoned into neat, autonomous market areas. In reality,
there are many instances when coal from the West must compete
with Midwestern and Appalachian coal, and even coal from
Australia and South Africa. To discern in advance, as the
preferred alternative proposes, that certain levels of
production are desirable in each region simply flies in the
face of reality. It will be disruptive in the coal market,
impose additional, artificial costs in an already marginal
industry, and it would seem to raise serious questions
about the federal role in determining the level of economic
activity in the various states. None of these issues is
raised in the statement.
Moreover, even presuming the efficacy of setting regional
production targets, it is not clear that such targets would
in fact serve as the driving mechanism for federal coal leasing.
Not only does the statement indicate that the targets set
by the Department of Energy would be subject to adjustment
by Interior (3.1.1.2), but that such targets could be
adjusted according to the available tracts deemed to be
suitable for leasing. Section 3.2.3 states that "the
regional ranking and selection process should consistently
indicate the optimum tracts for the desired level of
development ..."
Previously offered, but unleased, tracts are an obvious
indication of market miscalculation and the need to adjust
production targets. But the statement implies that, in
many cases, the targets will be adjusted to meet the number
of available, suitable leases. If that is the case, then
the production targets serve only as a planning guide, not
as the piston for coal lease sales. In any case, the role of
the regional production targets would seem to require further
description in the final impact statement.
Maximum Economic Recovery
The DES provides scant information about the maximum
economic recovery (MER) requirements. Section 3.1.1.3 states
only that such requi rements must be set prior to a lease
sale, implying that MER rates are set on a piecemeal, lease-
by-lease basis. Section 3.3.6 indicates the Secretary has
previously decided to require that MER rates be set in a way
that "all coal seams which are collectively profitable must
be mined, taking into consideration social and economic
costs." While we understand the need to eliminate so-called
11
"high-grading" of coal seams, the determination of collective
profitability of multiple seams is not a realistic possibility
at the pre-lease stage. At that point, no selling price
has been established, and mining cost calculations must
await detailed engineering after a lease has been issued.
In its present form, all mer calculations must be
established using hypothetic mining methods, cost calculations
and selling prices. In "averaging" the return per ton, the
Department is, in essence, establishing a "profit-control"
system. Me suggest further consideration of the so-called
prudent man test as a means of preventing "high-grading" and
assuming conservation of the resource .
3. 1.1.5 - Management of Existing Leases
The DES states that the same land-use planning require-
ments which are to be applied to new leases would also be
applicable to existing non- producing leases, "subject to
valid existing rights."
We have reason to doubt the legal validity of imposing
land-use planning requirements such as those described in
Chapter Three on existing leases. The issuance of a lease
would seem to be a determination of a land use; alternative
and preemptive uses determined at a later date would seem
to violate the leaseholder's right, so long as the lease
remained valid. We suggest that the final EIS qualify
applications of new planning requirements to existing leases,
or at least shed light on the legal vagaries involved.
12
Ili^cusKinn of the Alternatives
The statement lists six (6) alternatives in additii
the preferred alternatives ;
3.1.2 - No Federal Leasing
3.1.3 - Process Outstanding Preference Right
Lease Applications (PRLAs)
3.1.4 - Emergency Leasing
3.1.6 - State Determination of Leasing Levels
3.1.7 - Leasing to Meet DOE Production Goals
In general , the
is adequate. Howeve
the legal basis for
ascription of the various alte
there is little or no discuss
nking PRLAs (3.1.3) or limitin
of PRLAs to the so-called "bypas;
criteria (3.1.4) .
Also, the description of Industry's
alternative (EMARS II) states that such .
to excessive leasing (more leasing than
market} because of speculative interest
description fails to add that current rei
existing operations"
Indications of Need
system could lead
5 needed by the
1 leases. The
jirements for diligent
development preclude the speculative holding of leases.
We also call into question the statement on page 3-23
that "industry nominations ... resolve the question of leasing
levels" in the alternative proposal to use industry's indica-
tions of need as the mechanism for coal leasing. Nominations
serve only as a means of locating potential lease tracts
and providing a prelimi nary indi cat ion of market demand. In
K-48
■HiHBiiHuraiiiaifiimnHMHUM^^^BmaBBHwnnuBBuHHinM
JMIMIlTHiBBlMMliTrfT"" '] ' ■>■■■-■■■"■■ " ^- ■■■■■'>"
such a system, the actual acceptance of successful bids seta
the level of leasing, not the act of nominating potential
tracts.
3.2.4.4 - Intertract Bidding
Interttact bidding, as described, provides for the
comparative analysis of tracts on the basis of the amount
bid per ton of coal, with some weight given for differences
in coal quality. However, the system, as described, does
not account for differences in environmental circumstances
or differences in the costs of extraction, processing,
transportation, and reclamation, since detailed engineering
does not occur until after lease issuance. As a result, no
true comparison between tracts is possible prior to leasing.
CHAPTER FOUR: DESCRIPTION OP REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
The description of the various regional environments
in which federal coal exists are understandably general.
We are not certain the descriptions are especially meaningful
for decision-making purposes, but it is understood that
additional studiet. of a more site-specific (regional) nature
would be completed before leasing commences.
We have no objections or specific comments about
Chapter Four except the following:
The tables showing population and economic characteristic
for the respective regions (Tables 4-1 thru 4-121 U»t
employment in the various sectors in terms of thousands of
employees. This appears to be a typographical MM* which
should be corrected.
It would be helpful if the drafters provided references
for the demographic data in this chapter. Perhaps the most
useful data in this chapter are the socioeconomic characteris-
tics, especially employment. Yet, without references,
reviewers cannot tell how timely or accurate the data is.
It is apparent that some of the data, especially coal mining
employment, is not current, at least for the Powder River
Coal Region.
CHAPTER FIVE: REGIONAL IMPACTS OF FEDERAL COAL
' MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
General Comments
Chapter Five, Regional Impacts, is general in nature
and very non-site-specific. As a result, the usefulness of
the chapter relative to future lease development is limited.
5.1.2 - Assumption and Analysis Guidelines
The assumptions used in the analysis (5.1.2.1) are not
realistic. The Department has assumed there will be no
delays specific
lly related to
eompli
ance and
implementation
of current best
practicable po
lution
control
technology
related
to air and water pollu
ants.
The assumption is
invalid
since the terms used, BPT and
BACT , as
used in the
stateme
it, have
not been adequ
itely defined.
5.1.3 -
Impact
Estimation
LVides
impacts i
Th
is parti
:ular section d
nto three (3)
general
categor
les : (1) those
where
knowledge
of the specific
n can be
stated in spec
ific t(
rms; (2)
those where
15
there is a lack of adequate data to qualify the impacts; and
(3) those where there is a lack of consistent regional baseline
data. The lack of available information points out the
difficult task of developing and implementing the Federal Coal
Management Program as outlined in the draft statement. It
appears the lack of data may require the coal leasing and coal
operating companies to delay planning until the federal
agencies have completed their studies.
5.2.2 - Physical Impacts and 5.2.2.6 - Water Impacts
As a result of the lack of specificity in the draft
statement, it is difficult -- if not impossible -- to evaluate
this section. The terms are very general in nature, and it is
difficult to assess whether the tables are adequate or meaningful.
— Table 5-14, page 5-74, "Comparison of Potential
Primary Productivity Loss." This table needs
clarification and references. In addition, Tables
5-42, "Nitrogen Oxide Emissions," and 5-43, "Hydro-
carbon Emission," are difficult to interpret. A
statement should outline the criteria on which the
emission factors were generated and what kind of
emissions would impact what areas.
— Table 5-46, "Potential Threats to Endangered Species
of Coal Regions," is extremely misleading. The
column labeled "Most Serious Threat" to the
endangered species is purely conjectural unless
better referenced. It appears the most serious
threat specifically related to strip mining is
unfounded. For example, it states that mining is
16
the most serious threat to the gray bat. This is
unfounded, especially when the animal's normal
habitat is limestone caves. Another endangered
species, the black-footed ferret, is said to be
threatened by strip mining. In fact, farming and
farming practices are considered to be the principal
cause for the degradation of the habitat. This
also applies to the Utah prairie dog. Thus,
Table 5-46 describes severe negative impacts as
if they are solely resulting from strip mining.
— Table 5-73, "Lands Unsuitable Field Test Summary."
Without knowing tracts of land to he studied, it
is difficult to determine the total impact of the
suitability criteria on the total coal resource
base. It appears, if these studies ure representa-
tive, that most of the coal would be removed from
federal coal leasing. It also appears, without an
extensive environmental data base, that 100 percent
of the coal in Montana would not be considered when
using the "historic lands' criteria. In Utah,
64.8 percent would be removed from consideration as
a result of "high interest habitat." Based on these
conclusions from four study areas, and if they are
to be considered representative, significant amounts
of coal would be removed from development.
As a general note on Chapter Five, the impact section
does not describe beneficial impacts from mine development;
K-49
^m-^'^j--:.-^,^^
and does not discuss the economic benefits received from
coal severance tax money. In addition, the statement should
also describe the positive economic benefits of developing
coal tracts within a particular region.
CHAPTER SIX: MITIGATION OF MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS
Peabody has found a few errors and has a number of comments
about the chapter on mitigation.
The first introductory paragraph on page 6-1 contains
the statement that "The impact analysis in the previous
chapter (Chapter Five) does not include those mitigating
measures required by law or regulation" [emphasis added).
As written, this is inconsistent with statements in Chapter
Five, and we assume that a typographical error has been made.
We believe the word "not" in the above sentence should be
deleted.
We take issue with the contention on page 6-2 (second
full paragraph) that "protective or mitigative measures ...
will provide assurance that Federal coal development decisions
which are made will be subject to less delay and uncertainty."
The review process for potential leases and mine plan
applications contains a number of opportunities for public
participation — opportunities which occur later in the process.
Many of the potential problems may not come to light until
then, and there is no guarantee that early consideration of
possible mitigation will reduce the timespan of the process.
While we understand the interest in reviewing and
reassessing regional production goals on a continual basis
(page 6-3, second paragraph), such continual reassessment is
rendered almost meaningless because of the lengthy response
time in the proposed system (up to 15 years). As in Chapter
Three, the implication is left that the regional production
goals will be reassessed solely on the basis of the
prospective number of suitable tracts available, not on the
basis of the need for leasing. "The leasing of an excess
number of tracts" is not necessarily harmful, since due
diligence requirements necessitate an early indication of
the development prospects of each lease. Leases not able
to meet the diligence requirements are relinquished with no
harm to the environment. This point should be expressed,
or at least the statement about "excess" leasing should be
clarified in the final statement.
The statement is made that "site-specific analysis of
each tract would be conducted prior to ranking and an
examination would be made for each selected tract to develop
lease stipulations if necessary" (emphasis added) (page 6-3,
column two, second paragraph). Given the level of protection
afforded by SMCRA in setting mine permit requirements, and
the fact that many of the "ranked" tracts may not be finally
offered for lease, detailed analysis, prior to ranking, may
be a waste of federal resources. At that stage, much of
the work will be of no consequence and will unnecessarily
contribute to a monumental workload problem for the agencies
involved.
19
£ -3.2 - Socioeconomic Impact Mitigation
The statement fails to adequately point out the full
range of assistance available to impacted communities. Of
particular consequence are the changes in the formula for
distributing federal royalty payments; increases in State
severance taxes, impact aid under the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA) , and payments in-lieu-of-taxes.
Several , but not all, of the above programs are mentioned
(6.3.2.B), but there is no quantification of the assistance
available, or potentially available, to communities impacted
by federal coal development. We believe the data will
show a significant amount of financial aid is readily
available which could reduce the socioeconomic impacts
involved. In any case, further information should be provided.
CHAPTER SEVEN: LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
It appears that the description of the long-term effects
of the preferred program and its alternatives tends to dis-
regard the mitigative effects of recent environmental protec-
tion statutes. For example, the possible disruptions to the
hydrologic balance mentioned in the statement (page 7-2, first
column, third paragraph) would not appear to be reasonable in
view of the provisions of SMCRA which prohibit disruption of
the hydrologic balance.
Adverse water quality impacts (page 7-2, second column,
second paragraph) will be greatly mitigated by waste treatment
20
and erosion control requirements under the Clean Water Act
and SMCRA. The statement seems to belie the effects of
these statutes.
Basic coal mining operations do not require large
quantities of water, as is implied on page 7-2 (second column,
first paragraph) . Some water is used in coal processing
facilities, but the only water used at some mines is for
dust suppression and sanitary needs. Frequently, pit water
provides most of the water requirements for a mining operation.
7.1.1.4 - Paleontological Resources
Criteria and guidelines for the protection and recovery
of paleontological resources have not been released; therefore,
the public is unable to evaluate those resources and potential
7.1.2 - Ecological Resources
The statement is made that "Loss of habitat and reductions
in population would occur as unavoidable consequences during
the mining and use of coal." Wildlife studies conducted the
past five years at Peabody 's Big Sky Mine have not shown a
reduction in population due to the mining activity. The
size of population appears to be more dependent on climatic
changes and its effect on vegetation. In addition, additional
acreage of certain habitat types beneficial to wildlife
(i.e. , reclamation areas and water impoundments) may be
established.
The statement also says that "blasting, construction,
and other noises associated with the mining activity would
K-50
21
be unavoidable and would frighten away some wildlife species."
Wildlife species are adaptable to noise, as is man. Although
animals may initially scatter at the time of a blast, studies
have shown that a creature will generally remain within its
territorial range.
Elimination of surface water bodies would adversely
affect waterfowl, but changes made by the mining activity
can also be beneficial to waterfowl. Big Sky Mine has
increased the waterfowl population in the area with the
creation of shallow reclamation ponds. In essence, temporary
disruption may occur, but long-term benefits could ensue.
The statement should reflect this possibility.
The statement remarks that "In most cases, however, the
diversity, density, and composition of the new populations
would be altered from previous conditions." Diversity, density,
and composition are dynamic aspects of wildlife populations,
and therefore constantly changing. Just because one of
these aspects, or all three, may be altered to some degree
does not necessarily mean that the impact is adverse.
Table 7-3 should include references. For example, we
cannot determine whether the table represents potential
productivity on an annual basis or in total. Some of the
estimates for reclaimed land in Table 7-3 are as much as ten
times greater than current empirical data would show for
unmined land. For example:
Powder River (reclaimed)
(as represented in
Table 7-3}
Big Sky (reference area)
(Peabody Coal Co.)
Forest
0.46 tons/acre
0.25 tons/a
S.9 tons/acre
0.5 tons/acre
i may occur because the Big Sky data shows
al basis.
The var;
productivity
7.3.4 - Wildlife
In this section, revegetation of range in Texas is
stated as taking three years, where in Section 7.3.3 the
same revegetation in Texas is stated as taking one year.
— Table 7-5. When comparing this table with Appendix
D-l, certain incongruities i
Powder River
Green River
Fort Union
Denver-Raton Mesa
Denver-Raton Mesa
1 ganwj mammal/13 acres (7-5)
1 game mammal/33 to 200 acres {D-D
1 game mammal/13 acres (7-5)
1 game mammal/66-250 acres (D-l)
1 predator/500 acres (7-5)
1 predator/3,200 acres (D-l)
1 game bird/5 acreB (7-5)
1 game bird/1 acre (D-l)
13.7
1.6
acres/animal
cres/animal u
t (7-5)
(D-l)
In reviewing the two sets of data, Table 7-5 and Appendix
D-l seem to imply that reclaimed land in the Powder River,
Green River, and Fort Union Regions will support three (3) to
nineteen (19) times the relative wildlife population said to
exist naturally, while the Denver-Raton Mesa will support a
wildlife population five (5) to nine (9) times less than exist
naturally. Explanation of this extreme variance is needed.
February 9. 1979
Office of Cool Management
Bureau of Land ManageraenL
18th and C Scree CD, H.U.
Washington, D.C. 20240
071
nclosed comments
al Coal Management
1978. Our organiiatlon maintains a large
f Montana cltiiens concerned with the future of
The Environmental Information Center subml'
in response to the Draft Environmental Statemen
program, published De
■fitcwide membership
Montana and its environment. These comments were prepared by a group of
Montanans who are members of the Environmental Information Center (E1C),
■nd who have considerable experience In public energy policy, natural
resource management, environmental impact assessment and regulation of
all phases of alnlng in Hontana. Our comments range from broad philoso-
phical and policy-oriented issuas to specific evaluations of discrete
point". Charles van Hook, Public Service Science Resident, coordinated
preparation of comments.
;ha
i Federal and Stste energy policies, now
Plaese accept these eoaments as our sincere effort
fallings of nany Hontanans Co the Secretary of the Inte:
sincere in our efforts to further open the door for public partlclpat
in preparation of and co
and In the future.
i working with the Federal coal management agencli
$ftfcjG*lltft£
100* raCilclad papar
nuitlc comments
is attempt by the Federal government to
, controlled coal is similar to prevloul
imbcr of aspects. The impression one ret
the goal is to propose a leasing plan I
opose a management plan
lans although improved
ves In reading the DES
her than discuss Impacts
lai
for the Stati
lnfai
future relative to coal extrac-
and approval of any development has
:rict environmental protection, an
-eclamatlon, and more recently, a
:ate severance tax would serve to
, the reclamation "experiment" In
ilts and the severance tax Is in Us
One essential tool of
In Hontana Is planning. Montana citix
agricultural Powder River Basin area,
the rapid changes In land use, economl
nlng. As a result, local governmeni
ce management
ail
icularly in the rural,
r been confronted with
olitlca that require plan-
le, If any, planning
unfamiliar with its use. The state as a whole has
ever developed a viable energy policy and does not have a planning
truceure capable of recognUing or remedying mining Induced Impacts
n economic or aocial nature. Should it become neceasi
new town In remote mining areas, it must be recognized Chat there is
either the authority nor the experience available to guarantee orderly
ccompllshment of such a task. In summary, the lack of viable planning
xperlence necessary to deal with large scale mining activities results
n a lack of capability. The time, money, and experience necessary to
emedy this situation has not yet been available. This circumstance In
lontuna supports the flndingB of the Energy Impact assistance Steering
iroup presented in Section 6.3.1, and also in the National Coal Policy
.abllsh
•roject report 01
The Hontana
Jlologlcal impac
irrsy of brief and
isldered J
Is fai
:, thus far, In dealing with the natural/
rent and proposed mining actlvttiea may be
lort of comprehensive problem solving. An
islve research activities has been conducted
: great expense. Much Impact analyi
the direction of or with funding froi
agencies at the State and Federal le
inquiries have been supported by agei
as yet Inconclusive. State agency e
are piecemeal, poorly fundi
There Is as yet a tremendoi
/research has been carried out st
nergy corporations and pro-mining
. Some objective, scientific
es such as EPA, but results are
tts to conduct meaningful research
lly lacking In political support,
array of unresolved but critical biological
oundlng coal mining In Montana. The Montana
new Federal reclamation law, In particular,
scientific suppositions concerning recla-
To date, the extent and severity of impacts
lr, water, and wildlife have not been clearly
K-51
^araHBSnanBBnmaHfi
mmniwMniiiww— ■■ m— an
determined and may never be within our lifetime
The
2
uppoaition of
mitigation Is an awkward exerc:
se in logic unde
these
conditlona.
The Issue ac hand, which n
ecessitates these
obaer
ations of coal
Impact problems , la the federal
government's ap
ntent to further
stimulate mining In Montana, This Intent seems
based upon Increased
national need for coal, which 1
.ay be valid, but
which
becomes more nebu-
lous with each f ederal/industrl
al effort to quar
tify s
ch need. Only
after the question of need, and
regional disagg
i of need Is
resolved should specific produc
tion areas be idc
ntifie
1.
The rapid expansion of new
mining .ecivltl*
s in rt
>ntana will pre-
cipitate public resistance in n
lal for the public
welfare and the Montana enviror
ment that any mo
e to s
gnificantly
increase coal production be mad
e with the utmos
care.
It is also neces-
sary chat the current array of
unfounded mitlga
Ion as
jumptions be
discarded or accurately recognized In the federa
1 plan
inf. process. A
demand for honesty In impact as
sessment will di
tate r
cognition of the
following:
- Successful reclamation of let
d and water is ui
certai
- FundH for Impact mitigation a
re uncertain, anc
st use of those
funds is unclear
- Community and state level pis
nning is current
y inop
rative and may
remain inoperative
- Accurate and timely identiflc
ation of critics
lrapac
b is limited and
may never be proficient
- Local human communities and n
atural ecosystems
will
>e permanently
changed, and the direction
of that change ia
unpredictable and uncon-
trollable
- Continued expansion of large
corporate energy
activitles in rural
Montana will accelerate thi
shift in local p
oil tic
1 structure away
from publlc/agricultural/en
vironmental conct
rns an
toward greater
protection of corporate lnt
erests
It ia necessary that both blolc
gical and social
Impact
be minimized in
the process of siting new nlnln
g activities in N
lontana
The current
experimental nature of nlclgat
on of mining impacts In
the undisturbed
rural areas of the West indlcat
Cion o
mining activities
and their effects Is the only f
easible strategy
for reducing uncontrollable,
areawide disruption. The draft
Federal Coal Managemen
E.S. (DES) briefly
discusses this option in Scctia
n 5.4.4. This 6
rategy
for Western coal
mine siting is also covered in
more detail in a
paper
resented to the
Conference on Energy and the Pu
Utah, August 18, 1978*, which s
blic Lands, III,
at the
University of
lould be studied
by the
Dept. of Interior,
In Section 5.4.6, "Concentrating Federal La
ases,"
several problems
are pointed out regarding this
strategy, in part
icular
the concentration
of air and water pollution. It
would be benefit
cy Guidelines:
lal to
Where"
concentrate these
"When", and How?
federal Coal Leasing Poll
Curry, Robert R. and Charles va
n Hook. Conferer
ce on
nergy and the
Public Lands, III. Univ. of Ut
ah, Park City, Ut
ah. Aug. 18. 1978.
impacts so that a more economical and effective program of monitoring
and abatement could be utilized. The construction of one or only a few
high quality water treatment facilities, for use by aeveral companies,
would be less expensive and more effective in protecting water quality.
Similarly, the joint use of dust abatement equipment and materials would
be more coat effective and give better reaults. The current situation
in Montana involves serioue violations of TSP regulations at every mining
site where monitoring networks are sufficient to adequately measure air
quality. The Montana air quality regulatory proceaa is currently Inade-
quate (with financial support from the federal government) and will be
spread more thinly and be even leas effective with further dispersal of
mining activities. Concentration of air pollution aources is the only
way the regulatory agencies will catch up with the problems of monitoring
and equitable enforcement, given the existing monetary constraints.
One
nher<
'Sheds.
bcncfir
in concentrating development is that failure of
ntrol efforts will confine damage to fewer air
l Section 5.2.4) would be
) hyperurbanizatlon. It li
; In the Northern Powder
rence of hyperurbunliation ,
utilised. The coal Indus-
ihich may accommodate a
Another problem which the DES implies (li
related to concentration of Federal Leasing ti
unlikely that expanded coal mining could occu:
River Basin areo of Hontana without the occuri
regardless of what type of management plan is
try is planning a town near Decker, Montana, which may i
large number of company employees. The State and count:
aently (and may never be) in a position to develop and implement such a
plan. The occurrence of hyperurbanizatlon in this area is guaranteed
and it is fortunate that someone is trying to accommodate it in a con-
trolled manner. However, the proposed new town may not necessarily
confine the Impacts of new population to the immediate area. Further-
more, it is not guaranteed whether future federal leasing strategy will
make this town an efficient service center or result in several other
less cost effective, less efficiently planned settlements. It is essen-
tial that the leasing strategy encourage the use of both Coletrlp and
the new town, at Decker, and that it make every possible effort to dis-
courage the opening of mines in areas not local to these centers. It la
also necessary that both the leasing strategy and any allocation of
funds be used in a manner to prohibit the construction of new highways
and railroads through this rural agricultural area. It aust be recognized
Chat new highways and railroads rapidly consume as much or more land
than strip mines. These concepts require coordination of multlagency
federal actions In a manner which will allow both promotion of desirable
activities and restriction of undesirable activities. If such planning
and support strategies are not comprehensive, the Federal role In coal
management will, in Itself, overwhelmingly impact Montana.
It
i appan
that
:ompanles are planning to open mining
.tions on non-Federal coal with the intention of later forcing a
al lease sale on adjacent Federal coal. Such activities will pre-
: many benefits of a thoughtfully designed lease strategy, whether or
he Federal coal is ultimately obtained. Federal coal management
provide a method for restricting such operations In order to protect
-elfarc of the general public as well as the land, air, and water.
If the Federal coal manage
4
all coal mining in
Montana, then it will be rendered largely Ineffective
, perhaps to the
point where its existence
will be nonessential and un
productive for the
nation as well as for Hon
It is recognized tha
planning concentrated leas
ine and mining will
not answer the shortcomings in reclamation experience
, impact mitigation
funds and their wise use,
identification of impacts,
Induced changes, and loca
political changes (all dls
cussed earlier).
With these issues in mind
there is a strong possibtl
ity that any area
of mining activity may be
perceived as a national sac
rlfice area to some
degree and in some manner
Dispersing impact6 throughout the region
will dilute their perceived severity; however, in the
long run the whole
region will be damaged in
a manner which will be more
difficult for the
State to deal with.
The recognition of c
ncentrated or cluster devel
opment as a fronr-
end strategy for managing
negative Impacts can also o
ffer insight into
the extra cost and effort
necessary to deal with dispersed Impacts. The
following summary lists s
me advantages of concentrated or clustered
mining in an area such as
Eastern Montana.
1. A mining cluster will
support a new town which is
designed solely for
the purpose of supporting mining activities.
a. The town can provide quality health care, so
clal services,
retail merchand
se , cultural and recreation
al opportunities,
and fire and po
ice protection specifically
oriented to a
mining community.
b. Local utilities
uch as water supply, sewage
treatment, street
maintenance, trar
sportation, and communicatJ
more efficiently
and cheaply, with less impa
c. Local zoning, la
d use planning, government.
educational facili-
ties, and taxatl
its needs.
n can be designed for the u
nique population and
d. The social and political activities in this
town can serve the
needs and reflec
the Interests of a mining
oriented population
without causing
onfllct with and disruption
of other populations
with different 1
terests and needs.
e. The new town can
be serviced with one highwa
y, one railway, one
airport, one com
unications line, and one power line thereby
greatly reducing
the costs and use of land :
n duplicating these
facilities.
2. With the establishmen
of a mining cluster and on
e new town the
extent of impact on
natural/biological systems
can be reduced.
a. The monitoring,
ource Identification, and a
batement of air
pollution can be
done more economically with
more sophisticated
h permanent trained personn
el. Enforcement is
mforcement is i
effeel
monitoring, source identification, and abatement of sui
r pollution can be accomplished with one or a few treai
water quality problems will be confined to one drainagi
al wildlife management efforts neces-
or reestablish wildlife species and
The mining c.
uster area,
served effect
ively by bP
sary to prese
rve, reloca
Ground
cluste
, at less
be a
onitored
more effl
indlvldua
lently in
company.
a mining
ao.uife
disruptlc
n will be mo
e easily
efined foi
purpose
reclamation planr
i«8
Should
cessful
not be
enforced,
the
area of groundwate
affected
will be
fined.
stabll
hment of a
mir
ln| =1"
er and new town wil
ptovlde
nomy, efficiency
and
maximum
recovery t
o mining e
ctivltie
of ]
uuioi
1 in an area of chick coal seams con-
thereby minimizing the need to dls-
ict Che resource and reducing
ial.
lines,
Companies could share common facilities sue
offices, road maintenance equipment, transp
power supplies, and ambulance and fire protection, all of
which would reduce the overhead costs and initial capiCol Outlay
for each mining operation, thereby reducing the cost of coal.
All land in the mining cluster would be available for mining and
associated disturbance (town), thereby preventing problems with
ichment upon and conflict with agriculcural operations.
: designation would provide an opportunity for
cool by surface mining, and for jolnc mining
tlnue underground to deeper seams to under
as technology of mining changed to allow maximum
Such a land t
ventures to c
higher terra!
recovery.
Cooperative efforts between adjacent mining operations could
greatly increase the quality of reclamation and reduce iCa costs
by: establishing a aeed production area; coordinating reclama-
tion planning to facilitate area drainage and abatement of wind
erosion; coordinating Che reeatabllshment of unique, and essen-
tial habitats; and sharing costs in Che management of sediment
and air pollution leaving the reclamation areas.
Specialized equipment and skilled technicians could be shared in
a mining cluster thereby allowing more efficient removal of coal,
K-52
better reclamation work, and more speclaliEed community and
Industrial services than would be available to or could be
afforded by M Individual company.
Of I
1'a ben
<al deposits
leased via the
The leaning
to the high quality,
A great deal
Federal government, St
pattern around Decker
thick coal seams in the area. A cluster development «»wh «u« »«
well here and would probably occur regardless of Federal and State
policies. Although it is unclear which companies or individuals are
sitting on leases, detalla are unimportant. What la important Is tha
thia potential cluster development is a very advantageous mining i
It la our Intention tn use the Decker
example for the follow-
Planning (industrial) in the area has located a potential town site
and has recognised a need (or a new town designed to serve mining
needs.
2. The area has aeeens via highway
3. The resource inventory efforts
Montana at this time, and far
Management Framework Plana cu
ind railroad.
l this area exceed all other
mrpass the amount of ruuoun
rently available.
4. The time and money required for the BLM to match this level of infor
matlon will be «reat and the results will be far less adequate.
5. The area has made the initial adjustments to mining activities, and
future expansion, confined to this area and managed properly, will
cause a relatively lesser Impact.
6. There have been several site-specific impact atudies and more are
now being done relative to both current and proposed coul mining
activities In this area.
7. The Spring Creek Mine proposal, current and proposed Decker Mines,
current Public Service Company of Oklahoma Mine, and the proposed
Shell Mine constitute a viable cluster capable of producing ™
than enough coal to meet Montana's quota, whatever that is,
spreading impacts throughout the state.
hour.
)ur suggestion for using this area
predicated entirely upon the quei
Montana production is necessary.
are also based upon the assumptii
governments will Jointly attempt
which will ptovldi
We understand <
difficult part
creative effori
is a confined mining cluster is
tionable assumption that expanded
Furthermore, our suggestions
n that the Federal and State
a productive planning exercise
trlctlng the location of mining
rrently operating mini
ca, excluding only c
af the task, but we expect policy makers to use
S in order to activate a leasing policy which will
Interests of the Montana public and environment.
One of the greatest hardships coal mining has imposed upon the
Montana public and state agencies in the industrial mine planning process.
Every rancher and county official dreads the announcement or a ne
in an area where a mine was previously unexpected. Also, one of BM_
most devastating social Impacts built into the ■'proposed alter"-'
lalderetlon of leasing declsioi
provision is guaranteed to serve as a |
coal bearing area such as Eastern Monti
constructed resource inventory atudlea
constant rewriting of impact statement!
government's and the public's time and
ili.
This.
arassaent cycle in a rural,
.rthermore, the poorly
out by Che BLM and the
embarrassing waste of the
loney.
; la i
i»ry
, justify i
It is our belief that quality impa<
social and environmental policy. It Is our belief that p
■Inlng cluster, with a new town, could pi
tlon without an endless array of politically Influenced piecemeal effort.
single mine for a period of a few yeara. The proposed four
anning cycle is a piecemeal, fragmented, insidious method of
promoting social unrest in Eastern Montana. In short, we want to see the
big plan, and we want to see the Justification for this plan In terms of
national coal use/need strategy. It is also our opinion that the Western
state governments will not feel confident In developing vUble —
production strategies and pollclei
lablc
40 years of produe-
clear long range Federal
progr*
stabllshei
It Is also necessary to poii
indicates frequent communication:
□ f determining a state's positlo'
question. We wish to point out
response is necessary to determl
of Montana. We suggest that the
opinion on how to gather publl
phenomena called public opinio
holding public hearings, and I
out that the "preferred alternative"
lth the governorB of BtstcB as a meani
elative to a proposed development
t much more than the Governor's
the opinions and needa of the people
cretary of the Interior solicit public
in West
ThiB cluBlvi
has been very difficult to determine by
be obtained through the Governor.
we ask that public reprei
planning efforts, activity pit
and tract ranking and selectli
of the Covernor and BLM has a'.
entatlon be provided in Federal li
nning, setting regional productloi
n. Closed meetings between repeal
wide
I credibility in Monti
ibllc interest groups.
range of special lntei
In i
Engaging citizen representatives
allows for better public representatl.
by people who are only marginally awa
between industry and government. Our
public, but, rather, the best fortlfi'
Since government is supposed
tatlves should partleipal
Only by inc
normally cl
ectly In the planning process
han do public hearings attended
f the planning relationships
>Ct*d officials represent not the
led and funded pressure groups,
n arm of the people, public rcpresen-
ep-by-step decision making operations.
.pie positions for such repM
slons can you hope to
.tly present. Represc
i into your
i in Montana should be
appointed by public
Page 1-2 states I
ilyre the alternate
■ther this ndmlrnbli
(based upon membership size
, relativ
If of environmental and cons
pate In these governmental 1
ssues.
as it affects the State of
the DES follow, and are org
anlzed by
of the purpose
: proposed progi
I been fulfills"
regional BIS'* should
of the DES Is
> responsibility and
: mentioned. This mil
ices to state involve!
Table 1-1 (page 1-6) lists only one site-specific raining and reel;
matlon plan. Two DEIS'b already have been Issued (Nerco and Peabody)
for the Powder River Regional EIS.
A Chapter on Federal-State relationships In Federal coal oanagemei
would be appropriate in thia generally well written and Informative
CHAPTER 2
Why are the northern Montana coal i
(p. 2-1)? The Milk River coal field ani
potential for development and recent Ini
tion from these areas of moBtly private
regional production goals. Othei
Livings!
Union and Powdei
may be possible
.)-
When a
Uvi
eas omitted from consideration
the Belt area certainly have
reat has accelerated. Produc-
oal could significantly affect
,( Montana also contain slgnifl-
that should be Included (Bull Mountains, Red Lodge,
ources in Montana outside the Fort
ldercd, a core realistic appraisal
e omission of these reserves may be insignificant
hese areas nay eventually be very significant on a
scale.
The DES does not explain how the regional coal production targets
will be derived from the projections supplied by DOE. Smilarly. there is
insufficient information provided to permit a critical evaluation of the
model and process used to derive DOE production targets. A separate
document, DOE's June 1978 coal production forecast, i« required to make
even a cursory aaaeanment. This publication assigns a high 1990 Montana
coal production target of 340 mtpy. The coal origin/ destination tables
indicate that in 1990 a significant portion of the Powder Elver coal
would be shipped to areas that have never received Montana coal. Conai-
dertng the effect of "beat available control technology' and of Federal
atewide (
regit
and State statutes to requln
itiiiti
: the i
: effective
highly .
ely that i
:onomlc conditions will shift,
the Eaat Coast. The methodology
to derive coal production projections may contain numerous erroneou
actions, and model results may not reflect actual conditions. The
ets must be subjected to public and State level input and raodiflca-
u, especially if more specific information Is available, as is the
in Montana. The DES appears to specifically exclude State input
i this part of the process. This is a serious omiaalon since the
onal coal production targets will drive the entire coal management
In Table 2-19, why are ret
eases for Montana confidential
ifficult. This comment holds
Ml withheld.
i hide the section dli
sing i
It seems somewhat incongruous
need for new leasing (Section 2.8) In the back of a chapter dealing with
history and numbers. This section essentially forma the Justification
for coal leasing and deserves more prominence than given. This is a very
inn-resting section in thnt adjectives and phrosea stating the vulner-
ability and problems associated with making an accurate assessment of
need arc generally lacking.
The last paragraph of Section 2.8.1 (page 2-47) may be included (
.esirable impaet'of leasing less federal coal than is HEEDED to meet
laclonel energy objectives, especially (
;lve federal coal ownership.
elatea to ureas of exten-
In Section 2.8.2, the role of non-Federal coal is stated I
having much potential in the Fort Union and Powder River areas
This may be true but most non-Federal coal reserves in Montana have been
eliminated from consideration in the DES because they occur outside the
regions covered. Potential production from non-Federal reserves could be
important in Montana without additional federal leasing.
Chapter 3 discusses alternatives briefly and the proposed program 1
detail. Several problem- are inherent in the preferred alternative:
1) The federal land use planning process
time, since proposed BLM planning rules are in i
lng proceas la a very Important step in Federal
therefore imperative that well defined and formi
be provided and dlacuaaed in the DES. It is lr
"the land management agencies' planning effr-'-
s indefinite at this
draft atage. The plann-
coal leasing. It la
lly adopted regulations
'eaponslble to state that
are to provide the
initiative and forums for making of the principal decisions In tne HHll
coal management program" when the mechanics of these planning effort*
arc In Umbo.
All areas to be considered for possible coal leasing should be
subject to the new planning process rather than baaed on results of the
K-53
old pcocFEi. The Dts states Chat proposed differences in the planning
process (SLM) are designed to substantially improve the quality of land
use plans. This impllea that existing plans are not nearly as good an
new plana could be. A land reaource decision as significant as coal
leasing should not be baaed on the lower quality existing land use plans.
Decisions should be postponed until new plans are available.
Joke !
■und
Deflni!
ng pro*
2) The lands unaultabillty criter
listed for virtually every criterion.
land uoe planning to Hake exceptions for everything,
evaluating unsuitable lands should be included In tl
It is stated that " a responsible official would Bales his recommends t Ions
on the best available data that can be obtained given the time and
resources available to prepare the land use plan". This 1< utterly
ridiculous. The land uae planning process should be designed to include
methodologlea to provide for a sound evaluation of unsuitable lands In 0
timely sanner. Too =--.ny federal decisions in the past have been based on
"best available data. ..given the tlBe" with leas than desirable results.
Of the many questions raised during review of this DES, the emer-
gency leasing system tpage 3-27) is of particular concern. It Is very
poorly defined. How and when is it determined that emergency leasing
conditions exist? How will the method of tract Identification differ
from normal and how would the scope and breadth of planning and environ-
mental assessment differ from normal? When the applicant (company)
shows coal la needed to sustain or increase production levels, will
production be correlated to the need for coal?... or to the need for
profit? In view of the limited information provided on emergency leaalng,
it would appear that this is a "quick and dirty" technique, so to speak,
for companies to either get around the normal leasing process, or to
svold proper planning, or to make up for lack of foresight.
I. How is your coal cycle cyclic Cp. 5-1)?
this "cycle" to support alternative, ■
the glut of Alaskan o
Northern Tier Pipelin.
natural gas.
assumption that "development of other rei
•«1 regions will not algnif icuntly incerft
ider the Federal coal management program"
the most Important resource in the regions.
the lands unauieability program and could be *
agriculture, grazing, wildlife, water, etc. ai
development, mow docs the Multiple Use Act it
policy. The assumption should be that "develf
m Id and should alter the coal maiu
6. How would shortages in Che tri
tion that development of otl
coal development. How have
your assumptions on where tt
7. What
Ha vi
b the meaning of the Ibi
trains compensating reg;
s lei
lis certainly negates
iterpreted such that
: secondary to coal
ate to this Implied
mtent of other
;emcnt program."
. affect your aasump-
not Interfere with
a been built Into
ing policy?
Basing reclamation potential on Packer's work is very risky, parti-
cularly in view of Che time required for soil and plane community
development In a aemiarld region ouch as the Powder River Basin
Cp. 5-17).
10. Psge 5-23 (6t!
paragraph) How ia
'igated plant commui
: poasible to determine whether
:les on reclaimed areas could
: indefinite period of time?
Sounds like research Hodder might be lm
11. What are the potential sir quality impacts?
12. Impacta of particulates are inadequately defined and addrei
only impact defined is the reduction in visibility, but i
is given. How large is the surrounding area (p. 5-51)7
13. If the estimates of 0.2 to 2 percen
on p. 5-53 are baaed on the Weigc:
be researched again as these eatii
More than one source of lnformatii
■ do i
iflet
1 duat loas from unit trains
d Jensen report they should
imatea are not baaed on research,
ion should be used. These emls-
eaisslons from dry western coala.
The relationship between power
policy, If there is one. is unclear. Additionally, the impacts
of gaseous emissions are not defined anywhere, nor are gaaeous
eBisaions from mines or power plants related to air quality stan-
dards. Probability of violation of standards should be addressed
as well. Finally, there is no discussion of impacts from nitrogen
oxide fumigations due to overburden and coal blasting.
rrsce elements have impacts other than those associated with health
(e.g. to livestock, crops, wildlife and vegetation) which should be
discussed. How do trace element impacts, on coal dust, power plant
emissions, and overburden vary from region to region and thus, how
do they relate to the leasing policy?
0l i
Certainly the lal
leasing policy.
Incn
.nment areas, and how do they ri
.sing policies? Will emissions
int within the various regions I
its from being violated?
Where are the
t coal mlnen be
allowable PSD
17. In conclusion, it would seem that Information has been presented
here in a randoa faahlon without definition of Impacts, or their
magnitude and significance. Are we to conclude mining, particularly
strip mining, has no Impact on air quality? The data are obvloualy
available; consequently , this section must be rewritten, and the
original authors sent back to their respective divisions, and
replaced by qualified, competent professionals.
18. Is the loss of potential productivity here based on acreage disturbed,
on reclamation potential, or on post reclamation productivity projec-
tions? The Impacts vary significantly depending on the definition
Cp. 5-73). Productivity losses are based on misleading data. It
should be pointed out that belowground and aboveground productivity
it listed in the tables.
19. What, in either the Powder liver or Fort Union coal regions, could
be defined as a nonsensitive ecoayatem? In light of the climatic
conditions, and the disastrous results of dryland farming In the
1930'a (and the subsequent dust bowl conditions), it la insane to
call any of this area -nonsensitive" {p. 5-75).
20. In your discussion of impacts to endangered species of the Powder
River coal region; where do gri**llee aud wolves occur? Neither
animal is mentioned ia chapter 4. Is all the Information presented
herein as accurate as this (p. 5-81)7
CHAPTEK b
On page 6-3, it is stated that "The Secretary has also Indicated
that the Department ahould be responsible for determining, with reasonable
certainty, that a specific tract can be developed without severe or
permanent harm to the environment.. ."
This obviously precludes development of coal leases In the Northern
Powder River mad Fort Union Coal Basins, as well as coal formations in
ottamr aemiarld and arid areas, until the aucceas of existing reclamation
attempts has been thoroughly evaluated.
It la also atatad that QGtIA "would provide site-specif lc reclawation
data for um at the several decision points in the preferred program..."
From whom would this data be obtained and which points in the decision-
making procass are being referred to?
It Is stated that degradatl<
[hough best available emission c<
2). Why Is this chapter assuminj
evaluation when in chapter 5 besi
hnologies arc employed (p. 7-
illable technology for impact
a technology ia assumed?
K-54
t
\ Northern
Company
073
February 9, 1979
Officii of Con) Management
(l*Q> Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
18th and C 5treets NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
RE; Communes; Federal Coal Management Program
Dear Sirs*;
Att.iJclii.-il hereto please find comments to the subject:
draft environmental statement by Northern Minerals Company
a subsidary of Northern Natural Gas Company. Please in-
clude these as a matter of record to be considered in the
preperation In the final statement.
Very truly yours.
'Apolonio Baca
Comments to the Draft Environmental
Statement: Federal Coal Management Program
Northern Minerals Company, a wholly owned subsidary of Northern
Natural Gas Company, Omaha, Nebraska would like to thank the
Department of the Interior and the associated agencies for this
opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Statement of the
Federal Coal Management Program. Northern recognizes the vast amount
of effort, time and consideration given the program. You are
recognized as having addressed most of the issues crucial to leasing
of federal cool lands; and the procedures chat are "preferred" would
seen to allow for future lease sales of federally managed coal now
badly needed by the notion during these times of energy defle'
and riaing costs. It is to the procedures and
Implementation
1 . Emergency Leasing and
-Up Programs (PES; 3.2.7 & 3.2.
The preferred alternative program provides for federal leasing
and lease soles only in those coal regions Included in an approved
Regional Lease Sole EIS and covered by an approved Resource Manage-
ment Plan (formerly MFP) EIS (DES: 2.1.17). The Emergency Leasing
and Starc-Up Program although intended to provide for leasing in
those situations where Regional and RMP environmental impact state-
ments are lacking, precludes leasing without the preparation of
an environmental impact assessment . 2 years of prior production and
continued operation by the applicant, in a by-pass situation, or in
order to gain access to other coal deposits, presumably controlled
by the applicant. These criteria do not permit for the start up
of new mines In area such as eostcentral Montana, northeastern Utah.
or the Raton Basin of Colorodo and New Mexico prior to a mature
program; possible 1982 or 1984; with its lengthy processes and
probable legal delays.
Northern, as are many others, has only recently entered into
the coal industry and does not hold a major position in any of the
eight regions now included in a regionol impact statement. Northern
development interests will likely be in areas other than those of
recent development. We are concerned about the ability to obtain
access to federol lands or split estates In these new areas whereby
our development would contribute to the nations coal energy demands
and help alleviate through distribution, the socioeconomic impacts
now centered in the Powder River Basin and northwest Colorado.
Northern proposes the removal of the by-pass, 2 years of oper-
ation and continued operations provisions in the Emergency /Star t-Up
request'addltional federal lands ond Still permit the DOI to imple-
ment and review the lands applied for according to the suitability
and resource trade-off cirteria. Concurrent with emergency leasing
for new mines, notably small in production and size, the mature
leasing program could be developed and instituted.
II. Split Es
"Federal Lands" (DES, 3.2.*.,!/ 3.3.*)
The current procedures (SMCKA, Section 714-d) in the perferred
alternative leasing, program call for the exclusion of those split
estate (ie. federal lands per 3.2.1.1. p. 3-20, parutiraph 2) lands
the Ufld use evaluutlon and the tract ranking process (DES; 3.2.22),
such an action Appears to be a conflicting point of interest On the
part of the program and will only result in a incomplete evaluation
of the total public estate (lands) and Its roost beneficial use as
either a prime energy resource or other non-mining uses.
To exclude those split estate lands from r ecommendo t I ons on the
basis of a single owner or a small groups personal preferences, at
that point In time, will lead to wind-fall profits to estate owners
and result in higher mining costs and ulcimotsly higher consumer
costs and more rapid inflation. Also, those lands excluded by
personol non-mineral ownership preferences may be a potentially more
valuable or higher ranking resource than other areas found "accept-
able" intraregionally or Inter regionally . If excluded this ef-
fectively reduces the meaning and value of the proposed DOE regional
production targets and ranking processes.
It Is Northern's hope and recommendation that all federal coal
lands, regardless of ownership partem* be ranked and the suitabllty
criteria opplled. Lands found acceptable though involving split
estates should be fncludcd in future leasa sales.
The estate owner has a legal riRht to his preference and a
legal avenue by which he can permit mining on his land via sale or
lease. The Department of Interior should have no part or influence
involving these rights. Northern feels the federal government should
refrain itself from a position of determining private estate futures
and ba concerned only with public lands. The definition of federol
lands (DES; 3.2.1.1, p. 3-20, paragraph 2) should be rewritten and
exclude any reference to private ownership of any estate.
Ill . Regional Tr
ankinu. Section and Scheduling (PES; 3.2.22)
to rank federal coal lands acceptable for further
tlon for mining would appear to insure the maximum
at efficiant leasing of "priority" coal lands.
determined as either low, medium or high in rank.
Ifled in the DES, It implies that all economic
transportation, coal quality and market needs would
the ranking process,
aults in the DES ranking process exist. First, the
early outlined. No indication is given as to how
er than surface owner consent, would be applied
at each would count towards the final decision,
be b key factor. Maximum economic recovery and fair
he lands result from considerations of rolncabi 1 ldy
Profitability of a tract is determined on the
mine planning and market availability. Without
gic knowledge of the coal deposits and mine plan-
recovery potential of a tract in terns of profit
telv determined.
its thermal value, transportation
easily become high ranking due to
industry plunt siting capabilitcs
preferred leasing program would b
changes without significant time
rankings and potentially lengthy
acceptence of an environmental impact statem
time would all contribute to increased costs
and mine development and would mean the diff
nking In terms of quali
iC recovery could quite
anges in utility or oth
i Lu
ion of
atlon a
I'fS
lays In prep
cement. The
( plant
erprlse and compe
as the
and mine design without Imposing probable undue economic co
hie
ul tiro
develo
IV. SurUc. Owner Consultation (PES; 3.2.1.3)
The heavy environmental considerations; primarily soclologlc,
included in the proposed federal leasing program promote and urge
underground coal mining versus surface mining becai
less apparent environmental impacts. Only "qualified" surface
ers will be permitted to state a preference as to the choice oi
ing method or land use.
The implementation of the "preferred" program will have scveri
lous economic and possibly legal implicai tons .
1) The procedure will be applied to existing nonproduce ing
leases and PRLA ' s . It will likly result In the destruction
of logical mining unit, by the withdrawal ("elimina t ton f rom
further consideration for leasing") of federal coal lands fra><
mining. Such objections in favor of the preservation of the
habitat of n relatively insignificant species or a personal
lifestyle of ■ few will In turn ultimately result in deprivin
jobs and Income to numerous Individuals and their ability to
maintain heat and/or power to homes, schools, hospitals and
places of employment.
Individuals who havi
btained via lease
of "private" estat.
2) "Qualified" surface owners are
legal rights through ownership or I
agreements, to determine the ultimi
For the Department to limit those rights via its own cnt
and prerogatives Infringes upon the law ond rights of an
individual or group and may be unconsltut tonal.. Sue h^def
legal suits and deter the Implementation of an effective
of coal leasing.
K-55
covery methods. Adverse Impacts from both surface mining and f
underground mining and should he weighed before a course of
action is act as already appears to have been done (...refrain,
leaning. . .by uethoda other Chan (by) underground methods in
Section 3. 2.1. J. Paragraph 2;
V. In general. Northern anticipates high coats of implementing
the "preferred" program both from its direct coats and chose
associated with staffing; qualified and experleceed personal
are currently employed in the U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau
Of Mines. Whether the energy is in the form of coal, or electricit
generated by coal fired plants or even syntheaiied fuel, the pro-
grama, as designed, will significantly impact the coal derived
energy uacr in both direct costs of leasing and production and indl
In the fo
. of ta
aJmlniP
progr
&L&ZH
Apolo
Manager, Explorat
Acquisitions
February 9, 1979
A
CSG Exploration Compan
February 12, 1979
574
Office of Coal Management (140)
Bureau of Land Management
] ath and C Streets, n.W.
Washington, D. C. 20240
Ce nt 1 emen :
CSC Exploration Company (CSG) is a corporation duly
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and duly
authorized to transact the coal, oil, gas and chemical
business in all its phases and all activities related there-
to within several western states. CSG is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Cities Service Gas Company.
CSG is endeavoring to provide additional gas supplies
for Cities Service Gas Company to satisfy its long-term
customer needs. It is a matter of common knowledge that
the lonq-term natural gas supply picture reflects shortages
and Cities Service Gas Company ' s outlook is similar.
Cities Service Gas Company delivers natural gas to
local distributors in 502 communities in Kansas, Missouri,
Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas, Not withstanding its con-
centrated efforts to attach new supplies of natural gas.
Cities Service has been unable to contract for sufficient
volumes of new natural gas to augment its currently avail-
able gas supply sources to assure long-term gas service to
its customers. Current efforts are directed toward the
purchase of additional natural gas but even with reasonable
success, supplemental gas supplies from projects such as
coal gasification will be required by the late 19B0's.
To satisfy long-term customer needs utilizing projects
which require long lead time, early plans and actions must
be taken to provide prospective feedstocks. CSG applauds
tation" August 31, 1978, speaks in terms of a surface owner
consent or lease of the surface estate which is underlain by
federal coal. It should be obvious that peripheral private
lands will be required to mine coal from the mineral estate.
This prospect for encirclement could cause a potential bidder
to have grave doubts about the value of a consent not including
peripheral lands.
Know-It-All/Do-It-All
The Secretary's preferred coal leasing program
places the federal government in a "Know-It-Al 1/
Do- It-All" position which is not practical,
economical or in the public interest.
During the moratorium on federal coal leasing, state coal
interests and coal operators continued to work and plan for the
future. The substantial knowledge developed should and would
be shared with appropriate federal planning personnel upon
request and with conditions. The Bureau of Land Management
received much valuable information in response to its call for
coal lease nominations on June 1, 1976. A more selected call
would obtain a more selected response.
It must be recognized, however, that some of the informa-
tion developed Is confidential. It is in the public interest
to incorporate such confidential information in the planning
process but the preferred leaning program turns its back on
such information contrary to the public interest. Utilisation
of available knowledge should be an integral part of the loosing
program, eliminating the proposed "Know-It-All/Do-It-All" approach.
Office of Coal Management
February 9, 1979
Page Two
acti
ities.
early federal leas
feedstocks for Cit
I 3ales which will provide the
.es Service's coal gasification
The Secretary's preferred coal leasing program does
not appear workable, however, particularly in relation to
surface owner relationships. CSG views natural resource
activities as involving two equal estates — surface and
mineral. The proposed leasing program will function in the
public interest only after this concept is accepted and
adopted by the Secretary.
The various option papers prepared for the Secretary
clearly recognize that much of the surface estate over
federal coal in the Powder River Saain and in the Port Union
region is already in the hands of energy companies, parti-
cularly the larger and more mineable reserves. Leasing of
these preferred reserves will be required to meet federal
goals. In general, the owners of surface or surface consents
over preferred federal coal are sophisticated land managers
and not uninformed farmers and ranchers as inferred in the
working papers. The proposed federal coal leasing program
should concentrate on the management of the mineral estate
with assurance that the owners of the surface estate will
protect their respective property rights.
Additional
attached.
Very truly yours.
'•- ' , tit <■? -
Bob L. Galloway
Vice President
BLG/kw
Attachment
K-56
Comments of CSG Exploration Company
on the Secretary's Preferred Coal Leasing J1 rograiii
Equal Surface and Mi:
etary's preferred coal leasing program
recognize the equality of the surface
ral estates.
Nothing in the Mineral Le
Mining Control and Reclamation
judicial determination suggest
inferior to the mir
ng Act <MLA) or the Surface
t (SMCRA) or any recent
hat the surface estate is
state. If all of the position paper
prepared for the Secretary had kept this equivalency of estati
clearly in focus, the multiplicity of options would disappear
1. a consent to mine (lease) by either the federal
mineral owner or the surface owner must be treated as consent
with all the rights attendant thereto under the coal manageme
program in order to preserve the judi>
2. Mineral and surface leases
and requirements.
al fairness doctrii
ave similar provis.
A mineral lease issued by a railroad
or the federal government or a state
government maintains continuing control
over the mineral estate including but
not limited to a bonus payment, definite
term of years, royalty payment for the
depletion of the estate, minimum pro-
duction guaruntee, prudent operations,
lawful operations, protection from
wanton acts, labor practices, non-
transferral without consent and right
Of cancellation for failure to perform
the above requirements .
b. A surface lease has similar provisions
including a bonus, continuing payment,
definite term of years, payment for
damage, a reclamation requirement,
hydrologic protection, lawful opera-
tions, approval of assignment, and
cancellation for certain failure of
performance.
3. The Secretary is prohibited by the mla from accept-
ing any bid which is less than the fair market value of the
coal, as determined by the Secretary. The preferred coal leasing
program is developed on the premise that since the Secretary
has the authority to lease, he has lesser imputed powers within
that authority to lease on only those terms and conditions that
he deems appropriate, including compensation and transferability.
Since the surface and mineral estates are equal, this line of
reasoning would conclude that the surface owner has a corollary
right to review the terms of the mineral lease, including
compensation. The preferred mining plan does not offer the
surface owner any such right of review; therefore, the surface
owner will have problems permitting a federal review of his
consents for the same "property right" reasons.
Congressional Mandate Ignored
The Secretary's preferred coal leasing program
ignores the Congressional mandate of protect-
ing the property rights of surface owners.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
Section 71-1 provides for surface owner protection in the event
surface mining techniques are used. Subsection (c) constitutes
a Congressional mandate that "the Secretary shall not enter
into any lease of Federal coal deposits until the surface owner
has given written consent to enter and commence surface mining
operations and the Secretary has obtained evidence of such
consent. Valid written consent qiven by any surface owner
prior to Auqust 3, 1977, shall be deemed sufficient for the
purposes of complying with this section". This Congressional
mandate is clear and unequivocal. Although Congress considered
amendments expressly limiting compensation to the surface owner,
the bill ultimately enacted included no compensation limitation.
The department's Office of the Solicitor on behalf of the
Secretary, attempts to circumvent this clear Congressional man-
date by weaving a statutory web from the "fair market value"
requirements and the "competitive bidding" provisions of the
Mineral Leasing Act (MLA). Through reliance upon such provi-
sions, this advic-e futiley attempts to justify a right and
power to limit the compensation
which the
surface owner can
receive for the qranting of his
=on..nt.
Congress refused to
perr
it the Secre
ary to limit s
ich compen
sation. Through
rel
a nee upon ML
, the Solicito
attempts
to carve out a right
for
the secretar
to require tr
insferabil
ity of any consent in
order for it to
,. con.id.rri -
/a lid". Y
et, Congress clearly
ref
jsed to grant
such powers to
the Secre
tary.
The underly
ng reason why Congress r
ejected these restric-
tiv
3 proposals 1
es in the fact
that surt
ace owners enjoy pro-
per
;y rights whi
-h Congress was
not wiiu
ng to take for public
use either with or without just compensation. Property riqhts
cannot be dealt with in the cavalier fashion attempted by the
preferred coal management program-
Indeed, the surface owner's property rights are, in the
eyes of the law, no less than the rights of a sovereign state
such as Montana — whose onerous coal severance tax rates will
certainly have a far greater impact upon the fair market value
of federal coal than could possibly be exerted by any Montana
surface owner.
Timid Approach to Coal Leasing
The secretary '5 preferred coal leasinq program
has taken a timid approach to coal leasing
when an aggressive approach is in the public
The moratorium on federal coal leasing since 1971 has been
a disaster to the coal business and contrary to public interest.
Finally, an action is underway to reinitiate coal leasing, but
the action is timid and indecisive. The preferred program will
further delay coal leasing rather than correct the primary pro-
blem, to lease and mine federal coal. Since the government's
responsibility for managing federal coal lands in the public
interest has been abdicated since 1971, an aggressive coal
leasing program is needed to correct some of the problems
already created.
Among other things, the preferred program is developed
with the expectation that most surface owners will oppose
K-57
surface mining of federal coal. Thia is not true. As a
practical matter, surface owner consent will not be a serious
problem. The surface owner's primary concern is that their
property rights will be properly recognized by the coal miners
and the government.
The preferred program would expect surface owners to
accept any conceivable successful bidder as the miner on his
land without regard for competence, honesty or reliability.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The surface owner
will not be willing to grant his consent until he has had an
opportunity to review and accept the successful bidder (or
assignee) .
If the surface owner is paid for his land rights and
given an opportunity to approve the miner, most surface owners
will welcome surface mining and this approach is_ in the public
interest.
-Paper Grading" Exceeds Authority
The Secretary's preferred coal leasing program
proposes to "grade the papers" of all pre-
existing surface owner consents, and this
"grading" exceeds the Secretary's authority.
The Secretary expects and should receive confirmation of
the surface owner's willingness to permit surface mining under
preexisting consents. But, the Secretary does not need, nor
should he expect, any additional information concerning terms
and conditions of such preexisting consents. Assuming federal
lease terms are reasonable, which they should be, surface owner
consents and transfers thereof can be acquired on a reasonable
basis, consistent with the timing requirements of the leasing
process.
The preferred leasing plan should recognize that many
surface owner consents will be transferred several times prior
to leasing without federal involvement or concern. Subsequent
transfers, thanks to the wisdom of Congress, will be made with
the same freedom.
Minority Federal Position Ignored
The Secretary's preferred coal leasing program
ignores the possibility that federal coal may
occupy a minority (perhaps insignificant) posi-
tion in some attractive coal mining areas.
In many instances, particularly where federal coal owner-
ship is on a checkerboard pattern, some federal coal will not
be economically mineable. In these situations, the ownership
Of adjoining coal and surface will be of primary importance in
establishing the value, if any, of federal coal.
Hopefully, isolated tracts of federal coal can be included
in an LMU and be mined in the public interest. With one strong
owner holding the adjoining coal and surface, however, the pro-
posed leasing program is not workable.
Not recognized in the papers prepared for the Secretary is
the well-documented fact that coal underlies only a portion of
any ranch or farm. The paper "Split Estate Leasing Implemen-
monteo
February 9, 1979
375
Office of Coal Management (140)
Rureau of Land Management
18th & C Streets, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Dear Sirs;
We are pleased to submit the enclosed ^
on the Federal Coal Management Program-DES . The
comments are focused on our major concern, that
of the energency leasing component. We feel
that bypass leasing should be considered separate-
ly from the emergency leasing component in the
Program.
I hope these comments detail our concerns on
this natter.
J^C
■£).
Douglas A. Day
*&■
CAD. laid
Enclosures
montco
TO: Office of Coal Management (140)
FROM: Doug Day, MONTCO
DATE: February 9, 1979
SUBJECT:
Comments on the Draft Environmental Statement on
the Federal Coal Management Program
These comments are prepared by MONTCO, a surface coal mining
venture in Billings, Montana. The comments are not inclusive
because of the length and complexity of the Draft Environmen-
tal Statement. MONTCO would like to reserve the right to
make further comments and to comment on the proposed regulations
for the implementation of the Coal Management Program.
MONTCO is specifically concerned with the description of the
bypass leasing procedure as made a part of the emergency leas-
ing system.
The emergency leasing system and bypass leasing processes are
described in Section 3.1.4 as an alternative of the preferred
program. The Section 3.1.4 description is founded on the
senseless assumption that the bypass leasing under a new pro-
gram must follow the rules established in NRDC versus Hughes,
with regard to consent agreement. There is no logic to this,
and we can only conclude that the author did not intend that
this alternative be seriously considered by the Secretary.
Our specific objections to this alternative will be evident
from the materials which follow.
K-58
Office of Coal Management (140)
February 9, 1979
Page 2
The emergency leasing system and bypass leasing are also des-
cribed as a component of the preferred program in Section 3.2.7
and was specifically referred to in the example regulations as
Subpart 3425. Section 3.2.7 is a general description of the
specific regulations which are found in Subpart 3425 of the
example regulation;
example regulation
following points will be keyed
Bypass leasing should not result from "emergency"
situations . Bypass leases should result from we 11-
planned mines at which the operator has an econom-
ically acceptable option to either mine or pass
isolated parcels of Federal coal.
By
eluding the bypas
!tion in the emer-
Che realities of the bypass
gency leasing systi
leasing are obscured. For instance, Section
3425.0-2 speaks of the "urgent need for Federal
coal" and Section 3425.2(c) imposes the require-
ments that the coal be "necessary to meet the
emergency needs of the applicant". In reality,
the applicant may not have a "need" for the
coal, but only be bypassing the Federal coal
with his mine.
The true rationale for bypass leasing should be
to effectuate national policy, as set forth in
the FC1AA of 1976. to provide for orderly leasing
and development and to promote maximum economic
recovery of Federal coal .
Office of Coal Management (140)
February 9, 1979
Page 3
The losers in th
are:
(I)
case of bypassed Federal
(2)
The Federal and State governments ol
which will lose royalty income;
The mine operator who will have to
absorb part of the cost of a less
efficient operation and who can be
effected by local legislation such
as Montana's Coal Conservation Act;
The ultimate loser is the consumer,
the American public, who will have
to bear part
of the cost of a less
efficient operation and the loss of
tax and royalty revenue to its
governmental units.
When bypass leasing is taken out of the "emergency" mode and seen
as a function of mine geography rather Chan foolishness or lack
of planning by the operator, it is possible to identify several
of the regulations now contained in' Subpart 3425-2. which create
artificial limitations on the Secretary's ability to grant bypass
Section 3425. 2(a) (1) (U) , which requires a showing
chat some portion of the coal will be used within
three years, is not responsive to the length of
coal planning cycles. For instance, because of
coal quantity and blending requirements, dedication
obligations, equipment acquisitions and general
mine planning, as may be required by the Montana
Reclamation Act. it may be necessary to have mine
planning and sequence established five or more
Office of Coal Management (140)
February 9, 1979
Page 4
years in advance of i
planning is impossib
Federal coal you own
your are to mine it.
ning. Five year and longer
if you do not know what
titU three years before
The requirements of Section 3425. 2(a)(2) that the
mine operate for two years prior to application
has a similarly harmful potential. It is prudent
to assume that an application may take two to
three years to process — particularly if an £18
must be produced as suggested by Section 3425.5(b).
Thus, it could be as long as five years after
operation begins before the operator can begin
to acquire an isolated Federal tract- There are
many situations where it would be economically
prudent to start an operation on the isolated
Federal tract or to move through the tract at an
early date
Section 3425.2(a)(3) which requires Chat the
need for coal shall have resulted from circum-
stances that were beyond the control of the
applicant or could not have been reasonably
foreseen or planned for. We feel a bypass
situation would be foreseen in the planning
stages by a careful operator.
Section 3425.2(c) uses language such as "without
violating the integrity of the normal leasing
process" is vague and could provide the basis
for meaningless and endless dispute. This
terminology should be eliminated.
Office of Coal Management (140)
February 9. 1979
Page 5
Under the preferred program, there is a distinct possibility chat
isolated Federal coal, which would be acceptable for leasing,
would not be leased as part of the normal leasing process. For
instance, such coal may be passed over for initial leasinp be-
cause of a threshold development situation (Section 3.2.1.4) or
because of the regional production targets (Section 3.2.3),
which are satisfied, ironically, by mining the very fee or
state coal which is causing the bypass.
Thus
tnpo
an be seen that the bypass leasing procedure is an
enough element of the preferred program that it should
™* be relegated to being an off-shoot of the emergency leasing
system. Also, it should not be hampered by unnecessary time
and production limitations which will limit the Secretary's
opportunity to make intelligent and efficient use of the proce-
dure.
DAD : lad
K-59
ILeoguec'V
Iff
Women Vo'ere 0< the Urirled Sir- 1730 M SI'Gei. NW Wasninglon. DC 30036 Tel (202) 296-1770
ii76
February 13, 1979
COWEKTS OF THE LEAGUE OF WOKEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES
ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
FOR THE FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The League of Woman Voters of the United States 1b pleased cr
hove the opportunity to comment on the proposed Federal Coal
Management Program. The League Is a volunteer citizeni
nlzntlon with 131,000 members In oil 50 states, the D1l.._,
Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
The League has a long history of Involvement in environ-
mental and land use Issues. Recently our members undertook a
detailed study of energy sources and the government's role In
meeting future needs. The product of this study is i compre-
hensive national energy position that addresses the nation's
Immediate problem of dependence on imported oil as well as th*
rgo-
The League's
;tB of development
jnomic effects associated
nents on this program
rol League natural nnd hu-
long-term problem of diminishing
involve not only the environment,
federal coal lands but also the socioi
with such development. In sum, our ci
reflect the Intersecting points of se-
man resources positions.
The LWVU5 believes the outlined preferred alternative for
a Cosl Management Program Is based on sound principles, such
as the Integration of coal management with land use planning,
unsuitabiltty criteria, a defined federal-state relationship
and more meaningful public involvement. We recognize the need
for a management program establishing a leasing policy that is
both environmentally sound and consistent with long- as well as
Short-term notional energy goals.
The League, however, questions whether you have developed
more than the skeletal framework for the preferred alterna-
tive. Thus, we are concerned that your proposed schedule for
issuing final regulations by August will institute a process
before all the administrative mechanisn
undermining the goals of the program.
Bore specifically ue question whether there is a need to re-
sume leasing at such a rapid pace. Because the decisions will be
■ In pla<
s), would a short-term
it energy goals? It see
-eloped program which
:ars is preferable to one
is to us that from a national
an be Implemented consistently
that may fall because of
inadequate prepa
The League is pleased that the intent of the preferred, alternative
is to Integrate coal management with the land use planning provided for
by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act <FLPMA). However, we do
have some concerns about implementation. Planning regulations required
by FLPMA have been proposed only recently, and we understand that It will
take 10 years to complete new plans for all BLM lands. We object to the
proposed use Df existing Management Framework Plans (MFPa) as decision-
making documents unless they ore reviewed and revised, with adequate
opportunities for public participation, to ensure compliance with both
FLPMA and__the_Coal Management Program. As existing MFPs were prepared
: planning goals were instituted, we think it would
appropriate to use them for leasing decisions without such review.
like to point out Che great variance in the quality
before FLPMA land i
be inapprot
Furthermore
of existing MTPs.
Ue commend the concept of
land use planning area,
atlng the cumulative env
basis of coal developmen
the staggering of develoi
given time on Clt
in the draft EIS.
decision-making procedur
The LWVUS believes
hreshold levels called for in rhe preferred
how much coal development can be sustained in a
However, there is no proposed mechanism for evalu-
ronocntal and socioeconomic impacts on a regional
together with other resource development. Also,
ipment to mitigate the severity of impacts at a
Regional or sub-regional area has not been examined
two concepts be incorporated into the
ensure full consideration of local, state
and national interest In decisions about land resources, mechanisms must be
flevejopud for decision making that involve all levels of government, public
agencies and the public and private parties affected. While this is the
stated goal of the preferred alternative, it is unclear how 1c will be
implemented. The League has found that public involvement In decision a ■ "
does not just happen" but mu
total process.
carefully planned, specific part of the
We think you should clearly specify how
>ply to underground mining. Furthermore, w,
riteria be applied uniformly with fewer dls.
the unsuitabillty criteria wi;
urge that the unsuitabillty
reclonary decisions left to
For a number of years the League of Women Voters has worked actively for
air and water pollution abatement. Maintenance of existing air and water
quality should be a priority in Che formulation of the Coal Management
i-rof..ram. In addition, we believe that the use of land must be related to
acknowledges ^concept'" ""' Carryin* CapaCilIoB- »• P«C™cd program
In conclusion we urge you not CO view the coal management program
outlined In the draft EIS as a final product but to refine the pro™
further along the lines we have suggested. Program
AKJtA^K CnALCOMPANY
February 12, 1979
77
Office nf Ceal KfinBr.i-i.-cnt
hurftiu c-i Liif.d v-inaf-e-ent
Kith cr-i! C $«**te, IJ.W.
Kuhisttton, B.C. 20240
Gentlnvtii:
I vi&h to subi'H the following cpccnrs en the Draft
Er.vJxtmn.fin:si Ir.pact Stt'tSBtnt ?tdcr;:l Cozl tfftn&glBCnt Pre-
gran dti Muilf of r.lie AMO! Cetri Cccpiny.
Ve are of the opinion that the Draft Kr.vironnu'.ntsl
Iop&xt SmurtTH effltylitu v;C-!' the general r*nutr«atml( cf
the Kstior.al EtlVirWffi-Hlttal folio? Act. This opinion should
not or1, construed &i an widorstsKit of the "Preferred Fro-
graa" as pfosoftUiil in the Prtift SnvircKsenttl lvp*et Stetc-
fie.nl.- Ve share amy o£ the concern" voiced by the Aoarlcin
Mining Cor.f-ref.s and the Ksticmol Ceil Asi-ccis'ticn in their
consents regarding the Prtftmd Profct *= .
Kc bclk'vo thv RXiKplt F.cgulnUoriS captained in the
Appendix can be improved upon in r/i&ny nVMi, In particular,
we find p,irr 3ifil Lo he. trOttfelctSWfl . Ill PftUblJ rhinp.
criteria for dciisrutlTif iltli tHittsittblf fur nini-ri?. , the
authors have gwio far beyond On r«s,uir«s!ftnt* of the (taC-1
utory iuthorit> relied upon. The wrlmMry statutory author-
ity for tief,if:Ti.itinp men:- UBBuitasli for ntning U Sc(Jl»<m
52? of the Federal Surface KininR Centtol find F6cl«B»tiOH
Act of 1977. Toll if: .f;1eo the swifucorv ivOttritV for
Subchapter F - area* unt'.:ir.,=.hle for pining part. 760 ci <;eq
of the Preferred Alternative final rule* contained in
Appendix t: of ihn Final tnvjriuii-cotsi Jrp--ict St*t<W*nt on
the ViopoFod HsjyloWsry trogrinr< lr:pH«r.i »»v: Section 5MCb)
of Che S'jj-fsce liir.ir.t' COAElfol anc i':t.-i:laz.stiOTi Act of 1977.
One wouiii t).pef;t the t*o yropatti regDlaClem to be vir-
tuslly )dir.lic;il Stnei their --A ftLutory authority ir. identi-
cal and they ere both Uiing f-ropffwl hy the DspATC&nit of
Interior, However, a cWJWritoa of thii- rvo propoRtd E*gU-
l.Ttior.y ShvV|l t.JtO ElHinpU' Rfful .ir.ior.s for r.he LuflfilnA pro-
KSm to be cuch core Mfrtrifttive limn the I'rfeterred Ke.eu-
lAlionr. foiUKl i;i the- FinHl httvlranecntiil Inpact Statement
on the Fcrrisnent RcguJiilOfy Frogrwt, Further, an eKar^in-
stion of t)io fitntutory euthcri'.y for the two reguhitinriE
K-60
Office of Coal 1**1
February 12. 197&
Ted R*.Rul«tion» W've clo
■hows LlMll the IrrfeiTLv ■
very dttsilec una fi>pt*C" *; t«iti ,,„ L„
o£ the ?«H!l*M I'ininp. COT.
settci
follow the
;eccl(w S22
t.T"rv^t'?.ccifi-'lit.i6n fte«. In cur
ion the i ';':;;;-";, ;.-.,-c.-st,,,„, .i^id be Adopted it*
a, pr»^^ga»-g*slgg; stir 7°
CO nal'.e M«
e c^i-rtiniv no:
toll bWWtl ihl OSK
ifltory Awiliarity if cbe
oJnfltioa* cuririR the
appro
Vnile it eight
the nwftultftiilla
proper to de-sit
regulations del
■£cney roftJMWfli
penaittirifi process.
ffS foiCToS SiSittWllH tei«a»«»»"'
.ior.-. which wMl cMplnaly
if this
Re gulf.:
ttiild KrKRftE that the regu.
..ilnr.s
over :
Federal Looting '
Interior to prPCTJgn
Should mutt. Hw i^J-l*1 ** *"£J t°LJ!£lon» «• fie not
Including the utehiaf Mi. «an IM» J"""1"-
dissuade others from bidding the io« ow*«t
BuJd serve to
Offief of Coal K--ir.fi petent
February 12, 197V
Page Three
Ve alto do not believe the problem of establishing. *
Toil Mffctt walv* of •-• reserve has been vcli thought out. In
a highly reflated industry such as coal cining BAfly of the
COM', are ifirtaWitoad to a large extent by gdVMSIOtlH COgS*
UtlOol. Thifi is particularly ihu wee in thu vest yhew the
govu-niunt eofttrolS fOV. oi the cosl reserves. In ethM VWfil,
the tOVMWifttU tippvnw '-P h»W virtual control over thu DflWCl
value Of coal in the ti»t. CUCW BOM rr-echtniss: if. dfcvtlotttd
to tubjtct fair worlfei wilut d»«nsln*tions w public pcrutmy.
the dtttminttieo protest Hill be virtually ceen)Titlt£E-
The concept of "r-ExfTT-j-i uudnowic recovery" also preaeritt
Borne proble=E. Hittory will prove thcl vhat it economical
today cev not be econor.icsl towrrftw and vice versa The
celrt hard facts are thst the ittW of B»«oa» econou'le _
recovery will have to be t'e-iill vith at sevtri.l r-ta^eE during
the tiiiur.p. pt0CM». Hi thereiorc hp»iL*t* to endorse
InflexibJa #«£»3mfws which its not appear to rteosnlM
econonic rtlllty. The fecplv RMulAtiOM perialnmR to
this ares BUSt U Cja,l* flexible if they aru to be »*U*tt*«
We note tKit the lY.szr.U Re;ula:iCr.r. require Environzental
lcip.ict St.iT.tt:>«r.(.¥ /rrd i.:iyivf.r.:.ental Assetsr.ftnte at several
■tag". V:c i-elieve sozc of these H«« he eltfitMUo MO ottOW
combined with envinn.r.^ntal pro^rar.s doftijJIWo to acconiplisn
virtually the sa^e objective. I'ot exacple, we do not sec
the need or objective o£ prcimritte -'"i EnvilOIBPftntJll Impact
Stattttent or comtucLlnB in ERvixoSBOMul Aimmw"« -iurin^ the
lfcssini! phftBfi ■>]" Lh« r-i'cj'rer.. Ko environmental harm will occur
•t o rSsuU of holding a 1"=^ »»1« « iw»i»« f coal lease.
Adequate sdfec'jsrdf are provfCl'd dwfin« th« exploration and
OnvlronncnGll pttwitS «r.d ofprowiU. A separate ifcPA proceed-
ing durint nhf! ei-.vi.ro:..er.tsl pemit cn<; i«ine phm nppi'eval
Pte(f6n9 1» liKcwtse unnee-ef.fiary and the recently re'.'i^ed ICEFA
xesulstir"!: •« floxibll Cnoagn to tllw Interior to loCOrporiH
the :;EFA procans i» tho perr-itting imd Mine plan .-ipprcval pro-
i the
•cord open Tor two more I
■ -:■!■€ dcuiled co=
d(id partieK .
Rftka
for the liEited purpose of _..
on Ihc KxjirpLc RvsvltlW 0«w fron inte:
:CE6(t thai the Dcparti:.M'it of
AiL.ilveis of the leasing
prenrow t» atvortowv wlrti Executive Ofder 1J044. It vould
i Jtht
We uollltl r.ls.- ,-
Interior prepare e P.Cftulelerj
i .■iccorc'i.inee with txtCUtiv
Office of Cool Kmegencai
February \2, 1979
Paf.e Four
■Ppe«T rhe ispliititntat.ieri of the freA-rted I'rogrftffl hss the
potftst.ial to jtlcee ftany eoel producing rtfiiotii throughout
the ntticn in s chronic. "fi-jppiY-constraifli.'d" eondlftlon,
Historically, ihe- cosl inC-Jttry has ixiotcd in a "ilfrn.in-.i-
connlraliiov rsrhtt sit'.itioi), If the Preferred F'rocri.r
('oc:- res-ul: in a "*MJ!ip1y-«(jfl8trulrH«V" k0.i1 warUet in the
weeteiTi I'nithii StoftM, U could, doubt le»i L« w¥i h»va
major »ooinl dtimccie irtacts upon thotl resiotvs of (-he
nation which *re deptr.den; or, irtourn coal?.
Thank you for givinj us the opportunity to curir-cni.
Yours very truly,
2^«.£&
JBP/tdg
u. H, CalDkV
T. r. Pb;>;r)-
J. K. Kent
J. I!. SittSiihi
Rny PoA ~ IOI
Charle& Cto): - J't'l'
W. C. Hyilftl] - MCA
UTAH POWKH & LlOKT COMPANY
February 12. 1979
,b
Office of T.and Management
Bureau of Land Management
18th and C Streets, 8.W.
WashinRton. DC 20240
Re:
United States Department of the Interior Draft Environ-
mental Statement. Federal Coal Management Program
Gentlemen:
Utah Power & Light Company, a Utah corporation, submits
the following comments concerning the draft environmental im-
pact statement dated December 19. 1978, for the Federal Coal
Management Program.
Utah Power & Light Company is a public utility, providing
electrical energy to substantial portions of the State of Utah,
as well as southeastern Idaho and southwestern Wyoming. It
owns and operates, under contract, several underground coal
mines in Emery County. Utah. It holds a number of federal
coal leases in connection with said mines, although part of
the operations are being conducted on fee lands. It also buys
coal from various sources as its needs exceed its ability, at
the present, to produce coal. Its service area is one of the
fastest growing in the nation. In the past few years, it has
constructed several coal-fired generation plants and has sev-
eral others either under construction or in the planning stage.
In addition to its reserves in Emery County, Utah Power
& Light also holds Preference Right Lease Applications on
approximately 18,000 acres of federal lands in Garfield and
Kane Counties.
j-Very.truly yours,
RaW L. Jermfln
K-61
■^a™ "m ■■iiiiimim
»gr.B.BMac«HTaaMgjr.ia
COMMENTS OF UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Section 2.8.2 of Che E.I.S. discusses the question of
Leasing to Promote More Desirable Patterns of CoaL Develop-
ment. This section places primary emphasis upon environmental
and socio-economic impacts of coal mining, although it does
discuss the question of inefficient development patterns re-
sulting from by-passing unleased federal tracts. It does not
focus on the question of leasing in areas where the coal, par-
ticularly of the proper quality and in an amount to provide
adequate reserves, is needed. It is not sufficient to merely
determine that the coal to be rained is sufficient in quantity to
satisfy the needs of the country. In the near future, at least,
the largest users of coal will be electric utilities. Environ-
mental and other considerations require that power plants be
built in certain defined areas. In determining what coal is to
be leased, and thus in effect promoting more desirable patterns
of coal development, this' factor should be taken into considera-
tion. The Department cannot merely determine that the nation
needs so much coal. It must devote a substantial effort toward
determining that coal of the proper quality and proper amounts
is available in the areas where it is needed and that there is
a method to insure that reserves in an area can be maintained
for use over the life of a particular plant. It is clear that
the nation's transportation system is not geared to shipping
large quantities of coal from mines to distant power plants.
Even if this were possible, the added expansion of such trans-
portation would result in large costs being added to the coal
and would have a significant inflationary impact. Moreover,
consideration must be given to the fact that considerable
energy, most often in the form of scarce oil, would be utilized
to operate the railroad or other transportation system. Locat-
ing the plants near the coal reserves would thus have a sub-
stantial savings effect on other forms of energy.
In Section 2.9 it is pointed out that there is a substan-
tial time lag between the decision to hold a lease sale and the
actual coal production. Utah Power concurs wholeheartedly in
that position and in the statement that federal leases expected
to come into production from 1986 to 1990 should be issued soon.
In fact, unless the lease to be issued is in conjunction with an
existing operation, the leases would have to be issued now in
order for most mines to be in production by that time, Utah
Power believes that the most important comment it could make
would be one which would stress the urgency of proceeding with
coal leasing. The long moratorium which has prevented any
significant new leasing has had a significant impact on develop-
ment of coal reserves in this country and we would seriously
urge that a logical and workable leasing program be under way
without any further delay.
Section 3.1.1 discusses the preferred program of the
Department. Utah Power believes that of the various alter-
natives mentioned, the preferred program is, indeed, preferable.
We also support the planning system delineated therein under
which the procedure for determining acceptable locations for
coal production would involve close consultations with govern-
ment, industry and the public. Another alternative mentioned
would be Utah Power's second choice, that of "leasing to meet
the coal industry's indication of need." We believe, however,
that two of the other alternatives mentioned would be disas-
terous, that- of "no federal coal leasing until 1986" or that of
"leasing only by-pass coal and coal needed to maintain existing
operations." The adoption of such alternatives could do nothing
but worsen an already serious energy shortage. This alternative
would force development of coal resources ill suited to the use
for which they are CO be applied. It would maximize cost and
have an adverse environmental impact. It would encourage
holding of coal by speculation and be counterproductive of Che
goals of the coal leasing program.
In Section 3.1.1.1 it is indicated that under the preferred
program the Department would rely on the various land management
agencies' planning systems to provide the initiative for the
making of principal decisions in the Federal Coal Management
Program. This is an area where Utah Power strongly believes
there should be initial consultation with and input by electric
utilities and other members of the coal industry, and that
decisions should not be made by the land management agencies
merely on the basis of statistical information. Such a pro-
cedure could result in agency decisions which would be hard to
change on the basis of later industry consultation.
Utah Power is cognizant of the fact that the statement
provides for industry to "submit expressions of interest in
possible tracts," but, nonetheless, leaves a preliminary deter-
mination up to the land management agencies. We merely hope
that their decision would not be cast in concrete by the time
Che industry expressions are considered. We would also hope
that the ranking which is to be done only every four years would
not be so inflexible as to preclude changes if the need therefor
could be demonstrated by industry or others. Government action
can frequently result in a change of planned location for a
generating plant, i.e., the proposed Intermountain Power Pro-
ject. In such case, that may also dictate a need to re-rank
the coal supplies and location of coal supply.
Section 3. 1. 1.2 provides for the establishment of produc-
tion targets after the country has been divided into twelve
production regions. Utah Power, and to our knowledge ocher
utilities, is fearful that setting of regional production
targets again would lead to situations where coal of the quality
needed for different purposes and in different areas would not
K-62
be available when and where needed. It would like to see
sufficient flexibility and safeguards built into the system so
that this would not happen. This is of special importance to
the electrical utilities because before constructing facilities
they must have reasonable assurance that a long-term coal supply
for each facility will be available, not only nationally, but in
the region where the power plants are to be built and operated.
The specific location is of critical importance in order that
design of the environmental equipment for the plant can be tied
to specific coale whose ash content, sulfur content and other
properties are known and can be relied upon.
Under Section 3.1.1.3, relating to lease sales, it is noted
that the method for conducting sales would vary from sale to
sale, but that the responsibility for promulgating regulations
concerning the bidding system to be employed belongs to the
Department of Energy. It is assumed that the Department would
have some input in this connection and we trust that the Depart-
ment will consider the problems facing the electric power in-
dustry in raising capital to obtain the leases. These problems
will be discussed under Section 3.2.4.4 below. Any system which
requires large sums of front-end money will prevent utilities
from acquiring coal and will simply put utility consumers at the
mercy of coal speculators.
Section 3. 1.1.5 provides that the Department will apply the
same land use planning and unsuitability standards to existing,
non-producing leases as are applied to new leases, but that
"such application would respect valid existing rights and sub-
stantial financial and legal commitments . However, Section
3.1.1.6, relating CO Preference Right Lease Applications, in-
dicates that the Department would adopt a policy of applying to
such P.R.L.A.S Che same environmental planning standards as
those applied to new leases. There is not the same indication
that the Department will respect valid existing rights and
substantial financial and legal commitments. Recent court
decisions cited in the E.I.S. demonstrate chat the Department
does not have discretion to refuse to issue P.R.L.A.s where coal
has been found in commercial quantities. These decisions should
not be thwarted by overly rigid application of environmental
Standards, particularly where the applicant has, as is ofcen the
case, made a subsCanCial legal financial commitment in eonnec-
Cion with them.
Section 3.1.3 discusses another alternative, that of
processing outstanding Preference Right Lease Applications. Ic
sets a priority system whereby the processing of P.R.L.A.s
would be in the following order; First, those in Che least
environmental damaging area; second, those in the areas where
coal development needs are greatest; and third, those which have
been on file for the longest period. This sequence ignores
the rights of chose preference right lease applicants for whom
processing was accomplished prior to the coal moratorium. Utah
Power is in this category and objects to the priority system
proposed. If the coal moratorium had not occurred, the coal
leases in such cases would have been issued long ago and such
holders should not be penalized as a result of situations not
within cheir control. We believe that a sysCem should be
established to process all Preference Right Lease Applications
and issue leases therefor within a two-year period.
Section 3.2.1, entitled "Land Use Planning," strongly
reflects a faulC that pervades to some extent the entire E.I.S. ,
thac of undue complexity. One receives the impression, after
reading thaC section and reviewing Che various charts and
figures that after the numerous analyses are applied and the
areas affected thereby eliminated, there will be little left for
leasing. Thus, we would hope chac the process could be simpli-
fied and the bases for elimination be reduced. More importantly,
the process presently described appears to adopt a negative
approach—eliminating unsuitable areas rather Chan focusing upon
Chose which offer the most potential for coal development. As
an electric utility, principally utilizing coal in all of its
recently constructed plants. Utah Power is particularly con-
cerned abouC nhia problem. More emphasis, we believe, should be
placed upon selecting quality lands for coal production than
merely eliminating chose areas which various groups or segments
could consider unsuitable for coal mining. It is suggested that
the principal criteria in the selection of lands for use should
be the quantity and quality of the coal contained in Che tracts,
together wich the location of the land in relacionship to the
places where the coal will be utilized. It should also be
recognized that minor differences in coal characteristics can
require major design changes in power plane specifications.
This observation ties in with several previously made that
quantity considerations alone are not sufficient. Adequate
consideration must be given to determining where and how Che
coal is to be used, that there is reasonable transportation and
that neither cost of mining nor transporting the coal will be
prohibitive or wasteful of petroleum and other natural resources.
Section 3.2.1.1, relating to "unsuitability criteria," is
subject to Che same observation and criticism. This is espe-
cially so when read in conjunction with Table 3.1. Utah Power
would have no quarrel with the President's environmental message
instructing the Secretary to lease "only those areas where
mining is environmentally acceptable and compatable with other
land uses." However, it is obvious that different people can
review that admonition with drastically different ideas and
could administer it with drastically different resulcs.
Section 3.2.5,3 relects an intent on the part of the
K-63
Department to involve the industry in all stages of land use
planning and target setting process. Utah Power supports this
concept and trusts that its implementation will be adequate and
Utilized to the extent that industry participation is not merely
an idle gesture.
Section 3. 2. h. 3, fair-market value, indicates that no bid
shall be accepted for lease which is less than the fair-market
value of the coal in the lease. The basic method, it says, of
determining fair-market value will be a "discounted cash-flow
analysis," which involves calculating annual costs and income
resulting from development of property under realistic condi-
tions. Utah Power believes that the bidding system itself
will go a long way toward establishing a fair-market value.
Theoretical concepts and complicated appraisal procedures, we
believe, should not be allowed to slow down and interfere with
the bidding process .
Section 3.2.4.4 describes various bidding methods and
states that the sal« and bidding system should be kept flexible,
permitting the choice of method on a case-by-case basis. Utah
Power would agree with this concept so long as it takes into
consideration the needs of the electric utilities utilizing coal
for generation. Six different methods for bidding- are dis-
cussed. We believe that it is imperative that in situations
where the coal is to be utilized by an electric utility, any
public utility, as lessee of the coal lands. In this connec-
tion, there is no feasible way to determine the element of
profit when the coal is utilized by a utility. Emphasis
should be placed on payments in connection with production and
of requiring high maximum payments if lease is not in produc-
tion in ten years from the date of lease.
Section 3.3.3. concerning management of existing leases,
indicates that in the case of non-producing leases, the Depart-
ment's preference is to apply the unsuitabiltty criteria to the
area of the leasehold at the time the lessee submits a mining
plan. Utah Power would strongly object to this procedure in
that substantial investments are often required in the prepa-
ration of a mining plan and the lessee should have some indi-
cation prior to risking such substantial investment that much of
the property will not be determined to be unsuitable for mining.
It believes, in most cases, that adequate information would be
available to the various agencies involved to make a preliminary
determination as to unauitability . We suggest a procedure
whereby an application for a preliminary determination could be
made and an early response received as to whether there is any
reasonable chance that any of the lands involved in the mining
plan would subsequently be declared unsuitable for mining. The
same section indicates that outstanding P.R.L.A.s would be
examined for acceptability for mining, using the same unauitability
bidding system take into account the financial nature of the
utility. One of the systems being proposed is direct bonus
bidding. That system would be the least acceptable to Utah
Power and many other electric utilities. It Is well known that
the electric utility industry is the most capital intensive of
all industries in the country and that all of its income and
expenditures are subject to strict regulation by the state and
federal governments. As a consequence, these companies would
never be in a position to make large cash bonus bids because of
the financial difficulties and various problems imposed by such
regulations. This should be recognized in the final version of
the E.I.S. If the electric utility industry Is going to be able
to compete with other companies, particularly the large oil and
coal companies and other speculators, in bidding on any specific
tracts, a royalty system would be desirable.
However, this should not be a royalty system based on
profits, but rather should be based on the value of the coal
removed from the leased tract. It would have to be considered
that the coal will be consumed directly by the public utility,
as lessee, and that as the costs incurred in connection with the
mining operation, including rents and royalties, are reflected
in the rates charged by the utility to Its customers. He would
be very concerned if the element of "profit" would be considered
in the value of the coal which will be consumed directly by the
criteria, but this process would not depend upon appLicant
initiative. Thia would appear to indicate that there should be
some process by which existing leases could be examined, pre-
liminarily at least, without the cost, expense and time in
preparing a mining plan from the first instance.
Utah Power is, in fact, extremely concerned about the
procedure which may be followed in eliminating the so-called
"lands unsuitable for mining." While we recognize that the
Department's choices are limited by statutes and other con-
straints, the opportunities for abuse are so extensive as to be
staggering, In reviewing the numerous bases for classifying
lands as unsuitable for mining, it becomes obvious that more
coal lands in the West could be classified as unsuitable (if the
rules were to be stringently followed) than would be available
for mining. While this is an area which might better be dis-
cussed in another forum, Utah Power strongly urges that great
restraints be followed in applying the lands unsuitable for
mining criteria. Otherwise a situation could arise not only
where extensive tracts would be unavailable- for mining, but
where those tracts left after elimination would be of a nature
that economical mining thare would not be possible. Moreover,
it is imperative that an adequate system be devised to com-
pensate lessee for the financial losses which would naturally
occur to them if lands upon which they have made substantial
K-64
flKfiWWHigUUUMUI^^HUBl^^^HSUima
legal investments are subsequently declared unsuitable for
mining and the leasees are precluded from utilizing them for
that purpose.
Section 3. 3.6 touches on the question of maximum economic
recovery, but does not deal with the problems in an adequate
manner. It is obvious that more consideration need to be given
to this factor. The statement that "the Secretary prefers that
M.E.R. be calculated the way that all coal seams which are
collectively profitable must be mined" is too broad and general
to be of value.
Section 3.3.7 deals with "end use considerations." This
section points out that the Secretary prefers not to adopt end
use stipulations as his authority to do so is unclear. Utah
Power would agree that in general there should be no end use
requirements. However, in determining tract selection, there
must be some type of system which assures an adequate supply of
coal of the proper type and quality where needed. This would,
as noted earlier, require some type of end use consideration,
particularly as it relates to the tract selection and bidding
process.
In other words, we believe that the Secretary should not
dictate the end use that is to be made of any coal , but he
should, during various phases of the planning process, take into
consideration the intended end use.
Utah Power believes that basically the draft environ-
mental impact statement is a well prepared document. It is
obvious that a great deal of work and thought was put into
its preparation. As noted above, there are some areas, how-
ever, where Utah Power has concern and is therefore submit-
ting the above comments. At this point, it has made no com-
ment on the example regulations contained in the environmental
impact statement as there will be an opportunity to do so
following the publication of the proposed regulations later
this year. For the present, we merely point out that there
are some regulations which we feel will require amplification
or change and there appear to be various gaps and omissions
in the example regulations which probably will be filled at
the time the proposed regulations are published.
C82
Comments of the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Body Leasing
American. Public Power Association
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D, C.
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation
1115 30th, N. W.
Washington D. C.
Western Fuels Association, Inc.
1835 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
Intermountain Power Project
Box BB
Sandy, Utah
on the Draft Eoviri
•atal Statement . Federal Coal Management Frograt
Office of Coal Management
Bureau of Land Management
18th and C Streets, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20240
February 12, 1979
February 12, 1979
Office of Coal Management
Bureau of land Management
18th and C Streets, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20210
ATTENTION: Charles Rech
The following are the comments of the Ad Hoc Public Body Leasing
Committee, comprised of representatives from the American Public Power
Aaoociatlon (APPA) , National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NUECA) .
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (NRUCFC) ,
Western Fuels Association, Inc. (WFA) , and Intermouncaln Power Project (IFP) ,
with regard to the United States Department of Interior Draft Environmental
Statement {EIS) on the Federal Coal Management Program published In
December, 197S
While ve have read and examined the entire EIS, ue would like
to restrict our comments to the "public body" leasing program which has
been outlined in the EIS, pursuant to Section 2 o£ Public Law 94-377,
Cited as the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1975. It is clear
Congress intended to accord a preference ta those "public bodies"
enumerated therein in the Federal leasing program.
The Secretary of the Interior has indicated his preferred alternative
for public body leasing to be "a major program which actively responds to
the energy needs of public bodies." We commend the Secretary for this
decision and respectfully proffer the following comments which we believe
would assist the Secretary in lap! -Muting his preferred alterr-etive.
K-65
In Section 3.3.8, Public Body Lefl3ing. the statutory tern "reasonable
number" Is used without any defining language. This Is also true in
Section 3420.1-4(a) of Che Example Reflations. In order to truly make
public body leasing a major program, we believe the term "reasonable number"
should be defined as the number of leases which would meet the long-term
coal needs of qualified public bodies, as determined by continuing survey.
We believe the program created by this definition would not cauae a
mnssivc market displacement in the U. S. coal industry because: £1) the coal
requirements of public bodies will constitute 0 small percentage of total U.S.
coal production; (2) ft substantial portion of those requirements are likely to
be met from nonfederal areas; and (c) some public bodies may find it mora
attractive to obtain a portion of their coal supply from existing Federal
leaseholders.
We urge the Department to undertake ;
their existing and future requirements foi
the Department with lists of public bodies
irvey of public bodies to determine
ial. NRECA and APPA will provide
ieful tor this solicitation. In
addition, NRECA will supplement the Department's efforts, if desired, with
Information from studies being performed On coal demand and supply regions for
Its members. APPA has plans for similar studies, the results from which would
be provided to the Department.
Another statutory term which will require clarification Is "definite
plan." The pre
offered for let
i the law in which this
J appear
lnsi
chat the
«1
to public bodiea would only be used to produce energy for
their own use or for sale to their members or customers.
Because of the overall thrust of the proposed coal leasing program of
matching actual coal demand with Federal coal leases, we respectfully urge
that the term "definite plan" simply require the certification of the governing
entity of the public body chat it has made a decision to construct generating
facilities which could utilize the coal from Federal leases. It should be
remembered chat other features of the Coal Leasing Amendments Act cause the
relinquishment of any Federal lease which is not developed within a specified
period of time.
In addition, we make the following recommendations:
1. It Is essential that any coal offered for lease to public bodies
at ft minimum be comparable In quality, i.e., high Btu, low sulfur, wlch coal
made available for leasing under any general leasing program. Moreover, these
coal resources must be economically recoverable, suitable for mining, and
within reasonable proximity to transportation facilities.
2. The DOI should pemlt groups of public bodiea to band together in a
joint action project which would bid for one coal crnct. The reason for this
1ft the relatively small size of moat public bodies in relation to the coal
reserves in most Logical Mining Units.
in addition, public bodies should be permitted Co bid for a coal tract
under Che special leasing opportunity program for their proportional coal
requirements in a joint pub lie /private generating facility.
3. Any Departmental determination which would result in a limited or
no leasing policy for general leasing in any specific coal region should not,
i application, preclude opportunity for public body leasing from federal
serves In that region. Public body coal leaaing should be a program separate
rom the general leasing program whose intent is to ensure that qualified public
todies have the opportunity to compete for a fair portion of federal coal
sources. If federal coal from any coal region can be made available economically
an Interested public body, then we believe this coal should be offered for
aae under the special leasing opportunities provision regardless of the
anding of general leasing for that region.
i employed for the
"Only public bodii
4. Because most public bodies do not have readily available
Of front-end financing, deferred bonus bidding should t
public body leasing program.
5. We note that Section 3420.1-4(b) (1) (1) scaces:
with a definice plan for producing energy for their own use or for two or
more of their members or customers shall bid for leases designated a, BptflUl
leasing opportunities for pubUc bodies." u. 3u8gest that "two or more of" be
deleted, leaving the Section to read: "Only public bodies with a definite plan
for producing energy for their own use or for their members or customers shall
bid. .."
We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on the draft EIS for
the Federal Coal Management Program. Resumption of an environmentally sound
Federal coal leasing program Is essential if this country ls to achieve any
semblance of energy independence. For public bodies, in particular, re-umed
Federal leasing - with an active special leasing opportunities program - would
be moat welcome. For chose systems being forced Co convert from oil and gaa
to coal generation, an active Federa:
for reasonably priced coal supplies.
al leasing program is their only hope
Ruth Come
AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION
Brad Koch
NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
Milt Chase
NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES COOPERATIVE FINANCE
CORPORATION
Gary Tabak
WESTERN FUELS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Clark Layton
INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT
Mobil Oil Corporation
February 13, 1979
Office of Coal Management (HO!
Bureau of Land Management
lfith and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
63
By this letter, Mobil Oil Corporation wishes to comment on the
December 1978 Draft Environmental Statement (the "Draft Statement")
on the proposed Federal Coal Management Program. These comments are
directed principally to the proposed Preferred Coal Management Pro-
gram, (the preferred program), as it is described in Chapter 3 and
Appendix A of the Draft Statement. Mobil Oil is strongly opposed to
both the procedures incorporated in and the conceptual approach to
leasing reflected in the preferred program.
The procedures call for a rigid and highly regulated approach which
presupposes the ability of the DOI to forecast supply and demand on
a regional basis. The concept appears to be to minimize land
available for leasing and to regulate competition. In examining
the Draft Statement, we conclude the preferred program would
result in non-leasing instead of encouraging competition in the
coal industry. Mobil fully supports the position of the American
Mining Congress as stated by Mr. J. Allen Overton, Jr., in his
response to the proposed program.
The general approach of the Department of Interior (DOI) in the
preferred program is to sift and study all lands in its vast
inventory to select a few tracts that may or may not then be
attractive to potential lessees. This massive undertaking entails
lengthy delays and considerable expense. Both the delay and the
expense could be minimized by concentrating review and leasing
efforts on specific tracts that are known to be of interest to
potential lessees. Not only would a lessee-nomination process
involve less work and expense, it would also be much more likely to
reflect the current dynamics of national coal market forces than a
controlled system based on production targets and complicated
supply/demand models, which attempt precise forecasts of future
K-66
energy requirements .
further considerate
nomination process.
For these reasons. Mobil urges DOI to give
to a process that incorporates a lessee-
A fundamental and recurring problem in the preferred program is the
unrealistic underlying assumption that DOI can acquire the amount
of information necessary to carry out activities required. The
setting of production targets and determination of the need to
lease additional lands, for example, require the most sophisticated
type of analysis. Considering the long lead times between lease
acquisition and actual production and the considerable delays and
uncertainties that are a part of the pre-production permitting and
review processes under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act (SMCRA) and current environmental and land-use restrictions,
current leasing decisions will only be reflected in production many
years hence. It is not reasonable to expect DOI to be able to
predict when there will be a need to lease additional federal lands
when it is not possible to know how much of the land already being
held for development can be brought to production considering
environmental, access and economic problems. If DOI's forecast is
in error, it will be years before the government will know it
misjudged demand or producing levels to be achieved. By then, it
would be too late to compensate and we could be faced with shortages
which could have been avoided with a responsive leasing program.
The Draft Statement fails to consider the socio-economic effects of
a failure by DOI to lease enough land.
After production targets and necessity of leasing determinations
have been made, the planning processes contemplated for the pre-
ferred program will require the DOI to compare and trade
uses and values for each tract of land studied. The Draft Statement
indication how this process will actually occur, but
..—'ong suggestions that competing uses will be favored
over coal leasing and that the coal industry will have little input
into the process. The prospect is for extended delays in leasing
while this complex approach is developed and results would still be
subject to challenge by various interest groups.
in many cases, the DOI may not even be aware a coal resource exists.
According to Section 1.3.1 of the Draft Statement, almost half of
the federal coal leases issued in the past have required no competitive
bidding: indicating that almost half the areas of interest to
private industry were net known by the government to have significant
coal resources prior to leasing. Under the preferred program, such
lands would not be leased. A pragmatic program must receive the
input of industry to determine which lands should be open for
leasing and to encourage evaluation of potential coal properties.
ternative
gives
In addition to these general problems, the preferred program raises
a number of questions for which it fails to provide answers. The
Draft Statement, for example, gives no estimate of the time or cost
required to carry out the preferred program, nor does it compare
the preferred program's cost or time requirements with those of
alternative programs and the Draft Statement gives no :
how tracts that are eliminated from leasing <
stage of the process may be reconsidered.
The preferred program contains no procedure under which a potential
lessee can obtain consideration of specific tracts of federal land
that may be essential to its operations on adjacent lands. The
necessary federal land may never even be available because it is
considered to have low potential for coal, because it conflicts
with other land uses for which there are many acceptable alterna-
tive sites, because it is considered unsuitable for mining under a
number of questionable criteria, because it is arbitrarily set
aside for leasing by public bodies or small business, or because
DOI's leasing goals have already been satisfied in the applicable
region. Even the proposed emergency leasing system will provide
little relief if the potential lessee cannot conclusively show that
its need for the land resulted from circumstances beyond its con-
trol or which it could not reasonably foresee.
The Draft Statement does not provide any mechanism for coordinating
the studies required under the preferred program with studies that
will later be required by OSM or USGS as the lessee attempts to
develop a mine. The potential for wasteful and expensive duplica-
tion of effort is high. The preferred program alone contemplates
the preparation of four different environmental impact statements
prior to leasing.
Mobil particularly objects to DOI's attempts in the preferred
program to subject existing leases and preference right lease
applications {PRLAs) to the same standards as new federal leases.
The preferred program would accomplish an unauthorized change in
the meaning of "commercial quantities" in connection with existing
PRLAs and would also retroactively affect existing lease rights.
Existing lease and PRLA rights cannot be changed by the rules
developed for new leases without raising serious legal problems.
The definition of "maximum economic recovery" specified in the
preferred program may result in fewer tracts being developed. The
definition would require a lessee to mine seams that are not
necessarily economic, so long as the overall project is profitable.
This definition will severely limit economic returns and will make
some federal tracts less attractive than comparable private lands.
The procedures for obtaining the surface owner consents outlined in
the preferred program are unnecessarily complicated. The same
purpose can be served by requiring a successful bidder to obtain a
consent from the surface owner after the sale but before the lease
can be issued. This procedure is only contemplated in the pre-
ferred program if the Secretary considers a tract important -
Adoption of this procedure for all leases would eliminate unnecessary
confusion,
DOI's contemplation of placing end use restrictions on coal mined
from federal leases is without authority or justification and has
no place in a federal coal management program.
The cost of the preferred program in terms of its impeding coal
development in the US and thus forcing more reliance on ^ported
oil for domestic energy needs is tremendous. In times Of high
inflation and threatened security of imported oil supplies, the
proposed coal management program provides little comfort.
Again. Mobil strongly opposes the enactment of the preferred
federal coal management program and urges the Department of the
Interior to reconsider the objectives of such a program. Early
industry input is essential to any leasing program and an alterna-
tive system that allows nomination of tracts by potential lessees
promises to be much more workable than the preferred program.
Very truly yours,
W. H. Marshall
-SUMDCtt
SUNOCO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CO-
February 9, 1979
Office of Coal Management (HO) , ' g£
Bureau of Land Management
18th and C Streets, N.K.
Washington, D. C. Z0240
Gentlemen:
Sunoco Energy Development Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Sun Company, engaged in the acquisition, development, and
marketing of coal, uranium, synthetic fuels, and geothermal
energy, appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Draft
Environmental Statement on a Federal Coal Management Program,
dated December IS, 1978.
General
We consider the sections of the DES treating evaluations and
assessments of regional environmental impacts to be comprehen-
sive and of such quality and scope as to properly address all
levels of potential leasing activity. We have serious concerns
however, about the Preferred Coal Management Program described
in Chapter Three. In our judgment, this proposed program has
several fundamental problems:
1.
We are concerned that some of the laws upon which
the program is based do not properly recognize the
balance required by our nation's environmental,
energy, and economic goals.
The land use planning system, as proposed, goes far
beyond the President's intent regarding environmental
protection, and seriously jeopardizes attainment of
coal production goals.
The inherent uncertainties associated with utilizing
long term projections of coal supply and demand to
determine the need for leasing could result in under-
estimating the levels of leasing necessary to meet
our nation's future coal requirements.
K-67
IllillllllWiil I
Office of Coal Management
February 9, 1979
4. The potential consequences of a more central tied
form of Federal coal management, the exclusion of
industry input to the l3nd use planning process,
and the prospects of underleasing of needed coal
resources on our nation's energy and economic
goals have not been adequately addressed.
Specific
Land Use Planning -
Our principal criticism relates to the Secretary's preferred
option (No. 3, page 3-30) which states, "Do not use industry
information until areas acceptable for leasing have been
identi f ied. . . "
We suggest that industry's input is vital to the land use
planning process -
(1) in determination of coal potential
(Z) in using unsuitability criteria to screen out
certain land areas from further consideration
for coal leasing
(3) in making intelligent multiple-use resource
management tradeoff decisions
As proposed, application of the unsuitability criteria goes
far beyond the President's intent regarding the objective
of environmental protection, and seriously jeopardizes attain-
ment of coal production goals.
We suggest that the unsuitability criteria must he considered
with full knowledge, including industry's input, of the coal
potential of the lands in question, in add
coal mining might be achieved in an enviro
manner.
We believe the Final Environmental Statement should not only
permit, but specifically provide for, input and use of indus-
try information in the land use planning process. A possible
means to this end might be a process similar to the BLH pro-
posed Regional Technical Working Croups in various outer
continental shelf areas which will address the entire planning
process for OCS leasing. We suggest similar advisory groups
... Jier
itally acceptable
Office of Coal Management
February 9, 1979
Page 3
could be established for v
specifically providing for
each of the groups.
Production Tare
We have two principal que
the proposed program:
ious coal leasing regions,
ndustry representation on
regarding this phase i
(1) whether meaningful production ta
established
establish \
-eas
We would like to emphasize that uncertainties in both
demand projections (e.g., the complexities of trans-
portation considerations, air quality considerations,
evolving regulations affecting conversion and use) and
supply projections (e.g., geologic unknowns, changing
mining and environmental regulations, incomplete data
base to estimate potential from existing leases and
PRLA's without mine plans) place a high degree of doubt
concerning the reliability of such estimates for five,
ten, and IS years into the future. It is particularly
worrisome that these targets are to be utilized to
establish levels of leasing.
mates of pro-
urge that
als by the
the Memorandum
the Interior
Establishment
As a specific suggestion regarding the csti
duction from existing leases and PRLA's, we
in the required review of the production go
Secretary of the Interior (as indicated in
of Understanding between the Department of
and the Department of Energy concerning the
and Use of Production Goals for Energy Resources on Federal
Land, Appendix B, DES) that the substantial level of infor-
mation residing in the bureaus and offices of the Department
of Interior be carefully and realistically evaluated and
conveyed to the Department of Energy. An additional
advantage of realistic estimates of production from exist-
ing leases and PRLA's would be to facilitate the develop-
ment of reasonable laws and regulations concerning diligent
development.
Finally, if this information is
seem advisable to examine ranges
and offer sufficient leases to e
:o be utilized,
of production targets
isure that the leased
Id
Office of Coal Management
February 9, 1979
Page 4
resource base is adequate to meet maximum levels of futur
production. In this regard, wc believe the DCS does not
treat adequately the potential consequences of leasing
less federal coal than is needed to meet national energy
objectives.
Thank you for your considerati
Sincerely,
Lamont C. Laye
Manager, Exploration
and Acquisition
Western Coal Division
of i
LCL/ehg
The Rio Grande Chapter oh the Sierra Club
,a"nt un in* pr-jpoa...
<i5
~na,i
*h .^ei un u.'. pnytnaa pro^TM t* an isyowacn*. jvtr h--.-.t coM
lcifui.: jwlioi*; i:, -.:at tn« n«aa :or nolior.s.1 cniJ. -ana^ser.t I., :.-w.'_i/
rt-ao,;nizod. .ne propose pMCT»« i= also Sosamuolfl in uST ir. ii«ie#l*tM
coal ciifVigtMnl with land Use planning zna af:orw leat aoswtUrtitito
Cor plblic participate IB tnr afta sel-Ction greOtCt. i-'inaH;., we
"•-"'■c the iatndilcV.M Of lands UHUiUbility criteria, wht-aq; certain
SUM can be excluded from consideration for leMiflg un environmental
ground* , SttvtJTthtXeci , we fi.id serious inaeeq:iac->s with the coal
management pracraa as proposed.
Firstly, t,ne draft EIS and the proposed progran itself implicitly
assume a critical need for new federal coal leasing and therefor* set
deadlines for iroli-menUtion of the program which are inconsistent with
the development of adequate land use plane. According to estimates given
In the EJ3 (p, !-!0), resumption af leaning cy 1980, the target data,
»euld have no effect on national coal production before 1985 or ljoo.
i, production goals set by DOE do not extend past 1?9Q, There has thus
■atlon of the need to resume leasing by l?8o in order to
supplement thecurrnnt $Jli outstanding Inderal cool leases which contain
■able reservea. This need may,
i delay In the prematura target
1J allow more time for develop-
been no demjnsti
:nt the c
sated 1? billion t
indued, be proven in the future] however,
iu.-ption of leasing i
of 1?8G
iwnt of adequate land use plans. The'propoi-ed coal management program
requires complete inventory cf resources and development of land use
plans M Uw £il»t atep prior to rankle of sites in a region for possible
leasing. We do not feel that this can be adequately accomplished before
the target date beciuse moat current plans, where they exist, are baaed
on incomplete and/or inaccurate resource inventories. In many instance*
the 3LM has not yet identified Areas of Critical ^vironmental Concern '
in those plans, as required by the federal Lands Policy and lanagement „ct
of 1976. We feel thai a issues must be aaequitelj addressee before resump-
tion of leaeiruj ana that the target date must, therefore, be delayed.
Tha inclusion of lands unsuitability criteria le coimnendablo and is
a step in the right direction toward protecting a n vi r o no* n tally sensitive
araaa; however, there are several major flaws in these criteria.
K-68
Kiwt, the winy exceptions to applicability oi' these criteria to a
particular site (Jlvn* Lhe local land WMFJtTt far too much discretion in
applying these criteria. Ueterrai nation of applicability thus becomes
highly subjective nua would negate eiiorts Lo administer a uniform,
national coal -nanagement program, tor example, the exception applied to
tli*: scenic area exclusion criterion would allow mining if the local land
managers determine that coal ffiftlflij would not "significantly diminish or
adversely affect Ml* scenic quality of the designated area." The words
"significantly" and "adversely" or- highly mbjecttve, and phrases
cetl Wining sue!-. wording should be replaced "1th more definitive guide-
lines, turthermcro, the burden of proof to the public and to the Office
of Coal KanaR#«i*nt pneula lie with tut local lane manaf.omcnt agency 11
it decides that exceptions spply to 0 particular site.
There are ether exceptions which negate the very purpose oi' the
criteria. One exairple is thr> criteria riealinG with 3-M K-glti 'Jolden
Urrle, mid falcon r-stinr; ?ltes. Uuffor zones of inly l/u mile are far
too snail to avoid cljturoancc of these highly sensitive birds, rurther-
morc, coal mining shgulo be prevented at ail tlmos within buffer zones
end not only Curing the breeding season, ^oea tne nLM really believe
th.it these birds arc Limine to disturbance durltut tne remainder of the
year, or that they will return to nests which are surrounded by strippec
land? Also, tne exception allowing nests to be moved in order to allow
milling, althoU(,;i requiring r"i:>r. anci nildlifs service approval, seero to
blatantly uely any conceivable logic professing to support sound environ-
mental ana wildlife protection. This exception should, be eliminated.
Other examples ire exceptions 1 and j to the criterion Dealing with
natural areas. The first of lhes<- would allow raininf; in natural areas
if the local lana Muuu/tro ';eterraine, "with concurrence of tne -tote,"
that the arr-a or site la only of regional or local aie.nU icanoe.
Depending on thf* LAat- agency petitioned Tor concurrence, this provioien
ray or may not t)ivn adequate protection to areaa which are highly valuea
for their natural qualities by local residents.. The third exception to
thifl cri'.orion would alley tinini, in natural areas if the local land
■nanagers ttettflmlRi '.nat -inlr./, wouic >r.h*nce information recovery Iron!
such areas an palecoteloiii-al or archcolo,;ical r-ites, i". KJitli t" aointec
n:it, however, that new scientific methods and needs are continually bein(;
dovslopcd in the fieloa of pnl-cntclory and archeology, ;ind information
recovery iculd tt- •■-inance^ ;y allowing the resources to re main in situ
'intil needed to nnow*r nt:.1, :n«;cL;ic 4UHstiona, rather titan recovering
thorn rottoiirees lw.r.ciat-'ly in Isrgs, quantities with thf coal, line*
thill point -"a? rot. always be eppreciatec sy l«al lano lanacers, the
ioojmion of Ulif. '.xi- option would rrov-, in fact, to oe detrimental tj
lonr.-'-err- LnfOTmStiiol recovery, .-? well as to the natjr^l =rea» thus**
■■Iwf," In our opinion, all of th-se exceptions mist 3* reTwv.d,
The exceptions to the criterion drtalinjj with :'3;odpi=.Lns are
unsatlaiactory . .'he first woulc illow mnint; of n\4rLv . CoftfUili and
special i'loo-plaina if the le^al Jand T-inajjers oeterninc tnat "leacim!
is the only practicable alternative," i'his negate* '-nti.rtly the criterion
*ince leasee wnuid "ut be Bought on sites where rinlm; in'.ere:ta fig not
consider it "practicable." Thi* exception shoulc be -ii.."-inatea. The
■ MtiW
incju
second exception would alio" mining where potential for harm to people ?r
property and natural and beneficial values of 1'locc plains tjuld be
"minimized. ■ I'Difl exception, in our opinion, should 'Ather be received -jr
the above quoteo worn should be chaiieed to read "eliminated."
(inally, the exception to the criterion dealim; with threatened anJ
endangered species should be modified. »s it now reads, mining would be
allowed If the land manaeernent agency determines that the IpwiM1 habitat
would not be adversely ufloctcd ~uj Coal development, "after consultation
with the risn ana Silalife -ervice." This should bo cnangeu to reec
"al'tor concurrence with the r'isn and lildlile jervlco and adequate public
hearinE"." The sax* co^aent applies to the exception to the criterion
dealing with migratory blrdn.
W- find, as another shortcoaing of the proposed program and the draft
SB, far too much emphasis placed on strip r-ininr; as opposed to jnoert;round
mining. This it inconsistent wltr. LOl's Coal extraction TUK i'orce
recomendations that emphasis be placed on underground minlnj: in order to
minimize environmental and social impacts. The reasons cited by this (roup
were! to avoid the serious environmental impacts of a lar^e increase in
Strip mining; to concentrate on the vast *slj»fity i- the available coal
resource* which are farmer undergreunc: ; tn lower retjuired production lovel
cue to the hipher energy cont-nt of deeper Coal; anl fco orovide thf ^mootr.er
growth and sustained production a.-socUted with underground nirinfi, ••
opposed to tne b-.-om-Lust cycle associated with strip hlrting. Tne ciJ snoulu
address the recoir*ndations .if *Jiis task force.
Our final corment on the prcp-jsed coal management program de*ls witn
the c,uestlon of reuicial co^l production level goals. Ths Jlj (p. 5-2})
states that the question of wr.-ther or not recUir-d areas in the semi-
arid regions of the west co-^lc maintain native area vegetation densities
for on indefinit- period of ti-ise has not b-e.n anr'.vered. The iL. {?. \>-.<i)
also states that radioactive releases froir 1000 LSI power pl-nts employif^
eastern coals do net constitute a public health proolem trjt that tr.e la;ig
dose from such plants employing western coils could be significant. These
are very important points, cut it is not clear from the iiiL wr.ether or not
thene points will Be considered when regional production level ^oals are
set. Those are L-finlte disadvantages to settinr. hl(;h production j;oals
for western coal am:, to a great ooyroe, offset the obvious economic
a^vanU-ces ol nininn near-surface western Coal. ~ucn traueolls must be
carefully evaluated wnen rer.ional production ;evel goal* are set.
Duo to the proolem* dafined aoore, «e consider the draft £3 jn the
proposed iedoral Coil ^anah;-!uent Program to be oelicient and hope tne
final ET5 and the adopted proerao will acdress these JJIUM adequately.
jubnitted b/:
David .JlowKa
ton Jrottecit
Phillenor- ::t.eard
Mr. Frank Gregg
Director, Bureau of Land Mi
0f£ice of Coal Management
Room 3610
ilaln Interior BulLding
18th and C Street, ».U,
Washington, D.C. 20240
jH8
Subjei
Conments Upon Draft Environmental Statement, (DES)
"Federal Coal Management Program"
. Gregg:
Bl Pai
appreciates the opportunity to cotracnt on the subject DES.
i offered are divided into procedural and technical issues
addressed in the DES and the proposed Preferred Program. Implement
regulations for the program will be reviewed and comments offered ;
such time as these regulations are formally proposed.
Procedural Issues
The Preferred Program as proposed in the DES is complex and does not
appear to be one which could be reasonably implemented in an orderly,
timely and cost effective manner to allow expansion of coal development
in accord with national goals. Furthermore, in the Preferred Program it
appears the Department of the Interior (DOI) will have such dominant
control of every level of resource development, that effective participa-
tion by industry is greatly diminished or precluded.
LI Paso is concerned particularly with the implications of the Preferred
Program regarding management of current non-producing leases and the
proposal to apply the new "unsultability criteria" to the area of
leasehold at the time of Kine and Reclamation Plan submittal. Any
Initiative by the 001 to change or modify the terms and conditions of
the lease based upon criteria resulting from the Preferred Program could
have serious ramifications. El Paso believes no greater obligation or
responsibility should be imposed upon the holder of an existing, non-
producing lease than that represented by the requirement of compliance
with the performance standards of the Office of Surface Mining and any
applicable state law, and the approval or disapproval of a Mine and
Reclamation Plan on that basis alone.
El Paso supports the position of the national Coal Association and its
detailed comments on the DES and the Preferred Program and urE.es the DOI
to give due consideration to amending the Preferred Program accordingly.
Technical Issues
The
al l
ufflc
iCly delii
:«d.
i should be included in the description of regional environmcnl
Chapter 4. For example, the Black Ilesa area in Arizona is shown on
Figure 1-1 to be a part of the San Juan River Coal Region, However,
textual description of that region does not Include any part of Aril
The .Javajo Indian Reservation comprises most of the San Juan Basin,
however, the Havajos are mentioned only in a historical sense.
On page 5-73 and Table 5-i
the
i it
nlngless. Productivity, being
rates are Inherently different among the coal regions, the procedun
this section of comparing productivity differences among regions Is
Invalid. The validity of the productivity levels used throughout il
document arc suspect.
On page C-12, referen
Springfield {Ref. 15) do not
necessary in subsequent years
fact, the referenced publicat
ning for reclamation at Navaji
will be used the first year only
number 15 1b interpreted
sously. Aldon and
irdlnarily low rainfall." In
based on the premise that irrigation
the publication show that, although precipitation In the 12 months
following termination of irrigation was only 3.27 inches, a good stand
The references cited for the so'
too general in nature for the u
specific studies should be cltci
values for an entire state and
Juan River Region, 11.04 acres/,
believable value would be 11.04
translate to 132.48 acres/anlroa
Soil Conservation Service, 1977
range site description.) The v.
year (Table D-l) or 3.2 tone/ac
The Soil Conservation Service e
sites in the San Juan
irees of the Infonuation in Table t)-l are
ios to which the data la put. More site-
. Much of the data were obtained as
ised as regional values. For the San
mlmal unlc is extremely low; a more
acres/animal unit month, which would
. unit, a more believable figure (USDA,
Technical Guide, New Mexico: Technical
:lue for productivity of 4.5 tons/acre/
e/year (Table H-15) ia far too high.
■ tlraateB productivity for several range
ipproximately 500 pounds per acre per
year (USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1977. Technical Guide,
Mexico: Technical range site descriptions). Corn productivity is
alleged to be 96.6 bushals/acre/year for the San Juan Basin; however.
K-69
February 12, 1979
Che official New Mexico Agriculture
Mexico State University list averai
Juan County In 1973 as 50 bushels/i
The productivities of all crops fo;
literature were below the values m
contain suspect productivity valuei
appear in Tables H-1S and H-17. The ca
animal units docs not take into account
tion of land to various land-use categoi
on the basis of each land-use category comprising 100r: of the land area
Tables D-5 through D-26 are therefore suspect due to the questionable
values used in the calculations of potential losses of plant and animal
productivity. The use of computer modeling to derive potential blomass
losses does not negate the importance of using a proper data base.
Please feel free to call upon us at any time if you have questions or
tatistics, 1974, produced by New
rriftatcd corn production in Snn
and in 1974 as 60 bushels/acre,
ich values were found In the
in this document. All regions
Similar productivity values also
alculatlon of potential losa of
t the data in Table K-14 on alloca-
calculated
Very truly your!
■m C(&,
j39
of the
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
on the Draft Environmental Statement
for the proposed Federal Coal Management Program
of the
Department of Interior *
Johanna Wald
Laura King
Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc.
2345 Yale Street
Palo Alto, California 9-1306
Jonathan Lash
Frances Beinecke
Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc.
917 15th Street, N.W,
Washington, D. C. 20005
we gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Stephen Sulli
John Weinor and Georgia Yuan in the preparation of these
comments .
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
These comments on the Draft Environmental Statement prepared
by -the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) , Department of the Interior,
concerning the Federal coal management program are submitted on
behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. {NRDC).
For the reasons discussed below, we believe that both the Draft
Environmental Statement (DES) and the Department's proposed
program for management of federal coal are seriously
flawed, and must be revised in order for the Department to achieve
its paramount objective — to ensure that
"all future leasing must not only conform to,
but be a product of, a planning and regula-
tory process designed to be protective of
the environment and of other resources and
interests." (p. 2-51)_i/
NRDC is a non-profit environmental membership organization
with longstanding and well-known concerns regarding the environ-
mental and other problems associated with the Department of the
Interior's management of all publicly-owned resources, including
coal. Since its inception, NRDC has engaged in a variety of
activities, including litigation, the submission of comments on
proposed regulations and impact statements, and consultation with
various agency officials in order to ensure that environmental
values are fully considered by the Department in its management of
coal and other resourcss. Indeed, the preparation of this DES
was required by court order as the result of NRDC'fl successful
challenge to the adequacy of an earlier Environmental Impact
Statement on federal coal leasing prepared by the BLM. NRDC, et al.
v. Hughes, et al. , 437 F. Supp- 981, 993 (D.D.C. 1977), as modified.
454 F. Supp. 149 (D.D.C. 1977), appeal pending. No. 78-1656 (D.D. Cir.)
As the Department of the Interior recognizes, this draft
statement "comes at a critical juncture in a long history of starts
and stops for a federal coal management program... . " {p. 1-1)
As indicated, this statement represents the Department of the
Interior's second attempt to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in the development and analysis of the
coal management program and alternatives thereto. In NRDCet al.
v. Hughes, et al., supra , the District Court for the District of
Columbia ruled, inter alia, that the final coal programmatic impact
statement released by the Department in 1975 failed to adequately
describe the management program with which it dealt, that it failed
to consider reasonably available alternatives, and that it failed
to address the question of the need for a new leasing program
in light of the magnitude of coal already under lease. 437 F.
Supp. at 988-991. Consequently, the court enjoined the
Department of the Interior from "taking any steps whatsoever
K-70
directly or indirectly to implement the new coal leasing pro-
gram" except under certain specific circumstance a, and ordered
it to prepare an EIS which fully complies with NEPA. Id. at 993-994.
In addition, the program with which this impact statement
deals, i.e., the "preferred alternative," constitutes the
Department "s third attempt since 1970 to develop a comprehensive
coal leasing program to replace the uncontrolled and passive
leasing policy of the past and to avoid the adverse environmental
and other impacts which had resulted therefrom. See Comments
of NRDC on the BLM'a Proposed Federal Coal Leasing Program
(DES 74-53) (August 2, 1974), p. 17. The first attempt, EMARS I,
was an ill-described program. Id., pp. 23-27, in which the Department
would relate "inventoried Federal coal resources to national
projections of coal-derived energy needs." NRDC v. Hughes, supra.,
437 F. Supp. at 984 n. 8. The Department subsequently
replaced EMARS I with its second attempt at a comprehensive
management program, EMARS II. Under EMARS II, the coal industry
was to nominate the areas and tracts to be considered for leasing.
The substitution of EMARS II for EMARS I was made "without [the]...
proper explanation." Id. at 989.
Finally, the currently preferred alternative and the instant
draft impact statement represent the Department's first compre-
hensive attempt to respond to the broad requirements of three
major statutes recently enacted by Congress — the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) , Pub. L. 94-579, 43
U.S.C. S 1701 et acq. , the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act
of 1975 (FCLAA} Pub. L. 94-377, 30 U.S.C. S 181 et peg;., and
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) ,
Pub. L. 95-B7, 30 U.S.C. S 1201 et 8 eg-
The preferred alternative described in the DES presents
the structure of a rational approach to the management of the
Nation's coal. It integrates coal management decisions into
the broader context of resource management. It establishes a
cyclical process for the evaluation of the need for the leaning
of Federal coal. It describes procedures intended to assure
the development of that coal first which will cause least
damage to the environment and to prevent development of coal
which would cause irreparable environmental harm.
Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that the preferred alter-
native is full of flaws and ambiguities. The machinery for its
implementation, to the extent it is visible through the DES,
ia ill-constructed. It leaves discretion where it should set
standards, it relies on the products of previous management
systems when it should start anew. It seeks, above all, to
assure that more than enough coal will be available, although
the President's Environmental Message of May 23, 1977, FLPMA,
FCLAA and SMCRA mandate that first consideration be given to the
environment.
The DES as a whole fails either to meet the specific require-
ments imposed by NRDC v. Hughes, or the broader mandates of NEPA.
A programmatic impact statement represents a task unique
in Federal policymaking. It imposes a nondiscretionary duty
upon Federal officials to think in a certain way about discre-
tionary acts. The programmatic impact statement is a vehicle
for introducing human environmental values into the decisional
process. It is designed to affect and inform that process from
its earliest stages, yet is required to be made public, subjected
to public scrutiny and comment, and to be responsive to public
views. The programmatic impact statement requires an agency
to consider values outside its mission at the very moment it
develops the basic policies for carrying out its mission. It
requires comprehensive analysis which ranges far outside the
normal ambit of an agency's responsibility. For this reason
the programmatic impact statement is unique and essential. It
is virtually the only process for effectively addressing such
broadscale human concerns.
Fare more comprehensively than its predecessor, the DES
addresses critical issues. But the analyses begun are often
left incomplete. Discrete topics are described but remain iso-
lated, unconnected by analysis. The treatment of the need for
leasing is critically deficient. The description of the pre-
ferred alternative is inadequate. The description of the
environmental and other impacts which will result from the
development of federal coal is inadequate. Important issues,
including the rehabilitation of mined lands, are treated only
cursorily. The alternatives considered are not genuine alter-
natives, but rather fragments of alternatives.
The flaws in the preferred alternative and the DES are
oversahdowed, however, by the frenzied drive to prepare for a
mid-1980 lease sale. These preparations are proceeding in a
manner inconsistent with the preferred alternative. They have
left the DES and the decision which it is designed to inform far
behind. Therefore, we turn first to the coal leasing program
which is already being implemented.
II. PREPARATION FOR A MID-19B0 LEASE SALE UNDERMINES THE
NEPA PROCESS
Memoranda written by the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Directors of the western Coal State
Offices of the SLM reveal a strenuous and systematic program
to prepare for a mid-1980 lease sale. The program, directed
specifically toward the identification of forty lease tracts
in time for the 1980 sale, requires updating of MFPs prepared
for coal management under EMARS II and the Application of the
draft Lands Unsuitability Criteria. The 700,000 acrhs of land
to be reviewed as part of this program have not been selected
pursuant to comprehensive resource planning. There has been no
intraregional evaluation of competing values. The criterion by
which the selection was made was simple. "Focus on planning
areas where completed MFPs delineate areas potentially suitable
for coal leasing to meet short-term (1980) leasing goals."
K-71
Supplement to Planning and Budget for Coal Leasing 197B-1980,
June 9, 1978, p. 5.
Almost a year ago, the Department instructed state Directors
to direct "present work efforts into those planning units which
offer the best opportunity for near future coal resource manage-
ment," and emphasized that it "is particularly important that
we place FY 78-79 emphasis towards meeting the mid-1980 objec-
tive for leasing, if required." tnsturction Memorandum No. 78-157,
March 27, 197B.
A few months later, an Office of Coal Management document
identified
2.4 million acres in six western states which
under existing planning criteria are suitable
for coal leasing. These areas will require
the least amount of effort to pudatc and refine
in accordance with the departmental policy and
suitability criteria after July 1978." Supple-
ment to Planning and Budget for Coal Leasing
1978-1980, June 9, 197B, p. 2.
The document discussed "a recommended approach for activity
planning to meet the 1980 coal leasing goals," id., p. 1, and
outlined specific steps to be taken. Id., pp. 3-5. The docu-
ment repeatedly refers to production of a 'Departmental policy
on coal leasing by July 1978." Id., p. 1, also see pp. 2, 4.
It is significant that that the document's authors contem-
plate the completion of the Department's coal policy in July 1978
(five months before the new draft EIS was even published). In
a Memorandum dated June 30, 1978, the selection of the "Preferred
Alternative" was announced. Memorandum from Executive Secretary
"Secretarial Issue Document, Coal Policy Issues and Options."
The Bureau of Land Management almost immediately began to
implement the new policy.-' In a memorandum addressing "Planning
for Mid-80 Coal Leasing, If Needed," the Director of the BLM
instructed the State Directors of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico,
Utah and Wyoming, consistent with the "leasing strategies pre-
ferred by the Department," to complete all of the steps necessary
for leasing, short of tract identification, by June 1, 1979:
The purpose of this memorandum is to
stimulate the inventory and planning
effort required to place the Bureau
in the position of being ready to ■
identify tracts to be analyzed by
June l, 1979, for coal lease offer in
mid-19B0 if needed.
You have been furnished with the Solicitor's
opinion of May 22 which provides legal
guidance and advises we can develop plans
under the court order of September 27,
1977, to the extent that we identify lands
suitable for coal leasing in a planning unit.
You have recently developed MFP's for
some areas of medium or high potential
for coal development in the last several
years. High priority planning units have
been identified to the task force on
planning/budget, and additional funds for
planning in FY 1979 have been requested.
A number of coal-planning positions have
been allocated to you during the last
several years for continuing such efforts.
2/ It was not however full scale resource management which wa
initiated, but the limited coal oriented program months later
-- a cryptic section headed "Start-up
(DES, p. 3-28) .
We know the leasing strategies nreferred
by the Department will all rely'on the
surface management agencies' planning"
systems to identify areas suitable for
coal leasing; this can be done by June
We would like to use the period of
September 1978 through March 1979 t0
review and revise the areas planned for
Sgaj onlv, in selected recently completed
MTP s on high potential coal deposits,
to insure that these plans are consistnet
with current Departmental policy and ready
for use in developing the mid-1980 coal lease
offer options. Doing this will involve the
following steps, to be completed by
March 1979M
78-381, July 19, 1978 (emphas
Instruction Memorandui
original) .
The process described in Instruction Memorandum 78-3B1
constitutes implementation of the "preferred alternative," and
it ia not a part of a general and comprehensive land use
planning process. It is solely and specifically designed to
prepare for a mid-1980 coal lease sale, im 78-381 does not
order consideration of coal resources in the contxt of resource
management activities. It explicitly cautions the State Direc-
tors "to review and revise the areas planned for coal only ....
(emphasis in original) .
After meeting with the State Directors, the Director issued
further instructions specifying that the review and revision
process should "include acreage sufficient to result in at least
10 potential lease tracts . . ."in each of four states. He
added that the "exact process" for "a 1980 sale has not yet been
designed. This is a major priority for the Office of Coal
Management, in cooperation with OCLPC, over the next two months."
Facsimile Message No. 78-85, September 21, 1978.
BLM State offices responded with a flurry of activity.
The Colorado State Director advised the Director of BLM that
although fiscal year 1978 was nearly over, leaving "a Bhort
time frame to complete the work," the Colorado State Office
might "be able to update existing MFP5 to allow for a subse-
quent coal-lease offer in mid-1980." This he attributed to
the existence of "the West-Central Colorado coal ES and North-
west Colorado Coal supplemental report covering the planning
units where leasing is anticipated . . . ." He noted that
"within these general areas, we have specific tracts identified."
Memorandum from State Director, Colorado, to Director, August 7,
1978 (emphasis supplied).
The Montana State Director in three separate memoranda
to the Director reviewed his plans to 'facilitate an adequate
supply of areas acceptable for further consideration for leasing"
but complained that the " [t J imef rames for tract identification,
selection, ranking, regional ES, and sales schedule are too
compressed, but the situation is understood." Memorandum from
State Director, Montana, to Director, November 24, 1978, at 2-3.
He ntoed that the need for haste might lead to "a less than
adequate [regional environmental] analysis," Memorandum from
state Director, Montana, to Director, September 26, 1978, at 1,
and that it would be necessary to "rely heavily" on existing and
possibly insufficient data. Memorandum from State Director,
Montana, to Director, August 15, 1978, at 1.
K-72
A major step in the preparations for a mid-1980 lease sale
is the application of the draft Lands Unsuitability Criteria.
See 43 Fed. Reg. 57662, et seg. (Dec. 8, 197B] ; 44 Fed. Reg.
2201-2202 (Jan. 10, 1979); DES, p. 5-141. Although the criteria
are an integral part Of the preferred alternative, they are being
applied before they have been formally promulgated, and exposed
to public review and comment- The Department has characterized
the application of the criteria as a "test" and asserted that,
because it can "change the MFPs if necessary to comply with the
final regulations," the "process does not irretrievably or
irreversibly commit any resources." 43 Fed. Reg. 57664 (Dec. B,
1978) .
The urgency of the Department's efforts to prepare for a
mid-1960 lease sale renders that assertion ridiculous even if
technically correct. Substantial changes in the criteria would
require major revisions? major revisions that would have to take
place during the summer and fall of 1979. The Department's
planning documents state that in order for the mid-1980 lease
sale to take place application of the criteria must be completed
by April 15, 1979, Facsimile Message 78-85, September 21, 1978,
p. 2, and revision of the MFPs must be completed by June 1979-
See Instruction Memo 78-381, July 19, 1978- Thus, any meaning-
ful change in the criteria would render leasing in 19B0 impossible.
The consequence of the massive effort to be ready to lease
by mid-1980 is that a coal leasing program is being implemented,
once again without prior consideration of the need for and effects
of leasing. However careful the analysis in the final program-
matic impact statement may be, it will come more than a year
too late. It is inconceivable that the program, already forging
ahead on the tight schedule, with an enormous commitment of
resources, will be cancelled or significantly modified in
response to the comments on the draft ES not yet even submitted.
Because of the demand for haste, the ghost of EMARS II
stalks throughout the process. The lands being reviewed are
those subject to nine existing MFPs. Those MFPs were prepared
and updated for use under EMARS II, not the sustained yield,
multiple use mandate of flpma, or the environmental requirements
of the President's Environmental Message and SMCRA. The data
they provide was collected to answer questions asked under EMARS
II, not the "preferred alternative."
Finally, most of the important decisions for the mid-1980
sale will have been made without public participation. The
process will have been underway for nearly a year before the
public has even commented on the draft programmatic impact state-
ment. The lands unsuitability criteria have not been published
for co-ment except as a part of the draft statement. By the
time the BLM planning regulations and the coal program regula-
tions are promulgated, the mid-1980 lease sale will have
progressed to the point of tract identification.
The issue in MRDC v. Hughes was the adequacy of the final
Environmental Impact Statement prepared on the Energy Minerals
Activities Recommendation System (EMARS II). The Court concluded
that the EIS was inadequate. It found both the explanation of
EMARS II and the consideration of alternatives to be insufficient
The court specifically referred to the necessity that the Depart-
ment consider th<> need for any leasing at all, and ordered the
Department to prepare a new draft impact statement and the
Secretary of the Interior to
personally reevaluate federal coal leasing
policy, based on information contained in
the new final EIS, and to make a new decision
as to whether a new leasing program shall be
instituted and, if so, what kind of program
it should be.
Natural Resource; Defense Council v. Hughes, supra, 437 F.Supp.
at 994 [emphasis added).
Until that task is complete, the Department is enjoined
from taking "any steps whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to
implement the new coal leasing program . . . . " 437 F.Supp.
at 993,
The Department has apparently concluded that the provision
of the Court's order, as modified, which permits the "prepara-
tion of comprehensive land use plans," 454 F.Supp. at 152, for-
bids only implementation of EMARS II and the identification or
leasing of tracts. 43 Fed. Reg. 57663 (December 8, 19781;
Memorandum from the Deputy Solicitor to the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management "Planning and Data Collection Efforts
Under NRDC v. Hughes, " at 1-2. Such a conclusion is incredible
in the context of the decision of the court. The order of the
court explicitly bars implementation of "the new" (emphasis
supplied) coal leasing program; the point of the order is to
compel the Department to properly complete the EIS process before
it adopts, let alone implements, a new program.
The language which permits land use planning to go forward
is addressed to comprehensive planning which incidentally
involves consideration of coal. Yet the Department has insti-
tuted planning activities directed only to the leasing of coal,
we regard the Department's violation of the court's order
as so complete as to render the Programmatic Impact Statement
functionally irrelevant. The Department's memoranda and actions
suggest that the decision to lease and to lease soon was made
before the basic tasks imposed by the court were even addressed.
The Impact Statement will inevitably turn into an effort to
justify that decision rather than a means to inform the decision-
maker.
This is particularly distressing because the evidence is
so strong that early leasing is unnecessary. See Section III. A.
infra. Indeed, the principle justification suggested in the
DES is that additional leasing may be necessary by 1990 and
bureaucratic and start-up delays may be such as to cause up
to seven years delay (DES, p. 2-43). Even this figure would
not justify immediate leasing, and most of the dealys referred
to in the DES will be eliminated if the Department simply goes
forward with systemmatic resource management decisions,
unharried by leasing pressures.
Such an approach would permit comprehensive review on the
basis of adequate data. It would allow the Department to
effectively guage the effects of diligent development require-
ments and changing energy demand trends.
K-73
The time needed to establish and implement a sound and
comprehensive management system is availble to the Department.
The Draft Environmental Statement reveals that adequate supplies
of coal are available tu meet short-term needs. It shows that
potential production from existing leases and planned production
from private lands will be sufficient to meet low and medium
projections of demand through 19B5, and to meet the low projection
of demand through 1990. As we discuss mote fully below, the highe;
demand projections presented in the statement overestimate future
coal demand by a substantial amount. Furthermore, the Department ' ;
estimate of planned and likely production does not include the
production potential from existing preference right lease applica-
tions. It is therefore most unlikely that additional Federal
leasing will be required in the near- term future to meet the
nation's demand for coal.
It is equally clear that the Department should take the time
needed to ensure proper management rather than attempt to meet
its arbitrary 1980 deadline for new leasing. As we stated in our
comments on the previous draft coal programmatic EIS:
eplai
able
"Coal is an important,
asset that must be consumed judiciously if we
are to act properly as "trustees of the environ-
ment' as required by NEPA. Although the United
States is generously endowed with coal compared
to the rest of the world, that does not mean
this resource is so abundant that we do not
have to be concerned about its rate of use or
how it is extracted and used. Because coal is
the nation's major potential source of
hydrocarbons, which form the basis for syn-
thetic materials, including plastics and
pharmaceuticals, we should not allow imme-
diate consumption to penalize future genera-
tions that may rely heavily upon coal for
these vital needs . This
is especially important in light of the
relatively rapid depletion of alternative
hydrocarbon resources such as natural gas
and petroleum. Thus, on this basis alone,
the presumption should be to keep coal
mining and utilization to the lowest prac-
ticable levels.
Also, there are important health-related
and environmental reasons for not using
coal directly for production of electrical
energy. These are the same reasons that
coal utilization in power plants, until
arrival of the 'energy crisis,' has de-
creased markedly during the past two decades.
Earlier surface-mined areas have not been
adequately 'rehabilitated ' and proposed
areas for leasing in the West may not be
capable of being 'rehabilitated' at reason-
able financial cost. Coal-fired power
plants release huge quantities of ash, sul-
fur oxides and toxic trace minerals, and,
in some cases, radioactive materials. It is
these very undesirable aspects of coal
utilization that should argue strongly for
minimizing the leasing and mining of coal."_3_
— NRDC Comment
(footnotes and i
III. THE INADEQUACIES OF THE PES
The Department asserts that this DES corrects the defects
in the previous final coal programmatic EIS that were identified by
the Hughe 5 court and responds to the major issues raised by
commentators on both the draft and final versions of that
statement. (p. 1-12) Although the DES is an improvement over the
earlier versions in some respects, it suffers from the same
kinds of fundamental problems from which they suffered.
ately Assess the Nation's
The order issued by Judge Pratt in NRDC v.
Hughes points to the importance of performing
a thorough analysis of need for coal in making
i determination
coal policy.
f the
Lppropr.
An important issue in Judge Pratt's consideration of the
adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the
Proposed Federal Coal Leasing Program [FES 75-80) was the
question of whether additional leases were needed in order to
provide enough coal to meet the nation's energy requirements.
In our comments on the 1974 DES, we argued that the require-
ments could be met without additional leases. Judge Pratt
concluded from these arguments that,
"In light of these statistics, [showing
that coal then under lease could meet
demand for many years), the threshold
question as to whether the proposed
policy is even necessary should have been
addressed and considered in depth."
NKDC.et al. v. Hughes, et al . , supra,
437 F. Supp. 991 (emphasis in original).
Obviously, Judge Pratt
be fundamental to the evaluatio:
policy options.
As the Department of Inte:
DES,
sidered the issue of coal demand to
uation of federal coal management
or itself admits in the
"The failure of the Department to show
the need for leasing was cited by the
Court in NRDC v. Hughes as a principle
defect in the previous coal leasing
programmatic environmental impact
statement " [p. 2-43.)
K-74
While the Department has attempted to comply with the Hughes
order by addressing the question of the need for additional
leasing in the new Statement, its discussion of this issue is
little more than a rationale for the preferred program. Once
again, the Department has failed to establish that there in
a need for the coal that additional leasing would provide. Thus
the "threshold question" as to whether the preferred program
is needed has not yet been answered. We believe this failure
is a major inadequacy of the Statement.
2. A review of the projections of coal demand
and supply estimates shows that new leasing
is not needed to meet near-term energy
requirements.
a. Both the Department of Interior and the
Department of Energy admit that demand can be met through 1985
in the "low" and 'medium" scenarios, and through 1990 in the
"low" scenario, without new leasing. In response to a request
by the Department of Interior (DOI) , the Department of Energy
(DOE) prepared a range of projections of production required to
meet demand for coal in 1985 and 1990. DOI then compared the
DOE projections with its own estimates of planned and likely
production as a basis for judging the need for additional
Federal coal development. The comparison shows that total
planned and likely production for 1935 exceeds the DOE low
projection by about 120 million tonsj the medium projection
is exceeded by over 3D million tons. (p. 2-45.) Similarly,
the low 1990 projection is exceeded by about 50 million tons.
(p. 2-46.)
The Department of Interior admits that,
"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
leasing if all planned production
materializes." (p. 2-44.)
On the other hand, the high DOE projection for 1985 and
the high and medium projections for 1990 exceed the DOI estimate
of total planned and likely production for those years. However,
as the Statement notes,
"The fact that currently planr.ed and
likely production, together with the
production potential from PRLAs,* is not
sufficient to reach high and medium 1990
DOE production projections does not mean
that these projected levels could not
be attained without new Federal coal
leasing." (p. 2-47)
In the study from which the production projections were taken,
the DOE also concluded from its own comparison of production
expected to take, place regardless of future federal leasing
actions, with the need projections that:
"It must be emphasized that these pro-
duction shortfall estimates do not
indicate that new leasing is needed.
Rather, the shortfalls could be met by
an expansion of existing approved
mining operations, development of
existing non-producing leases,
expanded development of non-federal
coal, additional leasing or any . ,
combination of these policies." — '
the comparison
— ' Federal Coal Leasing and 19B5 and 1995 Regional Coal
Production Forecasts, Leasing Policy Development Office, De pa r t-
ment of Energy, June 1978, Executive Summary, pp. 10-11.
This conclusion is given added weight by the fact that DOE's
estimate of the gap between likely production without new leases
and coal requirements was significantly greater than that of
DOI.
In short, initial inspection of the coal need
projections and the DOI estimate of total planned and likely
production suggests that immediate resumption of federal coal
leasing is far from a necessity. Furthermore, the DOI compari-
sons tend to exaggerate the need for additional leasing, due
to the exclusion from the comparison cf additional potential
coal production and to the overestimation of future demand
for coal. Our analysis below of the assumptions used in making
the supply and demand projections displayed in the statement
shows that there is little evidence to support the Department
of Interior's contention that there is an urgent need to
establish a program for the immediate resumption of Federal
coal leasing.
b. The estimates of demand used by the Department
in its analysis of the need for leasing are ■
allstically
The Draft Environmental Statement contains two sets of need
projections, the first of which were developed by the Department
of Energy in the study referenced above, and the second of which
consists basically of the DOE projections as modified by the
Department of interior. Since the two sets are based on similar
assumptions regarding total demand levels, we restrict our comment here
to the initial set of projections prepared by DOE. Due primarily to unrealistic
assumptions about the rate of growth in electricity demand and
the consumption of western coal in the East, we believe that the
DOE production projections are based on exaggerated estimates
of demand. These issues, along with a number of other factors
which resulted in inflated demand estimates, are discussed
below.
The DOE projections of sectoral coal demand indicate
that the electric utility sector will continue to dominate
coal demand, representing 68* of the medium case demand in 19B5
and 66% of the medium case demand in 1990. (p. 2-26.) Thus,
the assumptions regarding growth in electricity demand are
key to the analysis of total demand requirements.
The DOE projections assume that electricity demand
will grow from 1977 to 1985 at the rates of 4.4% per year in
the low case, 4.8% per year in the medium case, and 5.8% per
year in the high case. The level of population growth, estimates
of future cost of electricity to the consumer, and amount of
conservation underlying these projections are not specified,
making it difficult to perform a detailed analysis of the
projections. However, a comparison with the actual rate of
growth in national electricity demand which has occurred during
the period following the oil crisis of 1973, 3.9% per year, -2-'
indicates that the DOE assumptions represent a relatively high
-■>-' Calculated from data for 1972 and 1977 in Monthly Energy
Review, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy,
December 1978, p. 55.
K-75
estimate of future growth in electricity demand, rather than a
realistic range. Considering the fact that much of the reduced
electric demand growth rate in the past five to six years was
due to the institution of conservation measures which could be
achieved easily on a short-term basis and in response to price
increases small by comparison to long-term prospects, we believe
that the long-run response to increasing electricity prices has
only begun to emerge, and that, as a result, overall demand
growth rates will continue to drop.
As the draft statement points out, the DOE projections
of demand are based on a macroeconomic analysis which relates
energy use to variables such aa income. (p. 2-25.) The
Statement also notes the existence of an "alternative approach
currently ... employed in California.'' (p. 2-25) The alternative accroach
referred to, known as end-use analysis, produces for^asto of energy dsroand which
are much more consistent with recent trends than does the econcmetric approach
used by IXC. The Departrent of Interior claims that:
'To complete the comprehensive inventory
on a nationwide basis with the survey
method used' in California would take
considerable time and resources." (p.
2-25 )
The fact is, however, that much of the preliminary work needed
to perform such an assessment on a national basis has already
been done as part of a study by the National Academy of
Sciences' Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems,
in which a great deal of data was collected on national
energy consumption by sector. Although this study has not yet
been published in entirety, the demand analysis results are
summarized in an article entitled "U.S. Energy Demand: Some
Low Energy Futures ■ (Science, 14 April 1978, pp. 142-152.)
The Department of Interior stated that,
'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 current
projections. " (p. 2-25.)
In view of the importance of reliable demand projections in
formulating a rational Federal coal policy, we believe that
the Department should re-evaluate its need projections using
this methodology, before establishing a new leasing program.
The DOE production projections cited in the Statement
al30 overestimate the extent to which western coal will be
used to meet future demand for electricity. While the
Department of Interior states that "the most important sources
of increased demand for western coal are in the West itself,"
(p. 2-25) western production is projected to grow much more
rapidly than western consumption. For example, under the
preferred program, medium production of western coal in 1990
would be more than six times greater than the amount produced
in 1976. (p. 5-11.) In contrast, western coal consumption
would only triple in the same period. (p. 5-13.) Western
production in the preferred program medium projection would
exceed western consumption by 445 million tons. The d raft
Statement is therefore somewhat misleading in alleging that,
i5
"... most new demand
coal will be from power
industries in the west.
in coal demand is expec
in the West than in any
of the country." (p. 2
for western
plants and
The growth
.ed to be higher
other region
10.)
While
the Department
s figures indicate that western coal
demand
will grow at a faster rate than eastern
demand
the
absolute increase in
consumption is p
ojected
to be far greater
in the
East than in the West. (p. 5
13 )
The extent
to which western
coal is
used in
the East
will depend largely on the strictness of the New Source
Performance Standards, to be promulgated soon by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The medium and high coal demand
projections assume that the New Source Performance Standards
will require a lower level of flue gas desulfuriiation on low
sulfur western coal than on eastern coal, (p. H-4.) which
would lower the cost of western coal and increase eastern
demand. Only the low projection is based on the more realistic
assumption that 90* flue gas desulfuriiation would be required
on all new plants, regardless of coal type. While it is not
certain that EPA will adopt the stricter standard, all
new coal plants located in Prevention of Significant Deteriora-
tion (PSD) areas will be required to use Best Available Con-
trol Technology, which the 3tatos can interpret to be greater
than the lower desulfuriiation levels assumed for the medium
and high demand projections. For example, in California the
Air Resources Board and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. have agreed
that the proposed "Fossil" coal plant, if built, will meet a
954 flue gas desulfuriiation limit. $J If eastern states follow
this trend, there will be little incentive for eastern utilities
to burn western coal.
The DOE coal need projections used by the Department
of Interior are also overstated because they are
based on underestimates of the costs of using western coal.
The DOE model used to project coal demand and supply is
structured so as "to minimize the total delivered costs of
energy to the demand sectors in all regions. . . ,"-U
However, the approach used resulted in an underestimate of
the costs of coal production and transportation. Although
"economic criteria were used to determine the relative cost of
coal production from each regional production area,"-5~/' it
does not appear that the Department of Energy has taken into
account explicitly the additional costs which will be imposed
by environmental protection actions required by the new Federal
leasing program. The DOE model also underestimates the trans-
portation costs of providing the amount of coal considered in
each projection by assuming that railroad hauling rates will
rise only at the same rate as the general inflation rate of the
overall economy. It is difficult to believe that the high
— Stipulation re BACT in the Matter of Notice of Intention
rirl fi'tl" !!eCtriC C°- " fUe an APPl^ation for
2S«""1S-Xi-J?ln9 the FOS3il * *nd 2 ProUct' 1/10/?9'
— f DOE, 0£. cit. , p. 58.
8 /
— ' Id., p. 64.
K-76
capital investments which will be required to expand the
existing transportation system are factored into this assump-
tion ■
The DOS model therefore appears to have under-
estimated the costs of both producing and transporting coal,
an error which will result in unrealistically high estimates of
demand for the coal.
Another factor which will result in the likelihood
of demand levels lower than projected by DOE is the recent
authorization granted to the EPA to require the use of local
coal. Provision for such authority was included in the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977, but:
'Given that the fate of this provision
is unclear, it was not included in any
of the [DOE] scenarios." 9/
Subsequent to the preparation of the DOE report, however, the
EPA was indeed granted such authority, and has already proposed
in at least one case to issue an order to require Ohio utilities
to use Ohio coal .
"Resolution of this precedent-setting
'local coal' case may well determine
the market for western coal in other
midweseern areas, such as Illinois. "10 /
Finally, we believe that the DOE demand projections
are overstated due to inflated estimates of production require-
ments for industrial consumption, synfuel production and exports
— ' Id., p. 102.
— - Western Interstate Energy Board Newsletter, 5 January 1979,
The DOE mid-range and high Industrial demand projections
expressed in terms of Btu's are expected to more than double
between 197S and 1985. — ' The largest regional industrial
demand would be from the West South Central region, which
includes Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Industrial
demand in this region is expected to increase by a factor of
over fifteen. Given the recent natural gaa glut, it is prepost-
erous to assume that conversion of existing industrial facilities
will occur at the rate required to result in such a fantastic
increase in coal demand.
The DOE estimates of coal required for synfuel produc-
tion and exports, while only a small part of the total demand
projection, are similarly overstated. For example, the low
projection for 1985 was based on the assumption that seven
(presumably liquefaction) plants with a capacity of 10,000
barrels per day each will be in operation by 1985; the
medium and high projections assume thirteen and twenty-seven
plants respectively. — ■ In view of the extensive Federal
funding which will be required to make such facilities available
on a commercial scale in the near future, we question the realism
of these estimates. While DOE is anxious to encourage these
technologies, it is currently having difficulty obtaining adequate
funding from Congress for even a limited number of liquefaction
and gasification plants. See The Energy Daily, January 30, 1979.
1*7
— ' Id_., p. A-5.
12 •
Id., p. 103.
We therefore believe that a projection of seven plants by 1985
would be optimistic even for the high demand scenario.
We also question the assumption that exports will
increase by nearly 50ft between 1977 and 19B5 as is indicated in
the DOE projections. (p. 2-26) First, if demand is to grow
domestically at the rate assumed in this analysis, it would
be more likely that exports would be displaced to meet domestic
demand. Second, it seems inappropriate to us that foreign
demand for coal should be included in the consideration of
whether to lease additional federal lands for coal mining.
In any event, the assumptions which determine this estimate of
demand should be discussed.
c. The estimates of planned and likely coal production
used bv the Department in its analysis of need for additional
leasing are
low.
The Department of Interior's estimates
of total planned and likely production with which the DOE
need projections are compared include planned and likely production froi
mines on existing Federal leases, planned production from
Indian Lands and planned production from wholly non-Federal
mines. (p. 2-4S)Not included, however, is the production
potential from outstanding Preference Right Lease Applications.
Thus, the estimate of total coal supply likely to be available
in the late 1980s without new Federal leases is significantly
understated.
The Department gives no explanation as to why it excluded
preference right lease application production potential from
its estimates of total coal availability, although it does state that:
"It is unlikely that many preference
right lease applications could be
processed, leases issued, and
production begun from these leases by
19B5. The production potential of
preference right lease applications
is of importance mainly in considering
1990 production projections." (p. 2-44)
While we would not argue for rapid processing of preference
right lease applications, it appears to us that they could be
developed just as rapidly, if not more quickly, than could new
leases. Although the Department acknowledges, as quoted above,
that preference right lease application oro-'.uction could con-
tribute to meeting 1990 coal requirements , it does not even include
preference right lease amplication production in its estimate of
planned and likely production for that year. We therefore suggest
that the production potential from preference right lease application
be considered on a par with the rest of the planned and likely pro-
ductions use;: by the Department for purposes of comparison with the
need projections.
In order to have a clearer picture of the total
availability of coal without new Federal leasing, we review the
Department's estimates of preference right lease application
production potential. Total annual production potential from
applications about which there are no legal or environmental
questions is estimated to be 2S0.8 million tons, which represents
over half again the Department's estimates of total "planned and
likely production." In the table below, we add the preference
right lease application potential to the planned and likely
production and display it beside the low, medium and high DOE need
projections for 1985 and 1990.
K-77
COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL COAL PRODUCTION
WITH THE DOE NEED PROJECTIONS
Planned t
likely
production
1935
1990
422.3
419.3
PRLA
potenti
250.8
250. B
Total
potenti
673.0
670.1
DOE Projections
Low Medium High
299.8 391.1 438.7
366.5 659.7 922.1
The table indicates that, with the development of the potential
from existing preference right lease applications, new Federal
coal leasing would be conceivably required only to meet the
high DOE demand projection in 1990. All three demand projections
for 1985 could be met without additional Federal leasing, as
could the low and medium projections for 1990.
d. The Department of Interior's position regarding
the need for new leasing under a low demand growth scenario
is incorrect. As indicated above, the Department explicitly
acknowledges that the planned and likely production levels
would be adequate without additional Federal leasing to meet the
DOE low and medium demand projections for 1985 and the low demand
projection for 1990. It states that new leasing would be
required nevertheless even in those cases, Lue to the fact that
low demand growth would result in a failure to develop many
existing leases in time to satisfy the diligence requirements,
in contrast to the implication elsewhere throughout the statement
that coal demand will grow rapidly, the Department contends
that, "[title most important potential constraint (on planned
production] is lack of demand.- (p. 2-30)
The Department argues that if demand is not strong
enough to stimulate development of existing leases by 1986,
the enforcement of diligence requirements will result in the
cancellation of these leases, necessitating new leases in order
to meet demand by 1990;
"As noted the enforcement of diligent
development requirements would mean
that, aside from expansions in already
operating mines, increases in production
of Federal coal after 1986 will have to
come from new Federal leases . " (pp.
2-50, 51) (emphasis added)
The argument dots not make sense, however, in view of the fact
that the Secretary of the Interior has discretion to extend
that period for five years. — * Furthermore, if demand is
insufficient to stimulate production on existing leases, we do
not understand how it can be so great as to require new leasing.
We therefore disagree with the conclusion that,
" ■ . . the only forecast that leads to a
wholly unambiguous 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." (p. 2-44)14_/
13/
— This is not to argue that such a policy is desirable. Indeed,
Wi recommend that the Department move as quickly and aggressively
as possible to determine whether existing leases can and should
be developed. In the event, however, that coal demand does not
grow aa quickly as anticipated, it may make sense in many cases to
extend the diligence period rather than to cancel an existing lease
and subsequently issue a new lease.
U/
— It should also be pointed out that such a scenario is not at
all unlikely, since the full impact of many new conservation
programs will not be felt on demand levels before 1985.
3. The draft environmental statement does not give
adequate consideration to alternatives for meeting
the nation's energy demand.
As we pointed out in our comments on the draft programmatic
statement issued by the Bureau of Land Management in 1974, the
statement must contain a thorough consideration of "the major,
national energy alternatives to the proposed. . .program", — '
We also suggested in our earlier comments that it may be preferable
to base the comparison of alternative energy options on a careful
consideration of the tradeoffs between different energy sources in
a programmatic environmental impact statement for the National
Energy Plan. In the absence of such a statement, it is incumbent
upon the Department of Interior to provide as thorough an analysis
Of the alternative energy options as possible in order to develop a
rational Federal coal leasing program which will best suit the
needs of the nation.
Rather than performing such an analysis, the Department
of Interior appears to have accepted with little thought the
assumption that expanded use of coal represents the main avenue for
achieving the goal established in the National Energy Plan of reducing
projected increases in imports of foreign oil. A brief examination
of the Statement's discussion of the availability of other energy
resources points out its inadequacy in this regard.
The discussion of production trends in oil and natural
gas ignores a number of recent developments which will effect
national energy policy regarding coal use as well as the demand
for coal. First of these is the impact of Alaskan oil production
13/
— ' NRDC Comment
on the California en«rgy situation. California, which now has a
surplus of crude oil due to the new Alaskan supplies, is currently
working with the Federal government to allow greater use of oil.
This development, combined with other factors, makes it unlikely
that California will be in the market for many coal-fired power
plants within the next decade.
Another important development is the Department of
Energy's recent recognition of the vast Mexican reserves of oil
and natural gas. While there is still a great deal of uncer-
tainty as to the amount of these reserves which would be avail-
able for use in the United States, Mexico appears willing to
negotiate with us. Moreover, the Department of Energy appears to
consider Mexican imports in a somewhat different light than it
does imports from other foreign countries . Finally , an important
point overlooked in the discussions of the natural gas production
trends is the recent increase in availability of natural gas due
to the deregulation of prices resulting from the new National
Energy Act.
The Statement's discussion of potential energy from
hydroelectric power and geothermal reserves is even more scanty
than that of oil and natural gas. The Statement acknowledges
the possibilities for expanding electrical capacity at existing
dams to increase hydroelectric production, but gives no estimate
of the potential. In light of the fact that this option represents
a potential capacity of 47,000 megawatts nationwide, — ' for which
K-78
the equivalent coal-fired capacity would require the mining of
140 million tons of coal per year, we believe the Department
of Interior should have considered this alternative more seriously.
The Department's analysis of geothermal applications is likewise
deficient. No mention is made of the California geothermal
potential of over 19,000 megawatts.—'' The estimate of th«
contribution which could be made by solar energy is also unduly
pessimistic. The statement cites forecasts which "suggest that
as much as ten percent of U.S. energy needs could be met by
solar sourcea* during the period between the year 2000 and
2020. (p. 2-23) Other forecasts have estimated that as much as
20-25 percent of the nation's energy needs «mld be met by solar
IB
energy by the year 2000. — '
As the Department of Interior acknowledges, an
important means for addressing the problem of growing energy
demands is to curb those demands by greater use of energy
conservation measures. (p. 2-24.) The Statement's discussion
of energy conservation, however, indicates that the Department
docs not consider energy conservation to be a serious alterna-
tive to substantially increased coal utilization. After listing
a variety of conservation measures, it is stated that,
"The various conservation measures could
have a substantial impact on energy con-
sumption, reducing it perhaps as much as
ten percent by 1990 if there are major
technology advances." [p. 2-24.)
Status Of AU.r-;ii." I Vj
— ' California Energy Commissi.
nolociies. January 1977, p. 3S.
18/ Council on Environmental Quality, Solar Energy Progres
•and Promise, April 1978, p. 5i Solar Lobby, op. cit. , p. l.
No analysis is provided, however, as to which measures would have
to be undertaken in order to achieve such a reduction. While
the Department admits that, "in many cases, conservation measures
might well be more cost-effective than development of new energy
sources," (p. 2-24) it has not made a serious attempt to quantify
the potential demand reduction which could be achieved by cost-
effective energy conservation measures, nor of the specific
impact on future demand for coal that the implementation of
such measures would have. In light of the fact that the low
coal demand projections do not appear to contain a conservation
component, the lack of serious consideration of conservation
as an alternative energy source is of particular concern.
5. The draft statement does not consider the
impact of the preferred program upon demand
for coal.
By accepting the demand projections prepared by DOE
as a given, the Department of Interior has over looked the issue
of the effect of the preferred program on overall demand for
energy and, more specifically, demand for coal. In particular,
analysis is needed of the impact of the preferred program on
average coal price. This evaluation can then be used to determine
the relative demand impacts of private versus federal coal
development.
The Department has also brushed aside the potential
problems which would be created by over-leasing with the following
statement:
■Should demand be significantly lower
than was projected, diligent development
regulations would assure that leases not
put into production are returned to federal
ownership." (p. 2-52.)
-37-
This assertion reflects again the Department's refusal to admit
the role of the preferred program in effecting the overall supply
and demand picture. Rather than lose their leases due to the failure
to meet diligence requirements, some companies may continue to
produce at levels greater than that needed to meet coal demand,
raising supply above demand and thus reducing prices. The long-run
effect of such activity would be to increase demand or to shift
demand from East to West. Such an effect is not necessarily
desirable nor is it necessarily consistent with national energy policy.
Generally it is troubling that the DES fails to analyze
the interaction between other energy sources and the alternative
leasing policies available to the Department. The decision whether,
where, when, how and how much to lease will have a substantial
impact on the use and development of other energy sources.
6. The Department of Interior errs in accepting
the DOE assumption that the majority of coal
production will be surface mined.
Because the Department of Energy coal projection mode)
operates on a least cost criterion, and because surface miring
operations generally are less expensive than deep mines, the
DOE conclusion that the majority of coal production would be
surface mined is somewhat of a tautology. The DOE model, however,
gives little consideration to the cost of reclamation of strip
mined lands, which will be considerable in many cases. The
Department of Interior should therefore reassess its assumption
that the majority of western coal will be surface mined. (p.
2-25.} Accepting DOE's assumption, the Department of Interior
concludes that:
"because western mining is expected to
be almost entirely surface mining except
in the Uinta-southwestern coal region,
underground PRLA reserves are likely to
make an insignificant contribution to
reaching 1990 production projections
Other than in this region." (p. 2-44.)
38
Thus, the Department has arbitrarily excluded nearly 150 million
tons of annual production potential from consideration as an
alternative to meet coil requirements. This figure includes
nearly 144 million tons which could be deep mined in the Powder
River region. (p. 2-36.)
7. The Department of interior's claim that
it is not basing its assessment of the
need for new coal leasing on the DOE
production projections is not credible.
The Department maintains that
"... the need to operate a federal coal
management program does not rest on the
current assessment (i.e. , the DOE pro-
jections) of future coal supply and
demand. . . sound long-run government
policy must acknowledge this uncertainty
and not assume that today's forecasts
must inflexibly govern resource production
decisions of the future.* (p. 2-52.)
The implication is that, even if it is proven that the DOE
projections are invalid, the preferred program is needed in
order to provide for the uncertainties inherent in the fore-
casting process. The merits of this argument are discussed
elsewhere in these comments. The issue at hand is the extent
to which the Department of Interior is relying upon the DOE
projections in support of its contention that the preferred
program is needed. The indications are that the Department of
Interior takes the DOE projections seriously. If such
is not the case, why have the projections been discussed at such
length in the draft statement? Moreover, DOE indicated in the
study it performed at the request of DOI that
"these forecasts are to be an integral
part of the Department of the Interior's
comprehensive review and redirection of the
federal coal leasing program." l^
IT.
— ' DOE, o£. cit. , p. I.
K-79
Thus, it would appear that the Department of Interior considers
the DOE projection an important argument for the need for a
new leasing program.
Of greater concern is the fact that these projections
appear to provide the rationale for instituting a leasing pro-
gram as soot, as possible, despite DOE's assertion that new
federal leasing is not a necessity. The Department of Energy
also pointed out in its study that there is presently a great
deal of uncertainty in the variables affecting the coal market;
at the same time, DOE expects that much of this uncertainty
will be resolved in the next few years:
"The wide ranqe of values reflects the
substantial uncertainty surrounding
numerous variables affecting the coal
market. This spread should be narrowed
considerably in the next several years,
allowing an appropriate Federal response
through leasing policy. "20 /
We therefore recommend that the Department of Interior
delay establishment of a program for immediate resumption of
additional Federal leasing until such time as it has resolved
some of the uncertainties in demand raised above and given
serious consideration to other energy supply options as an
alternative to additional coal development.
Id., Executive Summary,
The PES Fails
of the Proposed Progr,
[■'■■■:.lci .il Coal Leasing.
an Adequate F.xpla;
.for i
iii.i'ji'rrN.'nl: oi Fut.nrr-
oal programmatic EIS inadequate,
Hughes stated that it failed to
ge-
In finding the final
the District Court in MRDC v.
contain a "detailed" explanation of the then-preferred
ment program EMARS II, and noted that this failure prevented
informed public comment. 437 F.Supp. at 990. Although EMARS II
is no longer the preferred alternative, it is clear that this
programmatic EIS must contain a detailed, comprehensive descrip-
tion of the program the Department proposes to adopt, if the
Secretary determines to lease additional Federal coal. The DES
purports to present a "detailed description" of the major com-
ponents of this program, p. 3-14, — i -e._, those components
which will ensure that the adverse socio-economic and environ-
mental impacts of the development of western coal are mitigated
to acceptable levels. See, e.g. , p. 6-2. These components
include: (1) the land use planning process; (2) the lands
unsuitability criteria; (3) the ranking process; (4) the procedure
for setting regional production goals; (5) the NEPA process; and
(G) the start-up procedures to be used for leasing in the near term
The description in the body of the DES provides no de-
tails at all with regard to the six component processes which
constitute the preferred alternative. To find more explicit
information, one must look to the sample regulations in Appendix
A □£ the DES, the proposed Bureau of Land Management planning
regulations, <1 3 Fed. Reg. 5B764 (Dec. 15, 197B), the announcement
of the application of the Lands Unsuitable Criteria ani revision
of existing Management Framework plans, 43 Fed. Reg. 57662 (Dec.
8, 1978); 44 Fed. Reg. 2201 [Jan. 10, 1979), and the many option
papers prepared by Departmental task forces. Even searchinq all
those sources only suggests approaches which the Department has
considered. How the separate procedures interrelate is often
ambiguous. The role of the states, the public and other federal
agencies remains unclear. The standards for resolution of crucia
issues are cither unstated or unrestrictedly general.
Of course it is inevitable that a Draft Programmatic
Impact Statement must examine policies and processes which have
not been put in final form. But it is crucial that the descrip-
tion of the proposed action (and alternatives) be accessible and
sufficiently explicit to permit analysis- As we discuss in the
following paragraphs, we do not believe the DES meets that
standard.
Land use planning constitutes the basic component of the
proposed management program. According to the DES, the BLM ' a
plannmq systfm is to provide the "initiative and the forum for the
making of the principal decisions in the federal coal management
program." (p. 3-1B) in particular, the planning process is
supposed to identify "areas acceptable for further consideration
for coal leasing" as well as the "area-wide constraints and
multiple use coordination (requirements necessary! to guide coal
program activities." (p. 3-18) it is also supposed to serve
as a major vehicle for public participation. However, as the
draft statement acknowledges, the Bureau's planning regulations
are currently unrieryoing revision. On December 15, 1978, the
Bureau published draft planning regulations which differ signi-
ficantly from its existing land use planning system, Department
of Interior, BLM, "Proposed Rulemaking," 43 Fed. Reg. 58764 et
aec3- ■ as "ell as from prior draft planning regulations prepared
by the agency. The comment period on the
draft regulations does not end until April 1, 1979. No date has
been publicly set for thoir promulgation in final form. The
degree to which the final regulations Mill or will not resemble
the proposed regulations is unknown, as is the degree to which
the final procedures will enable the agency to make "balanced
judgments" about resource uses, (p. 6-2), and guide the develop-
ment of subsequent activity plans. In their current form, these
draft regulations do not fulfill these objectives or the require-
ments of FLPMA. Thus, while we believe that the Bureau's existing
K-80
planning process is fundamentally inadequate, we also believe
that the proposed planning regulations must be drastically revised
if they are to ensure environmentally sound management of publicly
owned lands and resources. See pp. gp-fla- infra.
According to the DES , the "public would have an opportunity
to comment on the lands identified as acceptable for consideration
for leasing, and participate in the resources trade-off decision."
(p. 6-2) The degree, quality, and effectiveness of such parti-
cipation will depend on the planning process which has yet to be
established.
As far as future coal leasing is concerned, the lands unsuita-
bility criteria constitute the major addition to the land use
planning process. The application of these criteria is supposed
to resolve resource conflicts and ensure that future leasing takes
place in "environmentally acceptable" areas. (p. 3-20) The lands
unsuitability criteria were published in "interim" form on
December 8, 1978. A3 Fed. Reg. 57662. Apparently, they will not
be published in formal form until after the Secretary decides
whether "to adopt a new coal management program in June 1979. ..."
(p. A-l) Although the draft statement asserts that "unsuitability
criteria would, in some form, be applied to all new leases" as
well as existing non-producing leases and preference right lease
applications, (p. 3-20) (emphasis added) , the degree to which the
final version of these criteria will resemble the version discussed
in the draft statement is unclear. They have already been redrafted
at least once. It is clear that the criteria in their present
form will not permit the "consistent, uniform" identification of
lands which are unsuitable for coal leasing. Id. See pp. go- gf
infra. We believe that they, as well as the planning regulations,
must be drastically revised, if the Department's intentions in
promulgating them are to be realized.
The ranging process, "another new and major mitigation element"
of the proposed program, (p. 6-2) , is supposed to ensure that
the tracts leased are "optimum" tracts Cor coal development, (p. 3-23).
According to the DES,
"because of the probability that, in many
regions, there will be more Federal coal
that could be leased than would be neces-
sary to lease, the Department has a
responsibility to select, from among these
coal lands which are not excluded from
leasing through application of unsuitabi-
lity standards or other resource manage-
ment decisions, those tracts whose devel-
opment would cause the least environmental,
social, and economic damage." (p. 6-2)
This process too has yet to be fully formulated by the Department-
According to the draft, in the ranking process, criteria relating
to a number of factors including, for example, "coal economics,
ease of reclamation, ..., and socio-economic and other environmental
concerns would be employed." (p. 3-22) However, the draft does
not reveal how these factors will be weighed or utilized in
ranking the areas identified during planning as suitable for
leasing. It does acknowledge that "standardized procedures
[are needed for] judging the relative attractiveness of potential
lease tracts." (p. 3-43) Such procedures have not yet been
developed, although the DES states that a study "will" be conducted
to develop them. Id. Until they are supplied, it is impossibile to
assess the degree to which the use of this process will achieve the Oeoarprent ' s
important objects.
The descriptions of the remaining key elements of the
preferred program, the procedure for setting regional production
goals and the NEPA process, are unclear and unsatisfactory.
According to the DES, the procedure for setting regional produc-
tion goals is supposed to ensure that the need for coal
leasing is continually reassessed, (p. 6-3.) Under the preferred
program, the total amount of Federal coal needed will be determined
in the first instance by subtracting the expected production of
non-federal coal from the natio
by DOE. According to the DES,
al produc
target set
"the Department would review , and if
necessary, adjust the total, disaggre-
gating it into the eight regions con-
taining federal coal. This review,
adjustment, and disaggregation process
would take into consideration statutory
policies and land management require-
ments, the analyses in the federal coal
management programmatic environmental
impact statement, and subsequent post-
programmatic statements . . . ; industry
surveys; and information developed by
other institutions and organizations."
(p. 3-23.)
However, neither the so-called "detailed" description of this
procedure, nor the example regulations, give any indication of how
these factors will be weighted in deciding how much Federal coal,
if any, should be leased and where such leasing will take place.
In the absence of such information, it is impossible to judge the
effectiveness of the process as an accurate method of assessing the
need for Federal coal and of allocating such needs on a regional basis.
46
Until the precise procedures and standards for setting regional
production targets are defined, it is impossible to judge whether
they will give adequate weight to the environmental or socio-
economic impacts of proposed leasing in setting regional targets.
Although the DES purports to explain the relationship
of this impact statement to subsequent EIS's which will be
prepared in connection with future federal coal leases, its
explanation is unclear and confusing. The DES indicates that its
interregional analysis will be updated, p. 3-23, and that
supplements to it may be prepared, p. 6-3. However, the draft
does not indicate what procoudres will be followed in preparing
these updates or supplements. Nor does it identify the specific
circumstances which will trigger their preparation. In partic-
ular, the draft does not reveal whether the supplements will be
prepared pursuant to formal NEPA regulatiosn or whether any
additional programmatic statements will ever be prepared. The
example regulations do not appear to recognize that any supple-
ments will be prepared. Moreover, although the text indicates
that regional EIS's will be prepared in connection with proposed
lease sales schedules (see, e.g. , p. 3-23), the example regula-
tions refer only to draft and final environmental assessments
(p. A-14).
Finally, only a single paragraph of the DES describes
the so-called "start-up Special Considerations" (p. 3-28). Yet,
as we discuss elsewhere in these comments, there is evidence
that during the coming decade, for the major coal areas of the
West, the start-up considerations will be, in fact already are
K-81
the leasing program. The preferred alternative will have
little significance if major new leasing developments have
been begun under an interim program.
In sum, it is apparent that this draft impact statemen
like the previous draft and final programmatic impact state-
ments, fails to contain a "detailed" explanation of the
proposed preferred management program. While the number of
pages devoted to explaining this program undoubtedly exceeds
the number of such pages contained in either of its predecessoj
it does not present a comprehensible and comprehensive picture
of the manner in which coal leasing decisions will be made.
Thus it effectively prevents readers from making an informed
judgment regarding the degree to which this program will
achieve the Department's expressed goals.
C. THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT DOES NOT ASSESS
ACCURATELY THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE '
PREFERRED PROGRAM OR ITS ALTERNATIVES .
1. The Department mistakenly concludes that
the impacts of the preferred program will
be little greater than those of the no-
project alternative.
As we have discussed above, a major flaw in the Draft
Environmental Statement is its failure to examine realistic alter-
natives to the preferred program. The alternatives examined in
the DES, not leasing, emergency leasing or leasing to meet
industry, state or DOE requirements, are not independent coal
management programs. They are ways of answering one of the ques-
tions which a coal management program must answer: how much to
lease. The most significant alternative which the Department
failed to consider is a program whereby new leasing is deferred
until such time as it is clearly needed to meet future energy
requirements, and whereby existing leases are managed in such a
way as to balance environmental and economic concerns. It is likely
that the environmental impacts, of such a program would be quite
different from those of continuation of the status quo, termed
by the Statement as the no-project alternative.
Because there arc a variety of no-project alternatives
which would have lesser environmental impacts than the "no
new leasing" alternative discussed in the statement, the
Department's comparison of the environmental impacts of the
preferred program with those of the no new leasing alternative
gives the misleading impression that the impacts of the preferred
program will be only marginally greater than those of a program
which is explicitly designed to ensure full protection of
environmental values in the development of Federal coal, l.'e
therefore believe the Department states erroneously that,
"the impacts attributable to the Federal
coal management program would be only a
small fraction of those resulting from
meeting national coal requirements . " (5-9)
For example, the Department's assert
program will not result in significantly gre.
impacts than a no new leasing alternative is
its own projections of the relative regional
of the two i
hat the preferred
environmental
radicted by
r impacts
"ternatives. The Statement's comparison of
the water consumption (evaporation) impacts of the various
program alternatives shows that, while the total water consump-
tion for the preferred program will be almost identical to that
of the no new leasing alternative in 19E5, the preferred
alternative will result in more water losses from western
rivers. (p. A- 59) Because of lower average streamflows,
yreater streamflow variation, and over-commitments to other
uses, the ecosystems of western rivers will fae less tolerant
of water loss than would be those in the East. Thus, in the
case of water, the preferred program is likely to have signi-
ficantly greater impacts th«n the no new leasing alternative.
2. The draft statement does not pn
accurate, thorough analysis of the
impacts of the preferred program.
de ,
ironmental
** The Statement is overly optimistic about the
ability to reclaim mined lands, and thus underestimates the
land use, soils and water impacts of coal development in
general and the preferred program in specific. In our comments
on the Draft Environmental Statement prepared by the Bureau of
Land Management in 1974, we raised a number of questions
regarding the Bureau's assumptions about reclamation potential
of the arid, western lands to be mined under the proposed
Federal coal leasing program, while the instant draft statement
addresses some of these concerns, it does not provide an objec-
tive assessment of the extent to which reclamation attempts
will be able to mitigate the impacts of strip mining of western
lands.
A major problem with the Department's approach to this
issue is that it fails to define the term reclamation, instead,
it relies upon the standards set in SMCRA and other laws,
assuming that those standards will assure complete reclamation.
Since there is controversy over both the definition of reclam-
ation and over whether various levels of reclamation can be
achieved, the Department should state more clearly its
assumptions in this regard. Instead, the Department has neatly
sidestepped this critical issue by assuming in its assessment
of the environmental impacts of the proposed program that only
those lands which can be reclaimed will be mined (p. 3-13) and
that all mined lands will be successfully reclaimed (p. 5-17).
in light of past reclamation failures and the uncertainties
associated with future reclamation attempts, we question the
validity of these assumptions. Furthermore, we believe the lack
of discussion of these problems is a m,
statement.
adequacy of the
Given the Department's optimistic assessment of the
reclamation potential of the lands which will be disturbed by
its proposed program, we conclude that it is relying upon a
fairly broad definition of reclamation. We believe that the
Department must be committed to ensuring that full reclamation
of Federal coal lands is achieved, meaning the return of a
K-82
iite to a state which approximates its original conditions
■losely enough that it can support vegetation compatible wi
climate and develop soils over periods of time beyond which
s managed by man. As we discuss below, there is considerable
uncertainty as to whether such a goal can be achieved on
western lands.
Most studies on reclamation of strip mined lands in the
west indicate that the success of reclamation is dependent upon
many site-specific factors, and that much more research needs
21'-'
to be completed before reclamation potential is known. — ' For
example, the recent report of the National Coal Policy Project
found that,
"On the Northern Plains, the goal should
be to restore native grasslands to a viable
condition, as self-regenerating ecosystems
which are able to withstand future droughts
(this should be done without reliance on
continuing fertilization) . No one yet,
though, knows whether it will be possibli
tin:
Y7r^T? (emphasis added)
t therefore emphasize the
tions it makes regarding
The Draft Environmental Statemt
uncertainties in the optimistii
reclamation potential.
The statement is also less than informative on the
subject Of past reclamation attempts. Tor example, it does not
describe the unsuccessful reclamation efforts in the Four
21/ Rehabilitation Potential of Western Lands, National Academy
0f sciences, Uallinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, Mass., 1074.
Where We Agree,
Coal Policy Project, 197B,
Corners reT an.— f Furthermore, the statement fails to indicate
the extent to which its conclusion that reclamation will be
successful rests upon future management with sustained inputs
of water and fertilizer.
While such practices may result in fine- looking stands
of vegetation, the "reclamation" may not be sustained if the
treatments are ended. The use of fertilizers and water for
irrigation may in turn cause unpredictable environmental
impacts, a possibility which is ignored by the statement. —
We believe that, even if sustained management is assumed,
successful reclamation of western lands is not the certainty
implied in the statement.
Another factor in the Department's overly optimistic
conclusions regarding the reclamation potential of western
lands is that it incorrectly assesses the land impacts of coal
mining by assuming a direct correlation between an arbitrary
scale of reclamation potential and estimates of reclamation
time. (p. 5-17) There is insufficient explanation of how the
— ^ National Academy of sciences, o£. cit.
— f In relation to the use of fertilizer, it is important to
realize that the value of soil amendments is widely variable.
Gome treatments, for example, will increase the yield of plan
production, but decrease the nutritional value. Since an
animal will eat only a limited quantity, the net result may
be negative.
If irrigation is requ;
will involve tremendous withdi
the environmental effects of *
context infra.
Another potential probler
soils of fertilizers and irrii
and moisture in excess of nati
the leaching characteris'
ed for successful reclamation, it
.drawals of water from western stn
! which are discussed in another
is the synergistic effect on
tion water. Addition of ferti
ally occuring amounts will cha
nd rates , hydrogen ion cone
and the development of the soil profile such that
mobility of trace elements such as boron and cadmium can be
greatly increased and potentially toxic plants produced.
he
arbitrary scal^ was deri'
reclamation time estimati
believe that a direct co
nd of the basis for the
Nor is there any reason to
ition exists between the two scales.
Because so little (if any) reclamation has proven successful
in most of the coal regions, the "-B to +8" ratings are
relative only to each other, and should not be correlated with
any other scale. There is also some question as to whether
the reclamation potential scale is based on the same concept
of reclamation as that required by SMCRA, which states that
land must be restored to
"... a condition capable of supporting
the uses which it was capable of supporting
prior to any mining. .." (S 515(b)(2)).
The assumption that the maximum time required for
reclamation is fifteen years is not borne out by other studies
in this area. For example, it was observed that natural
revegetation of abandoned farmland in the Northern Great
Plains takes about fifty years. — ' Similar timescales will
be required before stip mined land can be restored to and
26/
maintain its natural state without the assistance of man. —
Furthermore, the time required for reclamation in the Western
Interior, eastern Interior, and Texas coal regions was determin
— ' Lang, R. L. "Some Vegetative Change During Natural Succession
on Abandoned Farmland in Eastern Wyoming," Thesis, University
of Wyoming, Laramie, 1974.
— ' Curry, Robert R. , "Practices and Problems of Land Raclamation
in Western North America," to be publsihed in Energy and the
Fate of Ecosystems, a report by the Ecosystem Impacts Resource
Group of the Risk/Impact Panel of CONAES, National Academy of
Sciences/National Research Council, forthcoming.
on the basis of only three personal communications. (p. 5-17)
Because reclamation in most areas has not been demonstrated,
reliance on such limited authority is irresponsible.
The scale used to assess the relative raclamation
potential of coal regions is further inadequate because it
cannot reflect the wide variety of lands overlying coal in the
United States. In the Fort Union and Powder River Regions alone,
for example, there are seven precipitation zones, seventeen
soil associations, and nine broad vegetative types. — Another
problem with the scale is that it is partially based on mean
precipitation, (p. 5-17) when the critical factor ia rainfall
variation. Most of the western coal land is subject to frequent
drought years, which are critical periods for reclamation.
Assessment of reclamation potential should therefore consider
the effects of the drought years.
Finally, the statement attempts to give a single
estimate for reclamation potential in each coal region. (Table
5-8) For comparative purposes an attempt must be made to
aggregate the large amount of data, but the statement should also
attempt to define those lands where reclamation does not seem
possible. The use of a single estimate carries the implicit
assumption that reclamation will be successful for all mined
land. As discussed above, we challenge the validity of this
assumption. In light of the past history of reclamation efforts
-'- 1/
Effects of Coal Development in the Northern Grea
Northern Great Plains Resource Program, Denver, Colorado,
April, 1975, p. 52.
K-83
and the uncertainties regarding true reclamation potential, the
Department must give some indication of the way in which the
reclamation it states will occur can be achieved.
b. The statement's evaluation of the extent to which
the preferred program will result in land disturbance is
inaccurate. In estimating land disturbance, the statement
claims to use a figure that includes land committed to mining
and conversion, although an adequate description of the
derivation of this figure is not given. (pp. 5-17 and H-26)
Estimation of other quantities of land was considered beyond
the scope of the document due to site-specific factors. (p.
i-17} since
"[prospective environmental impacts of
economic development and population growth
stimulated by the conversion of energy from
strippable coal in the West are likely to
far exceed the impact of surface mining
alone, "28/
some estimate of the amounts of land which would be disturbed
by roads, pipelines, and residential and commercial structures
should be made. It is possible to identify a range of estimates
within which the probable amount of land needed for these
developments would occur, given a specific level of coal-related
development. One could then bracket a subset of the range
of estimates for each region based on factors such as
estimated population increase, average amount of land required
for a residence, and a ratio of commercial to residential acreagt
28/
al Academy of Scienc
Some characteristics of the data presented concerning
land disturbance are not clearly explained. Table 5-5 indicates
that, for the low and high coal development scenarios, the
preferred program would lead to more acres being disturbed
than the "no new leasing" alternative, but would lead to less
for the medium level of coal development. (p. 5-18) It is
not clear what factors are responsible for such conclusions.
c. The Statement provides a misleading assessment
of the preferred program's impact upon topology and soils.
There is insufficient discussion of the unavoidable destruction
of topographic and geologic features that would inevitably
result from coal mining activities in certain areas. (pp.
5-24, 25) For example, in the Northern Great Plains, the
badlands, the floodplains and adjoining breaks, and much of
the ponderosa ecosystem have topographic and geologic charac-
teristics that preclude restoration to pre-mining conditions.-^
The "microrelief features" (p. 5-24) mentioned in the statement
are unique features of topography in many of these areas and
are often essential to the existence of particular biota
in the coal regions (an example would be the dependence of
ponderosa pine and other conifers upon outcrops of the sand-
stone, shale and clinker in the Powder River Basin). -^
29 /
Effects of Coal Development in the Northern Great Plain
2E- Eit' at IV- 12. "
30 /
— Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Eastern Powder
River Coal Basin, Volume I, Department of Interior, 31 Hay
1974, Cheyenne, Wyoming, p. 1-276.
In discussing the effects of overburden bulking, (p. 5-24)
the statement does not assess the consequences of the long-
term effects of bulking on drainaqe patterns and other
topographic features. It also does not assess the consequences
of lowered topography in areas such as the Powder River Baain,
where the overburden to coal ratio is less than the bulking
percentage. Thus the claim that
"... backfilling and grading of the over-
burden could restore the approximate original
contour of the land...," {p. 5-24)
is misleading at best.
The discussion of soil disruption in the statement is
superficial; it does not address many of the factors involved
and does not assess the consequences of the impacts. Soil
disruption affects soil moisture relations, infiltration rates,
water holding capacity, bearing capacity, soil structure, soil
texture, chemical composition, and soil fertility- The end
result of disruption by mining is the formation of new soils
with characteristics different from those of the original
soils. Topsoil segregation reduces but does not eliminate
these effects. The example of the wide variability of soil
types that is presented in the statement (p. 5-26) also
indicates the high degree of difficulty that would be encountered
when attempting to restore the soil to conditions that are
similar to pre-mining conditions.
The statement recognizes that soil loss will occur even
with measures to minimize erosion:
"The Surface Mining and Control Reclamation
Act contains several provisions designed to
control and minimize the soil loss. With
reclamation, new soils would form over time-
however, in some areas of the West, particularly
the more arid regions, hundreds of years
could be required for natural processes to
reestablish fertile soils." (p. 7-1)
This remark emphasizes the long periods of time required for
soils to form naturally in arid regions. What the DES does
not point out is that even areas where soils arc not lost but
merely disturbed will require long periods of time for the
development of new soils. As stated in the Draft Environmental
Statement for the Eagle Butte mine, Campbell County, Wyoming:
"On the area to be mined, the destruction of
alJ soil horizons and soil characteristics,
which have been developed over long periods
of geologic time, cannot be avoided. The
existing soil biota will be greatly reduced
nxing and burial and, in soil stock-
>as, essentially terminated. Once
s completed and the area reclaimed,
elopment processes will need to start
i_ on the mixed materials used
through 1
piled an
mining
soil-dc
as topsoil." _3_V
Of importance to the reestablishment of soil develop-
ment is the ability of the soil to sustain vegetation which
can withstand the extreme climatic conditions of the arid west.
iiowever, the vegetation must be able to survive unaided in
order to provide the proper nutrients to result in soil
development over geologic time:
Draft Environmental Statement Prnnnoo/i ui,, . _. ,
Plan E„le Butt. Mno ATO C„Ti2°SS "03?!l5r"°"
Campbell County. Wyoming, D.S. Copt of STmSib I ? ■ .
Survey, October 1976, p. 2. Interior, Geoloaioal
K-84
Furthermore :
"The degree of success in reestablishing
such a self-sustaining grassland community
on reclaimed coal lands is largely an un-
known for the long term."^/
"Current experimentation with native species
suffers in that insufficient attention has been
given to the critical relationship between degree
of soil development and degree of survival of
native species under conditions of stress. Here
use of native seed sources is assumed by many
to insure survival of plant cover through
drought, or other stress periods
standing how a mosaic of native species is
necessary to accomplish thi:
ithout under
ecies
Given the factors discussed here, the statement should acknowledge
that soil loss is an unavoidable adverse impact for which miti-
gating measures are Btill being developed and that there is some
doubt as to the ability to recreate conditions which existed
prior to mining.
d. The statement does not consider the long-term
effects of unsuccessful or partially successful reclamation
efforts. By limiting its scope to the period befi
statement ignores the cumulative effects of long-
1990, the
mining
on Federal coal land. Dependence upon coal during the 1980's
will create pressure to continue mining that resource in the
future. A comprehensive environmental statement must consider
the cumulative effects of unsuccessful reclamation efforts, or
at least consider the possible effects of continual coal mining
activities over a time period that is sufficiently long to ensun
steady-state conditions (i.e., the amount of land being success-
fully reclaimed equals the amount of land being disrupted) -
11/
Id. , p . v- 3 -
Curry, op cit ■
Furthermore, the statement makes no attempt to assess the
impacts of major surface water diversions, groundwater with-
drawals, and new reservoirs which would be required under the
preferred program.
The statement also fails to assess the consequences
of the impact of coal mining-related pollutants discharged into
streams whose flows have been reduced as a result of coal
development. The water flows predicted in some regions during
periods of low flow are small, indicating that the impact of
chemical and sediment loading on streams is likely to be
significant. The statement does discuss surface water shortages
during periods of low flow in the Texas, Powder River, Denver-
Raton, Green River-liams Fork, Uinta-5outhwestern Utah, and
San Juan Coa) Regions (pp. 5-33 to 5-47), but again it neglects
to discuss the consequences of these shortages or of the
impacts of measures taken to avoid them (i^e., the construction
of new reservoirs).
Finally, the Department's approach does not provide an
adequate comparison of the water impacts of the preferred pro-
gram with those of the no-project alternative. First,
the statement glosses over the difference in regional
water impacts resulting from each of these options.
Because the statement assumes a priori that all reclamation will
be successful, neither of these alternatives is considered.
e. The Statement's assessment of the water impacts of
the preferred program is inadequate due to the use of incorrect
assumptions in some cases
the failure to explain assumpti'
in others. Because the presentation of the Department's analysis
of the program is overly general in a number of respects, it is
difficult to determine whether the assessment of impacts is
complete.
For example, the estimates of future water consumption are
not broken down into uses, making it impossible to -ompare water
usage associated with coal development to water usage for other
activities. There is also no description of the assumptions that
were used in estimating future water requirements (for example,
the annual amount of water used by a standard-size coal gasifica-
tion plant) .
Some of the data indicate extraordinary assumptions: for
example consumptive water use decreases in the Denver-Raton coal reqion
between 1976 and 1985, and in the Powder River Coal Region
between 19B5 and 1990. (Tables E-6 and E-ll) Present trends in
both of these regions indicate growing water demand. Another
inadequacy of the analysis is that estimates of available water
in each region are taken from streamflow data of major rivers
at the downstream end of each region. (p. 5-57) Using these
data as estimates of water availability ignores the problem of
water distribution within the region. Examination of this pro-
blem in the statement is totally inadequate.
lieeond, the estimate of the water impacts under the no new leasing
alternative, taken from an independent analysis prepared by the
water Resources Council, is likely to contain implicitly at least
a portion of the water requirements for future Federal coal
development. (p. 5-33)
The Department contends that this approach results in
,_ double-counting of water needs and thus exaggerates the estimate
of the impacts. In fact, however, it may be masking the total
impact Of Federal coal development on western water supplies.
In order to determine the latter, it is necessary to know the
extent to which the Water Resources Council data assume coal
development which would occur only through the opening of
new Federal leases.
f . The Statement's discussion of air quality impacts
of the preferred program is insufficient. Because the Depart-
ment assesses air quality impacts within the coal production
regions only, the full end use impacts of the program on national
air quality are not considered. Since much of the coal will be
burned outside the coal production regions, the Department's
region by region comparison of total emissions does not provide,
as alleged,
"...a comparison of the emissions
associated with the Federal coal
management program alternatives
against the no now leasing base
case." (p. 5-50)
We also question the Statement's proposal that
"...a comparison of the total emissions
for each alternative is the most meaning-
ful measure of relative air quality impact
available." (p. 5-50)
K-85
example, the impact of a strip mine or
generating plant is more likely to have
Since the impact of a specified level of emissions in some
regions would exceed the impact of the .same level of emissions
in others, the proposal is not necessarily correct. For
al-fired electric
ot iceable impact
on air quality within an air basin in the Northern Great
Plains or Four Corners Region than would a mine or plant of
tho same capacity if it were located in the Eastern interior
or Western Interior Region, because of the differences in
ambient air quality of these regions.
g - The statement does not assess the long-run impacts
of the environmental stresses which will be caused by the
preferred program. The statement acknowledges that th* pre-
ferred program and any other alternative involving significant
amounts of coal development will create serious environmental
stresses in the regions where coal is mined. However, it does
not attempt to estimate the impacts that these stresses will
have on those regions. Wa believe that an evaluation of the
long-run consequences on particular species and ecosystems
within each region is also essential to any decision concernint
Federal coal leasing policy.
To its credit, the statement does attempt to address
the issue of ecological impacts. Unfortunately, the assess-
ment is too superficial to be meaningful; moreover, it relies
once again on some questionable assumptions. For example,
the statement estimates plant and wildlife losses by multiplyin
plant and wildlife densities by the estimated number of acres
.4ireetly disturbed by coal development. [p. H-H) As discusse
b4
earlier.
the estimates of t
otal
land dist
„rh„c
j are subject
to challe
nge. In addition,
this
method o
f calc
llating plant
and wildl
ife loss neglects
the fact that
certain habitat zones
support w
ildlife from a muc
h lar
ger area.
For example, bottom-
lands cov
er only four perce
nt of
the land
surfa
e in the Northern
Great Pla
ins, but they prov
ide w
ater and
winter
forage for
wildlife
that range over a
much
larger ar
a . W
Habitat
character
.sties vary within
each
coal reg
on and in some
cases the
wildlife within d
iffer
mt habit
ts arc
interdependent,
so the lo
=s of one type of
labitat could upset the balance in
another.
The statement also
fails to deal
adequa
tely with the
ecologica
impact of increased human popu
ation
and easier
access to
previously undisturbed
areas in
the co
al regions.
The increased population resulting from coal development would
exacerbate impacts due to hunting, fishing, off-road vehicles
use, and other human outdoor activities. New roads and rights-
of-way for pipelines, transmission lines, and aqueducts could
open remote areas by providing a pathway for penetration into
the areas, possibly disrupting fragile environments and faunal
migration patterns. The most significant effect of increased
human activity may be that it could drive certain species out
of large areas , reducing their habitat by a much larger area
than is represented by the estimates given in the statement.
-■"■■"-■-■-■' ■:: '■.i.il _l>.'v,j_]_r.:M:, ■■:.■!- ■ ■■ ■
April 1975, pp. IV-5, fi.
Northern Great Pla
Denver, Colorado,
Furthermore, the statement completely ignores long-
term and cumulative ecological effects: no consideration is
given to impacts after 1990. (p. 5-T) Although it is difficult
to assess long-term ecological effects of specific stresses,
come comments can bs made regardinq potential consequences
of coal development. For example, strip mining thick beds with
shallow overburden can significantly alter drainage and orosional
patterns, r'.ining can alter the quality and quantity of both
surface and ground water, alter soil characteristics, and
change the topography and geology af the land. Soils in arid
and semi-arid climates recover very slowly, so loss of produc-
tivity could be a significant factor.-3-5' While the statement
assumes a return to original productivity, alteration of the
environment may prevent it.
nmental changes associated with
an ecological
Thus, the numerous
coal development could diminish the abilit;
system to reestablish itself. If reestablishment is not
attained after some period of time, then the fragile, low-
density food webs of most western coal regions become very
susceptible to disruption. As can be seen from the stateme
list of endangered species in the western coal regions, (pp
= -77 to 5-80) flora and fauna in these areas are already
stressed; additional burdens caused by coal development may
make extinction a real possibility.
35/
Final C:ivu-o::::.ofii.^l ImrM£^_gt,j tement , Alternative Fuels
L'CIIIOi:I,b-nt;.-:: ^■■j:'^;l, U. Li. rn-=u.|y !Vr--.,.-:. r <■-, and" Development
Administration, ERDA-1547, v. 1, Washington, D. C, September
'977, p. V-15.
In short, the statement's discussion of the environ
mental impacts of the proposed program does not fully asses
the consequences of Federal coal leasing to the natural
ecosystems of each region. In order to provide an adequate
analysis of the total environmental impact of tho proposed
program, the statement must relate its estimates of the
"loading" upon the environment to the long-run ecological
consequences of such disturbance.
K-86
■MHUnBH^BUinHHHnHUIIfHNBaHHHMB^HnHi
IV . THE IHADEQUA- ' LICS OF THE 3EPARTMEMT ' 5 PROPOSED
COAL M.A-iA^Ev; ■;:.;■:■ 1'RQGRAM
A . The Statutory Framework
Recent statutes clearly impose upon the Department of
the Interior the obligation to develop and implement a sound
management policy for all publicly owned resources and lands and
to conduct any leasing of federally owned coal pursuant thereto.
Tn addition, the Department is now required to assure meaningful
public participation in the development of the land use planning
process as a whole, as well as in the development and revision of
individual land itM plans.
FLPMA. In enacting FLPMA, Congress established funda-
mental policies for the management of federal lands and resources
and provided specific authority for their implementation. Manage-
ment policies established by the Act include environmental pro-
tection, § 101(a)(9), multiple use management pursuant to land
use planning, § 101(a)(7), public participation, S 102(a)(5), and
the establishment of comprehensive rules and regulations to
provide, inter alia, for "objective review of initial decisions
and expeditious decision making." S 102(a)(5).
The Secretary has been given full authority to implement thes-
policies: Section 103 ic) incorporates environmental protection
in the definition of multiple use and S 302(a) directs the
Secretary of the Interior to manage the public lands pursuant to
principles of mult-iple use and sustained yield in accordance with
land use plans- Section 202(a) provides that land use plans are
ed, and when appropriate, reviBed,
Utilization of an interdisciplina:
landated. S 202(c). The Secretary
for
to be developed, main-
with public involveme:
approach in planning
is directed to promulgate rules and regulations for manageme:
Of the public lands, 5 310, and the public is guaranteed the
opportunity to participate in "rulemaking [and] decision making"
as well as planning. 5 103(d). In particular, the public is to
be given the opportunity to "comment upon the formulation of
standards and criteria, for, and to participate in, the preparatioi
and execution of plans and program for, and the management of,
the public lands." S 309(e).
FCLAA. FCLAA requires the secretary to obtain fair market
value for all coal leased by him and forbids the leasing of coal
unless "the lands containing the coal deposits have been included
in a comprehensive land use plan and such sale is compatible with
such plan," except in limited circumstances. S 3(a)(1).
SMCRA. SMCHA sets minimum environmental standards for
surface coal mining operations, S 515, requires the promul-
gation of a Federal Lands program, i 523, and mandates procedures
for determining whether lands are suitable for surface mining,
5 522. SMCRA is intended in part to "protect society and the
environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining
opeartions" and to "assure that surface mining operations are
not conducted where reclamation ... is not feasible . .
S 102(a)and (o) .
B . The Proposed Program
To its credit, the Department of the Interior has
attempted to integrate the various overlapping and related
requirements of these statutes and to establish a framework
for land use decision-making in general and coal decision-
making in particular. The Department's "preferred alternative"
has as its goal the integration of coal management with land
use planning- (p. 2-52.) It not only establishes some
opportunities for public participation, it also recognizes the
need for a coal management policy. Moreover, it distinguishes
between the need for such policy and the need for future leasing.
Finally, it provides for an ongoing assessment of the need for
future leasing.
Despite the incorporation of these and several other highly
desirable features, however, the preferred alternative suffers
from two critical problems. First, as indicated above, in order
to permit leasing by mid-1980, a completely different process
is being used to plan for leas sales in areas including major
coal resources. As the result of these raoid schedule, the dev-
elopment of a cohernet planning policy is being by-passed or
distorted. Second, in developing its preferred program, the
Department has failed to include clear and specific standards
and criteria which are needed to guide decision-making at all
levels as well as to guide public participation in the decision-
making process. Unless remedied, these critical problems will
fundamentally impede the realization of the Department's paramoun
objective — that "all future leasing must not only conform to, b
be a product of, a planning and regulatory process designed to
be protective of the environment and of other resources and
interests." (p. 2-51.)
As indicated, we fully support the Department's decision
to utilize land use planning as the basic component of the
federal coal management program. Indeed, we believe this
decision is required by law. Clearly, the success of this
approach as the means of determining whether it is in the
public interest to lease and mine specific coal deposits depends
on the quality, soundness, and adequacy of the land use planning
process in general ajid of the resulting land use plans in
particular. Based on our experience with the BLM ' s
existing planning process, we believe that changes in it are
urgently needed "to substantially improve the quality of land use
plans" (p. 3-18) , to respond to the mandates of FLPMA, and to
enable the Bureau to meet the ever-increasing demands being made
upon the public lands and their resources. Unfortunately, the
changes in the planning process which the BLM recently proposed,
43 Fed. Feg. 5B764 et seg. (December 15, 1978), fall far short
of complying with FLPMA and of creating the kind of planning
system to which the making of land use decisions can confidently
be assigned.
1. The Existing Planning system Fails to
Provide an Adequate Basis for Decision-
In our view, the major defects of the existing planning
system include the following:
K-87
71
1. It does not provide sufficient guidance
to local managers for use in making land use decisions. See,
g-q- < Department of the Interior, Coal Task Force 2, Final
Report /Land L'nauitability Criteria, pp. 30-31 [Sept. 11, 1978) ;— ^
2. It does not resolve conflicts between resource
uses, despite the fact that this is one of its fundamental
objectives;
3. It is not based on adequate information regarding
the resource, existing resource conditions, and capabilities of
the lands involved;
A. It does not incorporate environmental consideratio:
as an integral part of the planning process American Society of
Planning Officials, Improving the Hurcau of Land Management's
Planning Prow, p. 13 (May, 1978} (hereinafter "ASPO Report") ;
5. It does not ensure meaningful public partici-
pation; ASPO Report, p. 12;
6. It is not responsive to current legislative
directives. See, e.<f., DBS', p. 5-155; Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management "Statement of Policy", 43 Fed. Reg.
57662 (Dec- 8, 1973); ASPO Report passim; and
7. Land use plan3 or management framework plans ("MFPs"
as they are now called, do not guide the development of subsequent
resource or activity plans, although this too is one of the system's
major objectives.
n given to the field decisu
ta£SJjSili-Bd ZE plans W° iww'i't-" -itnia district. hS„
Mtwen B to tan. Additionally, »» tho result of
such discretion, different decision making processes are follow.-d
within districts, between districts, and between states.
In sum, the Bureau of Land Management's existing planning
system does not make "balanced judgments about resource use"
(P- 6-2), and its products are not "comprehensive multiple use land
use plans." (p. 3-18. l^ Nor are they "complete, accurate, and
environmentally sensitive." 43 Fed. Reg. 57662. Moreover, some
of the existing approved MFPs are "plans" in name only and do
not even comply with the requirements of the current planning system
Although the Department has acknowledged the inadequacies of
existing MFP's, it nonetheless has determined to "supplement
existing plans, Id., involving 700,000 acres in five states and to
utilize them as the basis for identifying areas which could be
leaued in 1980. 43 Fed. Reg. 57664. We submit that the deficiencia
of these MFPs cannot be cured by this "bandaid" approach, and
moreover, that the actions undertaken by the Department to implement
this approach violate the Hughes order.
(7)
377 ZZ
fafl^w! arC' uf coursc; a number of reasons for these fundamental
„r'™('5 ln the Bureau's existing planning system. For example, it w
developed prior to the passage of both HEPA and FLPMA
in addition, tha Bureau does not now prepare
environmental impact statements on land use plans. Moreover, tha
^h^, lS"°tman'JatI? fldh^nco to the MFP in the development o£
Sic? Sir a"lvlLy IJUnB- Finally, it has not promulgated need
2. The Froposed Land Use Planning Process
Will Not Provide an Adequate Basis for
Decision -making .
JIM draft pl,„„i„g regulations, „3 Fcd . Rl,g . „,w ^ m^
purport to establish a comprehensive land use pl»„„i„g system^
pursuant to Writhe future !»„« of public lu|, and resources
"ill take place. A8' as I, undated by FLPMA, SS 102(a) ,5), 202 (c.andff) .
The proposed regulations reflect a significant improvement over
the existing system in several respects. Notably, they are
regulations rather than manual provisions; they require an F.IS
to be prepared on management framework plans, S1601.0-6; they
set forth the planning principles mandated by FLPMA. j K01. 0-8:
they specify some opportunities for public participation, see
I 1601.3, and they grant at Last , limit.,, right of appeal of land use
plans and certain land use plan amendments. 5S ISOl.S, 1601.6-3|bl (Jl'j
However, although the proposed regulations require
adherence to FLPMA 's planning principles, they supply no guidance
for translating these principles into « comprehensive land use
Plan that will i„ fact resolve conflicts, b. flexible, „„d M»,
all other requirements of law. They do no more than require that
unspecified kind, and amounts of information be obtained and con-
sidered in planning. They contain no rules that are standards
against which decisions and on-the-,round action, can be measured.
They contain no rules to ensure that an acceptable level „f resource
3By
— This discussion of the proposed land use regulations sunminses our maior
concern, about these regulations „ thay relate to «uture tEZ3Z£lZ&.
ment It ml be supplemented by detailed cements on the draft regulation, which
PP-ai. 1T111J should also at leastallow appeals to the Secretary at hi. discretion.
protection would be achieved. Finally, although they indicate
that senv, „,„ ruler, msy ba establish and M wliov ailKtLw „m „
developed at state and nation,! levels, ,3 Fed. -eg. 50765, they
provide no .Procedures or deadline, for their e.tabli,:TO„t. The. tffi ero^sef,
rations mMH fundamental problem, of the existing system,
including, in particular, its £„i,„„ „ p^y. ^^ „ ^ ^ ^^
of land us. plans, deeision-maXin,. and public participation . In addition,
they fan to provide adequate public particpation opportunities
generally. FinaHy, they completely distort the unqualified
mandate of FLPMA to us. an interdisciplinary approach in the
development and revision of land use plans. | 202(c) [21.
As the result, the proposed planning proees. does not comply with
FLPMA and
resource manaoem
not adequately fulfill lts key rol. in futur
1ro7
n7an„irf'T'T1 "' "" t>roP°"«<! regulations to the prior draft
l ftSW.^sffitty 'SWStt. 'SSKTK SSiSL.
state direeMnn.. S f *? " th<> <™°u"t of discration given to
U. 19?,,, °nd"LD0e,: "men " 5rhri„tetr"rDiau"°" 'S^"""«
K-88
The extraordinary degree of discretion given field employees
is obvious upon even a brief review. For example, although the
regulations require that an interdisciplinary approach be used
in planning, the determination of this approach is left entirely
up to the discretion of district managers. See S 1601.2.
Similarly, no standards are supplied for the inventory on which
plans are to be based or for monitoring their implementation.
SS 1601.5-3, 1601.5-9. Although the planning process by
definition is supposed to make "allocations of resources between
uses and/or levels of use,' 43 Fed. Reg. at 58766, the draft
regulations contain no mention of resource conflicts and no
directions for resolving them except through application of the
lands unauitability criteria, the inadequacies of which are
discussed below. Given these deficiencies, there can be no
assurance that future resource management plans, amendments
or revisions will be based on adequate data and reflect the
required approach to decision-making.
Where guidance is given by the proposed regulations,
it is patently inadequate. For example, the regulations direct
district managers Co develop "planning criteria" which in turn
will be used to determine the contents of each resource manage-
ment plan, the collection and use of data, and the degree to which
each is "tailored to the resources, issues, concerns and
opportunities involved." SS 1601.5-2; 1601.5-7; 1601. 5-B.
The regulations provide that these criteria are "generally"
to be based on a number of factors including laws, policies not
yet dyveluped , "publ ic issues, '' an J the planning principles
of FLPMA. S 1601.5-2. However, they give no indication as
to how these factors are to be used in preparing the planning
criteria. Additionally, the regulations fail to require
the evaluation of the planning criteria by anyone other than the
District Manager prior to their inclusion in the draft impact
atatement on the preferred plan and alternatives despite the
fact that they are the only tests authorized for selecting
the preferred alternative as well as the ultimate resource
management plan. SS 1601.5-7, 1601. 5-B. Given the
central importance of the planning criteria in the planning
process, it is clear that the lack of guidance for their development
will have a direct and critical effect on planning quality.
Similarly, the "minimum" guidance provided for the
development of resource management plan alternatives is
insufficient. This is one of the most important parts of the
planning process. The regulations direct that, in addition
to a no-action alternative, a plan be developed which "shall
be as responsive as possible" to public, governmental and other
concerns, as well as "established guidance-' S 1601. 5-5. They
also require that additional alternatives for "portions" of the
plan be developed "where reasonable resource management
alternatives exist". Id. (Emphasis added.) At best, these
directives are meaningless. At worst, they will encourage district
managers to limit their exploration of available, comprehensive
41/
alternative nanagtunent plans and possibilities. — In coal areas,
in particular, they may well bias local planning toward coal
development.
The draft regulations also supply inadequate guidance
regarding the use of the resource management plans. First, they
fail to require that such plana be binding and that subsequent
activity plans be based on and consistent with them. Indeed, the
regulations contemplate that actions will be allowed which are
neither "specifically provided for in the plan'nor "clearly con-
sistent with" its terms and conditions. S 1601 - 0-5 (c).
Consequently, they faile to supply any assurance that
future land use plans will in fact determine all future uses
the resources involved and effectively control their management^-
Cf . Des, PP" 3-1B- 6~2* In chis regard, it should be noted that the
DES also fails to supply this essential assurance. It mentions
two possible "constraints" on subsequent coal development —
"preferred area designations" and "threshold development levels."
pp. 3-10 , 3-21. However, the former are explicitly described as
"advisory only," p. 3-18 , while the inclusion of the latter is left
to the discretion of the local managers.
42/
2/ The minimum required alternatives appear to be inconsistent
with NEPA's objectives as well as the NEPA regulations promulgated
recently by the Council on Environmental ftiality. See S 1502.4 43 Fed. R«g .
55996 {Nov. 29, 197B) .
*j_/ The ease with which the draft regulations would allow plans to be
arended contributes further to this lack of assurance. The regulations define an
amendment as a "significant change in the approval [siclplan." S1601-6-3. They
vcMLd allow seme such changes to be made on the basis of environmental assessments
only. S1601.6-3(b) (1) . Significant changes in irmogemont plans should not be
permitted without an EIS.
As indicated, the draft regulations also fail to comply with
FLPMA's requirement that "systematic, interdisciplinary approach-
be used in the development of land use plans. 5202(c)(2). This
directive is absolute and unqualified. Compliance with it mandates
the utilization of such an approach throughout the planning process.
As mentioned above, however, the proposed regulations allow
district managers not only to define the meaning of the statutory
phrase but also to determine how the approach will be utilized in
planning- S1601.2. Moreover, they direct district managers to
perform certain functions including the development of planning
criteria, the analysis of the management situation and the develop-
ment of alternatives, SS 1601.5-2, 1601.5-7, which can -- and should ■
be performed by an interdisciplinary team in order "to achieve
integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic and
other sciences." FLPMA S 202(c)(2). In this regard, it should
be noted that the prior draft planning regulations not only
established minimum requirements for the composition of interdis-
cilinary teams but also required such teams to perform these and
other functions in the preparation of land use plans, as well as in
the development of state-level policies. See Instruction Memorandum
HO. 78-505, supra, n . , SS 1601.2; 1601.6-2; 1601.6-4;
1601.6-5. Unless the final planning regulations contain such
requirements, the ability of the Department to actually integrate
all alternative resource uses, including coal development, and
make rational trade-offs between them will be seriously hampered.
K-89
As stated above.
1 major defect of the draft regulate
18 that they fail to provide for adequate and meaningful public parti-
cipation. FIMPA require, such participation and the Department has
asserted that it is a "critical" part of the planning process,
43 Fed. Beg. at 58765, as well a. the preferred coal management
program. (DES, p. 6-3.) However, the regualtions contain no provision for
public participation in the development of "(guidance for
resource management plan, [which] shall be provided by the Director
and State Directors." s 1601. 1 (bl . Although the regulations state
that public participation "shall be strongly encouraged at the
early stages of issue identification and development of planning
criteria," s 1601.3(a), such participation at these stages is not
required. Indeed, it is only reqiured at a later stage, "upon
starting preparation or revision," of land use plans, s 1601.3(c).
Although 15 days notice i, required for "a meeting of some sort,"
51601.3(e), the form of that notice and the kinds of "public
participation activities" that will be provided at the different
planning stages are left to the discretion of individual district
managers, s 1601.3(b). The absence of , formal , prescribed process
for public participation win hinder the real, nation of the Depart-
ment's goal of ensuring that the public will always be well repre-
sented throughout the entire leasing process, including land use
Planning (DES, p. 6-3). The history of But planning a„d policy
formulation ha, nto been on. of openness to public partici-
Sl
the resulting regulations to create specific guidelines and
standards to be met in planning and decision-malting. A, demon-
strated above, however, the draft planning regulations do not
create specific and enforceable regulatory guidelines which
will ensure the environmentally sound management of public lands
and public resources. Instead, ,ome of the draft provisions defer
the establishment of standards to future planning or decision-
making, some create pseudo-standards by requiring action within
parameters ,o ill-d.fined as to be impossible to implement, other,
disregard specific statutory mandates. Finally, the regulations
set forth laudable but general goal, without elaboration of the
means by which they are to be accomplished. Be do not believe
that the proposed planning regulations establish the basis for
fair, consistent and informed resource management decisions.
Rather, by vesting local land managers with enormous discretion,
they both leave him unprotected from local political pressure
and invite him to infuse into planning decisions his own view, on
policies which should be determined on a national level.
In addition to failing to comply with flfma, the proposed
regulations are inadequate in several other important respect..
First, the proposed regulations authorize BLM state directors
to file Els', on land use plana and eliminate participation
by the Office of Environmental Policy Review (OEPR) in their
preparation, see Fed. Reg. 58765. m our experience,
OEPR has had a major, positive
pation.— ^
In enacting FLPMA, Congress set forth a number of objectives
for future public land management, but did not describe in
detail the means by which these objective, were to be reached.
Instead, Congress directed that the Secretary of the Interior
"shall issue regulations necessary to implement the provision, of
this act With respect to the management, use, and protection of
the public lands " FLPMA, $ 303(a). It is clear from the
policy provision, of the Act, 102(a) (S), and specific statutory
provision,, see, e_^, S 303(a), that Congress intended
— The role afforded state and local governments in the proposed
Planning process contrast, dramatically with that afforded the
general public. The regulation, contain extensive provision,
for coordination" with such agencies, S1601.4-2, and require
guidance for resource management plan, and the olans themselves"
J",,?? Possible with'' official governmental plans
S 1601.4-3 (af. FLPWl does contain a .o-called
"«Jt!"Cy ret>uirc»«nt". S 202(c) (a), and it is important for
sTM to maintain good communications with state and local
However, the Department cannot allow these agencies
1J-\es to be followed in land use plan;
only fail to make this essential fact
ite this result.
and polic
to dictate the general polit
The proposed regulations not
clear, but also appear to in
ng-
influence on the quality and contents of EIS's prepared by the BLM.
Elimination of OEPR review is totally inappropriate in light of
the critical nature of these land use plans as the foundation for
all Bureau programs, including, for example, area, of critical
environmental concern (ACECs) and wilderness review as well as
coal management. In addition, we are concerned about the treatment
in the proposed regulations of "situations where action can be
taken based on another agency's plan or a land use analysis." 5 1601.
Given the extensive acreage throughout the West which potentially
may be involved in these situations, we believe that such actions
must be carefully considered in order to avoid unwise and indiscri-
minate environmental impacts. In general, the draft regulations
direct that proposed actions be "considered," but provide no
standards for determining whether they should be "taken." In
the case of coal, they specifically contemplate that actions will
be taken based on single use planning, rather than comprehensive
planning. Such planning is obviously undesirable and must be
allowed only in limited circumstances. The Federal Coal Lea.ing
Amendment, Act specifically restricts such planning to circumstances
in which coal resources involved "are insufficient to justify the
preparation of a federal comprehensive land use plan." FCLAA,
S 3(a)(i). The draft regulations, however, fail to include this
requirement. Moreover, in cases where another agency has prepared
a plan, they fail to require an evaluation of the adequacy of that
K-90
plan, SS 1601.6-4 (bland (d) , or the degree to which it is in fact
a "comprehensive land use plan." S 1601.6-4<c). In addition,
they fail to require that actions based on other agencies' plans
must be consistent with Departmental policies.
3. The Land Unsuitability Criteria are inadequate.
A primary requirement of any federal coal leasing program
established by the Department of the Interior is that areas to
be leased are environmentally acceptable. This principle is
contained in President Carter's Environmental Message of May 23,
1977, and is explicitly mandated by both SMCRA and FLPMA. The
Lands Unsuitability Criteria ("Criteria") ate the major tool in
the preferred alternative to assure that this goal is met.
DES, pp. 3-4, 5-140. They are an appropriate tool, but as pre-
sently structured they are inadequate. We have already stated
our view that the Department'3 decision to utilize the draft
Criteria to complete planning activities necessary for a mid-19B0
coal lease sale violates both the order of the Court in NRDC v.
Hughes and the statutory mandates for the adoption of the Criteria.
In additionj
44/ Our review of the unsuitability criteria in the DES has been
greatly hindered by the lack of any single discussion of what
constitutes the unsuitability criteria- The criteria are listed
differently in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3, Table 5-72 in Chapter 5
and Section 3461 of the proposed regulations in Appendix A. The
text indicates that these three sets signify an evolution of the
criteria based on interagency review and field testing culminat-
ing in the draft regulations. The draft regs themselves are
only said to be an indication of what final criteria may look
like. Yet the criteria are already being applied to hundreds
of thousands of acres. The DES should describe the reasons for
the modification of the criteria field-tested during the summer
of 1978, and for the ongoing application of the new criteria.
Still greater discretion is given local managers by the
exceptions to the Criteria. The DES states that "the intent of
the exceptions is to give maximum flexibility" at the level of
the local land manager (p. 3-20). The language in the President's
Environmental Message, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act do not man-
date flexibility, they mandate resource protection. in essence,
the exceptions to the criteria would allow land managers to
rationalize mining in virtually any area regardless of its non-
coal resources and values.
Even when the local manager applies an exception over the
objections of another federal or state agency with special
expertise, no explicit burden of justification is imposed on
him by the Criteria. Many of the Criteria (and exceptions)
address resource values, responsibility for which the Congress
has lodged in agencies other than BLM. Yet the exceptions do
not even require the concurrence of these agencies when apply-
ing the Criteria. There is not statutory authority provided to
the Bureau of Land Management which allows these resources to
be threatened or lost by mining activities, or which allows the
Bureau to take over the responsibilities of other agencies. The
statutory authority for any exception must be clearly established.
If no auch authority can be established, the exceptions are
illegal and the Criteria subject to challenge.
1. The Criteria fail to provide explicit standards
to govern decisions made under them. The level
of support and quality of data necessary for a
decision whether a criterion applies is vague.
2. The Criteria omit provisions specifically required
by SMCRA.
3. The Criteria include exceptions which exceed the
authority of BLM.
The Draft Final Report of the task force which prepared
the Criteria acknowledged that, while provisions which allowed
local alnd managers broad discretion would permit flexibility,
they would also foster inconsistency. The draft Criteria suffer
from exactly that vice. There is not indication of what degree
of support is necessary for a decision under the Criteria, nor
how a local land manager should regard a lack of data. BLM
Instruction Memorandum 79-76 suggests that for the present,
unless the local land manager is "quite certain that the area
would be judged unsuitable," he should treat the area as accept-
able at least until the activity planning stage. The DES gives
no hint what level of "certainty" will be required for unsuit-
ability determinations under the preferred program. SMCRA requires
that the application of unsuitability criteria be based on
■competent and scientifically sound data and information,"
S 522(a)(1). Although the results of the field tests, as
described in the Task Force 2 final report, indicated major
information gaps in the test areas, the DEIS contains no direc-
tive for a completed data base as a prerequisite to applying the
criteria. It is essential that minimum data requirements be
defined.
If a statutory base can be established allowing exceptions
for certain Criteria, the Criteria should contain specific
standar-s that the land manager must use in applying the excep-
tions. Such standards are necessary to ensure that exceptions
were applied uniformly and not arbitrarily to federal lands.
On page 5-140 of the DES, the description of the unsuita-
bility criteria states that the Secretary would have the discre-
tion to declare lands unsuitable if mining would cause signifi-
cant damage to "natural systems in fragile or historic lands."
However, no criteria are proposed which address natural systems
or the cumulative impacts of leasing on systems. Parts of
systems, such as floodplains or wetlands, are listed, but the
integration or various components of ecosystems is not fully
addressed. Major omissions are in the area of water supply,
water quality, and air quality, particularly the problem of the
visibility requirement of the Clean Air Act and fugitive dust
from mining operations. Water supply is mentioned as a general
criterion (p. 5-140) but is only addressed in the specific
criteria as municipal watersheds. As water supply is perhaps the
key to alternative lands uses in the West, it should be treated
separately in these Criteria. It is unclear as to why water
resource criteria contained in the Task Force reports have been
completely eliminated in the DES.
Criteria listed in seetion 522 of SMCRA are omitted from
the draft Criteria. The criteria as presently drafted do not have
the capability to assess whether operations will "affect fragile .
K-91
lands in which such operations could result in significant damage
to important . . . values and natural systems." S 522(a)(3)(B).
Sections 522(a)(3)(C) and (D) require that renewable resource
lands, particularly aquifers and aquifer recharge areas and natura
hazard areas, be declared unsuitable. Although the Task Force 2
report initially included criteria on aquifers and unstable geo-
logic features, they were subsequently deleted from the proposed
.Criteria. This deletion is unacceptable. Proposed regulations
must include criteria covering these subjects if statutory
obligations are to be met.
SMCRA declares lands in the National Forests to be unsuit-
able if other resource values are of greater value than mining.
The Criteria address the exception for deep mining in the Custer
National Forest but do not address other resource values of
National Forests, except in the context of wilderness review (d) .
We recommend that additional criteria be added which address
the other resource values of National Forests as required in
Section 522 (e) (2) .
with regard to the specific provisions of the Criteria as
they appear in Appendix A of the DES, we have the following comment
b. Rights of Way and Easements
The large number of exceptions included with this Criteria
essentially negates the Criteria itself. We suggest that any
exception require.'the acceptance of the parties involved in the
right of way or easement (iv) . This cannot be one of many excep-
tions. We oppose exception (v) which would allow any activity
89
mining would significantly damage scientific values, by requiring
that areas are being used for scientific study to be declared un-
suitable. We suggest that the Department reevaluate the statutory
basis for this criterion and appoint a scientific study group to
evaluate the scientific potential of proposed areas. We recommend
that the exceptions be allowed only if both (i) and (ii) can be met.
g. national Register Sites
We suggest that exception (IB) require the concurrence not
simply consultation of the Advisory Council on Historic Pre-
servation. This tracks the language of Section 522(e)(3) of
SMCRA.
h. National Natural Landmarks
The exceptions for this criteria essentially negate the
purpose of the criteria. Exception (1) is unacceptable if the
areas has been designated as a national landmark; exception (ii)
contains no guidance as to what constitutes "appropriate mining
technology"; and exception <iii) U unacceptable because no
standard i. provided to make this determination. Any criteria
addressing national natural landmarks should require joint review
and concurrence by tte Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service.
i . Endangered Species
Exceptions to this criteria mat require the concurrence
of. not consultation with, the Fish end wildlife Service.
i. state Endangered or Threatened Species
The exception „u=t require the concurrence of the appro-
priate state agency.
to go forward, unless the specific stipulations which would be
used are subject to public review. As written, the local manager
could allow exception <v) with virtually no guidance on what
kind of stipulations would be required,
c. Buffer Areas
Exception [iii) allows an owner to an occupied "building"
to permit mining closer than 300 feet. This exception runs
counter to the statute which specifically refers to "dwellings."
e. Scenic Areas
The criteria is completely undermined by the exception
which allows a discretionary decision by the local manager.
We strongly oppose including this exception in the criteria.
Again, no standards are provided to guide a land manager's use
of an exception. An additional problem with this criteria is
the assumption that lands would have been evaluated for their
Class I or II status at the time the criteria would be applied.
We suggest that the criteria be amended to require that such
an analysis be completed prior to subjecting an area to review
using this criteria.
f. Scientific Areas
The criteria have gone a step beyond the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act which allows areas to be exempt if
90
k.,1. Bald and Golden Eagle Nests
The 1/4 mile buffer for active nests is an arbitrary
judgment based on no standard. Because we believe that this
will guide a manager into making a limited decision rather
than using geographic information about a particular nesting
site, we suggest that this arbitrary limit be eliminated in
favor of a requirement that a buffer be selected based on site deter-
mination. We strongly oppose the exceptions listed in these
criteria. We believe the Statutory authority for protecting
eagle nesting sites is sufficiently strong to prohibit excep-
tions which would jeopardize their complete protection. If any
exceptions were to be included, they must be subject to the
the concurrence of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
m. Falcon Cliff Nesting Sites
The same comment as above applies.
n. Migratory Bird Habitat
This criteria must require the concurrence of the Fish
and Wildlife Service if mining is to be permitted.
o. High Interest Fish and wildlife Habitat
As this criteria assumes that the high interest areas will
have been identified by a state wildlife agency, we suggest that
exceptions (i) and (ii) are only acceptable if the state goAWXW.
K-92
p. wetlands
The problem with this criterion again lies in the excep-
tions. There are no standards given which would guide a determin-
ation under exception (ii) . There is no requirement that a land
manager would have available the necessary information to make a
decision under exception (ii) . We recommend that these exceptions
be deleted, unless a responsible agency or task force be appointed
on a nationwide, state or regional basis with the expertise
necessary to make this determination. As presently written,
this criterion does not fully meet the intent in the President's
Executive Order on Wetlands (E.O. 11990). Wc recommend that this
criterion be redrafted to track the definition of wetlands con-
tained in the Executive Order.
q. Floodplains
The first exception in this criterion assumes that an area
must be leased. This exception is even broader than used in other
criteria and we do not see the need for including it here. We
recommend its deletion. Exception (ii) makes a judgment that
mitigation is possible but as with other exceptions provides no
standards for making such a determination. Specific standards
must be included to ensure compliance by the Interior Department
with the president's Executive order on Floodplains (E.O. 119B8) .
s. National Resource Waters
It is unclear how the land management agency would have
the jurisdiction to determine that "it is not necessary to
protect the National Resource Waters." This exception is
totally unacceptable , and must be deleted.
t. Prime farmlands
This criteria has defined prime farmlands as being
related to crop yields. It is unclear in the language of
the criteria whether crop yields implies both planted crops
and vegetation yields in grazing lands. We recommend that
this criteria include grazing lands in its definition as prime
farmlands as much of the area where leasing could occur is used
primarily as grazing land. An alternative would be to include
a separate criteria to protect productive grazing lands from
disturbances from surface mining.
u. Alluvial valley Floors
This criteria is specifically geared to the requirements
of the SI1CRA of 1977. As such, we recommend that the criteria
require that the land management agency must have completed an
inventory and review of alluvial valley floors at the time a
land use plan is prepared. Furthermore, this criteria must be
geared to guidelines developed by OSM for identifying alluvial
valley floors.
v. Reclaimability
This criteria indicates that information on reclaim-
ability is not now available. It requires using this cri-
teria as the information becomes available, but does not
explicitly state that the information must be available
prior to an assessment based on the criteria. We suggest
that this be amended to state that information on reclaim-
ability must be available at the time the assessment is made.
w. State Criterii
As in earlier
of the state crite:
simply consultatioi
iteria, we suggest that any exception
must be done with the concurrence, not
of the state.
x. Buffer for state lands
Any exception to this criteria m
rence, not consultation, with a state.
■equire concur-
4. Subpart 3425 - Emergency Leasing
Subpart 3-125 outlines a procedure for emergency leasiny
of federal coal which would circumvent the normal leasing
process. The key element to these provisions are the criteria
that would be used in determining whether an emergency leasing
situation exists, as outlined in Section 3425.2, Conditions of
Acceptance. These conditions as proposed do not require demon-
stration of true emergency situations. Rather they open almost
limitless opportunities for special treatment. No ceiling is
placed on the size of an emergency lease. Section 3425. 2 (aj (i)
almost invites the formulation of an "unforeseen" contract to
justify an emergency lease. Section 3425. 2 (a) (ii) fails to
define "bypass." Virtually every mining operation in the Powder
River Basin borders on additional coal. Section 3425.2(b)
even permits emergency leasing to initiate a totally new oper-
ation so long as it is "in the public interest." If there is
a broader standard it is difficult to think of.
The only real limitation on the Emergency leasing provision;
is the requirement that "the integrity of the normal leasing
process" not be violated. Literally applied, that provision
would nullify the entire section. Since it is obviously not to
be taken literally, it is incurably ambiguous. If emergency
leasing provisions are necessary, the Department would do far
better to stick close to the provisions agreed to by the parties
in NRDC v. Hughes which have proven workable and are known to
BLM and industry.
K-93
jBBHB»&a^: ...»,VMHHMBBM
5. The Process for Setting Regional Targets
Does Not Guarantee Adequate Environmental
Protection.
As indicated above, the DES and the example regulations
fail to provide the needed assurance that this significant element
of the proposed coal program will, in fact, afford adequate
consideration of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of
coal leasing and subsequent development within the eight regions
containing federal coal. See, pp. Ht-lC supra . Indeed, it is
entirely possible that, in adjusting DOE ' 5 national coal production
target, the Department could increase that target and still
maintain that it had considered such impacts. Moreover, although
the DES states that the preliminary targets will be flexible,
"with the final targets actually being developed as part of the
analysis in the ranking and selection process," p. 3-23, the
description of the use to which the preliminary figures will be put
suggests that the process will inevitably be self-fulfilling. Thus,
the draft states that they will be used "to set data gathering
and planning priorties to ensure that a sufficient number of tracts"
are delineated "for the desired level of development." Id.
6. The Ranking Process Does Not Ensure
Adequate Environmental Protection
As indicated above, the Department has not yet developed
the standardized procedures needed to ensure that the ranking of
tracts within regions is conducted in an objective and balanced
manner which will fulfill Departmental objectives. See p. 13-^7
supra. Even assuming that the standards developed for ranking are
objective and comprehensive, — the proposed ranking process
poses several clear problems. First, since the object of ranking
is to determine the "optimum" tracts for leasing within each
ragion, p. 3-23, all multiple use plans within a region should
be on the same schedule, in order to achieve this objective and
avoid skewing the process. The Department, however, does not
intend to require any such regional coordination. — - Further
skewing will result from the Department's decision to allow
nominations by the coal industry to play a "critical" role in
preliminary tract delineations. (p. 3-4.)
In addition, although the Department proposes to rank
tracts to identify those lands most suitable for mining in each
4^
elii
that the criteria for ranking should include the
following in addition to those specifically mentioned in the Draft
statement: (1) least soil productivity; (2) least effect on
surface and ground water quality and supplies; and (3) consoli-
dated coal development versus dispersed development.
4 6/
— Including areas not yet delineated as preliminary lease
tracts in the ranking process, p. 3-23, will mitigate this
problem only partially since such areas could not be leased av«n
if they were superior to all others.
take any action to ensure
order in which they have
region, it apparently is not going t
that the tracts are developed in th<
been ranked. Thus, the DES states:
"(A]s selections are made of
individual tracts, the original
rankings of the remaining racts might
be altered and selected tracts would
not necessarily correspond to the
relevant order in which the individual
tracts were originally ranked-"
(P. 3-22.)
The expressed reason for this result, which will be further
assured where intertract bidding is used, is that
"the potential environmental and
social impacts resulting from
development of any tracts in the
same area would be cumulative,
[and therefore,] the selection of
the first tract mic;ht preclude
selection, or lower the priority
of, other highly ranked tracts."
Id.
This rationale appears patently inadequate. The cumulative
impacts which would result from development of any tracts in
given region should be revealed in the EIS and reflected in
the final order of selection. Therefore, we believe that
selection of tracts, as well as the order in which they are
leased and developed, should directly correspond to the fina,
ranking.
The Role Of The NEPA Process In
Program Must Be Clarified.
The
As discussed above, the DES' explanation of the rela-
tionship of this EIS to subsequent EIS '9 on future federal coal
leases is unclear. See pp. T/ supra. We believe that the
Department should clarify this explanation and, in particular,
indicate precisely what its intentions are regarding future
programmatic supplements and statements. We believe that it
is impossible for inter-regional tradeoffs to be considered
in regional impact statements. Therefore, we hope that the
Department will commit itself to the preparation of formal
supplements or, where necessary, complete EIS's in connection
with the setting of regional production targets .
8, The Provisions For Surface Owner Consent
Are Inadequate.
Section 714 of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act prohibits the Secretary from issuing a coal
lease for surface mining purposes where the lands over the
federal coal are privately owned, unless the "surface owner"
has given "valid written consent" to such mining operations.
Because G million acres of the 5.7 million acres of federal
coal lands are overlain by private surface, p. 3-24, the require-
ment of surface owner consent will be a significant element of
any future Federal coal leasing program. The treatment of this
requirement in the preferred alternative is inadequate ,■— /
The Department's preferred alternative includes the
surface owner at two points prior to a lease sale. It includes
"surface owner consultation" in land use planning as- one of the
preliminary screens which will be used in "the delineation of
areas acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing."
— We agree, however, that even if the owner consents to surface
ining, the Secretary of the Interior need not lease the lands
nvolved. See p. 3-24.
K-94
"-°—~~™^Bgi«niniiii uiHimiiiiii hmmiip|mm"mw immmii^ i iiimiiuih! lima 111
p. 3-4. However, the inclusion of such consultation in planning
is entirely discretionary with the local district manager.
See pp. >18, 3-21; Example Regulation at A-1B . Moreover,
even if the surface owner indicates a definite preference against
stripmining, his or her lands need not be removed from further
consideration. Id.
The preferred program also provides that the surface
owners written consent will be obtained in the pre-sale and sale
stages, p. 3-24, after tracts have been delineated, analyzed
and selected, EIS's have been completed, and public hearings
hald. Even if the surface owner refuses to consent at this
point, however, a tract can be offered for sale "if it was
considered important." <P- 3-25 J In such cases, the coal
company will be given a specified period of time after the sale
If
to obtain consent, /this consent cannot be obtained, the sale
would be voided. Id.
The problems with this approach are obvious. District
managers and state directors are given unremitted discretion
to ignore the surface owners' refusal to consent to surface
mining up to and including sale of a tracb <&■ A-10J By delaying
the need to obtain consent to the lease sale stage, the process
will necessarily result in severe and often intolerable
pressure being applied to the surface owners by companies and
neighbors. Moreover, the Department admits that this approach
could result in wasted time and money. <P- 3-37.'
We believe that consultation with surface owners should be
required during the land use planning process and moreover,
that planning for a lease should be prohibited where the surface
owner expresses a definite preference against stripmining.
In addition, we believe that no tracts should be put up for
sale unless all required consents have been obtained, regard=
less Of how "important" those tracts may be-
9. The Objectives Should Be Clarified.
Section 3420.0-2 states the objectives of the leasing
program. Language should be added to specify that coal shall
be leased only pursuant to comprehensive sustained yield resource
management planning.
ng Coal Needs Should Be
Section 3420.3 sets forth the process for the cyclical
determination of the need for leasing and the establishment of
production targets. This process is too important to be left
nebulous. Clear requirements for early public involvement
should be included. Criteria for the Secretary's determination
should be set forth.
11. The Regional Tract Ranking Process Should he
Clarified.
Section 3420. 4-4 sets forth the process for regional tract
ranking. It implies but does not delineate the parameters of
a sharing of the Secretary's power with representatives of the
state Governors. We believe such a sharing of authority is
inconsistent with the obligations of the Secretary to manage
the Nation's lands- However, if it is to take place, it should
be within explicitly stated binding limits. When, where, how
and within what limits the authority is to be exercised must
be defined.
CONCLUSION
The DES suggests that the Department has confronted
important issue.-, and has limned the broad outlines of a logical
resource management policy, but the details ,of the policy fail
to fulfill the promise of its form. Similarly, the DES itself
raises but does not resolve major environmental and social
issues. The value of both the proposed leasing policy and the
DES is rendered wholly ambiguous, however, by the Department's
inexplicable determination to hold a mid-1980 lease sale.
We urge the Department to discontinue its efforts to
prepare for an early lease sale and to turn its efforts solely
toward the development of an effective and environmentally sound
resource management policy.
w
February 13, 1979
Office of Coal Management (140)
Bureau of Land Management
ISth i, C Sts. , N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
190
Western Fuels Association, Inc. submits these
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
proposed Federal Coal Management Program (DEIS) which was
issued in December 1978.
Western Fuels is a non-profit corporation organized
under the laws of Wyoming the members of which are numerous
REA generating cooperatives and other publicly-owned (as
distinguished from investor-owned) utilities. Most of
Western Fuels members are located west of the Missis-
sippi. Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., the REA GsT
Cooperative which serves practically all of Louisiana, is
also a member of Western Fuels.
Western Fuels was organized because the publicly-
owned sector of the utility industry was finding it increas-
ingly difficult to obtain assured coal supplies at reasonable
cost for thermal generating stations. Western Fuels has
responsibility to supply all the coal needed by the Missouri
Basin Power Project's 1500 megawatt Laramie River Station
located near Wheatland, Wyoming. The coal demand of this
plant will total 7,000,000 tons of coal per year at peak
production.
Western Fuels has acquired applications for prefer-
ence right coal leases in the East Powder River Basin of
Wyoming and has entered into an agreement with El Paso
Energy Resources Company which also has acquired preference
right lease applications in the East Powder River Basin
under which Western Fuels has the right to have the strip-
pable coal mined by El Paso for Western Fuels' account.
K-95
February 13, 1979
Page 2
Because of delays by the Department of the Interior
is issuing preference right leases. Western Fuels has found
it necessary to go on the market and acquire fuel supplies
to meet Start-up dates for generating stations of its
members now under construction. Western Fuels, therefore,
has an obvious interest and is directly affected by the
proposed Federal Coal Management Program. 1/
Western Fuels Board of Directors has formally
adopted principles and goals for the organization. The
first two of the principles and goals State:
An adequate reliable supply of energy is
vital to a healthy economy and a decent
standard of living for all.
In supplying this need, the energy indus-
try must seek to eliminate all possible
existing and potential negative impacts
it may have upon the environment.
It is in this spirit that these comments ore submitted.
Tvo general points on the tone and premises of the
DEIS are appropriate prior to specific comments on particular
portions of the DEIS.
First, the tenor of the DEIS reflects an apparent
attitude of the Interior Department of uncomfortable acquies-
ence to the proposition that coal must be mined in order to
serve the nation's energy needs and an equally uncomfortable
acquiescence to the proposition that federal coal must be
utilized in the process. This nation ia extremely fortunate
to have such a plentiful supply of energy. The rational
development of that energy source should not be acceded
to grudgingly but must be undertaken optimistically, per-
haps even thankfully.
Particularly in light of recent events in Ir
t h<>
Lpatl.
1/ western Fuels has previously exhibited
in federal coal matters by active parti'
comment on federal coal decisions. Alsi
has sought to in tervei
entitled Natural Resoi
Hughes wh ich involves the coal programmatic EIS.
Western Fuels is currently before the Supreme Court of
February 13, 1979
Page 3
fragile nature of the world energy market has again been
underscored. To the extent that coal development can place
some rational ity and assuredness into our national energy
picture, that development should be welcomed. The President's
National Energy Plan which was released in April 1977 places
great rel iance on the development of our native resources —
particularly coal. With such an impetus for federal coal
development, the DEIS should reflect a firm disposition
toward rational, economic and environmentally sound develop-
ment of our coal resources.
Western Fuels makes three recommendations for
remedying this shortcoming in the DEIS. First, section
1.4.1 of the DEIS entitled "Role of Coal in National Energy
Policy" should be substantially expanded. Second, a fuller
analysis should be made in the final environmental impact
statement (FEIS) of the present and projected need for coal,
and particuarly federal coal, to serve the nation's energy
needs. Third, the tone of the FEIS should reflect a desire
to maximize economic coal development consistent with sound
environmental safeguards.
The second background issue concerns the analysis of
the federal laws now in effect which are designed to mini-
mize environmental damage -resulting from various aspects
of federal coal development. These laws are summarized at
section 1.3.1 of the DEIS. A further analysis of the impact
of these laws on coal development would be valuable In eval-
uating the impact of the preferred program and alternatives
for federal coal development.
Historically, severe abuse of natural resources has
occurred in surface mining of coal. These are still visible,
particularly in the Appalachian region. However, these
abuses can no longer occur in large part because of the
passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977. An in depth analysis of federal laws governing coal
development will impart to the reader of the FEIS an under-
standing that the limitations on development which appear in
the preferred program, or whatever alternative is chosen,
are not the only regulations in existence. The program must
be viewed not as the last barrier to mindless coal development,
but rather as one part of a multi-faceted federal system
which will permit rational utilization of federal coal assets.
At section 2.4 of the DEIS, a discussion is had
concerning the impact of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
Office of Coal Management
February 13, 1979
Page 4
1970 and 1977 on power generation. This section of the DEIS
is conclusory in style and should be expanded. Specific
examples of the difficulty certain eastern utilities are
experlencing in complying with these air standards and a
summary of litigation engendered by these standards would
aid the reader of the DEIS in properly evaluating the
pressing need for the development in timely fashion of
western federal coal resources.
Section 2.5, and particularly section 2.5.1 should
be expanded to more fully consider the volatility of the
international petroleum market. The DEIS, at this section
references the "major national reassessment of future energy
directions." The President's National Energy Plan referenced
above clearly envisages expanded coal development. The
interrelationship of federal coal development with the
alternative sources of energy referenced in section 2.5
Should be more clearly laid out. This is an opportune point
to underscore the availability of federal coal to meet the
nation' s energy needs.
The opening paragraph of section 2.7 of the DEIS
The DOE forecasts of future coal production
were based on the assumption that Federal and
non-Federal coal resources would be fully
available to meet the demands for western coal.
Nowhere in the DEIS was there a full analysis of the impact
on the DOE forecasts of a limitation on federal coal availa-
mm*tl J*UCch,1n "nalysis U necessary for the reader of the
FLIS to be fully cognizant of the importance of western coal
to the nation' s energy plans.
The DEIS does make clear that decisions made on the
basis of the FEIS will not have immediate effect on the
amount of coal available for usage. The DEIS reflects at
section 2.8.1 that the regulatory and industrial aspects of
coal development are of such a complex and time consuming
nature that a decision today to lease federal coal will not
result in one ton of coal being rained until, perhaps, seven
years into the future. A fuller analysis of the causes of
this hiatus is necessary to fully apprise the reader of the
FEIS that action is required now on federal coal leasing.
An expansion of this section could include a more detailed
analysis of the regulatory hurdles placed before a potential
developer of federal coal and an analysis of the developer'o
Office of Coal Management
February 13, 1979
Page 5
activities in opening a mine, including financial ativities,
the fabrication of necessary mining equipment, etc.
Section 2.8.2 of the DEIS at page 2-48 indicates
that a decision by the federal government not to lease
federal coal could result simply in a shift to the development
of non-federal coal sources. A full analysis of the impact
of the development of non-federal coal as opposed to federal
coal resources is necessary to fully apprise .i reader of
the FEIS of the importance of federal coal leasing. There
should be included In the expanded analysis the impact,
economic and otherwise, of the development of private coal
resources in the confines of the'eheckerboard" configuration
of lands in the west. Also, the reader of the FEIS should
be keenly aware that additional land use planning and
environmental controls are placed on federal coal development
as opposed to non-federal development. Thus, if the quid
Pr° q"° for a refusal to allow federal coal to be leased Is
non-federal development, the reader of the FEIS should
realize that the potential exists for more, not less,
environmental disrupt ion.
Also in section 2,8.2 of the DEIS, at page 2-49,
reference is made to the fact that a decision not to lease
federal coal could result in a shortfall of coal in the
overall national energy picture. The impacts of that
shortfall are treated in the DEIS in cursory fashion.
Expansion of the discussion of this impact is necessary.
Section 2.8.3 of the DEIS reflects the Interior
Department position that it "has little choice legally but
to process" preference right lease applications (PRLAs). In
all due respect, this cavalier and begruding attitude of the
Interior Department to the rights of preference right lease
applicants Is offensive to Western Fuels and to others
similarly situated who have invested substantial money and
effort in reliance upon the faithful discharge by the
Department of the Interior of its duty to carry out the law.
Western Fuels has expended substantial monies in activities
involving its PRLAs without yet having mined one ton of
coal. The PRLA system was a substantial part of the federal
coal program for in excess of fifty years. Western Fuels'
position, regardless of the alternative chosen for federal
coal leasing, is that Western FuelB holds a legal right to
timely issuance of the leases it has requested.
Section 2.8.4 of the DEIS reflects the fact that
federal coal leasing can stimulate competition in the coal
industry. Western Fuels subscribes to this analysis and
urges expansion of this section in the FEIS.
K-96
Office of Coal Management
February 13, 1979
Page 6
In section 3.1.1 and 3.1.1.6 of the DEIS a discussion
is had of the interrelationship of the preferred program for
federal coal leasing with the processing of PRLAS and lease
issuance. A much fuller discussion of PRLA treatmant must
be included in the FEIS which would consider, inter alio,
the application of environmental and planning standards to
PRLAs, the procedure to be followed if preference right
lease issuance for a specific lease is opposed by the
Department and the legal basis for any non-issuance of a
preference right lease. Part 3430 of the example regulations.
Appendix A to the DEIS, 2/ are of some assistance, but they
do not fully delineate tKe impact of this treatment of
PRLAs.
As is Clear from the entire tenor of the these
comments, Western Fuels opposes the "No Federal Leasing"
alternative described in paragraph 3.1.2. in western Fuels'
estimation, this alternative would violate Western Fuels'
rights a3 a preference right lease applicant and could
result in a shortfall of the amount of coal necessary to
supply the notion's energy needs.
The prefi.'rred program for coal development is
described in the DEIS generally in Chapter 3. Western
Fuels' primary concern with the preferred program involves
industry participation in the leasing process. First, the
preferred program permits industry involvement which is both
too little and too late. As is clear from sections 3.2.1
and 3.2.2, the initial opportunity for input by industry
occurs after the basic land selection decisions have been
made. In undertaking the initial selection of tracts to be
considered, the federal agencies take on a heavy responsibi-
lity of determining needs and balancing those needs against
the numerous other factors impacting decisions to mine coal.
In the final analysis, it is industry which develops federal
coal resources. Industry's input is both necessary and
appropriate at the earliest Stages of the planning process.
This input must occur prior to initial selection of lands.
Further, the level of industry input is too small.
In the preferred program, only industry "expressions of
interest" are permitted. Western Fuels submits that industry
should be permitted to submit nominations, rather than
merely expressions of interest.
2/ It is Western Fuels' understanding that these regulations
are not yet proposed. When and if they are proposed.
Western Fuels will comment fully upon them.
Offii
February 13,
Page 7
The e
section 3.2.5
expressions
geologic da
system, etc.
expend ing gre
of
of interest described in the DEIS at
die musings of the industry. The
apparently must include maps,
.ethods, proposed transportation
., which can be developed only by
oft ime, energy and dollars, can in
Some alteration of
i keep the subm it ted
many instances be proprietary in nature. Some alteration
the leasing system must be made either to keep the submitt
data confidential or to give the entity which develops the
data some preference in the leasing of that land. A plan
ukJak r,.llr Fnr >hi civhm i cc inn n F qnhsl-nnt i »! fl a t .-. which C
_ _il data whi
s not place one in
. evoke substantive
....ich calls for the subm
be used by one's competito
preferential leasing Statu
industry input-
In sum, basing the preferred program upon govern-
ment initiative to select the tracts to be offered assumes
both a level of funding, a level of capable staffing and an
efficiency that to students of government are simply an
■impossible dream." Why the market and private demand
cannot be entrusted with the initial nomination process is
simply not demonstrated.
In section 3.2.6 of the DEIS, the special leasing
opportunities for public bodies and small business are
discussed. Western Fuels supports this concept but urges
expansion of the discussion in the FEIS to include a consi-
deration of the amount of coal land which would be available
for special leasing opportunities and the precise procedures
which would be utilized.
In Chapter 5 of the DEIS, the
discussion of the impacts of a federa
such as the no leasing alternative,
the increase of the develc
is not sufficient
Oal leasing program,
which would result in
federal coal sources.
sssd
reased non-federal coal development
the FEIS.
Section 5,4.8 and Tables 5-72 and 5-73 discuss the
unsuitabil ity criteria utilized by the coal task force
in the summary of 197B. The proposed unsuitab il ity criteria
which were published in the December 8, 197B Federal Register
(43 Fed. Reg. 57668-57670) differ substantially from the
unsuitabil ity criteria discussed in the DEIS. The body of
the FEIS should reflect the new proposed criteria and should
contain sufficient information to permit a reader of the
FEIS to know what areas of federal coal lands will be
deemed unsuitable under each criterion and what amounts of
coal will be excluded from consideration for development by
utilization of each criterion.
Office of Coal Management
February 13, 1979
Page 8
Finally, although an in depth discussion of the
example regulations has not been undertaken here, one
specific item will be discussed. Example regulation, 43
C.F.R. 53461.1(c) states that certain unsuitabil ity criteria
will not be applied "to lands on which surface mining
operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977, or where
substantial financial and legal commitments to the operations
had been made prior to January 4, 1977." This language is
not sufficiently specific to give any guidance concerning
the applicability of the criteria to lease lands, similar
loose wording concerning "commencement of construction" in
the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act have engendered
substantial litigation. A similar effect here could be
avoided by drafting explicit requirements for this exemption.
Sincerely yo
U:~
7
EW:vcr
Cei Ken Holui
THE CARTER OIL COMPAQ
POtr ornc* box iim ■ moujton. tixa* mtr
*S2
February 12, 1979
The Honorable Frank Gregg, Director
Office of Coal Management
Room 3610, Main Interior Building
18th and C Streets, N.w.
Washington, D. C. 20Z4Q
Dear Mr. Gregg:
The Carter Oil Company welcomes this opportunity to submit comments
on the Draft Environmental Statement for the Federal Coal Management
Program issued December 15, 197B. These comments are submitted in
accordance with the invitation for review and comments published in
the Federal Kcglster on that date.
At this time, we have identified six problem areas within the preferred
management program that concern us substantially. Our comments upon the
preferred program are organized 1n response to these six concerns.
I. Areas Unsuitable Criteria Must Be Revised
and Public Input Invited in THeir Application
As proposed, the areas unsuitable criteria would be applied to
exclude lands from potential coal leasing, without giving con-
sideration to underlying coal resources. We strongly recommenC
that balance must be introduced at this stage of the land-plannino
process. To adequately protect the public's valuable resources,
the value of these energy resources must be weighed and considered
together with potential environmental impacts before a deter-
mination of unsultabmty 1s made.
Compatible uses should be encouraged. Placing limitations and/or
standards on mining so as to make that activity compatible with
other potential land uses 1s preferable to the alternative of
ruling out mining on coal rich federal lands. Consideration also
should be given to the possibility of relocating incompatible uses
temporarily, and to the ability of mine operators to reclaim and
restore lands subsequent to mining activities. It must be remembered
that the Office of Surface Mining's reclamation standards assure
that lands will be properly reclaimed contemporaneous with mining
activities.
jr*/7
K-9 7
Up-——-—— —■■■■■ .1 ■■ ■ m— — a
Under the preferred program, there 1s little or no ooportunlty
for public Input in the areas unsuitable decision-making process.
Yet, the President, in his State-of-the Union message sent to
Congress, recently endorsed Improving the quality af regulations
"by providing opportunities for interested parties to participate
1n regulatory proceedings." The endorsement is in accord with
the Administration's domestic policy priority to make "government
more efficient and effective..." Therefore, we recommend that,
pursuant to more formal procedures, notice should he given, and
Opportunity provided for the public to be heard prior to any
determination of unsuitabi 1 Uy. An administrative record should
be generated to support the agency's decision. Such procedures
would allow for multiple use considerations, and would Improve
the data on which the agency's decision is made.
We acknowledge the necessity to apply mandated unsultahl ] Ity
criteria prior to future leasing, but call your attention to
the Inequity, expense and burden of applying tnem retroactively
to existing leases and preference right lease applications.
Applying area unsuitable criteria to preference right lease
applications and to existing leases potentially constitutes
Inverse condemnation, requiring compensation to owners denied
use of their existing property rights. Such retroactive appli-
cability 1s analogous with Zoning out existing nonconforming
uses, which traditionally have been exempt from new zoning
provisions. Application of the proposed criteria to preference
right lease applications where coal has been found in commercial
quantities would be clearly contrary to the KRDC v. Berklund
decision, which held that the Secretary of tKe Interior has no
discretion to reject a preference right coal lease application
on purely environmental grounds.
In the event that unsultability criteria nevertheless are applied
retroactively to such areas, existing leases and preference right
lease applications should be reviewed for conformity upon request
Of their owners. Review upon mine plan submittal or lease aopl'i-
catlon processing, as proposed in the preferred program, would
force property owners to incur substantial additional expenses
in the preparation and submittal of such plans and applications.
It is essential that the areas unsuitable criteria as proposed
Should be revised in line with statutory authority, so as not
-to exclude a valuable public resource unnecessarily at the initial
stage of the federal coal management program. He respectfully
refer you to our comments submitted to the Bureau of Land
Management in response to that agency's December 8, 1978
Federal Register notice on this subject.
<Jf1
II. Opportunities for Public Input are Inadequate as Prpposen
It 1s appropriate for the federal government to examine reliable,
timely forecasting data made available to 1t by a variety of
sources, thus enabling the government to prepare its projections
and set Its production targets on the basis of the best evidence
available. The Importance of such production targets cannot be
ever emphasized, as forecasting errors would likely result 1n an
Imbalance of supply and demand, which could be difficult 1f not
Impossible to co-rect in light of the long lead time now necessary
to obtain permits and approvals to open a coal mine. Such infor-
mation can be obtained by providing the opportunity for the public
as well as the federal government to initiate lease sales. In the
land-use planning process, too, opportunity for part 1c1oat1on Of
all Interested parties 1s essential to evidence the public's
priorities in assessing land use and to improve the quality of
decision miking.
He therefore urge that the preferred federal coal management
program be revised, in line with Executive Order 12044, to
facilitate public participation and also to provide for public
Initiated leasing.
III. Surface Owner Consent Should Be Required of Non-qualified Owners
The surface owner that does not qualify pursuant to Section 711
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 for the
considerations therein mandated by Congress ("nonqualified surface
owner") should not be allowed to distort the competitive bidding
situation. To avoid this problem from occurring, the transferable
consent of the nonqualified surface owner should be required to
be on file with the Bureau of Land Management before a lease sale
affecting, his tract is held. Just as is required of qualified
surface owners in possession of the surface overlying federal
coal. The appropriate reimbursement to the nonqualified con-
senting surface owner would be fair market value, payable by the
successful bidder in the lease sale.
The preferred program Should be revised, 1n accord with the
provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977, to provide that the Bureau of Land Management should not
consult with surface owners regarding their willingness to consent
to coal mining until after tracts of land have been ranked for
potential for coal leasing. In this manner, tracts of land over-
lying public energy reserves will not be removed from consideration
unnecessarily early.
S/fl
IV. The Single Tract Sales System
Inri Cash Bonus Bidding Method Should be Used
The public Interest Is best served through the use of the slnqle
tract sales system, which results in lower end use costs,
administrative efficiency in the planning process and a more
equitable comparison of competitive bids. The intertract sale
system inequitably forces comparison of bids on different
tracts, because adequate consideration cannot be given to
differences in coal mining, processing, transportation and
reclamation expenses.
The cash bonus bidding method, of the five methods of bidding
considered 1n the preferred program, is best suited to the
government's coal management goals. Cash bonus bidding maintains
strong incentive for development on the part of the successful
bidder. It also reinforces the incentive for diligent development
otherwise required by the federal government. Royalty and
deferred payment bidding methods, on the other hand, encourage
lease speculation.
V. The Federal Government Should Not Designate End-Use
End-use decisions should be left to market forces. Designations
of end-use by the Department of the Interior would be contrary
to the Administration's goal of restraining inflation and to
President Carter's directive, in his January 23, 1979 State-of-
the Union address, to "fight inflation... by reducing government
obstacles to competition in the private sector."
VI. The Definition of Maximum Economic Recovery Must Re Revised
The proposal to define maximum economic recovery as "collective
profitability" would increase the cost of coal to the consumer
by requiring the recovery of coal that the prudent operator
would not otherwise mine. It would be preferable to continue
the U.S. Geological Survey's current vigorous enforcement of
Congress" mandate to ensure maximum economic recovery, as the
Office of Surface Mining has chosen to do in its prooosed sur-
face mining regulations, rather than to Increase the consumer's
costs by adopting the present proposal.
Furthermore, maximum economic recovery as proposed could require
production of coal that the consumer cannot readily use because
it falls to meet quality specifications for boiler design, or to
otherwise fulfill contract requirements for the market's coal
needs. Finally, the impact of the definition as proposed would
be counter-productive to achieving the domestic priorities set
forth in the President's recent State-of-the-Union message, and
contrary to his pertinent reflection, expressed in that message,
on "the advantages of letting the competitive market, rather
than Government, control Industry performance."
nfi
The Carter Oil Company thanks the Department of the Interior for
this opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Statement
for the Federal Coal Management Program. We urqe the Department
of the Interior to make the modifications tc the preferred program
necessary to assure that the federal coal management program that
Is adopted will best serve the public's energy, environmental and
economic needs.
Sincerely yours
'</7
K-98
MllTi°imWirgMlwTMtl illlllllllillUf'litiliilf *™w°a™MMMTITBIlWWWflBMlllBMI
Static of Utah
So»TT M, >LlTHEM»!*
feknilry ». 1»7»
ws
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Cece:
I want to take this opportunity to commend you, Guy Martin, Steve
Quarles, and the rest of your coal leasing staff for the outstanding
manner in which you have involved the States in assembling the new
Federal Coal Management Program. In my opinion, the new Draft Environ-
mental Statement represents a substantial improvement over past federal
efforts in this area. It is a well organized document developed in a
logical fashion and written 1n a very readable style. Of particular
importance is the sensible way the document addresses the "Heed for
Leasing" issue. The qualitative justifications for renewed leasing,
when taken together, offer a compelling justification for having a
system in place to meet future contingencies. I am convinced that
this new leasing system will give us the capacity to significantly
improve the way in which federal coal development proceeds, from both
environmental and socio-economic perspective.
It is necessary to qualify my optimism with several caveats.
First, the Department of Interior must continue its recent efforts
to make State and local government full partners in its land use
planning activities in general and its coal leasing activities in
particular. Second, we must make clear to the President, the White
House Staff, the Office of Management and Budget, and especially to
the Congress that land use agencies must have significantly increased
funding to efficiently and expeditiously handle the many new responsi-
bilities thrust upon them by recent legislation. It is clearly Con-
gressional and Presidential intent that public lands and resources
be managed in a manner that maximizes a variety of multiple-use values
without significant environmental damage. If the coal leasing program
is to operate to help meet the President's goal of doubling coal usage
by 1985, then it must not lose out in budgetary squeeze that seeks to
spread fewer dollars over more and more programs.
Finally, I must reiterate a point that I made to the White House
staff during a briefing on reorganization proposals for 2 Department
of Natural Resources. No matter how elegant a system for land use
planning, or coal leasing, wu rrect, ths success of that system s
The Honorable Cecil 0.
February 9, 1979
Page 2
operation will depend to a large extent on the quantity and quality
of Information readily available by which to guide the specific decisions.
I am aware that efforts have been made to reorganize and Integrate the
disparate and duplicative data systems In each of the various federal
land and resource agencies. But I believe that until this becomes a
top priority of the Department and Is so reflected 1n the resources
provided to carry out the effort many of the key decisions will
continue to be delayed or made based on insufficient Information.
What follows are specific comments on the Program and the DES.
If I can be of any further help to youjn getting this program 1n
place, please let me know. Thank jfrffa^aln.
SMH:kb
End.
cc :Guy Martin
Steve Quarles
STATE OF UTAH
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
FOR THE FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND PERSPECTIVE
The implicit assumption of this draft environmental statement is that
state governments have failed to express a preference for an alternative program
in which states would control the quantity, location, and timing of coal
leasing and development within their respective borders. This Is not true
from the State of Utah's perspective- Let the record clearly show our belief
that at the state and local levels of government Utah clearly possesses the
collective will, expertise, and resources to plan for and carry out a com-
prehensive, state-wide is the unfortunate reality of federal control of so
much of our land and coal resources that leads us to fall back on a second-
best policy -- specific comments on the "Preferred Alternative". Let us
take this opportunity to express our belief that without adequate resources
provided to the state and field offices of the Bureau of Land Managemant, and
without discipline and restraint in the Washington, D.C. offices to not meddle
in decisions reached jointly between state governments and the respective
counterparts in BLM state and field offices, then this program will simply
become one more link in a lengthy chain of federal regulations Inhibiting
the mineral industry in Utah.
STATE OF UTAH
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 5TATEMENT
FOR THE FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WILDLIFE CONCERNS
This document reflects the extensive state-federal coordination and
consultation that has occurred over the past year. It generally addresses
the potential impacts on wildlife in a satisfactory way; however, there are
some points of concern. These are discussed sequentially by chapter, section
and page number.
Chapter 2 - The national Energy Role of Western and Federal Coal
Section 2.9 emphasizes that, "... 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.'' We agree
with this basic concept for coal leasing. The relative abundance of coal
affords an opportunity to focus development 1n those areas that are least
environmentally damaging. The leasing process can assure accomplishing this
objective.
Chapter 3 - Description of the Preferred Coal Management Program and Alternatives
We agree with the approach outlined in the preferred program but are
concerned with the process for NEPA compliance. As we interpret Section 3.1.1.7,
page 3-6, there are three broadly based environmental impact statements
(national, regional and planning stage) and too little emphasis on site-
specific impacts. The Preferred Alternative Program described in the EIS
should make clear that the' requirement for a site-specific environmental
analysis will be performed prior to approval of the mining plan. This is
required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).
In Table 3-1, page 3-10, the criterion for State Resident Fish and
Wildlife must be modified. The second paragraph of this portion should read:
Examples of such lands Include:
Critical breeding concentration areas (dancing grouds, strutting
grounds)
Migration corridors for big game
Critical big game winter ranges
In Table 3-1, page 3-12, the CRITERION and EXCEPTIONS portions for Falcon
Cliff Nesting Sites (bottom of page) are incomplete. The last sentence of each
was apparently excluded in typing. They should read as follows:
CRITERION "Consideration of availability of habitat for prey species
shall be Included in the determination of buffer zones."
EXCEPTIONS "Buffer zones may be increased or decreased if the land
management agency determines that the active falcon nests will
not be adversely affected."
K-99
:, ■ ! . ■ .-..:: ■■
The discussion of "Threshold Development Levels," Section 3.2.1.4 on
page 3-21, indicates that thresholds will be established limiting wildlife
losses to a certain acreage or a specified population decrease. Such value
judgements must be made in terms of habitat units not animal numbers. The
latter are too dynamic to adequately serve this purpose.
In relation to Section 3.3.5, page 3-41, we reiterate that post-program-
matic environmental analysis must provide more emphasis on site-specific
analysis, as required by law.
Chapter 4 - Description of Regional Environments
Section 4.9 Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region. A description of the
coal resource [types, quantity) should be Included and should reflect vari-
ability of the resource. Fishing and hunting, plus other recreation-oriented
activities, should be included as significant economic characteristics of this
region.
Chapter 5 - Regional Impacts of Federal Coal Management Program Alternatives
In Section 5.2.2.1, page 5-17, low precipitation is identified as a factor
limiting reclamation potential In the San Juan River area and the Red Desert
nortlon of the Green River-Hams Fork Region. Some of the Uinta-Southwestern
Utah Region is similarly limited. Ue feel that the range of reclamation
potential shown for this region in Table 5-9, page 5-22, is Inadequate. Certain
sites are equally as harsh as those in the San Juan Region, although these
represent a limited amount of the area.
The potential impact of subsidence on water availability in springs and
seeps water and mesic micro-habitat sources extreme important to wildlife,
should be addressed more fully In Section 5.2.2.6, page 5-26-
In Section 5.2.3.3, page 5-81, the "...cold clear waters of the Green
River " in the Green River Hams Fork Region are described as supporting
the endangered humpback chub, Colorado squawfish and Kendall warmsprings
dace. This is totally untrue. The humpback chub and squawfish arc restricted
to lower quality, turbid waters of the Colorado River System and the dace
to Kendall Warm Springs in Wyoming.
Additionally, the Utah prairie dog does not occur in the Green River-
Hams Fork Regi-on. This should be included in the- discussion of the Uinta-
Southwestern Utah Region.
The discussion of endangered species In the Uinta-Southwestern Utah
Region indicates that "...at least 10 endangered species" occur in this region.
Presumably this includes the Yuma clapper rail listed in Appendix Table D-2,
page D-7. This species has never been observed in Utah and should be excluded
from that table.
Chapter 6 - Mitigation of Major Adverse Impacts of a Federal Coal Management
Opportunities for mitigation should be pro'
We question that the regional EIS approach will
preferred program should clearly describe its V
for in SMCRA.
ided on a site-specific basi:
accomplish this objective. '.
nks to these process called
A nitigative or compensatory measure not mentioned In this document would
be to provide habitat improvement concurrent with or preceding development
of a coal mine In adjacent areas. This could provide habitat sufficient
to sustain displaced animals in some Instances and minimize the losses to
wildlife For the thirty-to-thirty-plus year project life and until reclamation
can be accomplished. This would be far preferable to an approach of using
the unsuitability criteria as a means to exclude areas from any development,
before the lands have been examined in detail for these kinds of posslbilitles.
Appendix D - Ecological Data
The Uinta-Southwestern Utah portion of Appendix Table D-l should be
modified to include one antelope per 150 acres and one mule deer per 50 acres.
Division of Wildlife Resources' estimates of carrying capacity for 15 deer herd
units In Utah averages One deer per 47 acres.
Also, we wonder If the pounds of fish per acre-foot values Included for
streams and reservoirs should be pounds per acre. The values reported seem
hfah whprp pxnrps^pd nn an »r.rp-fnnt. hasls.
streams ana reservoirs snouio oe pounas per
high where expressed on an acre-foot basis.
In earlier correspondence, we recommended that potential losses of wildlife
Incorporated In Table D-5, pages D-l 3 through 34, be Identified in terms of
habitat units, not animal numbers. We reiterate that recommendation here. It
1s the State position that the numbers shown do not provide an adequate base
for Impact assessment or ultimate establishment of thresholds.
UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA
The unsuitability criteria represents a sensible conceptual approach that,
1f applied properly, will greatly improve patterns of coal development, and
simplify and speed the process of lease approval. However, this section should
contain a statement In philosophy that makes clear the manner in which they are
to be applied. As a statement of policy, a directive should be given that the
application of the criteria should be carried out in a manner that has as its
objective the goal of finding ways to make coal development compatible with other
land uses. The way the criteria are currently phrased could convey the unfortu-
nate impression that the objective is to exlude lands from development instead
of finding ways for coal development to proceed in an environmentally acceptable
fashion where practicable. There is a sound basis for such a statement in the
Department of Interior's field test of the unsuitability criteria of last year.
The conclusion reached by the field team carrying out the' test in the Wattis
planning unit in Utah reflected a belief that some level of development
could proceed in practically every known area containing desirable coal
resources, provided that such development was accompanied by intelligently
conceived and effectively executed programs of compensation, mitigation,
and/or stipulations. The key to this kind of informed flexibility is to place
the decisions with the field officiers of the state and federal land and
resource management agencies. A clear statement of that sensible and purposeful
intent will create the atmosphere in which those who really know an area and
its resources will be able to manage the land in a manner that maximizes the
development potential of a number of seemingly conflicting multiple uses.
What follows are some specific comments on several of the criteria.
Page 3-13 Criterion on Rcclairvibility - This exception should be
elianged to read "or" rather that "and" approved state programs, including
stale regulation. By moMng this change, the rcclairjbil hy of an area is not
tied to an in flexible nationwide standard. Reclaimability would be responsive
to regional differences in topography, soils, vegetation, and climate. The
much-discusssd "State Window" concept of SMCRA would be utilized in each state's
regulatory program, and the preferred program should emphasize that sensibly
flexible concept.
Page 3-10 Criterion on State Resident Fish and Wildlife - In exception
fl, change "complete mitigation" to "maximum mitigation". Complete
mitigation would be, at best, very difficult to achieve and is, in fact,
a contradiction 1n terms. However, the phrase "maximum mitigation"
should be clearly defined and the purpose of the criteria fully set out.
Development should only be allowed to procede if the coal resource is an out-
standing deposit, and only if a reasonably comparable alternative deposit
cannot be located In the vicinity. If the deposit clearly contains this unique,
outstanding feature, development can proceed only in a manner that gives top
priority to minimizing habitat impairment.
Page 3-20 (Third from the last paragraph) The department is commended
for allowing this flexibility in designating areas unsuitable that will not
experience surface effects from underground mining. It is suggested, however,
that in the second sentence of this paragraph that "significant adverse"
he inserted between "no" and "hydrologic". This change would allow the
unsuitability criteria to not be applied in cases where hydrologic or surface
effects would be favorable, or insignificant.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Several corrections need to be made in the description of the Uinta-
southwestern Utah coal region. On page 4-36 it states that "six billion tons
of coal reserves are estimated (to) be located in this region". Utah Geological
and Mineral Survey reports that within Utah, there are 22.5 billion tons of
coal reserves in place. Also, the Bureau of Mines Information Circular B497,
dated 1970, and titled "Coal Production from the Uinta Region, Colorado and
Utah" states (p. 3} that 41 billion tons of reserve are present in this region.
CRUCIAL I5SUE5 AND ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM YET TO BE FULLY RESOLVED
Production Targets
It Is crucial that the limitations of the DOE production targets be
acknowledged by sharply defining and structuring the role they will play In
the federal coal management program. These targets can provide useful guidance
in the determination of leasing policy at the national and regional level,
but their limitations should be acknowledged in the program by allowing
qualitative factors to moderate, or in some cases, override a "lease, no
lease" decision indicated by these aggregate projections. The quantitative
merit of the projections 1s greatly diminished with each additional dis-
aggregation of the overall objective, from national, to regional, to sub-
regional. These strictly quantitative hypotheses provide little useful
information about the most significant factors in formulating leasing decisions.
The qualitative considerations of such a program should focus on achieving
optimal patterns of coal development from economic, environmental, and socio-
political points of view. The opportunity to positively influence the way
coal development in a sub-region proceeds should not be foregone because
the regional or national numbers floating around in the D0E/D0I crystal
ball fails to register a need. Conversely, a sub-region should not be forced
to accomodate further leasing if there is good reason to believe such
possible development will have severe environmental or socio-economic impacts
on the area regardless of what the production targets dictate.
The key to preventing either of these scenarios from occurring is for the
federal coal management program to explicitly specify that the tract ranking
and selection team, composed of one federal and one state representative from
each state in the coal production region, lease more or less coal in the
region by documenting the qualitative justification for departing from the
aggregate guide. Such qualitative rationale could be provided by state,
local or federal officials in the area, by industry or environmental groups,
or by Individual or micellaneous groups from the general public. These
qualitative considerations could include economic, environment, socio-political,
or other significant types of concern. The public participation process should
provide any individual group the opportunity to comment on production targets
and leasing decisions. The tract ranking and identification team should give
due consideration to such comments in any decision to depart from the regional
production target.
MAXIMUM ECONOMIC RECOVERY
The intent of the definition of maximum economic recovery contained in
3.3-6 is a good one. Minimization of surface disturbance is a sensible
objective in both surface and underground mining. By limiting the area of
surface disturbance, conflicts with other values and land uses, especially
those associated with wildlife, can be minimized. But the desire to achieve
maximum economic recovery cannot be the absolute, overriding, dominant concern.
The definition of maximum economic recovery needs to be tempered with a common
sense qualifier: The seams that are recovered within the scope of this collective
profitability test must be marketable. The seams that are recovered within
the same deposit are not necessarily homogeneous. The diversity in quality
of the coal can be such that one or more of the seams may not be marketable
end-use due to the poor or aberrant quality of the coal. An additional qualifier
1s that maximum economic recovery should be based upon coal recoverable from
current, existing technology.
FAIR MARKET VALUE
The State of Utah clearly and unequivocally rejects' the notion that the
Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments direct the federal bureaucracy to maximize
its monetary return from each individual lease, or to use the coy euphemism
employed by the advocates of this institutionalized avarice, "capture all the
economic rent". It Is a contradiction of the spirit of FCLAA, the creation
of maximum competition, for the Department of the Interior to pursue the
maximization of profits like some nineteenth century Robber Baron, The intent
of Congress was to Insure that the federal government receive a fair and
reasonable return from private use of public resources. The best measure of
"fair market value" is comparable transections from state and privately-owned
coal. Such an estimate based upon available data, will more accurately reflect
market conditions -- hence "fair market value" — than federal behavior suitable
only to the most brazen attempts at a monopoly market.
An approach that seeks reasonable returns through a suitable combination
of front-end bonus bids and royalty payments will maximize total revenues to
the federal government over the long run. Efforts to extract everything the
market bears from each individual lease can actually be counter-productive to
production. At some level of production royalty or front-end bonus bid would
be bidders will shift their capital to non-federal coal if these are available
or even other tvoes of energy resources. The intent of FCLAA was clearly
K-100
to get development of federal coal resources going -- not at any cost, but
at fair and reasonable return to the owners of the public lands. An effort
to extract maximize return off each lease can be motivated by a bureaucracy
defensively misreading Congressional intent, or greedily misreading Congressional
intent, or by distorting that intent to frustrate development of federal coal.
Whatever the motivation, an Insistence that "fair market return" is a license
to pursue monopoly profits will hold down development of federal coal and
aggregate returns to the treasury from that development. Those charges
for front-end royalty bids will Inevitably be passed back to the public
in their roles as consumers of power, so it is fiction to prentend that the
people experience a net gain from heavy front-end bonus bids or royalties.
PUBLIC BODY LEASING
The program for public body leasing should be carried out under the
supervision of the Joint state-federal coal selection and ranking team in
each production region. The governor of each state should be allowed
to review and approve any lease sale of coal under the public body provisions
to a public body from another state.
e wmm arnrtm k em j'c,o« hwifiuo. a
February 9, 1979
Office of Coal Management (140)
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
Eighteenth and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
«4
Re:
Comments on the Federal Coal Management Program,
Environmental Statement
Gentlemen:
Santa Fe Mining Company ("Santa Fe", formerly The Cherokee
& Pitt3burg Coal and Mining Company) offers the following
comments regarding the Department of the Interior's Draft
Environmental statement [DES] on its proposed federal coal
management program.
Santa Fe has been actively involved In the development
of western coal reserves for the past several years and seeks
to bring additional coal reserves into the market. The source
of Santa Fe's reserves has been the holdings of an affiliated
company which Is the successor in interest to several million
acres of railroad grant lands in Arizona and New Mexico. The
affiliate currently retains fee simple title to only 150,000
acres and title to the mineral estate in 4,000,000 additional
acres of the original grant.
Most of the affiliate's present and potential coal reserves
are Interspersed with federal, state, Indian and privately-
owned lands and coal in the familiar checkerboard ownership
patterns which characterize railroad land grant areas in the
Western United States. A drilling program Is currently ^
underway to identify other coal prospects among Santa Fe s
holdings.
With that background, we tu
on the DES.
specific comments
Office of Coal Management (140)
Page Two
February 9, 1979
Santa Fe generally endorses the Department's preferred
alternative as best designed to enable the Secretary to
exercise maximum flexibility to determine when, where, In
what quantity and to whom federal coal should be made
available through additional leasing to meet regional or
national market demands. Our endorsement assumes that the
Secretary's rejection of the EMARS program does not mean
that the SLM still will not seek maximum input from the
coal industry, as well as other segments of the public,
in reaching leasing decisions. We understand from statements
made by Mr. Stephen Quarles, Director of the Office of Coal
Leasing Policy, In his role as chairman of the hearing panel
that presided at the Washington hearings on the DES on
February 6, 1979, that there is no intent to exclude or
minimize industry contributions to the entire coal manage-
ment program. That should be made abundantly clear In the
final environmental statement.
With respect to the various planning stages leading to
a lease sale, (Fig. 3-1), there should be timetables pro-
jected for each Identifiable step so that the total timetable
could be Incorporated Into a development schedule for potential
lease applicant:-;, particularly for relatively new entrants
such as Santa Fe. These timetables should then be further
broken down to apply to the detailed process steps defined
in Figs. 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4.
On page 3-18, Col. 1, the DES describes proposed planning
rules and regulations by both the Forest Service and the BLM.
However, there is no discussion of how the two agencies will
coordinate activities, or which agency will prevail In the
event of conflict. There should be specific discussion of
the Department of Interior's plans to avoid stalemates in
areas of multiple agency control.
Section 3.2.2.1 - Tract Identification and Industry
Expression of Interest, discusses the designation of
coal tracts for lease based on factors including tech-
nical coal data. In the absence of prospecting permits,
there would be a lack of complete reserve data. Section
3.2.2.2 - Regional Tract Ranking, Selection, and
Scheduling, also discusses the possibility of this
Office of Coal Management (140)
Page Three
February 9, 1979
technical data Insufficiency, but does not propose positive
action to remedy the problem.
The lack of sufficient technical data could be remedied
by a means of awarding prospecting permits to Industry
operators, thereby permitting more meaningful tract recom-
mendations to be submitted.
Santa Fe's principal concern Is with the DES's treatment
of mixed ownership areas, particularly the so-called "checker-
board" areas in Arizona and New Mexico which contain most of
the coal owned by Santa Fe and its affiliates. The historical
reason for the checkerboard areas Is recognized in the DES
(p. 1-7):
"Another factor of some im-
portance is that Congress granted
extensive lands to railroads in
the West. To settle the West,
the building of railroads was
essential. But to build a rail-
road was a costly venture, and
railroad companies would not build
railro&ds in what was then virtual
wilderness without financial
inducement. The grant of land
by the government to the company
was 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, continued
to be in the public domain. By
granting to the railroad the odd-
numberud sections, and retaining
the even-numbered sections, a checker-
board effect resulted. Although
Congress probably expected that
K-101
WmmmmBammseHin«mnaimmmms^^i^ir^^
Office of Coal Management (140)
Page Four
February 9, 1979
rh
L(icJ
land
would be sold
by
the r
Til
o;„i.s
to other citizens
h of
Lhti
acre
iEe has been
•JO
ainet
by
the
jriginal grantees .
The resulting checkerboard land
patterns and their effect on
coal development continue to
influence western coal development,
particularly in areas of Montana,
Wyoming, and New Mexico." (Emphasis
added) .
The underscored statement may leave the impression that Santa
Fe's affiliate has not disposed of most of its original grant
land, which is not the case. As we indicate at the outset
of these comments, of the many millions of acres of original
railroad grant lands held by Santa Fe's affiliate, that company
currently retains title to only about 150,000 acres in fee and
some 4 million acres of mineral interests reserved when the
surface was disposed of. The retention of these mineral
interests was identical with the historic practice of the
Federal Government in not disposing of mineral lands for
settlement purposes and reserving the minerals in lands
where the surface was disposed of for agricultural purposes,
as under the Stoekraising Homestead Act. The Federal Govern-
ment currently holds reserved mineral interests in over 62
million acres of land in which it has disposed of the surface. .
The DES includes salutory recognition of the fact that the
development of large tracts of non-federal coal in checkerboard
areas is vitally dependent on the availability of relatively
small areas of intermingled federal coal. The DES states
(p. 2-51):
"Besides helping to meet
national energy objectives, 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
1/ One Third of the Nation's Land: The Report of the Public
Land Law Review Commission 137 (1970) .
Office of Coal Management (140)
Page Five
February 9, 1979
of the large Federal ownership
of Western coal, a major expan-
sion 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 environmental 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 interspersed with private, state,
and Indian coal. Because individual
tracts are often not large enough to
justify investments, development
opportunities for non-Federal coal
in many of these areas would be limited
unless adjacent Federal coal would also
be mined. These ownership patterns
add to uncertainties about production
potentials, because theoretical produc-
tion of much non-Federal coal may not
in fact be achievable without develop-
ment of Federal coal, and, conversely,
a decision favoring the leasing and
development of specific amounts of
Federal coal may in fact lead to
production of greater non-Federal
reserves."
However, this recognition may be diluted by what appear
to be erroneous factual assertions about the need for federal
leasing in those areas In New Mexico where Santa Fe's known
coal reserves are located. We cannot agree that the "San
Office of Coal Management
Page Six
February 9, 1979
Juan River Coal Region appears somewhat less dependent on new
federal leasing because of the presence of Indian Coal and
some substantial blocks of developable non-Federal coal"
(p. 2-48). On the contrary, Santa Fe's remaining unleased
known reserves can only be developed in the most economically
efficient and environmentally acceptable fashion if certain
intermingled or adjacent federal tracts are made available
for leasing. Consequently, Santa Fe respectfully requests
that the data underlying the conclusions as to the need for
federal leasing in the San Juan Basin checkerboard areas be
carefully re-examined.
Sa:ita Fe emphatically rejects the "subalternative" of
"not leasing in checkerboard areas" (4-136). The DES presents
no practical justification for such a policy. There is
seldom, if ever, any rational basts for arbitrary, rigid policy
absolutes in resource development. The potential adverse
economic and environmental consequences of the "no checker-
board leasing" are particularly pernicious. The DES recognizes
that the economic impact of such a policy would simply be to
"forestall development of the coal land in both the Federal
and non-Federal portions of the checkerboard areas where the
federal coal is now unleased" (5436). Inevitably that will
be the practical result if development of the non-federal
coal is attempted without the federal coal. Also, there will
be serious economic and environmental costs. Although the
report states that the environmental consequences of this
subalternative "are difficult to estimate" and "not clear"
(5-136), Santa Fe believes it obvious that the environmental
consequences will be significantly adverse and unnecessary.
If the policy of the Federal Coal Management Program is to
diligently develop federal coal, the program cannot arbitrarily
exclude development of coal in checkerboard areas. The "no
checkerboard leasing" alternative should be rejected as a
program-wide policy.
In its discussion of the checkerboard areaa the DES
also states that certain advantages accrue to the non-federal
coal owners vis-a-vis other applicants in a competitive lease
sale, a problem that it recognizes "is minimized where the
mineral owner is willing to share resource information with
others" (5-134). Santa Fe has previously made it clear to
the Department that it is willing to share its coal reserve
information with the Department on a confidential basis (If
other lease applicants will do the same) and that it would
Office of Coal Man.
Page Seven
February 9, 1979
be amenable to granting access to its properties to the
Department for testing purposes.
The analysis of the "no checkerboard leasing" sub-
alternative also refers to the May 1978 report of the Justice
Department on "Competition in the Coal Industry" and its
recommendation that the Secretary take steps to insure "that
the railroad's control of these [checkerboard] lands will
not have anticompetitive effects" (5-136). Santa Fe wants
to record its strong condemnation of the Justice Department's
specious and superficial treatment of the role of railroad-
affiliated coal companies In the coal industry. The coal
lands owned by Santa Fe are not controlled by The Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company. Santa Fe is an eager,
aggressive new entrant into the United States' coal market
and is determined to become a competitive force in the western
coal fields. Santa Fe intends to file a detailed rebuttal
to the Justice Department's study with Assistant Attorney
General (Antitrust) John Shenefeld in the near future re-
questing that the Department (1) correct the factual errors
and biased, mistaken assumptions and analyses which permeate
that report and (2) reconsider its recommendations in light
of the information and policy arguments that Santa Fe will
present. Santa Fe will also send a copy of its rebuttal
comments to the Secretary of the Interior. Accordingly,
Santa Fe respectfully requests that the Justice Department
report's treatment of railroad-affiliated coal companies be
given no credence for leasing policy decisions until Santa
Fe has made its presentation to both Justice and Interior.
In conclusion, Santa Fe urges the Office of Coal Manage-
ment to implement these recommendations in making a prompt
final decision on reinstituting a Federal Coal Management
Program. Santa Fe believes these recommendations will promote
the goals of domestic self-sufficiency in energy as expressed
in the National Energy Policy.
Stncei
ely,
■z.tf-'
. T. Zitclng
President
J
K-102
™™™"™,™-™™,~™*
HHHLBHHEBBHItaB^KH^^L . ; __..'_
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
610 C Brsiti, S)KJg|9W«»i<. U, L, 10003
jiuhuhbhaU
David BBOwni, Ptt-J
M
COMMENTS *
OH
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BY
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
David C, Masselli
Energy Policy Director
Kevin L, Markey
Colorado Representative
John Weiner
FOE Coal Consultant
13 February 1979
C
« > •- ' •«"<«' '«•»
Contents
i. introduction
- Departmental Coal Management C
- Reasons vs. the "Npcd" for No
Coal LeaslrTR
II. THE NEED FOR FUTURE FEDERAL CQAL I
.SIHC
- DOE Supply and Demand Figures
~ The ICF Model
- Least Cost Methodology
- Assumptions about federal Leasing
- Exogenous Variables in the DOE Model
- Summary Assessment, of the DOE Energy ptt
- Coal Production Without New Leasing
- An Overview of Coal Supply and Demand
II- IMPACT A5SF.S5KF.NT OF fROCKAH ALTERNATIVES
- DOE-DOT "Disaggregatioi
- Alternatives
.able Environme.
i*1 HftjFJj 30
■1 1
- Trace El en
- A Look at Available Information
- Agricultural Losses
- "Mineral Preemption"
- Alternatives Inadequately Compared
IV.SH0RTC0M1NCIS IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
- Land Use Planning
-.New Resource Planning Regulation.-. Do Not
Solve Problems
- Lands Unsuitable Criteria
- Resource Tradeoffs
- Setting Regional Production Targets
- Tract Ranking and Regional ElSa
- EIS Strategy
- Public Involvement
- Start Up Considerations
V. COMMENTS OH THE EXAMPLE REGULATIONS
Friends of the
eh,
Inc . . a nat
onal environ
ental
nidation committed
to
the
preservation,
res
orat
ion, and ra
ional use of
the Ea
rth
and its natural
Bour
;es, respectfully s
abffll
., am, wn .«, »
ueats
that
they be entered
in
the
record on the
foil
owin
E =
(1)
The Draft Enwi
Management Pro
.Therein,
iz
, and the pronr
(DES) on the
m and exampl.
rcp.ul
C(l I
«t it
ederal Coal
ns described
<2>
Proposed lands
un.
t*M
ble erituri
OH describe
In 4]
FR
■57662, and
(3)
Proposed PI, inn
Act (FLPMA) as
ing
dc
ROB'
crib
lation's und
ed In 43 FR
r the Fedora
58 7 &4 .
Land
p.u
cy and MafiffftcmeM
We will submit
fu
ther
the propose
planr
IPS
regulations prior
to
Apr
il I. These wt
ut«
hoc
expand upon
.»
itten and o-al
cs made at hear
Inge
in
Washington,
t).C. and var
cus r»
«ip
S impacted by the
Pr
□pDS
ed program.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Draft En
tS»
tal Statetner
t MtttM, ti
, hist
«y
-,( the Federal
Up
oRr.™ (UK 1-7
- 1
-14)
During chi
. .„-.ir. ,.a
od, th
De
,artment
of
the
Interior admin
Lstc
red
a coal lcasi
ng program, r
ot a coal
management
pr
B"
. IE resulted
Ln C
he h
aphazd leasi
ng of billior
of to
,. 0
f coal at
le
an fair market
vol
».
-■irh little
MW produ
tiona
id a
Sicnificant
ad
B«
environmental
imp
•M,
The preparat
ton
of a
programme
t impact sta
ement
on the Federal
Co
1 M
am 1
Fed
significant
eral policy
step in the institu
tlon
ing
and establishment
tional and ord
irly
its effects on other
Land
use
values.
Some 2b mill
ton
acre
9 in six Ifef
tern states |
ill he
dir
ectly affected
by
the
proposal ~ th
ay c
onte
ln lands whi
ch will be e
i Bible
for
consideration
for fu
urc leasing. I
i*d
diti
as of Fedcra
non-c
Hi
lands, Indian
la
ds.
State lands an
i pr
lvat
a land will
be profoundl
of fee
ted
„„«,„
-2-
Program
Decisions it
ade by the Departm
nt in its im
M oi
he
coal mar
agement pro?
ram will determine
the location
and t£*e
it pOpL
1st
lm
centers
traffic fit
ws, the quality of
air and watfl
, the Lea
,tlon c
i
certain
industries.
the viability of W
stem fsrmin
„ and ranc
'ing,
p.
the typt
of Ufasty]
e enjoyed througlio
.t the nix st
,. „8les
and
beyond.
During the
past seven years,
he Departioii
has been
of fee.
i».
1J
out of
he coal lea
ing business. Howe
jer, the coal
Industry
ias na
ag<.
i
to crow
particularly in the West, wit
iout any appr
ciable pr
oblems
It is i
osible — 6
cuCh not necessari
ly de.ireablc
l all
the mos
optimistic
foreseeable coal
demands with
resouro-s
on prl
at.
State,
nd Indian 1
nds, as well as fr
am Federal le
andlng
and
PRLA's.
The same t
ime span has seen
he imposition of legal
plann
n g
requir
ments on the
Department. The F
dcral Land P
licy and
^aiiagen
ent
Act of
1976 establ
shed a land use pi
inning system
for the p
ablic
and
•
adminJ
t„.a by th.
Department. These
FLPMA land u
e plans w
ill gr
dua
lly
superc
d. Eh. -ft-
UOXUMI »w
M framework
Plana dev
eloped
by
the Department in the late 60'e and
tarly 70's.
A. th. .or
ent, the Departmen
t's land use
planning p
rogram
and
its CO
1 manogemen
program seem to b
: on a colli
,ion cours
e. In orde
r
to get
its coal ma.
agement program off the ground
in time fo
r a 1980 1
..„
sale,
he Departme
t is proposing sho
rt-cuts in th
t land use
plam,
ng
proces
The envir
nmental analysis o
i the Departm
ant's prop
osed p
Ogl
raises
many issues
— a good number o
f which we co
mment on b
elow.
ut
th.
centra
issue rais
d in the Draft ES
and the major
ing ^
H««
is the
decision it
must make between
rapid impleme
ntatlon of
coal
eat
ing
and it
land plonn
ng responsibilitic
K-103
Departmental Coal Manage-cnt Goals
The Department proposes four goals to govern the development of its coal
management program. For the -oat part, we would agree with these goals. (3.1.1).
However, they should emphasize consultation and cooperation with the public, not
just with state governments. The importance of meaningful public involvement
Is not just a necessary part of any good .-idmiuistrative practice, bur is also
emboded in the principles and instructions oi the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, e.g., sections 102. 202. 204, etc., and the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act, e.g., section 2- As audi, the principles governing the program
should explicitly mention public involvement.
Also, an acceptance of the objective;; of the National Energy Plan can not
be made without qualifications. While we supported the aims of the plan as proposed
by the President in April 19?/, several elements crucial to the program— particularly
several energy conservation measures— have not yet been enacted. To the extent
the the "National Energy Plan" referred to in the second Departmental goal cither
establishes an arbitrary coal production target or does not include vigorous and
effective enforcement of energy conservation goals originally proposed, we cannot
accept it as the hasis for a coal management program. Therefore, we would propose
that the second coal management goal read:
"Assure that sufficient quantities of Federal
meet the demand for such coal under condition!
of cost-effective energy conservation measures
Likewise, the fourth goal should read;
e produced to
implcmeotatiOl
"Include consultation and cooperation with state governments and the public
in planning tbe management of Federal coal,"
Unfortunately, the Department cannot meet even the goals as it has defined
them. Coal policy outruns resource planning. Coal decisions dominate resource
decisions. The Department has and plans to continue to short-circuit the most
important environmental protection activities included in its proposed program.
We support the goals stated by the Department with the changes suggested
above. We fee] the Department can better meet those Coals.
lessons vs. tbe "need" for Mew Federal Coal Leasing
Tbe DES correctly nr.at.es that The failure of the Department to show Che need
for leasing was cited by the court in HRDC v. 'lughes as- a principal defect in the
previous coal leasing programmatic enviroumi ;. L ,il Impact statement." However, the
response by the DES to correct this deficiency Is less than adequate. Hot only
Is the Department's analysis of coal demand and supply inadequate — on issue we
evaluate in detail below — but it attempts to justify the adoption of the program
on the basis of undocumented and speculative "benefits" which have nothing to do
with the determination of need for new competitive leasing. Judge Pratt was very
Clear in asking "whether the proposed policy is even necessary" based upon reserve,
demand, and production statistics, not on factors such an competition, administrative
convenience, or presumed better patterns of development. We feel it Is unfortunate
if the Department's views correspond to those of Mr. Bob Utam, who is quoted in
the Grand Junction Sentinel (1-6-79) as stating "I don't think the department has
to be able to demonstrate need to lease coal. . .If the department thinks it has
better land that can be developed more than private land — you can think of a lot
of reasons in the public intercut to lease." Unfortunately the DES shares this
point of view in section 2.8.
It is essential to separate two questions. One asks whether various factors
such as competition and environmental protection require the need for a particular
form of resource management policy or another. The other question— the one asked
by the court in HRDC v. Hughes— asks whether, on the hasis of supply and demand
considerations, there la a need to resume leasing. If the DES wcTC to fully
separate these two questions, we would have do complaint. Indeed, we believe that
environmental protection and recent law enacted for that purpose both require a
resource management policy In which coal management decisions must take place. How-
ever, the DES confuses the questions after failing, we believe, to definitively
address demand and supply.
Even if the Department were correct in its legal interpretation , we
have not been convinced by its argument.
The dapart-cnt's argument that new leasing is required for legal and
administrative purposes rests mainly on the legal requirement to process outstanding
PRLAs. Thio, however, does not require the resumption of competitive leasing. It
does lead to a need for a process to manage the issue of preference right leases.
Unfortunately, the preferred alternative is relatively short on specification or
PRLA management considerations.
The department also proposes that new leasing is necessary to promote desirable
patterns of coal development. This orgument assumes that private coal development
patterns will be undesirable, a premise unsupported by any evidence in the DES.
It also denigrates existing federal and state efforts to control and regulate the
effects of development on private land, contradicting assumptions in Chapter Five
of the DES that such regulation will adequately mitigate environmental and other
impacts. The analysis in chopter five, as we will discuss below, fails to compare
the preferred alternative with other alternatives, including maximum private land
development, to confirm whether it will, in fact, lead to more desirable coal
developucnt patterns.
Finally, the DES proposes that new leasing will improve competition. Wc
do not believe that the department or the Justice Department's 1978 study cited
by t.,e DES supports this conclusion. The Justice Department's analysis was largely
based upon its comparison of 4-fir. concentration ratios-for control of coal
reserves between " total reserves." which includes unleased federal land and
"uncommitted non-federal reserves." which includes existing leases and private
fee lands, in the Southwest and Northern Plains.
Concentration Ratios
Total coal Reserves
Uncommitted non-federal
including existing leases 46.9
northern Plain!
4-firm 8-firm
14.3 22.1
Source: Department of Justice, Competition
p. 63
Southwest
4-fim 8-flrm
29.7 39.8
66.3 90.6
i the Coal Industry. May 1978
* Concentration ratio is a measure of competition; the lower the ratio, the
greater the competition — in this case, the competition for coal reserves <
Justice suggested that there was an arithmetic possibility of de.ieu. ,„g
ntratloa ratios ie non-fcdcral reserves by leasing additional
4-firm and 8-fi]
federal reserves. This is a theoretical possibility. However, it i
entire history of the leasing program. The high concentration ratios resulted
ln part /mm the federal leasing pr^ram prior to 1971. The Win concentration
ratio for ownership of federal leases (on an acreage basis) is 27.0*1'. compared to
a combined 16.11 4-flr» concentration ratio for all Northern rl.iK mod Southwestern
total coal reserves, and compared to a national concentration rati© of 13.32.
Although acreage is not exactly comparable to tonnage reserve figures, it is note-
worthy chac che competitiveness Of existing federal leases does not approach
the^coretical limits which are the basis of Justice Department recommendations.
Moreover. Department of Justice figures also indicate that 4-flr. concentration
ratios for national coal production increased during the period of federal coal
leasing between 1950 and 1970. but decreased
since the imposition of the leasing
moratorium i„ I971.-'Similarly , production concentration in tbe west f.r exceeds
tbe concentration la the eastern coal producing regions. (Dept Justice p. 63).
The General Accounting Office found that changes in production concentration of
coal were more closely related I
general economic changes than they i
ownership pattern. (CAO, II-5). One additional argument supported Justice's
recommendation of increased leasing co promote competition. That Wl Its survey
of coal producers, coal consuming electric utilities, and utility commissions in
the Southwest, hardly an unbiased basis for a federal coal management policy.
The overwhelming evidence is that federal leasing prior to the present
has been entirely uncompetitive, leading to low bonus bids and ultimately
Congressional reform. Moreover, the fundamental conclusion of the Justice Departae
uas that regional coal markets ".re wotk-bly competitive." To justify a coal
management program on this analysis, which further-ore ignored the history and
nature of leasing activity, is unreasonable.
¥t r^J? Counc11 on Economic Priorities. Mine Control. Table 1-13, p. 37
LI WO. The State of Competition in the Co*l Industry." p. H-6. 1977
K-104
? II. THE NEED FOR FUTURE FEDERAL LEASING
Chapter Two of Che Draft ES, "The National Energy Role of yeott.ro and
Federal Coal," addresses the question of need for a Federal coal leasing
program. As the ES notes, this Is a central issue, "The failure of the
Department to show the need for leasing vas cited by the court in KRDC v Hughes
as a principle defect in the previous cosl leasing programmadc environmental
impact statement." (DES, 2-43)
Resumed leaning under the preferred alternative is justfied by the
Department primarily as a means to "give the Nation greater assurance of
being able to aeet its national energy objectives." (DES, 2-43) To be sure,
three other possible benefits from the resumption of a new Federal program
are also mentioned: the promotion of more dcsircable patterns of coal
development, providing additional legal and adminiutracivc flexibility to
handle problems which will arise in any event with PRLA'S and existing leases,
sod to increase competition. Hower, these three areas are given only
cursory treatment in the Draft ES. They are discuased in less than two and
one-half pogce, no supporting data is produced, nor is Cher* any analysis
of alternative ways to achieve these goals without new leasing. In the
final analysis, the Department basis its Justification for adopting a
nev coal leasing program on Che perceived future need for vast amounts
of Federal coal.
Ve do not question the need for a new Federal coal roan a g anient program
At issue is the kind of program to be instituted. An appropriate progrsm must
* For example, the Draft avers that competition in the coal industry is a problem,
relying on a memorandum from the Department of Justice, and suggests chat new
leasing may alleviate the problem. There is no mention Of the Sherman and Clayton
Acts, nor the authority of DoJ, the FTC, FERC or state regulatory agencies
(assuming Chst most anticompetitive effects sre manifested in Che sale of coal foi
utility use) to respond to this alleged problem.
be responsive to the real n*ed* for future cosl development, not imagined
or alaclaculated needs. For this reason the discussion of the role of Western
and Federal coal in Che Draft ES is of crucial importance. The methodology
on which this discussion ia based becomes s matter of concern and seemingly
arcane consider a Clone of modeling theory actaln some importance because
they have sn Impact on the picture of the future adopted by the Department
in developing its program.
ProjccCions of coal supply and demand play S critical rols 1.1 the development
of a cmL leasing program. If properly done, they con .help provide answers co
four questions; Whether to lease at all? Where to lease? What magnitude of
leasing to undertake? When to lease?
WiChout too much oversimplification, chc projections adopted by the Draft
ES give the following answers. Leasing must be undertaken. The bulk of the leasing
must be in the Powder River Basin Region, immense amounts of leasing are
needed (fly 1990, Che Northern Croat Plains Region might have to produce more
cosl than is currently mined in Che entire country). And, due primarily to the
magnitude of the projected need, the leasing must commence as soon as possible.
The implicit conclusion of the DES on chc questions of magnitude snd
timing of coal leasing pose the fc.-MtMt threat to the rational and orderly
planning process mandated by the Federal Land Policy end Management Act. The
prospect of overwhelming need, particularly ss set forth in the "1990 High"
scenario, is used by the Department to justify the seeps it haa or soon
will take to shortcut the FLPHA planning process, to continue relying on Misting
KFP's as the base for coal use planning and to further reduce its commitment
to immediate identification of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.
Because of these consequences, some of which are already occurring
during the commenC period on the Draft ES, it is necessary to subject the
aupply and demand projections used in Che DES Co the greatest possible scrutiny.
Our analysis indicates thaC the numbers generated by the Department of Energy
in "Federal Coal Leasing and 1935 and 1990 Regional Coal Production
Forecaats" and subsequently adopted in the Draft ES are simply wrong.
They do not provide n reasonable basis for decision making. They use a methodolpy
which consistently overstates Che demand for Western cool. They are inconsistent w:
later projections using the same model. At a minimum, the DES must be supplemented
with an adequate analysis of coal supply and demand before sny final action
IB taken.
DOE Supply and Demand FJRures
There ia an aphorism in Che forecasting business that while there ore
no magic numbers, nuabero are magic. They give a false sense of precision and
provide a de-jieien maker with sn easy handle on difficult issues. All documentary
presentations of energy forecasts are hedged about with qualifying stotemetne
which indicate that the forecasts are basically worthless. (See DES, 2-47)
Needless to say, these hortatory cautions which arc always trotted out when
projections are actacked, do not nrevent the affected decision makers from
relying on Che numbers In quesCion. If attacked on the validity of the
projections, they say "Well, we said right there in the document that it
wasn't perfect," rather than correcting the errors. Then they go right along
using the wrong numbers.
There are several severe problems with the coal supply and demand
projectiona developed for the Draft ES by the Department of Energy. The
model inherently overstates both energy demand and supply. The National
Coal Model used by DOE also appears to significantly overstate the demand for
Western coal ss a portion of total coal demand. In addition, the particular
iteration of the model used for the Draft ES contains unrealistic assumption-,
uhi^h skew the projections cowards even higher coal demand. These three charnccer-
isCica of the DOE projeccion efforc inevitably lead to forecasts of higher
Western coal demand Chan are credit-Is.
The first step in the development f the DOE projections was Che use
of the Project Independence Evaluation System (PIES model)to provide forecasts
of the domestic energy system in 1985 and 1990. The PIES model has been
subject to a good deal of criticism. PIES ia a demand-based equilibrium model.
In plain English, this means that tho PIES roucine first escablishes a
likely level of sectoral energy demand — based on a general mocroeconomic
projection (in this case Che DRI TRENDLONG model) — and proceeds to meet
thac demand. The fact that the projected aupply can't or won't be forthcoming
is of little consequence to the model*; if Chere is s demand, there will be
a supply.
Although the Draft ES notes that chere are alternatives to "traditional
modeling of the energy sector of the economy, as reflected in the DOE coal
■odel','" (DES, 2-25) citing to a California study which projects energy connumptio
based on s detailed survey of households, businesses and institutions, it does
not choose to use such methods. { The California study, incidentslly, ucui«d fo:
future end-use energy planning in
"P. Craig et. al.. Distributed Energy Syatema
In California's FuCt
Interim Report. 2 >
, HCF-P740S-01/O2, U.S.
* A classic example of this can be seen in the continued propensity of all DOE models
including thia one, to project a thriving synthetic fuels industry by 1985. Thua,
the DOE forecast projects between 7 and 27 full-sized plants by 1985 and 17 to 85
plants by 1990. Civen lead times, financing and other considerations, these projectioi
are absurd — there may be one plant (AKR in Mercer Couucy) — but because the
demand exists, the supply is created, on paper.
K-105
Department of Energy, 1978"). Nor does it choose to dlecues the pinna inherent In
traditional econometric models.
The major flaw In the PIES model is that It consistently overstates energy
demand. In 1974, Ehe Energy Research and Development Administration predicted
that primary energy demand in the year 2000 would be 140 quadrillion Bill's, an in-
crease of 2201 in 26 years. In 197G, the ERDA forecast had been reduced to 124
Quads. By 1978, the Energy Information Agency, which had taken over that ERDA
function, was forecasting between 100-110 Quads (or the year 1990 and had given up
forecasting for the year 2000 altogether. In each instance, the FlES-based forecaGti
utilized by the nation's chief energy agency had been reduced after a broad concerns
was developed that the demand forecasts were too great.
In an interesting display, Amory Levins has shown hou government projections
of energy demand have increasingly declined as we give more information about the
ways in which energy is used. (SEE TABLE ON NEXT VACE)
Lovins Indicates several areas In which long-term econometric equilibrium model.'
like PIES may be in error:
"Price elasticity of demand, — Many analyses minimi u or ignore the effect of
higher cost — especially for new facilities — on demand, or consider only the
short-term component of price jlasticity.
"Inverse price elasticity of demand. — Many projections are based on periods
in which real energy prices fell; for example, the average real price of U.S.
residential electricity fell fivefold during 1940-1970. Apart from short-terra
fluctuations, this seems unlikely to recur, since in most energy systems,
marginal costB have exceeded historic costs since about 1970.
"Saturations. — Many traditional growth markets may be constrained by physical
saturations. The UK has until recently assumed that space-heating demand is a
linear function of Income, but the rich may not wish to roast. Car traffic is
YEAR OF EflSECASI
1972
EVOLUTION OF APPROXIMATE FORECASTS
OF U.S. PRIMARY ENERGY DB1ANS 2(1
THE YEAR 2000 (o/y = 1015 BTU/y - IJ/y)
(1972-8 RATE: CA. 75 o/v)
SOURCE OF gQRSCAijT
1974
1976
197b
EEffllU!
THEJ.AU
HEREEC
COWVUHTIflMAI
WISDOM
SUPERSTITION
12?
MO
160
190
Lovins
Sierra Club
AEC
BuHincs, EPC
100
121
110
160
EPP (ZEG)
EI>P (TF)
EKDA
eei, Era!
75
i - 95
124
Lovins von Hipper/ Lovins ERDA
S Williams/ For.Aff.
63 - 77
96 - 101
140
124
Steinhnrt CONAES Cons. J Den. / IEA Lapp
(for 2050) Panel (for 2010) / (Weinberg)
(i) (in tin)
(Note that this matrix has considerable predictive power. For «X«l»Xo,
DOE s September 1973 Domestic 1'olicy Review forecasts for 2000 ..■ere 95 o
vith 532/bhl Bil--*qu«»l>' in the "conventional wlettoa" box and ldu C Is*]
to Lovins't tSZ&SJLMW-*? nenber cue. vears earlier— and Hi ;
for 525/bbl and Sia/btTl oil rcspi
in the "superstition" column, sii
■aging to 123 q an.
lov prices presumably i
; Amory B. Lovins, "Ts Nuclear Power Necessary?" Croupe do Bollerive
Colloquium, "Nuclear Energy — Implications for Society," Geneva, 1979
"Promotion. --In most countries, rapid demand growth, especially In such
fuel- intensive sectors as electric-resistance space heating, have been heavily
promoted by advertising, Special rates, etc., now mostly being reversed.
"DlsturLlun;; Jn boric data. — Many studies rely on outdated and excessive
estimates of population, labor iorce, labor productivity, and other factors
underlying projections at economic activity. Some countries have unique dis-
tortions: for example, the US cnnual energy growth rate in the 19u0's was in-
flated one or two percentage points by the Vietnam war leading to an enormous
error if extrapolated for several more decades.
"Definitions. — Host project-ions are made in terms of primary energy. But
with the commonly assumed shift towards electrification and synthetic fuels,
more than half of the officially projected growth in the next few decades (for
example, in the U.S., Germany, France, and the UK) will go to conversion and dis-
tribution losses, thus masking much slower gEOUtb in final consumption or "end-
use energy". Failure to forecast in end-usu terms often leads to significant
distortions.
"Subsidies. — The most recent and central question to be raised is how far
past, present, and projected energy use might be Inflated by the pervasive public
subsidies to the energy system rather than reflecting true internal cost.
Recent studies in the U.S. — the only country, to my knowledge, in which decent
studies of energy sybsidies are publicly available — have revealed that the tax
and price subsidies are currently of order SIO^* per year, not including large
historic subsidies. These subsidies are also unevenly distributed between
various forma of energy, leading to further distortions.
"These arguments are all Important, but tend, at least in the short run, Co
be Inconclusive owing to the infinite speculative combinations one can assume for
future levels and rates of change of the many key parameters — amount and composi-
tion of economic activity, prices, price elasticities, income and cross-elasticities,
While it is clear from tha literature that most classical projections of growth
near historic rates can be economically justified only by assuming dramatic
mode of argument that cuts more quickly to the heart of the matter: physical
analysis of potential efficiency improvements (tested for their economic attractive-
ness) combined with physical construction of end-use needs "from the bottom up".
Such an explicit and disaggregated treatment requires the analyst to take responsi-
bility for saying just what the energy will be used for. This type of analysis
has the virtues of being simple, transparent, scrutable and ratproof."
Lovins then sumraarirefl a Series of examples which indicate the development of
non-econometric energy forecasting, including the Enllfornia study—almost all of
which reach credible results that imply significantly less energy uitjj* then
occurs under traditional econometric modeling. The point here is not that the
Department must undertake such forecasting — though that would certainly be
desirable — but that the Draft US should display an awareness that the PIES results
will most likely overstate energy demand.
The DOE projections are developed from the base demand figures supplied by
the PIES model through two routines designed to indicate industrial and utility
demand for coal.
The "EEA model" (for Energy Environmental Analyses, Inc.) is used to determine
the Industrial demand, by type, for coal. Precious little documentation or
explanation of the EEA model la provided in either the Draft ES or the LPDO study,
•o it la difficult CO criticize. However, it Is implied that the equilibrium
price of natural gas is an Important factor — the model's "building" a population
Of industrial combustora. (LPDO, p. 42) As will be discusaed below, the values
for future natural gas prices uHcd In the model were wrong.
* In addition to the California Energy Commission, the National Research Council
Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Sources (CONAES), Panel on Energy
Demand and Conservation, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Energy Division, and
the Energy Conservation team at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories have all developed
national and relonal end-use forecasting models.
K-106
THE ICF MODEL
The critical third .-■ ; In the DOE projection was the development of utility
demand estimates and final Industrial demand figures using the ICF Coal and
Electric Utilities Model. As the UPDO states "The basic ICF model structure is
conceptually straight-forward in that a supply component via a transportation
network provides coal to satisfy the demand for both utility and nonutllity con-
sumption at least cost." (LPDO, pp. 44,45) ICF is probably a atate-of-the-
model, but It does have its flaws, which are highly relevant to the questions
the Department was to address In the "new" section of the Draft ES.
The ICF model overestimates Western coal demand. Some reasons for this
will be given below but there can be no doubt that the overeatimatlon la a salient
feature oT the model. When compared with models developed by Argonne National
Laboratory and the Stanford Research Institute, the ICF model consistently projects
greater Western coal usage— even when oil three models are In remarkeable agreement
on total national coal demand (Argonne National Labs, NSPS Project Reports, IS
"Impacts of NSPS Revision on Regional Coal Production", C. "The Effect of Alterna-
tive New Source Performance Standards on Regional Production of Coal ).
In a situation where there is disagreement among forecasters, the temptation
is M say "A plague on all your houses" or to wonder how to differentiate among
them. However, in this instance, there is almost complete agreement that the
ICF model has been seriously in error— at least in the shorter time from where
some certainty is possible. Referring to a late 1977 ICP estimate of coal demand,
Argonne Report #4 states;
"The ICF production estimate for the Northern Great Plains (424 nillior
tons/year) is the highest I have seen or heard of. The 1976 production in
the Northern Great Plains was just over 68 million tons. 1 find it very
difficult to believe that production could expand by a factor of six in juSI
nine years. The feasibility of such a dramatic Increase can be questioned
because:
1.
The U.S.C.S. has estimated that the maximum production
from current Federal leases (further leasing has been
indefinitely suspended) will be less than 200 million tons
by 1985. It is doubtful that the 20-252 of coal reserves
In non-federal lands could, by Itself, support even an
additional 75 million tons of production.
lost recent FPC lnfor
lern Great Plains coa
f contracted demand bctv
onstructed power plants.
Planned" mine openings r
he Northern Great Plains
ess than those needed to
ost. In fact, total ^
The
itioi
ichi
m utility demand for
only 150 million tons
and 1986 for newly
id in the Keystone survey for
ibout 307 million tons, far
:ve the ICF production fore-
ilne openings as reported to
Keystone amount to only 487 million tons/year by 1965.
Moreover, it should be emphasized that the Keystone data
includes mines that are not under active development. Oil
the 8-10 year development, time for a new mine, it rrpresei
an upper ceiling on Western mine capacity.
i the regional market:
Without further details or
intended to serve, it Is impossible to comnc
existing for over 400 million tons by 1985-'
this productloi
. the likelihood of ,
i is
LEAST COST METHODOLOGY
One cause for the tendency of the ICF modfll to overestimate Western coal demand,
particularly surface coal demand may be found in its use of a least cost method
to determine future mine sites.
The least cost nature of the model skews the location of mining and the method
of mining. The model examines all possible supply options and chooses the least
costly alternative. Minlscule price differences dominate environmental, social
and other considerations. One result of this Is the absence of underground mining
i the
as a future source of supply. The June DOE projections, drawing (
logy developed in Western Co.il: Promise or Problem by Tyner and Salter, consign
underground mining to the wostcbin. even when plans exist to mine the cool.
Two examples from the DF5 show the underestimation of the potential for under-
ground mining. Table 2-29 shows 47.2 million tons of planned production from the
Uinta-Southwcstern Utah Coal Kcgion by 1985, plus on additional 23.3 million tons
from mines without mining plans for a total of 70.5 million C«ns of production by
1985. The DOE projections show a hijih demand of 26.3 milll
that somebody must want that ex
spending hard cash to develop i
In Table 2-30, which summarize
for the year 1990, the DES 3hows a
tons per year (the D0F. projections
The DES draws the following concli
3. We assume
43.7 million tons of coal and that the companies
vc not taken lo.-.ve of their senses.
planned, potential and projected production
1 production of 509-8 million
366-5, low; 659.7 medium, and 922.1, high).
iced for
For 1990, there could be some, but probably not a la
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.
This conclusion might be more meaningful had not Table 2-30 totally ignored
the 160.4 million tons a. year potential underground production from preference
right leases it set forth in Table 2-23. With this potential added, the maximum
potential from existing leases—now 670.2 million cons a year— becomes essentiolly
equivalent with the 1990 medium demand. Such equivalence would not necessarily
eliminate the need for more Federal coal leasing, but It certainly would have an
effect on the magnitude, timing and location.
Underground mining is undoubtedly somewhat more expensive than surface mining.
It is an open question whether that additional cost can be justified by social
and environmental factors. A model which nakes no allowance for the possibility
that one might wish to chose .-.lightly more extensive mining methods, as a matter
Of pubHe policy, is seriously deficient as a basis for decision-making.
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT FEDERAL LF-ASISC
One final area in which the DOE model (
assumption thot the cheapest federal land I
be leased,
states;
:ec, is precisely what
nt flaw is its
.eased. Just which land will
in the Draft ES. The LPDO
ind con-
"For all three scenarios in both 1985 on.l 1990, It wan assur,
that the federal government would lease enough cool "s""" s'
that the reserves cheapest to mine (regardless of ownership) w(
be mined first. This assumption has the effect of minimizing
total national costs of coal production, tTansportat" —
sumption." (LPDO, p. 102)
By lowering the — -- * demanJ- ThC lnf
: by the lowest-cost
demand c
ost Of Western coal, this assurapt:
the need for an inflated supply to I
e.g- Powder River surface coal-
LXOGENOUS ASSUMPTIONS IS THE DOE MODEL
The inherent flaws in the DOE model give rise to serious doubt. concerning it.
fitness si I tool for decision-making. Th.s. problems ere compounded by the choice
of ...uwtlon. and input, employed in the particular iteration of the DOE «odel
adopted in the Draft ES.
In large part, the assumption, are faulty becau.e of a timing problem. The
DOE projection, were developed last spring, prior to passage of the national
Energy Act. They contain some gue.se. about the ultimate Shape of that legisla-
tion that proved to be wrong. In addition, the spring run .1.0 attempted to gue..
.t the r.ault. of other important regulatory processes, »o.t not.bly the Kew
K-107
Source Performance Standard:; for Coal Fired Power Plants, again, with what appeal
to bo little success.
Many of the flaws could easily bo corrected if only the Department, will
attempt a further iteration of the DOE model latter this year, when these critic;
variables about which Sautter* were made will bo known exactly. The mad dash for
a final decision by June 1 should give way to a moment, of lucidity. There is
no sense in having the Secretary make a decision baaed on data whicli is wrong,
when a few months of delay will give Che Department a chance to do it right—for
A brief loot I
Most, although i
; used in I
i higher c<
(1) Crude Ml Prices.— the 1985 low (S13/I>bl in 1975 prices)
clearly been super-; tiled by the December price riso.
-all eeennrios are wrong for both 1965
ated o continuation of previous regula-
tion, medium and high hud DTU equivalency with price of fuel oil.
The actual natural gam price, set by login! at ion, is somewhere in bcti
(3) El.cc trie J ty Growth. Ra.te.--the S.8Z NF.RC projet
Dt credible in light of recent firowth rate trends.
:ion t
1985
discussion below.
(5) Coal Coi
. ?!l£iiii
tory program passed by conference conduit tec de
cither the stringency of the regulations promulgated by DOE or the
temporary public Interest exemptions for gos-fired boilers now ace
by DOE.
(6) Coal Conversion (Industry). — there Is no industrial user
with (
15 and 1990 numbers do not corrcla
ad industry plans. Likelihood of any planes by 1985 is small.
(7) Synthetic Fuel Product
(B) local Coal. --Section 125 of the Clean Air Act is opera tivi
is not provided for in the model. (This was due to a pending ancndtie
the provision. However, while amended and changed Somewhat, there r
a provision in the law.)
Many of the problems noted In this brief list could be alleviated If a new
model run were attempted today, using current information about energy pricing,
demand and the Rational Energy Act. It would, of course, take some weeks to
develop appropriate programing instructions for some of the more complex variables.
However, a winter ro-run would not cover the single most important variable in pre-
dicting future coal use — the Hew Source Performance Standard.
At the outset there Is some difficulty iti determining just what versions of
the NSPS arc being used in the projections. The Table of DOE assumptions in both
LPDO and tile Draft ES describes the option as follows: Low "902 FGD on all new
plants"; Medium "85?. PCD in the East, 60% FCD on low sulfur coal"; High "same as
med-rangc" (LPDQ, pp. 78,79, DES !l-2, 11-4). However, the description in the text
of Air Pollution Control Regulations varied from this;
"Air Polli nien Control Tii'gu In t ions
Best Available Control Technology(KACT) is defined as 90 percent S02 removal, except
that partial scrubbing would be permitted If annual average S02 emissions were re-
duced to a specified floor:
Scenario Floor
(lb. S02/MMBtu)
Low
Mid-Range
High
(LPDO, p. 9G, DES, 11-6)"
An Indication of Che importanci
energy projections — can be seen hy ',
projections, under various assumed 1
sequent to the June 1978 DOE projec!
0.2
0.5
of the final NSPS— and of the
joking at a series of Western i
5P5 regimes, done on the same 1
ions used in the EIS.
-21-
In "Further Analysis of Alternative New Source Performance Standards
New Coal-Fired Power Plants", Preliminary Draft, September, 1978, ICF inc ated
analyzed several alternative NSPS regimes under a single set of nonrNSPS V liable*
(e.g. there was no low, medium, high, Junt one energy demand scenario which was
very close to the DOE medium). For 1990, WcuLcrn coal demand varies by nearly
200 million tons per year, depending on which NSPS alternative was chosen.
September 1, 1978 Pro 1 actions
M«K>( Exemptions 1990 Western Coal Demand
o WT.
°-2 ¥ 735.2 MT/Y
0-2 N 752
0-3 t °V, — -n i»n-
°-5 N 772 high NSPS a
°-67 Y 779 tlon.
0.8 Y 783
DES High 922.1
DES Medium 659.7
Further forecasts, released in a subsequent preliminary draft on December 12,
1978 indicate even lower western coal demand figures for a new array of
potential NSPS options chosen by EPA, DOE and NRDC. None of these options
produced n total Western coal demand in excess oT 700 million tons per year
in 1990.
While this assemblage of predictions and projections may seen confusing.
It does Show two very important things. First, NSPS alternatives have a
(
■ajor impact on the total Western coal demand. The particular set of KSP5
alternatives included in the DOE High projection produced Western coal
demand numbers significantly higher than any other NSPS outcome, even when
all Other variables were held constant. Second, as greater concensus on
variables was achieved — in the December 12, 1978 run, all coal demand
projections decreased.
In light of this uncertainty, we strongly urge the Secretary to hold off
any decision on the need to lease until after EPA lias reached a final decision
on the NSPS and DOM has an opportunity to analyze the coal demand impacts of that
decision. A wait of no more tlian a few months will allow Interior to make a
much sounder decision based on the right information.
SUHMW ASSKSSWTKT CF the rm lyrgRfff PROJECTIONS
The coal demand and supply projections used In the DM give a set of
signals on whether, where, when and how much to lease. The signals which
coat? through in the DES arc wrong, the product of inherent flaws in the
DOE model and improperly determined exogenous variables.
It is easy to remedy roost ol these defects, if the Department, wants
to take the time and effort lit do It. At a minimum, it should recalculate
the NCM data using variables which accurately reflect the current law.
To do an adequate Job, however, the Deparroent must wait until a decision has
been made on the New Source Performance Standards -- the single most important
variable determining the magnitude and location of Western coal demand.
These steps have an importance beyond that of. rectifying some
computational errors. There is no doubt in our minds that an honest and
rational analysis of future coal demand will show the Department that
coal leasing is not a problem requiring an immediate solution, necessitating
the effective destruction of its land planning process, as well as the
Powder River Basin- More dispassionate analysis will clearly show that
the real coal demand can be met by leasing after a sound land use planning
program, including designation of areas of critical environmental
is in place, not before.
K-108
The Department must cake its cine to properly assess Ehe difficult issues
involved in determining the need for leasing. A failure to do so will lead to
the implementation of a program baaed on the GICO principle well known to all
energy forecasters— "garbage in. garbage out".
One other task that the Department could undertake, while ironing the kinks
out of Its econometric model, vould be to expand on its shamefully brief discus-
•ion of "IWraditional Energy Sources". The Draft ES devotes one paragraph to un-
conventional sources of natural gas, one paragraph to solar energy and three munlfi-
cont paragraphs to energy conservation.
It is not necessary to adopt a millcnial attitude towards theae sources to
realiM their relevance to future demand for coal- The major projected sources
lor unconventional natur.il gas are in the geopressurized lonea of the Gulf Coast
and the Rocky Mountain overthrust belt. Thus, such sources arc perfectly situated
to service .the same region which will be receiving the bulk of Western coal
(Figures 5-4, 5-5 show Texas, Western Interior and Other East (the Midwest) re-
ceiving the bulk of Western coal). There is also . good transportation network
already in place. No mention is made of any of these facts.
The discussion of solar energy is totally without substance. The Draft ES
adopts a low estimate of solar f.tentlal. Because it has failed to evaluate the
end uses Of the projected coal usage, it is not possible to analyxe which solar
technologies might compete with which potential uses of coal in the regions served.
Finally, the evaluation of energy conservation is laughable. Western coal
will be used to generate electricity and for sorae industrial process heat uses.
These ore two of the areas in which energy conservation has the greatest potential,
yet the latter receives one sentcnce.ond the former,onc-four word phrase. Price
and technology — sensitive trends in electricity usage are not diocuased at all, an
entire literature is ignored end only one source (EIA's energy data estimates) is
cited in the Draft ES for all of these sources.
This is in keeping with the tone of Chapter Two which provides a status quo,
backward- looking analysis of the future. Coal has obviously replaced nuclear
power in DOE's forecasting hierarchy. It will grow™ regardless of competing energy
sources, financial, technical, environmental and resource (including water)
constraints, or a general decline—the growth of energy use—because it Is programmed
to grow. The fact that it is best suited to meet only two and use categories,
electric generation and large scale industrial energy needs ie conveniently overlooked.
COAL PRODUCTION WITHOUT NEW LEASING
A singular irony in Chapter Two is the different faces turned towards existing
and future coal leases. While LPDO develops demand figures that strain credulity
and surely imply some profit in mining the substance, DOE projects resigned in-
action by the holders of existing leases or PRLA's— many of whom received their
rights for a song.
Obviously, many of these leases win not be developed. Some can't meet
SMCKA requirements, some are in the wrong place, some are too small, some Just
plain hove poor deposits and won't even be economical. Nor is Friends of the Earth
particularly anxious to sec eny_ of them developed. The leases were issued, by
and large, without appropriate planning ot environmental analyaia. The develop-
ment of many of them would constitute environmental tragedies. We will scroogly
support any efforts by the Department to curb their growth.
But the sad fact is that many of these leases may well be developed and
it is best to know just how many so that we can limit the amount of additional
land put in jeopardy to that minimum required to meet legitimate energy needs.
Unfortunately, the Draft ES is woefully inadequate in its canvass of potential
development and utterly falls to provide quality data to help determine just
how much coal will be mir.cd from over three thousand existing state and Federal
lands.
Let US start with the positive. The Draft ES provides summary statistics
for planned production from those 213 Federal leases for which mine plans were
approved or pending approval. These rIom alone indicated a planned 1985
production of 308.6 million tons a year, approximately double .total 1977 Western
production.
The next category, existing Federal leases without approved minine pl*>«.
la subjected to analysis of a more problematic nature. To sod>c extent, this is
only appropriate. However, the methodology employed, reviews by Geological
Survey mining supervisory "taking into account demand for the coal type, en-
vironmental problems of the lease site, transportation availability, mining costs,
lease size and other factors" (DES, 2-30) leaves much to be desired. Why did
the Department, which DM been receiving significant criticism over its handling
of wdating leases, not make a major effort to develop mote Information about
these mines? Why weren't other professionals called in to assist the CS mining
supervisors in assessing questions about national demand, transportation and
other matters not normally within the purview of the GS? Why was there no update
of the March reviews which ware generally referred to In the agency »» the
"telephone survey"?
Without back-up data, the assigned likely production figures for existing
leases without mine plans raise soma interesting questions. Hearty 9SZ of the
resarves under leaae in the Powder River Basin are assessed not to be developed.
This is extraordinarily high considering the generally favorable geologic and
economic factors which obtain in this area. Are theae leases all in alluvial
valleys? Are they narrow seams, despite the fact th.y were generally let at
the lessees' request?Does GS hove different views on the potential demand for
PRBR coal til- DOE, which finds that the sky is the limit? The Draft ES gives
no clue.
The lack of clarity continues in the review of the 172 outstanding PRLA's.
The Draft ES accurately notes the significant reserves associated with PRLA's
and then does its best to discount the potential. Table 2-23 indicates a
significant production potential from PRLA's without legal or environmental ques-
tions. Table 2-30 ignores all underground production from PRLA's in its "buramary
of planned, potential, and projected production, 1990".
Of underground reserves in PRLA's in the Powder River Basin—4.3 billion
tons in the Wyoming, or richer, deposits—the Draft ES says "57 percent of
PRLA reserves without legal or environmental questions are underground reserves
In the Powder River Coal Region where DOE projections show no underground mining
occurring." (DES 2-341 There is no explanation of why the holders of these
PRLA's would shelve them, no indication that the DOE model considero the Strong
likelihood that these non-leased coot mines, garnered without bonus payments
and subject to relatively few restrictions, might make their owners quite wealthy.
Nor does the downplaying of the Powder River PRLA's square with the oft expressed
fear of Department officials that they will be hit with a flood of demanda to
process PRLA's from Powder River as soon as the Hughes injunction is lifted.
The potential of Indian leases is similarly underestimated. Io 1977,
Indian coal represented nearly 13. 8X of all coal mined in the West, by 1990
the Draft ES expects that figure to drop to becween 2Z and 5X (Table 2-30)
despite the fact that Indian lands could support nearly 800 million tons a
year of coal production (Table 2-24). While no one expects anything like that
K-109
amount of production, it scums Inconceivable that Indian coal production will
Stand still. Because of the large contiguous blocks of Indian coal, which can
be leased without acreage restrictions, the opening of a handful of new mines
er-uld mean tons of nillions of tons a year of additional coal production.
Finally, the Draft F.S cackles non-Federal, non-Indian coal, which includes
2,553 outstanding state leases plus fee coal. The Draft ES lists a projected
1985 production from these lands of 35.7 million tons, based on LPDO compilatior
(Table 2-28) The LPDO non-Federal coal production forecasts are contained in a
particularly opaque flection cf the LPDO report. Also, the figures cited in
Table 2-44 do not appear anywhere in that report. It appears that information
on al_l^ existing and planned mining was derived by LPDO from three sources:
DOE mining plans, die DERC survey of utility company contracts and FEA's Western
Coal Development Monitoring System. (LPDO pp. 60, (>1) Next a low range and a
high range were developed. The low range was based on raining plans filed with
Interior; the high range was based on a Blight modification of a 1977 National
Coal Association survey of new mines and major expansion plans. (LPDO, pp. 61,
62) These ranges — which ate not listed in the LPDO report— were then used to
develop projections about where new mines would be located. The figure of
35.7 million cons in 1985 from non-Federal mines does not appear to play any
role at all in these calculations.
Doubts over this mysterious figure increase when it becomes obvious From
checking through the multitude of charts, that this represents a significant
decrease in non-Federal, non-Indian coal production. Total Western coal produc-
tion in the six Western states for 1977 was 118,400 million Cons (Table 2-flA) .
Federal production was 51,600 million tons (Table 2-8), Indian coal production
in the six Western states was 11.5 million tons (DES 2-34), state coal leases
produced 7.6 million tons (Table 2-26) — It Is not clear how they are categorized
Private coal accounted for either 55.3 or 47.9 million tons— depending on how
state leases are categorized. Yet in 1985, in the midst of the great coal boom,
private coal production in the six Western states la projected to fall by nearly
20 million tons a year.
After the Draft ES skims through the derivation of these estimates, they
are agglomerated in Tables 2-29 and 2-30. Table 2-29 shows that total planned
and likely production for 1985 is In excess of the 1985 medium scenario and
Within 16 million tons of the 1985 high scenario. In Table 2-30, the picture
Is markedly different for 1990. Total planned and likely production now fall3
150 million tons short of the 1990 medium projection and 412 million tons short
Of the DOE high projection.
This shortfall seems significant. But further analysis of the supply figures
costs serious doubt on the size and significance of the shortfall. Production
potential does not incude approximately 160 million tons per year from under-
ground PRLA's without legal or environmental problems {Table 2-23). When
some increase of this potential is added, the shortfall under the medium scenario
is significantly reduced.
Even underground PRLA's leave a major shortfall in meeting the 1990 high
projection. Above, we have indicated some reasons why that projection is not
credible. But assuming the existence of conditions which call forth the demand
for such massive amounts of Western coal, it is ludicrous to imagine that private
and Indian production (today a majority of production .with 66.8 million tons)
would stand still while total regional production was growing by a factor of seven,
AN OVERVIEW OF COAL SLTPLV AM) DEMAND
The analysis in Chapter Two suffers from two fatal flaws; future demand
is overstated, supply from existing and non-Federal leases Is underestimated and
undocumented. Thus, the analysis presents a picture of the future which is
It portrays a future in which demand for Western skyrockets and must be met Trom
new Federal leases.
The Final ES would benefit from a significant reworking of both demand and
supply projections. At a minimum, DOE model runs should be undertaken with
proper assumptions and the DOE analysis should take into account the inherent
biases of the DOL model and make appropriate corrections. The supply projections
merit a mine-by. mine discussion of existing Federal lenses and PRLA's (this
need not he published in Tull, Sumnary statistics and explanations will suffice,
but the backcvoiind material should be available). In addition, bettor methods
are needed to neeure reliable information on Indian, state and private production.
-30-
Chi
ptei
11
Five of
I IMPACT ASSr
BSHKST OF PR0CRAM ALTEK.
AT IVES
ironmental
imp
the DI'.S purp
srrs to evaluate the en
acts of
the prefer
red
attentat
v, and .sever
J other options. We b
lleVo
this
ana
lysis is
deficient
for
. number
or ,„Mn8,
To „„„.,„::,;
(1)
The
pro
re is no rMlOIWll has
luction projection* i
preferred program, t
iduals Which makes up
k described or explain
to regional production
e basis of liic analy.il
most of the OflBCflSTHtnC
d for
projet
of or
.•r the
Elans
viroi
'ti
ig cm;
dt-r
Lai
tives.
(2) The description of altorn.
(3) The actual envj ronraeiital ,
DOg-POI "Pita
national ci
tlon" 1ms i
.Untivo analysis.
rational hoslp
ut inadequate.
>« faulty.
I faults and the
The pri
cipal i
t of chapter five's environmental assessment is
the determination of environmental residu als which reault from various coal produ.:
tion levels and patterns identified by the Department in Tabic 5-2 and Appendix 1!.
These production projections arc somehow derived from Department of Energy project
The process for converting from DOE to DOI projections Is entirely conjectural.
Appendix h could not explain the basis of the conversion, and Departmental persona,
were hard pressed to explain it in public meetings. Ona of the reasons for the
adjustments is well justified — ttu inaccuracy of the DOE projections as described
in these comments, supra. However, the adjustments do not reflect what we believe I
rational attempts to correct DOE's errors. For example. Powder River production
projections are untouched by DOI's adjustments, except for the 1985 High Powder
River estimate, which is actually 70 million tons higher than DOE's estimate!
Further comparing Tables 5-2 (DOI projections) and 2-29 (DOE estimates),
we find that Interior's estimates for 19B5 production exceed DOE's forecasts in
five regions and throughout the West by 145 million tons, (high level). In 1990,
the DOI medium and high estimates each exceed DOE's in three regions and throup.hout
the West by 94 million tons for the high level. When asked about these Jnconslstc
K-110
31-
at the
Denver, Colorado DES
hea
ring, Departmental personnel indicated that the
Coal Ma
nap.ement Office had
■rbl
trarily
ad jus ted some of rhe projections in order
to ooze
rve what wo uld happ
o thee
virnnmental impacts. Based on this
e.plana
Lion, we believe thu
t tfe
tions do not actually indicate the regional
product
Ions which could be
expc
cted under the preferred alternative, or for that
natter
any other program.
Her
re, the
environmental loadings which result from
appllca
lion of the Coal Imp
act
Estimation Program (CIEP) to these production
project
ion. d. »< r»pr„..
t tl
. envir
nmental impacts of the preferred program.
Prior t
a analysis ot the pi
cfoi
red alt
inative. the Department must Mtfl clearly
eXplair
the process for din
aSS
(.•gat ion
and conversion beyond the description provided
in H.2
2 to allow a more hc
cur
LB plct
Jre of the actual regional production targets
Uld thi
s the impacts result
ins
ihcrefr
..
Alterni
The analysis of alte
rna
Ives Ik
insufficient in a number of respects.
The mo
t crucial la th:.t al
UT
nttves
to the preferred alternative arc not
■■whole
" or "integral" pro[
r.„
but on
ly pieces of the preferred alternative. I t
is more likely that some ct
mbi
ation 0
f alternatives must be applied because of
variou
federal laws and court
decinio
as. The most likely option which door, not
requir
immediate leasing i
..
comb inn
tion Of the no leasingalternative with a
.,«„
of the preferred I
let
native.
in vhich the department ittempts to upgrade
land use planning and mult
pi*
ource data during an initial no-leasing or
even cmerKency-le.i5ir>P.-only period.
LIU
s prlnc
coal t
lease7" Additlona
■I
ernativ
es must evaluate alternative methods for
environmental protection a
d land mann
(cfflCtVt. The DES makes a brief stab at this
analysts, but falls short.
{■
g., 5.4
) It establishes such extreme nuhal ternatives
as to
reelude meaningful
val
ation.
For example, it suggests controlling the
method
of mining on Fcdera
1c
scs to
require the use of deep mining or alternatively
""
s no mine plan cont
ols
at all,
As a result, it languishes in a legal debate
-32-
instead of evalu
ating a
legally
acceptabl
■It
trnati
/e which wo
aid fall
s< -'here
between these two extren
es. For
example,
eco
aid su
Igest the 1
easing o
o certain
mix of lease properties to rcsul
in an unconstrained market. Th*
er d
cep ml
t that
ling than i
by 1990, u
s likely
nder the
medium
DES poin
sou
level scenario,
only BZ
of western reserv
swi
1 be
ieep-mlncd
(p. 5-127) despite
the fact that dl
ep reset
ves mak.
up 561 o
the
re.ou
tee coal of
the Mis
is.lppi.
(See Table 2-3)
Evalu.
tion of
trends in
■DM
weste
rn product!
on regio
s would
probably reveal
e extreme dlscrep
nci*
R. The
DES docs n
ot cons!
er the
leasing uf trac
b which
would U
dee
ad to future tn
f„i„E
-quivalent
to 562 o
production.
Similar lj
. the d
senior
of contr
1 of
ad
end-use gel
s bogged
down in
a legal argumen
, avoid
uhstantiv
dls
CU„iO
n of the pr
5 of end-use
regulation. Eve
n if th
departr
one's log
1 H
utlon
is proper,
it should evaluate
the option, sine
e CEQ gi
ideline
require
he c
valuation of alte
rnatlves
even outside
Che jurisdlctior
of the
decislo
-making agency
. »„r
eover, the
DES igno
es that
the Department «
ay have
jorisdi
tion to contra
1 end-
use In many
cases.
This would
■"■<, !-' *m
la, whs
e the 1
cuat
oraer p
reposed mi,
c-ranuth
generation
or energy conve
Bion using the
cased coa
, wh
ch conv„rRi
on facil
Ltiflj would
require rights-c
[-«., .
federa
surface.
Con
dition
s could the
n bo pin
;ed not only
on the lease, b
t also
n the r
ght-of-w,,
I per
mlts.
There ar
sever a
altern
fves or
urogram sub
alternative
s which
r.ould be
evaluated which
These
might inc
lude
someo
r 911 of tl
e follow
Ing".
(1) purchase or
condemn
tion of
existing
Least
s. (2)
Use of exchange ou
rhorlty in
SMCRA for alluv
al volley floor
. (3) Use
of 1
and us
e managemer
t tools
to protect
areas of critic
1 envir
nmentol
concern i
aexi
sting
leases. Ir
particu
lar, FLPMA
did not subject
protect
on of s
ch areas
tov*
lid ex
isting rigf
, such
protections may
be applied if t
ey do not
amov
the taking
of propt
rty. (A) The
revision of lea
e terms
for env
ronmental
pro
ectior
or other f
urposes
for lease
renewals prior
o 198b.
(5) Executing th
alidat
ion of leg
Uy aues
tlonable
PRLAs. This pos
Ibillty
la t
ot inc
Integra
1 part of the
preferred alternative. In addition, the DES does not evaluate the possibility of
applying existing or new FLPMA land use plans to existing leases in which existing
lease conditions provide for maximum protective land manager discretion and may
allow the application of new land management protections.
Another alternative Is oTTered by Section 20C of FI-1'MA. In order Lo efficiently
develop State leases and leases held in checkerboard land, the Department could
explore the exchange of lands, in a program coordinated with each state, so as to
create logical mining units whore present leosc-hoidings are not appropriate for
economic development. Potential benefits of such a provision would be increased
flexibility, distribution of unavoidable social impacts and costs, and a possible
tool to obviate ths need for hoste. This option, upon evaluation, may not be
an appropriate basis of a coal program or even feasible, but it and other
alternatives should be addressed.
auegtlonntjle ftnvlPonmtnt»l analysis
In Addition, Ltic asaumptlrjns on which the nnviJ'uninoni.ii]
analysis is bar.ed <>•■•.■ in&dcuuftSc, .'last ner>loua, the Packer stmiy
of success in reclamation is extronely questionable. Packer's
estimates Pre mysterious sc hoot, for scveivil reasons. First,
no derivation for Pecker's time-frans ft$ftl«wfiM is presented,
either by Packer, or in Che DKJ ':-"i 7) Thir; r.r.y be due to the
fact that Pae&er's study was written in «arly 1974, nnd
according to packer, the earliest reclamation efforts wore
berjun in 19GA, and abandoned in 1971, due to lack of suc-
cess (Packer, p. 22). The second oldest, and lonsest-n-nnin*
effort wag bosun in 1967, less L'h.in seven gKowitlfj sorcons be-
fore the wrlttnj; of the su;u!y. Second, no iwT: wil done on the
nutritional value of the plw.ts Lh?t hCd been produced, and
no crazing had been allowed on any Significant areas, tte mention
is made of the fact that artificially fertilizing soils may
result in their premature exhaustion of usefulness. There was
simply no basis on which to determine either the value of
the "rehabilitated" areas as ranjeland which is capable of
supporting anir^al use, or Che lon^-tem productivity of the
rehabilitated areas.
Information on these vital aspects of rehabilitate
is conspicuously absent from the draft ES. The Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act requires that land be restored to
"a condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable
of supporting prior to any mining. .." (§515(b) (2) .) Packer's
objectives for rehabilitation were not that broad; they were
K-lll
-35-
primariiy the restoration of vegetative condirions, with no
end-use considerations specified. Packer states chac almost all
surface mined land can be rehabilitated within 15 years. But
the Study Committee of the Ha Clonal Ac '-Cray of Sciences found
that rehabilitation of the drier otter y take decades, or
even centuries to occur naturally, with the evolution of a
stable succession, And, rs the NAS pointed opt, " [rehabilitation
of mined lends, however, requires more thrn ccheivin?, a stable
growth of plants. If environmental degradation is to be avoided,
the plants tSiOtaeelvas should be a mixture of native species
capable of Buatoinlng the fonncr native animals.. . .Environmental
protection also requires finding nesns to avoid the intact of
surface ninin™ on surface water an'j ground water. Pertinent data
for rehabilitating mined land in ways that will promote wild-
life, aesthetics, erosion control, and water quality are virtually
nonexistent. The necessary research has barely begun." (Rehab-
ilitation Potential of Western Coal Lands, National Academy of
Sciences, 1974, pp. 2-3). The study cormlctec concluded that some
sites could be rehabilitated "with a high probability of success,"
some with lower probabilities of success, and some "cannot be
rehabilitated at all on the basis of what we know today." (p. 53).
In relation to the use of fertilizer, it is in-
portant to realise that the value of soil arnndr.i2nts is v?ic!e!y
variable. Some treatments, for example, will increase the yield
of plant production, but uecrocse the nutritional value. Since
an animal will only eat a limited quantity, the net result may
be negative. Further, the relation of one elemsnt to another,
and of all elements to fill others, is critically important.
The potential for rehcV nation is dependent on local, site-
specific factors. The d- f*e SIS attempt to determine rehabili-
tation success on a regional basis, theicfore, can have little
meaning.
The time estimates for reclamation, based on
Packer's ur--vealed derivations, are presented quite optimisticnlly.
It is p.ene' y agreed that available moisture is the bigge.^;:
limitlng factor in reestablishmenl: of durable plant cover in
many areac, end especially in the Northern Great Plains and
Southwestern areas. Should drought recur, as is virtually certain,
the losses nay be extensive. "Because precipitation is small,
and potential evaporation is great, this area is always delict i.ely
balanced, even in wet years, on the brink of drought." (North
Dakota Geological Survey: Geologic, Hydrologic, and Gcochemlcdl
Concepts and Techniques in Overburden Characterization for Uined-
lsnd Reclamation, by I-Joran, Groenewold, and Cherry, 1978, p.l)
The data used by Packer, and the Department of the Interior, are
for precipitation. But precipitation does not equal available
moisture for plant use. Trelease, ec al.( 1970, Uater Resource
Series #19, Consumptive Use of Irrigation Water in Wyoming, Water
Resources Institute, U. of Wyoming) note chat fewer than half of
the years achieve mean prcceipication. Does that indicate that
fewer than half of the reclamation estimates are credible?
About 307. of the annual precipitation is never absorbed ac the
ground surface to become effective toll moisture, due Co
sublimation of snow, interception of growing season precipi-
tation, and runoff from thunderstorms.
Considering that actual input to soil moisture
is therefore 30}; less than the figures used by Packer, and only
that much in good years, the rehabilitation potential estimates
are certainly skewed in favor of the coal industry. For instance,
Packer flfiatae, On p. 13, that Campbell County, Wyoming, has
stripprble coal lands which receive 16 inches of precipitation
in the amount of 09, 325 acres, and 29,778 acres which receive
13 inches of precipitation. 166,375 acres, the remainder of the
coal lands in Che county, receive U or fewer inches. But from
the plrnt's point of view, this means that fl9,395 acres receive
11.2 inches, 29,793 acreas receive 10.5 inches, and the remainder
receives 9.B inches or less.
Because of the lack of experience at the time
Packer's study was written, It is clear that he was forced to
roly on theory, in fact, one of the purposes of the study was co
test the cheory against the available experience. It did fairly
well, if one does not include as faccors Che extensive use of
fertilizers and irrigation. Even now, there is a maximum of 11
growing seasons from which Co extrapolate, and the majority of
those areas which have been reclaimed (or not, depending on the
definition applied) have been treated in some way, judging by
Packer's study.
One of the issues overlooked by the DEs
is Che lack of understanding of the effects of the use of
fertilizers and irrigation. As an example, it is well known
Chat trace elements are mobile to varying decrees in soil, and
one of the factors which is most Important is the pH of the
soil water, and the quantity of the soil water. Boron and
cadmium. vary in mobility as a function of pH. In the neutral'
and alkaline soils, these elements are relatively immobile,
and do not comprise a hazard to grazing animals. But addition
of fertilizers and moisture in excess of naturally occurring
amounts will change the leeching characteristics and rates,
hydrogen ion concentrations, and the development of the soil
profile such that elemental mobility can be greatly increased
and potentially toxic plants produced. But wo do not know what
the chemical characceriscics of mine Spoils are, as is pointed
out elsewhere in these comments, and we do noc know whether the
acidification of soil may in a given case be desirable, to decrease
the mobility of elements which are more dangerous at higher pH.
Nor do we know che effects of the interactions between the
fertilizer and the trace elements that may be present. (Curry
Biogeochemical limitations on western reclamation
1975>- Soil acidification can result in many ways that
are not readily predictable, and can have significant effects
upon future productivity. An example of this is interaction be-
tween nitrogen-fixing bacteria and nitrogen added as fertilizer.
The resulcing increase in hydrogen ions may force release of
available nutrient cations, such as calcium, magnesium, and
potassium, from storage sites. This could produce greacly stim-
K-112
ulatcd plant growth at the time of occurrence, and may result
In depleted soil values subsequently, Then, another application
of fertilizer ir, required, and the vicious cycle is underway.
(Curry, Biogcodiemieal Limitation on Vies tern Reclamation -
The High Northern Great Plains Example, pp. 13-47 in Practises
and Problems of Land Reclamation in Western Hortb America,
Mohan E. Mali, Kd., 1975).
Another important factor in that fertilizers and
irrisation may change the botanical composition of the area of
effect. This may result in fine-looUing stands of vegetation
for publicity, but they stay not last if the treatments ore
ended, tlhen the artificial support terminates, adjustments will
be required, possibly in direct proportion to the amount of
time elapsed under the artificial stimulation , or possibly
shorter or longer, Ue don't know, It is probable that some
sites will be delayed in restoration by current applications of
artifical support, with resultant development of anomalous levels
of production end depletion of soil nutrients which may be in
very short Supply.
The extent of knowledge and experience with re-
clamation techniques will not support the statements made. It is
closer to the truth to obsei-ve that the question of whether any
areas can comply with the requirements of SMCRA is still open.
-40-
Rcclaraatlon potential Is not the only shortcoming In the DES's analysis.
The use of Water Resources Council (WRC) projections for water use leads to major
problems which negate the usefulness of the entire water consumption assessment.
In particular, the WRC projections include a certain level of development of
western energy resources which may or may not Include that related to the development
of federal leases. As result, there Is the difficulty of "double counting" water
consumption impacts, rendering WRC data useless. It would be possible to only
evaluate water consumption residualo, comparing them among the various scenarios and
program alternatives. However, without a baseline water consumption and supply
analysis, there is no way to evaluate the effects of the alternatives on existing
and projected water uses outside the energy sector. At the very least, though, the
WRC analysis of "Calculated Flow with Normal Development," appearing on Tables 5-15
seasonal
e[ "eg., indicate that there are expected water deficits even without double counting
the effects of energy development in some western regions at least during dry years.
This would essentially mean diversion of water from existing or historic uses during
such periods or the requirement of new water storage construction, a secondary impact
not evaluated by the DES. Without, however, some method of disaggregating energy
from non-energy data in the WRC model, there lo no meaningful way of evaluating
and comparing alternatives on the basis of water consumption.
Socioeconomic impacts are relegated to insignificance by the environ-
mental residual methodology of the DES. By their very nature, these impacts are
local but extreme. The DES prefers to ignore the isolation of extreme Impacts to
very local populations, preferring to sum population and employment Impacts over vast
tracts of land which have no relevance to the evaluation of aocial impacts. For
example, the Powder River region includes thirteen counties, but residents indicate
that most development has concentrated and can he expected to Concentrate in the
future on Campbell county. The Denver-Raton Mesa region includes the Denver metro-
politan area, yet most of the industry interest is in the Raton Mesa area in relatively
underpopulated southern Colorado, certainly outside of the major portion of the
-41-
1,9 nlllion population att
ibuted to the coal producing re
st
n. In
each case, comparing
cool related population in
reases to a 1975 baseline vM.cY
i
eludes
the entire
region makes absolutely no
analytic sense- Any popul.itlor
■should be
compared to baseline popul
tion in the locally affected cc
Hi tics
Individual Iv.
A programme tic statement m
y not be able to evaluate each
an
every
community, but
could certainly indicate 1
k,l, i..P«l„ fa OM ««. i.„.,r
»,,
commu
nities in the
affected regions.
Similarly, Impacts
on state and local expenditure.
«
v,- bee
n diluted by
considering only the impac
In comparison with total budg
IS
of ol]
state and local
governmental units. A 1990 impact on governncnt pxpendit
r.
in Colorado seems
miniscule, but in real ter
« the S16 to 33 million will b
«
»tly s
pent by local
communities with budgets which are presently almost itivifl
el
In a related facto
-, only land disturbance caused
by
the pr
usence of mining
operations, beneficiation,
conversion, use and transporta
10
1 of CO
ll has been
considered. This is unaccc
-■table. Surface rninine of coal
essari
ly requires human
involvement, as reflected
Ln projected population increases.
Houev
er, areas which
will be temporarily or permanently disturbed for residential
rcial, industrial
and governmental structure
i, ancillary support structures
»
ecreati
on, and corridors
for the service and utilit
.es of such populations have he
•
.gnorec
. Stating that
the multiplicity of site-
specific factors which would di
a
«g„ MBttUi
to such developments" Ten-
uts quantification "beyond the
cope of this document"
i, not , .cemmt of «vl
"onmental impact. It may be no
ed
that t
esidential dcvclop-
oent has traditionally tak
«, plac „ th« b„t .,rlnu»,
lands,
becausc that is
where towns have been hist
urically located. Expansion of
ax
isting
urb.n ««., to
serve energy booms will on
.y expand the agricultural loss
On Trace Elements
Although the draft E3 for the preferred pro-
gram mentions their existence four times and supplies a
table of air pollution emission factors for 22 of them, trace
elements arc basically ignored. Their effect on the environ-
ment, hov>~ver, may be as largfl as any other effect, and way
well be more devastating in the long run. Trace ele;a;nts ere
single chemical elements. These element:: are very seldom found
in a pure isolated etate; they are usually monatoraic and ionic,
and are found in compounds. Some compounds, such as organic
mercury compounds, are far more toxic than others, such as
Inorganic mercury compounds, Eut there is great variation in
this. The extent of our knowledge of trace element chemistry
and biochemistry is miniscule, despite episodes such as the
mercury poisoning in Hinimata, Japan. A complicating factor
there was the unknown biological transformation from inorganic
to organic forms of mercury. But it must be emphasized that
most of the damage done so far by trace elements is never
identified; sub-clinical brain damage, for example, is almost
impossible to diagnose (and it is also irreversible).
The unkown, and currently unknowably large
mobilisation and release of trace elements which will be a
necessary result of the proposed coal scheme will have effects
at both ends of the process. First, unknown quantities of
trace elements with unknown effects will be exposed to the
biosphere by mining. Second, unknown quantities of trace
elements with unknown effects will be exposed to the biosphere
K-113
by combustion of coal and the resulting air emissions and by
dispersions from other wastes, such as various types of ash and
scrubber sludge, and so forth.
The critical points are that: (A) we do not know
how much o£ a threat is posed in the short term or the long term;
(B) trace elements, by definition, do not degrade or go away -
they may be attached to other elements or compounds with varying
effects, but the only mitigation of the threat is immobilization
in such a way as to take them out of circulation; and (C) as a hint
of things to come, it follows from the cable on p. 5-54 that the
burning of one million tons of cofll will result in the air pollution
emission of 1,377.8 tons of the 22 trace elements in the table.
A table of selected elements and their toxicities
is reported by Gough and Shackleue, U.S.G.5., 1976. Much of the
data is in parts per million, abbreviated ppm. To grasp the idea of
a part per million, visualize a football field, 30 by 100 yards,
Then build a metaphorical swimming pool chat size and fill It to
a depth of five feet. To add one part per million to the pool, add
very slightly more than one gallon.
The possible effects of trace element poisoning
are inestimable at this time. Contamination of soil by air, surface
water and groundwater pollution may have beneficial effects, or no
effect, or may permanently damage the soil for use by plants or by
animals consuming the plants. Contamination of plants, regardless of
soils, may be toxic to animals. Contamination of ground and surface
waters, by direct exposure doe to mining or atmospheric pollution
may be toxic to irrigated lands, either tamed lately or in the long
materials, ground and surface waters, and plants. The first major
goal is to determine the extent of sampling required to perform
the task, and that has been a major goal in itself.
The importance of this information is tremendous.
As Illustrated by the table on p. 5-54, we have an idea of Che air
emissions from coal fired power plants. The U.S.C.S. appears Co be
the lead agency in the determination of impacts in areas near coal
mines. Information on the chemical character of coal overburden is
especially important for two reasons. First, the available infor-
mation for one mine, the Black Thunder mine, which may be the only
available information of its kind, shows that the coal itself is
relatively low in trace elements compared to the strata directly
above and below the coal scara. (This mine is in the GilleCCc, Wyo-
ming area.) Therefore it Is critical to know if this is the case
at other mines, and if so, whether these strata should be isolated
from groundwaters, as well as surface leaching and revegetation
attempts. Second, mining of the coal will alter forever the exis-
ting aquifer structure. Aquifers may reestablish themselves, but
they will not be separated by the coal seam. Aside from the loss
of seeps and springs flowing from the upper aquifers, we must find
out what will be present in the surviving aquifer. We do not know
what the long-range effects of the aquifer's use will be. We do
not even know what would be significant. Further, the chemistry of
groundwater and surface sediment is extremely complex and appears
to be largely unknown for trace elements.
The variability of naturally occurring trace elements
run, and to anlmn feeding on contaminated vegetation, as well
as to humans thro; water supplies, it has been proposed quite
seriously that the Roman Empire's decline and high rates of sub-
normality, especially among the upper classes, may have been due
to widespread use of lead in pipes, the lining of aqueducts, and
cooking and drinking vessels. We simply do not know what the effects
may be.
It is alao known chat almost all of the trace elements
are affected, in terms of availability, by such factors as Soil and
water pH. Further, the synergistic toxicity of these elements is a
factor that is known to exist, but known to Che extent of prediction
of possible consequences of proposed activity. The research needed
to determine the effects of this particular proposed activity is
sorely Lacking. The drift ES apparently takes che position that
Cwo populations should be the most severely affected guinea pigs.
These groups are the stockmen and farmers of the West, and the
urban air-breathors of cities with coal-fired power plants. Of
course, there is no group chat will not be affected, as measure-
ments of lead levels in Arctic and Antarctic snow fall demonstrate,
but it appears that these two groups will be the first and hardest
hit. No effort is made Co inform the public of chis, by the CES
A LOOK AT AVAILABLE INFORMATION
What we don't know is truly Impressive. The U.S.C.S.
has undertaken the Geochemical Survey of Western Energy Regions to
try to determine the geochemistry of the area: overburden, surface
is quite wide. This is due in large measure to the variability
of their occurrence in the parent rocks which are transformed into
soils, as well as other factors. In 60ils Of the Powder River Basin,
there is fairly small variation between surface soils (0-2.5 cm.
depth) and subsurface soil (15-20 cm. depth) (Anderson, Keith and
Connor, 1975). But there may be significant differences beti-.-een the
A and C horizons of the soil (Tidb.ili and Severson, 1976). The
number of samples requiicd to map the variation in soil level* of
trace elements at the A and C horizons ranges from 5 to indefinitely
large, for relatively small areas. This mesns that there will have
to be extensive sampling in any mine site to determine the levoli;
of trace elements in the upper soil horizons alone.
In terms of availability to plants, it is reported
that little success is achieved in the use of standard agronomic
extraction techniques for the measurement of soil characteristics.
(Severson, McNeal and Gough, 1978.) Therefore, either a technolo-
gical breakthrough is required, or standard, low-cost analyses will
have to be supplemented by full-scale chemical analyses.
The chemistry of water associated with coal areas
is highly variable, as is the amount of trace elements In sediments
of surface streams. (Keith, Anderson, McNeal and Boerngen, 1976;
Van Voast, Hedges, and KcDermott, 1978, U.S.C.S Water Resource In-
vestigation 77-80, 1977.) There has not been sufficient time to
determine the long-range effects of destruction of aquifera and
their reestablishment in radically altered chemical environments,
such as may be found in mine spoils.
K-114
Mine spoils will be used to reclaim land, and
therefore questions have been raised concerning the suitability
of this material for revegetation and restoration to the full use
of the land which occurred prior to mining, as required by SMCRA.
To determine the trace element concentrations and variability in
mine spoils from a particular; mine, it may be necessary to take
more than 30 samples within a 25 square meter area (Severson, 1978),
■ or aa few as five samples for some elements. Only then would one
have an idea of what was actually present in that specific area.
Note that simply covering the mine spoils with
topsoil may very veil be inadequate. There is no solid information
on the long-range success of this technique, in terms of SMCRA-
level rehabilitation, although topsoil dressing of spoil piles msy
produce vegetative cover and minimize erosion. Water movement within
mine spoil piles is not well understood, but it is known that water
moves upward, as well as downward, and laterally in mine spoils
(Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Report No. 114 , 1973),
Mine spoils vary significantly from mine to mine; indeed, there
18 even variation between different areas of the same mine (Erdman
and Ebens, 1975).
The molybdenum content of sweet clover growing
on mine spoils was measured. "Coal mine spoils are geochemically
anomolous when compared to naturally occurring surficial materials
(Sandoval and others, 1973). Despite the increasing practise of
top-soiling contoured spoil banks, we find evidence that these
anomolies are being reflected in the element composition of vege-
tation growing on the modified substrata." It is concluded that
the molybdenum concentration in sweet clover growing on mine spoils
ifl "probably sufficiently high to induce metabolic imbalances in
cattle and possibly sheep in subclinical, if not acute, levels
assuming the animals were to feed predominantly on this legume.1*
(Erdmand and Ebens, 1976.) A later report stated:
It is difficult to arrive at a consensus
from the literature for critical levels
of Mo and MOtCw ratios, but five ppm for
Mo and a ratio of 2:1 are reasonable as
being critical for cattle. It thus seems
that at least five [of the eight] mines
[surveyed] could present some management
problems with regard to cattle operations.
(Erdman, 1973.)
Sweet clover is a very popular plant for rehabili-
tation use because of its high nutritional value, and high rate of
success, among other factors. The most popular plant for reseeding,
in 1960 and probably to date, is crested wheatgrass. It dominates
the revegetated spoil banks at many mines and was sampled from re-
claimed spoils, as well as comparatively normal soils, at the
Dave Johnston Mine in Converse County, Wyoming, Concentrations
of cadmium, cobalt, fluorine, uranium, and zinc ranged from 1407.
to 400% higher in the spoil-grown wheatgrass than in the control
area. Conversely, phosphorus in the spoil-grown grass was only
about two-thirds that of the control. "It is clear from these re-
sults that a substrate of reclaimed spoil material can affect the
trace element chemistry of crested wheatgrass." (Erdman and Ebens,
1976.)
A final hint of things to come is supplied by
the U.S.C.S. studies of power plant trace element pollution of
surrounding soils and plants. Big sagebrush, lichens, and Indian
ricegrass growing downwind from coal-fired power plants have all
shown increased levels of various trace elements, although the
extent of information on this is qul£« limited. (Connor, Anderson,
Keith and Bosrngcn, 1976; Anderson end Keith, 1976; Cough and
Erdman, 1976; Connor, Keith and Anderson, 1976.) Several base-
line studies ntar preoperational power plants will allow collection
of more data in the future, but the techniques for determining the
effects of power plant emissions aro still being developed. In
fact, knowledge of trace element behavior in power plants la still
embryonic.
Overall, what we can say is this: There are still consider-
able uncertainties regarding the total Impacts and specific quanti-
fication of trace elements. However, much is already known regard-
ing the trace element contamination of some western coals. Also,
there is sufficient information available to arouse considerable
caution regarding the biological impacts of the dispersal of such
toxic materials. The DES does not address this topic with sufficient
detail. It does not even indicate the uncertainties which may
mandate the need for specific baseline data accumulation for
toxic elements and land use planning responsive to such data.
This discussion raises the question of need for more
extensive baseline data studies on other environmental impacts
and conditions. Such data, largely deficient today, would Include
water and groudwater chemistry, hydrology, meteorology, geochemistry,
soils, and like factors necessary for adequate land us*e" planning.
-Ju-
YflffCe £l£M£*r-€Mrt$io#s pg&n
CoMBv.sTte'S <*P OMt
/>f/LUM
7Mi- of Co-fit-^ DcHl/efi
ftolM Fl^vRfS
&tt#V oa> ?A6i S-S1 eP FCmP DBIS.
i)£l!llS(/o.V fUCTbKS tmvtfa M j/lOi&^u. CWrt SjMGljl
•J A be
jtt2oo Bttjll. Co»**niM*t%
— , ftVO 1UOUSA Pi 7/rtf-r 11 2oO&/u/l!>
= 22,VOp,o*o S/«./Vo
« =■ 22,
fxieb 8fw/j**. 7 Aw/.^
^ U,H (,m
monkery qranu per
lo^sf* -£?'*« j jwfon. j>W
B/XtiSK-flJ fiKFoft il fZetU/KO
/AJ COIMM
vX-. Cg flats fat Tf
/j Pieniu'iQ /-o Coivt
<*>JI.
2) MVLTlPlY Ctms W To*/ SY 0*< 1"
j.*on rt- coMfurt tjX/>,
<ti ft* «
IU,te*> toMS. blv/Ot- CJ&tHsAp.
PtlLUeiTOVJ
By Vs3i (rtm-m <-f
,gttU Pt-i r<we) rh cubtPtift hmM/iS of twUffj fY-< tt/LttMl
To^sof Co*
- gtamt. vii-st cntt/vr
ATleUj i.t*r St Haiti iiu
(W£ Jfr*
•■ n (r.rcM I jhh *wj ^'/"W »«c
ftlti.M «,
+J.&. AjviJtJ L. Vjrs.t- • n \b<x,,*vj - iss.t, - n
2tiai. saxr. 2l2.o-f.£~azr
Is +1\C c**
?t?rt fi</t.L/o*J 7biJJ
CJ- £ « M^lfipl^
Jfrjtt
Cot. 2HI ptivA>0S 0/=
€Hiisi/oAJS
ofi CaAL. QuAutb,
EUMt-vT e.w/Jj/e*' fUtroR
<jZAMS ft-A Tot/
Pou*>D3 Pe-X MttltOtU 7TM/J
(mm#£)
(cut,** n)
(wwa)
AH f mow
0.1 o
1.H&
1,8 J US
MStA/it
1.2
1 <}./ t
t V, / 1 ? .s
PjORUIM
I &.2
i S 1.1 &
1 1 ? .Si D.S
tyRYltfOM
0.0 9 9
2.1/ T (,
1,t 8 6.9
BCR.O/S
2.1 7
ff^.3 z- fi
1 1 1 ,1 fs.s
Cadmium
O.o o I
0.0 2. J. V
i 1.V
Cjf-Olt/Jt
L.Y6
i VJ'./J'Z
i 0. o 0 o a _a
Cf/X&tlitti
O.llf
/ 3 .1 ? ? v
5 0,i 1 V.B
^ CogfiLT
0.1 1 1
i 3 i s t,
1,10 O.I
CoppeR
O.Sf ?
1 2..ZS-Z&
17,01 2.3
plUuE/f/£
3.2 2.
? V 3 (• 6
1 4 I 1 S o .i.
LCAO
0.3 6
f,y ' 2
1 £Jl>S,1
fttMB&MSS*
l.o 1
yr,2 y e
1 1 ,? S3 .1
Meficv/ty
O, o o ft /
0,/JUC
3 o 1,1
Mitmj,
ft/ 9 1
( i.y / #*
2. J ,S H CX
Seutftw
0.0 8 9
/J9U
V 3 9 S.I
TCLLoXtUfl
o.o y
0.69 &
1 ,1 1 r.S
THALLlutf
O.o I
0.1 1 V
i 1 J .8
fttt
0.0% i.
o.6 o b y
/ ,? ? ?.S
flfntitort
s, 6,
3 v ?.y y
? ? o,% ? o.V
S/ An/a pi m
l.o?
5J.H5
S Z,8 3 ?.r
El£Mt-*>fS ont
o.y?
ma tvcLvot /hi/mi
ve/rl &Xomt*J(
2. y, / 1 ?.s
2t? s t ,2 1 ss poouc
Z/SrfvTrtt&li-ti
VIM, G&tiK**, t*utfMt
turn vm,
( r33??.8 TeMS)
<fyG£4t4*ftttM JTc
6*tjtf A?o*J £A#f/fS*rt
#t i>r#tu*4t
Of "TUfrCt CLtinwrj'
/~* M1<j*/*SfitM A7t
LY Sfctfffl, Pt/BSFtfoA
*s Poms mai j
tH .TTM iiJ mi Sl*&J/4$
RuaieioiHi s/uco*>, Sod/o/hi Jrecwriui" fktqsrtq
if OtJt MltlloAJ Tuj/J bf
OXJW's'i, /?*>$ Mv*tt#ous vfiftxs.
Coin..
K-115
• .::- ' :
.^gBHBUanmi
Agricultural Losses.
Losses of agricultural potential and productivity
are not addressed effectively in the draft ES. The amount of
arable and productive land in the United States In decreasing
rapidly. Colorado clone lost 1.6 million acres in the last ten
years, and is now losing approximately 300,000 acres per year,
(Rocky Mountain Kcws . Jan. 16, 1979, p. 3). Losses in more
inherently fertile states, such as California and New Jersey,
have been astronomical. The majority of 'towns, villages, and
cities in the United States were settled where they are because
of the agricultural productivity of the area in which they ore
located. Obviously, the huge expansion of urbanized are? hfifl
created monstrous losses of agricultural land of the heist quality.
This crucial development may have been overlooked, in the
light of our successes with irrigation and pctro-chenical fer-
tilization of monocroo agriculture. But the availability of
petro-chemical fertilizers is rapidly decreasing, not only
because of the depletijn of petroleum supplies, and the in-
creasing dependence on the super-intenc ivc energy use which has
characterized our economy, but because of the increased cost to
the farmers of these imported luxuries. There appears no
reason to suspect that this trend of dwindling supply and use
Will reverse in the future. At present, we have an agricultural
surplus, but for how long? Would we have that surplus without
cheap electricity for water transport, and cheap petrochcnic.il
fertilizer?
It should be noted that our agricultural
surplus is very important in stemming the rising deficits in
our international balance of trade.
But most important is the apparently overlooked
fact that agriculture is life. There is no hesitation In the
choice between eating in the dark and lighting, the problems
of being without sufficiently affordable food. The loss of
agricultural productivity may be due to temporary and rever-
sible factors, or it may be due to irreversible permanent damage
to land. The following is a brief discussion of some effects
of the proposed coal scheme; it is by no means exhaustive, and
does not reflect the depth of study that might be available from
institutions, such as the Department of Agriculture, which was
apparently not consulted in the preparation of the DES.
1. Permanent losses. The effects of soil con-
tamination with toxic trace elements, and other substances,
such as high levels of salinity, are often irreversible. If
the land can be restored, it may be at such a high cost that
the majority of potentially recoverable acreage will not be
recovered because of economic inefficiency. The figures given
on "agricultural opportunity costs" substantiate this.
Chemical-change related losses will also include
losses due to irrigation with degraded water. The cost of mt9t
and its availability are going to be radically increased, and the
water left for agricultural use nay be drastically less useful
than current supplies. This would, in turn, promote the use of
fertilizers and other chenieal amendments, which would, in turn,
further degrade the water quality.
Finally, the effects of air pollution are not
known. The trace element contaminants from the combustion of
one million tors of coal anount, for the ??. elements for which
figures are given for emission factors, on p. 3-5/;, to 2,73*, $h5,
pounds. Trace elements are discussed elsewhere in thece cofflaenfcfi;
suffice it; to say here that their effects on agricultural
productivity are not known, nor is rheir pattern of deposition
from air pollution sources, or water sources.
The effects of even sulfur oxide pollution on
agricultural productivity, and agricultural product quality,
are not known. (Final Environmental Statement, Powder River Coal
Region, U.S. Government, 1575, Vol. II .).It should be noted
that prevention of significant deterioration air quality reg-
ulations will force most of the new power plant production
farther away from demand centers than traditional location. What
this means, in fertile areas as well as marginal areas, is not
clear. But between prevention of significant deterioration for
heavily polluted areas, and preservation of pristine areas, the
middle ground is all that is left. There will be new sources
polluting a great amount of farmland, with unknown effects,
2, Permanent losses. The creation of new roads,
railroads, and aqueducts, and other fenced corridors will result
in significant losses. Severance of agricultural lands may
" ^T-
render the use of those lands left economically inefficient,
with the consequence of conversion to other uses, or abandon-
ment. Fences cause serious problems for livestock, as well as
wildlife which is compatible with livestock. The losses from
fences alone are significant already. Transportation corridors
also crest serious problems of recess to other lands, such r.r-
ELM grazing lands, and *iccecs to water. (Final Environmental
Statement, Powder River Coal Basin, 1975, Vol. II, pp. 1-S/jS -
5*5.)
3. Possibly permanent losses. The pattern of
land tenure in coal areas has already been drastically chmnti.
Ownership of grazing land, and concommiUcnt ownership of Bill
grazing rights, is changing from family ownership to corporate
ownership. The purchasers have little or no interest in agri-
culture; they are interested in the land as an investment in
future coal mining. Although they may not have removed the
land from agricultural use yet, their tenacity in maintaining
that use is more dubious than that of persons involved in ranching.
The FES on Powder River Coal region development in 1975 reported
that 60 r 100,000 acres hpd undergone this change in the four
or five years prior to the writing of that statement (p. 1-153,
Vol II). As discussed below, economically marginal operations
will be the first to sell necessary water, which may seal the
fate of a great amount of the land held by speculators.
4, Temporary Losses? The vast demands for water
which are projected will create increasing demand for a smoothly
functioning water market. Water rights are property rights, and
K-116
within the limitations of the substance itself - i.e., the
nature of return flow, and evaporation, water rights are property
rights. Current agricultural economics are hardly favorable,
and the price paid for water will inevitably rise. Thus, the
agricultural productivity which depends on saleable water will
decline. Coal mining companies will have to acquire water, and
so will municipalities, Whether removal of water from land which
depends on that water for its current agricultural productivity
will depend on whether the loss results in irreversible damrge
to the land itself. This may be expected in areas where a previous
phenonenon in the 1930'n caused crosioncl losses. Some of th->t
land has been returned to productivity, but much has been returned
only with addition of fertilisers and extensive investments in
Irrigation and other treatment. Therefore, a third category
of losses should properly be considered - lessen which can bo
undone on a temporary basis only. On the other hand, much of
the land which is removed from grating may benefit from a period
of relief from grazing, so the -picture is not all bleak.
5. Temporary losses. As a consequence of the
high wages paid to miners and construction workers, a potentially
serious proportion of the agricultural labor force will be drown
away from its present vocation. Because of mechanisation, much
of the lost labor could be replaced by modem implements. But
the marginal operations will not be able to support the capital
costs of such equipment, and land will go out of production.
The opposite side of this coin is that operations which cannot
afford equipment cannot afford to pay laborers or more skilled
personnel the wages that are being paid in the energy-development
industries. Assuming that conditions may eventually stabilize
within the same societal structure as presently exists, these
losses might be temporary.
In summation, agriculture is necessary, and the
depradacionc which it is suffering currently will be exacerbated
by the proposed coal scheme. Losses will be permanent in some
areas, and temporary in lOM areas. Long-term losses will also
be created in less noticeable ways, such as yield decreases in
response to air quality degradation in a«aa whlch aTe nov "i«ively
dean . The draft EIS fails to address these impacts.
On uranium
Recent evidence suggests that western coals
contain considerable trace amounts of uranium. The dispersal
of uranium in respirable particulates is a serious problem,
especially due to its alpha emissions which will affect the
lungs. This is a serious lmpa-ct of any program which shifts
coal production west it should ■ be addressed but Is Ignored
by the DBS.
On "Mineral Preemption".
On page 5-25, the term "preemption" of minerals
is used where the meaning is "waste and dispersion" of minerals.
In reference to the example of uranium In coal, the U.S.G.S.
Bulletins on uranium in Wasatch coals tabulate the amounts in
thousands of tons of U30S (See, e.g. U.S.G.5. Bulletin 103 "'-Ti).
In terms of trace elements, which arc primarily metals, t'
has an interesting sidelight. Be acquired ,in 1974,100% of U.S.
Strontium requirements from Mexico, Britain, and Spain. 1007.
□f our columbium came from Brazil, Malaysia, and Zaire. 98%
of our cobalt from Zaire, Belgium, Finland, Norway, and Canada.
98% of our manganese from Brazil, Gabon, South Africa, and
Zaire, making imports from those countries particularly attractive.
Other figures of interest are: Chromium, 91% imported; Aluminum,
88% imported; Fluorine, 86% imported; Mercury, 82% imported;
Nickel, 73% imported; Selenium, 63% imported; and bo forth.
(Keller, Environmental Geology, 1976, p. 313).
Our massive dependence on imported rare earths
and metals does not militate in favor of a national plan to
disperse millions of tons of them Into the atmosphere, with
unknown effects.
AltlTnatl1
If a major requirement' of a programmatic statement is to compere alternative
programs, as we believe it is, then this DES has failed. We can identify essentially
Kvo levels of analysis. The first is to identify the principal mechanisms for
determining the level of demand and establish both1 the level of leasing activity
and its distribution. The DES attempts to identify ■ limited set of production
distribution schemes and the impacts of each such scheme, but fails because the
environmental analysis Is faulty, as described In greater detail abova. It
also fails because the impact estimation methodology obviously ignores most
secondary and higher level impacts. It docs not attempt to evaluate cumulative
national impacts or even make regional tradeoff judgments which could form the
basis of determining which program alternative or combination thereof is in the
public interest.
The second level of analysis should identify the alternative program
elements which specifically relate to land or resource management and the
mitigation of environmental impacts, regardless of the level or distribution
of coal production. It is this level of analysis to which most details of
the preferred and other alternatives should be subject. However, this is
entirely omitted from the DES, with the exception of a few subalterns tlvea
which receive short shrift because of extreme assumptions. The DES simply
does not evaluate the comparative environmental Impacts of alternatives
to lands unsuitable criteria proposed by the DES or other major components of
the land management components of the program. This level of analysis also
fails because the description of alternatives is inadequate, particularly
alternatives which relate to land management issues.
K-117
-59-
IV SHORTCOMINGS IN THF. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
There ara several components included In Che Preferred Alternative (PA),
r include, very briefly, the following:
(1) land use planning
- identification of cool lands
- unsultability findings using lands unsuitable criteria (LUC)
- identification of resource tradeoffs
(2) Activity planning.
- establish regional production targets
- identify proposed lease tracts
- rank tracts
- preparation of regional FII
(3) Ceneral procedures
- E1S Strategy
- public involvement
,rt of activity planning
(4) Start-up considerations
With a feu exceptions. we will comment on these procedures and process components.
I-and use plannhic
The Federal land use planning process will be—indeed, FLPMA requires
that It must ba— the basis for all resource management, including coal leasing deelsi
That process will help identify coal lands, lands unsuitable, resource tradeoffs,
as well os provide the information necessary for the ranking of tracts and pre-
paration of the regional sale EISs. The process and the data and resource inventory
which is pnrC of the land use planning process cannot be taken lightly. It is
the very foundation on which any coal management program must be built or will fall.
Unfortunately, there is little public confidence in that land use planning proenas
as It exists today. The application of sophisticated veneers on a crumbling
foundation provides no protection Co the lands or Co the public interest. There
are three primary fallings of the existing land use planning.
First, lha data and resource inventories which support the existing
management framework plans (HFP) is outdated and unreliable. It was collected
as part of F.MARS or before. It clearly does not take into account the now data
Often we are aware of good faith, genuine efforts to use sophisticated visual or
audio-visual aids or innovative group interaction techniques. However, they often
fail because of a basic misunderstanding of the nature of public invobment In the
administrative process.
Worst of oil, the plans, including any components resulting from public
involvement, are discretionary. For example, a northwest Colorado MJT recommended
management of the Little Yampa Canyon as a candidate for Wild am] Scenic Rivar
status, but the BLM allowed construction of a railroad In the canyon anyway. In
west central Colorado, a 2200 acre short Corm lease resulted despite an MFP
recommended limit of 480 acres for such leases. Friends of the Earth, together
with the Western Colorado Resource Council and saveral other organization* have
appealed the revision of the North Fork (Colorado) >1FI\ which administrative
appeal details many problems we perceive in the existing land use process, and
which appeal we hereby incorporate by reference.
BfiK Resource Planning Regulations i)o s„t Solve rroblem»
Unfortunately, the proposed planning rules do not solve many problem.
Section 1601.5-2 state* that district managers "Shall prepare criteria to guide
development of the resource management plan . . . '• (RHp) . In olher worcls _ [oT
each of 178 RMPs , the district managers create new instructions. These are
supposed to be based on all applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations.
Hot only does this put an unfair burden on district staffs, but our experience
Rives us little confidence in the detailed legal knowledge of local BUI offices.
Even worse, the planning criteria shell be based on "Available inventory and
planning budgets and time available before resource management decisions
bo made." We believe these rules together -;ill elir.ir.ste any legally binding
weight carried by the requirements of FLPMA and will obvlace all consistency.
requirements under the provisions of FLPMA or SMCRA, particularly resource
inventory or other baseline data which would identify areas unsuitable for mining
OE not reclalmable under SMCRA or areas of critical environmental concern protected
by FLPMA. Indeed, the Acts both came after the collection of existing data.
The DES does not indicate the level of data deficiencies which have been anticipated
or discovered in the "test" applications of LUCs, but we anticipate, given our
experience with MFPs that such deficiencies are considerable. The Final ES should
report the level of data deficiencies and indicate the steps necessary to cure them
prior to imp lemen cation of the PA. In addition, we are told by colleagues in the
Northern Great Plains and in Western Colorado that surface renewable resource data
is often entirely missing from resource inventories if the surface in a split estnCe
is not federal. The district offices in question responses to citizen complaints
indicated that they only were required to inventory and plan for federal multiple
uses, thus conveniently converting coal Into a monoculture.
Second, citizen involvement in the development or revision of IfFPs has
been superficial at best. Often MFPs are unavailable or inaccessible— many times
existing only in the form of massive files. In addition, public meetings are
or give a strong flavor of MltllO (It «>«*««. For example, a 1977 meeting on four
Colorado planning units was held after only four days notivc. No copies of the MTP
were available and unanimous requests from public participant- for comment
extensions were denied because the Colorado BLM office wished to make decisions on
lease tracts within ten days. At one 1978 meeting on the South Park Colorado MFP,
Off-road vehicle enthusiasts who participated in the meeting helped inadequate
8LM personnel collate and compile comments and concerns recorded by all. participants,
conveniently forgetting (inadvertently omitting?) many conservationist concerns
in the transcription process. Meeting participants have never found any evidence
that even this information, which included several important and valuable comments,
was ever used by the Bl.M. We often gee invitations to attend meetings on MFPs
which include no hint of BUI agenda or otherwise suggest the purpose of the meeting.
-62-
Amcndraents will be allowed which respond to
nulify the effect of resource planning, (pro-
The plans will not be pi
conflicting use applications
posed rules 1601.6-3(b)).
Appeals of resource management plans (1601.6-1(0) are available onlv to
those individuals who ara "directly affected," thus favoring resource developers
over members of the public, and such appeals are only protests which do not
reach the Secretarial level for review.
Records are supposed to be maintained which only "support" conclusions
of the RMPS. (1601.7-1). Evidently conflicting data may be discarded. There
is no requirement that RMP, will he distributed free to Interested members
of the public. (1601.3(1)4(1)).
FLPMA and its legislative history make perfectly clear Clifl high
priority Congress plaeod on "prompt" or "immediate" attention to areas of
critical environmental concern. Yet, had vo not read the Act, but only the
preferred alternative and recent departmental documents, we would have guessed
that FLPMA required the prompt and immediate identification of con! lease tracts
Indeed, despite a professed departmental need for ACSC procedures, the proposed
planning rules extremely shortchange this congressional priority. The prec*dur<
outlined in draft guidelines are Skeletal at best. For example, there are no
procedures established for public petitions. Incredibly, the draft places the
additional criteria of "protectabili ty" on ACEC identification, a factor somehow
tortured out of the Act and its history. It implies that areas not possible or
economically feasible to protect shall not be Classified. This precisely
reverses the act. which clearly states that where management attention is
reqUlret1' °n ,'"'ea -— bc **««*«*• ■ The guidelines are still in draft
form and have not been proposed as regulations. Moreover, they come as an
afterthought in the FLPMA regulations and after coal management program
decisions. Interior simply has not responded to the urgency Congress expressed
in the Act and dozer,-, of place, in its legislative history.
K-118
■» -63-
We believe that at the very least, the FLPMA planning regulations oust
include precise criteria and procedures for Che identification and protection
of areas of critical environmental concern. They must also specify in
considerable details the non-discretionary procedures which district personnel
must follow in preparing RMPs and making land use decisions In such RMPg.
The RMPs must be substantially hinding on resource decisions and cool resource
planning which follows its adoption and should not be subject to flippant
amendment, In addition, specific other weaknesses identified above must be
corrected. Ue will make more complete recommendations at a later date.
Lands Unsuitable Criteria
The centerpiece of the DcparCmenc 's preferred alternative is the lands
unsuitable criteria. However, vagueness, exceptions , and lack of correspondent
with SMCRA handicap this tool. Several exceptions milllfyeriteria, for
example, and the burden of proof for identification of lands which are not
reclaimable in .ir.risely opposite of that Intended by SMCRA. Specific
substantive comments on Che criteria will be included below with comments on
the example regulations.
We must comment, though, on what we believe to be an illegal and
unfo
jpPli<
: landE
ible <
of the startup considerations (p. 3-28), ten target plonnii.g units have been
identified in which the proposed LUC will be applied. The Deportment has
attempted to disguise this effort by calling this exercise a "field test'' of the
proposed criteria and cluiming that if changes result, the supplements to
target MFPs resulting from the first "field test" of the LUCs will again be
changed to reflect changes in the LUCs. This, unforcunacely does not
correspond with instructions to State Directors from DLM to prepare supplements
to target HFPs based on application of LUC "to be ready for a possible coal
lease sale in mld-1980'.- Nor does it explain the urgency of Che BLM or several
other documents which express an unrelenting march to a 19B0 lease sale.
The premature application of LUC is in violation of section 102(1) of
SMCRA which requires "public participation in the development ... of
programs established by the Secretory" under the Act. The proposed LUC had
not received public scrutiny prior to instructions (43 FR 57662) to State
DlreOrjrs to supplement MFPs. The BLM cuurently has no regulations in effect
which relate to the designation of lands unsuitable and the promulgation
and application of the LUC violate FLPMA' s requirement of public involvement
prior to agency actions . (e.g. , Sacs. 102(a)(5); 103(d); 202(a), (f); 309(e);
and 310).
The DES clearly states that "the key activity added to the land use planning
process in the preferred program is the application of lands unsuitablUty
criteria-" Thus, the application of LUC to the target MFPs constitutes the
Implementation of the program and is a violation of the NKDC v. Hughes order.
Moreover, wc believe that application of the LUC prior CO the finalization
of this ES is a violation of NEPA. The LUC have been proposed under the
authority of SMCRA section 522(c), FLPHA, and various environmental protection
laws, regulations, and departmental policies (see DES, Table 5-72). The
Department claims Chat the LUC are excmpC from NEPA because of SMCRA section
702 (d). However, we have yet to see any reasoned, opinion which explains
how section 702's exemption of SMCRA section 523 also oxct pts section 522,
FLPMA, Che preferred program, or any other authority for the promulgation of
the lands unsiirabilicy criteria. Ue believe it is essential to fully inves-
tigate and evaluate the proposed criteria, including a complete analysis of
alternatives in the DES— which is sadly lacking — but Chat it is inappropriate
for the department to proceed with the implementation of the preferred alterna-
tive in Che manner it has already done.
Resource tradeoffs
The third screen established in the PA is the ldentlf icocion of resource
5 will be addressed in
here that the concept
hould be the statuCOClly
1 FLPMA. Moreover, Che
tradeoffs which mllicicc against coal development
our comments on example regulations. Suffice it
as outlined in the DES somehow seems to override i
required function of comprehensive land use plans
provision as proposed gives short shrifc CO non-coal resources.
Setting aflfiSflj Production targets
The lack of specific detail with respect to setting production target!
this DES, Che proposed process for future program cycles, more basic problems
in the 00C projections which drive DOl's production goals are discussed in oth<
lections of these comments. Also, there are comments on the example regulation
Tract
ranking, and Res- tons
1 ElSs
These will also
be add
The mc
■t serious problem
is a l
, the example regulacii
lack of definite
In response CO a question by Peabody at the 3 January 1979 public meeting
in Denver on the DES, Assistant Secretary Guy Martin and other department officials
indicated their "hope" that EISs would not be necessary at cha mine plan Stage.
It was explained that Che department intends to prepare a "good enough" regional
sale EIS to anticipate the site- specific impacts on each lease. We do not believe
thaC Is possible. A;: several lnduscry representatives pointed out at the same
meeting, it Is impossible to propose a mining plan, reclamation, or even ancillary
facilities until it is possible to obtain more definitive coal resource information
necessary to do engineering and reclamation planning but which is unavailable
pvloT to actual leasing. There is considerable NEPA case law which indicates that
significant technical changes in proposed actions between regional or programmatic
EISs and site-specific are legally sufficient to trigger aice-epecific EISs. Such
impacts as hydrological impacts, ait quality, uacer qualicy, subsidence or
success of rcclamaClon, and other equally fundamental itnpaccs all depend on slCC-
specific mine and reclamation pi.., is. The different natures of Che federal actions
and alcernaCivcs involved at each level also scrongly indicate Che need for
separate EISs. For example, at the regional sale EIS stage, the department is
evaluating how many and which tracts to lease on a regional basis; Che alternacives
analyzed at this point include different tract- rankings and lease conditions.
At the mine plan stage, however, the decision is the approval (for federal lands
only) of mining and reclamation plana] Che alternatives evaluated at that point
include approval or disapproval, approval with conditions, and various technological
environmental mitigation measures which ore clearly beyond the scope of any regional
sale EIS.
Finally, we would poinc out that the principal problem which a lessee
may encounter is not the simple requirement of an additional environmental statement,
but rather significant levels of uncertainty. We believe thaC the only way to
eliminate that uncertainty is to require a priori a statement for all mine plan
approvals on Federal lands.
Otherwise, the proposed EIS strategy Is acceptable with some minor hut
essential clarifications and sharpening. Specifically, the programmatic (national)
EIS should assess interregional tradeoffs based on environmental criteria.
Instructions for preparation of regional EiSs should Include Che requirement Chat
regional, cumulative impacts of proposed and exlsCing acCiviCleo, including
outstanding mine plan approvals be analyzed. In addition, EISs should not be
required only for RMP adoption under the FLPMA planning regulations, but also for
RMP revisions and adoption or revision of land use analyses under SI 1601.0-5(g)
and 1601.6-4, as proposed Finally, as we indicate in several places
throughout these comments, baseline data and resource Inventories must be
adequate for all environmental analysis and planning, including ES preparation.
Public Involvement
We will discuss public comment provisions in more detail at future
opportunities. At thia time we wish to simply point ouc several basic principles
K-119
which should govern public involvement programs. First, the opportunities for
public involvement should be fnrm.il and well-defined. The groundriues shouold
similarly be explicit and well understood by all participants , including BUI
personnel. Wa foe. that strictly informal public involvement activities— while
they should also be encouraged- can lead to frustration J f used exclusively. We
believe public participants are likely to participate more productively if clu-
Broundrules ore well understood in advance. In addition, public outreach to en*
age pattlttpjUiM must be affirmative. it should include Multiple methods of
adequate public notice, dissemination of background Information (such as RMPs,
tance if necessary to assure intelligent dialogue. The participant must know
that his or her participation has an impact both through feedback and through
due process. Finally, an appeals process la required to the most politically
accountable level, the Secretary, which allows anyone adversely affected by a
decision the right to make an .administrative appeal.
Program design las serious shortcomings, bu
included herein, the program is meaningless if its major envi
will not apply for several years. The real tragedy results b.
lie. artment's rush to commence leasing in 19B0, desp
that such early new competitive leasing is
to meet early lease sole dates Include:
Application of the LUC before their final version
Use of existing resource inventories and NFFs for land use decisions
Only a partial production target exercise
A shortened regional aale Kts time frame.
The moat serious of those are premature application of LUC, which we h;
already di.CU.saiJ, and the use of existing Und use plans and data. On the latt.
point, when* CltQ FLPHA planning reflations .How the use of existing plans for
up to fifteen years (1601.6-3<c)> , tile least we would recot.iwcnd is establishing
3th the recommendations
>f the
derable evidence
iessory. The short i
; proposed
-68-
maximum five year deadline for the initial revision or existing MFPs and adoption
of new RMPB. In addition, the department and the DES should evaluate the
alternative of delaying competitive leasing until now RMPe have bssn adopted
and resource inventories have been completed, relying in the interim on emergency,
short- tern or bypass leasing subject to existing MFPs and the additional land use
cocv ■« added by ^ prefen,,,| lUarasU*. ottec Lhe flnoliKation of the ES.
We now rem to analyse the preferred alternative in more detail through
comments on the Example Regulations, DF.S, Appendix A.
'. COMHKKTS ON THE EXAHJ-I.E HEC.i: . ;: .;-:.s
Through these comments on the example regulations. Friends of the Earth
intends to illustrate and expand on somo uf the poinrt; raised elsewhere in
our response to the Draft ES. Mo are therefore concentrating on a few select
portions of I'arls 3400,3420,3427,3450 and 3461. Failure to discuss any portion
Of these regulations does not imply approval.
PART 3400 - CuAL HAKAGEMENT - GENERAL. He are, pleased that the Depart mei
has seen fit to draw together all regulation* relating to coal leasing in
one section and to set out clearly the responsibilities of various Departmental
offices.
3400.0-4(dj(2) We do not believe that the Fish and wildlife Service can
adequately meet its responsibilities under 34OO.0-4(d) (1) to "exercise the aushi
of the Secretary to protect and conserve endangered and threatened species,
migratory birds, eagles, other fish and wildlife" if it can only "recommend"
lands unsuitable for leasing "due to fish and wild lit* and related ecological
values," The statutory responsibility of the Secretary, delegated to FJUS
requires that It be granted the authority to designate lands unsuitable
where the "protection and conservation" of fish and wildlife is involved.
3400. 0-5 (p) The last sentence should be dropped. The first sentence adei
describes fair make! value and neither compells nor denies the consideration
Of payments to a surface owner for consent to enter. The reduction of payments
to the United States because a mine operator has paid for the right to enter
raises a host of legal and policy questions, improperly allowed, it can lead to
a situation in which competlmg resource values on land proposed for lease
arc totally ignored or undervalued. Consider, for example, a situation in which
Tract 1 has coal values of X and other resource values of V (presumably less
than X, but in this instance set at \6X), Tract 2 has coal values of ,7.x and
other resource values approximating 0. U appears to be la the public interest
for Tract 1 to continue without mining and for Tract 2 to be mined. The total
social value of this path is 1 . ?X ( ,t» from Tract 1 and . 7X from Tract 2).
If no allowance for surface owner payments is madp, this will also bu in the
mine operator's interest; he will reap his margin of profit on a total resource
of ,73 from Tract 2, whereas he would only reap that tame margin of profit
on a total resource of .4X from Tract 1 — the coal resource value of the
tract minus a payment to the surface owner for the true value of the resource
forgone. If Tract 1 is mined the total social value will be only .4X — the
value of the coal resource made available minus the value of the competing
resource forgone. However, if the mine operator is allowed to deduct the
cost of paying for surface owner consent from his costs, rtu-n it becomes
in hi* interest to lease Tract 1, because he is able to turn bin profit
on th« entire coal resource value without having paid for the loss of the
other values; that paynent is mad* up out of money he would have paid the
united Stares anyway, i.e. the government subsidises the destruction of
S resource value V from its own revenues.
This example is simplistic, but it does indicate some of the problems
involved in allowing payments tu surface owners to be considered in assessing
the fair market value of the lease. Unfortunately, because the issue has
gcnsMlly been cast in the context of a greedy land owner holding out
and extorting payment, there ha* been little realization, and no discussion
in the Draft ES .of the function that surface owner payments perform in
indicating the Value of alternative "aes of a prospective lease site.
We believe that no allowance to reduce the fair market value
the development of an explicit set of rules and an economic and environmental
analysis 01 the effect of the application of such rules.
J
K-120
3400.0-5 (tt) This section should also contain a definition and
explanation of the structure of the "negative Consent" described in 3420.2-3(d) (1) .
3400.3-1 This section, which wo fully support, seems to be somewhat
in conflict with 3420.2-5 which only require* blm oonsultotiM with the
surface management agency "to obtain its recommendations as to the accepcibillty
for further consideration for leasing of the land that the other agency
administers-" The latter section should be amended to indicuie the discretionary
authority of the surface raangement agency Co refuse either leasing or
planning for leasing on land which it administers.
3400.3-3 This provision can be improved in two ways. The first is to
require a formal finding by the Secretory of Agriculture for decisions under
3400.3-3(b)(2). The secern! is to provide some method of appeal or protest,
within the Department oi Interior, when it is alleged that the finding
can not be sustained. An alternate way of achieving the same result —
providing review of facts in contention when the decision is made by
another agency — might be to allow MI to lease under these conditions
only when such leasing vas in accord with a program plan developed under
the Forest Management Act, thereby allowing the issue to be congested
within the context of D0A1 s planning rules. What we wish to avoid is
a situation in which a iiotentiully momentous decision, to lease in a
National Forest for strip mining, is made without a requirement of
environmental analysis an ■.!. an opportunity for review.
Subpart 3420 - Competitive Leas inc. This subpart provides a mechanism
for implementing most of the Preferred Alternative. It is subject to
criticism in two broad areas: first, were it implements aspects of the
Preferred Alternative which we found flawed, second, where it falls to
implomec properly important aspects of the Preferred Alternative.
3420;l-5 The tern "land use analysis" is nowhere defined in this
Part. A definition of the term is found in Section 1601.0-5(g) of the
proposed planning regulations to implement the Federal Land Policy and
management Act 43 FR 58768 { December 15, 1978):
"Land ui;e analysis" means the proci
Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment:
environmental assessment supplemenl
data relevant to a decision. It is
land resources are limit!
is authorized in the
Act of 197G. It is an
id to include all
jsed only when public
-Hied under fl 1601.6-4
It is generally limited to a much smaller area than a
resource urea sl.iee the process can be used only where
very limited public land resources are involved. It
generally covers one or two types of public land resource
use. Upon approval, it meets the land use planning
requirements of Sec. 202 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act.
Section 1601.6-4 of the same proposed regulatit
where action can be taken based upon another agenc
use analysis." It deals with three specific situat
only the mineral or subsurface estate and the surf.
by another Federal agency; where fLM administers o:
mineral estate and the surface is non-Federal; and
is entitled "Situations
y's plan or land
ions: where BLM administer!
ce is administered
ly the subsurface or
where BLM shares surface
and/or subsurface estate with another Federal agency, as in a military
withdrawal.
A reading of the two proposals together — and they were published
at the s.-iue time — would indicate that "land use analyses" could only
be used in very limited circumstances. Presumably, in all other cases
a comprehensive land use plan, as defined by Section 202 of FLPMA, would
be required before a lease could be issued.
However, it is clear from the actions the Department is tailing in
running "tests" on unsuitability criteria and preparing for the leasing
of up to forty Lracts by next Summer, that it intends for "land use
analysis" to have broader use than would be indicated by the langauge
-73-
of S
ction 1601. 0-5 (g). Certainly, it would
otherwise be impossible to
unde
take LUA's in the Powder River Basin or
Uintah Regions where BLM
manages the bulk of the surface estate.
We are utterly opposed to the use of
a short-cut, single focus
Proc
ss to drive the bulk of the Department'
1 lease planning process.
In m
st instances, these LUA's will suppleme
at HFP's developed during
the i
endency of the EMARS program. The encir
a thrust of FLPMA v.ns to
elim
note this type of single resource orien
ted planning and Kftplaca it
with
multiple-use planning accomplished in t
r of public participation.
10 open with a maximum
1.. a perfect world, no coal should be leased unless a post-1976
FLPM/
plan has been prepared. An imperfect w
3rld may require short-cuts.
but t
icyraust be carefully hedged and clearly
limited in time and scope.
This
the Preferred Alternative and the Example Regulations fail to do.
Conl
leases covering billions of tona- and st
retching into the decade
afte
next could be governed by l.UA's under
the proposed Parts 1600
and 3400. There is no warrant for such action. If there is a need for
"star
t-up" criteria — which we doubt — tha
t need should be fixed in
time
and extent. There should be some point
:crtain after which LUA'e
will
not be an acceptable alternative to Sec
-ion 202 plans; there
Bust
ic a maximum acreage which can be subje
!t to coal leasing under
sueti
limited planning efforts. We stronclv u
-rc the Secretary to see
that
issue
such limitations are contained in the P
d next month.
reposed Regulations to be
Furthermore, the Proposed Regulation
, should contain a fuller
descr
iption of exactly where the LUA's are n
>t required to meet the
full
requirements of Section 202. We are mos
S concerned with the
lubli
c notification and participation aspects of the land use planning
if for
t. It is noteworthy that 3420.2-3(b) (2)
requires public participation
where the Secretary applies unsuitability criteria to lands covered by
another agency's plan. 3420.2-3(b)(l), covering the application of the
unsuitability criteria within the FLPMA planning process contains no
such explicit statement. Of course, during a full-blown Section 202
planning effort such participation is mandated. Dut what about during
a LUA? Or during the "tests" oT the unsuitability criticria right now
going on for use in the first lease sales ? The Example Regulations
do not give clear answers, cither to the public or to Departmental
employees who will be charged with administering the process.
Likewise, nearly every element of the Preferred Alternative,
no matter how admirable in concept is subject to questioning and
doubts about its efficacy in implementation, because there is a
legitimate question concerning just which aspects will be operative
during the pendency of the LUA's. The Proposed Regulations must provide
some definitive guidelines.
3420.2-3 Lands acceptable for further consideration for leasing.
This section embodies the heart and soul of the Preferred Alternative —
the four 'screens" which were the subject of so much discussion during the
last year. The concept is admirable and worthy of strong suppo.t. We are
deeply supportive of the idea that certain essential environmental and
social factors should be used to eliminate lands from consideration before
any energy resource considerations are even applied- Clearly, if there is
a resource for which such treatment can be justified, it is coal which iu
in such abundance.
Unfortunately, the four screens, so sturdy in rhetoric, have bee,
torn and breached in their regulatory mounts. The lands unsuitable criteria
will be discussed at length below. We find them to be sadly lacking in
K-121
The third screen, multiple use trade-offs, has been most severely
savaged. Originally presented as a way of guaranteeing that other valuable
lands uses need not foil victim to the need for relatively abundant coal
resources, it has been reduced to a near nullity, "Multiple land use
decisions may be mode eliminating coal areas from further consideration
for further leasing to protect other resource values of a unique, site-
specific nature net included in the unsuitability crrieria discussed in
ParaGraph (b) of this section-"
The Draft ES presents an even harsher test. After first falsely
asserting chat the lands unsui lability criteria would address most major
conflicts between coal and other resources, it goes on to say "The adjustments
at this stage in the land use plonning process uould be mode to accomodate
unique, site specific resource values clearly superior CO coal.." (DES,
3-21 emphasis added) Not only is this tast unwise, but it seems to be
illegal, flying directly in the face of the multiple-yield concept underpinning
rum.
Cool has become a monculture. Unless a resource can be shown to
be clearly superior, it will not be protectad, regardless of the fact chat die
resource might be relatively rare or not easily replaced while the next
valley could easily contain Just as much coal.
It is doubtful that 3420.2-3(c) could remain so restrictiva in the
Section 202 planning process. The imperative of FLI'MA demand a wiser
test. Its effect under LUA planning, however, could be quite detrimental.
The situation is made worse because the Activity Planning regulations
nowhere explicity address che issue of resource trade-offs.
3420-2-3(d)(2) manifests a weakening in the fourth screen, surface
owner consent. The expression of a preference against leasing by a significant
-76-
number of surface owners
is no longer sufficient
to bar surface leasing i
the area, if it is needed to meet regional produ
_tion targe
s. Based on
the type of regional pro
actions displayed elsew
ere in the
Draft ES this
criterion could effectiv
justify overlooking su
face owner
preferences
throughout large areas Ir
Che West, particularly
in the Powdt-r River
Basin. This would seem t<
contradict the spirit
nd, perhap
, the letter
of Section 714(d) of P.L
95-B7 which states that
"The Seer
tary shall,
In his discretion but to
the Mxiaun, extent pra
icahle, re
rain fro.
leasing coal deposits foi
development by methods
other than
Mfttpn*
mining techniques in those areas where a signifi
ant number
of 5„foco
owners have stated I pre
erence against the offe
ing of the
dcno.ii, for
lease."
One final comment
on the land planning m
(■nanism ad
pted in part
3420.2 is that it seems t
0 have continued the Department's
„,nt poor
of ignoring its responsil
ilities under ELPMA for
the "promp
development'
of regulations and plans
for the protection of p
blic land
rcas of crlti
:al
environmental concern (Se
ctlon lOZCo) CH>) and t
e priority
preparation o
t
on inventory of public la
nd values "giving prior
ty to area
of critical
environmental concern" (S
ection 201(a)) The vagu
ness of the LUA process.
along with the failure W
confront the issue in
he FLI'MA p
annlng regula
ions,
leaves serious questions
in our minds as to how
ell the co
1-related pla
ming
■ffort will operate to ir
■iure the protection of
hese impor
ant UK**,
3420.2-4 Because
the land use and energy
decisions
nvolved in the
cool leasing program are
national in scope, the phrase "who
may be advers
lly
affected" Should be dolec
ad. Section 202(f) of H.PNA escabl
shes public
involvement procedurus wi
Eh no mention of such ■
test.
3420. 2-i As noted
in our earlier comment
on 3400.3
1 there aP,.ea
to be a conflict. While w
e would hope that other
agencies w
when coal leasing does not seem inconsistent with the statutory guidelines
plan for the mining of such land where tho agency wiil be able to deny
any leasing. It also might lead to somo distortion of the process down the
road if tracts were included in the planning process as potential coal
lease sites when there was no possibility of this occurring.
3420.3 "Regional production targecx" The regulation* on the formulatloi
of regional production targets and their role in the tract selection process
are well-reasoned. However, because the targets developed in this Draft ES
struck us as so unreasonable, ws believe Chat sevor.il explicit changes in
the process by which chey are developed may help produce better results in
the future.
Target setting is essentially a computer exercise; once the runs ore
done it is difficult and expensive to take another course or examine other
alternatives, We suggest that the following paragraphs be inserted in
appropriate places in the Regulations:
"Prior co undertaking any projection of regional coal needs, the
Secretary shall solicit from the public, industry and professionals comment
and suggestions on the best modeling techniques to use, appropriate
assumptions and relevant data which may have a bearing on regional and
national coal needs."
"In determining regional coal needs and projected demands, the
Secretary shall endeavor to develop data based on actual end-use needs
and on the broadest feasible survey of major sources of production and
demand and their coal-related plans."
"The Secretary shall develop information to indicate 'the economic
social and environmental impacts of falling to meet given regional
targets or exceeding them, whenever it appears likely that combined Federal
and non-Federal aetions, including the development of existing leases, are
likely to achieve either result for a region."
3420.4 Activity Planning. If, as seems likely based on cunver.intioiis
with Departmental officials, the four screens in che delineation of lands
occeptible for future leasing do not remove a high percentage of the 25 milliof
acres that will be Subject to the coal management process, then the activity
planning phase will have the most significant land use Implications, We do not
believe that the existing procedures embodied in the activity planning phase
of the program are well designed to assist in rational land use planning,
3420.4-2 The expression of interest should provide for negative
nominations. This is particularly important if planning has been accompli shfd
under LUA procedures and if the multiple land use decision mechanism remains
inconsequential. Negative nominations should be solicited after industry express
3420.4-3 Tho preliminary tract identification should contain an
inventory of existing and potential uses of the tracts.
3420.4-4(a) The description of the tract ranking process is vap,ua
and too short. It does not Indicate who shall do the ranking- It does not
indicate whether the ranking is a managment decision implementing a land
use plan (assuming there is one) and thereby governed by the FLI'MA regulations.
Including those on appeal, or some other type of decision. It gives precious
little guidance on how the rankings shall actually be done and which critleria
ore critical.
3420. 4-4 (b) The ranking process seems to be an appropriate point
at which to apply the threshold criteria discussed at 3.2.1.4. The Draft
ES notes that "It is not necessary to specify threshold in the land use
plan," (DES 3-21) and we agree thot while it might be desirable., it is
by no means always possible to do so . If threshold criteria are specified
K-122
In ■ land use plan, then they should be controlling on tract selection.
(We would appreciate the Department's views on whether this supposition
is correct and to what degree) But If there are do threshold criteria
in the land use plan (or where a threshold issue exists that waa not dealt
vith in the plan), then it ia oeeeasary that the program specify some
point in the process when: the Federal land manager face an affirmative
duty to consider threshold issue. It seem* MWWtU ««' appropriate to
•nke decisions on threshold issues josc prior to or: concurrent with the
•election of tracts to offer for sale.
We hope th-t th« Department will take the lead in further investigating
the complexities associated with threshold questions in the coming months.
We believe that the Final ES will benefit from a fuller discussion of
this issue and that such an Investigation nay «lao shed some light on: the
best way to integrate auch decisions Into the coal managment program.
3420.4-4(b)(3) This data should also be made available In Washington
D.C. Its high time that the Department started to centralize Important
land use data.
3420.4-5 Environmental Assessment. This section apperantly contains
directions for all environmental aasessments in the coal management program
other than the programmatic environmental atatement which la covered In
3420.3-4. The following principles should govern the environmental assessment
strategy of the coal management program:
1, There must be site specific environmental assessments (which we
presume would almost always indicate the need for an environmental statement)
for each mine plan on Federal lands.
2. The regional lease aale environmental statements should evaluate
regional and cumulative Impacta based on proposed and existing activities,
including the mine plans.
3. There must be environmental statements on all MFP revisions,
particularly those undertaken in response to the coal management program.
4. The regulations need to present standards for the
collection of baseline data and for the compilation of Section 201
inventories that will be adequate for land use planning and the preparation
of environmental statements. Special standards should be developed to
deal with data needs which will arise in the updating of MFP's originally
prepsred before the passage of FLPHA and FCLAA.
It is not necessary that every step In the coal management program
require and environmental statement or that each environmental statement
must seek out and assess new horizons of information. A comprehensive
environmental assessment strategy will facilitate the tiering of environmental
statements and promote • pattern of decision making dependent on the exisltence
of appropriate data generated under an ongoing process.
In our view, NEPA and FLPHA clearly mandate the preparation of
environmental statements when land use plans are developed or algnif Icantly
altered and when mine plans are approved. The coal management program may
and should supplement these statements with regional lease sale environmental
statements. But we see no Secretarial authority which will allow the
regional oale ES to substitute or replace land management environmental
statements or environmental statements on the approval of specific mine
Sound environmental aeseasment strategy can reduce the burden on
the Department and the public by integrating the data collection and presentation
functions performed by these statements , but it can not eliminate the
requirement that environmental assessment be undertaken at these three
separate points In the coal and resource management program of the Department.
3427 Surface owner consent. The rights of a surface owner of land
overlain with coal were among the most bitterly disputed points In the
long battle to pass adequate atrlpmining legislation. The Example Regulations
contemplate the erosion of Section 714 protections in several places, for
example in 3420.2-3(d) (2). Another relaxation of the protection of surface
owner rights la found In 3427.2(g) which allows the State Director to
conduct the sale of a lease for coal on Split estate lands where no consent
has been granted.
We can not ovcrstress the importance of deleting this pernicious
provision. This subpart provides ample opportunity for prospective
leaae purchasers to negotiate the purchase of consents. If they are
not able to do so within the stipulated time frame, then the tract
should not be subject to lease aale.
Subsection (g) . on its face, would not only allow a lease sale
in situations where the surface owner has not expressed a final preference
for or against Belling hia rights, but also where a definite expression
of a desire not to concent hail been indicated.
It must be remembered that 3420.2— 3(d) (1) does not require that
lands for which a negative consent la given be removed from consideration
for surface mining, nor does 3420.6 require the Secretary to honor such
lndicatlona when establishing the regional coal laaae aales schedule.
If, by the date thirty working days before the scheduled sale, a prospective
leaae purchaser Is not able to secure a written consent or, at the very least,
a written statement that the surface owner has no objection to the sale
going forward, then It should not cake place.
3461. The Federal Lands Program, Lands Unsuitable Criteria.
The lands unsuitability criteria are the backbone of the environmental
component of the coal management program.
11 -defined and deaigned
program for designating lands unsuitable for mining could insure the
exclusion of most lands containing other important values from consideration
for leasing. Presumably, the automatic application of the criteria would
enable even environmentally insensitive land managers to make the proper
The criteria presented in the Draft ES fall to attain the ends
suggested in the preceedlng paragraph. They are set forth In vague terms
and subject to equally vague and generally broad exceptions. They provide
neither certainty nor the protection of valuable resources. In some
instances, there are inexplicable limitations on protections.
The vagueness, the exceptions and the limitations might, in some
Instances, be justified, but there is no Information in the Draft ES
on which to make any judgement. The public is left totally in the dark
on the likely extent and Impact of many of the criteria. How many National
national Landmarks or inland lakes are located within KRCRA'S? This
information — or at laaat a good approximation — could have been gathered
and presented In the Draft ES, but was not. This makes it much more difficult
to critique the criteria or to understand why aome are presented aa
they appear la the Example Regulations.
The following aspects of the proposed criteria need change:
1. In criteria #1. there ia inadequate development of the notion
of an "appropriate buffer" sone. While some buffer zones moat be determined
on a caae-by-came basis, it is not unreasonable for the Department to
establish some general guidelines and put them out for public comment.
For example, the Department might consider establishing, by regulation,
K-123
-83-
minimum bul . r aones around parks and wilderness areas based on mint size.
t>. We find no justification for Che establishment of new leases
in wilderness study areas. There should be no exception.
5. The value of this criteria depends 011 the value and quality of
visual resource uianagemon e analysis. It does not seem feasible that
surface raining would not "signif leant ly diminish or Bdv«B«l«J< affect
the Scenic quality" of any Class I or Class; 11 area. We recommend Lhat the
exception be deleted.
6. Exception (11) should be deleted. It is nor clear what expertise
BUI has to second-guess a non-concurring researcher. As the studies only
last for the duration of a permit, cilia would not result in permanently
removing land from consideration for leasing. They would become available
When the exisitng research was completed.
7. IL i, . co.tor, to Mmw (to, mi„u,B m»y „Mhii«« ktlMtU
lands and sites of merely local or regional significance only if the State
concurs. Presumably exception (i)(BJ applies only to the establishment
of a buffer zone, e.g. the consultation is over how ClOM the raining can
come, not over whether the mining can take place on the site itself. This
should be made clearer.
a. Exception (ill) should be deleted. The theory of this exception
seems to be that the operators of giant earth movers and draglines will
be able to spec paleontological resources. This is nonsense.
Except?on£ii>hould require the concurrence of the authority respons
lble
for the designation in the finding that the mining uill not have aignifican
impact.
9. The determination of critical habitat must be made by the Fish
and Wildlife Service alone. It is not BLM's job to determine what is and
whflC it not critical habitat. The exception must be rewritten CO require
F&US concurrence.
-84-
Friends of t
0 Earth wc
uld like to stress that this j
s ono of the most
»«rtoU
!ly flawed cri
eria. It i
s not credible
that mining will not affect
habits
t. The exclusi
n of land
from mining or
the se
ting of
lease terms
oat.
liaise potentia
harm reqL
ires Che appli
cation of profe.-
sional expertise
■Mtil
resides with POTS. Any at
turapc to place
decisions on M
Itlcal habitat
■mtt
=re in the Dep
Id be a seriou
10. We belio
11,12. The d
/e that cor
currence with
Che Sen
should
e agency
be made
is required.
by the Fish and
cision on
adverse impact
Wildli
Ee Service.
14. We would
delete the
joint deterrai
n.tion,
leaving
it to FiWS.
Simila
'ly, any excep
ion should
require concu
T»...
15. As with
he previou
s criteria, we
havo difficulty
supporting
a join
determinatio
of critic
al habitat. Bo
th adoption, a.
e hadly drawn.
Except
on (i) posits
the exlsic
once of a situ
telon w
Jch Is J
mnossiblcj;
exception Cii) docs
ot provide
an adequate r
elf for
the Stat
e agency.
The wording of excepcio
n (ii) may als
0 „„d«
the crj
teria meaningless.
With t
s awn. 0
species which now exist
orly i
zoologi
•al parte,
almost
no mm. d,.i
able for c
oal mining is
alalia
nd uniqL
cly so important
LhaL i
■ W for „1„1„S .111 ,d
versely affect
the sg_
^ies. Th
e language should
be cha
ged to indicate that the
re uill be no
adverse
impact 0
a the animal
popula
ion which the
State has
chosen to prot
cot.
16-19. These
four crite
ria pertaining
ce conflicts
raise
erious problems concern!
ng the role of
BLM in
resolving water-related
confli
ts. Exception
(pHii) sh
ould be delete
d. Excel
ich give BLM
the au
hority to perr
it leasing
if it deterrai
nes til*
the act
ion will have
no adverse effect on
■rcas assume a
great
oal abou
t the competence
of BLM
to assess hyd
ology. We
suggest some f
ormal re
le for L
,8.e.8.
Water Resour
es Council
in any such t
tions.
20. The criterion should require t!. .nttial classification of all
lands which meet the SMCRA definition of "prime farmland" plus any additional
.'hich the land management agency and USDA agree should he so treated. Exemption
(i.i) should he deleted.
21. This critfii,-, should be redrafted to m.iki.- it clear that any wining
operation, whetht-r within or outside an AVI',' which hns .in adverse impact on
water quality is pruhihitcd. Sot Ortly W'liould the except i(M» reflect this, hut it
preclusion!
22. This criterion appears to he inverted. It implies that loMfnfi will
go forward until BUSll time as it is demonstrated that reclamation con not
be achieved, In the present situation, a requirement that Western reclamation
be deEioviCtruted might well bring any Federal coal leasing program to a aCfMCh.il
ignorance on the part of the Department.
The Department should, seriously consider establishing certain mandatory
criteria for declaring land nonreclamablc based on rainfall, soil type,
terrain etc. and then indicate that it is willing to consider arguments that
land covered by such criteria is, in fact, reclamable when preparing land use
plans for the affected region.
23, 24. In both cases we believe that where a State has established a
procedural Structure to prote.ct its lands, any Federal action on Federal lands
which threatens that level of protection should only be undertaken with the
concurrence of the relevant State authority.
936
NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION
Coal Buiiemg ?I3Q Seventeenth Street. I
hingtan. D. C 30016 (?0?) ft
February 13, 1979
Honorable Frasik Gregg
Director, Bureau of Land Management
Office of Coal Management, Room 3610
Main Interior Building
18th and C Streets
Washington, D, C. 20240
SUBJECT: Comments Upon Draft Environmental Statement
Entitled "Federal Coal Management Program"
Dear Mr. Gregg:
I attach hereto the comments of the National Coal
Association upon the draft environmental statement
"Federal Coal Management Program." published for comment
by the Department of the Interior ("DOI") on December 15
1978.
In accordance with the suggestions appearing at pages
3-1 and A-l, our comments are addressed primarily to
the statement itself (the "DES") and the "preferred
program" (the "Program") which it describes. Although
we address in passing the "Example Regulations" included
as Appendix "A", we will comment in greater detail when
such regulations are hereafter formally published as
proposed rulemaking.
We ha-
alsi
Department
documents used during the
Program. These include:
the Secretarial issue papers; narrative descriptions of
the ongoing process prepared by Departmental staff;
Instruction Memorandum No. 79-76 of November 3, 1978,
from your office to several Bureau of Land Management
State Directors; and a Notice entitled "Coordination of
Federal Lands Review..." published on December 8, 1978
at 43 F.R. 57662 e_t seq. Our comments address these also.
We find discrepancies between and ■
documents, which we feel are impor
order correctly to understand the !
rious
K-124
NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION -2-
especially true with respect to such significant elements
as the proposed mechanisms for designating lands unsuit-
able for surface coal mining, the timing and effect of
industry input to the planning processes, the role which
production ''targets" will play in determining leasing
levels, and the nature and use of the concepts of "fair
market value" and "maximum economic recovery."
GENERAL COMMENTS
At the outset, I would like to congratulate the Department
of the Interior ("DOT.") upon the quality of the DES. It
is clearly a thoughtful and conscientious attempt by the
draftsmen to set forth a proposed program, the nature of
the alternatives thereto which were considered by the
Secretary, and such regional and national environmental
and other impacts as are required to be set forth in order
to comply with applicable laws and regulations. These
include Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). the
Guidelines of the council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") ,
30 CFR Part 1500, as amended F.R. | the relevant
DOI regulations issued pursuant thereto; and the Order
of the Court in KRDC v. Hughes, 437 F. Supp. 981 (D.D.C.
1977), as amended-^ F. Supp. 148 (1978).
I must also note, however, that in our view the DES in
its present form is not complete. It does not adequately
set forth the full range of possible consequences that
would result from adoption of the Program. Some alter-
natives to the Program which were considered by the
Secretary should be more fully described, and there are
other available courses of administrative action open
to the DOI which should be more clearly articulated as
discrete alternatives to the Program or the elements
thereof.
Our attached comments identify these and other deficiencies
in greater detail. We believe they are the inevitable
result of the fact that the document is only a "draft"
environmental Statement, and that the overall consider-
ation given CO the Program and its alternatives constitutes
full compliance with all legal requirements applicable to
such a document .
We also feel that the adoption by the Secretary of any or
all of the recommendations set forth in our attached
comments, accompanied by appropriate explanation in the
final statement, would fall well within the range of
alternatives covered in the DES, and would comply in all
respects with the requirements of NEPA.
NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION -3-
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Our attached comments address in detail the following
major difficulties which we have with the preferred
Program:
Industry Input
As now drafted, no timely or meaningful input would be
sought from industry to identify those areas of federal
coal lands which are most desirable for immediate
development. The coal industry will continue to be the
developer of whatever land areas are leased (DES 3.1.8,
at 3-14). Such input in the land use planning process
would serve to focus DOI's attention on those areas which
should receive priority review for lease potential. This
would be especially important in the early rounds of
resumed lease offerings, but would involve no derogation
of the Department's other or subsequent planning responsi-
bilities.
Departmental Resource Limitations
We believe the land use and activity planning processes
of the Program exceed the DOI's current or foreseeable
data and manpower resources . As a result , we do not
believe the Program could be implemented in any reason-
able timely fashion. Those elements which would be
particularly troublesome are. moreover, either unnecessary
for successful implementation of a leasing program, or
might be substituted for by other available alternatives.
Specific Program Elements
We believe several specific elements of the Program are
either unworkable or needlessly complex. These include,
among others:
- Lands unsuitable procedures and criteria.
- Multiple use trade-off procedures.
- Split estate treatment, and private surface
owner veto power over leasing.
- Intertract bidding mechanisms and tract
ranking procedures and priorities.
- Impossible requirements for the determination
of specific lease terms and conditions, in-
cluding fair market value and "maximum
economic recovery."
NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION -4-
We believe that the specific deficiencies of these pro-
gram elements, and more efficient administrative alter-
natives, would have been immediately identified if the
Department had complied with the provisions of the Presi-
dent's Executive Order No. 12044 dated March 22, 1978,
and conducted a Regulatory Analysis of the Program.
Although DOI has not published Final Rulemaking to
implement this Order, compliance would clearly be re-
quired by application of the principles set forth in
the proposed rulemaking published on May 25, 1978 at
43 F.R. 22573. (See, especially, proposed 14 CFR
14.3(c)(1), (3), (4) and (5).) In view of the impor-
tance of administrative mechanism choices to the success
of any new program, a Regulatory Analysis should be
undertaken before final decisions are made.
Application to Exis
i&hts
We do not believe the Department to have the authority
assumed in the Program to apply its new "suitability"
criteria to existing but non-producing leases and to
the preference right lease applications (PRLAs) now
pending before the Department. To the degree that the
Program would cancel or nullify an existing lease or
PRLA. the taking of a valid existing right may be involved.
This issue is currently in litigation, and adoption of
this Program element should await judicial resolution
of the nature of the rights involved. To the extent that
the Program proposes the exchange or substitution of
other rights for any so taken, it would appear to exceed
existing statutory authority. At a minimum, specific
legislative proposals should be addressed and the alter-
natives thereto considered in the final statement.
CONCLUSION
The preferred Program represents an unprecedented degree
of management and control at the Departmental level of
federal coal resources. Many specific elements of the
Program are unworkable. If implemented, we believe it
would be impossible for the Department or the private
sector to achieve in timely or responsible fashion any
realistic goal of resumed federal coal leasing.
The unworkable aspects of the Program appear in virtually
all respects to be actions or choices within the diacretio:
of the Department. They are not mandated by external
constraints of law or national policy. As a result, the
Program would appear to represent the conscious adoption
by the Department of a land management policy which is
systematically biased against federal coal development.
We do not believe that this result is consistent with
the intent of the President, the public interest or the
national policies established by the Congress in relevant
legislation.
NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION -5-
We urge the Department to reconsider and amend the
preferred Program, so that the nation may have the
benefit of the timely, orderly and environmentally
sound development of the vital domestic energy resources
represented by unleased federal coal lands.
We look forward to the efforts the Department will be
making in this regard, and would be willing to assist
you or your staff in any way possible. If you have any
questions or comments upon the enclosed detailed analysi
please do not hesitate to call upon us.
Very truly^tours,
/ery truiv^iours,
d*<4. Vv-vV-
K-125
fa'-.^f Sin
DETAILED COMMENTS
OF THE
NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION
UPON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AMD
STATEMENT OF POLICY,
" COORDINATION OF FEDERAL LAND REVIEW"
(43 F.R. 57662, DECEMBER 8. 1978)
General Comments 1
Specific Comments 2
A. Land Use Planning Process 2
1. Unnecessary Delay ... 2
2. Allowance for Industry Input 6
3. Specific Defects in Che Process 8
(a) Exclusionary Determinations 8
(i) Coal Potential 9
(11) Criteria for Designating Lands
Unsuitable for Mining 9
(A) Procedural Defects 9
(1) Application of
Criteria 9
(2) Exception Mechanism IS
(B) Substantive Defects of
Criteria. 17
(ill) Multiple Resource Trade-Offs. ... 28
(iv) Exclusion Based on Surface
Owner Consent 31
B. Activity Planning Process 32
1. Regional Production Targets 32
(a) Use of Targets 33
(b) Timing of Setting Targets 37
(c) Tract Selection and Ranking 35
C. Other Components of the Preferred Program .... 39
1. Split Estate Leasing and Surface
Owner Consent 39
2. Lease Stipulations 41
3. Fair Market Value 43
4. Maximum Economic Recovery 43
5. Sale and Bidding Methods 46
6. Special Leasing Opportunities 47
7. Management of Existing Leases 50
8. Applicability of NEPA to Coal Leasing. ... 51
Conclusion 52
DETAILED COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION
UPON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT. THE PRE-
FERRED PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES DESCRIBED THEREIN,
AND THE POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT RELEVANT THERETO.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Achievement of national environmental economic and energy
self-sufficiency goals requires the orderly development
and use of domestic energy resources, at the lowest unit
energy cost, consistent with other national policy.
There is now a demand for new federal coal leases,
evidenced by the response in 1976 to the call by the
Department for federal coal lease nominations. Federal
studies by the Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Commission have affirmed the anti-competitive
effects of the current moratorium.
Existing federal laws and applicable Departmental regu-
lations ensure that the development of future federal
coal leases will onlv occur promptly, and only under
acceptable environmental conditions.
Resumed federal coal leasing is, thus, presumptively in
the national interest. No valid reason exists for the
continued moratorium on federal coal leases. A program
should be adopted which would encourage and efficiently
implement the issuance of new federal leases.
Unfortunately, and as set forth more cully below, the
proposed program (the "Program") set forth in the draft
snvirftninciiral erarnmonf. (the "DES") WOUld appe
rirorunental «ba.B.u.&..b *■■» ■>■ ■ i «#••*.•• ,,-wu^^. ..u
represent the adoption of a resource development policy
incorporating a systematic bias against such federal co
development. It would relegate development of federal
coal to a status procedurally and substantively subor-
dinate to the development of all other resources found
coal bearing federal lands.
Many of the major deficiencies of the Program derive in
our view from a conscious or unconscious effort by the
draftsmen to use the mechanism of the federal coal lease
to address and resolve all of the many issues raised by
the inevitable inconsistency conflict between and among
competing national goals and policies. To impose such a
heavy burden upon any single federal mechanism or device
is simply not possible.
As exemplified in the Program, such an effort would in
fact frustrate any goal of timely, resumed federal coal
leasing. It would impose unnecessary costly and in-
flationary burdens upon the administering agency, the
lessee and, through the consumers of the energy resources
involved, upon the general public.
Our comments are intended to identify those aspects of
the Program which would most seriously inhibit its
implementation. In each such case, we identify specific
changes in or administrative alternatives to the Program
which we believe would in all cases be fully consistent
with applicable laws and the national policy, and which
would reduce or eliminate these adverse effects. Adoption
of any or all of our specific recommendations would be
within the scope of the alternatives and issues covered
in the DES, but to varying degrees would require explana-
tion or amplification in the final statement.
For brevity, throughout the following ccmments major
applicable laws and regulations may be referred to by their
commonly accepted acronyms. These are; the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, P.L. 94-377 (S. 391)
30 U.S.C. 181, note, as amended ("FCLAA") ; the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, P.L. 94-579 <S. 507),
43 U.S.C, 1701, note, ("FLPMA") ; the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, P.L. 95-87 (H.R 2)
30 U.S.C, 1201, note, ("SMCRA") ; the Department of Energy
Organization Act of 1977, P.L. 95-91, '42 U.S.C. 7101
("DOE Act").
K-126
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
LAMP USE PLANKING PROCESS
Section 3.2.1 of the DES, "land use planning," discusses
in significant detail the various steps by which land
use planning would occur under the Program. After
correctly noting chat FLPMA requires the use of multiple
use and sustained yield concepts," (DES, at 3-18) the
discussion in this section describes a three step process
whereby "the maximum potential for developing, preserving
or enhancing each resource" would be identified, and conflicts
would be "resolved so that final decisions can be made...
/T/he resulting land use plans identify preferred land
uses, or combinations of uses, for the area 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 BLM-administered lands ,
(Ibid.)
The Program Involves Unnecessary Delay in Leasing.
At the outset, we assume that if the Secretary should
determine in his final decisionmaking that the
resumption of federal coal leasing is appropriate the _
national interest is best served by adoption of a leasing
program which will be able to be implemented in the most
efficient and timely manner.
In this light, we strongly question the wisdom or
efficiencv of requiring that all unleased federal land
areas be subject to review by the 3LM at the beginning
of coal related review in the management framework
planning process. The budgetary and personnel^resource.
of the Department or, for that matter,
government itself are limited.
of the Federal
Section 202 of FLPMA requires that the management of
federal lands be accomplished through an orderly land
use planning process. Section 3 of the FCLAA amended
Section 2(a) o!: the Mineral Leasing Act, so as to provide
in new Subsection 3(A)(1) thereof Chat no lease sale
may be held "unless the lands containing the coal
deposics have been included in a comprehensive land-use
plan." Ultimately, therefore, comprehensive planning
for federal lands, including coal related planning for
federal coal lands, is required under present law.
However, neither FLPMA nor other relevant Federal statutes,
including the FCLAA, require that coal related planning
for all federal lands be completed before a coal leasing
program is initiated or a specific coal lease offering
made.
To the contrary, the legislative history of the FCLAA
indicates that it was the express intent of the Congress
chat resumed federal coal leasing need not be required to
await the completion of land use plans for all federal
lands, or even for all federal coal lands.
On June 21, 1976 the Senate passed S. 391 of the 94th
Congress, and forwarded the FCLAA to the President for
his approval. During the period of Presidential review.
the principle proponents of the legislation in both
the House and Che Senate wrote to the President, setcing
forth their views with respect to the intent of the
Act. By letter dated June 24, 1976, Senator Lee Metcalf
and Congresswoman Patsy Mink specifically addressed
several concerns which had previously been expressed by
the then Secretary of the Interior Thomas S. Kleppe.
These concerns included the fear chat if completion
of land use planning efforts were to be required before
resumed federal coal leasing could take place, any such
leasing would be significantly delayed.
The Congressional sponsors assured the President that
S. 391 was designed to "insure development of Federal
coal on a timely basis." LeCter, Hon. Lee Meccalf,
Hon. Pacsy T. Mink, to the President, June 24, 1976,
42 Cong. Rec, p. E3667 (Daily Edition Ed., June 29, 1976),
reprinced at p. Ill, Senate Publication No. 95-77.
"Federal Coal Leasing Policies and Regulations"
(January. 1978).
Moreover, in introducing this letter for the record.
Senator Metcalf noted on the floor of the Senate on
June 29. 1976, that:
"I wish co make it very clear on record.
Mr. President, that at no time in Che
consideration of S. 391 has there been
any intention by the Congress to prevent
new lease sales by the Secretary until
all Federal coal lands have been evaluaced.
The unmistakable purpose of this bill is
co facilitate the production of coal from
Federal lands in a manner that is fair to
both the lessee or coal operator and to
the public who owns the coal .... there is
no requirement chat all known Federal
coal resources be evaluaced before any
can be leased." Ibid.
This letter and expression of Congressional intenc is
especially compelling legislative history, in light of
subsequent evencs. Notwithstanding the direct appeal
and reassurance of Senator Metcalf and Mrs. Mink, on
July 3. 1976, the President vetoed S. 391. A Senate Scaff
analysis of the President's veto message was prepared,
for use by the Congress in its override deliberations.
That analysis noted:
"S. 391 essentially codifies /Hne Department's
existing coal evaluation program/ by directing
the Secretary "to evaluate ... the known recover-
able coal." The size and timing of this
evaluation are left to the Secretary's
discretion. The program would not preclude
the Secretary from issuing coal leases
where he believes he already has adequate
informacion abouc the nature and axtenc of
the coal, nor would it require that all known
Federal coal reserves be evaluaced before any
coal is leased." Ibid at 135.
Following all of Che above, each House voced Co override
the President's veto, and S. 391 became Public Law
94-377 on August 4. 1976.
Since each House voced separately to override the
President's veto following each of the above expressions
of the intent of the Congress, each such expression must
be read as fully ratified by the Congress itself. The
legislative history is thus clear and compelling that
Congress did not intend resumed federal coal leasing to
await completion of all land use planning.
The Program as now described would, however, require
that all federal coal lands be reviewed and evaluated
for both the mineral deposit and the applicability of
criteria for designating lands unsuitable for mining,
before any lease offering may be made.
The completion of the evaluations and screening processees
contained in the Program will be time consuming. The
delay this represented by the land use planning process
outlined in the Program is both unnecessary and contrary
to the intent of the Congress. To the degree that
completion of the Program's process involves the detailed
analysis and review of areas as to which there is no
current interest on the part of potential lessees, it is
both unnecessary and premature.
At least in so far as the initial round of leasing
under a new program is concerned, no purpose would
appear to be served by requiring the detailed review i
all eligible lands, and significant efficiency would
be achieved if the total number of land areas co be
so reviewed could be reduced.
2. Allowance for Industry Inpuc.
At the same time, we note that individual companies and
entrepreneurs have been anticipating resumed federal
leasing since the 1970-71 moratorium on programmatic
federal coal leasing. In the incerim, potential
lessees have had the opportunity to review and evaluate
both federal and non-federal coal lands, and have in
many instances established internal preferences and
prioricies for the development thereof.
This process of preparation and anticipation of resumed
coal leasing received concrete expression in 1976, when
significant areas of unleased federal land were nominated
for inclusion in lease sales Co be conducted under the
EMARS II program.
It would appear to make no sense for the Department to
plan for and conduct lease offerings based exclusively
or primarily upon its assessment of the relative
desirability of federal coal lands Independent of or
inconsistent with concrete expressions of interest by
those entities who will in fact be developing chem.
We respectfully suggest chat Che Department now possesses
a data base which could be used as the starting point
for its review and analysis of lands co be subject co
the first round of lease sales. The initial selection
at this time of lands for which there is known, demon-
strated interest in resumed leasing would maximize the
resources available co the Department to implement
leasing in timely fashion, without sacrifice of other
public policy considerations.
It should be noted that we do not in chis regard propose
the adoption of the EMARS II prgram as it has been
described in the DES. As so described, this would on a
programmatic basis rely exclusively upon industry
interests and recommendations to establish potential
lease tracts. While this result would not appear to be
inconsistent with the provision in Section 2 of the FCLAA
that the Secrecary may offer lands for leasing "upon the
K-127
;■ ■^SEMIMBaB!lnBmMMMm^^M^^^^^^mmMMWTm^""^UMsmri.itiir!m
request of amy qualified applicant: or on his own motion,"
(emphasis supplied) we recognize the long range desir-
ability of a Program whereby the Department would review,
analyze and offer for lease areas as Co which no prior
specific indication of leasee interest may have occurred.
This would insure that in those instances where the
Department's knowledge and evaluation of federal coal
lands is superior to that of the private sector, the
availability of such lands will be brought to the
attention of potential lessees.
Similarly, we do not suggest that a concrete expression
of interest in a particular area might in any way reduce
or ameliorate the degree of review and analysis which
the Department might appropriately conduct before a
specific area is subdivided and some or all of the re-
sulting tracts offered for lease. While, as noted in
more detail below, we feel that the degree, complexity
and redundancy of the various successive stages of
environmental review contained in the proposed Program
are excessive, we do not suggest that by providing for
expressions of industry interest in the very early
stages of the land use planning process any appropriate
subsequent review steps might be curtailed or bypassed.
-RECOMMENDATIOH-
It should be expressly provided in the new Program that
those areas previously nominated under EMARS II, and those
areas with respect to which specific indications of
interest have been or may be received by the Department,
shall automatically arid on a priority basis be advanced
through the land use planning process and subjected to
review under the activity planning process.
Moreover, we suggest that on a continuing basis the
orderly development of the nation's coal resources would
be best served by providing in all instances that the
coal industry and all interested persons be afforded an
opportunity to focus the attention of the Department
upon particular land areas for consideration for division
into tracts and offering for lease.
3 - Specific Defects of the Process Itself
The DES states that under the preferred alternative,
"The principle coal resource decision in the
land use plan would be the determination of which
areas are acceptable for further consideration
for coal leasing."
In fact, however, the process described as the preferred
Program consists of screening all federal lands through a
series of successive reviews the sole purpose of each of
which is to preclude, on various grounds, any further con-
sideration of the lands involved for federal coal develop-
ment.
The process itself, and the sequence of the decisions in
the Program, systematically gives precedence to all Other
articulated environmental, social and natural resource devel-
opment policies . Land management decisions would be re-
quired to be made in the absence of adequate information
concerning the nature or desirability of federal coal re-
sources. Indeed, the recognition of the relative importance
of such resources in comparison with other competing environ-
mental or social values is specifically precluded throughout
this stage of the planning process.
However, both industry and the Department might have a
specific need for the coal involved in any given area: in-
dustry might require a lease to complete or obtain access to
an otherwise undevelopable logical mining unit of federal or
non-federal coal, while the Department might determine chat
coal from a given area is required to fulfill one of its
"production targets" (see discussion, below). In either Such
case, throughout this process of elimination, there would be
no opportunity to identify such specific needs.
(a) Exclusionary Determinations
The sequence of the determinate
surface coal mining as set fort;
of unacceptabilicy for
the Program are i
o elimination of areas noc previously identified as
having "high to medium" coal potential;
o elimination of areas based on applicability of the
"lands unsuitable" criteria;
o elimination of areas based on "multiple use values
identified and analyzed during conflict resolution;
elimination of areas "where s
definite preferences against.
rface owners indicate
.leasing". (Ibid)
tep will be discussed in detail.
(i) Coal Potential
First, the Program would exclude from further consider-
ation any areas not previously classified as having "high"
or "medium" coal developmenc potential. This fails to
recognize that in specific cases coal located in areas
not so classified might in fact be desirable or necessary
for development in order to expedite or stimulate coal
reserves on adjacent non-federal properties. It also
fails to recognize chaC the process of discovery and
evaluation of federal coal resources is ongoing and in-
complete, Previous classifications by federal authorities
are commonly considered to be inadequate. They may not
in face accurately depict the presence, quality or quan-
tity of coal on federal lands. The automatic elimination
of all except high and medium potential coal resource
areas is, cherefore, arbitrary and could prevent the
orderly development of specific coal necessary or desir-
able to a specific potential lessee.
We scrongly suggest that the determinative question should
be not whether a prior decision by the government has
determined chat a given coal resource is capable of devel-
opment. The Program should also provide for recognition
of the existence of a potential lessee who, because of
contract or other specific and individual circumstances,
needs and would expeditiously develop such coal.
-RECOMMENDATION-
The land manager should be required co consider
for leasing specific areas of federal coal which
have been brought to the attention of the Depart-
ment by incerested potential lessees whether or
noc located within high or medium coal potential
areas .
(11) Criteria for Designating Lands Unsuitable for Mining.
The second Stage in the land use planning process involves
application to those previously determined areas of coal
development potential of the so-called "criteria" for
designating lane's -msuicable for mining.
W .Procedural Confusion - Appl fcflftElqQ gj QzU&xU
Specific provisions whereby the criteria would be applied
are vague and poorly drafted. As a result, it would appear
that neither the land managers, the public, nor the industry
would have any meaningful opportunity to understand in
advance how and Co what areas they might be applied-
This process is purporcedly set forth in Instruction
Memorandum No. 79-76, daced November 8, 1978, published
ac 43 F.R. 57662 eC seq_. (December 8, 1978). As so
described, however, Et envisions no final administrative
action at this stage of the land use planning process.
There would chus be no meaningful opportunity for indus-
try co ancicipate before che face, or challenge chere-
afcer, che validity of the land manager's interpretacion
and application of the criteria involved.
In addition to the Instruction Memorandum, the Depart-
ment published for public comment in che same Federal
Register NoCice, a document purporting to set forth a
mechanism for "Division of Functions and Responsibilities"
among Departmental bureaus and agencies with authorities
under che various applicable scatucues and che President's
Environmental Message of May 1977. This is set forth as
Appendix B, at 43 F.R. 57666.
Each of these ele^
of the Program is seriously defec
Instruction Memorandum No, 79-6, informs Scace Directors
that the final product of the review process set forth
therein will be a "printed and reproducible MFP supplement."
The Memorandum, however , is unclear as to how and under
what interpretacion application of the criteria or possible
exceptions might occur,
, in "Step 3" the Memorandum has directed BLM
tors to apply the criteria, without exceptions,
zes the application of broad presumptions and
y conclusions in advance of actual data. No
sumptions are provided for in "Step 6", in which
are to be "applied" to the criteria. Virtually
exceptions require applicacion of precisely che
ative and quantitative judgmencs as the criteria
As a result, the effect of allowing the appli-
re sumptions and the anticipation of non-existent
n "Step 3" is therefore to preclude any meaning-
ility of exceptions at the time of implementation
For example
State Direc
and authori
anticipator
sim
lar pre
exceptions
all of the
same qualit
themselves .
cation of p
data only i
ful availab
of "Step 6"
Steps
ide guidance as to how the final
but also do noc appear to auth-
hese exceptions . In Step 10 ,
prepare "a statement for the area
ia would exclude mining based on the
:ability criteria only" (emphasis in
In Step 11, he muse "make a decision on which
areas would be excluded from mining by the criteria and
multiple use trade-offs, The remaining areas are acceptable
for further consideration for coal development."
9" through "11"
should be drafted ,
orize the application of
the officer is directed
on which the criteria woi
Department ' i
K-128
While Che memo notes under "Format and Documentation
Requirements", Section "2". at 43 F.R. 57666, that the
"Updated Plan" should be a "reproducible supplement"
that should include "stipulations and conditions .. .de-
veloped during the application of the criteria and
exceptions," no specific reference to the method of
approval or formal designation of those lands Co be
deemed unsuitable indicates Che status, or the manner
of review, of recommendations for excepcions.
Finally, che memo directs under "Record of How the Un-
suitable Area Was Developed", ibid, Section "4.c," that
a map be printed "shewing all exceptions identified in
Step 6 and a narrative indicating Che terms or stipula-
tions required".
Nowhere, however , is it indicated what che ultimate effect
of the determination made in Step 6 might be.
ilarly unclear and >
The "Division of Functions"
fusing .
As a theoretical proposition, Generalizing and coordinating
unsuicability determinations would have positive advantages .
Operators and the public would benefit from a thorough re-
view of federal lands at an early stage of planning, so
that mine plans and operations may thereafter be undertaken
with greacer assurance. Similarly, land managers would
benefic from an orderly and early determination of areas
which may or may not be used for mineral development . Such
early determinations would help to ensure thac an orderly
leasing program may be meshed with national energy policy,
and lands freed for other uses.
As a final general observation it is obvious that clearer
lines of authority and responsibility are needed in this
proposed program. Appendix B purports CO represent such a
"division of functions and responsiblities" , but in fact
Chis scheme creates a virtually unworkable interagency
committee system for receiving, reviewing and acting upon
all unsuicabilicy matters.
The functions which would purportedly be delineated, include
"Determining the mineral characteristics and values of the
land proposed for leasing..." Section A.l.a.
Subsection "A. 2," relates to the decision process following
a petition by interested persons for designation of federal
coal lands as unsuitable for Surface coal mining. Alter-
native 4 is adopted, whereby it is recognized Chat Che
Office of Surface Mining (OSM) has the responsibility for
"issuing decisions", and a mechanism created whereby OSM
has this responsibility subjecc Co administrative review
based on non-concurrence by a surface managing agency.
There is. however, no statutory authority for such peticions ,
and they would have a devastating effect on che Program and
naCional energy policy.
Only one of the many scucucory auchorities ciced to support
che proposed unsuitability criteria provides for such peci-
Cions: SMCRA. Under Subsection 522(b) of that Act it is
the Secrecary and the Secretary alone who is charged with
reviewing and designating federal lands as unsuitable for
all or cercain Cypes of surface coal mining. Unlike Sub-
section 522(c), which applies to non-federal lands, this
subsection authorizes no pecition process for designation
of federal lands as unsuitable. To introduce such a pro-
cedure would eliminate entirely the effect of the secretarial
review and designation process, and leave both operators and
land managers in a continuing state of uncercainCy as to the
permissible use of federal lands.
Even if such authority did exisc, moreover, che result set
forch in Subsection "A. 2." would be inconsistent with the
result set forth in Subsection "A. 3.", in which with respect
to che federal coal lands review required by Subsection 522(b)
of SMCRA, BLM is to apply cricerta resulting in che determin-
ation of suitability for surface mining of coal. This latter
decision, assigning responsibility to BLM, is itself con-
sistent with the decision under Subsection "A. 4.", whereby
BLM is delegated similar responsibility for such determina-
tions with respect to non-coal mining, and with subsequent
decisions relating co preparation of EIS'3 (Subsection "A. 5."),
preparation of lease terms and conditions (Subsection "A. 6."),
Secretarial representation in dealing wich lease applicants
(Subsection "A. 7."), and consulcacions with qualified private
surface owners (Subsection "A. 8.").
The memorandum is similarly confusing in Subseccion "B.",
dealing with "post leasing pre-mining functions".
In this Subsection. OSM and the U.S. Geological 5urvey
("USGS") are joincly delegated che function of deCermining
whether a proposed use of federal surface over leased federal
coal, "unrelacee to rights granted" under die coal lease, is allowed.
This is inconsistent with che responsibility assumed by che
state direccors of BLM under Inscruction Memorandum No. 79-76.
It is therein provided that during the multiple resource
trade-off process, questions of resource use inconsistent
with federal coal development {including, of course, incon-
sistent surface uses) are co be reviewed and decided by that
officer. If, as is now proposed, the development of any
federal coal lease remains subject to later determination
pursuant to this subsection thac a preferable (i.e. higher;
use might be allowed, then che prior determination by the
BLM and che coal lease icself becomes meaningless.
We suggesc chat racher than assigning clear responsibilicy ,
Appendix B appears instead co represenc an institutional
inability to scparace lines of authority. No agency would
appear co have lead responsibilicy ac all, for any phase
of the review process, OSM would' apparencly provide che
mechanical funccion of receiving peticions and arranging
hearings, but would not have responsibility for substantive
input or critical review, Any number of "surface manage-
ment agencies" will provide this substancive review function
over an unlimited cime period, and submit recommendations.
Then, once the petitioning, review, inpuC, and hearing
process is completed, objection by OSM to the findings
only results in the entire decision being bucked up to
"headquarters". (43. F.R. 57666. section A.2.C.4.)
Ue can agree wich the Department's interest in tapping all
appropriate interagency sources of information during the
review phase. However, as proposed, this syscem will noC
produce a smooth flow of factual inputs leading to a well-
reasoned decision. InsCead, the system is rife with poten-
tial for delays, conflicting inputs and recommendations, and
would be likely Co frustrate the Deparcnent ' s seated incent
to expedice land use decisions.
The uncertainty and procedural irregularities of the entire
land use planning process, as described in che DES and the
above supplementary materials, is heightened by the languaee
appearing ac DF.S 3-20, as follows:
After completion of che land use plan, the Depart-
ment could exclude additional lands from further
consideration for leasing when warranted by new
information without formally revising the plan.
There is no indicated mechanism or safeguards whereby this
might be accomplished. It would appear co be che assertion
of an intention to allow ad hoc, undisclosed actions by the
officers involved which would have the precisely similar effect
Co formal designation of lands unsuitable for mining.
No such authority should exist, or may exist consistenc wich
Che operative provisions of the relevant scatuCory authoricies
requiring public participation in the land use planning pro-
cess or the Secretary's stated intentions to implement che
Program only with adequate public participacion.
-RECOMMENDATION-
We recommend that the procedural aspeccs of the
unsuicability criteria application mechanism be
subscancially clarified. Ic should be clearly
delineated from management activity which would
determine multiple resource use trade-offs, and
specific departmental responsibilities assigned.
Finally, che directions contained in Memorandum 79-6
provide for de facto application of an exclusionary
criterion which the Department has publicly maintained
was deleted from chis mechanism.
Step 8 of the Memorandum requires the determination that
an area is unsuitable if che BLM officer receives "negacive
comments from che surface land owner." There is no
indication of the intended meaning of the Cerm "surface
land owner" in this context, buc applicacion of a
determination such as is required by chis step was included
as a specific criterion in previous drafts reviewed by
the Department. See, Final Report, Coal Task Force 2.
Land Unsuitability Criteria, September 11, 1978, at
Moreover, since surface owner consent is no longer sec
forch as a specific cricerion, no exception mechanism
whacever would be available for relief from the application
of chis decennination.
The DES notes in significant decail at 5-134 et seg. che
unaccepcable adverse consequences Chat applicacion of thi3
criterion would have caused to the development of federal
coal under surface estaces in private ownership We
Strongly suggest that no consideration ot surface ownership
patterns should be given by che land manager until the
time of actual lease tract selection and offering, so as
to encourage negotiation with surface owners as planning
continues.
-RECOHKEKDATIQN-
We recommend thac the procedural aspects of the unsuit-
ability criteria application mechanism be substantially
clarified. It should be clearly delineated from manage-
ment activity which would determine multiple resource
use trade-offs, and all reference to extraneous and
informal criteria such as surface owner "preference"
should be deleted entirely from chis stage of Che planning
process.
K-129
Provision for p<
lands unsuicablt
from che Prop-r^r
titions t
i designate federal
ig should be delete
(B) Procedural Confusion - Exception Mechanism
Moreover, che chrusc and ultimace scope of che criteria
themselves is completely confused by virtue of che uncercaincv
as co when, how and by che application of whose discretion
c!ie "excepcions" co che applicacion of such criteria might
be implemented. As now drafted, che excepcions would in many
cases appear Co contradict Che criteria themselves. In other
cases, the necessary finding chac would enable che exception
to be applied is itself so broadly stated chac ic would be
vircually impossible co implement (e.g., "it is impractical
to exclude such area"; "will not adversely affect"; "poten-
tial for harm... can be minimized"; "is not necessary to
protect"; and "no significant adverse impact").
Liceral application of che above quoted language would, in
effect, require che proof of a negacive: the demonstration
of the absence of the stated adverse impacts. A conclusive
determination Co support or deny an exception would be
impossible or, at che very least, subject to immediate legal
challenge.
Further, as presently drafted the exception process will likely
result in no relief being granted from proposed designations.
This is so because at the point in time when an unsuicability
determination is under review--long before tracts are nominated
for leasing--no party is likely to be able to undertake the
effort and expense of demonstrating that an exception is war-
ranted. In fact, it may well be impossible to make such a
showing at chat time.
Reference to the exception from the Migratory Bird criteria
is enlightening in Chis regard. Under Che proposed "exception "
leasing may be allowed:
Where the land management agency, after consulta-
tion with the Fish and Wildlife Service, determines
that coal mining will not adversely impact the
migratory bird habitat during periods when such
habitat is used by the species.
Assuming chat neither che land management agencv nor che Fish
and Wildlife Service will be inclined to make che required
showing sua sponte, this task must devolve upon parties inter-
ested in~Iong term leasing of the area. This would prove to
be impossible under the Program.
In the first place, temporal limitations such as "during periods
when such habitat is used" are meaningless in the content "f an
ongoing mining operation. Ic simply cannot seriously be argued
chac a major mine should, or could, cease operations while
even che raresc of birds fly by. Even if this were not the
case, however, effective review of the availability of an
exception would require significant knowledge of the extent
of coal resources in the subject area. However, under the
Program proposed exceptions would be ruled upon before the
Department conducts the coal resource review required by
FELAA or Section 522(d) of che SMCRA.
An interested party would thus be required either to seek an
exception withouc knowing che extent, if any, of recoverable
resources involved, or face the prospects of conducting an
exploration program for the area in quescion. Even then,
however, depending upon the size, shape and location of che
area proposed for designation, its value in relaCion to a
logical mining unit will still not be known until the over-
all area to be leased is identified.
In short, there is virtually no way that the interests of
mineral development can be fairly represented under operation
of che exception now proposed. It would operate to preclude
a full and timely presentation of the data necessary to sup-
port such a ruling.
-RECQHMEHDATION-
The process of defining and applying exemptions to
otherwise applicable criteria should be clarified,
so that the resulting product will allow all areas
which are or could be determined co be subject to
exceptions remain available for further considera-
tion in the planning process.
ntive Defects of Crit er ia
General Comments
Decailed comments with regard to several of the 24 individual
proposed unsuitability criteria are provided below. The DES
Staces these criteria to be based upon various "authorities,"
ranging from statutory mandates such as those found in SMCRA
and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, P,L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C,
1531 et sec|. , as amended, to such less definite references
as uni3"entif ied "departmental policies" and "proposed
legislation."
From a substantive standpoint, the specific criteria apoear
uniformly to far exceed the letter or intent of the statutory
provisions that direct that federal lands be reviewed and,
where appropriate, designated to be unsuitable for coal sur-
face mining.
More specifically, che Congressional
lands unsuitable for mining is conrs
Mining Control and ReclamaCion Act
U.S.C. 1201 et seq, , (SMCRA). Subi
30 U.S.C. 1277(577 directs the Secre
lands pursuant to the standard:
522(a)(2) and (3). Subsection 522(a
tion of areas unsuitable for surface
tion pursuant to the requirements of
logically and economically feasible,
directs such designation where minin;
with existing non-federal land use p'
fragile or historic lands...", affec
lands..." or affect "natural hazard
proscribed results.
direction on designating
ined in the Surface
f 1977, P,L. 95-87, 30
ion 522(b) of this Act,
tary to review federal
forth in Subsections
) (2) directs the designa-
coal mining if "reclama-
this Act is not techno-
Subsection 522(a)(3)
would be incompatible
ans, or would "affec c
"renewable resource
ands. . ." wich cercain
The operative^ terms "fragile or historic lands," "nacural
hazard lands," and "renewable resource lands" are central
to an appropriace decermination of che intended Congressional
scope of the authority to designate lands unsuitable for
mining. In effecc, these terms define those types of lands
which are intended to be subject to protection' pursuant co
this federal land management mechanism, The Congressional
direction is thus addressed to the character of land areas
and the physical conditions and effects which coal surface
mining operations might produce. (See discussion above, and
sec, especially, comments re "federal lands review" of
"classes of lands unsuitable" versus a program to govern
operations, in BLM Statement of Policy, 43 F.R. 57662 at
63, December 3, 1978.)
By contrast, many of Che criteria set forth in the pre-
ferred Program do not address such physical conditions or
effects. They relate instead to a wid« range of different,
secondary effects. They would seek the achievement of
environmental or social goals, and the prevention of un-
desired impacts upon other values not related to the land
itself.
As a result, we seriously quescion whether the criteria
as now proposed do not at least exceed and, in many respects,
contravene che federal policy set by the Congress . This
would apply particularly Co chose criteria which are not
related directly CO the condition of the land involved, and
are not mandated by statute.
Wich respect to Subsection 522(a)(3). SMCRA does not, itself,
define the terms used to sec forth the scope of the program
for designating lands unsuitable for coal mining. The Con-
gressional intenc wich respecc co chose terras is, however,
clearly evidenced by related previous legislation to
achieve che result intended by Section 522. The specific
language of SMCRA above derives from, and is a direcc quo-
tation from, legislation introduced in the 93rd Congress
in 1973 as S. 168. This so-called "land use legislation"
specifically defined the operative language later adopced
by che Congress in Section 522 of SMCRA. in terms signifi-
cantly more narrow than would justify or support the criteria
now proposed by che Department.
Thus, "fragile or hiscoric lands" were defined as chose
where uncontrolled or incorapacible developmenc "could re-
sult in irreversible damage to important historic, Cultural,
scientific, or aesthetic values or natural systems which
are of more than local significance."
"Natural hazard lands" were defined as chose where such
development "could unreasonably endanger life or property..."
those where such
"Renewable resource lands" were defined
development "which results in the loss o:
continued long-range productivity could endanger future
water, food, and fiber requirements of more than local
concern. . ." .
As applied to determine the scope of Section 522, such def-
initions indicate a Congressional intent to create a degree
of proceccion and control over land areas which is much mon
scope than this element of the preferred Program.
K-130
We support ir principle the concept that irreconcilable
conflict with specific, unique and higher resource values
will render some land areas unsuitable for surface mining.
We believe, however, chat the intent of the Congress and
sound public policy is best served if the application of
this mechanism at the pre-lease stage is limited to those
circumstances in which the Department finds that a specific
land area could not, under any foreseeable circumstances,
be Surface mined without significant and irreversible or
irreparable damage, to unique or irreplacable values or
resources, net otherwise subject to specific statutorily
created control mechanisms.
Under the Program now proposed, the issuance of a coal
lease does not in and of itself create any right of develop-
ment.
In all cases of: doubt or where reasonably foreseeable
changes in technology could enable development to occur,
the lease should be able to be granted.
-RECOMMENDATION-
Final or formal determination that a land area
should not be subject to even the possibility
of the later issuance of a lease should be
limited in application to those circumstances
where no possibility of development consistent
with other national policy is possible.
Moreover, our concern on this general point is not based
nerely upon the absence of a valid reason to support the
lands unsuitable mechanism as now proposed. We strongly
suggest that other, compelling reasons of public policy
would proscribe its adoption, and be contravened by its
implementation. Those criteria which involve protection
by this administrative mechanism which would be redundant
of other mechanisms implemented by other federal agencies,
and which are not expressly mandated by federal law, are by
definition inflationary. The creation, maintenance and
implementation of this additional Federal regulatory step
is in such cases unnecessary to achieve protection of the
values involved. Its discretionary inclusion in the
Program is without justification from an economic or policy
standpoint,
-RECOMMENDATION-
Those criteria within the Jurisdictional
responsibilities of federal agencies or
bureaus other than BLM should be imple-
mented under the program by those agencies.
All specific criteria are treated in the DES and Instruction
Memorandum 79-76 as if incorporated under the unsuitability
designation program of Section 522 of the Surface Mining
Act. This is not, however, the case.
In those few instances in which specific Congressional
authority other than SMCRA- Is cited as support for a pro-
posed criteria, the legislation, as cited, in fact discloses
the criteria to far exceed the purpose and intent of the
statute itself.
For example, as drafted the proposed migratory birds un-
suitability criteria, number "14" at 43 F.R, 57669, DES at
3-10, would rule out mineral leasing as a surface land use
when such federal lands are "high priority habitat for
migrating bird species of high federal interest on a regional
or national basis." The statutory authority cited for this
criteria is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C.A.
1703 et seq. ) . This Act, however, merely prohibits the
actuaFor attempted pursuit, hunting, taking, capture, or
killing of certain migratory birds protected by international
treaty agreements. However, rather than a restriction against
the hunting of these migratory fowl, the proposed criterion,
by contrast, extends to the habitat of such fowl, and pre-
sumably will include any place in the transcontinental
migratory zones or f lyway3 . We submit that this is a much
broader level of protection, of a much different kind, than
may be supported by the 1918 Act. Moreover, the exact scope
of this provision is left unclear through use of such in-
definite terms as "high priority habitat" and "high interest."
The resulting criterion is thus subject to widely varying
interpretations, and, thus, to potential abuse.
With respect to the specific criteria, we note the following:
Federal Land Systems. By statute, certain federal
lands cannot be used for mineral development pur-
poses. In addition to lands subject to particular
Legislative classification, SMCRA sets forth
several major subcategories.
However, criterion number "I" overstates this
protection in several ways.
First, even SMCRA acknowledged that valid exist-
ing rights to minerals on these lands should be
recognized. Second, rather than being limited to
the Custer National Forest, waivers of the basic
prohibition are allowed under SMCRA for any
national forests, with concurrence of the Secretary
of Agriculture. Finally, no authority or adminis-
trative record would appear to exist to support
extension of the criteria to "appropriate buffer
zones" around these lands, or for extending this
protection to lands which have merely been recom-
mended for inclusion in the stated categories,
Right-of-Way and Easements. There appears to be no
need tor such a restriction. Federal lands which
are in fact part of legally recognized and recorded
easements on surface leases commonly have existing
written restrictions regarding access to the mineral
estate. In the absence of any such restrictions,
departmental policy statements should not be allowed
to alter the effect of applicable law upon any con-
tested property rights involved.
Buffer Zones Along Rights of Way and Adjacent to
Communities and Buildings- This category is expressly
referenced in SMCRA. However, for purposes of accuracy,
the reference to "highway" should be changed to "road",
and the statutory recognition of valid existing rights
to such areas noted.
Wilderness Study Areas. Although there is statutory
authority tor withholding areas actually designated
as wilderness study areas from leasing, there is no
basis for imposing a wilderness inventory criteria.
Furthermore, as drafted this provision would appear
to require the interpretation that an existing EIS
may be invalid unless it has analyzed whether an area
possesses the characteristics of a wilderness study
area. Whatever other changes may be contemplated
for this criterion, the EIS requirement should clearly
be made prospective only.
5. Scenic Areas . Although visual resource analysis
may be a valid consideration when reviewing other
of the proposed criteria for designations, to in-
troduce esthetic quantification as an independent
basis for such designation is insupportable. Not
only is the stated statutory source for this pro-
vision of highly questionable validity, the
practical difficulties of application of such a
nebulous criterion are insurmountable. Retention
of this provision can only lead to endless debate
and delay in the leasing program.
6. Lands Used for Scientific Studies. As in the case
Cf the proposed right-of-way provision, this pro-
posal appears to he surplusage. If federal lands
have been permitted by the management agency for
scientific purposes, then the written instrument
which conveyed that permission creates rights and
would govern the restrictions--if any-- on alter-
native surface uses. The exception contained in
(6). if capable of implementation, would represent
a fair approach to dealing with thl3 narrow issue
without creating an additional basis for unsuita-
biltty.
7. Historic Lands and Sites. Although all of the cited
statutory sources provide for the preservation and
protection of areas of historic or archeologtcal
values, onlv Section 522 of SMCRA orecludes the
mining of such areas. This restriction, however,
extends only to chose areas included in the National
Register of Historic Sites, and is even then tempered
by recognition of valid existing rights to the mineral
development of such areas. The proposed criterion
aopears to have disregarded the provisions and
limitations of SMCRA and significantly and improperly
broadens the scope of this provision to Include areas
eligible for historic protection, as well as buffer
zones around the outside boundaries of such areas .
We seriously question the wisdom, propriety or effect
of authorizing such determinations to be made by the
land manager of the BLM in the land use planning
process .
8. Natural Areas. The obvious questions raised by this
provision are (1) What are "natural areas?" and
(2) By what authority are they singled out for
SDecial departmental protection? The only source of
illumination as to these inquiries are "departmental
K-131
policy" -- unidentified -- and proposed legislation.
The department's desires and intentions are no sub-
stitute for Congressional directives, oarticularly
when the long-term use of federal lands is at issue.
Moreover, if any implication of Congressional
direction is to be inferred from proposed legislation
which has not been enacted, it would be that Congress
did not intend Che result expressed in the legislation.
Until there is direction from Congress, this basis
for unsuitability rulings is premature and should be
deleted.
Federally Listed Endangered Species. As previously
noted, unlike the vast majority of these proposals,
the statutory authority for this criterion is quite
clear. There does exist a clear statutory mandate--
bolstered by interpretative court decisions that
various specifically enumerated species of plants
and animals shall be protected from adverse federal
agency action. The destruction or adverse modification
of a critical habitat is also prohibited. However,
the scope of the ban on mining' as a surface land use
contemplated here is arbitrary. As a result of de-
veloping technology for mitigating the impact of
mining on wildlife habitat, surface mining reclamation
eftorts can actually enhance habitat and, as a result,
mining can be a preferable land use from this point of
view when compared to other surface uses.
State
srcJ Endangered Species
It is parti
jlarlv
inappropriate for federal land managers to attempt
to implement such narrow and perhaps scientifically
unsupportabLe methods of land policy as state en-
dangered species legislation. Such questions are
particularly subject CO local interests and pressures,
and inappropriate as determinants of federal policy.
For example, it is not uncommon to find a particular
snecies protected by one state while in a neighboring
state the same species is subject to open hunting rules
As previously noted, the import of mining a habitat
may well prove to be beneficial as a result of re-
clamation techniques, A preferred approach to species
protection, would be on the basis of the surface user's
ability to protect and enhance the subject wildlife
habitat. Such an approach, however, should be accom-
plished as a part of the permitting process and not,
as contemplated by the proposed Program, long before
tracts are considered for leasing.
th the research
Bald and Golden Eagle Nests. As '
being done on habitat enhancement generally, this
prohibition would appear to ignore the extensive
research into and practical application of nest
manipulation techniques. Such techniques are
widely and commonly used for relocating osprey
nests and. to a less extent, for bald eagles as well.
Testing is continuing for similar treatment of golden
eagle nests. In view of these developments, the flat
prohibition of mining within a quarter mile radius
of any such nests is an unreasonably over-broad re-
striction. Again, as with most of the exceptions
noted, although leasing may be allowed if a nest
relocation permit is obtained, it is highly unlikely
that any operator will be prepared to make the
necessary technical showings for such a permit well
in advance in lease tract selection. Therefore,
as with other proposed criteria, the sort of inquiry
appropriate to valid land use decisions should be
made closer in time to actual mining as part of a
mine plan or permit application.
Bald and Golden Eagle Stop
and Concentration Areas .
term9 "roost" and "concentration areas" are terms
of art which, if applied correctly, should not exclude
unnecessarily broad areas from leasing consideration.
Falcon Cliff Westing Sites. Xn v:
statutory protection afforded thai
considered to be endangered -- i.(
falcon -- it seems unnecessary to
tional protective provision here,
the many species of falcons which
numbers, there is no basis for sue
ew of the existing
e species of falcons
the Perigrine
carve out an addi-
Further , as for
exist in abundant
h special treatment,
note chat language from preliminary draft regu-
lations referring CO "raptor" nesting sites has been
deleted. This is a particularly appropriate change
because of the exceedingly broad category of birds
which would be encompassed by this classification,
which extends to all species which graso their food
raptorially, i.e.. all owls, hawks and vultures.
Migratory Birds. As previously noted in the tncro-
ductory comments, there is no legal nexus between this
proposed criterion and the basic purpose of the under-
lying statutory authority. Moreover, the legislation
involved here specifically protects birds and not
nabitat as proposed herein. If habitat protection is
in fact the intent of the draftsmen, we have previously
indicated Chat coal mining reclamation technology
is demonstrating a positive rather than a negative
value with regard to habitat preservation. This
criterion, however, focuses solely upon protection
of habitat, and does so by erecting an absolute
ban on mineral development over the vast surface
areas which can and do provide habitat to che
migrating fowl which traverse the continental
United States. The extent of land which this fly-
way habitat protection would encompass is neither
identified nor identifiable and yet a non-use
criterion is based upon it.
State Resident Fish and Wildl
ing the suggest*
inclusion of thi
As noted regard-
gered species
types of considerations in
federal land use decisions is inappropriate. To
try to accommodate the various and varying state
decisions in this area introduces an arbitrariness
into the federal planning process which is un-
necessary and unneeded. If there are legitimately
protectible species or habitats, then they will
have been identified independently and isolated for
special treatment, and thus, this separate criterion
shall be unnecessary.
We t lands /Floodp la ins. These two criteria, taken
together, reveal a further departure of deparcmencal
interpretation from underlying executive order in-
tent. In che first place it must be recognized
that the cited authority for these criteria are
Executive Orders which interpret authority granted
under the instructions of NE?A. However, by incor-
porating these interpretacions into agency policy-
prohibitions with regard to land use decisions, the
thrust and balance of NEPA has been lost. Again,
the mitigating influence of the exceptions provi-
sions are so ill-timed that no relief from the basic
prohibitions is allowed.
Municipal Watersheds/National Resource Waters. While
it is difficult to argue with the legitimate need
to protect watersheds used for human consumption,
or of their importance as a "national resource" it
appears that these criteria are much broader in
scope. Because of the absence of clear definition
of protective intent, these criteria stand to be
unnecessarily burdensome impediments co any land
use planning decisions. It would seem more appro-
priate to address resource issues such as these on
a more individualized basis rather than as a pro-
hibition of national application.
State Lands Unsuitable. This proposal further
extends the unwarranted use of buffer zones co
broaden the application of land use restrictions.
To the extent that such federal land protections
are needed at all they can be provided on a site
specific basis and the process for automically
excluding federal lands from development elimin-
ated.
State Proposed Criteria. This proposal has
absolutely no authority in law. States' inputs
as to the potential use of federal lands are
valuable decision-making items, but cannot have
any compelling value in terms of federal action.
Only the Congress can affirmatively act to direct
the use of lands in the public domain.
Prime Farm Lands/Alluvial Valley Floors/Reclaim-
ability. Each or these three areas are clearly
and explicitly covered by the Surface Mining Act,
and no other existing statutory authority is
applicable to these topics as federal lands.
According co chat Act there is no prohibition on
mineral development surface use merely by virtue
of these classifications, and the legislative
history behind this Act makes clear that no restric-
tion or ban on mining was intended. Indeed, the
thrust of the recent surface mining legislation
was co provide for special, protective permitting
and operating procedures to take into account
these land areas. These three criteria should
be deleted as absolutely inconsitent with the
sole statutory authority which addresses these
issues.
Moreover, SMCRA clearly envisions the delegation of
determinations of technological and economic
feasibility to the Office of Surface Mining. To
require any negative such determination to be
made at the prelease stage is not required by
SMCRA, and would be seriously premature. As has
been demonstrated in recent years, especially
since the 1973 Arabian OPEC oil embargo and
resulting Increased unit costs of energy . conditions
of mining technology and market conditions deter-
mine the viability of development of a Lease in
this context. Changes in each such condition can
occur rapidly. The only meaningful time at which
such a determination can and should be made is
ac the time of mine plan submission and approval.
This is fully consistent with 5ection 522(b) of
SMCRA, and would constitute a determination whether
or how to "condition. . .mineral entries."
K-132
2&EC0MMENDATI0N-
The specific criteria should be redrawn
as submitted.
As an alternative to the above recommendations , we have
the following specific suggestion. Under all relevant
constructions of the need for a mechanism to determine
lands unsuitable for mining, the desired result is only
that such lands not in fact be leased. Although the early
and clear application of specific criteria would lend a
desirable degree of certainty to the balance of Che land
use planning process and to the review by industry of
possible areas for federal leasing, the principle element
of unworkability contained in the proposed program is the
lack of a clear process and an assured opportunity to
question or challenge the decisions of the manager during
this stage of the process.
The adverse consequences of the program as now described
would be greatly reduced if the formal effect of the initial
application of whatever criteria might ultimately be adopted
were otherwise then as now described.
-RECOMMENDATIONS -
The effect of application of a criterion for
designating lands unsuitable for mining should,
in the absence of statutory mandates to the con
trary under SMCRA, be limited to creation of on
a rebuttable presumption against leasing.
flJl) Multiple Resource Use Trade-Offs
Elimination based on most multiple use values is expressly
stated aa an adjustment to be made to accomodate "unique.
aice specific resource values clearly superior to coal
but not included in the unsuitability criteria. A prime
recreation site or campground might be an example." (Ibid.)
It would be difficult to imagine or describe a more
systematic bias against the development of a single
resource, coal. Implementation of the planning process
so described simply cannot honestly be characterized
as a coal management process. It is precisely the
converse: a process whereby all other resources on
federal lands will be mar-aged and given priority over
coal, even to the extent of determining that the preser-
vation of one of the numerous prime recreation sites en
federal lands should control over developing a coal
resource .
With respect to this specific example, it might be noted
that the multiple resource trade-off decisions will
occur independent of and subsequent to the application
of the specific criteria for designating lands unsuit-
able for mining. Those criteria themselves exclude
federal land systems traditionally associated with
recreational uses. As a result, this stage of the
elimination process would apply only to those recreation
areas not deemed by the Department or the Congress worthy
of inclusion in one or more of the indicated land manage-
ment systems.
The quality, physical and chemical content of each coal
deposit and of each individual segment of a coal seam
will vary considerably. As a result, each individual
potential consumer of this energy resource will have
very specific requirements. As now proposed, however,
the Program affords absolutely no mechanism whereby the
relative desirability of particular coal seams or
deposits may even be determined, much less taken into
account in balancing multiple use resource trade-off
decisions. There is no requirement whereby the land
manager might identify individual coal characteristics,
and there is no mechanism whereby any entity in the
private sector may even introduce such manifestly
important questions into the decisionmaking process.
The DES implicitly defends the policy sec forth in the
proposed Program by reference to the instruction by the
President in his May 24th memorandum to the Secretary to
lease "only those areas where mining is environmentally
acceptable and compatible with other land uses." (emphasis supplied)
In fact, the cesc set forth by the President, and now
adopted by the Secretary, chat any development of a federal
lease must be "compatible with other land uses" is a flat
and direct violation of the policy set by the Congress
in the Mining and Minerals Policy Ace of 1970 and the
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. Ic is a violation of
che policy set forth in NEPA itself, which provides in
relevant part:
"The Congress .. .declares that it is the continuing
policy of the Federal Government ... to use all
practicable means and measures ... to foster and
promote the general welfare, to create and
maintain conditions under which man and nature
can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill
the social, economic, and other requirements
of present and future generations of Americans....
It is the continuing responsibility of the
Federal Government to improve and coordinate
Federal . . .resources to the end that the Nation
may. ..Obtain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment /_and7 achieve a balance
between population and resource use which will
permit high standards of living and a wide
sharing of life's amenities." Sections 101(a),
(b), 42 U.S.C. 4321.
In this regard, the DES as now drafted fails completely
to address the adverse environmental, social and economic
impacts of the Secretary's policy preference against
federal coal leasing and in favor of all other federal
resource development. The clear and obvious effect of
postponing any consideration of technical coal data
until after complecion of the land use plan and the
completion of the process of elimination from eligibility
for leasing of all areas which are not "compatible with
other land uses" (DES, at 3-21, 3-20) must be recognized
and assessed in any final environmental statement upon
a program which produces this result.
Classification of land areas as unsuitable for mining
would permanently and for all practical purposes
irrevocably eliminate such areas from the then current
leasing cycle. If, inscead, the effect of such a deter-
mination were merely to create a rebuttable presumption
against leasing that would be subject to later review
during the activity planning process, some of the ad-
verse effects would be reduced. Potential bidders and
environmencal interests alike would be put on notice
that the possibility exists either chat the lands will
not ultimately be offered for lease or chat, if so
offered, specific conditions might be attached thereto.
This would have the effect of focusing the attention of
both Che government and ocher interested parties upon
the lands in question, and ensure that a final determin-
ation at the conclusion of all stages of the planning
process would be based upon the maximum possible data
and information.
Adoption of such a mechanism would, in addition,
signiftcancly reduce the administrative and economic
burden to the government chat is represented by Che
obligation CO review all eligible federal coal lands for
the puroose of applying the lands unsuitable criteria.
To the degree that the result of such a modified screening
process would not resulC in a permanent classification
of the lands involved, the administrative formality and
the underlying data base requirements could be signifi-
cantly reduced. This would increase che possibility
of timely completion of the screening process and
simultaneously and appropriately place the burden of
creating the evidentiary basis for final decision upon
the privace seccor.
Such an approach would, finally, serve co ensure that
a final determination of unsuitability occurs as a
specific, well defined point in the administrative
process. It would enable judicial or other challenges
to the final decision to be made with the greatest
efficiency, and minimize the possibility or protracted,
redundant litigation.
-RECOMMENDATION-
Decisions made during the multiple resource use
trade-off phase should create only rebuttable
presumptions against leasing. Where no permit
or grant of authority exists which would create
an enforceable right to an absolutely in-
consistent land use, all land areas subject to
resource trade-off should be allowed to continue
co be reviewed for coal use.
K-133
■HBHUBBH
Hill "'■ Will III
(iv) Exclusion Ba;
. Surfa.
Owner Consent
Finally, the directions contained in Memorandum 79-6
provide for de facto application of an exclusionary
criterion which the Department has publicly maintained
was deleted from this mechanism.
Step 8 of the Memorandum requires the determination
that an area is unsuitable if the BLM officer receives
"negative comments from the surface land owner." There
is no indication of the Intended meaning of the term
"surface land owner" in this context, but application of
a determination such as is required by this step was
included as a specific criterion in previous drafts
reviewed by the Department. See, Final Report, Coal
Task Force 2, Land Unsuitability Criteria, September 11,
1978, at 61. -
The DES notes in significant detail at 5-134 e_t seo. the
adverse results obtained during field testing of "these
earlier draft criteria and the scope of the impact which
this criterion would have had on the development of
federal coal under surface estates in private ownership.
As a result of these negative findings, this criterion
was eliminated. Now, however, compliance with Step 8
would effectively create an absolute surface owner
veto over federal coal mining.
Moreover, since surface owner consent is no longer set
forth as a specific criterion, no exception mechanism
whatever would be available for relief from the appli-
cation of this determination.
We strongly suggest that no consideration of surface own
ship patterns should be given by the land manager until
the time of actual lease tract selection and offering,
so as to encourage negotiation with surface owners as
planning continues.
- RECOMHENDAT ION -
All reference to extraneous and informal criteria
such as surface owner "preference" should be
deleted entirely from this stage of the planning
process.
ACTIVITY PLANNING PROCESS (DES, PAGE 3-4)
As now described, the "activity planning" for each federal
resource in the planning area would follow completion
of the land use plan itself.
"Regional production targets" would be set for coal.
Preliminary tracts would be identified, ranked and
scheduled for offering, and regional EISs prepared.
In this process, industry would be invited to submit
"expressions of interest" in possible tracts for leasing.
Afcer these "preliminary tracts" have been determined,
the potential environmental impacts related to each tract
would be reviewed.
The sole discussion of the possible adverse consequences
on land use management trade-off decisions appears as
follows:
"This component ... is incompatible with the
industry indications of need alternative which
relies on industry nominations to resolve Che
question of leasing levels. Similarly it is
incompatible with the lease to meet DOE pro-
duction goals and the state determination of
leasing levels alternatives which rely on DOE
and the states, respectively, to set the
levels of development." (DES, at 3-23, 24.)
each element of the Program causes
(1) Regional Production Targets
Coal bearing areas of the country have been divided into
twelve production regions, eight of which contain
significant federal coal reserves . Under the Program,
each such region will be "managed largely as a separate
coal production unit."
National coal production targets would be set annually
by the Department of Energy, pursuant to the DOE Act,
and subject to modification by the DOI. The number of
tracts selected for offering, the amount of coal to be
leased and the proposed timing of their sale would be
determined by reference to the production "target"
established for the region involved by the Department,
The entire activity planning process is, thus, controlled
by and a direct function of the setting of "production
targets" that will be set and used by the Department to
decide how much coal should be made available in any given
lease offering.
Both the manner of intended application of regional pro-
duction targets and the timing of their use presents
serious difficulties.
(a) Use of Targets
We seriously question the utility of regional product:
targets as determinants of the levels of future coal
leasing.
Under the Department of Energy Authorization Act, the DOE
is directed to develop proposed national energy production
goals for federal lands, based upon production estimates
provided by the DOI or developed by DOE, as adjusted for
changes in applicable laws and regulations, technology
or recovery methods.
The proposed Program would convert these goals, as furtl
modified by the Secretary, into specific production
quantities from which estimates of future coal leasing
and production requirements will be derived.
In fact, however, the impression of accuracy and reliability
conveyed by the DES description of the regional production
target setting process is seriously misleading . Coal
market forces are subject to significant fluctuations over
relatively brief periods of time. Long term trends are
difficult to predict with accuracy. Even relatively recent
data regarding potential production from existing federal
leases for which mine plans have been submitted or are
known to be in preparation is now of uncertain reliability.
The market condition in the coal industry is, for instance,
depressed at this time. Some mines have been closed,
and the opening of others significantly delayed due to
the absence of assured markets for future production.
Data collected as recently as last year by the National
Coal Association in many respect; no longer accurately
reflects the future contributions of major production
activity previously planned.
Estimates of production from other federal leases for
which mine plans have not been prepared are even more
speculative. Demand-based modelling such as is presently
used within both the government and the private sector
is of particularly questionable reliability, due to the
magnitude of the effects thereon of such variables as
supplies from foreign energy sources, future contribu-
tions of competing domestic energy resources, and the past
and future effects of major changes in the governmental
controls on the development, production, transportation
and consumption of coal .
The number and relative significance of the variables
involved prevents any single decisionmaking entity from
being able to assess future levels of production and use
with the specificity that would be required for successful
implementation of the Program. In the past this has been
especially true with respect to the efforts of the federal
government to model the private sector of the economy.
Serious problems have already been identified with the
models currently in use, and che reliability of estimates
which would disaggregate supply and demand and seek to
assign regional values would be even more difficult.
The nature of the coal industry, the nature of its
markets and the extraordinary variabilities to which i:
is subject produces a demand- supp ly situation of such
complexity that even the most sophisticated modeling
techniques cannot approximate future realities.
The consequences of the DOI reaching too high a regional
production target would merely be that too many leases
might be offered or issued. As noted above, existing
regulator:; requirements would prevent any actual adverse
effects of such a result, and competition would be en-
hanced ,
The Program, however , contemplate
targets below DOE recommended lev.
rejected all opcions that would t<
ranges. (DES, at 3-30, 31.)
nly reduction of
, and the Secretary
toward higher target
Moreover, as now described, in the event that the federal
J^asing^target applicable to a particular region exceeds
highly ranked Federal
targets itself could be
S, at 3-4.)
oducable coal in '
K-134
The consequences of error on the low aide in reaching
cargec levels would be significantly worse from a
departmental, economic and energy standpoint. Serious
disruptions of all planning would occur in corrective
efforts. Anticompetitive and inflationary market pressures
would be created, and energy goal achievement jeopardized.
Neither of these facts or consequences
discussed in the DES.
re adequately
Where settled national policy establishes the clear need
for enhanced utilization of domestic energy resources
to fulfill the nation's future needs, such future demand
estimates as would be represented by the regional pro-
duction targets in the Program should not operate as
the actual determinate of specific levels of resumed
federal coal leasing. Reliance upon such targets for
such purposes is neither required by applicable laws
and regulations or justifiable in light of our domestic
energy needs .
There is only one entirely accurate indicator, at any
given point in time, from which a specific need for
resumed federal leasing levels can validly be inferred
by the Department. That indicator is the existence of
willing potential lessees. If there is no such willing
applicant for a federal lease, model projections of
supply and demand will not result in the issuance of a
single new federal lease.
By contrast, if there is such a willing potential lessee,
and a policy to encourage increased or accelerated
utilization of domestic energy resources remains a
national priority, there would appear to be no valid
argument against the issuance of a lease.
This theoretical argument in fact reflects the current
market situation with respect to federal leases. Recent
reports by the Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Conmission have highlighted both the existence of
demand for new federal leases and the adverse effect
upon enhanced competition and renewed market entry
possibilities within the industry which the current
leasing moratorium has produced.
We see no reason why the preferred Program should provide
that the Secretary may set or adjust regional production
targets, or allocate such production between or among
regions, in such a fashion" as to deprive any potential
lessee of the opportunity to develop federal coal for
which he believes he has a market. To enforce such
arbitrary limitations upon leasing under the present
s would have the inevitable inflationary
.ight supply
---•'. t ion
circums
effect of sustaining a high market price in a t:
demand situation, and tend to inhibit enhanced <
in the market place
Either result would be in direct contravention of clear
national policy. Under the current system of environmental
protection and controls, and in light of existing federal,
state and local assistance available to alleviate socio-
economic consequences of development, no valid public
policy Justification for restraints upon the level of
' coal leasing would appear to exist.
-RECOMMENDATION-
We reconmend that specific target levels not
be set as determinants of Levels of leasing.
We recommend that production levels estimated
by the federal government be viewed only as
threshhold estimates of possible future de-
mand. Appropriate levels of resumed future
coal leasing should be those determined by
the existence of potential lessees and the
levels of production represented by such
proposed leases and other specific indications
of interest by industry, state and local
governments .
We emphasize that in making this recommendation we do
not suggest that the Department adopt a program such as
is described in the DES in its discussion of the program
known as EMARS II. As described in the DES, such a
system would have had limited the ability of the governme:
Co determine where development of federal resources
would be most desirable and appropriate. Adoption of
a program as so described would represent an abnegation
of the federal government's clear responsibility to
exercise discretion with respect to leasing.
As proposed by SCA, however, the determination by the
Department of' the existence, extent and geographical
location of areas of particular interest to potential
developers would be a major but not necessarily unique
starting point in the analysis of the need for the
issuance of additional federal leases. All other
appropriate review, analysis and balancing steps could
still take place, but a starting place would have been
adopted which would simultaneously both establish the
presumptive need for additional leasing and serve most
efficiently to focus available federal attention and
resources upon specific areas or regions.
(b) Timing of Setting Targets
Serious problems are presented also by virtue of the fact
that the assignment of regional production targets occurs
under the Program only after the completion of the land
use planning process and the first stages of the activity
planning process, ka a result, there is no opportunity
presented whereby the decisions made prior to the assign-
ment of production targets may take into account the actual
quantities of coal which will be required to be produced
from the areas in question. Throughout the decision-
making process whereby lands might be declared unsuitable
for mining or whereby resource trade-off decisions which
will commit federal lands to other uses inconsistent
with coal development, no coal value of the lands may
be taken into account. No effective balancing of the
value of sucn lands for coal development can therefore
occur .
Moreover, the DES does not discuss the adverse impacts
chat will result from the scheduling of this element of
the planning process so lace as to prevent a meaningful
application of the statucorially mandated principle of
multiple use-sustained yield. Section 3.2.3.. "Setting
Regional Production Targets." merely repeats the manner
in which such targets are intended would be set. It
further notes only that they would be used by federal and
state governments "to set data gathering and planning
priorities to ensure that a sufficient number of tracts
would be delineated and that adequate site specific
information would be available to make the regional
ranking and selection process workable" but immediately
adds "They would be flexible ,.. .with the final targets
actually being developed as part of the analysis in the
ranking and selection process." <DES . at 3-23.)
- RECOMMENDATION-
Any production targets to be used by the land
manager at any time in the planning process
must be identified and referenced to a specific
region so as to enable them to be used during
any process which assesses values or assigns
priorities to or among competing resource uses.
-38-
Tract Selection and Ranking.
Although not separately treated in Chapter 3 of the DES,
procedures whereby the actual boundaries of lease tracts,
and the ranking of those tracts in a subsequent lease offer-
ing, have been addressed by the SEcretary and preliminary
decisions have been made. See, Summary of Decisions,
July 27, 1978, Issue 3-2 and Issue D-4.
Under this element of the Program, industry interest would
for the first time be formally solicited. This will occur,
however, only after the pool of all available land has been
winnowed down by (1) land use planning for all other re-
sources and (2) screening of remaining lands to delete those
"unsuitable" for mining.
Of remaining areas, industry will be allowed to indicate
which are the "best" leasing tracts, but not proposed lease
boundaries. Lease boundary selection will be based in an
unknown fashion upon the amount of coal "needed", the public
body question, the intertract bidding decisions, any veto
authority given to states, the opinion of the Attorney
General upon anticompetitive results, etc .
The "ranking' of chose areas left after completion of
both the land use planning process and application of the
lands unsuitable criteria would appear constitute one
last procedural step whereby lands otherwise available
might be excluded from leasing based on "State desires, re-
claimability, coal economics , etc." Moreover, Departmental
representatives concede that in those areas where HFP
planning is now well advanced, even this limited opportunity
to so "comment" may not be offered, alchough all such MFP's
will in fact be re-reviewed according to the new "suitability"
criteria.
Moreover, each of the indicated elements that go into "rank-
ing" would appear arguably to the province of other bureaus
or other procedures than BLM's leasing process (e.g.
"reclaimability" would properly be subject to the judgment
of USCS and OSM, at the time of mine plan submission).
Concessions by DOI that "ranking" may only be possible at
the area level instead of the smaller .tract unit based upon
data available highlights a fundamental problem with the
Program in the real world already noted throught these
comaents: not nearly enough i3 known about all federal
holdings to enable even earlier stage decisions to have
been made, much less "ranking" in the decail here proposed,
-RECOMMENDATION-
"Ranking" mechanisms should be substantially
clarified, and opportunities for industry to
determine lease boundaries provided earlier
in the Program.
K-135
C, OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE PREFERRED PROGRAM
In addition CO Che above mentioned concerns regarding Che
land use and activity planning processes described in the
.re several additional elements of
DES. we beli
there ,
the preferred Program which would be unacceptably
difficult to implement, and which would frustrate any
determination CO resume federal coal leasing. These
issues relace to the pre-lease planning mechanisms, the
concencs of a proposed lease under the federal program,
the methods by which lease sales might be conducted and.
finally, the proposal chat the Department's newly developed
screening and management processes be applied to existing
leases and preference right lease applications (PRLAs) .
Noc all of these issues are of equal importance or would
have equally adverse effects upon the success of che
proposed Program. Our comments will be addressed in
the order in which the specific questions arise in the
Finally, we note the effect of the Program upon the appli-
cability of NEPA to coal leasing.
Splic Estate Leasing and Surface Owner Consent, The
respective rights and responsibilities ot che federal
government in those areas where a federal coal estate
has been retained in government ownership after aliena-
tion of the overlying surface has been one of che most
controversial and highly publicized issues to arise
in recent years. It resulted in the enactment of
Seccion 714 of SMCRA, which in essence provides chac
no coal lease shall be issued for surface mining unless
the surface owner, if qualified, has consented thereto.
This class of "qualified" surface owners includes only
persons who have, for at least three years prior to the
granting of the consent co mining, held tide to the
land surface, and have either had their principle place
of residence, or personally conducted or received signifi-
cant income from farming or ranching activities on the
land.
As described in the DES, Che preferred Program would
extend the protection of the Act to qualified surface
owners, recognize that Other surface owners might be
entitled to protection under state law, and in addicion
utilize regulations co be issued under the Mineral
Leasing Act co police che accual form and content of
surface owr.er consents,
fails to distinguish between private surface owned by a
coal company, which would not be eligible for protection
under the surface owner consent provisions of SMCRA, and
private surface owned by a qualified owner.
No preference should be set for federal surface ownership
lands over chose lands in which a coal company has purchased
outright the surface estate. To establish such a prefer-
ence would penalize unnecessarily and unjustifiably those
companies which have prudently continued to attempc to
puc COgecher logical mining units during the leasing
moratorium, and in reliance upon the probability of
resumed federal coal Leasing. In such cases, such
companies would clearly be in a position moat effeciencly
and quickly to develop che federal coal resources Involved.
As long as fair markec value is established and an
adequate return to the government thus assured, no public
interest is served by creation of a bias against che
issuance of such a lease.
-RECOMMENDATION-
No preference for federal over company surface
ownership should be included in the Program.
Other discussion in the DES of each of these issues is
confusing. As we understand che preferred Program, the
above mentioned review and Secretarial constraints
would be applied only where a qualified private surface
owner is involved .
In such circumscances , che form and concent of the consent
would be reviewed and no lease sale would be conducted
unless by its terms che consent were transferable. The
DES states at page 3-41 that a consenc would be considered
"transferable" only if ic provides for payment or re-
imbursement, as appropriate, in che amount of the "purchase
price of the consenc.''
We question whether this provision might be subject to
abuse. On the one hand, a market could develop whereby
surface owner consents would be granCed at artifically
inflated prices, for the sole purpose of subsequent
brokerage at such inflated prices to a bidder who mighc
require the coal involved co complete a logical mining
unit.
If intercract bidding were Co be utilized, che effecc
of such a transaction could be seriously to reduce
Che capital available for the bid, and thus the lease
offering icself. In such case, necessary federal coal
leases mighc be lost or federal coal bypassed due to
inability of che sole authentic bidder to compete on
an intertract basis with another potencial lessee not
so financially constrained.
By che same token, requiring thac che consenc be transfer-
able at the original cose could operate inequitably where
a party may in good faith have obtained a consent at some
time in che past, and che value of consent has materially
increased as a result of market conditions. In such case
the holder of the consent mighc now be required co convey'
the same at a price significantly less than che market
value and thus lose both the coal involved and the
true value of che original consent as well.
-RECOMMENDATION-
Provisions for transferability of a consent
should be redrafted so as co provide for trans-
ferability in such a way as to recognize che
fair markec value of che consent ac the time
of transfer.
Lease Stipulations .
As described in the DES at page 3-25. che Department would
propose co include environmental stipulations for each
proposed lease. In che decision documents, che Secre-
cary expressed a preference chat the Department reserve
Che right Co add additional lease terms and conditions
as further environmental information became available
(DES Table 3-3. at page 3-32.)
There would appear to be no statutory authoricy whereby
the terms and conditions of a lease as originally issued
might thus be subject to the unilateral imposition of
additional terms at a lacer dace other chan that of the
renegotiation anniversary.
In addition, there would appear to be no need for the
reservation of such authority, either in che regulations
or as a matter of contract between the Department and
Che lessee. To che degree thac changed environmental
information might disclose the need for che formulation
Of specific performance requirements, the imposition
of such requirements may most effeciently be reviewed and
undertaken through the mechanism of the approval of the
mine plan.
The stated purpose of this review would be twofold: to
ensure that the financial considerations involved in the
consent are not so high as to significantly reduce che
markec value of the lease, so that a fair market recurn
mighc noc be achievable by the government. Second, Co
ensure chat the competitive nacure of a pocencial lease
offering is noc jeopardized by the existence of such
consent.
In this regard, the DOT assumes that where a surface owner
consent has been issued or is in quescion. no one other
than the ovner or grantee would bid on a lease. In such
cases, the Secretary would be prepared co explicitly
exercise discretion not to conduce Che lease offering.
We scrongly disagree wich chis inference chat the existence
of a surface owner consenc question precludes a compecicive
lease situation. We scrongly suggest chat che existence
of such a question is irrelevant co the quescion of
compecicive status in the real world.
-RECOMMENDATION-
Where a consent has been issued, the Department
should infer only interest in the tract, and
encouvage development by offering such area
for a lesse.
In addicion, che decision documents we have reviewed
indicate an additional elemenc noc specifically addressed
in the DES. On June 30, 1973. the Secretary is reporced
by the Department to have expressed a preference thac
lease tracts be ranked for sale in che following order'
federal Surface first, coal companv owned surface second
and private surface lasc. See. "Summary of Preferred
Alternatives," July 18, 1978, at p. 9.
The DES does not appear specifically to address the
decision by the Secretary to rank potencial leases so
that federal surface would be preferred to "coal company
surface." At page 3-24, the DES states that a "preference
would be accorded tracts where the surface is federallv
owned in favor of traces where che surface is in privace
ownership (other factors being nearly equal)..." Ue
respectfully submit that this language does not adequately
describe the preference expressed by the Secretary. It
K-136
-RECOMMEKDATIQH-
The Program should provide that changes required
due to changed conditions should be provided for
in the mine plan, and at the time of approval
thereof.
Fair Market Value.
We have significant reservation as to the validity of
Che use in all cases of discounted cash flow analyses
to evaluate the fair market value of any given lease.
As we understand the Program, it would require the prep-
aration of a complete pro forma financial statement prior
to lease issuance. However", the actual financial conditions
under which a property might be developed could change
drastically between the time of lease issuance and actual
development. In addition, previous experience with
discount ca3h flow analyses has produced significant
variance between and among the values assigned by
Departmental officers and those of the producers, and
widely different bids on proposed leases involving sub-
stantially similar quality and quantities of coal.
-RECQMMEHDATION-
The discount cash flow analysis should be set
forth as one method only whereby fair market
value might be established, and explicit
recognition be given to alternative methods of
calculating the same may be used at the request
of a potential lessee.
Maximum Economic Recovery.
Or all of the specific decisions tentatively reached by
the Secretarv. the requirement that each lease by its
terms identify and require the "maximum economic recovery
of the resources involved is Che most objectionable
It is discussed in the DES at page 3-41, without elabora-
tion or explanation.
As so described, this element of the preferred Program
would be impossible co implement. It would assume chat
the Department would be able to determine, prior to lease
issuance, not only the quality and quantity of all
reserves in the lease, but also the actual market price
at which che coal involved would be ultimately sold.
As adopted by Che Secretary, each lease would require the
minine of "all coals seams which are collectively profit-
able.R (DF.S, at 3-41. Table 3-3 ac 3-32.)
This element of the program has been adopted in ignorance
of the manner of which coal is mined and sold. It is not
possible, in many cases even during the operation ofc a
mine, to determine with specif icicy the price at which
any Riven seam will be sold. Commonly, where multiple
seams are involved, multiple contracts will be executed
over the life of the mine, at widely differing prices
which reflect the actual cost of the mining of the specific
coal Involved in each contract. There is. therefore.
absolutely no way to determine "collective profitability.
Of perhaps greater importance, from a philosphical
standpoint the option adopted by the Secretary amounts
to direct federal control over the level of profits which
a company developing a coal lease will be allowed to
obtain. This, in turn, amounts to direct control over
the price at which the coal will be sold, and represents
an unprecedented admlnistracive imposition of price
concrols on this segment of Che energy industry Such
a requirement is neither required nor supported by
statutory authority.
The concept of maximum economic recovery as now proposed
by the Department far exceeds the Congressional intenC
in establishing such a concept, and the manner in which
the Congress intended that the goal which It did articulate
would be implemented.
In the FCLAA Congress made two important distinctions
which must be recognized and should be distinguished in
the Program.
Firsc, the FCLAA provides in Section 2 that in subdividing
coal lands into leasing craccs , che Secretary shall sec
the size of such tracts so as to "permit the mining oi
all coal which can be economically extracted in such
The clear intent of this language is to ensure that tract
boundaries are not set at levels other than those required
to support a logical mining unit, taking into account
federal and non-federal coal which may be involved.
The FCLAA separately provides in Section 3 (new Subsection
(3)(C) of che Mineral Leasing Act) that before issuing a
lease, Che Secrecary
"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
mechods achieves the maximum economic recovery
of the coal within Che proposed leasing Cract.
This evaluacion and comparison by the Secre-
tary shall be in writing but shall not prohibit
the issuance of a lease; however, no mining
ooera:ins plan shall be approved which is not
found to achieve the maximum economic recovery
of the coal within the tract." (emphasis
supplied)
By this provision of the FCLAA, Congress created two (
distinct mechanisms relating co "maximum economic recovery.
The firsc, and the only such mechanism applicable to the
cerms of a lease Itself, is clearly designed to ensure
the accurate determination of which and by what sequence
of mining methods (surface, underground or other, e.g.
auger) would extract the maximum amount of the federal
coal resource Involved in the lease. This was clearly
not intended to be an essential element of a lease, and
the absence of such a finding "shall not prohibit
lease issuance.
The second and clearly distinct mechanism relates only to
the approval of a plan of operations. In this context,
it amounts to a racification of the long standing
provision in Departmental regulacions that, in the approved
plans for ongoing operations, a reasonable balance be
drawn so that federal coal resources are not left in the
ground as a result of "highgrading" the deposit so as to
extract only the lowest cost coal.
In the proposed Program, the Department blurs all distinctions
becween chese three concepts. By providing that the lease
itself determine and require what will be the required
maximum economic recovery, the Department ignores the
separate and distinct purposes to be served by each of Che
above statutory provisions: the division of land into
lease tract sizes thac will maximize recovery of the
resource and minimize the bypassing of federal coal; che
determination as to which mining mechod will maximize
recovery of the resource and minimize bypass; and the
traditional application of discretion In the mine plan
itself Co balance the cost and benefits of the recovery
of specific coal areas based upon the economic condlcions
existing ct the Cime of mining.
The Congress clearly did not intend che result Chat
would occur under the Department's proposal, Indeed,
the legislative history indicates a Congressional intent
Chat the appropriate mechanism would be one whereby an
operator might be encouraged to produce coal otherwise
uneconomical to mine, by means of a reduccion of Che
ocherwise applicable royalty under Secclon 39 of the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. which was not amended by
che FCLAA, This preferred mechanism was expressly des-
cribed as excending even to a case in which the Secrecary
mighc lower a royalty even below the minimum royalty
ocherwise required, for che purpose of encouraging che
greatest possible recovery of coal." See. Correspondence
of Senator Metcalf and Congre3swoman Mink, June 24, 1976
to Che President, supra ,
As now proposed, provision for determining and requiring
maximum economic recovery as defined by the Department
would be impossible to implement, unreasonable to require
and in excess of any reasonable incerpretaclon of the term
as employed by the Congress.
-RECOMMENDATION-
Requirements for provision in the lease for a
determination of specific levels of "maximum
economic recovery" should be deleted from che
Program.
Sale and Bidding Methods (PES, at 3-25).
The preferred Program would concemplate the use of
"intertract bidding" to supplement or increase the
competitive nature of a lease offering. Although not
extensively described, we understand the concept of
intertract bidding to be analogous to chat previously
employed by the Departmenc on an experimencal basis in
connection wich che offering of oil leases on the outer
concinental shelf. Aa so employed, it would involve
the awarding of leases based upon a comparison of che
value per ton of bids tendered by sole bidders for
differenc tracts.
As so understood, we seriously question whecher chis
mechanism could be successfully employed. It would
require a greater knowledge than the Department i3
known to possess concerning the actual quantity of
reserves which would be contained in each of the tracts
involved.
K-137
Moreover, coal lease offerings are significantly different
from oil lease offerings. In Che former case, the physical
and chemical characteristics of coal may differ widely
between and among tracts and even within a single tract.
By contrast, oil leases subject to interrracc bidding
would commonly involve the tapping of the same geologic
structure and the production of virtually identical
oil reserves.
The Secretarial decision documents indicate that some
adjustment might be allowed in comparing the per ton
value of bids submitted in an intertract competition
based upon the known physical and chemical qualities
of the different coals involved. This would not, however,
be adequate CO compare validly the respective bids.
Each potential lease will involve different costs of
production, including environmental and transportation
costs, which would be reflected in the overall bid but
which would not be accurately accounted for in the
calculation of the per ton value. As a result, application
of intertract bidding where widely differing costs are
involved between or among tracts could have the effect
of awarding leases which in fact involve higher rather
than lower cost coal, or greater rather than lesser
degrees of environmental risk.
-RECOMMENDATION-
Provision for intertract competitive bidding
should be deleted from the Program,
(6) Special Leasing Qppo
(PES, at page 3-27) .
As described in the DES. the Secretary would* utilize set
aside lease offerings to encourage the formation and entry
into the coal production market of small business
entities. The example regulations attached as Appendix A
(Sections 3420 . 1-4) <a) (2) and 3472.2-2(e>) provide a
"special leasing opportunity" for such entities. We
further understand the Department to intend by this
provision to implement the Declaration of Policy set forth
in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. at 631(a). that the
federal government should attempt to ensure that "a
fair proportion of the total sales of government property"
be made to such enterprises.
First, this question is now raised for the first time
by the DES. It does not appear to have been the subject
of any Secretarial decision document or process. (See,
"Issue Option Papers." Table 3-2, and "Policy Options-
Secretary's Preference" Table 3-3. at DES 3-29 et seq , )
We note again that the above quoted Example Regulations
are specifically stated in the DES to be set forth for
illustrative purposes only. As a result, they do not
constitute a statement of Secretarial decisionmaking.
A DES or final E1S under NEPA does not itself constitute
a formal proposal for federal action. Under NEPA and
guiding principles of federal judicial determinations,
an EIS is an analytic document which is required to consider
the consequences and alternatives of an action otherwise
proposed. Since this element of the Program would not
appear to be such a formal "proposal", its inclusion
for discussion at this time is inappropriate.
This is particularly important since the origin and respective
arguments for and against this proposal have not been
publicly disclosed. As a result, of course, it follows
that the DES could not, and in fact does not, present
any of the consequences or alternatives of this particular
program element. As a result, any more elaborate dis-
cussion in the final EIS would not have been subject to
sufficient public comment under NEPA, as applied to the
Department in NRDC v. Hughes , supra.
Even if this were not the case, and without any insight
into the decisionmaking process within the Department on
this point, it would appear that application of the concepts
of "fair market value" and "maximum economic recovery,"
however these terms may be finally defined by the Depart-
ment, would necessarily require preferential and thus
inequitable treatment of small business entities. This
would flatly contravene the intent of the Secretary as
expressed in his decision with respect to public body
leasing. (See, Decision of June 30, 1978. decision at
DES 3-33-)-
Moreover, we do not agree with the apparent assumption
by the Department that the issuance of a federal coal
lease constitutes a "sale" of government property within
the meaning of the Small Business Act. A lease is the
issuance of a right to develop federal coal, and treatment
of the legal consequences of such issuance as a "sale"
would seriously undermine all assumptions by the Department
as to its subsequent power to control, adjust or amend
the terms and conditions under which development may occur.
Finally, and of perhaps greatest importance, the program
element now raised for the first time by the DES is
unnecessary because of, and inconsistent with, specific
provisions of the FCLAA expressly designed by Congress
to ensure appropriate participation by smaller entities
in any federal leasing program. Section 2 of the FCLAA
amended Section 2(a) of the Mineral Leasing Act,
30 U.S.C. 201(a), and requires in relevant part that
No less than 50
offered for lea:
year shall be leased under a system of deferred
bonus payment
er centum of the total acreage
by the Secretary in any one
This explicit provision for "deferred bonus" bidding was
consistently understood and intended by the Congress to
be an accomodation of concerns over the ability of smaller
entities to enter the relevant market or compete with
those of larger capital resources. As noted by the
principle sponsor of S. 391 in his remarks upon the
introduction of the FCLAA for final Senate vote,
"S. 391 would foster competition in the bidding
for leases by requiring that 50 percent of all
acreage leased in any one year be under a
system of deferred bonus bidding. This would
allow a sort of installment plan for paying
the bonus, thus reducing the front-end capital
outlay necessary and enabling smaller corpor-
ations to compete with the giants....
/Such a provision/ will guarantee against the
possibility that the Secretary .. .could fail to
keep in mind the disadvantageous positions in
which smaller companies will find themselves .
A diversified coal industry, which this
amendment would foster , is certainlv in the
public interest." Congressional Record,
June 21, 1976, as reproduced in Senate Public-
ation No. 95-77, Federal Coal Leasing Policies
and Regulations , at 115-6. 5ee also paragraph "5" B
ot Correspondence, Senator Metcalf and Congresswoman
Mink to the President, June 24. 1976, Ibid, at 123.
-RECOMMENDATION-
No special leasing opportunities for small business
entities may be contained in the Program as finally
presented to the Secretary for decision.
Management of Existing Leases and Preference Rizht
Lease Applications, ' —
The Department would not propose to apply new criteria to
determine the "suitability" of lease development to exist-
ing but non-producing leases, and to preference right lease
applications (PRLAs) .
Decision on the "suitability" for the development of a
particular lease would, in the normal course of events
525- made uncil the citne of submission of a mining plan.
(DES, at 3-33, "Summary of Preferred Alternatives "
July 18, 1978, Issues VII, VIII)
This represents a major advance beyond previous Depart-
mental approaches. The extensive new "suitability1' criteria
would operate independently of the mechanism of the Program
whereby new leases would be issued. It would apply broad
novel social, economic and environmental constraints to the
subject leases and PRLAs,
PRLAs and leases are considered "valid existing rights,"
the cancellation or major restriction of which would
arguably be a taking which entitles the holder to
compensation. The Department appears to assume enact-
ment of exchange lease legislation which would broaden
their authority to move against existing rights.
The issue involved in this element of the Program is
subject at this time to pending litigation. To the degree
that the Program would anticipate the outcome of this
litigation, it is inappropriate and should be deleted.
Moreover, this policy would be particularly unfair and
inequitable with respect to existing leases. It would
require the lessee to undertake the lengthy and costly
procedures to develop a mining plan, and only after such
investment of time and effort would the Department seek
to apply the new criteria.
-RECOMMENDATION-
The Program should contain no provisions with
respect to the imposition of constraints upon
the valid existing rights represented by out-
standing leases and preference right lease
applications.
K-138
Applicability of NEPA Requirements to Leaning
We understand Che policy of Che Department to be to
seek Co reduce, consistenc with the letter and 3piriC
of NEPA, the total number and scope of environmental
impact scacements prepared with respecc Co federal
coal development. To achieve chis resulc, we under-
stand the Department to be implementing a policy whereby
a preexisting EI3 may be relied upon at the time of mine
plan approval, so ss to reduce the need for or scope of
the statement or environmental analysis required on the
plan itself.
The overall Chrust of Che Program as described in the DES
Is to reduce significancly the rights and privileges
which would be afforded to future lessees. The DES
expressly notes that issuance of a lease under the Program
would give no assurance or right thereafter CO develop
the lands involved. SeparaCe and distinct authorization
must be obtained for all development the approval of
which could reasonably be construed Co constituce a
"major federal action under NEPA and the applicable
guidelines and regulations of the CEQ and the Department.
Section 702(d) of SMCRA does not exempt approval under
Sections 508 and 523 of a reclamation plan for operations
on federal lands from che environntencal impact scacetnent
requirements of NEPA.
As a result, we now suggest chat che mechanism which
would be creaced by the Program eliminates Che need
for an environmental impacc scacetnent upon a specific
lease offering.
Wlch respecc Co che new Program, Che DES and the subse-
quent final sCatemenc would conscicute Che treaCmenc
required under NEPA and by Order of che Court in NRDC v.
Hughes , supra. The environmental and other consider-
ations involved in the application of such a program Co
specific, idencified geographical areas, and che coal
and ocher resources contained cherein, would be covered
in subsequenc "regional" EISs . Such regional EISs would
creac the impacts of coal lease issuance within and
among the federal coal regions, and would include NEPA
treatment with respect to all geographic areas In which
leasing might thereafter occur, (To the degree Chat
subsequenc leasing was contemplated in areas not so
CreaCed, new regional EIS treatment or supplemencs
would be required.)
Thus, the mechanism of che programatic EIS and the regional
EISs fulfill completely che requirements of NEPA appli-
cable co a lease offering.
For economy and efficiency, Che letter and spirit
of NEPA would appear to be best served if an environmental
impact statement were not to be required on a lease
offering, but the requirements of NEPA fulfilled by
preparation of an environmental impact statement or
environmental analysis in lieu thereof ac the time of
mine plan approval.
- RECOMMENDATION -
The Program should expressly Include and provide
a Departmental undertaking that EISs under NEPA
will not normally be performed upon a lease offering.
CONCLUSION
The preferred Program represents an unprecedented degree
of management and concrol ac the Departmental level of
federal coal resources. Many specific elements of che
Program are unworkable. If implemented, we believe ic
would be impossible for the Department or che private
seccor to achieve In timely or responsible fashion any
realistic goal of resumed federal coal leasing.
The unworkable aspects of the Program appear in virtually
all respects to be actions or choices within the discretion
of che Department. They are not mandated by external
constraints of law or national policy. As a result, the
Program would appear to represent the conscious adoption
by the Department of a land management policy which is
systematically biased against federal coal development.
We do not believe that this result is consistent with the
intent of che President, the public interest or the national
policies established by the Congress in relevant legislation.
We urge the Deparcmenc to reconsider and amend the preferred
Program, so that the r.ation may have the benefit of che
timely, orderly and environmentally sound development of
the vical domestic energy resources represented by unleased
federal coal lands .
IU «
Environmental Policy Institute
3l7;'0!insi-lv.,(iu Aw. S,t, IV.i-JiLi-.Hiini, i J <■.. :W0.'
099
COMMENTS OS
THE
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
ON
THE
FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GARY RIDDER
February 13,
1979
INTRODUCTION
The Department of the Interior is to be congi
to put together a comprehensive coal leasing pre
Environmental Statement (DES) on the Federal Co;
tulaced for Its efl
ran. The Draft
Management Prograi
published by the Department represents a significant improvement over pas-
documents on the federal coal leasing program. Among the important
Issues that this document addresses which were previously ignored are
1) the recognition that there is a difference between the need for a
coal Management program and the need for increased leasing, 2) the
recognition of the need for a coal management program based on land use
planning policies, 3) the acknowledgement of the need to actually
Involve the public in che decision malting process and (1) the inclusion
of the concept of threshold limits in Che program. The Citizens' Coal
Project (CCP) of the Environmental Policy Inutituce, however, does
have concerns about several major components of Che DES.
NEED FOR NEW LEASING
The first concern is whether the need for more federal coal leasing
Is adequately assessed. Thia is very important because che decerminacion
of the extent to which more federal coal needs to be leased will have
a tremendous impact noc only on the development of western coal but on Che
development of midwestern and eastern coal an well. The CCP is concerned
by what it perceives to be weaknesses in the DES in both its analysis of
existing and fuure energy supplies from sources other than coal and In
Its specific analysis of Che projecCed demand for coal through Che year
2000.
The CCP agrees with atacemenCs in Che DES that as other fossil fuela
becooe scarcer and more expensive to obtain, coal, and potentially
western coal, will play an increasingly important role In the United
K-139
States' future energy sccni
Much and how fast the demai
intimately related to the j
i. There is a question, though, aa to hov
:or coal will grow. The demand for coal la
'th in the demand for electricity, because
the most rapidly growing market for coal 1b in its use for electrical
power generation. So, the question becomes, how much will the demand
for electrlcty grow and how much of that growth will be supplied by coj
ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND
ThcDES doea not adequately discuss the predicted growth of electric
power demand. There Ig no diseuasion of the recently depressed rate
of construction for new electric power plants nor are there any tables
illustrating the demand trends the Department clearly anticipates.
This simply illustrates the basic problem with the analysis used in
the DES. The DES uses a traditional model for demand projections which
does not adequately address the issue of whether or not the projected neet
for western coal development should reflect recently changed marketplace
demand trends or be based upon econometric models which merely use past
consumption rates to extrapolate future electricity needs. Recent
developments In the markets for coal and electricity make reliance on
thclaater analytical process increasingly untenable- For example. In
the Eastern Coal Region, coal production has dramatically decreased due
primarily to the unanticipated drop In the market demand for coal. In
the January 1, 1979 issue of Coal Week, the Tennessee Valley Authority,
considered by coal companies to be the buyer of "last resort", reported
that this year it had received the largest number of coal bids In nearly
four decades of buying coal. According to market analysts, "...this event
Between 1970 and 1975, projections of total energy growth through the
turn of the century were reduced from approximately 160 - 200 Quads to
a range of 100 -135 Quads (with at least one major model projecting a
low growth rate of less than 80 Quads). In the electrical sector,
which represented more than 651 of the total coal consumption in 1977,
utilities have reduced projections of needed capacity additions each
year since 1973. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal (Febmary
7, 197y) reported that since 1973, the Potomac Electric Fower Company has
reduced lta projections for new generating capacity for 1982 from 4.4
million kilowatts down to 1.2 million kilowatts. Its growth rote
has dropped from 9Z annually (1973) to 31. This Is not • unique nituation.
A yet-to-be-released study by Arthur D. Little, inc.. Implications of Lower
Electric Power Growth Through 1990, concluded that the annual growth rate
for utilities through 1990 will be «, a significant drop from the 71 predicted
a few years ago. This figure is also lower than the electric power
annual growth rate predicted by the Department of Energy (DOE) model
used by the Department of Che Interior (D01) in this study, which was
AX, 4. St and 5.62 for the 1955 low, medium and high projections,
respectively (p. 2-24). Clearly, we are in • new «r» In which we cannot
rely on historical extrapolations. The continued failure of econometric
Models such as the PIES model (used by DOE to formulate the demand pro-
jections for the DES, Chap. 2.6.2) CO project post-embargo growth patterns
have forced analysts to acknowledge Che Inability of current modeling
techniques to predict future demands.
MODELING TECHNIQUES
he CCP recommends that the Department reevaluate Its demand models and
consequently its determination of the need for more coal leasing. First,
we recommend that the current modeling technique be tested by "backcastlng";
that Is, taking data from previous years, plugging It into the model and
comparing the model's results with the actual coal demand figures for those
years. The results from chose tests should be made publicly available.
Second, we recommend chat DOI prepare forecasts of electricity demand
based on an anlysis of future end uses of electricity. This nechodology
is an analysis of each major "end-use" of electricity in the residential,
commercial, manufacturing and agricultural sectors. An analysis of
"end uses" affords the most direct basis for projecting the likely long
term growth in consumption and the opportunities for Increasing the
efficiency with which electricity is used In each instance. The advantage
of using this methodology instead of an econometric analysis is that an
econometric analysis does not allow explicit consideration of the Impact
of regulations and standards which require improvements in che efficiency
of eleccrlcal energy use. (Beers, Roger & Lash, Terry, Choosing an Electri-
cal Energy. Future for the Pacific Korthwvst: An Alternate Scenario. Energy
Research S Development Administration, Washington, D.C. , January, 1977,
pp. 13 -15) As acknowledged on page 2-25. California is currently using
this analytical technique and, while the CCP recognizes that such an
analysis is enormously expensive, nonetheless, wo believe that it should be
done because the miscalculations of chc traditional model would lead to
far greater costs to society in che long run.
ALTERNATIVES TO COAL: OIL, GAS, SOLAR AND CONSERVATION
OIL A17D GAS:
Also, In chapcer 2, chc DES inadequately nnlyzes che future energy
supplies from sources other than coal. The Natural Gas Act of 1978
has succeeded beyond all expectations in releasing gas from the intrastate
market, where there was an oversupply of gas, to the Interstate market,
where there was an underaupply. This has led DOE to encourage utilities
to keep burning gas for an indefinite period of time rather Chan encouraeing
them to convert to coal, as wi
that the production of oil la
the rate of decline. Moreovei
great potential for conventior
past policy. Also, while it is true
eclining, there has been a decrease In
the DES falls to mention an area of
ional oil and gas discoveries, Che OverChrusC
Belt in theRocky Mountains. In Che western states, these emerging oil
and gas supplies will compeCe wlch coal for che industrial and power plant
market and with electricity for the end use consumer market, precisely the
markets in which it is anticipated that federal coal and electricity
derived from coal wlllbe sold. The DES also fails to adequately
analyze Che impact of Mexican and Canadian oil and gas on future coal
demand. In section 2.5.2, Canadian gas is not even mentioned as a
poCentlal source of fuel, alchough recent discoveries in Alberca have
greatly enlarged Canadian gas reserves. In short, there Is insufficient
analysis to determine how much coal demand would be displaced by the
addltionaloil and gas supplies which currently appear to be more
available than was anticipated even a year ago.
S0LAH
In respect to Nontraditional Energy Sources (2.5.5). the DES discussion
of the potential for solar energy to supply a significant portion of our
total energy needs Is Inadequate. The DES suggests that by the year 2020,
10Z of our total energy needs could be met by solar sources.. The
President's Council on Environmental Quality, however, In Its April 197S
report on solar energy. Solar Energy, Progress and Promise, said thot
"... under conditions of accelerated development and with a serious effort
to conserve energy, solar technology could meet a quarter (25Z) of our
energy needs by the year 2020." (p.iv). And a soon to be released Federal
DoKdtlc Policy Review Report on solar energy, ordered by President Carter
K-140
on Bay 3, 1978, .mu«iti that «n »ttHMlv« federal program could lead
to production of 20 Quads par year. Thla would b* 201 of our total energy
J J If demand vara to reach 100 Quad* by the yaar 2000.
C0WEKVAT1OH
A c=>ra rigorous analytic In the DES of tba potential role of energy
conservation la alio nece»*ary. Such factors as tha recencly enacted
federal guidelines for electric utility rata setting policies and
practice* and state initistivos In thla oraa ara likely to reduce chc
growth In tha demand for electricity below Boat projection* baaed on
a wary different hlatorlcal context of regulatory policy. And the
rising price of oil may simply reduce consumer denend and encourage
cooaeivaclcn rather than force conversion to coal aa has beenaasunad by DOE.
Because electriety is the highest coat fom of energy, conaurer reduc-
tions in demand due to increasing anergy prices are likely to be especially
reflected In reduced damanda for electricity and therefore have a
significant Impact on the continuing demand for coal.
Until a nore thorough analyais la done of chase basic assumptions
need Co Justify the need for nore federal coal leasing, the CCF
will not support additional leasing of federal coal.
KSIQUTI0K OT LAKDS 0K3BTTABLE
Aa era* of great concern to the CCF la tba prc-ceas and criteria
msad far designating lends unsuitable. The CCF strongly supports the
uuouopT of requiring areas to so through cwo designation processes: one
a regional designation process administered by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (tLM) prior to laBsjjfjgj and the other, a site epecific process admlnls-
tered by Che Office of Surface Mining during the review of Che mine plan.
Us also support the Inclusion In the criteria of the concept of en
"appropriate buffer soma." this allows a determination to be flexible
and team into account various factora such as differing geography or
individual species habitat needs.
Tim process described In thepreferred alternative, does not require an
inventory analysis or a cumulative impact review to be done after the
specific criteria have been chosen for an area. The CCP rem— an ft ■ that
there be a requirement for s ccssprebemelve analysis, which would review
Che overall cumulative Impacts of all the chosen criteria after the
process of designating lands unsuitable la completed. And there should
he epecific directions, with clear standards, given Co the land manager
so thee st Che and of a review, if there Is a challenge to a decision,
the mechanism for appealing that decision Is understood by everyone.
The CCF also rscommenda that after land baa been designated unsuitable,
each land manager should he obliged to make available to the public
information regarding what data waa used ( with minimal requirements for
Che data base) and bow the decision was reached.
til CeTTEEIA
The following are c
jents on tba specific criteria and exceptions.
We do not agree with the general exception on underground ninlng.
underground mining has surface sffecca such as subsidence end lepacta on
water qulaity an i these should be Included in any review of the impacts of
mining In an area.
Tederel_ Lands Systena: We concur with the criterion and the exception.
sights of Way and Easenents: We concur with the criterion. In the except-
: should be obtained from all parties Involved for ell the
exceptions. The second exception should include e phrase saying it was
".granted for that type of ninlng."
suffer Zones; The criteria should reflect the language of 5HCRA and read
"public building, rather than ' occupied ' building." The exception should
also reflect the Intent of SHCKA by including the language of eeccion
322 (e)(4) acatlng that the public road nay be relocated only after
public notice and opportunity for public hearing In Che locality
a written finding la made that the interests of the public and
the landowners affected Chereby will be protected.
Wilderness Study Areas: The CCF concurs with DOI's Interpretation of
FLFKA in the criterion end the exception.
Scenic Areas: The CCP concurs with DOI's interpretation of PUMA, section*
201 4 202 4 section 522 (a)(3)(g) of SMOA. The exception, however, gives
Che land nsnsgar broad discretionary power which does exist In tha lew.
Lends Peed for Scientific Studies: W* concur with DOI's interpretation of
KHCxa 4 rLFKA. Again, the exception allow* for broad discretionary author-
ity not specified in the lew.
Historic Lands t Sitae: We concur with the DOi's interpretation of SMOA
322(e)(3), The language of the section for the exception should comply
with the language in Sou 522(a)(3) which allow, for am exception only If
"...approved jointly by the regulatory authority and the federal, state or
local agency with Jurisdiction over the park or tha historic sice."
natural Areas: We concur with the interpretation of the Historic Sites
Buildings k Antiquities Act of 1935 criterion. We do not concur with the
exceptions, and Che Archeologlcal & Historic Preservation Act of 1974
which are not founded in law and only serve to weaken the existing protect-
ion for the** areas.
Federal Endangered Species
Itete Endangered Species
held 4 Golden Eagle Meets
Bald 4 Golden Eagle Boost 4 Concentration Areas: We concur with the crit-
eria proposed for Che protection of federally endangered species, state
endangered species and Bald 4 Golden Eagles. In all four of the criteria,
however. Che exceptions ara not baaed on statutory authority and only serve
to weaken existing law protecting the wildlife.
Pa^con Cliff gnetins. Sites 4 Migratory Birds: We concur with DOI's inter-
pretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the criteria and the excapt-
lt*te leeldent Fish 4 Wildlife: Ws concur with DOI's lntsrprotstlon of Che
tlmh 4 Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667(a)) for the) criteria.
kto concur with the interpretation of Executive Order 119M for the criteria-
Pot the exception, we suggest that the exception conmly with the language
of the Executive Order end allow -«"<"g to occur In a wetland when there la
"no practicable alternative." The burden of proof for the "practicable
alternative" end for the determination of significant values In exception
2 amentia be with the Imdnmtry.
Flonamlslns: We concur with tha Interpretation of Executive Order 119*8
K-141
for the criteria and the first exception. Again, we suggest for the
aeeond exception that Che burden of proof lie with the industry.
Municipal Watersheds: We concur with the interpretation of the Safe Drink-
ing Water Ace for the criteria. While the municipality is permitted to
grant on exemption where it determines that such an exemption will not
"result in an unreasonable risk to health" (42 USC 3001, Section '.(a)(1))
the exception oust comply ulth the language of the statute and require 1)
a schedule of compliance by the public water system with each contaminant
level and treatment technique requirement with respect to which the exemp-
tion was granted and 2) implement at ion by the public water system of such
control measures as the state may require for contaminant.
Prime Farm Lands: We concur with the Interpretation of 510(d)(1) of SMCRA
for the criteria and the second exception. We find no language In the Act,
however, which allows for an exception on the basis of a negative deter-
mination, as Is required In the first exception. This exception uhould be
eliminated.
Alluvial Valley Floors: Ue concur with the Interpretation of 510(b)(5)(A)
6(B) of SMCRA for the criteria. The language of the exception, however,
should be narrowed to reflect the Intent of 510 (b)(5)(A).
Reclamation: We concur with the interpretation of SHCRA for the criteria.
The basic assumption, however, governing the decision nuking process should
be that the land is not reclalmable until proven otherwise.
CONSISTENCY WITH SHCRA
The BLH criteria to be consistent with SMCRA should include standards
for protecting aquifers, aquifer recharge areas and natural haiards lands.
MULTIPLE USE MANDATE
A shortcoming in the criteria La that they do not consider uses for
land other than coal development. In the Federal Land Management and Policy
- 11 -
Act pf ;976 (P.L. 94-579), under section 202(c). the Secretary is instructed
to develop and revise land use plans using the "principles of multiple use
and sustained yield." The lands unsuitable criteria in the preferred pro-
gram do not reflect this mandate. Alternative reaource values, such aa the
uae of the land for grazing purposes are neglected due to the overemphasis
on coal production. The CCP urges DOI to revise the criteria to reflect
this broader mandate of FLPHA.
- LI -
SURFACE OWNER CONSENT
NEGATIVE RtSPOdSE
The CCP has two concerns regarding the description in the preferred program
and the sample regulations for surface owner consent. The first of these Is that
in the preferred program a ne&ativo response from a surface owner as to whether
or not he /she wants to lease his land has the effect of a non-binding response.
Unlike positive responses, which are treated as permanently positive answers.
a negative response is treated as a conditional response which will be suhject to
continued requests to sail or lease and will continue to be part of the coal
development plan despite the negative response. In the planning process described,
even if a surface owner indicates that ha is opposed to offering his land for
lease or sale, he may still find that the coal reserves beneath his surface are
still being offered for sale. All through the syetcn, it Is apparent that "no"
Is treated by the department as a provisional "no." On page 3-21, section 3.2.1.3,
description of surface owner consultation, the DES Bays
"The Department would,
leasing coal deposits £i
mining in areas where a
o the maximum extent practicable, ref
r development by methods other thsn ui
significant number of qualified surface owners
state a preference aSainst the offering of the deposits for lease. Although
sections of these areas night still be designated us acceptable for further
consideration for coal leasing, the land use plan would contain the recom-
mendation that no leasing take place in the area unless there ore no accept-
able alternative local areas available to meet an agreed upon target for the
entire production region. If the individual surface owner indicated a
definite preference against the leasing of the deposit underlying his surface
sit aav be eliminated from further consideration for leasing."
The preferred program, even after a ocg,
the lend use planning stage, continues to allow the
to additional requests to sell or lease during the ,
Again, In section 3.2.'..l {page 3-25) the Secretary
to continue a tract without consent if it Is considi
regulations the State Director
esponse from a surface owner
: surface owner to be subject
activity planning stage.
llowcd to " — determine
Important." In the
in
•ale for coal depos.1
if It is determined I
can be found to offe:
publish the notice of lease sale and conduct the
lat no tracts comparable to the affected tract
in its place..." (03427. 2. p A-18)
-
13 -
IMPACT OF COHPtTIVE BIDDING
Section 3427.
(e) (1)
(ii) pr
vides
for the
successful bidder
after the
lease sale, to be
elmburse
i by the
compa
ly which
first obtained the
consent for
the purchase price
Of the c
.nsent.
This
rovlsior
provides for the
reimbursement
of the purchase pr
ce of th
. but
«cl„d«
reimbursement for
the costs
of obtaining the ct
nsent of
the sur
ace owner. It
appears, therefor
e. that
Section 3427.2 (*)
U) (ii)
undercut
S the
competitive bidding proccs
s mandated
by Section 201 (a)
CD of t
e Federal Coa
Leasing
Amendments Act of
1976
(P.L. 94-377).
Under the pref
gram's p
roced
res for
reimbursing compan
es which
have obtsined written consent, only those companies which are certain to be
successful in the bidding process or which have a special interest or decisive
advantage over competitors in the bidding process are likely to assume the
risks and costs associated with obtaining the consent of the surface owner.
DOI has addressed the problems of administrative costs associated with
obtaining consent of surface owners in Section 3.3.4 (Split Estate Leasing
lasues-Surfacc Owner Consent). But. just as D01 appears to have opted for
•nether party ("the industry") to aasume these coats of obtaining surface
owner consent, It aeena that "the industry" whould share the saw- disincentive
aa DOI to assume cheat costa, unless there existed particular conditions of
advantage leading to aucccas in the bidding process.
PBDTECTIOH FOR SURFACE OWNER
There are no provialona in the preferred program or the sample regulations
which protect the surface owner from harrassment or from incomplete, inaccurate
or misleading Information by "the industry" representative who soliclte the
written consent. A surface owner U ultimately assured greater protection, or •)
learnt a greater opportunity of. redress, in case, of abuse and harrassment when
the responsibility rears with the government not "the industry." The preferred
K-142
- 1* -
Bcvhcre in Che preferred program 1* a negative response enough to atop the
leasing process iron occurring on that specific tract of land. This ie contrary
to the intent of Section 7V. of the Strip Hlne Act (PL 95-87). The CCP recommends
Chat a negative response from a surface owner during the land use planning stage
be accepted by DOI as the surface owner's uefiniclve decision unless otherwise
notified by the surface owner.
ACQUISITIOK OF CO.iSt.NT
The Project's concern is the process in the preferred alternative for
the acquisition of written consent. The preferred program sets up a multi-tiered
system for the purpose of obtaining surface owner consent. First, DOI consults with
the surface owners of split estate lands during the planning process. This, in
theory, forms a screen to identify lands that should not be leased (section 3.3.1.3).
Then, in the activity planning stage, "industry" is specifically identified by
DOI as the party responsible for acquiring surface owner consent, whether or not
a surface owner has Indicated a preference for leasing (section 3.Z.4.1).
The procedure ic not founded in the law. In 714 (c) of SKCRA the first
"The Secretary i
until the aurfac
surface mining c
.t lull.
iritten coi
i obtJ
In the "Definitions", section 701 (23) the "Secretary" is defined as "the
Secretary of the Interior, except where otherwise described." The Secretary In
Section 714 (c) is not "otherwise described." The Intent of Congress in thio
section is clear: the Secretary, not "the Industry," la responsible for obtaining surfa
owner consent. The first sentence of Section 714 (C) contains two conjunctions,
rather than disjunctions, thereby making it impossible to conclude that any
party other than DOI has been charged with the responsibility of obtaining
the written consent of the surface owner.
- 15 -
orogras creates an atmosphere which encourages harassment of the surface owner.
Even under those circumstances where "the industry" is presenting the surface
owner with complete and accurate information which is not misleading, the surface
Owner under the preferred program Is defenseless against persistent requests
by "the industry" to sell lease despite repeated negative responses.
Paragraph (a) of section 3427.2 of the sample regulations not only falls
to protect surface owners but without question violates the letter and Intent of
section 714. There is no foundation in section 714 or its legislative history £o:
the exception provided in paragraph (a) that:
"...the State Director may determine to publish the notice of lease
sale and conduct the sale for coal deposits situated in split-estate
kinds without consent if It Is determined that no tracts comparable
to the affected tract can be found to offer in its place and that the
successful bidder may be able to negoiate successfully for written
consent from the surface owner following the lease sale and before
execution of the lease."
SPECIAL LEASING OTPOHTUNITI.ES
DOI is compelled by statute to "reserve and offer a reasonable number
of coal lease tracts as special leasing opportunities." (3.2,6) The CCP
recommends 1) that there be a stipulation In the regulations which provides
for a preference to exclude public bodies from bidding for coal for power
plants in which Investor owned utilities are participating, and 2) that
"reasonable number" be more clearly defined. The determination of "reason-
able number" should be tied to the utilities boiler requirements for the
generating capucity of their public systems.
REQUIREMENTS FOR l-NV 1 RONMESTAI. IMPACT STATEMENTS
In the preferred program, no requirement Is made for a site specific
environmental lmp.ict statement (EIS). Rather each regional sale statement
will include on atiolysl* of both the site specific and intrareglonal cumu-
lative impacts of the proposed leasing programs. The CCP urges DOI to
comply with the rrgulaclons promulgated by the President's Council on
Environmental Quality in November 1978 and, specifically, to comply with
all the criteria for an EIS. The CCP considers Che construction and oper-
ation of a coal mine to be a major action on federal lands and, as such,
requires an EIS.
CONCLUSION
The CCP considers Che preferred program described in the DES to be a
good base for a eonprehenalve leasing process. As discussed In these com-
ments, the CCP la concerned by several major weakensses in the program. We
are also concerned by the time frame in which the program la being Imple-
mented. Already certain aspects of the preferred program are being
implemented even though the Secretary has yec to officially pick a program
and fir.ailie regulations for 1C. Undue haste in implementation can only
emphaaixe the weakcnsseB in the grogram where a broarfer time frame would
give DOI an opportunity to carefully consider the many alternatives and to
choose the best program to manage federal coal in the decades to come.
C-143
OTER KIEWIT SONS'. INC
O., TL. I K™, PU.
O.O., N,L,J... 6X131
February 12, 1979
100
Director (140)
Bureau of Land Management
U. S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
RE: Comments on Draft EIS
For The Proposed Federal Coal Management Program
Dear Sir:
After reviewing the draft environmental impact statement on the
proposed Federal Coal Management Program, we, at Peter Kiewit Sons'
Inc.. feel that the draft EIS is inadequate in its discussion of coal
lease exchanges, particularly the Department's policies and procedures
concerning exchange of Federal and fee coal located within alluvial
valley floors.
Since the Office of Surface Wining has issued guidelines and pro-
posed regulations for identification of alluvial valley floors which has
resulted, in effect, in the identification of alluvial valley floors in
the majority of proposed coal operations in the West, the Department of
the Interior should address the exchange issue more thoroughly than It
has done in the draft EIS.
The inadequacy of the discussion of the exchange is particularly
disturbing in view of the express mandate of Congress that such an
exchange program be developed. Section 510(b)(5) of the Surface Mininq
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 USC 1260(b)(5)) states, in part:
"It is the policy of the Congress that the Secretary shall
develop and carry out a coal exchange program to acquire private
fee coal precluded from being mined by the —
paragraph (S) in exchange for Fede "
I.
The first area of concern that we have is the initiation of an
exchange and the timing of such a proposal. Specifically, who should
initiate the fee coal exchange? Will the Department of the Interior.
SHSL'SS BS2m of Lafld Management's land use planning efforts,
approach the fee coal owner and/or lessee concerning an exchange' Or
will the fee coal owner and/or lessee have the burden of initiating the
■al coal which
if this
not so precluded.'
Director (140)
Bureau of Land Management
February 1?, 1979
Page 2
Our position is that both the fee coal owner and the fee coal
lessee, as well as the BLM, should have the right to initiate coal
exchange procedures. The fact that a fee coal owner or lessee initiates
the procedures should not mean that they must automatically bear the
cost of the exchange procedures.
In conjunction with the above, the Department of the Interior has
not made it clear in the draft EIS as to how the coal exchange program
fits into the overall context of the "preferred alternative" for the
Federal c-al Management Program. For example, will the Federal coal
available for exchange purposes be included in reaching final regional
production targets under the Federal Coal Management Program? Will a
BLM land use study be required prior to exchanging Federal coal under
the Federal Coal Management Program? Will the Federal exchange coal be
subject to regional tract ranking selection and scheduling similar to
that for leased Federal coal? What role will the public have in any
coal exchange program? Will the unsuitabi lity criteria be applied to
all lands proposed for exchange prior to such an exchange taking place?
Would there be a maximum acreage limitation on the Federal exchange
coal? Will there be any provision made for emergency exchange of fee
coal within an alluvial valley floor when such an exchange is needed to
meet the fee Owner or lessee/operator's contractual commitments or other
financial commitments? What role will the local and State governments
play in the exchange program? Will the Department of Interior consult
with other agencies such as the EPA, Department of Agriculture, etc. to
determine if those agencies have any objections to the particular Federal
coal tract to be exchanged for fee coal? These questions must be addressed
in the final EIS in order to provide the Secretary of the Interior a
complete picture of the impact of the proposed management program.
Peter Kiewit Sons' position is that exchange coal should not be
included in reaching final production targets for Federal coal deposits
or for tract ranking of Federal coal. The rationale is that the Federal
exchange coal is replacing fee coal that would not be subject to production
targets and ranking for Federal coal. On the other hand, any land
containing Federal exchange coal should undergo the unsuitability review
in order to ensure that the exchange coal will be mineable. Furthermore,
the Department must adopt procedures for emergency exchanges of AVF coal
when such an exchange is necessary to meet the fee owner or lessee/operator's
contractual or other financial commitments.
II.
Another area of concern that we have is how the two tracts of coal
i.e. the fee coal within the alluvial valley floor and the Federal coal'
which is proposed for the exchange, will be appraised for economic
value. Our specific questions are: What criteria will be used in
determining the value of the fee coal and the Federal coal involved in
the exchange? Will the BTU, sulfur, >ish, moisture content, etc. and the
Director (140)
Bureau of Land Management
February 12, 1979
Page 3
number of tons commercially mineable be the only factors? Will the
strip-ratios of both the fee coal and the Federal exchange coal be
considered? Will the existing lease arrangements between the fee owner
and the operator/lessee be taken into account? Will the costs of acquiring
lands adjacent to the AVF fee or leased Federal coal needed for siting
of mine facilities be considered in determining the economic value of
the AVF coal? Will the same consideration of adjacent land requirements
be given to proposed Federal exchanqe coal? Will the cost of economic
and environmental studies made by the fee owner and the operator/lessee
beTiake*i int0 account *ne" determining the economic value of the alluvial
valley floor coal? Will the proximity of the federal coal to the operator/
lessee s current operating facilities for other mines be taken into
account? If the owner/lessee/operator has already expanded his existing
facilities at an adjacent mine to handle the now-unmineable AVF coal,
will this economic factor be included in determining the value of the
AVF coal? Will surface damage agreements be included in the determination
of the va ue of the alluvial valley floor coal and of the Federal exchange
coal? Will the Federal coal that will be exchanged be coal that can be
surface mined? If an exchange program is to be implemented, standard
regulations concerning the minimum economic criteria to be used in
determining economic value must be adopted. These economic criteria
must be in the final EIS. Our position is that each of the above issues
should be part of the minimum economic valuation criteria for the AVF
coal and for the Federal exchange coal.
III.
A third problem area that we foresee concerns the extent to which
fee coal will be subject to an exchange. For example, where the fee
coal or currently leased Federal coal within an alluvial valley floor is
part of a seam of fee or leased Federal coal which extends beyond the
alluvial valley floor and that non-AVF fee or leased Federal coal would
not be mineable unless the alluvial valley floor coal was included in
the mining plan, will the fee owner or Federal coal lessee be able to
include the non-alluvial valley floor coal in the exchange? What will
the Department consider to be a logical mining unit in regards to alluvial
valley floor coal? Would the alternative of underground mining of
alluvial valley floor coal be considered in determining whether that
coal is eligible for an exchange? To what depth will coal be considered
for an exchange? In the case of fee ownership of minerals, including
coal within an alluvial valley floor, will an exchange program exchange
all the minerals contained within the fee land or just the CM 11 Since
these questions address the basic question of how much coal will be
subject to the AVF exchange program and since the draft EIS does not
address this issue, we think that the final EIS must address this issue
in order to give the Secretary of the Interior a complete picture of the
program. Peter Kiewit Sons' position is that when AVF coal is subject
to an exchange, all the coal associated with the AVF coal in a logical
mining unit should also be subject to the exchange.
Oirector (140)
Bureau of Land Management
February 12, 1979
Page 4
IV.
A fourth area of concern that we have is the question of how the
Federal coal thai will be exchanged for alluvial valley floor fee coal
would be selected. Will the fee owner be given the right to nominate
areas of Federal coal that the fee owner is interested in? Will the
Department grant an exploration permit to the fee owner to explore the
proposed Federal exchange coal prior to the exchange? How would the
Department of the Interior handle the situation where two fee owners or
lessees of fee coal desire the same tract of Federal coal for exchange
purposes? Would a mine operator with an existing mining operation
adjacent to the proposed Federal exchange coal have the right to demand
that that particular Federal coal tract be put up for bid rather than
exchange? In the case of fee surface over the Federal exchange coal,
who negotiates with the surface owner? Will surface damage payments be
included in the valuation of the Federal exchange coal? This area of
concern is getting back to the question proposed above as to how the
exchange program fits into the overall concept of the Federal coal
management policy and must be addressed in the final EIS. Peter Kiewit
Sons" position is that the fee owner/operator/lessee should have the
right to nominate areas of Federal coal for exchange purposes. Upon
such nomination, the BLM should grant an exploration permit to the fee
owner/opera tor/ lessee in order that the value and suitability of the
Federal coal be determined. Furthermore, the owner/operator of an
active coal mine should have the right to require that the proposed
Federal exchange coal be available for competitive bidding. Finally,
preference should be given to Federal exchange coal under Federal surface
and to Federal exchange coal under surface already owned by the fee
owner or lessee who is proposing the exchange.
He i
als<
> concerned about the possibility of exchanging rights to
fee coal within an alluvial valley floor for the right to lease Federal
coal. This possibility has been mentioned by Department officials as
being an alternative to the exchange of legal title to fee coal for
legal title to Federal coal. The question we have is that in the event
that either fee coal or Federal coal lease within an alluvial valley
floor is exchanged for the right to a Federal coal lease, what Stipulator
will be imposed upon that lease and what lease terms and royalty will be
imposed? Our position is that the fee owner/lessee should be in the
same economic position after exchanging his fee coal ownership/lease
that he was In prior to the exchange.
VI.
A final concern is whether an owner of fee coal or the lessee of
Federal coal within an alluvial valley floor must submit an application
for a mining permit and have that application rejected before being
allowed to participate in an exchange program. The specific questions
K-144
I
i
I
Director (140)
Bureau of Land Management
February 12, 1979
Page 5
we have are: What kind of studies must be done prior to an exchange 1n
order to short that the coal in question exists within an alluvial valley
floor and is precluded from being mined as a result of its location?
Who is responsible for such an alluvial valley floor study? If an
application for a mining permit for coal within an alluvial valley floor
is turned down by the regulatory authority on more than just alluvial
valley floor considerations, will the coal Still qualify for an exchange?
In the case of a State regulatory authority, what role will that authority
play in the exchange program? Hill a site specific E1S be required for
the Federal coal which will be exchanged? If so, who is responsible for
carrying out such an EI5? Can fee or Federal coal in an alluvial valley
floor in one State be exchanged for Federal coal in another 5tate?
Finally, can a single tract of AVF fee coal or leased Federal coal be
exchanged for a number of tracts of Federal coal which cumulatively have
a value equal to the alluvial valley floor coal? Similarly, can several
tracts of AVF coal be exchanged for one tract of Federal exchange coal?
He believe that a minimum amount of studies (and hence delay in time)
should be required.' The fee owner/opera tor/ lessee should be able to go
to the regulatory authority - whether State or Federal - present his
Studies and obtain certification that the coal in question is eligible
for exchange. This would eliminate the need for submittal of a mining
plan (with the requisite expenditure of time, money, and effort) in
order to qualify for an exchange. The over-all need in an exchange
program is flexibility within an over-all regulatory structure, The
draft EIS on the Federal coal management program does not provide any
basis for an exchange program, let alone a flexible program.
We would appreciate any efforts that the Department would make to
clarify the above questions 1n the- final EIS on the Federal Coal Manage-
ment Program. He do think that all of these concerns need to be addre
in the final Eli in order to give the Secretary a complete picture of
how the Department's proposed implementation of the congressional mandate
Cited above fit'- into the "preferred alternati ve"'for the coal management
program.
sed
Thank you for your considerati
i of these comments.
February 12, 1979
To: Frank Gregg, Direct'
From: James Cannon on B
iQS
r 8urea_ .
naif of the Council
id Management
Economic I
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT: FEDERAL COAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Department of Interior has been struggling since
1971 to unravel the complexities of the federal coal leasing program
created by over half a century of maladministration of an inadequate
and increasingly antiquated leasing mechanism. It has achieved a
breakthrough of sorts in its Environmental Statement (E5) outlining
a proposed new leasing program in that a government study finally
examines--under one eover--most of the prerequisites for leasing
in the public interest. Unfortunately Interior has made some false
assumptions and has jumped to conclusions far oulside those indicated
from a rational examination of the data. The result is that its
"preferred" leasing program will not achieve its stated objectives
and its "Environmental Statement" does not satisfy the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act.
Interior simply has picked the wrong program from the host of options
available to it. In its zeal to escape the problems created by
errors rampant in earlier leasing efforts, it has established a
program primarily aimmed at new leases, but this program will not
permit the agency to jump off the treadmill on which it has been
spinning non-productively for many years, The treadmill represents
a "perpetual motion" machine created by circular, "closed loop" logic
which runs as follows:
1. No new leasing proqram is permissible under (IEPA until
Interior can demonstrate a need for western coal from unleased
land, but Interior can not prove a need because of incomplete
and inaccurate data concerning the potential contribution of co;
from existing leases.
2. The lack of data problem continues because Interior does no'
have a strong program to study coal reserves and production
potential from existing leases or to regulate actions
by present lessees.
3.
n'ior dot
existing leases
; r.ot have a strong program to regulate
jecause it is focusing must of its etfor-
e^ Fi'in Auenue □ New Yo". K Y iOOl1. c 212/50: -5550
$
toward the development of a program for new leasing and
has few resources available to grapple with issues con-
cerning existing leases.
A.. A program for new leasing cannot be implemented until
a clear need for coal from unleased land is established.
5. Return to #1 and reoeat indefinitely.
This treadmill will continue to paralyze federal coal leasing
as long as Interior is intent on development of a program for
new leasing rather than a program which resolves the problems
created by past leasing errors first. Through the many reforms
in federal land use management practices instituted this decade.
Interior now has most of the statutory authority it needs to
implement sound leasing. It also has the talent. But its
preferred leasing alternative is completely upside-down, It
assumes that the problems of the past will be swept aside
like deadwood or a pebble in a road in the face of a program
for new leasing, when, in fact, those problems will continue
to act as an insurmountable wall, growing in height, thwarting
efforts to move on. This wall --the problems of the existing leases-
must be dismantled piece-by-piece and the pieces rearranged to
form the brickwork of the road to sound western resource
management.
There is a second bit of "wishful thinking" on the part of the
Department of Interior which undermines the rationale behind its
preferred leasing alternative. One of the four "benefits" of the
preferred strategy, according to the ES, is that "new leasing
would. ..provide a means to promote a more desirable pattern of
coal development." {p. 2-43). It is not necessarily true that
the pre-lease land use planning, tract selection, lease sale,
and post-lease regulation components of the preferred path will
do anything to improve the development pattern resulting from
activities on existing leases. Yet these actions will continue
to dominate development patterns for years or decades to come.
It takes different tools to claw oneself out of a hole than in
does to climb a mountain. Interior ignores the reality of its
present plight. It is at the bottom of a hole 59 years deep
and not starting with a clean slate. Its preferred program--even
if adequate for starting from scratch (it is not)--is not Suitable
for the present reality of western coal management.
The preferred program, by focusing on new leasing, presents a
"packaged deal" to the american public. Interior has built a
sceneno describing the impact of new leasing which is based on
hypothetical results from the implementation of presently non-existi
or untested leasing components. Ultimately the message of the
ES 1s "trust us". This Is unacceptable, especially for an agency
whose Chief "calling card" for trust with respect to Mai leasing
is the incredible misnionagemert it has exhibited in U.a past.
Pressured by a mythical constraint that we must leasL' more coal
land in the very near future. Interior is askiivj ur, to "Hit fly"
the program without first testing the many individual parts which
comprise it "on the ground" first, The existing leases provide
the perfect testing ground for the components of the new leasing
program and implementation there first, on a lease-by-lease,
part-by-part basis could provide the experience we need to
fine-tune the program before taking off on new leasing.
Interior eschews the opportunity to implement components of
its leasing program on existing lease first, however, preferring
the more grandiose, but foolhardy, approach instead. This strategy
converts the existing leases from a testing ground to an unstable
foundation for the new leasing program. Interior's preferred
path, therefore, is like building a house on sand--lhe sand
representing the existing leases. No matter how strong the house,
it threatens to be blown away by the first storm. There certainly have
been many stormy issues emanating from the existing leases, enough.
one would think, to have convinced Interior of the impractical ity
of sweeping the old leases "under a rug".
Having exhausted the repertoire of mixed metaphors to describe
the general weaknesses in the philosophy behind the proposed
Federal Coal Management Program, the remainder of this report
will discuss in more detail some of the Specific inadequacies
of the ES and shortcomings in the preferred alternative.
THE ES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A HEED FOR ADOITIO.MAL LEASING
The need issue is the heart of the Environmental Statement, yet
it fails to convincingly demonstrate that a coal supply shortage
will develop unless more federal land is transfered into the
.private sector.
Interior's own analysis belies the argument that additional leasing
is necessary during the next five to eight years. The conclusion
of the ES concerning need is that "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 the low projected
production levels." (p. 2-47) Several pages earlier the report
reads "All told, actual production of coal appears likely to
occur 4 to 7 years after the sale is held and a lease is issued."
(p. 2-43) Why then should additional leases be issued before 1983
at the earliest--seven years before demand might start to outstrip
supply? The time between now and 1983 could be primarily devoted
to implementing components of the leasing program on existing leases
and gathering more information to justify the scope of additional
leasing needs if any.
K-145
Unfortunately the need issue can not be discarded so quickly,
however, not because Interior has another more compelling argument,
but because the data used in its analysis is not strong enough
to permit concrete conclusions about western coal supply and demand.
This inadequacy makes the ES unacceptable under provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The ES Could be made acceptable
only if the preferred path itself was designed to provide the
information required to make informed Judgements about leasing
needs. This process admittedly could take several years, but-
based on the best available data — this should cause no hardship.
The supply component of Interior's need analysis deals mainly with
estimating coal production from existing leases. Currently approved
or- pending mining plans call for an output in 1985 of 308.6 million
tons. Several uncertainties cloud the sharpness of this prediction.
Before approval of the submitted mining plans, for example, Interior
proposes to apply its "unsuitabil ity criteria". These criteria,
authorized by Section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, could place some coal included in mining plans
off-limits or they could operate with the opposite impact.
The problem with the unsuitability criteria--in relation to the
need question--is that we just don't know what its impact will
be on existing leases. A test application of one set of proposed
criteria last summer found that 65s of the coal land in the
study area in Utah would be placed off-timits to mining by just
one of the 21 standards. The criteria have been diluted and changed
since then and current proposals are thought to effect only 5-101
of federal land.
How much and wm'ch land will be affected is not known because the
criteria have not been finalized and have not been tested in the
field. Interior is in a bind, on this point. :t cannot finalize
the unsuitability criteria before- the ES is awr-oved Because that
would be an act taken under a new leasing pro-li'jm, Out it canr.ot
justify a preferred p-ith calling for new leasing witnuut cne.i:.
UnproposcC and untested regulations defining "nUxIsMO economic
recovery" of coal could also affect coal supply from pending projects,
These regulation*;, authorized by Section 3 cf tne federal Coal
^easing Amendments Act, might induce an expansion in outuut from
levels proposed in mining plans if they call for the maximum yield
from each seam. The ES mentions tnat "The Secretary prefers that MER
be calculated 1n in a way that til cool seams which are collectively
profitable must be mined, taking into consideration social and
environmental costs." (p. 3-11) Until 'AIR regulations are put
into concrete terms and applied, it is impossible to oradict
coal output from pending mining plans from this one vague statement.
The "areas of critical environmental concern" designations authorized
by Title 2 of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976
provide another example of a new land management program which
could affect production of proposed mining operations. Again it
is too early to assess their impact because the designations have
not yet been made. The same argument applies to unannounced criteria
defining "alluvial floors" which will protected from mining.
Similar and new problems are discovered when examining Interior's "like
production potentials from the 311 existing leases for which no
mining plans have been submitted and the 172 pending preference
right lease applications. The ES states that by 1985,57.3 million
tons will be produced from the former category (p. 2-33) while
the PRLA's have a production potential of 251 million tons annually
(p. 2-36}.
These projections are unsupportable for the same reasons cited for
leases with mining plans pending—the impact of new regulations
is unknown, Under the preferred path. Interior is not even planning
on assessing the impact of the regulations when they are promulgated,
but instead will wait until the lessee submits a mining plan. To wit:
"In the case of non-producing leases, the Department 's preference
is to apply unsuitability criteria to the area of the leasehold at
the time that the lessee submits a mining plan." {p, 3-39) The
criteria will be applied before preference right lease applications
ive processed, but this is still too late to benefit the ES analysis.
A further problem with assigning production potential values to
leases without mining plans and to PLRAs is the quality of the
data backing up the conclusions. The "more likely than not"
judgements concerning contributions from existing leases "were
inide in March 1978 by GS mining supervisors, uking into account
demand for the coal type, environmental problem! of the lease
site, transportation Availability, mining costs, lease Size anc
Other factors." [p. 2-30) Nowhere in the ES is tne Study methodology
behind this seemingly comprehensive assessment explained. Given
the "passive" stance of Interior toward existing leases prior to
submittal of the mining plan, it is hard to envision GS sneaking
such a thorough review past government budget watchers, or the
public interested in leasing issues. The ES should contain a
complete description of the Study approach, time schedule, and
budget before asking that the validity of its conclusions be
accepted.
Perhaps this bit of skepticism is unwarranted, but the track record
of Interior in collecting complete and accurate data concerning
coal deposits on existing leases is unimpressive, The General
Accounting Office has been a frequent critic of Interior's data
gathering. A July 11, 1978 GAO report discovered that reserve figures
for federally leased coal land obtained by the GS fo- 21 of 219
leases examined were more than double the estimates put forth by
lessees. Departmental estimates were lower tnan those of lessees
on another SO leases and the total difference here amoun-.ed to
nearly t billion tons. The GAO urtjed Interior to expand its
data-gathuring capabilities, but there is little roason to
expect that many changes were mads before tne ES was completed,
(The GAO report, in fact, was actually published after the
completion of the GS survey).
1,19 Department of Interior has established an "autnuatic data
system" which it claims stores a wealth o.' information aoout
each lease. A review of a partial print-out from this com-
puterized system in September 197E revealed a large gaps in
the data base and a persistant reporting Of outdated statistics
from a five yor old— and highly discredi ted-CS fact finding venture.
The methodology behind the assessment of coal production *rom
pending PRLAs is even more vague--and suspect--than that for
existing leases, yet the ES provides no explanation of
figures on Table 2-23 (entitled Production Potential from
Outstanding Preference Sight Lease Applications) besides a
footnote to tne title which reads in full "cannot be disclcsed
because of confidentiality requirements." (p. 2-36)
It is unclear from the LS how Interior factored potential production
from leases which will probably be issueo under the currently
operative "short ten.. leasing program" approved ir. i content
decree temporarily settling the ;R0C vs Hughes lawsuit. About
35 leases could be issued under this program which could pro-
vide between 13 and 17 million tons a year production tiy 19ft5.
Treatment of these 'eases should be more clearly exolained in
the ES.
Ex mi nation of the two summary taules on federal coal supply
for 1955 and 1590 without new leasing (Tables 2-29, 2-30) is
eyeopening. The total planned production from existing leases
with mining plans in 1965 i- 361.9 million tons. This total
is expected to drop by 1990 to 362. D million tons. There is
no explanation lor this surprising decrease. The footnote to
the numbers for 1990 reads "figures obtained from Table 2-19",
but table 2-19 is entitled "Recoverable Coal Reserves in Existing
Federal Leases" (p. 2-31) and contains no data which would allow
a prediction of production in 1990.
The coal supply tables call for 57.3 million tons from leases
for which no mining plans have been submitted both in 1985
and 1990. This assumes that all leases which will go into
production will do so—at full capacity—by 1985. Diligence
production requirements for these leases require only that
production be initiated by June 1, 1986— not full production
by 1985— and five year extensions are permissible under certain
circumstances. It seems unlikely that production from this
category will not change between 1985 and 1990.
The table of 1990 coal supply contains a column for riroCuction
from pending preference right lease applications. There is
no explanation how the total f* 90.5 million tons was reached
except for a footnote which r°ads "figures obtained from Table
2-20." Table 2-20 is entitled "Planned 1965 Production from
Approved and Pending Mining Plans Containing Federal Leases"
(p. 2-32) and seems to bfc^r no relation to PRLAs.
The c
al '
"demand" side of Interior's analysis in t'ic ES
as disturbing as the supply side. Its derivation is wort
performed, not oy Interior, but by a new!/ formed task f<
within the Department of Energy. This is the first try i
coal forecasting from federal land uy DOE and it sec:'is u'
to place too many eggs into this basket until Its
sibylline powers are confirmed. Also, much can be lost ir
translation between DOE and Interior, but the Leasinc |_k
Committee of four officials from each agency was fo.'med i
a few months ago and has not established a proven trackrt
oi accurate and open communicati venesi.
THE ES DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE RATIONAL IMPACT OF EXI-AKDING WESTERN
COAL SUPPLIES THROUGH THE PREFERRED PATH
There is a puzzling sentence in the E5 which reads "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 the national and regional levels.
At least on the basis of of computer projections, it appears
improbable that total national coal production would be greatly
reduced." (p. 2-47)
If Interior does not lease to meet the national objective of
increasing coal production (1t claims it will have little impact),
then what other national energy objective from the 11st on
page 1-27 does it help meet? It certainly will do little to
foster energy conversation— the first goal on the list— and it
will do even less to promote the building insulation program (#5)
or solar energy (#6). In fact, it seems that a new coal program
could actually serve to undermine these national energy objectives
by "creating" a demand for coal which could compete to the
detriment of conservation, insulation, or solar energy goals.
The ES should examine this question thoroughly.
Interior explains that a new leasing program will promote a
more rational development pattern in the West, but it admits
that this is guesswork. Furthermore, it concedes that leasing
decisions will affect interregional shifts in coal development
patterns—presumably by altering production in the eastern or
midwestern coal fields— and that end-use considerations could
K-146
cause unknown impacts. The ES steers clear of mast of these
interregional issues, however. Concerning end-use considerations,
for example, the ES states "The Secretary preferred not to
adopt end-use Stipulations pending a Solicitor's opinion on
the Department's authority for such action." (p. 3-42)
THE PREFERRED PATH WILL NOT MINIMIZE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS OR
PROMOTE MORE SOUND DEVELOPMENT PATTEPJffi
With its emphasis on ntw leasing, Interior will be forced to
turn its back on efforts to minimize adverse impacts from activities
by existing les.ees. The focus of the proposed land use planning
system is directed toward selecting land not currently under
lease, ranking this land, and leasing it in the future. Little
emphasis is placed on developing a system to manipulate development
on land currently under lease in such a way as to .naximize
actions in the public interest. The existing leases represent
a horse out of the barn and special attention must be placed
on these leases to prevent abuses typical of the past from
continuing.
The major focus of the new program should be to investigate
the government's obligations toward present lessees and its
powers to regulate their actions. Full use of present
and newly acquired powers to control lease assignment activity.
lease exchanges, condemnation, minimum production, due diligence,
and so on for existing leases should be the prime objective of
the new leasing program.
Interior would respond, surely, that it does intend to be heavily
involved with ccninistrsting existing leases. It seems unlikely,
however, that it will be able to pursue existing lessees and
develop a program to issue new leases simultaneously witn et.ua'.
fervor. The former or,': creating real and avoidable Impacts today
and impacts from the latter will only occur if new leasts ara
granted. Obviously, tha we/ to protect the West and the puolic
interest is to solve present problems first Before risking the
creation of new ones.
The peril* of the proposed patn can be seen by exa'<$10, Historically,
leases have been issued without concern for the environment, for
minimal payments, and charge only trivial royalty fees. Interior
has the opportunity to correct ur adjust l^ase term provisions at
20 year intervals. Between 1971 and October 1978, a backlog of
84 Itjses whose lease teni.s were overdue fo- adjustment had
accumulates. This backlog was the result or Interior's preoccupation
with the development o: leasing reforms. In 1 977 alone, the government
lost over 54 million in royalties from production on leases overdue
'it adjustment which were permitted to operate under the old royalty
structures. New rates will be approximately SI. 00 per ton higher.
When Interior finally began processing these leasatfor adjustment,
two lessees appealed to the Land Hearing Board saying that Interior
had missed its chance to alter lease provisions through the
delay. If these appeals are upheld, the public will lose millions"
of dollars in royalties over the next twenty year period for
each producing lease.
A similar inattention to the administration of existing leases
narks Interior's attitude toward overseeing lease assignments
and through various other examples of its "passive approach"
to existing leases cited earlier. Over one quarter of all
federal leases changed hands through the assignment market
between 1973 and the end of 1977, yet Interior never investigated
the competitive implications of any of these transactions or
studied its powers to influence lease assignments, The assignment
provision represents a major obstacle to resource use planning
1n the West by creating a constantly changing set of lessees
and an enticement for land speculators. Yet Interior has found
no time to deal wnh this Issue.
Interior's disinterest in existing leases is countered by its
enthusiasm to launch its lease tract selection program for
new leasing. This new process will rely heavily on the present
"management framework planning" process which is Still in its
infancy. Most MfP*s are presently sadly deficient or contain
outdated or inaccurate data. If Interior plans to lease in
the next several years, these plans will, by necessity, provide
most Of the guidance available to the agency. The preferred
Mth, therefore, if it includes leasing in the next few years,
nut only will not minimize adverse impacts from existing leases,
but will not minimize the chances for adverse consequences from
new leasing, either.
Finally, the planning process itself appears too weak to adequately
protect the environment or existing populations and industries.
No consideration is given in the ES, for example, of the impact
of western energy development on water supplies. The proposed
suitability criteria contain a great many exemptions which could
permit adverse impacts. The data supporting the reclamation
potential discussion in the ES seems overly optimistic. Regulaticns
covering a host of poU-ntial Impacts are not in place or 9 van
proposed, making their future uncertain. A great deal of discretion
lies with tt.3 local ELM mining supervisors who might exhibit uneven
performances whin enforcing new planning proo/efllS, The socio-
economic impact data contains a lot cf sheer guesswork.
There is always a great deal of uncertainty involved in embarking
on .1 new venture. All risk Con new be eliminated &f all impacts
completely n.itigated. The Abject is re move only with cenf idsree
that you are putting your best foot focui'd. The preferred path
proposes to -ova Forward far too quickly, with too tig cf a step,
in the wrong direction. Interior would be well advised to
reshape its leasing proposal to incrementally adopt Iriiing
reforms on existing ina.es first in order to minim. :e Adverse
impacts, to build a strcng program, and W establish a convincing
need before undertaking new leasing. By nut aim.-ir.rj i/ery
future action towarr undoing a mistake mide in the jJit, tj
not tasting the limiU t.f iti authority o'.vr fd:.f j ies;c
to the utmost, Ly not ;csting new regular; ■/ nuip;n'..".: til
a stepwise fashion, interior will continue to b. vuir,»i'able
to prolonged legal challenges and further de'oys f,"3ffl :.".e actions
cf dissatisfied environmental , cit'-er, =nd 'i.cVtry groups
alike.
m^LA^-
Tri-County Ranchers Association
EL-n.y. Monlim S90II
105
*'.*.o JrJ-uXU'jcy .; .:n.-.' tr^, . .;..;.c .z.l:i us ...
Oli .:.■'.&. ii ', . LI. VtlJO. i&C StUtS.'-IS^HS f'LU*
;:UIi.:i.,:s, , o.;;;--at- cm J ^^. rw. <4, JVtfe.
ui.,c-.-ti^ jiiOfa
j.& b&lmo'Wtky , Vice j?r»fciu
Jri-Countj A-iiuhera ,.i.:-,cc;i
K-147
Comments prepared by Tri -County nanchers association p.l
uraii* •iUvx-tt.s.^flya. aiVJiiwa..,!1, yjuxtuL ccl K&i&Oa. — /f racca^:
I. Manning Process
Aa v-e have stated earlier we have serious mi3t;ivin-,3
re^ardin.; the use of the Bureau of Land k&nagettsnt ' ti old ittui-
OfiS^ent Srrfciaeworlt Plans. These outdated plutS have left out
vital information (fJecher-Mrney, frou draft to summary has
omitted an imports-it dratn&^e) f^* hAV6 acknowledged lrJok of
sufficient information (Jecker-3irney jipril 1S74, p. 75, p. 76,
j.'. til). These :.i?^3 reflect the previous administration1 s
polioios toward ootl development ojid Oftnfageuftat. fhey were
inuce:_-aE.te then and they are still inadequate. It is our
opinion that In order to attain the goals put forth In the
.£cjihge.3urt rrofir-a, entirely nev, sad complete assessments
are in order, jressin^ up the old ..J'rs with new covers and
supplements '..-ill not suffice,
lli i.ssessaent of existing Leases
I'CisA fit ill auiiatelna that it ia improper to oonoiucr the
granting of nev.- leases without hv-vin^ i'ull datw on the fcaOUlt
of coal available in axlsttaj; la&scs, je^lectin^ to assess
hew JMCfi coal is tfltually available for development from the
agisting leases uanaa it la;joat.ibla for the jepextjiient of the
Interior to icnov how much nev.- coal is necessary to Offer to
meet the Bsp&rtment of -■-ner^y'u ..rejections, iitiu here offers
a su^cntion fcr ab4i*fflAg( eyisting leases:
1. ^o to all lease holders dud determine the level of interest
2. if industry is interested (as indicated by i'inmacmvij una a
potential market) call on the Cffico of iurface .fining to
aake preliminary environmental utfuaeSmSata of tn* tracts
3. If ds«J (ana other t»ppr"0j<rl6,te egoaelbe.) ,&eo ..osoioilitiaE
for development then factor that uYi0U.1t Of cbal into total
production quotas
It is as import.-..; tc CCi.Bttlt In tr.ls way with lease adders
u& it is to consult with ni rfuoe ow.iers cvtr pote.iuj.^1 lo^aea.
111. .<"uad
..e Ci.in.: at.-z ti -.rj ia undue eiiphusio on western federal
CO.-l in Shis . .i.nr.mement -TOpn-m-., It'll Has.; -t- L-JidarS e.^iQ this:
«,Yph&elB 8l.ioa JX'I has absolute control over t..ic federal
resource, hcv. ever , if other fador&l ft..,*. OSes o~,i ,...t,.„r ac-
Ouruto duts. to dct.r i:ia every t'.'.i.;im fro. crop fields: to i^a-
ufsotured joo-^s. jli em certainly ..Tithfar co.-l ^rctt'aotion
dtxB unt ^otoutlul prouueilon datf: fro.. jrlvuSe ec_l i., 'cne
cast a.'id factor t.'^at data into naXlonbl -.roauoticn o.-la, .,e
int;r. rot the title, Scaoral Coal ..-.uts.. e.".e;.L Lro^ra.'.", to „.ei-n
t..G consideration a„G""rn(-0:eJe-;'t"cf";-.i"l 'c'o*. T'rJaCurc'o ^ :.n tt.B
Unltoa ^t^tm rvthcr thaji .jeuiinK aa-u.^'cjont oaly of foternl
thi.Jt tnaE this WOttlt! Ow t.:e O.lly sl..wlt;-.0j.ii V.W to
CCal,
treat Tiho
onaj. e,ier 3' p;.cturr.
COnuaaftta prepared by 'i'ri-Gounty ,-.am
MATT J«/liK.^-3sia!«,ii ii'.-i1 n.;l', >_j...
r/.
lers ..ssoei^tion
er ticcoiiL'iiO-
i'hresholdK of Develo^inoat
I'ho concept of thresholds of dtvolopr*nt is basically
.>od. Hoover, ae outlined in Chapter 3, pufia £1, the concept
is not specific enou,;h to oe meaningful. fC.oi believes that"
there should be specific .sidelines for acceruinin^ acceptable
thresnolds of aevelopmont in tv.0 principle ^reaa of conoorn.
i'}ie firot area of concern entails cumulative impacts on
axintiag coidunities. lor example, wo of this ru»&l oouAuniiv
wra Observing the oia-Jllfitiva affec-.- of aevelOL.neuts in .-.ontonn
on our trade t™id so&ioci cuntor wiiich is Sheridan, ..yoaiag,
l'h«&B effects rani* frosi .".inor nuisances aueh aa no par..in^
space to rjijor protlaOB such t;s pollution of our u&terw&ya vjid
OvarorOWdlae of our transport:.tion, medical and school ayataae.
■,A(M1 C&JBiftfflj-iat, loaain., the _)Ll F.houla. recognize that estab-
lished co..u.iunitie3 will unr.voida.oly bet-r the brtJit of aavelop-
.^ent. In establishing; tnreRnolns the JOi „iust co.»siaer the
point r.t v/hich f*ollitlia a.io serviesn can no lona
date expansion in ;-i reiiponfli'ole raxiAWf.
Our secc.-id concern r'o^ards leasin... in remote ;...a und^vel-
optio areas. These ;.re.,s currently proviso nc services* or
facilities *ble to aoco. Jiiodate any subatantial population in-
cret.se. The acceptable thresiiola for oucn ;^i r.rea aculd ob-
viously he very lov,
..e think tr.orc anou3d be epecifie guidelines for t.'.rsisholo
levels applied bota on ti ounnlativfi basis and on a sits a .8-
cific u;:3is. fne potential of excaooi..,, & taresnold si.ould be
factored into the criteria for deter. .ih,ii<^ uasuitwhility ,
The aeotion on tnroeholifl freq.uei.tly refers to land use
pii-as ar.d plwaaerfl. These are ao. aaflned clearly. By "land
ueo plan" dees tne jA-I mean Ghu existing -i'rs? Ly "^lu-inors"
ao&s the JCI :.ean local SXim ;-ifici^.ls or locally appointed
ylKJUlftrs? The XI si-iculc s.-ecify Just v.hc doca the plunnin
ro^nrai.i^ thresholds,
VI. aurfact Cwnwf Oonssnt
..8 h&ve prsvioualy stated our views cwncer,.in£, sorft-co
o\.ner cunse..c in rogurd to i..vie unsultthiiitj criteria- -e
v.'ish to relti-r^tc; the oon:..e^t of tne surface own,ar aust be
the jCI'Jg solo responsibility (reatrflin£ the attainnont of
oonsenty. aencent t-.uot oe Che first criterion fur d*Sor-
.'.;lnin:. aait. .fci ±iz\ :or Ic.-.^in;;. _o alio* ^a.io ^norefcre to
OOfi&ooe) :.idas,;ry tr.it op_.orta.nty to OOnti.iUO «ha haivtc.ient
of in>.iviuu..ls r^>*oilt,, t..w5r ri^i.ts is. lia-cceyt^elia. he-
j;iajj«, le_v:.._ t,,t ac .ui-ie-Oi. of c^&^.t a;. to LuiufcSrji
.K-tJi us .liOstion .-.o'. jCI Cu... useure ^wUii-iO co.._.i-ci-nio.i i.i
the j.._ft... prcecss, T..e ouri.-oe o'.:.;e;- v.ili iitivo e,f.ven nib
con:.c..t ;o 0/io oi*aptif^. Therefore, t.._ c 0Oift.*»Aj will oo ;/,a
oaj.^ o..i. ;.ti ^ .^.1 ',.io;. jii, j.1 bjiOvLla at .aire tna oonee-t of
the o.nor ss.it put ti.a-. :rj.o; up for bid...tnus ausarizu t,
.oaB-„.ri) of eor^fttilfiOfl, :.:.d a fair .a,...e.j; _or tns .'.ut-lic'e
rvehuroe.
roa '-y .ri-^c,.n.
. — of.,1- CO "3
- —it. ar . j..'.l.
ascai...,^..
. -7.
tOCA
• .o ; ..
nhc-
ul. .a:j." '.id-i -r« .
-t-'' c-" ...ro.'..a u_64ir ..
1- i o trcw of ari.^.;in ■ -..fBt-;
3e.._r-:,;i.r-:uy plannin" unit
;■':.„ .,-..„.n UKi tctjr »i-*„s ri is ao-..n to
"'«r' '-r'u -•Jt- ^ jro-a.-.c; '.._tcr ooui'Oea.
...iec.i. a.;Vur..i ..eo.jle'-, u.Cur OUypl j .
p in ly7o o. t.-.a ..bnt_.io. «._ricultaiwl
■> native rLJive-
tion
ill u&.voii-c
-fc iuii L-t Uol:
sH'.tion ..it.-j jawBin. on r&c- .i,.«i
t:.„t ..c-; o..„y -ia cattl- 1..1
the f#
the foray
trie r&Olu,
ior.5 „isi^;?. ft is tr«e, thd et-o.i-3 din not u»«
or C;.io, -..-.tn^r it -.v.. a l0',._r natr-tiun_l v-lttS of
s-.-,.o aio. inj Br.ice eiu:.,onta nooe5S_ry for . rov.tn on
l-.., afcvorLnixeas, tne raaulBB ™w self axU-uiuitrfi .
^'^ °':!r.;? «ruVS -■i^vi..L,a abcat cm, *mc*.cy of nwiwi-tiouT
^oerur ..^..or o-^o-rn or oux'3 it: -er.. unwiiicul .-..,« u. of Bhe
S-lJ ■ '*iee« gao fcrwue ,.-i-av..i on thoia, ..u aj?# worried
"jj*" k*fSrj i"r? ^.-r:j-'* ?©M«.ili«ioa for toiio rwOUitB for xivestock.
..O A. Iter -o-,.- iusn ana oeautiful ^ ■lroClui_eo" area aa^ appear in
tr'tftf :»/^?S *■*■' i1' iiv--fi-c^ ««^a - entice to oa poisoned
SL*M^S- S^f'?-!1* •*-*£■*? fcr^'s =-r0'fn 0:1 •SOUS, or, if the
£fS i .i:"1-1-1.-1^ ft£»«fui to huaans who ..i./.t eonsu...e U, it is
MLrWfleaa, ..e oast our concerns on the stuai^s th-t have been qgub
Xtl uhe r^-^ion 02 co.-per-uolybaenua i:aoalL.'.ce urohleuas,
iCith ael-.ey^s ^,ut recla-^fion is one vrca vti6r= tne ^iia.ocent
■t„ pre.'dae" OL-nnot a^^ly. „h«.re land, ice
W «JMi future ^enerationa ..re at st^^e the questions
must Btuntm prior to leasing and/or ainin^. To Otto they
have not osen ansv.erou i-ny'-'-hare in this r- J
of people in apiculture.
until prove..
productivity, '..ater una
tO tne satisfaction
VIII, Lands Unsuitifoiiity Criteria
•**«*.% ll^dS ^"•lil;'-Dili-y criteria must be applied to all ^reas
which nave ^potential for^coal mining. Addln^in «
unsuitable.
ception to each
^xoe^tions should be listened. ..a question whether
shOuTS It ?Sfi i+2*S^9*aP ?C^Teach criterion. Little or no discretion
ti-^if, left.t0 tne -l00Gl BLi"' -ocio-econouLlc, cumulative and
oil-site impacts ^ust oe included in the LLC.
2*£S «Ji2 M?1^Lt„iiee?on3e & Pors^ duality for Controlled Grazing
on Coal Uina apoile»t published Aug. 1977 Montana Ag. iixporimont Station
Cf.ico Of CCi.1 .*jU&smAZ
(WO)
bH
-urc.-u of L.Lnd , .wte-tcmtnt
lfatn ...is t streets, ....■-
R^
5^Kra/^^ MY
..^shm^ton, J. C. 2Qi;40
i-^'^^::; "
107
ART HAYES. JR.
R BAR RANCH
eiRNEY. MONTANA 50OI2
i-eb. j, ls7S
.,0 would li.;o to subi.ilt sous cedents DO 'iha _ie .art^ant of
the Interior re^.rdin^ their fir,. ft -,nviron.^nt<.-l ^ tL.te...a.tt ,
y,^?.i;I',-:L bQ*-l -^a^e. ie.it j-roft-rl'.ia. "VLrVpruc'iVtV 'the" "oVioriunity
to ao so. Cur oeliVflB that this ..o^inistrL-tion '..'ill i;ive
conscientious consldart, Bioa to cur oorapltinta —id BU^gesbioas,
It ia of sericus concern to us thut tf.o ->CI intends to use
the old i Anneeaeat Vrsjoeuork .l^ns aono by tna local huro^u of
Lf.ii& i -ana^-e^ent Cffioe as base for their lot1si.-i_ .flana. These
■■l'iJ resource stucies osteneihly i(8re doi.s to -rGvice fcr a
multiple U3e fcpprottoh to federally adi.dnistered n-sourc-s,
..oi-'.ially one resource, coal, .roviceo the only re^l iu-.;etuc for
putting together those pinns [the siaanarii does achnclod^e ''the
renewed interest for co&l" as the factor ..ro-pti.itJ the stud;-;
--.ad the ..Pirs losn heavily towara the aavcIop.-ia.t of oow.. .te^Wd
less of what has been proclaimed — the j'rs wws not v.ell Ok/ue,
comprc.ensive studies. Loc-1 public particl ation consisted of
uak.iu„ ooiwenta rotaer Bh*j malin^: local aecisions. 2:.e .1'rs
were written even though tnere was an ac^nO'.. leaded lacj. of Infer-
nation and dati_ in aitio3t all cections. There './ere omissions,
especially r«(pirdiua water. In the ii*clcer-3iraey atudy, HhAKiai
>.Offitm CreU: was omitted as an ii p-ort^it drainage ana ground
wuter is hardly mentioned. Treatment of the socioeconomic
problj^s v.^re superficial. The effects of atrip uijllui on the
agricultural industry WuS largely iyiored. ^nciosod is a copy
of a letter written by Dr. fiayjaond 1. Sold ana printod in the
ai£-HIlUri tn&8S on Cctober 16, 1976, his letter is a better
expression of the complaints and frustrations Which we have in
regards to the KFF process.
With the screppint; of the WAM pro^ra.-i we thought we had
seen the last of these poorly dene studies, however, in 197b
the local ELli office published Technical -Tjcaalnation tmd environ-
mental Assessi
,se Bpplica-
doauiuents. They co„cernvd coal le;
■ Seeker Wld near Colstri^, -iontana. 21
worse than the iCFPs — certainly not better, fhe poor
ions for !
were even \
handling and content of the Decker Tii,A" prompted a letter of
complaint to the £01 in July of last ye&r. (letter to Guy ttiartla
from Tri-County RanchorB association, July 24, 1978)
The above complaintB regarding the ItPPa and the JCriKAa are
meant to illustrate and emphasize our position regarding tho use
K-148
of tiio il''rn ,.a :. julde for renewed leusi.i^,. ..a firmly believe
Ci—t lie1.;. cct!|ii's!i uatjivj OPidliB should sb ao.i^ unci ch.090 uoini'
li a sc.mivo iihculd bo ji,V0ii ftew dirvcxivoa uifi tigtix j-idelines.
«aoe.-a"bla« eiwulu aoa be isrfi; u;. io 'the leecl lii... offieiifis — -
or i^iyo.ij elua for ch:rt .—tier.
^asides :,.- up a of c;;u . i"I k -..i ..^ve other ^rcTcilo-is 'wish the
jru. ouoa c-' 1 u^diija.tOat ,r-c.r,.;..
_'..o Litcru&VivO jr-o.-oe. In ■ -re- tci; ^;ivu.-i ..ijth. co^irtsrutjea
or ^su-; eo.:>_. rod tr. ;,;-.& ^rtfffarraa Gi;c. '.'he cltexuu'tives uust
bo i..:crouJi ..v., r6v.H.«tlc i.. cr-i.f to ju i .cUl.11,, c,ir.iae.i\,d -s
. GL't'ij.i.ii'SJ.:j3,
fail vroco.ii.x^.: .\-:~ . ... .:.i'i..„ — urfcue c.ntir owieoat do .ao-c
MtliieT! b,a '...te. si^.: of K.y Is.:/. ..t ur.4 Insuring Is -illla s,
*.', o.i j..a. a*, ls79j sfcc rsi-so.-; v-s ;ut i'avtt. titut u.itii.i£
until aetirlv' ehe o..d or ci.u ;0..-iu'j.i_, i>roc-»ua to Quti-i*; 3urft_oa
O„:ior e a»i.i1i I'.pulfi lib a.. L.&vzjiX:,.ji t« the surf: 08 ow.ar in the
avjjit I'li-'i; r.fi ■. ovJU a&c.a£« i io tiiad, li't.ia iu ridiculous, -'he
fjui ojiiui'. .ciior of euex. n. ;.rooe-:ure j..id of sho CvAV»iil».ica it
.■-l'i'cruo Si e>j.. i;; th*. iX-I. -'ho itej<urt.jSAli "..oulu bo roud^ c.ici
..■ :--l.i_ wi-sh itti ,.i,..i:j in 'sub iveiS sut t<.e luwtoi.uer ooula ae
,joraut.aoti to i&uss, (jAtre id .wciiLaj lli.e ia* latiiuifitttioa or
oj.a'BtaUBd ■.l;..mi.i co c ,:e one boliove sbvB '\..i,viuy in iaevituble" .
i';./*-u,^icu: "the 1.. Lit ;'o_rc f&oue L-^eo. .ion. wuc ..i~.;.jo. Do lc— ae
:.~va tiv.it. ..io i^u. ciiCi;.* '-.'o visli co co,.-i..uo ,„mu£iiic cheir o^a
..ro.iort.' uou't noeo -lit; */.! to Bio i.iau&try oa tneii, *n6tu."5ry
;.~a liioentivft 2.io.i_;. -C cciiti.iui; bhwlr :io.rusa;.Q.it. it ..\.&t Se
tr.i jCI'i. rtSj'On^iSilitj co otc-ia -«j.'ft.co o-,.ner co-^oct before
u\, i-l.-oniaj io dcie.
Jj.s (ln-ft -!»jt*:.<Jta*.it j"r^..»-u C"/iii Bho ulMRAiHubiliey criteria)
Boia to ,.^tJi„..o tiiut recli iittcio.-. i:. s.isu$e .os^ibit. i'i,ia lu-s ni.t
b;_.i tii.O'.ji tr. du t)0, aIbc, c:.orc i_ro uoricivia .uuEiionc rejL.rdiaj
lis r-ttator-.tiio^ of Ttuafi v..ur.
..o urft Sirod of i.'cvtaiaft co...j 'Co ;uacify i. forajOiio cciiol.ision.
t^hii tJ^n ■ :iti iiho i'-iAs) ..e ■ r* -ciroi. of juoa l-\.a utu _;ooa
r6,,uli. :ica?j bcin^. ■,.„•:. J:e.-ied :.i',u o/.^iiueu oecuufiu zhaj t-rs "joo ^ooa"
. iia Therefore ruisitriet undel^t-tv.; ..cuioiic, (cho ^..;^^i:ubi.i^t;■
oriltrit. '..'ich ica ..ealtuaAaj eyce.-iio.ia :_id ditorcrsiQiOU. ,,aad tho
3urfi.oc o .ii. .r aoaeaaA .-rovj.aion t.-i-t is .ao- uu Uo.i^ross Lixeaded)
.e i-....li:.e ;i.i.i, ti.e jX.'1'o laeesliieiu: r.ra o.ii-i.i& ia ica i_cte..-..to
-o oo/Twet c;.u ..rociduroe :._;- uir-^tc'.orto of BUG vrevioufl ..tu-i.i-
ir^^.-tltti',: ija.^rxi.ie.it* tc i^ impor-wi'6 ;ii,.t (ftLiOc z..u rwliju&e
o:' uj .. .,"- eStiiui -aer_. .l..i; those i.iCt.-:CiOn.; oo ,'iot .,m"c Sj.ori;
c...-ii_;j;: for tiu. s.'...s -i" a:, .c-uis.'ic.- .
.. r. . At. ...ro. .i*ii i-.uv^i: Jr.
108
Sierra Club
HORTHEM CHEAT PLAINS OFFICE
llflltfirfM*tE,f*lliy^y^ffVW'*^r'*7TT
P.O. Box 1076, Lander, Wyo. 62520
(307) 332-9824
Feb, 10, 1979
Comments of Brace Hamilton, Sierra Club Northern Qreat Plains Regional
Representative, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
Federal Coal Management Proqrain.
T want to complement the Department of the Interior on this lona
overdue sensible approach to coal management. While I agree with the
oeneral approach to coal management outlined in the draft environmental
statement (DES) I have some basic disagreements with the way Interior
plans to implement its coal program.
In the 1960s Interior had a coal leasing program — but not a coal
management program. When a leasing moratorium was announced in 1971 we
hart limited coal leasing and still no coal management. The 1975
EMABS-2 proqram attempted to institutionalize the long established
lease-on-the-request-of- industry approach without examining the need for
leasing and without setting up a comprehensive coal management program
that recognized the other public uses of federal lands.
The preferred alternative contained in this DES on coal management
represents a major break from past coal mismanagement. It deserves to
be commended for the following pointsi
— It attempts to examine the need for coal leasing before setting
leasinq target levels and it seta up a mechanism to review the need
question periodically.
--It attempts to view coal as one resource among many that are
found on our public lands and attempts to fit coal management intd
the broader land use planning process.
— It establishes some important opportunities for public input
inciudinq a strong role for the states.
— It recognizee) that there are social, economic and environmental
thresholds that should be identified, and that coal development should
be contained so these thresholds aren't exceeded.
--It recognizes that Interior has the responsibility and the
authority to review outstanding leases in light of the new criteria
for acceptability.
— It attempts to integrate provisions of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management
;.ct, the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act, the Department of
Energy Organization Act and the Administration's National Energy
Plan intn one eohrasive federal coal program.
DesDito these ootflblft shirts in coal policy there are still
sone very serious problems with the DES and the preferred alterna-
tive. These problems are detailed below.
HESUNED LEASITOt WKO \*EEDS IT?
Judqe Prnt
thoroughly pxam
in the S33C •
_j_ Huohss case required Interior to
i Of the need for additional coal
The DES notes that leasing will have no significant effecton
national coal production through- 1990, but that a resumption Of
leasing could cause shifts in regional production. Some regions —
particularly the Powder River Coal Region — are projected to have
a drastic increase in production that will strain the regional
social and natural environmental thresholds. The impact of stimula-
ting such a shift by additional leasing should not be taken lightly.
The production projections generated by the Department of Energy
and adjusted by Interior appear to be unreasonably high. The way
that Interior adjusted the DOE projections, and the reasons for such
an adjustment are unclear.
The DOE coal production model appears biased in favor of greatly
expanded Western coal development. The DES notes that the most
important sources of increased demand for Western coal are in the
West itself, but Tables 5-2 and 5-3 show Western production far out-
stripping Western consumption. In fact, DOE figures (LPDO, Table 22)
show electricity sales in the West (A. 26% middle scenario) actually
ational average (4.55X middle scenario).
less than the I
The econometric model employed by DOE also overestimates the West's
future coal production and consumption because it ignores actual end
use. End use models such as the CONEA* model or the California end
use model have provento be more accurate and project consistently
lower demand levels than econometric models. The DES rejects use of
the end use model because it would be costly and time consuming
but an accurate picture of coal demand is essential if interior hopes
to adequately assess the need for additional coal leasing.
Even industry would have to take issue with the coal production
forecasts contained in Table 2-16 for the Powder River Baain. There
ii no way that the 1995 or 1990 medium or high scenario can be met
short of instituting an emergency program designed to mak« Campbell
K-149
projections are lo-
RUSH TO IMPLEMENT PREFERRED PROGRAM
Tha DES status that "the key activity added to the land use
Planning process in the preferred program is the application of
lands unsuitability criteria." However, the lands unsuitability
criteria are now being applied to select federal coal lands (announced
in the Dec. R, 1976 Federal Register) as part of "special start-up
considerations." The idea of initiating a major cornerstone Of the
LES preferred alternative before the public has an opportunity to
comment on the DES appears' to violate the National Environmental
Policy Act and is also probably a violation of the i.P.DC vs. Hughes
injunction. In addition, the application of unsuitability criteria
prior to public involvement in their development probably violates
the federal Land Policy and Management Act public participation
provisions.
Interior seems so convinced that its preferred alternative will
to approved and that the unsuitability criteria won't be changed that
it is ignoring public input and proceeding with both. The sole
reason for this rush appears to be the politically-motivated decision
to issue leases by mid-1980,
Another problem with the premature application of unsuitability
criteria is that they will "be applied to old existing management
framework plans that were written for old EKAR5 industry-nominated
co.-.l lease tracts. One of the most laudable parts of the preferred
program is that it attempts to look at all coal lands and weigh coal
development with other land use values in a new planning process.
This approach is undercut when old EMARS tracts £.nd old coal-dominated
^7?s are relied on for the first round of leasing.
.'.nother problem with the hasty implementation of the preferred
alternative is that vital components — the Forest Service and Bureau
of Land >.anagoment land use planning processes — still aren't in
final form. It is hard to put faith in a process that is in flux.
The Sierra Club will be sending in separate comments on the proposed
land use planning processes.
Ideally, to implement the preferred alternative. Interior should
start tilth a clear, slate. The new land use planning process should
be put in place, the unsuitability criteria should be subject to full
public review a.-.cl then adopted, more complete data that is not coal
resource dominated should be gathered for new KFPs, and then coal
leasing proposals should be run through the preferred alternative flow
cha rt .
LANDS UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA
The proposal to come up with a list of lands unsuitability
criteria — some based in law and some based on administrative good
sense — and applying them at the earliest stages of the land use
planning process is commendable. I trust that this effort is being
coordinated with similar efforts by the Office of Surface Mining.
"Jasically I am pleased with the criteria, but dismayed with the
loosely written exceptions that in many ca*> negate the criteria.
T realize the need 'or some flexibility to take into account local
environmental conditions, but as proposed the exceptions are too
flexible to guarantee meaningful protection.
Exceptions should bo crantr.-d only when there is sufficient
evidence to prove that the environment can be protected as adequately
with leasing as it would be if. no leasing occurred. Exceptions
should be uniformly applied and 'not subject to industry pressure.
FfCfi
stcr tha
much coal would be excluded from development by each criterion." I
hope the field testers also looked at how adequate the criteria were
to achieve the desired environmental protection goals. For instance,
I'm curious about the origin of the '; mile buffer around active eagle
nests. Is there a biological basis for this size buffer or was it set
after field tests showed that too much land and too much coal would be
excluded if a larger, more adequate buffer was chosen?
7t is unclear to me who will apply the criteria and grant the
exceptions, An area manager? A district manager? A state director?
It seems to me that local managers could apply the criteria as part
of their land use planning function, But recommendations for ex-
ceptions should be sent to the national director who should be the
central authority capable of granting exceptions. This would assure
consistency in application of the criteria exceptions and would help
guarantee that exceptions don't become the rule.
l_ <mc' Easements. The exceptions, especially number
■.<*■■•-:
The Wilderness Act (Section 4(d)3)
allows Tor discretionary leasing and mining, but clearly coal mining
would be incompatible with protection of wilderness values. Why not
delay consideration of approval of noncompetitive coal leases and
mining on leases until Congress decides if the area should be
desig^at^d wilderness? If BLM doesn't intend to use the exceptions,
they should be dropped,
as. The exception erases the criterion. This is an
example of a catagory where a district manager under heavy local
pressure might apniy the exception freely. Someone not subject to
local pressure should make the subjective decision on a mine's impact
on scenic values.
Lands Vr.nC fnr Scientific Studies, joth conditions, not one or
the othor, should be met before an exception is granted.
enhance .
it could ever
Is hard to believe that coal mining could
recovery. Any dragline would probably destroy
intact.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
uld concur in the granting of an exception.
does not guarantee i
Is there any scientific basis
'"or the size of buffer an?;..s and the anticipated success of nest re-
locations? 7>,es-e areas should just be avoided.
State ^CviHer.t j
Why i s deer , a nt el ope , a nd
elk vinter rcnr.c protected, but not moose winter range? Why only elk
niftration corridors? The state wildlife agency should concur -- the
federal override in exception number 2 is outrageous,
•■fptlar:ds. Exception number 2 is too subjective to be useful.
number 1 is meaningless. There is always
an alternative to leasing a floodplain — leasing outside the flood-
plain or just not leasing.
I'upicirvM watersheds, These areas should be off limits to
leasing. Why tempt the city fathers to sell out their water supply
to appease local industry?
'ational R"°nurce Waters. Why should the agency be allowed to
decide if protecting a national resource water is necessary? This is
another area that should be off limits.
State :<tnd^ gflSBJ table. An excellent criterion, but there is no
need for the exception since the criterion is already flexible. State
concurrence, rather than consultation, should again be required.
The grandfathering in exception number
visible to include unsuitability criteria
tivo impacts of ir.incs, and socio-economii
exception is spelled out it shou:d also cite the prohibition on
disturbance of the hydrolog.ic integrity.
It might also be <
Loxic substances, cumu:
threshold.
Jr. summary, there is such an abundance of federal, state and
nriv.ite coal lands that it seems folly not to offer tighter protection
for our most sensitive lands.
ALTERNATIVES OVERIX-OICED
The TjES offers a poor range of alternatives. The only alternative
that is seriously considered and examined in detail is the preferred
alternative.
The alternatives mentioned include different ways to set leasing
levels, but different ways to run a coal management program are never
exa m i nod .
The DES should examine when to apply the unsuitability criteria,
alternative unsuitability criteria, alternative demand models, alter-
natives to relying on the land use planning of the agencies, alternative
places in the decision making process to allow surface owner veto power,
and alternative ways to rank lease tracts. Some of these alternatives
are discussed in the option papers cited on 3-28. Unfortunately the»e
decisions, like the decision to adopt the preferred alternative, were
made long before the public had an opportunityto review of DES,
I think interior should also e
alternatives. For example, one CO
called for a continuation of leasin
while the new land use planning pro
data is gathered to aide in prepara
unsuitability criteria application.
amine combining parts of several
Id construct an alternative that
under the short-term criteria
:esses are put in place and basic
ion of new MFPs, unit plans and
Then, once the pieces of the
program are in place the preferred alternative could be initiated.
This approach would buy time to produce more accurate need projections
and loaning levels and eliminate the need to rely on old inadequate
MFPs. Such an alternative would keep existing mines going, allow the
opening of new mines, meet national needs and assure that the first
round of new leasing is done right.
OTHER ISSUES
The des talks about the need to review outatanding leases but
doesn't integrate such a review into the preferred alternative, There
need to be assurances of an aggressive review of all undeveloped
leases and PRiAsand cancellation where existing leases are incom-
patible with new acceptability standards.
K-150
(7)
The DBS cites the need to recognize threshold development levels
(3-21) and suggests that such a discussion could take place at the
land use planning staae. This is an extremely important concept and
should not be l«ft to the discretion of local land managers. A
determination o£ threshold levels and a commitment not to exceed them
should be made a mandatory part of the decision making process of the
chosen alternative. State and local government should play a key
role in the determin.it ion of acceptable thresholds.
There needs to be a better recognition of the interrelationship
between tribal lands and the federal coal program, The rate and type
of development around reservations will have long lasting social,
economic and environmental impacts. There needs to be more opportunity
for tribal coordination,
I don't think a more detailed discussion of alternative energy
sources is needed in this D"S, hut any chosen coal management program
needs to include a high degree of flexibility in its demand projections
to account for energy source shifts, A glut of Alaskan oil, the
introduction of Mexican gas and oil, a more rapid shift to solar
pOvaV or a ban on nuclear power plants could drastically shift coal
demands. No one denies that coal will play a major role in bridging
the gap to .1 renewable energy economy. Dut coal is one of our
dirtiest options and it is usually the first to be dropped when a
more attractive alternative is available.
In conclusion, I want to congratulate Interior on the job it has
dona find the openness of the process that was used in the preparation
of this D3S. There are serious flaws in the program, but it is a
major improvement in managing our public resources.
THE NEW MEXICO NATURAL HISTORY INSTITUTE
A Novell Corporation
Box 369. 51. Johns College
Santa Fe, Now Mexico 87501
109
11 February 1979
Office of Coal "ana^raent (140)
3ureau of Land >'anarement
Department of the Interior
18th & C Streets, N.W.
Washington. D.C. 202"-0
Sirst
We comment on a limited but vital part of the Draft Environmental
Statement on the Federal Coal "anarement Program: the effects of coal
RlAllUC Oh preservation of fossils and of natural areas, as the
Statement recognizes, these effects will come dlrectiv through disturb-
ance of the land and Indirectly through chances In water and air quality.
■•le heartily favor a central tenet of the preferred program: a*ency
land-use plannlnr should p-overn which areas are Judced suitable for
coal production.
V« are less rally satisfied wl'
In Chapters 3 and 5.
h the suitability criteria presented
;he Area
of Critical
(1) There Is no caten-orical recocnltli
environmental Concern (ftCEC) established by the Federal' Land Follcy
and ['ariarenent Act of 1976 and covered In proposed planning regula-
tions (43 Ci-R Subpart 1601). ACEC should, we think, be stated to
be automatically excluded from leasing. No doubt areas that will
M designated ACEC are covered under other headlnn-s; but it seems
worthwhile to write the Coal Fropram In the law's terms.
(2) Al=hou."-h natural-area designation is listed as an unsultablllty
criterion, there seems to be no commitment In this Statement o-
elsewhere to the designation of natural areas for observation of
typical" (as well as rare) natural ecosystems. The bureau, unlike
the Forest Service and National Park Service, has not recognized
tivon in principle the need to nako adequate reservations of land
°I >I??S, purpos!:' ''•'e ri:-ard cMs as a serious deficiency, '-/e do
not think that lar^e-scale coal leasing should be permitted in an
^cosystem until a lar=:e-cnaui-h sample of that ecosystem type has
been reserved for designation as natural area o>- other AC^C on
public land. ■■/« admit dlfflcultltes In apolyln* this rule In states
that lace agreed-upon plans for representative natural areas, but
(a) these clans are forthcoming fro* State, federal, and private
sources; (b existence of the rule *-ould sneed production of the
plans; and (c) the rule can be applied by reasonable (wo)men even
in the absence of state or regional plans on the basis of existing
habitat classifications.
(3
leontolo.'lcal sites, mentioned only under natural areas.
.ojH be treated separately. An are no? interested in nrotectin?
SiC:*
fossils is ur.li'<e> to dusi'-nat
cause a« si "flat ton -see-.s to invl
('■/itntiss ,;'ossll >sad national ■'onunent,
tfin tl-e .io-t'one -ot tho-e to protect it
'."-.o r.rotale- Is ccrlux. partlv hecaaaa
*ont*l Btatufftflt of wufl*uitabliity Imsci
as Inj-ltlm- to v«.-..1als as naturil-nrsn
n-Stlon watts aTiproeriat* In those instances where aalva'^e of'th.
fossils in undesirable or i-ipmaticai.
ces as natural areas be
than repel vandalls-.
which is no nore : by
the eycadn •■'tim -one'.)
co-nltlon in an tmvirci
su of fossils11 mi^ht he
designation.
iii-irdlnc -it > cation (Chanter 6) --:e a--.- particularly '."crossed by the
=roi=o*«r| re-iulre-ent that needs To- ->iti~.-.tlin bo -iwr. priority con-
s.-e-a-.ion in selection of tracts fo- leasing, .-.socially --.'1th re-
-trt! to foBirlls, 'fhleh are subject to -itl-atlon laaaurua (that is.
scientific Bollofltlor.. -refturvatlon* and study) but only «t hl*h cost,
-lis requirement n»y do .'oor! service. -o-rever , we '-lorry that The
fwcessity and the cost of protest!*'- fossils— *a Important in Mew
, exico coal areas— aru u.adure-rjhasizufl in the 2raft' statement. 3*.
SUirtuHmt* to survey fossils before construction c- minlnr are Impor-
tant out are too -rejakly stated. The suhllc has clear -lfht to the
■elantific valuta of fossils on public lands, vhlch must therefore be
adftea to tr.v. cost of any "reject that would destroy them. It is too
Ma-nay to trust that the bulldozers will stoi: when they turn uo lmpor-
-a.-.t foitsilsi »"»!« tl-e ani money must be allowed before he*vv eaulp-
'Oflt is on the -scene, "« hone that the ?lnal Statement will strongly
*- -lr-i taese principles under both "Imoacts" and '"ntio-atlon."
£^C6f**r* — *
112
Page T. Jenki
(gketegfal
February 8, 1979
Office of Coal Management: (140)
Bureau di Land Hanagemenc
lSch and C Scrccca, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20240
I lubmlc the following review comments regarding the draft environmental
statement for the Federal Coal Management Program. Both coromenCB concern the
leasing of coal to be produced by advanced coal technologies.
1. On page 5-131 under the heading of End Uac Considerations , the text
reads, "To encourage development of new technology. .. .a leaae Htipulation
could require the coal in the lease to be developed by a particular mining
method (auch as in-aitu gaalf Ication) to protect lands chat offer high poten-
tial for a new technology." I believe there is a aeed for encouraging develop-
ment of new coal technologies and that lease terms can be an effective mech-
anian for advancing these new technologies. Other than stipulating the end
use to which a coal lease can be put as exemplified In the above quotation,
I Buggest that certain lease terms as mandated by the Federal Coal Lcaalng
Amendments Act of 1976 be modified for lessees and preference right lease
applicants whose mining method is a new technology. Modifications recommended
to encourage new technologies are;
--Extension to 15 years the period for achli
:ention of the provision allowing the Secretary to
m to Hi.: period for achieving diligent development
complete development of advanced technology.
vlng diligent development,
grant one five year exten-
becauae of tine needed
I for advance royalties I
be paid for 15 yean
co 50 y«
Since the Department of Energy now has the authority to revise dili-
gent development and continuous operation regulations and has established pro-
duction goal levels for synthetic fuels produced by coal gaalf ication, it seam
appropriate chat the Leasing Liaison Committee establish leaae terms tailored
to provide incentives for new coal technologies.
2. Department regulation* require a preference right lease applicant to
make a commercial quantities showing on the lands applied for. I believe acme
discretion should be uaed in the imposition of Che commercial quantities test
on PRJAs. I suggest that the commercial quantities test, as defined in the
regulations, not be applied to PRLAa where a new technology ia uaed at the
K-151
Office of Coal Mam
February B, 1979
raining method. Instead, :
apparent conanercial quant:
natc test is that data on
■uld be more appropriate to substitute an
ceat. My lDgic for suggesting this oltcr-
iercial operations o£ many new coal tcchnologlei
aince empirical numbers are not avuilablc.
Very truly youre,
Creg H. Thompson
121
S&tjrtu uf j&btttuna
mitt d Sty Mwnm
Mule™, sseai
February 13. 1979
Hr. Frank Gregg, Oirector
Bureau of Land Management
Office of Coal Management (110)
18th and c Streets, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Gregg;
The attached comments coupled with my testimony of January 24, 1979
represents the position and formal response of the State of Montana con-
cerning the future leasing of federal lands for coal mining in Montana.
The attached comments are specific in nature in contrast to the general
comments of my testimony. They represent not only an academic review, but
also a public concern for maintenance of Our treasured quality of life in
Montana.
ig Program will have major significant impacts
'™ ">"■ natural environment. One of our
The Federal Coal Leas
i ne reuera i uoa i ueas i ng rroyram mil nave major iigniii cant lmpac
on Montana's future economy and upon our natural environment. One of o
major concerns is the potential conflicts with state policies and goals
We have adopted numerous laws over the past few years to cope with ener
devplnrimpnt and to nrntort and preserve a quality of life we have no
development presents potential conflicts w
itry regarding land and water use. We will
rulture in Montana to provide for coal deve
development and to protect and preserve a quality of life
intention of losing. C08l J"
Our basic agriculture Indus. ._,
destroy the future of agriculture
With wise use and conservation we
n Montana to provide for coal development,
ifident that we can and will have both.
The attached comments address these concerns. Some are specific to
Montana and others may have a universal connotation. Regardless of the
nature of the comments, we trust that you will give them serious con-
sideration and incorporate them in your final analysis. The involvement of
this state in the decision making process is critically important and neces-
sary for any viable decisions involving federal coal management in Montana.
THOMAS L. JUKE
Governor of Montane
The following are the State of Montana's comments regarding production
targets and their apparent inadequacies.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) has. not specified the process or
provided the numerical data in the EIS to show how the coal production
targets provided by the Department of Energy (DOE) have been "adjusted."
It is important that the nature of the adjustments be clarified because the
EIS notes that DOE high and mid-level projections will be met for all of
DOI'S coal management alternatives and that the "adjustment" will take the
form of interregional transfers "in certain Western states." (p. 5-3).
The EIS also indicates that a primary goal of the coal management program
is to help ensure that national energy plan (NEP) goals are met (p. 3-2).
Personnel involved with the energy models used to derive the production
targets indicate that NEP coal production goals were not used to determine
coal demand. Nevertheless, OOE's high 1985 national coal demand projection
is 1.186 million tons per year (Table 2_15), a figure very comparable to
the President's announced coal production goal of 1.2 billion tons per
year. Whether production of 1.2 billion tons of coal per year by 1985 is
actually attainable or whether it is the best option for meeting energy
needs has been questioned by many authorities, including government and
industry. Also, it is unclear whether a proportionate share of 1,2 billion
tons per year of effective demand is attainable for the market area of any
given coal producing region.
Certain steps and input factors which DOI considered in its production
target "adjustment" process are listed in Appendix H, Section H.2.2., p. H-
7; however, demand for the coal does not appear to be included. The follow-
ing statement indicates that the actual probable demand for the coal of any
particular state may not have been considered:
"The algorithym utilizes an origin/destination coal flow
matrix upon which are superimposed predetermined western coal
production levels. The 0/D matrix is restructured so that
regional energy demands are satisfied and the level of coal
consumption for each region identified." (p. H-7, emphasis
added).
The EIS does not clearly explain how the total production projections
were divided among the producing regions, although least cost appears to
have been the primary determinant for all factors considered. Demand for
Powder River Coal in 1985 and 1990 is therefore linked to the economic
efficiency of mining the region's thick coal seams, as indicated by the
following statement:
"...Within the western regions, the greatest fluctuations in
absolute terms (between the various leasing alternatives} would be
experienced within the Powder River Coal Region
Given the Powder River Coal Region's land ownership patterns
and the economic desirability of the coal resources, this disparity
is to be expected. The coal industry, as any private enterprise,
seeks to maximize profits in part by minimizing costs. Producers are
attracted by the Powder River Coal Region's fields in Wyoming and
Montana with their thick coal seams and relatively low seam thickness
to overburden ratio's. Since the NCM production projections are
based on the least cost linear programming model, the, program
alternative which depends on these projections similarly emphasizcr,
pruduc tion ('nun i.hr i'r/.viirr River Coal Region. On the other "hand, a
policy of no new leasing would restrict available production both by
preventing expansion of the Federal coal lease reserve base and by
affecting the economic viability of private coal dependent upon adjacent
Federal reserves for their development. The Powder River Coal Region
is highly dependent on Federal leasing to expand production beyond
currently planned levels." (p. 5-16, emphasis added).
In Chapter 2 DOI apparently calculated its planned production estimates
in the Powder River for 1985 in terms of the amount of coal that it believes
will actually be produced. This results in a smaller tonnage number than
the production capacity of existing and newly approved mines. In Table 2-
30 actual anticipated production rather than production capacity is compared
with DOE production estimates, resulting in a greater apparent shortfall
which D01 will use to determine the need for new leasing. This could be
challenged as a weakness in the argument for the "need" for future leasing.
The EIS recognizes that the primary demand for Western coal is for
electric generation. At least one Montana study of Montana coal demand
"Electric Utility Coal Demand Scenarios for the Montana Energy Model"
(MERDI, 1978), strongly contradicts the presumed need for the volume of
coal which the EIS predicts the Montana portion of the Powder River Basin
should be producing in 1985 and 1990. The Montana Study is based on a
survey of all known or announced plans for future coal-fired power plants
in the Montana/Wyoming coal market area and estimates derived from Individual
state energy demand forecasts and data. The EIS acknowledges that coal
will only be produced if there is a market for it (e.g., p. 2-30 and 2-44).
For the Montana portion of the Powder River Basin, the 1985 production
capacity of existing and currently approved Montana mines appears adequate
to meet the Montana Coal demand study's high projections of electric utility
demand as well as in-state coal requirements through at least the early
ISM's.
Since the EIS does not Include the origin-destination matrices which
show predicted coal flows between 41 production areas and 53 consumption
areas, a state cannot precisely examine whether the projected market area
demands for its coal are realistic. A preliminary version of regional coal
demand is included in a separate document entitled, "Federal Coal Leasing
and 1985 and 1990 Regional Coal Production Forecast" (DOE, 1978), but even
in this study, the coal flows are not broken out by state.
The coal production targets are the primary determining factor underlying
the proposed coal leasing policy and management framework. Considering the
important role new federal leasing would play in the Powder River Basin and
other western coal producing regions, greater accountability for the targets
would be desirable. Congressional review and acceptance of DOE's coal
K-152
production forecast:, would not be unreasonable in light of the potentially
massive impacts subsequent coal development decisions will impose on the
West.
Appendix F presents coal production projections by state and includes
projected in-state coal consumption as well. However, the process used to
derive these numbers is not indicated. The manner in which Appendix F supports
or is incorporated into the main body of the EIS is also not explained in the
Appendix, although references may exist in the body of the text. The Montana
and Wyoming shares and total Powder River production are summarized as follows
(from Tables F-2 and F-3) in million tons per year (mtpy):
Productic
Total
Powder Hi1
Cons ump tii
Montana
Wyoming
1976
25.9
n.s
37.4
1.34
86.6
TIB. 4
205.0
1965
12. 71
.10211
400.0
1990
3.9
All steam generatioi
includes 11.25 steam and a. 55 lo
BTU syn gas
.„.. ..„ ^,. 3_
3lnclUd68 1.56 steam and 6.2? high BTU syn ga
There are several obvious problems with this data. In 1976 Wyoming
power plants consumed approximately 7.5 million tons of coal (mt) in electric
generating plants and Montana plants consumed approximately 2.3 mt. It is
not clear why Wyoming consumption is projected to be lower in 1985 than in
1976 and why Wyoming consumption Is lower in both 1985 and 1990 than Montana
since more coal-fired generating projects are already in operation or schedul-
ed for construction in Wyoming. The Montana coal consumption projections are
not unreasonable in light of future planned facilities which the state is
aware of. However, if low BTU coal gasification by 1990 is among facility
construction plans for Montana, the state of Montana would like to be informed.
On p. 2-24, three actions are specified which will be undertaken at the
national level to address the problem of growing energy demands; these include
expanded domestic usi of coal, increased foreign supplies of oil and gas, and
greater energy conservation. Ue in Montana would like to see a fourth action
added, namely to allocate the necessary support and research efforts required
to increase reliance on renewable forms of energy.
The follwing arc specific comments and questions which relate directly to
coal production, supply and demand which have not been answered in the EIS.
1. Will the final EIS reconsider the aggregate coal production
targets in terms of recent developments which mitigate the
probable demand for coal--i.e., Mexican gas, Canadian gas
availability, loosened Canadian crude restrictions, Alaskan
gas, etc.?
2. Statement on p. 2-17 indicates that national installed
hydroelectric capacity decreased from 1975 to 1977. This
seems doubtful. Perhaps megawatt-hours produced decreased.
3. What is the source of the Appendix F data?
4. Does the decision to suspend the effective date of the strip
mining rules affect the coal leasing EIS?
5. How does the BLM anticipate improving its data base to a level
capable of making tract specific leasing decisions? (In most
of eastern Montana adequate information has only been developed
in the areas associated with or adjacent to existing mining.)
6. According to the EIS, "general public participation" apparently
does not include the opportunity to comment on and potentially
alter the overall production targets (e.g., p. 3-26). Also,
Section 3,3.10 indicates that "the state's knowledge of, and
concerns for, socio-economic factors would be critical in eval-
uating and disaggregating the regional production targets."
State input (and public input from within the state) should not
be limited to input focused solely on impact mitigation. States
should also have a role in evaluating the inherent reasonableness
of the targets based on available market information and forecasts.
The unsuitability criteria proposed for coal leasing cover a broad ra
of items and generally include the majority of possible environmental/coal
mining conflicts as we have in 5ection 50-1042 R.C.M. 1947. These recommend
ed criteria outlined in Table 3-1 dre commendable in intent. However, in
several instances the proposed exceptions seem to open up rather large
potential loopholes. Each of the 24 criteria carries with it a logical and
in some instances illogical exceptions. For example, an exception to the
flood plain criteria reads: "Leasing a particular tract is the only practic
alternative; . . ." Impractical ity is also an exception In the Right-of-
Way and Easement Criteria. Is impractical i ty a valid exception to sound
environmental practices or is it simply an economic constraint? It appears
to be an economic constraint which should be addressed but in a context
ge
ut.hPt
than hen
is fact that in most cases the
i state may have more stringent
However, of even greater concern is tl
exceptions do not recognize the fact that <
regulations concerning certain unsuitability criteria. This is definitely
the case in Montana where we have broad powers to allow or deny mining
under Section 50-1042 of Montana's Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation
Act. Recognition of approved state programs including state regulation in
determining exceptions to the criteria is included in only one of the 24
criteria namely the "reclaimability criterion". To assure a smooth process
of lease issuance by the federal government and subsequent strip mine
permit issuance by the state regulatory authority the exception should be
imposed for all the criteria by adding to each exception "after consultation
with the regulatory authority to assure compliance with State programs
including State laws and regulations". This added stipulation might assure
successful implemenMt ion of the proposed unsuitability criteria and might
administratively solve potential delays and conflicts of future state and
federal program compatibility.
Inherent also In the unsuitability exception criterion is the assumption
that particular mining methods and mine plans will justify an exception.
Unless lease stipulations are extremely precise and specific in relation to
mining methods and plans these exception criteria might not be valid. Are
specific mining methods going to be dictated in the lease stipulations to
assure that the exception criteria apply?
Sor
ldlife/recl
nth Montana
la.tion oriented deficiencies r
■.re among the following.
i ted ■
There are several errors in the description of the Powder River Coal
Region Environment. On page 4-19 the Powder River rather than the Tongue
River should be named as a stream with a heavy sediment load. On page 4-
20, prairie chickens are included as birds occurring in this area. However,
it is very doubtful that any of this species occurs in the Powder River
Coal Region. A reference is made on page 4-21 to a fish species called the
shovelnose sturgeon chub. Actually, there is no such species. The authors
are probably referring to a shovelnose sturgeon or a sturgeon chub.
In table H-15 (page H-29), it is questionable that in the Powder River
Region, productivity in an upland forest (8.0 tons/acre} is greater than
that In a wetland/bottomland forest (5.4). Also, it is difficult to
believe that rangeland produces 6.7 tons per acre and pastureland only
Some of the productivity data in Table D-l appear to be questionable.
If, as indicated, productivities per acre/year in the Powder River Region
(page D-2) are 5.4 tons for floodplains and higher than this for prairie
(6.7), hardwood forest (5.8), and evergreen forest (R.O), then it seems as
though unsuitability criteria should include more than just the floodplain
type.
Tables 7.3 and 7,4 are also very misleading. They seem to indicate
that reclamation will reestablish "forest" in the Powder River and Fort
Union regions. It should be pointed out that to date very little success
has been noted in attempts to reestablish ponderosa pine in these regions.
Portions of chapter 7 discuss the fact that reclamation is by no means
an assured thing in may areas of the arid west. Given this uncertainty, it
is difficult to put much faith in table 7-5 where estimates of wildlife
populations that could be supported on reclaimed lands are made.
While the above-mentivinjd errors and comments are rather minor, they
do seem to indicate that these sections were written by someone unfamiliar
with the area and apparently were not even reviewed by someone from the
region. However, these sections still represent a vast improvement over
previous efforts.
The discussion of Yellowstone River water availability on paoe 5-3P
could be updated to reflect the recent Yellowstone water allocation decision
made by the Montana Board of Natural Resources and Conservation This
decision could have a major impact also on the discussion of coal .velooment
in the Fort Union Coal Region.
The Section on Ecological Impacts beginninq on page 5-72 appears to
contain some conflicts. On page 5-75, the following statement apnear:
"Since the specific tracts which may be leased are presently unknown, it is
not possible to indicate the exact habitat which would he Inst." Sfveral
paragraphs later, reference is made to table 5-45 which presents estimates
of potential big game population reductions which would occur due to habitat
loss, Since it is not possible (as previously stated) to indicate the
exact habitat that would be lost, then how can potential big game nopulation
reductions which would occur due to habitat loss be calculated?
Also, the expression "DOunds of trout/acre foot of stream" is a very
unusual one and is in desperate need of clarification and/or definition. Under
the wetlands criterion, it should be Specified whether the 5 cfs is an average
flow, a minimum flow, or which soecific flow is intended. The Falcon Cliff
nesting Site Criterion (page 3-12) is not printed properly in the table - a
portion of it Is printed on page 3-10. Apparently page 3-12 should come between
pages 3-9 and 3-10.
The following are comments primarily focused on the social and economic
impacts of coal development. The Department of Interior is to be commended
for its concern, awareness of problems and recognition of the limited
resources available to forestall or alleviate adverse impacts. "-*—««■ **»
following are issues which ,
The draft implies a minimal responsibility on the part of the federal
government for providing what we consider to be highly appropriate financial
assistance to help mitigate adverse Impacts. The statement is made; "The
task of providing mitigation rests primarily with states." Montana has
taken a lead in the nation in assuming its responsibilities toward the coal
area through the establishment and use of our coal severance tax and our
innovative approach to assisting impact comnunities throuoh the Montana
Coal Board. Recognizing that energy impact extends beyond the coal area,
• continuing to evaluate our role and to explore new possibilities.
ia has the highest coal severance tax in the nation — and 1t 1s
currently subject to challenge by the energy industry. We, therefore, find
it ironic that in discussing the inadequacy and unresponsiveness of existing
federal aid, the department of interior should recommend that "the more
severely impacted states such as Wyoming and Montana could seek to raise
revenue by other means, for example, through the imposition of an increased
coal severance tax."
lot adequately addressed in the EIS.
Montat
K-153
It Is time for the federal government to make adequate provision for
the local consequences of federal policy and federal action. The EIS
recognized that with regard to adverse social and economic Impacts from
federal coal leasing, the Powder River and Fort Union Regions would be the
most severely affected in the nation. The statement also, very appropriately,
recognized the importance of timely information and effective planning as
basic necessities in the process of mitigating adverse impacts. What the
report does not give sufficient attention to is that current federal alternatives
are inadequate to address the problem. The loan program of the Federal
Mineral Leasing Act of 1930 is not only unfunded but would probably be
totally unworkable if it were funded, both because it would infringe upon
the state's traditional right to allocate those moneys and would disrupt
the state's budgeting priorities and because the state could probably not
implement the program without a constitutional change of questionable
desirability. The one value of the act is that it recognizes the state and
local need for funds "for planning, construction and maintenance of public
facilities, and provision of public service." However, loans of any sort
are not the only answer: the states loss of extracted natural resources is
permanent; the tax benefits from the process are very short-term.
Unfortunately this draft fails to recognize, as some federal legislation
fails to recognize, that those jurisdictions which experience the most
severe adverse impacts may not be the same as those which accrue the chief
tax benefit. The statement implies that an increase population is accompanied
by an eventual increase in taxable valuation which eventually catches up
with the cost of the additional demand for public services and facilities.
In cities, towns and school districts this is not necessarily so: the
catch-up may never occur. In that circumstance, loans can be part of the
burden they are intended to alleviate and grants are much preferable. We
are all familiar with interstate jurisdictional inequities, but they also
occur within the state and it does not appear they can be completely nor
equitably addressed by the state's adoption of any single jurisdictional
mechanism, such as tax base sharing. Sy the same token, the statement
suggests prepayment of taxes as a mechanism to help off-set tax lead time
problems. Although Montana has legal provisions which would allow prepayment
of taxes, every time prepayment has been proposed industry has threatened
to challenge its constitutionality.
While the needs of impact communities are both recognizable and pressing,
their circumstances are often such that they don't fit neatly into the
pattern of criteria existing in federal funding programs.
The discussion of road-rail crossings and of their hazards indicates
that dangerous crossings 1n rural areas probably cannot expect to receive
any federal assistance for underpasses, overpasses, or even rail crossing
protection devices: "In smaller communites, the local traffic volumes
would be invariably too low to necessitate separated crossings or, in many
instances, even flashing warning lights or crossing gates." We find very
disturbing the implication that in the federal eye the life of a rural
American Is somehow worth less concern than the life an an urban American,
Although the draft addresses the problems associated with hauling coal
by truck or by train, it does not recognize the severe adverse effects on
both state and county roads not Just from an unaccustomed volume of commuter
traffic but also from the hauling of heavy equipment to and from mine or
facility sites. This stress and the construction of new or relocated roads
can cause overwhelming highway and roadway expenses.
It seems questionable whether the section addressing loss of agricultural
lands and productivity represents the situation fully -- for example, the
chart illustrating the costs to agriculture cannot fully reflect the adverse
impact on agriculture because it does not take into account the potentially
extensive and extremely detrimental disruption of the region's aquifiers or
possible increases in animal mortality because of air or water pollutants.
These must be matters of concern to us as an agricultural state and as a
nation which benefits from our agricultural productivity.
On page 5-87, it is stated that "Because coal transportation systems
are not labor intensive, employment growth to transport coal would not be
as dramatic as for mining or use of coal." This is opposite the findings
of the Colstrip III and IV EIS. Which is correct?
Despite these and other concerns of considerable consequence to us, we
applaud the intentions, expressed in this document, that the department
will effectively involve both state and local government In determining
criteria for lands unsuitable for development, in nominating specific
unsuitable sites, and in ensuring the timely availability of accurate
private information and the Involvement of both private and federal sectors
with state, local and tribal planners and decision-makers. It is our hope
that this commendable effort will be a meaningful part of an effective
process of optimal mitigation of the adverse social and economic effects
of energy development.
122
Office of Coal Management
Bureau of Land Management
ISth and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear
Re: Federal Coal Man.
Program Draft En'
Statement
In compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-9S,
and the Wyoming State Review Procedures, the State of Wyoming
has completed its review of the Federal Coal Management
Program Draft Environmental Statement. State agency comments
are attached.
In addition to these comments, my own testimony
was presented in Casper, Wyoming, at a public hearing held
on January 23, 1979. This testimony should be considered a
part of the State review.
Thank you for providing
opportunity
J^ours .sincerely.
•"■ 9 1979
SO HEHSCHl El
eAai/THen/ cf Emthcnmenta/ Quality
LAND QUALITY DIVISION
STATE OFFICE BUILDING TEIEFHONE WT-TTT-79H CHEYENr
HfflORAMDUM
TO: Robert Sundln, Director j.
FROM: W.C. Ackenan, Administrator V>
DATE: Dcccnb«r 27, 1978
SUBJECT-. Staff Comnenta on Federal Coal Management Program, a Draft
Prepared by the U.S. Department oE Interior.
Enclosed are specific Coonents on the refereaced DEIS.
K-154
SE; Abbreviate
Because of the numi.'roi
an "abbreviation ludei
abbreviations used, the docup
should be prefaced by
RE:
tlon 2.7.3.,
Won- Fed e i
Non-Indian Coal
aft
Indian
assesses the development potential of non-Federal non-
:h a cutoff at 2,560 acres (minimum size of viable mining
operation). However, [he State of Wyoming presently has four pending applies^
tlons for mine pem.lto where non-Federal non-Indian coal reserves to support
che mining operation will be much smaller than the cut-off utilized in the
statement. These applications arc:
WYMO Fuels - Subsidiary of Kan-
T/yr. For 11 yean
All indications arc that these o;
it can be concluded that the DOI
ment potential of non-Federal, nc
titute viable operations.
bly underestimated the di_"
for the Powder River Bas:
Section 2.8, The Need toi
i Federal Coal Leasing
RE;
Within the introduction to the draft statement (Chapter 1, Section 1.1) a
question concerning the need for additional Federal coal leasing to meet
the Nation's future energy needs is raised. This questions, probably origi-
nating from the HKDC ui. HughiJ, suit, is supposedly addressed in section 2.8
of the DES. However, the Department of Interior (DOI) aupporto renewed
leasing on che premise of the Department of Energy's (DOE) planning. So
substantive data or io£ic have boen presented within the document which sup-
port renewed Federal coal leasing, other than DOE's projection. Thus a very
important question of the whole Federal Coal Management Program has not been
annwered. If DOE In che lead agency for projecting future energy needs, then
DOE should provide logic and an objective data base for their projections of
future energy needs.
RE: Section 3.1.1. , The Preferred Federal Coal Management Program
It is recommended that the Planning System, as described in sections 3.1.1.1.
and 3.2.1., be restructured to combine concepts of the EMARS I and II pCBftTWU
The initial screening. oF land by resource planners, the results of which
ill ' designate certain tracts of land acceptable for leasing consideration.
should be guided in the Initial
interest in areas of mineral dev
nominations as was conducted in
• plann,
pi in
bo di
vali
i whicl
itages of the planning by industry express:
ilopoient. Thla could be handled through
he EMARS II program. This approach will
guidance from the free-enter-
will be Indicative of where c
al :
ruld I
RE: Appendix A, Example Regulations. Section 3420.1-5(a) and (tO
Concerning split estates, referenced example regulations Indicate that a split
estate may not be leased If there does not exist "comprehensive land use plan
prepared by the State". In the State of Wyoming where lund uae planning has
been a slow process and where the Secretary could easily conclude that a com-
prehensive land use plan does not exist for che State, the iMpacca on coal
development could be considerable. It Is recommended that the term "compre-
hensive land use plan", as used for both federal estates and split estated be
defined nod where the term is applied to split estates, the State be dellgaced
the authority to define a "comprehensive land use plan". It la recommended
that this definition be broadened to qualify various resource plans and
activities as criteria for legibility.
'yarning Srfaie 3ii<ihi&ay Wehaltmenf
>. O. BOX 1708
MEMORANDUM
CHEYENME. WYOMING 8Z00!
January 4. 1979
State Planning Coordinator
Wyoming State Clearinghouse
3320 Capitol Avenue
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
William P. King, P.E., Envirt
:ntal Services Cnginee
rent Program
^-/^r
The bulk of the discussion on transportation impacts dwells at length
on the impacts on the railroad industry. However, discussion of
impacts on people due to railroad transport of coal is SO brief that
the statement virtually ignores this major impact. The impacts of
railroad/highway crossing blockage, community disruption, and financing
mitigation measures warrant discussion in character with the rest of
the text.
One important aspect that is understated and cloudy is that the pre-
ferred alternative and its various options is a means of mitigating
the impacts of a no-leasing policy. Coal production and Its associated
impacts is controlled by the market for coal. With a no-lease policy
existing mines and non-federal reserves will supply the market-
Consequently, the impacts of coal production will occur regardless of the
federal program selection. On the other hand, a sound federal management
program is an essential element of a national coal resource management
strategy that can serve to mitigate the impacts of a no-lease policy.
Of WYOMING
E nO*EnT fiiimv
Wyoming ffleciea/icn ^emmibbien
CHEYENNE. WYOMING BMOI
February 1, 1979
Mr. Richard Hartman
State Planning Coordinator
1320 Capitol Avenue
Cheyenne. Wyoming B2002
- Mr.
Han
The Wyoming Recreation Commission has received your memorandum
of December 19, 1979, and accompanying "Draft Environmental
Statement; Federal Coal Management Program 78-1360."
Our office appreciates the opportunity to comment upon this
Drift ES regarding potential impact upon cultural resources.
Since this is a general management plan suggesting various
alternatives for a Federal coal management program, our staff will
await future site specific coal mining proposals before commenting
in detail.
Some general remarks, however, merit your attention. First, I
am pleased to find that Chapter 1, "Description of Regional
Environmental Environments" contains several sketchy historical
sections entitled "The Environment and Man," Since this Is an
overall management plan, the omission of numerous historical events.
personages, and sites from this section is understandable if unfort-
unate. Yet, it do** not appear that adequate Identification and/or
evaluation of properties eligible for or enrolled in the National Register
of Historic Places was performed for the Powder River Coal Region.
The section mentions no sites enrolled in the National Register and
Sheridan and Johnson Counties alone contain more that 65 historic
sites eligible for or enrolled in the National Register. Section 4.6
"Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region" provides an adequate listing
of SO sites listed on the National Register. However, Danger Cave
mentioned on page 4.6.2 is located within Tooele County, Idaho and
not In Wyoming.
K-155
Mr. Richard Hartman
State Planning Coordinator
February I, 1979
No reference is made in this management program to the
Crc.it Divide Basin in the description of the Green River-
Hams Fork Coal Region. This formation is a unique geological
phenomenon containing several land forms, plant types, animal
species and bird species peculiar to that area. The Basin also
contains several potential National Natural Landmarks which have
been identified by studies done for the National Park Service.
However, no mention is made of any of those potential landmarks.
This area is richly endowed with paleontological and archoological
remains. Surely an area with so many varied cultural resources
deserves some type of mention in this study. The Croat Divide
Basin, per se, is given a cursory mention in conjunction with
a casual composite reference to endangered animal and bird species.
Moreover, each environmental statement should address not only
how the project will affect the recreational use of the land itself,
but also give some thought to how the impact of people could
hinder or enhance the quality of the environment. The impact
of needed recreational areas and/or facilities to cater to an
increased population, should be considered in this Federal Coal
Management Program.
Finally, we would like to reiterate that is site-specific proposals
arise, that the SHPO be notified at the earliest possible stages of
planning. This early contact procedure will insure that future
cultural survey work and personnel satisfy the minimum guidelines
and qualifications adopted by our office in cooperation with certain
federal agencies.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact the SHPO.
Sincerely ,
« "2**6**'"*
J1_W;CDK;TAS;RBS;klm
TESTIMONY OF
GOVERNOR ED HERSCHLER
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTER 103
ON ITS COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
CASPER, TOHH6
JAMIARY 23,1979
Alt-. 'lUIEfl
Office ir rr. State Planmimi CfloaeiNAroH
I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN MY TESTIMONY BY
ACKNOWLEDGING THE STATE'S ROLE AS A PARTICIPANT IN THE
DESIGN OF THIS FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THIS
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT- SlNCE LAST APRIL, OFFICIALS
from Wyoming and our sister states in the COAL-
PRODUCING WEST HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT,
CRITICIZE, AND SUGGEST, REGARDING ALL ASPECTS OF THE
PROGRAM- This IS NOT to say THAT I AM COMPLETELY
satisfied with the proposal, or even that the various
agencies ok Wyoming state government agree on its
virtues and defects- eut 1 do think that the proposed
program dears the stamp of the states'-predomi nantly a
shift toward making discretionary decisions at the
state or district level, rather than in washington-
and 1 can say that i find far more to like about this
proposal than many of its predecessors in the past
eight months- perhaps most important, we acknowledge a
degree of responsibility for the federal decisions that
are embodied in the environmental statement-
The PUBLICATION of THIS draft environmental
STATEMENT IS IN MANY RESPECTS A MOMENTOUS OCCASION- IF
NOT DISMANTLED OR SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED BY JUDICIAL
REVIEW, IT MARKS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GROUND RULES FOR
FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT FOR THE GENERATION TO COME- It
ALSO MARKS THE CULMINATION OF A PERIOD OF REVISION THAT
BEGAN EARLIER IN THIS DECADE' AND I THINK IT IS FAIR TO
CHARAC*'* "csulT OF THIS PERIOD AS A DECLINE OF
THE RC W PKi.. TRY'S DISCRETION IN DEVELOPING
FEDERA kESOURCES- In BROADEST TERMS, RECENT
Congressional initiatives have:
(1) Limited the period that private industry can
hold federal coal for development, hence reducing the
role of long-term private planning and speculation:
(2) Provided for a much higher assured return to
the federal taxpayer for development of federal coal:
(3) Increased the role of federal laud use
planning in the development of federal coal, thus
reducing the choice of private industry in spatial
distribution of development;
Ct) Provided minimum standards for mined land
reclamation, thus reducing the role of private policy
in providing for environmental protection;
(5) Introduced federal production targets under
the auspices of the Department of Energy, providing a
basis for not only increaseo federal monitoring of the
market but also for a revision of the traditional
relationship between private industry and the
Department of the Interior-
K-156
The implicit result of these structural revisions
IS TO STRENGTHEN the role of the federal government in
Wyoming, and more specifically, t|hi role of the Bureau
of Laud Management- Further, there will soon be more
=ederal coal produced in wyoming than any other state
in the Union the growth and stability of Wyoming's
economy will depend in large measure on the DEVELOPMENT
OF THAT FEDERAL COAL, I MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE PROPOSED
PROGRAM IS MORE IMPORTANT TO WYOMING THAN ANY OTHER
STATE- HE MUST, THEREFORE BE EXCEEDINGLY CONSCIOUS
NOT ONLY OF THE T6RM5 OF DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL COAL,
BUT OUR RELATIONS WITH THE fEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL-
In FACT, WE SHOULD SPEND LESS TIME WORRYING ABOUT THE
NATIONALIZATION OF FEDERAL COAL, AND MORE TIME WORRYING
ABOUT THE NATIONALIZATION OF WYOMING-
With this perspective in mind, I would like to
PRESENT A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM-
AttY REASONABLE REVIEWER OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING FEDERAL COAL LEASING WILL CONCLUDE THAT
SOME MODERATE DEGREE Of LEASING IS THE SENSIBLE CHOICE
FOR A.'l OVERALL POLICY- FUNDAMENTALLY , THE EXTREME
POTENTIALS FOH FEDERAL POLICY DON'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE
THEY IGNORE TOO MANY CO US I DERAT I ONS--ltARICET DEMAND,
NATIONAL ENERGY NEEDS, AND THE ANCILLARY COSTS Oc COAL
DEVELOPMENT. TO HAMR A FEW- For EXAMPLE, THE ROLT OF
MARKET DEMAND CLEARLY MAKES NONSENSE Of THE NO'LEASlNG
ALTERNATIVE; EXISTING LEASES WILL HOT YIELD PRODUCTION
IP THERE IS NO MARKET DEMAND- THE DEMAND FACTOR CAUSES
A SIMILAR PROBLEM WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF LEASING TO
MEET THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OPTIMISTIC PRODUCTION
GOALS.' BECAUSE MORE COAL UNDER LEASE STILL WON'T
INCREASE PRODUCTION IF DEMAND IS NOT THERE- BOTH OF
THESE ALTERNATIVES ARE CONSIDERED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT-
So THE CHALLENGE FOR CREATING A FEDERAL PROGRAM
HAS NOT BEEN THE SIMPLE BUSINESS OF DECIDING THAT A
MODERATE LEASING PROGRAM IS JUSTIFIED: INSTEAD, THE
CHALLENGE HAS BEEN TO CREATE A RATIONAL PROGRAM FROM AN
AWESOME TANGLE OF FEDERAL STATUTE, JUDICIAL DECISIONS,
AND ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION- CHAPTER One OF THE
environmental statement roughly summarizes these
constraints- it is worth emphasizing that many
alternatives or policies which would seem sensible to
Wyoming citizens are simply not available as elements
of a moderate leasing program' one cannot, for example,
ignore the statutory requirements for due diligence,
even though some of our state officials believe that it
is unsound policy- the practical business of creating
a sound program has been further complicated by the
fact that, with the recent and substantial changes in
underlying congressional legislation, there is ho such
thing as an old hand with reliable advice- we are,
therefore, likely to yield all sorts of unforeseen
practical problems with the emerging program, and 1 ah
sure that we will be looking forward to several years
of adjustments even if the overall proposal proves
successful-
The program which has emerged as the preferred
alternative actually can be summarized ou1te simply-
it is largely a matter of screening out undesirable or
less desirable alternative tracts, to reach a limited
pool that will be offered to industry for development
on a competitive basis- while industry is offered ah
opportunity to express its interest, the system is
driven by this screening process-
the first level of the system is the land use
planning process of the bureau of land management
This process has been revised in a fashion which makes
it more suitable for the purposes of federal coal
management, as well as other purposes- dfiaft
regulations were published in the federal register
decem3er 15- the second level of the system is the
application of criteria designed to eliminate lands
which, for a variety of predominantly environmental
reasons, should not be offered for lease- these
criteria were published on december 3- the third level
OF THE SYSTEM IS THE PROCESS FOR RANKING AND SELECTING
TRACTS- h DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THESE PROCEDURES IS
NOT AVAILABLE, AND HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED- It IS AT
THIS LAST LEVEL OF THE SYSTEM THAT MODIFIED PRODUCTION
TARGETS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ARE USED TO
DETERMINE HOW MUCH COAL SHOULD BE OFFERED FOR LEASE-
To SUMMARIZE, THEN, WE ARE LOOKING AT A COMPLEX
PROPOSAL OF GREAT MOMENT FOR WYOMING- WHILE IT DEMANDS
A RESPONSE, A RESPONSE MUST BE CAUTIOUS, SINCE THE
PROPOSAL 15 NOT ONLY COMPLEX BUT ALSO INCOMPLETE-
Until I see all of the final details, and until I have
A CHANCE TO SEE IT WORK, I MUST RESERVE JUDGMENT ON
MANY OF ITS ASPECTS-
Despite this caution, I can still make a number of
preliminary judgments 3y asking a number of questions
which reflect wyoming's interests in the program- i
have six such questions today, and i may have more in
the future- i believe that these questions, and our
tentative answers to them, effectively illustrate the
state's posture without overstating or understating our
support for the preferred alternative-
First: Has the federal government adequately
disclosed its intentions for the development of federal
coal in Wyoming?
K-157
OtlE OF THE STRONG POINTS OF THF. ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT IS ITS EFFORT TO FULLY DISCLOSE THIS
PROSPECT- IT APPEARS THAT I CAN RELIABLY SAY THAI
Wyoming j and particularly Wyoming's Powder River Sasin,
WILL BECOME THE Pf(E_£MIHENT PRODUCER OF FEDERAL COAL IN
JUST A FEW YEAfiS-
Outside of the confines of the statement, it
appears that i can also make sound guesses asout the
schedule for leasing- in the event that secretary
andrus adopts the preferred alternative, we are likely
to see a modest lease sale in mid-1980- tracts would
COME FROM NORTHEASTERN WyOMINB, NORTHERN COLORADO, AND
SOUTHER!! Utah- To MEET PROCEDURAL requirements, the
19S0 SALE WOULD FORECLOSE NEW INDICATIONS OF INDUSTRY
INTEREST, STREAMLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND PROVIDE
FOR A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF NEW LEASES IN A HANDFUL OF
LARGELY UNCONTSOVERS I AL LOCATIONS- The FIRST LEASE
SALE, THEN, WILL SHAPE UP AS A SORT OF TEST OF THE
PROGRAM-
! '..*!LL FURTHER NOTE FHAT ONCE THE SYSTEM HAS BffSUN
TO OPERATE, MANY OF THE DECISIONS Oil f'UTURF DEVF. LQi'MSHT
'-,'ILL 3E DECENTRALIZED., TO T H I- LgVll OF THE COAL SUPPLY
REGIONS AN'.) BELOW- If THESE STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF THE
fitf-PERRED alternative ahE IMPLEMENTED, WYOMING will ci:
III A POSITION TO MODIFY FEDERrtL 1KT INT I OMS BY INJECTING
its own- If this comes to pass,
worthy of my support-
IS UNDOUBTEDLY
Second: Will the program work? Will it provide a
stable framework for the long term? are there
noticeable weaknesses which must be corrected for
either short-term or long"term success?
This interest embraces the agenda of program
detail which must be completed before regulations can
be published, and practical difficulties with program
elements that are already settled- wlth a program of
this complexity, the list is potentially lengthy, so i
will aodress points which are illustrative rather than
exhaustive-
CD One CONCERN IS VULNERABILITY to legal
CHALLENGE- CHAPTER 2-8 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
EXPLAINS THE RATIONALE FOR FURTHER LEASING- It IS AN
important chapter because a demonstration of the need
for renewed leasing was crucial to the lawsuit which
stopped the last federal leasing program- the mew
chapter is as strong as possible given the available
information, and a sound presentation of the
appropriate considerations-
(2) i am not entirely satisfied with the
Department of Energy model which helps drive the
program, and directly affects the level of leasing-
The model's strong points are the credibility of its
regional allocation of production, its emphasis on coal
as utility fuel, and the his 1 guts provided p.y its
sensitivity analysis- i t s weak points are its
derivation of demand and the fact that it is not
reliable below the regional level-
The possible consequences of the weak points are
DISTURBING- THE weakness IN DEMAND FORECASTING MEANS
THAT ONE MUST BE PARTICULARLY CAREFUL TO AVOID
TREATING IT AS SOME KIND OF WIZARD" THIS WILL BE
DIFFICULT SINCE NEITHER INTERIOR NOR WYOMING HAS ANY
COMPARABLE CAPACITY TO FORECAST PRODUCTION- I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE MODIFICATION
EMBODIED IN THE EXAMPLE REGULATIONS, THAI IS, THE IDEA
THAT THE DOE PROJECTIONS CAN BE MODIFIED TO SUIT
ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATES OF DEMAND-
THE FACT THAT THE MODEL IS UNRELIABLE BELOW THE
REGIONAL LEVEL PRESENTS ANOTHER KIND OF PROBLEM-
oHOULU PRESENT SCHEMES FOR TRACT RANKING AND SELECTION
ON A REGIONAL BASIS FAIL, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DESIGN
AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH INCLUDES THE DOE PROJECTIONS IN
THE SAME WAY, SINCE PRODUCTION TARGET DECISIONS FOR
SUB-REGIONAL AREAS WOULD BECOME A GREAT DEAL MORE
ARBITRARY THAN THOSE PRESENTLY SUPPORTED BY THE MODEL-
Failing at the regional level may, therefore, mean
failing entirely since production allocation is a major
factor in the system- lle can only hope that
substantial difficulties with the regional selection
system 00 not ahise-
(3) i am concerned that the conceptual
implementation of statutory fair market value
requirements may be too complicated to be workable-
the transformation of techniques that inform market
0ec1si0ns into techniques that comprise regulatory
mandates often yields unforeseen or undesirable
consequences, not the least of which are ever more
applications of technical concepts- one example is the
limitation on surface owner compensation, which is tied
to fair. market value determinations- i would prefer to
see federal analysis based on simpler conceptions of
protection for the federal taxpayer, which i believe
has the Congressional purpose for the fair market value
reouirement-
u) i am concerned that the department of the
Interior may have two major sorts of internal
difficulties with the PROGRAM-
ThE FIRST IS INSUFFICIENT FUNDS AND PERSONNEL TO
MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK- THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
CLEARLY DEMANDS A GREAT DEAL OF DATA AND A GREAT DEAL
K-158
OF MANPOWER, SO HUGH THAT IT IS VULNERABLE TO BREAKDOWN
IF CONGRESS LOSF.S ITS ENTHUSIASM FOR RESOURCT
MANA66HSM.T IN THIS PROPOSITION 13 ERA- 1 AH ENCOURAGED
BY THE FACT THAT THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE LENDS ITSE'.F
WELL TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIES FOR IhTERIOR's
RESOURCES, AND BY RECENT INDICATIONS THAT INTERIOR WILL
NOT ATTEMPT TO BRING THE ENTIRE PROGRAM TO FULL SPEED
AT ONCE-
THE SECOND PROBLF.M IS LIMES OF COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN Washington and BL'1 in the field- In the past
THIS HAS RESULTED IN CONFUSION AND DELAY THAT HAS HURT
Wyoming citizens- In this regard, I am encouraged by
decisions which decentralize program responsibilities
to the state level' one example is a change in the film
land use planning regulations which allows the state
Director to submit environmental statements directly to
the Environmental Protection Agency without further
clearance from washington-
(5) i am concerned that hany of economics-
oriented policy questions, otl such topics as bidding
systems, allocated by statute to the department op
Energy, mavi not been resolved- I realise that the
Department op the Interior has »a control over the
Department of Energy, but the cooroinatsc wooing
relationship of the two agencies hl'sl bs strong in
PRACTICE- The VAOUS memorandum of understanding found
in Appendix B of the environmental statement is no
guarantee of performance- Interior established a
rigorous schedule for itself and has held to it' it
seems that Energy should do the same-
(6) i am concerned that the policies surrounding
the question of surface owner consent hay prove
UNWORKABLE- THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THESE PROVISIONS,
designed to protect landowners who have held their
lands for over three years, is still a question mark-
Where the effect is to allow a single surface owner,
holding out solely for the purpose of personal gain, to
stall development in an otherwise desirable location,
STRONG PRESSURES WILL BE GENERATED TO LIMIT PROTECTION
FOR ALL LANDOWNERS- I HAVE NO IDEAL ALTERNATIVE TO
THAT FOUND IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE' I ONLY WISH TO
IDENTIFY THIS AS A PROBLEM WHICH IS LIKELY TO WARRANT
CONTINUING ATTENTION-
As I NOTED ABOVE, MUCH REMAINS TO BE DONE WITH THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE' AND MANY OF MY JUDGMENTS WILL BE
RESERVED UNTIL I SEE HOW THESE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS ARE
addressed-
Third. Does the preferred alternative respect the
INTEGRITY OF 'jYOniHB'S INSTITUTIONS?
Wyoming has created ma;iy organs of state and local
government which heal with various aspects of coal
development- where wyoming has addressed these
ouesrioms, i naturally oppose. federal actions which
would pre-empt or tend to a3r0gate functioning state
AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES- By AND LARGE, THE PREFERRED
alternative has successfully avoided these sorts of
conflicts- a number of examples illustrate the prqblsh
and the point-
(1) The Land Quality Division op the Department
of Environmental Quality has primary authority for
mined land reclamation in wyoming- h is possible fo*
stipulations in bui leases to infringe upon the
determinations that are properly left to our state
REGULATORY AUTHORITY- Th c PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE HAS
consciously avoided this conflict-
(2) Our Industrial Siting Council protects the
health and welfare of wyoming 3y operating permit
procedures which thoroughly examine new energy
facilities in Wyoming- Interim has proposed an
investigation of iis authority to regulate the end uses
op coal, which might affect th=: powers of our state
AUTHORITY- ThE PROPOSAL IS PRESENTLY TABLED FOR
FURTHER STUDY, AND I HOPE THAT IT WILL REMAIN TABLED
INDEFINITELY-
(3) Our Department of Game and Fish :s the
appropriate manager of all of wyoming's wildlife
RESOURCES- This primacy is RECOGNIZED by specific
opportunities for participation throughout the system,
including the fifteenth criteria for excluding lands
from further consideration for leasing-
(4) Wyoming has a land use planning statute and
related procedures- i would oppose any attempts to
foist specific and additional federal requirements on
this structure, such as specific plan contents or
specific measures for plan implementation- where state
and local land use plans are referenced, in the
preferred alternative, i have hot seen these sorts of
requirements-
in short the preferred alternative generally
evidences a proper regard for wyoming's structures of
government-
Fourth: How will Interior address the social and
economic impacts of coal development?
My view is, and has been, that Interior cannot
MANAGE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS- Th [ S BURDEN FALLS
largely, if not entirely, on local government" and
state government, in that order- tlle only control that
Interior can exercise is over the timing and spatial
K-159
DISTRIBUTION OF MEW COAL DffV£LOM*£.NTS • ALTHOUGH I
•!'".ad;lv see iiiat these fttiTHoaiTies ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
STIWiiaEB IMDEfi TIIS PftfiFSRWB ALTERNATIVE THAI* BND5H
I-AST PROPOSALS- liowvvSR, [fll THE PAST INTE'IIO:; HAS NOT
EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED ITS LIMITED AUTHORITIES' I AM
INCLINED TO BSLIEVE THAT THIS IS BECAUSE INTERIOR HAS
NEVER BEEN ACCOUNTABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS-
I SEE TWO POSITIVE DEVHLQP.'IENTS ON THIS QUESTION-
The first is that [jtTfRfos has :ssentially adopted my
VIEW OF THE PROBLEM, AS EXPLAINED IN CHAPTER SIX OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT-
The second is that we may jointly establish
PHOCEDURES WHICH EFFECTIVELY 1NJIC1 IMPACT
CONS I DERAT IONS I TITO LEASING DECISIONS, DURING THE TRACT
RANK1H9 AND SELECTION STAGE OF THE SYSTEM- TRACT
RANKING AND S ELECT I ON tW ILL BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF
PRODUCTION REGIONS- One ALTER.'fAT! VS FOR MAKING
DECISIONS ON RANKING AND SELECTION IS TO COHVs'16 A
COMMITTEE W*ICH DIRECTLY INCLUDES STATF PARTICIPANTS"-
III the PoWDEii SivEn 3asi;i, fo: example, to cccivsh* /.
CO'lMi'fTKK OF FIVE; CtOVSRIJOR's tlEPRJ-StHTATIvEK FROM
'ivci'iirir, aiio ^outaka, BUI Stats jV^ctars Fann '..'vo.'iipis
AND f*.9flTANA, AM3 A Bitf OfFlClAL P"3»Ofl* 1 31.S FJ:I
PREPARING ThI EJIVIROHMSKTAT, STAT ;M-.:T O.i TH5 ^.GION-
Tract s-.cf sio'is vould accoidi'.-3ly s: ':/.d:. ,;iih direct
STATE PARTICIPATION, BASED ON CRITERIA WHICH WOULD
INCLUDE THE IMPACTS OF INDIVIDUAL TRACTS AND THE
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF A PATTERN OF TRACTS- Th I S
MECHANISM WOULD INCREASE MY CONFIDENCE IN THE WISDOM Of
THE TRACT JUDGMENTS AND INTRODUCE A NEW ELEMENT OF
ACCOUNTABILITY INTO FEDERAL LEASING- I STRONGLY SUPORT
IT-
Fifth: Do the governments and citizens of Wyoming
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN
LEASING DECISIONS?
On paper, the PREFERRED alternative is riddled
WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION- LOOKING
TO THE STATE ALONE, THERE IS APPARENT OPPORTUNITY AT
EVERY STAGE OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE- THERE ARE
INVITATIONS TO ENTER INTO FORMAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE
BUI State Director for BLM's land use planning- the
UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA INCLUDE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROTECT
STATE RESIDENT FISH AND WILDLIFE- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
PROJECTIONS ARE MODIFIED WITH STATE CONSULTATION" AND
TRACT RANKING AND SELECTION MAY ULTIMATELY BE
IMPLEMENTED WITH FULL STATE PARTICIPATION-
Despite the attractiveness of the program design,
THIS QUESTION CAM ONLY BE ANSWERED IN PRACTICE- I
WOULD BE LESS THAN CANDID IF I WERE TO PRAISE OUR PAST
WORKING RELATIONS WITH BUM IN THE FIELD- floST STATE
-16-
OFFICIALS FEEL THAT WORKING PARTICIPATION WITH "LM
MEANS NOTHtHG MORE THAN TWE DUBIOUS HOMOR PI CONDUCTING
ENDLESS PAPERWORK. WELL INSULATED FROM ANY -;-;mu 1 NI;
EFFECT ON «HM»AL RE3QUR£S DKIftlQflS- TlUi
DISSATISFACTION HAS BEEN AMPLIFIED llY RLV's OWN
DI*F icult I IS WITH ESTABLISHING A RELIABLE STRUCTURE
CBTWBSN WASHINGTON AND THE FIELD- Th>t ONLY STRUCTURAL
CHANGE IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WHICH CLEARLY
COUNTERS THSSE PROBLEMS IS THE SCHEME FOR TRACT RANKING
AND SELECTION WHICH F EA I U rfES D I SECT STATE
PARTICIPATION-
I DO NOT REGARD TH? SITUATION AS HOPELESS,
HOWEVER- cOW THE SHORT TERM, I WILL LOOK TO THE GROWTH
FOR INFORMAL, RATHER THAN FOltMAL WORKING RELATIONS
WITH BLM TO SEE WHAT THE FUTURJ HOLDS- It IS MY GOAL
to discuss matters of mutual interest on a tihelv
basis, with reasonable manpower demands on 30th sides-
i will reserve judgment on the more ambitious aspects
of the preferred alternative until i see whether
progress 15 p0ssi3le on these simpler interactions-
Sixth: 3oes the preferred alternative prog hah
force unQESlRiO administrative burdens on Wyoming
TAXPAYERS? JOES IT IMPLICITLY ItlOU I RE MOO I F ICAT I Oris IN
existing legislation and rudgets?
Wyoming has grown weary of federal programs which
REQUIRE STATE TAXPAYERS TO FOOT THE BILL- IH THE
EXTREME CASE, INTERIOR'S OFFICE OF SURFACE HlMTNG. I
EVEN SEE A NEW FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE
IS APPARENTLY TO HARASS AN ESTABLISHED AND EFFECTIVE
STATE AGENCY- III THE SAME CASE, WYOMING HAS BEEN
SUBJECTED TO ENDLESS AND QUESTIONABLE DEMANDS FOR
ADJUSTMENTS TO STATE LEGISLATION WHICH IS ALREADY
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT-
i DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE "REFERRED ALTERNATIVE
CREATES THESE SORTS OF PROBLEMS- . THE PROGRAM IS
STRUCTURED AROUND STATE OPTIONS, NOT STATE
REQUIREMENTS- ThERE ARE NONE OF THE BURDENSOME
STATUTORY DEADLINES WHICH ELIMINATE WYOMING'S ABILITY
TO EXPERIMENT WITH EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT- !IO NEW
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE
AT ANY STAGE- An D A DETERMINATION ON NEW MANPOWER
REQUIREMENTS CAN WAIT UNTIL I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE
IF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IS IMPLEMENTED AND IF IT
WORKS-
nor does the preferred alternative require
modification of wyoming's own coal leasing system-
Ours is also a great deal less expensive to administer,
and its production is likely to be controlled by
federal coal management dec sions- we can well afford
to wait and see whether adjustments are necessary-
K-160
1 BEGAN
THESE SIX QUEST IDAS
Kl TH
A WORD OF
CAU 1' 1 ON AMD
I BELIEVE THAT I CA
i CONCLUDE WITH
CAUT iOUS OPT
fllSfi- G] VEN THE FU
iDAMENTAL CONGRESSIONAL
CWI5TRAI NTS.
THERE IS A GRC.AT DE
U TO
LIKE III THE
DES IGN OF TH
PROGRAM" THIS MUST
3E BALANCED AGAINST
SUBSTANTIAL
NCERTA1NTIES CONCFR
J I 'if,
TS OPERATIONS AND
1 rs IHPLICAT
ONS FOft THE FUTURE
DF Ft
3ERAL-STATE
RELATIONS IN
Wyoming- This uncE
3TA1N
BALANCE RAISES A
FINAL QUEST!
n of its own; What
10 F. 3
HE STATE INTEND
TO DO NOW?
F I HST ,
1 NTEND TO CONTINUE.
PART
CIPATION IN THE
PROGRAM DESIGN EFFORT WHICH 3EGA
1 LAS
April- As I
HAVE INDICAT
0 REPEATEDLY, THE PRQGRA
1MAT IC
ENV] RO'NttENTA
STATEMENT IS LARGE
_Y co
IPL6TE, BUT MUCH
REMAINS TO B
DONE ON THE PROGRA
1- I
PREFER TO BE A
PART OF THOS
DECISIONS, Hi CCNJ
INCTION WITH THF
GOVERNORS OP
OUR SISTER STATES IN THF
C0AL"PR0DUC!NG
WEST-
Second,
FOR THE N5AR TSH.1 I
WILL
EXPLORE THF
VARIOUS ASVIiriS OF STATF. F A R T I C '
>Ario
::! THE OPERATION
OF TMC PROfill
SALS WILL ttO
H-i AS I SAl D EaRLI
'.?., T
i F I H8T LEASE
It appeahs ihai
»s A FU4L-IVKt5S EF
' o ". r •
1 CAW PftOCSii
J WITHOUT NEW COSTS
"0 TH
VI VOI1 1 NG
TAXPAYf f:-
Thisd,
OR THE LONG ItRK, !
-13-
v! ILL
WAIT AND SE£ VJHAf
HAPPENS-
I WISH TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR
TODAY
AND I HOPE THAT TH
VIEWS
BEEfl
HELPCUL-
o
>
sr
(M
o
eo*
K
m
United States Department of the Interior
Subjec
Director, Bureau of l*ad Management
Director, National Park Service
Huuigsn
i Draft Environmental State]
Program
The pnferred alternative seems the moat sound of the seven
presented. However, throughout the report and particularly
In Chapter 2, it le emphasized that new coal leaning will be
nccess.'iry to aatlafy future demand since nearly all existing
non-producing leases will be cancelled in 1986. The
Incongruity of this situation (cancelling leases and issuing
new oEii.-i at the same time) should be examined further. Once
the coal management program policies and criteria are applied
to exintlng non-producing leases as outlined In section 3.1.1.3.
it might develop that enough acceptable leases of commercial
qualitv exist to obviate or reduce the need for a new leasing
prograia. Although sow means night be found to get the "gO°d"
idle leases into production, the possibility is never discussed
in the DES.
Considering the general scope of this programmatic EIS, the
document appears to be well written and credible. Minor details
except od, the physical and biological descriptions of environment
and Impacts are as accurate as can be expected within the broad
geographic coverage of the EIS. Again with minor exceptions the
EIS gives appreciable attention to Natural as well as Historic
landmarks. The document appears to be fairly well balanced,
covering the physical-biological, socio-economic, and legal
aspect" resulting froa or related i
i renewed coal leasing.
P.L- 9A-429 should be included in the list of pp. 1-17 to 1-21.
Sec. 9 of this law requires a determination whether any natural
InaJaMfc la threatened or being destroyed by any surface mining
activitly. The major relevance la recognition and protection
of nationally significant natural areas as they relate CO
surface mining.
January 26, 1979
TO: IP - *. Lobnan
ntCH: <WDB*1 - Dnuglee «- laOnt.
SITOJECTl 2=15 7811.16 7*c«r*l Coal Mm
fmgm 7-1: A diacuaalnai of lo&e- term conaaouancaa resulting from
CtM use of coal Should allude to the bel'ef among now cllaatolnglata
that foeall fuel buruias will lead to unaceestably blah levels of
carbon dioxide in the ataoanbeia. Tha resultant "graoohouaa efface"
vould increase tha mean atnoepaere temperature by several degrees,
reeultlas, in tha onset of significant cllaa to logical changes. Bow-
**ot, not all climato login ta tji aa that Increased atmospheric CO2
will significantly affect tha cliaete. and whathar tho oat Impact
of any ouch climate change would bo favorable or unfavorable la mot
known. Inargy policy— makers should, Mverchalaaa , be enre that
possibly negative clinatlc iapacta could reault from lncxeeeed
develop— at of coal rwaourcaa.
K-16]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
TIm Aaaiatmnt Secretary tor ScJmnc* and Technology
Wathmgton. 0 C 70230 (202) 377-3J£J,
4335
February 13, 1979
qc:::b
Mr. Frank Gregg, Director
Office of Coal Management (140)
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, N. W,
Washington D. C. 20240
Dear Mr. Gregg:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact
statement entitled, "Federal Coal Management Program."
The enclosed comments from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration are forwarded for your
consideration.
Thank you for giving us
comments, which we hope
would appreciate receiv:
n opportunity to provide these
ill be of assistance to you. Ki
g eight (8) copies of the final
•Sidney 8, Oaller/y
Deputy Assistant'-^ecretary
for Environmental Affairs
Enclosure
Mr. Douglas M. LeComte
Environmental Data and
Information Service
0A/Dx61
p. Z— 17 The trend of inercaaing production of oil and gas from the
2-24 "ovei thrust belt" Is not discussed. Supplies becoming
available from this new source should markedly affect growth
of coal demand In the West, where It Is stated that the
majority of Federal leasing would take place.
Pages 5-59 thru 5-72 show tables of estimates of cmiaslona of SC>2,
particulate*, and other pollutants for 1985 and 1990 under the several
alternative plans as well so the preferred program. These show Increases
for the western areas. In particular those in the Southwest. The Bureau
□f Land Management should ensure that the requirements of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977 are fulfilled and that the program Is Implemented
In a manner that will not impair the air quality related values that are
a highly significant component of the environment of units of the Notional
Park System in thli region.
jljlk<**~~
%uX&
United Slates Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
AREA OFFICE COLORADO— UTAH
1426 FEDERAL hl:ll.niNC
125 SOITH STATE STKEET
SALT LAKE CITY, t-'TAW H4I3B
) SIX February 27, 1979
1C2C6
TO: Office of Coal Management (140)
Bureau of Land Management
Washington, D.C.
FROM: Acting Area Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Salt Lake City, Utah
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Statement - Federal Coal Leasing Program -
December 1978
The Fisti and Wildlife Service's Salt Lake City Area Office's geographic
area of responsibility includes Utah, Colorado and, in some matters, the
Green River Basin of Wyoming. We have reviewed portions of the draft
statement that apply to this area.
In general, the draft statement is well prepared, and does a good job of
addressing impacts on fish and wildlife' resources to the extent possible
for such a broad programmatic proposal. However, the generalized
approach fails to adequately cover some significant fish and wildlife
problems.
Section 2.9: Overview of the need for a Federal Coal Management Program.
We wish to emphasize the Importance of considering Federal coal leasing
in conjunction with State and private leases. The objective should be a
Federal -State-private combination that produces a pattern of development
with the least total adverse impact.
Section 3.1.1: The Preferred Program
The seventh element of the preferred program," a strategy to Integrate
the environmental analysis requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 in the new program", is extremely Important. It Is
Impossible for national and regional leasing programs to adequately
analyze slte-spedflc Impacts or recommend appropriate mitigation measures.
There must be a mechanism for identifying and solving slte-spedflc
problems on a site-specific basis.
Table 3-1 on page 3-10: State Resident Fish and Wildlife
The three examples of criteria for lands unsuitable for development
are inadequate. All areas critical to reproduction Including nest-
ing areas for sage grouse, elk calving areas, and antelope fawning
areas will be considered. Migration corridors for all big game ani-
mals will be considered. All critical big game winter range should
be Included rather than only the most critical ranges.
Table 3-1 on page 3-12:
Under criterion and exceptions the last sentences for Falcon Cliff
nesting sites are Incomplete;
"Consideration of availability of habitat for prey species shall be."
Add, "included in determination of buffer zones."
"Buffer zones may be Increased or decreased 1f the land management
agency." Add, "determines that the active falcon nests will or will
not be affected."
Section 3.2.1.4 on page 3-21: Threshold Development Levels
We endorse the concept of threshold development levels for a given area
based on land use planning rather than going solely by Industry's expression
of need. We also suggest that units of habitat may be a better criterion
than actual numbers of animals or percent of population. Some wildlife
populations fluctuate drastically from year-to-year within a given area of
habitat.
4-25, and 2nd Column, 1st full paragraph, 2nd sentence:
"Fonelle" should be Fontenelle.
4-26. 2nd column, 1st full paragraph, 2nd sentence:
Should be "Kendall warm springs dace", (not daren). In same sentence
the Utah prairie dog occurs In the Ulnta-Southwestern Utah Region. It Is
doubtful if it occurs In the Green River - Hams Fork Region.
After 4th full paragraph, insert "The sagebrush blot
concentration area for golden and bald eagles."
K-162
4-26.4.6.2: The Environment and Han
1st paragraph. Danger Cave 1s in Tooele County, Utah (not Wyoming).
It is also outside the Green River, Hams Fork Coal region.
4-28, 1st Column. 2nd full paragraph:
"Seedshadee" should be "Seedskadee".
5-23, 1st Column, 5th paragraph:
The Uinta-Southwestern Utah Region has areas equally as adverse to
Reclamation efforts as those mentioned.
5-8.1: Green River - Hams Fork Coal Region:
The endangered fishes mentioned ere not supported by "the cold, clear
waters of the Green River system." These endemic Colorado Basin
fishes require the turbid, relatively warm waters of the lower elevations.
The conversion of warm turbid waters to clear, cold waters by construction
of reservoirs that trap sediment and lower summer temperatures is one
of the main reasons for the decline of these species.
5-8.2: Uinta - Southwestern Utah Coal Region
Nesting areas for golden eagles and winter roosting concentration areas
for bald eagles would be potentially affected.
Table 0-1: Estimated Regional Carrying Capacities and Primary Productivities
The acres per animal figures for some big game animals are low.
For example, one mule deer/100 acres in Uinta- Southwestern Utah
region. The average capacity for 15 herd units in Utah is one mule
deer/47 acres based on Utah Division of Wildlife Resources data.
He have attached to this memorandum a copy of the Utah State Division
of Wildlife Resources' comments on the draft environmental statement
for the Departmental Coal Management Program. We concur with their
comments and ask that the Departmental Program be amended to accommo-
date the State Division of Wildlife Resources' and the fish and
Wildlife Service's concerns.
This opportunity to comment is appreciated.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C ZM6Q
20i;.;.^i973
302S1
Honorable Guy R. Martin
Assistant Secretary for Land
and Water Resources
U.S. Deportment of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Martin:
We ore pleased to provide you detailed comments on the Final Coal Manage-
ment Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Theae comments are a
supplement to our letter to you of March 2nd.
As we indicated in our earlier letter the Department of Interior has
proposed in its Coal Management Plan an exciting and effective procedure
for coal development. We are pleased with the proposal and the outstanding
Job In Che preparation of the draft EIS. As you may be au&re, members of
my utufl. EPA Region VIII staff ond I were able to meet on March 13 with
Joe Browder, Steve Quarles and others from the Department. The meeting
allowed us to explore the merits of our recommended positions ond to
better understand the reasons behind Departmental positions on some
matters. Wc agreed chat EPA would follow up this meeting with a rc-stotcmenl
of Its position to reflect this dialogue.
sting agenda
•ned with I
I five points in our
offer the following additional informatioi
1. The unsuitablllty criteria need further refinement and conslderatlc
of other environmental factors that could affect suitability.
It was our reconmendation that two other potential unsuitablllty determi
affecting cool leasing decisions be added — prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) from visibility Impacts for Class I air quality
areas, and sole-source. /caranunity drinking water aquifers. EPA was also
concerned that the proposed rec la Inability unsuitablllty criterion was
not well integrated into the program.
We still maintain that theae three criteria can and should be part of
the unsuitablllty criteria. We do not believe, however, that the lond-i
planning (MFP) level should necessarily be the focus for these more
cclamatlon potential,
,ot be defined a priori
jiltc-speclfic criteria. The complexities o£
air quality modeling or groundwater flows can
the planning level, without good empirical data.
nltial determinations for these criteria be
Ing/tract evaluation stage, still prior to
:lon is specific enough to allow for a realiei
gathering of data on soils, geology, air quality etc. In the long ten
as we suggest in our detailed concents. Information developed at this
stage (and subsequent mining plan review stages) could eventually be
factored back into land-use plan amendments. For example, we suggest
that air quality screening rones could be used in the MFPs when (
EPA is recommend Inn tha
made at the activity pi.
ilopment will take a number of years,
lth the Department to help develop analyses for
rce aquifers that could be used at the tract
data is sound enough. Thl
however, EFA will work
air qualtiy and Bole-BO
evaluation phase.
We understand that Interior had requested EPA participation some time
ago in the development of unfluitabllity criteria. We apologize for our
lack of participation but we hope the above recommendation can be Incorporated
into the final EIS of the program.
Mater quale iy and I
and Interregional ilftnlflc.
, bu
EIS. Our reviewcra had difficulty in undei
values presented in the EIS relative to otl
was agreed that we would get Che preparers
to discuss problems with EPA review staff.
City Impacts will be of Motional
inadequately evaluated In the
standing the water quality
er available Information. It
at the technical information
We do maintain that a better
assessment of coal-related water quality Impacts is needed, particularly
salinity In the Colorado River Basin ond trace metal Impacts.
3, ManaKement Framework Plans (HFP's) — Che backbone of the Department's
planning phase for the coal management program — - appear inadequate. We
think our choice of language CO describe Che HFP's inappropriately
characterized the program for which we apologize. EPA' o experience with
HFP's reviewed in the course of EIS reviews has been that there are
three principal deficiencies: lack of data la certain areas, resolution
of resource conflicts highly skewed toward coal development, and lack of
public access and agency review. I'd like to diecuae theae in turn.
We are principally concerned with che lack of data in MFP'b that affected
the coal leasing program. Following our meeting last week, we now under-
stand that much of the critical environmental data needed for unauitabllity
determinations can be acquired at the tract evaluation stage as we
diacuased under point II, There are other data gaps auch aa minerals
data deficiencies that can be identified by one or more of the ongoing
Interior Taak Forces set up for this reason. We do think that Interior
Should formally assess and report its existing MFP'a data needs (along
the lines auggested on page 41 of our detailed comments) as Boon as
possible in program implementation.
Our second consideration regarding KFP
have been resolved in the development of uneulcabilicy
the exception of conflicts between mining and grazing ■
Other resource confliccs arc now handled in tha unsi
EPA has no concern about management tradeoffs of gri
mining, as long as post-mining multiple uses can be
esolution may
cerio. With
lmbe r lng ,
itabllity criteris.
- final i
i lack of published KFP documents and difficulty of
having public and agency access. Aa we now understand It, Interior will
publish an MFP supplement for those MFP'a undergoing unsuitablllty
determinations. This document will define the unsuitable/suitable areas
within each MFP. EPA will reserve comment until we have had on opportunity
to evaluate chese documents: we would appreciate an advance draft copy If
possible.
While wc have seen some difflculcies in using existing MFP's we ore not
suggesting that some phases of the coal management program could not be
started soon. What Is needed is a commitment by Interior to identify
the most critical MFP data needs and Co work toward acquiring the lnformatioi
To what extent or whether this data acquisition would delay some portions
of the program development we cannot determine at this time.
The status of existing Federal lei
; In production and Preference
4.
Right Lease Applications (PRLA's) la sclll of concern. From an environment!
standpoint, EPA' s recommendations to comprehensively evaluate existing
leases and PRU'a and try to retire in some fashion the most unacceptable
leases makes good sense. We also think that a good faith effort to
clean up "unfinished buslneas" would also be positively received by the
American public.
We are sympathetic with the Department's position ns it was presented In
our meeting. DOI's position has been that it will handle axiating leases
and PKLA'o unsuitability dccermlnaCions at the time of mining plan review.
We understand that you have been advised by your Solicitor that the
Department cannot evaluate existing lessee and PRLA's for unsuitablllty
at an earlier atage.
EPA's recommendation at this point Is for DOI to publicly explain (to
the extent permissible) the rationale for this position. As we understood
it, the Depsrtment will be preparing a fairly detailed evaluation of
existing leases and PRLA's for the final EIS. I would ask that EFA have
an opportunity to review thl* dlcussaion prior to the release of the 7EIS.
K-163
The Coal Management Program EIS haa not explained how the i
generation 01 "regional" ElS'a will be Improved over existing regional
and how the new regional EIS' a will be Integrated Into the program.
EIS' i
Our comments generally stand here, although the EPA cotaacnta do reflect
an incorrect impression that some work had already gotten underway relative
to the "super regional" ElS'a. EPA still offers to participate closely
In the scoping effort for these regional ElS'a.
1 hope this letter signifies EPA" a desire to work closely with the
Department In developing an environmentally compatibly coal leasing
program. EPA does support the overall approach of DOI'o program,
particularly the use of land-use plans and unsultablllty criteria. EPA
will be ready to assist the Department where it can In developing a
sound Federal Coal Management Program.
Sincerely yours.
Hiiiian N. Hcdeaan, Jr.
Director
Office of Federal Activities (A-104)
DETAILED COMMENTS OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON
THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR'S
DRAFT FEDERAL COAL MANAGEMENT
PLAN EIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
A.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
1
B.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE EIS
AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
EFFORT
4
THE NEED FOR NEW LEASING
D.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. Hater quality/water supply
10
2. Air quality
13
3. Solid Waste
15
4. Archaeological analysis
16
5. Noise impacts
6. Reclamation potential
16
7. Socioeconomic impact analysis
17
8. End-use impacts.
18
E.
EVALUATION OF ELEMENTS
OF THE PREFERRED PROGRAM
1. LAND-USE PLANNING
19
a. Past Deficiencies
19
b. Unsuitability Criteria
20
c. Threshold Criteria
35
d. Existing Leases and PRLAs
I. ACTIVITY TRACT SELECTION
AND RANKING
3. DOE PRODUCTION GOALS - SUPPLY
AND DEMAND ANALYSES
4. EXPLORATION LICENSES
S. EMERGENCY LEASING
40
6. DATA NEEDS AND STUDIES
7. PROCEDURES FOR EXISTING
LEASES AND PRLAs
F.
ALTERNATIVES
G.
FUTURE REGIONAL EISs
H.
COMPLIANCE RECOMMENDATION
45
DETAILED COMMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGTNCY ON THE OTTO'SaTt FE'DETAT'C'ffAT
mataite¥Ent~pt snt rs
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
fe d
ft EIS
of the
pacts and
EPA believes that the progr
provides a generally adequate descripii.
program, and evaluation of most of the
discussion of principal issues. EPA hi
environmental reservations in five spec
that need further evaluation and resolu
final EIS.
1 . The unsui tabi 1 i ty criteria -- are
incomplete"nd need f ur t~her ref i"neni"ent".
Important criteria are missing, i ncVud i n g
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD),
particularly visibility, for Class I air quality
areas, parameters for reclamation potential, and
sole source aquifer protection. The provisions
for exceptions to the criteria as proposed may
be too vague to be effectively implemented.
Perhaps the single most important evaluation
criterion -- reel aimabi 1 i ty -- is poorly defined
and not well integrated into the overall coal
management program.
water
ali ty
^ ipnal
significance, but are .poor ly evaluated in the
EIS. Data presented on quantities of water
needed for coal mining operations in water-short
western river basins cannot be compared with
Water Resources Council or other agency
projections. Impacts on Colorado River salinity
need particular attention. The EIS did not
evaluate the potentially significant problem of
trace metal contamination from mining operations.
3. Existing Management Framework Plins
(MFP's) -- a key element in the Department's
the coal management program
may
be adequate for their intended-
"m7 Past MFP' s suffe
wTich will be
the
lack of data
the success of this program. Few have had
public or agency review. Past MFP's were
discretionary and had only advisory status an
thus might never be fully implemented.
Resolution of resource management conflicts i
past MFP's indicated a strong policy bias In
favor of coal development.
not
4. The status of existing Federal leases
in production and Preference Riqht Lease
A"pp"
ications (PRLA's) is still of concern. More
det
iled information is needed in the EIS on the
uns
i tability/sui tahi I i ty of these leases. EPA
pre
ers that the Department should handle these
lea
es within the context of the planning phases
of the Secretary's preferred program. The first
order of business should be to try to eliminate
tho
e leases and PRLA's of greatest
env
ronmental concern.
exp
5. The Coal Management Proqram EIS has not
ained how the new generation of reqional
EIS
s will be improved over existinq reqional
£15
S, and how the new regional tlS's will be
inteqrated into the nrooram. These reaional
CIS
s nave the potential for evaluating the
cum
lative impacts of lease offerings, and for
ning the threshold environmental criteria
which should be used as a basis for decisions.
However, their role in the overall coal
man
gement program should be defined now, as
dec
sions are made regarding the structure of
the
program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. As a consequence of our position that
there are still substantive deficiencies in the
proposed coal management program and because the
recognizes that some of the existing leases
and
PRLA's are unsuitable for mining, we are
ng the Department to orient the Federal
leasing program in the near term toward
cor1
ecting past mistakes in existing leases and
PRLA's. We urge the Department to concentrate
on
sing both the land-use planning process and
leasing phase to identify unsuitable
existing leases and PRLA's. Any leasing in the
nea
term should be oriented toward replacinq
those existing leases that are unsuitable for
rain
ng. We are aware that other Departmental
constraints may prevent this alternative from
be in
g implemented.
-2-
K-164
2,
anded
ulat
The unsuitabi 1 ity criteria
to Include compliance with
ons for the prevention of
ation (PSO) for
ty impacts
reas falll
ce drinking water
ir qual ity
hose Federa
nder Cla
the criter
determination of reel aimabi 1 i
at the tract selection phase
is done. This determination
consideration of such factors
ation, hydrology, geology and
ons. EPA b«l ieves that the tr
ion phase is the best point to
bi 1 i ty for these trace
shou
EPA
gnif
Tnvo
1 la
I.
shou
ng
and
al so
eters .
thres
activ
acces
leasi
acti v
focus
rrom
River
water
to cl
probl
from
produ
f. The preferred program needs to
ithen the unsui tabi 1 1 ty criteria genera
iprove the existing land-use plans
i). This improvement should include a
■ definition data needs for program
ipment and a commitment to develop
iold criteria Into the land-use plannin
ty process. Better public and agency
, is needed to review MFP's before the
ig process is started.
. Wat
onshi p
be be
ties i
closel
ecogn
quant i ty and water qu
n the different coal
tter identified. In par
the Colorado Bi ver Bas
on salinity problems,
zed sources such as the
Salinity Forum to predic
y impacts. The Dcpartme
SSess the potentially se
race metal contamination
operations in a number o
gions.
1 1 ty
5. The Department should move toward more
of a problem-solving approach in the next round
of regional EIS's to identify and resolve
regional envl ronmental -social problems.
Threshold environmental criteria should be
established in the EIS process. We request that
EPA be named as a formal participant in the
"scoping" process for these EIS's.
Our analysis of the proposed Coal
Management Program indicates that we have
reservations regarding the environmental
acceptability of the program, and that more
information should be developed for the final
EIS to assess more fully the environmental
impacts of the program. Our procedures require
that our assessment of this program and the EIS
be made available to the public, and that our
overall evaluation will be published in the
Federal Register as "ER-2" (Environmental
Reservations/Insufficient Information).
There are also a number of other issues we
have raised in these comments that the
Department should consider 1n the preparation of
the final EIS.
GENERAL COMMENTS OK THE EIS AMD PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
ETFW
1. We commend the Interior staff for the
conscientious work shown In the draft EIS. The
current version of the EIS on the Coal Leasing
Program is a dramatically improved document. We
notice an open discussion of problems and Issues, and
candor in discussing environmental impacts of the
various program alternatives. The EIS is also more
clearly written than past DOI efforts. Many of EPA's
past objections to the programmatic coal leasing EIS
have been obviated by the detail in describing the
scope of the EIS, the program itself and the
approaches used in discussing impacts, mitigation
measures and impacts. Finally, we note a much more
systematic evaluation of impacts through the use of
well-developed modeling techniques and occasionally
outside consultants as necessary.
We hope that the Department will continue
to follow this splendid example in how to write a
program EIS in its subsequent EIS efforts. Past DOI
efforts have been overly formalistic, highly
structured and very short on culling out issues of
significance. We think this present EIS does a
commendable job in initiating the spirit of the
Council of Environmental quality's new regulations
stressing conciseness and attention to decisionmaking
issues in EISs. We do think that larger print would
be advisable in the final EIS in view of the
extensive information contained throughout the
document. The EIS could also use a comprehensive
Table of Contents.
; ample
2. Current efforts of the Department to develop
a Federal coal management program in this EIS, in
proposed regul at ions , and at the field level,
recognize the fundamental distinction between
implementation of a long term program and a
"transition" period. This distinction we think 1s
critical to an evaluation of the consequences of any
proposed program and is addressed again further on in
our comment s .
He believe that Interior's approach so far
articulated in the EIS discussion in the BLM proposed
planning regulations (Federal Register, Friday,
December IS, 1979, pp. 58764^-^8777 ) and in the .
regulations (Appendix A, this EIS), does not pay
nearly enough attention to the myriad of problems and
issues surrounding transition. Resolution of issues
such as the need for new Federal leasing and
correcting past BLM planning deficiencies are part of
the transition, and will continue to be focal points
of controversy for some years to come. Wherever
possible in our comments we stress where we think an
issue or impact involves a short-term transition
discussion or series of decisions. Ultimately we
think that the succe.ss of the long-term program will
rest on how well the transitional issues are handled.
3. EPA thinks that a number of Important
strides have been taken towards good Federal coal
management with the currently preferred DOI program.
We are particularly pleased with the development of
unsuitabi 1 i ty criteria to be used in both the BLM
land-use planning process and the coal program. We
feel strongly that advance planning to eliminate such
sensitive areas from coal development before the
leasing process is begun is an excellent step in the
way of effective environmental planning. If the
threshold criteria (discussed on p. 3-4) can be
integrated into the program and perhaps identified in
the region;! EIS's many of the objectionable features
of the coal leasing program can be minimized.
Obviously, the more stringent review and approval
requirements under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act will also improve the long-term
consequences of mining.
4. We do have a number of serious concerns
about some of the elements of the preferred program
and long-term envi ronmental impacts particularly
affecting air quality, water quality and solid
waste. The Draft EIS is vague in discussing the
methodology for determining the amount of coal to be
leased, examining certain environmental concerns and
describing program implementation. These concerns
are detailed in the following sections.
C. THE NEED FOR NEK LEASING
This question 1s at the heart of the controversy
surrounding the Federal Coal Program as well as with
recent litigation. The Department has developed an
evaluation in Chapter I that attempts to demonstrate
a rationale for leasing as early as mid-1980. Four
factors are cited as reasons for resumption of early
leasi ng:
•greater assurance of meeting National energy
object ives;
*a means of promoting more desirable patterns of
coal development;
*significant administrative and legal advantages
to the Department and;
"improving competition In the western coal
industry.
It is not EPA's intention to fully evaluate all
of the merits of these arguments except where
environmental Issues of concern to EPA are involved.
However, based on our experience with western Federal
coal mining and energy related issues, we would like
to add some considerations we feel are important to a
resolution of the question of new leasing.
1. As a first step, the Department needs
to present a detailed discussion of the status
of the present Federal leases and PRLA's. We
are aware from the earlier programmatic EIS,
that the Department has made some evaluation of
the environmental merits of existing leases and
PRLA's. Yet this most critical discussion has
not ever been presented for evaluation in a
public document. We believe this should be
presented In the final EIS. A necessary first
step would be to Identify the size and location
via regional maps of these leases (with and
without mining plans) and PRLA's in the final
EIS.
-6-
K-165
EPA is also aware that the Department has
begun an evaluation of high-priority Management
framework Plans in coal areas using the proposed
unsuitabi I i ty .criteri a. Me have some
reservations regarding the criteria as presently
listed (discussed below). However, we think
that an essential first step in implementing the
transitional phase of the Federal coal program
would be through unsuitabi 1 i ty evaluation of
existing Federal leases and PRLA's. Only when
it is possible to determine the number and
amounts of existing leases that are
environmentally and economically unsuitable can
an intelligent appraisal of needed new leasing
be made.
2. Since the preferred leasing system will
superimpose production levels from above (DOE
national projections), it would seem important
to have some idea of what the ratio of
outstanding leases granted/actual production
levels should be. At this point in time the
ratio of coal tonnage potentially available
annually (based on a 30-year mining life) to
existing Federal production is something on the
order of 15:1. Recognizing the numerous
constraints to development, has the Department
given thought to what kind of ratio would be
appropriate assuming that most leased areas
would be developed?
3. Although the assessment of likely coal
production on pages 2-30 through 2-38 assumes
current mining plan estimates of annual levels
of production over a 30-year period, recent
experience has shown that existing mines are
capable of significantly increasing their
production if the demand is there. He can find
no legal or other obstacle under current
legislation that would limit yearly increases in
production. It appears that the economics of
this approach are attractive, requiring minimal
additional capital investment.
Increases of production beyond mining plan
levels do appear to pose considerable
uncertainty to those planners who will try to
estimate future leasing needs. Has the
Department tried to make an assessment of what
the upper limit of annual coal production is
likely to be over time in terms of a minimum
number of years of production from a lease? Are
there any other practical constraints that would
lessen this tendency to maximize production from
industry's existing leases?
4. Although we can sympathize with the
U.S. Government's desire to promote greater
competition in the western coal industry, we
wonder whether additional leasing will have any
practical benefits in this regard. It would
appear that willing producers not now owning
leases could do SO simply by buying them
(through the assignment process). Hill
additional leasing change this situation in any
discernable way?
Other reviewers have indicated that there
seems to be a tendency to concentrate the leases
that have been sold. Recent sales of leases
have been to large corporations. He wonder
whether a situation of greater competition among
lease holders might result from new leases
rather than among coal producers. We do
recognize that diligent development requirements
may alleviate this situation, we wonder whether
a provision to eliminate re-sale of leases might
further prevent concentration and speculation.
Although there may be benefit in having re-sale
of present leases, we can see no good reason why
re-sale of future leases would have practical
advantages to government or commerce. A lease
could simply be returned and re-leased if
necessary. Would a statutory change be
necessary to implement such a provision, and if
so, has the Department considered doing so? How
will the Department police assignments that are
made?
5. EPA strongly endorses D0I*s concept of
using the Federal Coal Management Program to
correct past deficiencies, particularly in the
area of retiring leases and PRLA's that are
environmentally unsuitable. Given a workable
and defensible set of unsuitabi 1 i ty criteria
evaluation and updating of land-use plans, and
given a thorough assessment of existing leases
and PRLA's via these criteria, EPA believes that
a successful transition period leasing program
could begin relatively soon.
We recommend that Interior approach new
leasing in the short term as a corrective
interim step toward a fully implemented coal
leasing and management program, Ths first order
of business should be the retirement of the most
unsui table leases.
EPA proposes that Interior consider new
leasing on a one-for-one basis with leases
identified as unsuitable. The Department should
further strengthen this approach thru a
detailing of this interim process through its
rule making on coal management and BL1 land-use
planning. The Department could formalize the
process for "trading" or acquiring "credits" in
return for relinquishing undesirable leases and
PRLA's.
From the standpoint . of coal tonnage already
under lease. EPA finds little justification for
more leasing in the n&ar term. Were some of the
leases and particularly PRLA's now due for
retirement in 1985 (if not under development)
were gradually replaced by better leases, the
1985 crunch of due dates for leases could be
softened, allowing more time for rational
planning.
EKVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT ANALYSIS
In a general programmatic treatise such as this
DEIS, there are definite limitations on what kind of
detail is appropriate for analysis. EPA, in the
past, has faulted the Department for its lack of
relevance in evaluating and discussing environmental
impacts. Past EISs have been crammed with a great
deal of information, that has little in the way of
further usefulness for decisionmaking. Judgements of
"significance" or "importance" are essential in
sorting out the mass of EIS data into a meaningful
evaluation.
To a great extent, the past approach has been
modified on this EIS, more in line with the recent
CEQ direction toward more concise and relevant EISs.
EPA lauds the identification of "issues" in this EIS
and their often candid discussions. EPA will
occasionally have disagreements on how the issues are
resolved, but we certainly approve of the format that
this EIS has demonstrated.
A second general improvement we note is a more
systematic definition and evaluation of impacts. We
think that as a general thesis. Interior has
demonstrated to a reasonable degree that the
Nationwide differences in impacts between alternative
ways of leasing (or not leasing) coal are small
compared to the basic decision (and trend) toward a
rapid shift toward coal as the major source of new
energy production. If anything, the quantity Of
impacts estimated in this EIS define the impacts
expected from the National Energy Plan.
EPA still has some concerns, explained below,
about various impact parameters, particularly those
under EPA legislated mandates. There is still a
valid question though whether much of the Nationwide
impact data developed in this EIS will be useful for
further decision-making. At this point, we don't
have a full answer to this question except that for
certain parameters in certain regions, there appear
to be some constraints developing to the proposed
schedule of coal extraction/consumption. A second
possible benefit of this EIS data is that areas of
genuine uncertainty in need of further research can
be occasionally defined.
Our comments 1n this section reflect where we
think that there may be a valid programmatic
environmental issue (or not). For other parameters
we accept Interior's position that such issues must
be handled at the regional or even at the
site-specific case. Our concerns about impact
estimation found in Chapter 5 of this EIS are found
below.
1. Water quality/Water Supply
EPA considered this impact to be one of genuine
national /regional concern. Water limitations could
definitely put constraints on the proposed coal
program. Unfortunately, the water resources/water
quality portions of the Draft EIS on the Federal Coal
Management Program are weak, poorly organized, and it
is difficult to make any meaningful sense out of the
information. It 1s not at all clear what specific
K-166
water uses are Included in the various alternatives.
Therefore, it seems to be Impossible to directly
compare figures in the draft with estimated water
uses from other sources. As a specific example, we
have attached water use estimates prepared by the
Salinity Forum as Appendix A. These projections are
about as good as any available; however, it does not
seem possible to make a direct comparison between the
Forum's projections and the figures in the draft EIS.
A simila
rmat ion
oblem exists when trying to compar
in the Draft EIS with the 13(a) study -
rqy Assessment. Upper Colorado Region.
Me think that the water "resources/water quality data
in the Draft EIS came from the WRC draft National
Assessment. However, we are unable to determine
whether this is the case.
We question some of the basic assumptions the
DOT has made in estimating water requirements for the
Federal coal management program. We believe that the
staff should have attempted to integrate the
consumptive water requirement estimates of the Water
Resources Council (WRC) with the water requirement
estimates Of the Federal Coal Management Program
alternatives. Double counting the water requirements
for coal development (using both WRC estimates and
DOI estimates) makes the entire water supply analysis
that much more inaccurate. Further, we do not
believe that the EIS can assume that WRC projections
of water requirements (in 198S) for development of
fueH and mining Is similar to the projected
estimates of consumptive water requirements of the no
new leasing alternatives. For example, (using Table
5-13 and 5-14) water-short areas like the
Uinta-Southwestern Utah and Green River Hams Fork
Regions if developed would exert pressure to draw on
the Green River and upper main stem Colorado River
watersheds. The staff's estimates of water
requirements in these two watersheds, with no new
leasing alternative, medium coal option are 60,000
acre-feet/year and 36.000 acre-feet/year,
respectively. These estimates are much higher than
the estimates of the WRC for the Green River
watershed and Green River/Upper Hainstem Colorado
River watershed for development of fuels and mining
(31,000 acre-feet/year and 36.000 acre-f aet/year ,
respectively). Such discrepancies in consumptive
water requirements for coal development in the year
1985 with no new leasing outline the need for using
real water consumption figures in order to project
accurate future water requirements for other coal
options.
-11-
EPA believes that treatment of potential water
quality impacts in this EIS 1s inadequate. Impacts
on water quality could be severe. The EIS should
specifically note that salinity in the Colorado River
Basin Is a major Issue (national and international
concern, billions of dollars of public funds to
correct, etc.) and that coal development could have a
significant impact on salinity. Another weakness of
the draft is the deficiency in adequately addressing
potential impacts on rare and endangered species in
aquatic systems.
The EIS especially needs to assess the
cumulative impact of strip mining on levels of
salinity in the Colorado River system. Although
there is a great deal of variability in the soils in
the coal regions affecting the Colorado River, as a
general rule, each disturbance of the soil profile
through new strip mining could expose Teachable
materials to faster movement into the
groundwater-surf ace water system. Further, ash
disposal from in-situ powerplant development could
also pose added long-term leaching potential to the
Colorado River system. EPA thinks that an estimate
of the likely effect on the Colorado salinity problem
should be made with the various 1985-1990 proposed
coal development scenarios.
A second potential water quality Issue of
interregional concern involves the presence of
significant concentrations of mercury In the Powder
River basin waters near existing mining operations.
A study has been proposed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service/Biological Services Program to
assess the magnitude and details of the problem.
Other coal mining areas should also be monitored to
indicate whether this is a regional or more
widespread problem. Selenium has also been reported
to be a trace metal contaminant in surface waters and
probably should be assessed in the same manner. The
final EIS should identify this problem and Indicate
whether any studies will be funded to evaluate the
full dimensions of the trace metal contaminant
problem. EPA would be willing to work closely with
DOI in evaluating this problem.
The EIS places a great deal of attention on
cumulating aggregate air emissions as a way of
assessing air- quality impacts. EPA thinks this
approach needs to be stated in a proper perspective.
Many of the potential air quality impacts described
result from increased coal use, not from a planning
and analysis procedure which attempts to determine
the best way to produce coal. As the QES states:
"White 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."
We submit that the principal air quality impacts
are in the latter category. To be sure, Increased
air pollution can result from the production "coal
cycle", e.g., exhaust from shovels, bulldozers,
trucks and other equipment as well as increased
particulate emissions from the loading/unloading
operation, for perspective, it is necessary to
understand that air emissions from sources associated
oal production are just a few percent of
rent
al emissions.
While we do not disagree that a worthy goal is
minimize emissions attributed to coal production,
e range of the incremental emissions from the six
ogram alternatives is on the order of tons when
mpared to hundreds of thousands or millions of tons
emissions from the "no new leasing" option in 1985
, the present. While coal production seems to be a
all part of the cause of air emissions, the choice
tween program options appears even smaller. Thus,
e air quality impact of the DES seems to be almost
jvial when aggregated. As pointed out In the
cument, the significant air impact will be on a
te-specific basis which this programmatic
vironmental statement cannot address except through
veloping procedures such as land-use planning
aluations that can consider site-specific issues.
The programm
tic EIS should recog
nize that the
focus of air-qual
ty impact issues for
Federal coal
production wil 1 1
between coal mini
e with the potent i al
conf Met
q/process i nq. operati
: n :. J n d
environmentally sensitive air quality
areas.
Specif ica 1 ly, LfA
is concerned about the leasing of
coa 1 i n proximi ty
to Class ! air quail
:y areas
defined under Pre
ention of Signif ican
: Deterioration
Regulations. Under these regulations.
most of the
emissions from coal produc ing/processi
ng facil ities
can be adequately
control led with the
notable
exception of fugi
ive dust, a major pr
oblem in many
Western coal prod
Cing areas. Vis i bi 1
ity reductions
over Class I area
are a genuine conce
rn with new
leasing. Problem
of this kind have a
lready surfaced
at the Alton, Utah coal field. In our
di scussions on
Unsuitabil i ty Cri
eria we suggest a possible way of
i dent i fying these
k i nds of air qual i ty
impacts prior
to leasing.
Other specif
c comments are enume
rated below and
are keyed to page
numbers .
Page 5-53.
fhe section which discusses emission
control standards
quotes EPA-proposed
standards for
power plants. It
is difficult to unde
rstand the
connection between power plant regulat
ions and
standards which would pertain to "proc
uction
facilities using fossil-fuel steam gen
erators."
Page 5-56. The reason for the in
elusion of
Table 5-29 is unc
ear. The text (page
5-53) mentions
only S0X and TSP,
yet Table 5-29 also
lists NO*.
Furthermore, comp
irison of state emiss
ion regulat ions
is a very complex
Subject, We believe
that the table
is factual ly inco
rect, e.g., New Mexi
:o's TSP
regulation, Arizona's and Ohio's S0X r
egulations
are not more stri
gent than the propos
ed power plant
NSP5; and the Pennsylvania SO, regulat
ion does not
apply to all area
of the state. Refe
rences 7B
through 83 appear
to have been omittec
or are
misplaced.
Page 5-S7. The purpose of Table
5-30 is
obscure. While this material is factu
ally correct.
it is not used to
develop any point.
Page 5-58.
ee comment for page
-14-
5-57.
K-167
Page 5-61. Reference?
Pages 5-62 through 5-71. We believe that
material of this type would be best if summarized
[perhaps national totals} in the document with the
detailed results placed in an appendix. It would be
helpful to have totals on Tables 5-39 through 5-43.
He are not sure how the Tables 5-34 through 5-13
were generated for nationwide emissions from all
coal-related sources for the different alternative
coal leasing programs. In particular, we find it
difficult to see how there could be variations in
SO? emissions (powerpl ant-re 1 ated ) as shown in
TaGle 5-35, given the assumption that the nationwide
new source performance standards for SO? emissions
would be met as stated under Section 3.1.2. Vet on
page 6-1, the statement says that "the impact
analysis in the previous chapter does not include
those mitigating measures required by la- or
regulations." The CIS should make clear the extent
to which controls have or have not been placed on
impact parameter estimates.
Since projections of end-use (basically
powerplant combustion from the NCM model) define the
level of expected impacts for various time frames and
scenarios, the EIS should also make clear the number
of actual new powerplants projected. The estimate of
megawatt size should also be identifi
where industry projections are av
rticula
ailable.
3.
S o 1 id M a s t ti
Given the prognosis of some 1 to 1.1 billion
tons per year of coal to be consumed in this country
by 1985 and higher amounts in 1990, some estimate of
the fly-ash residual should be made. Assuming an ash
content between 1O-30X of the mined coal, we are
talking about disposing of some 100-300 million tons
per year. Disposal problems will differ regionally,
but on a national level, such a magnitude of often
toxic solid waste could pose severe localized
groundwater problems. In the Eastern coal regions,
greater leaching rates and acidic conditions could
result in significant groundwater problems. We have
already alluded to the problem this could pose in the
Colorado River system. Some discussion of potential
mitigation measures to lessen this impact needs to be
considered.
4. Archaeological Analysis
Under the discussion of geologic impacts from
coal extraction, the EI5 categorizes impacts on
archaeologic resources as site-specific. While this
is ultimately the case, we wonder whether the
proposed 8LK-USGS assessment mechanism could not at
least identify regional locations where there is a
high probabaility of certain strata containing
archeological fossil remains. Those strata likely to
be affected by coal mining enterprises need to be
identified early in the process. Eventually limited
areas of such strata might even be included under
unsui tabi 1 1 ty criteria, if the potential resource is
valuable enough.
5- Noi se Impacts
Little or no analysis of noifce impacts has been
made. EPA could agree that at this level of national
analysis, noise impacts cannot be meaningfully
evaluated since they are very site-specific. We do
expect that the Regional EISs will evaluate noise
problems on specific communities and in certain
sensitive areas. The Colorado State BLM, for
example, has been working with the Region V E I I EPA
office to define background levels in "quiet" rural
areas as well as assessing how various coal
developments will affect these levels and more
typical urban noise level criteria. This information
will be used in the West-Central Colorado Regional
Final EIS.
6 . Reclamation Potential Analysis (p. 5-17 and pp.
The analysis of reclamation potential on these
three pages is surprisingly cursory given the
importance of reclamation as a national issue. The
only descriptive assessment of reclamation potential
is contained in Chapter 4 in the Description of the
Environment, As we have discussed under
Unsuitabi 1 ity Criteria, these statements on
reclaimabi 1 ity appear as vague, unsupported
conclusions with little recognition of the regional
problems involved.
In a national programmatic EIS of this kind, it
is appropriate to ask whether there are certain
geographical portions of the country where for one or
another reason, reel
perhaps no surface m
we would think that
[portions of Utah,
ation cannot be assured and
ing should occur. Specifically
areas in the Southwest
Mexico, Arizona, etc-} where
rainfall is sparse and soils are poorly developed, it
may be that no form of reclamation can be assured at
this point in time. If this is the case, perhaps
Interior should consider delaying leasing in those
areas until adequate research has established whether
reclamation can be done successfully.
EPA questions too the use In this section (p.
5-17) of a maximum 15-year reclamation period to
define reclamation potential. This value appears to
have been drawn from NGPRP studies in the Powder
River - Ft. Union Area. , We feel extremely
uncomfortable in seeing these values applied to the
more arid San Juan, Green River and Uinta areas.
The upper limit of 15 years assumed for
reclamation even in the NGP area may even be in
question depending on the structure of the impact
analysis. Does this value include artificial
mitigating measures such as fertilization, irrigation
and topsoil addition, or "natural revegetation?" In
Section 6.1 of course, the EIS indicated that Chapter
5 analyses did not include required mitigation
measures.
EPA suggests that a table be developed
indicating natural or minimal effort reclamation
times versus intensive, required reclamation efforts
to meet the OSM-defined reclamation standards
adequate for each coal region. The EIS should
indicate the types of reclamation activities that,
will be needed along with their approximate cost.
7.
Socio
1c Impact Analysis
Socioeconomic impacts cover the broadest range
of impacts, and to the greatest extent those kinds of
impacts least well defined in protective legislation
in the way of mitigating measures. This EIS does a
creditable job in defining many of these basic
"people" impacts on a programmatic level. We think
that the most serious consideration as a next step is
to identify what the Department can and will do to
try to alleviate these Impacts.
4e recognize that
n a broad statement of this
kind,
many more subtle
ocal or regional
socioeconomic impacts w
1 1 be overlooked.
WHness,
for e
xampte, the problem of the effect of
unit trains
virtu
ally paralysing to
ns like Gil lette.
Wyoming and
Hotchkiss, Colorado for
hours in a day. Another
examp
e of a localized
ype of problem occurs in the
North
Fork Of the Gunni
on Val ley where e
en though
coal
extraction takes p
ace on Federal lands which
ar^ o
n higher ground, the supportive stru
tures
(tipp
It, railroad, etc.
occur on private
the r
extre
Wer val ley where
and-use conf 1 icts
can become
EPA bel ieves that
he focus for such
problems is
prope
rly at the regiona
analys is level .
The
ammatic EIS needs
o clearly indicate how this
sis will be handle
1. We shal 1 discu
S this
issue
in further detai 1
in the discussion
on Regional
EISs.
8.
End-Use Impacts
The DOI analysis o
i pp. 5-129 throuq
i 5-133
makes
a fairly cogent c
se for why stipul
itions
invol
ving the end-use o
coal cannot or should not be
placed on coal leasing.
EPA can agree to
this basic
premi
se. However, it h
.s been our past e
;perience
that
:he 001 through its member agencies,
parti
cularly the U.S. B
jreau of Reclamati
3n and the
U.S.
lureau of Mines, h
is been in a posit
onto
influ
ence the end-use o
coal through its
pol icies
" and a
cti vi ties on water
use development a
id
gas if
ication studies and project developm
Iftt.
The Department of
the Interior in it
S Water for
Enerqy Proqram has deve
oped agreements w
tana and South Dak
th at least
at»— to
two i
■stern states--Hon
al low
the use of some 700,000 acre-feet o
Missouri
River
water for energy
tevelopment. Past
joint
Inter
ior-industry studi
»s like the North
Antral
Power
Study appeared to
smooth the way fa
- numerous
multi
-megawatt powerpla
its in the west.
"he USBR is
still
developing variou
> water projects i
i western
regio
ns for basically Mil (Municipal and
ndustri al )
use.
Since the function
s of the USBM have
been
parti
ally split between
DOI - DOE, the ex
act role
that
USBH will play in
developing gasification
-18-
K-168
proposals around the country is still unclear. But
given 001 and OOE's joint responsibility in managing
the Federal coal program, it is a fair question to
ask what the policies of these two agencies will be
toward advocating one or another end-use of coal and
where.
EPA thinks that DO I should recognize this
national issue in this EIS and begin to formulate
what Its policies toward industrial energy-related
water development and technological development will
and should be. It is likely that such decisions will
influence where the end-uses of coal will take place
in the next 10 to 20 years.
EVALUATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE PREFERRED COAL PROGRAM
EPA vigorously supports the idea of "pr
land-use planning before leasing. As we hav
we wholeheartedly concur with the application of
unsuitability criteria at the land-use planning stage
to minimize later leasing conflicts. The idea of the
priority ranking of leases at the activity stage also
is environmentally attractive but does contain some
significant problems in how it will be implemented.
EPA does think that this activity step of tract
delineation, evaluation and ranking is essential to
the program.
1. LAMP USE PLANNING
EPA believes that development and use of
effective land-use plans (Management Framework Plans)
is one key to the success of the Federal Coal
Management Program. The approach suggested in this
programmatic EIS holds both considerable promise and
difficulties.
a. Past Deficiencies
Although the Department is attempting
to build upon existing Management Framework
Plans (MFP's) at least initially to
implement the Federal coal program, EPA has
experienced many problems with these MFP's
in past reviews. In the first place, the
quality of the MFP's we have seen varies
considerably. Some have seen extensive
public and agency input and review, others
little or none- Even in cases like the
Wil 1
□rk (Colorado)
Mf"P which is
supposed
o be one of the
higher qual 1 ty
MFP
s. a
ubsequent U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
eva
uatio
showed that the MFP considerably
unde
resti
nated wi ldl ife r
esources.
We a
e also concerned that the
mane
gemen
resolution of
resource confl ict
has
been
lanted in the p
ast highly in
favc
r of
.oal development
. Past BLM
Wash
i ngto
Office direct!
ves we were shown
had
Offic
ally defined th
is as pol icy. If
a f r
esh r
'-evaluation of
competing
resc
urces
were to be made
, consi derable
char
ge in
ssi ta
existing MFP 's
ed.
night bB
As w
; indicate under
our di scussions
on L
nsui t
bil i ty Criteria
, existing MFP's
may
not h
ive adequate dat
a to evaluate
uns
i tabi
ity for mining
in certain areas.
He
hink
this would be ar,
unfortunate start
to
coal
program that could have many
riat
onal
:enef i ts 1 f done
right.
We think that this p
rogr amma t ic EIS
sho
Id define the status
of existing MFP' s
that
would be used in coa
1 leasing
reg
ons.
How many MFP ' s
are involved and
whe
e are
they located?
How adequate is
the
r dat
a, and how many
wi 1 1 need to be
ame
ded,
revised or are n
ot as yet
com
leted
b. Uns
i tabi
ity Criteria
ts. The DEIS
Cbl)
General Commen
out
ines
an pages 3-8 thr
ough 3-13 the
proposed
jnsuitabi 1 i ty cr
i teria to be used
in conjun
ction with BLM
and-use pi anni ng.
EPA
appla
jds this overal'
approach as a
rat
onal
and long-awaited
step in
d e v e 1 o p i n
3 a sound coal it
anagement
pro
ram.
EPA recognizes
and has comparable
dif
icult
es (in PSD and
104
res
onsib
lities) in trying to develop
ear
y pla
nn i nq resol ution
of environmental
i ss
es that also requi re
detai 1 ed legal ly
man
ated
revi ews.
-20-
As
general premise.
EPA strong
g
Del ieves
that where deter in
nations of
environm
ntal unsuitability/unaccepta
ility
must leg
1 ly be made, that
every effa
t be
expended
to define these u
lacceptabl e
s i tuatio
s as early In the
□ cess
as poss i ble- In the case
3f this pro
w* think
that such determi
nations sho
Id be
made if
hey can before le
as i nc; takes
an a p pro a C
«oul J ha
e cons i derable ad
vantages to
the
De par tine
: in clearing the
wai for fa
ter
production of coal from en
vironmental
s -J i table
leases. Industri
ss would also not
oe faced
with as long a pe
Mod of tim
d b t a 1 n i n
necessary Federa
and State
requl a to
y permi ts . If we
can reduce
the
time of uncertainty in the
permitting
process
t is to the tut io
n ' s benef i t
EPA
is faced with mul
..I pi e legal
determi n
tions related to
:oa 1
mining/p
ocessing that cou
d result i
an
unaccept
ble finding. The
pri nci pal
respons i
i 1 i t ies we are fa
.ed with in
lude
the following:
Air Qual
±2
•New Source Performan
(NSPS) for Coal Prepa
-ation Plan
s
-Prevention of Signif
cant
Deterioration
a. Coal extract
on/process
ng
emi ssions on C 1 a
s I and II
areas
b. Visibility 1
npacts with
speci al emphasis
on Class I
areas
Water Qu
litv/Drinkinq Water
*NPDES discharge perm
ts 1n certai n
states [Utah, South 0
akota)
*Se
tion 404 Dredge and Fill Pern
its
*So
e-source aquifer
-21-
jeterminatk
Some of these permitting requirements
such as NSPS are technology-specific, and
are independent of location. Other
provisions would come into play only in
isolated instances (e.g. compl i a nee
requirements in air quality non-attainment
areas for NAAQS), and we have not listed
them here. It is those recurring
determinations that have some relationship
to land-use (and hence are related to where
leasing should take place) that EPA would
like to see integrated into leasing
decisions.
We think that two of EPA1 s mandated
reviews could be partially Incorporated
into the unsuitability determinations.
These are 1.) PSD regulations affecting
Class I areas; and 2.) sole-source aquifer
determinations. Not every potential lease
area will face these conditions. In our
comments below we will discuss how we think
they could be worked into the program.
EPA also has a number of concerns with
the currently proposed unsuitability
criteria in the draft EIS. We do think
that these general provisions are an
excellent beginning and need further
refinement.
As presently contemplated, these
unsuitability criteria would be applied at
the land-use planning MFP stage- Very
broad and easily definable criteria (such
as delimiting existing Federal park lands
and scenic quality buffer zones) can be
applied in a relatively straightforward
manner in a land-use plan.
As we understand the Secretary's
preferred program, site-specific
determinations would also be made at the
mining plan review level as mandated under
SMCRA. We think that this approach ignore;
a very critical stage where additional
unsuitability determinations can and shoulc
be made -- namely the activity selection,
evaluation and ranking step. It is at thi:
K-169
point that the locale is specific enough to
evaluate reclamation, air quality and other
parameters that simply cannot be handled in
broad-based land use plans covering
thousands of acres. The activity
evaluation and selection stage has the
added advantage of Still occuring before a
lease i s granted.
Me will discuss this approach under
the various criteria we feel should be
added to the unsui tabi 1 i ty list.
(fa.?] Air quality
considerations need to be added
to unsui tabi 1 i ty criteria.
Specifically, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration [PSD)
could and should be worked into
the criteria dealing with Federal
Land Systems and Hi Iderness Study
Criteria. We believe that it
would be ill-advised to lease
coal in areas where air quality
impacts of mining would likely
violate State or Federal
standards. We already have Such
a case where an EIS dealing with
the development of the Alton,
Utah coalfield indicated probable
violations of nearby Class 1 PSD
* areas.
EPA suggests that the
evaluations of protection for
mandated Federal lands be
expanded to include PSD
criteria. We also think that
such protection should be
afforded to wilderness study
areas, particularly those
recommended for wi Iderness
i nclusion or
planning by
fefiirfr RARE
.rthe
the Forest Service
II study. Similar protect!
needed for BLM lands now
undergoing wilderness study
EPA believes that under its
present PSD regulations that most
coal mining operations will have
little trouble meeting standards
for Class II areas. The present
regulations treat fugitive dust
(normally the greatest proportion
of particulate emissions from a
surface mine) as a source that
would be subject only to Best
Available Control Technology.
Fugitive dust could pose
significant visibility problems
to Class I areas, however. EPA
is currently developing
regulations to define and limit
visibility impacts to protect
Class I areas. These will be
forwarded to the Department as
soon as they are available.
The Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 [P.L. 95-95) give the
Federal Land Manager and the
Department of the Interior
considerable discretion to
protect air quality related
values including visibility in
Class t areas such as National
Parks and wilderness areas.
Section 165 (d)(2) (B) states:
"The Federal Land Manager and the
Federal official charged with
direct responsibility for
management of such (Class I)
lands shall have an affirmative
responsibility to protect air
quality related values (Including
visibility)..." Further, under
Section 169A (a)(2) the Secretary
of Interior is to review and
identify Class I areas where
visibility is an important value.
EPA is still in the process
of developing regulations to
implement visibility protection
goals in the Act. We do think
that the coal leasing program
should be made compatible with
this area of environmental
protection.
-24-
We suggest the following
approach; The land-use plans
should locate and identify
existing and potential Class I
areas potentially afFected by
coal mining in given MFP areas.
A matrix of distance-maximum
emission levels from a mining
operation needs to be developed
to define a minimum distance
where there is a substantial
likelihood that a potential
mining enterprise would adversely
affect visibility values. These
areas could then be excluded from
leasing.
A second set of emission
level -distance values could be
generated to indicate some
wouTd be unlikely to affect
visibility values. The lands
beyond this range would be
considered suitable from a
visibility standpoint (for some
appropriate level of emissions).
Lands lying within the two
maximum-minimum values would need
to be further assessed at the
activity planning level if these
areas are otherwise desirable for
leasing.
At the activity level, some
appropriate level of emissions
would have to be specified to
protect air quality values.
Potential lessors could then
decide whether additional
mitigation measures needed would
be worth complying with 1n order
to mine coal. As we discuss
under Reclamation Potential, some
sort Ot hypothetical mining" plan
analysis appears necessary at
this stage. An air quality
modeling analysis would have to
be performed where this criterion
needs to be evaluated.
-25-
What we have suggested above
would work in the long-term.
First, obvious areas are screened
out, and then a more detailed air
quality analysis is done where
there is a reasonable chance that
visibility impacts wi 1 1 occur.
EPA recognizes that thi S is
an extremely complex issue and
one where, unfortunately,
empirical data is limited. For
the first round of the leasing
program, it will probably be
necessary to do air quality
modeling initially at the tract
evaluation stage. Eventually
this information could be used in
MFP revisions to screen out areas
where likely visibility impacts
will occur.
We suggest that DO I commit
to an initial investigation of
visibility impacts in the first
tract evaluation stage effort. A
number of potential lease areas
should be selected with reference
to distance from Class I areas-
By varying the distances and
number of leases ( in a
concentrated area) some idea of
tances and amount of
a smal 1 area that
11 ity can be gai ned.
elativ
affect
EPA would be willing to work
with the Department to help
define these minimum and maximum
distances for protection of Class
I areas in the coal leasing
program as well as to help
develop air quality analyses that
might be used at the tract
evaluation stage. We are hopeful
that at this stage of analysis
before leasing, we could
eventually eliminate the Issue of
whether PSD considerations would
K-170
res tr i ct the eventual mining
enterprise, before actual leasing
takes place. We also recognize
that the estimation of visibility
impacts is still in its infancy
and may need some years to be
perfected.
(b3) Sole-source aquifers
and important aquifer recharge
areas should also be considered
as areas unsuitable for mining.
This is also another situation
similar to air quality visibility
that does not admit of
categorical exclusions/inclusions.
One principal reason is that
information on groundwater,
aquifers and aquifer recharge
areas is scanty. EPA's mandated
responsibility is to prevent
damage to sole-source aquifer
drinking water supplies from
activities which are Federally
f i nancial ly ass i sted. At
present, there are no formally
designated sole-source aquifers
in Federal coa 1 -produc i ng regions
that we are aware of. That is
not to say, however, that there
are not such sole-source aquifers
that could use legal protection.
At this point, we recommend
that sole-source aquifer and
important recharge areas for
aquifers be added to the list of
potentially unsuitable areas for
mining, recognizing that much of
the information will have to be
acquired in the future.
He think that the first step
needs to be revision of MFP's to
reflect what is known about
groundwater resources. USES and
other sources should be contacted
to define where known aquifers
lie in proximity to potential
coal leasing areas. Information
would also have to be acquired to
define where nearby communities
obtain their drinking water.
Some estimate would then have to
be made as to how significant
these aquifers are to the total
municipal drinking water supply.
One reason for revising
Management Framework Plans would
be to allow public and agency
input regarding domestic water
supplies. Should a community
petition to have an aquifer
protected, the KFP should
recognize such a petition in
defining suitable/unsuitable
areas.
A second area of
consideration is that of
important aquifer recharge
areas. There needs to be ..a: more
definitive study to determine the
locations of major aquifer
recharge areas that might be
impacted by coal mining. The HFP
should assess within the planning
area where the likely recharge
areas are. We envision a more
detailed evaluation of this
parameter at the activity tract
evaluation stage. Once again.
EPA would be willing to offer
what assistance it can in
defining and protecting sensitive
aquifer areas .
(b4) We are also cot
about the lack of physica
parameters in the listing
unsuitability criteria,
for a solitary criterion
regarding reclaimabi 1 ity,
is little or nothing in t
of defining basic physica
limitations on coal extra
and reel aimabl 1 ity. Most
other criteria though imp
are institutional in natu
simply reflect existing
legislative requirements.
cerned
under
xcept
there
It is disturbing not to see
iny reference to soils, slope,
precipitation, geologic
stability, saline areas.
Subsidence areas, etc. All of
the latter could be critical in
determining the suitability of
coal mining and eventual
reclamation of strip-mined areas.
It is our understanding that
001 has already applied these
criteria to about 900,000 acres
of "high priority" coal areas.
Apart from the fact that this
prejudices the extent to which
these criteria can be
retroactively modified in the
course oF this EIS review, we are
concerned about the level of
information available to make
these determinations.
It is our understanding that
many of the planning units that
-were selected for this review did
not have the necessary data to
make evaluations regarding
parameters such as slope.
wetlands, wilderness areas, etc.
The lack of such information
should not be a justification for
proceeding without it. We think
that a careful reassessment by
D0I is in order to determine
whether the preferred coal lease
program can even be initiated
with these major data gaps in
land-use planning.
We think that inclusion of
these basic physical parameters
involving reclamation potential
is a si ne qua non for a
successful coal management
program. A possible way to
resolve this situation would be
to adopt the approach suggested
by EPA to evaluate parameters
such as reclaimabi 1 1 ty at the
tract evaluation phase.
-29-
We recogn
ze the extreme
difficulties 1
i trying to
quantify the v
ar i ables involved
i n successful
-eclamation from
strip-mining.
At the same time,
we are not rea
=sured by the
statements in
Che Descr ipt ion of
the Environmen
t Section, Chapter
fl , regarding r
;c 1 amat ion
potent i al . Th
; statement on page
fl-34 regarding
reel aimabi 1 i ty of
the San Juan C
Ifll Region -- "Al 1
areas within the region can
probably be re
:laimed after
di sturbance, p
■ovi ded that
topsoi 1 i s rep
aced. . .and
adequate moist
jre is
available..."
- does 1 ittle to
inspire conf i d
;nce when one
realizes that
-eclamation is a
near imposs ibi
ity in some of the
San Juan areas
preci sely because
of a lack of t
jpsoi 1 and
moisture. We
:an find no
statement rega
■ding
reclaimabi 1 ity
for the Powder
River area.
The assessment for the Hams
Fork-Green ft i v
r region states on
page 4-26 that
"the potent i al for
reclamation of
di sturbed areas
varies conside
•ably within the
region. By us
ng the best
available tech
ology for
reclamation, many of the
1 imi tations of
soil and
precipitation
:an probably be
overcome. "
EPA think
that it is this
" var i at ion" In
reclaimabi 1 Ity
that is at the
heart of the
question of un
uitabll ity
regarding stri
-mi n i nq . It woul d
appear foolhardy to consider
mining even at
the planning stage
in geologic or
soi Is condi tions
or areas of me
ger precipi tat ion
where reclamat
on is difficult or
impossible.
-30-
K-171
■MB^^VHM
We think that an attempt to
define the more general aspects
of reclaimabili ty within and
between regions Is sorely
needed. As an example, EPA, in
cooperation with the U.S. Forest
Service, has recently contracted
for a study to develop a
prediction model in estimating
revegetation potentials of
surface coal mined land in the
west. Data is being collected
from major coal surface mines in
the west, including parameters
such as vegetation
characteristics of each mined
site and surrounding unmined
areas with native vegetation,
techniques employed at site, age
of revegetated areas, climatic
features (precipitation, growing
season precipitation and length
of frost-free growing season),
physical features of area (slope,
elevation, soil characteristics
in both mined areas and
undisturbed areas), and other
ecological information. Such
information could be used to
analyze potential recovery of
mined areas as well as
identifying the unsui tabi 1 i ty of
some areas for mining. In
addition, past revegetation
techniques can lend insight to
future efforts leading to a
higher potential for success. We
strongly urge the 001 to engage
in a similar study or analysis so
that land areas requiring special
attention and/or mitigation
measures will be identified early
in the decision-making process.
As an example, areas of little
precipitation such as the Hanna
Basin coalfield in southeastern
Wyoming (Green River-Hams Fork
Cot.1 Region) will not only
require initial irrigation of
seeded areas, but also careful
selection of plant species.
We can sympathize with the
extreme difficulty a Federal land
manager would be faced with at
the land-use planning level, in
trying to determine the
unsuitabil 1 ty in terms of
reclamation. Numerous parameters
are involved, and many are
concerned with the degree of
reel amabi 1 i ty rather than a
categorical yes/no situation.
At the same time, we believe
that waiting until the OSH mining
plan review stage after leasing
to evaluate unsui tabi 1 1 ty is
something to be avoided. The
best compromise appears to be an
initial evaluation of reclamation
suitability/unsuitabili ty at the
tract selection and evaluation
stage. At this point the
potential leasing areas ar^
delineated enough to permit a
site-specific evaluation. We can
see no way to avoid some form of
hypothetical mining plan at this
stage to do a reasonable
Is. Our discussions under
t.y Tract Selection and
ddresses some of the
lems involved with this
oach. EPA does think that
an evaluation can and should
done.
(b5) EPA also has some concerns
about the exception provisions
for the unsuitabil ity criteria.
We do understand the need to
remain flexible at the planning
level par
ticul ar ly because of the
Indivldu
1 i ty of each s i tuation.
However,
there are a number of
provisior
s for def in ing and
exempti n
the unsui tabi 1 i ty
criteria
that appear to need
better d
a.
P. 3-3 on Federal Land
Systems, can the "land
management agency" make
an effective uni lateral
determination as to an
appropriate buffer zone?
b.
p. 3-9 How wi 11 the
land management agency
uni 1 ateral ly determine
whether scenic quality
will be adversely
affected?
c.
p. 3-10 What happens
under State Resident
Fish and Wi Id! ife where
valid differences of
opinion on effects
exist between State and
Federal game managers?
d.
p 3-10 Under Wetlands,
can the land management
agency uni lateral ly
determine the impact on
wetlands?
e.
p. 3-12 Under Eagle and
Falcon roost and
nesting protection, can
the land management
agency make a
uni laterial
determination as to
adequate habitat
protection?
Thi
s list of concerns is by
no means
exhaustive. The general
problem
appears to be a lack of
criteria
to define when the
-33-
■ i
exceptions can be made. A
corollary problem is whether the
land management agency can make
an adequate determination on
these criteria without the
specific agreement of other
agencies who have expertise on
the Issue.
(b5) EPA is also very much
interested in the wilderness
inventory and evaluation of BLH
lands now underway. We think the
Department 1s taking an important
step in trying to define
Wilderness potential of the 450
million acres of BLH land under
its jurisdiction. We are
somewhat concerned that the
timing of the early 1980 leasing
may compromise the wilderness
study in coal regions.
We think that the f
nal E1S
should better articulate
the
schedules for wilderness
study
and coal leasing. EPA a
so
thinks that the Oepartme
t should
clearly define what kind
of new
activities are or are not
permissible on areas inventoried
as roadless and meeting minimal
wi Iderness potential .
Finally, at such time as BLH
land areas having wilderness
potential are formally 1
sted, we
suggest that the air quality PSD
criteria be applied around these
areas at least for the duration
of the BLM wilderness study and
until Congress acts on Interior
wi Iderness recommendations.
(b6) Involvement by the
public should come Into play when
there exists some questions as to
whether or not a tract meets
unsuitabi 1 i ty criteria, or when
decisions are made regarding
K-172
tracts which wi 11 be given
exemptions from these criteria.
A formal mechanism for actively
involving other agencies,
industry and the public must be
sought. A clearer commitment to
consideration of
Threshold Criteria
EPA thinks that this is an extremely
promising concept, that should eventually
be worked into the MFPs. We recognize the
difficulty in quantifying many of these
threshold values at the present time. On
page 3-21, the Department indicates that
"it is not necessary to specify threshold
levels in the land use plan" and that
"later steps in the leasing process supply
ample opportunity..." He agree with this
statement as a general proposition, but we
think that a careful delineation of how the
land-use planning process will Interact
with these other phases of the leasing
process is essential. Ultimately the MFP
is the only plan specific enough to carry
out many of the socioeconomic threshold
impacts, but the MFP itself must rely on
broader evaluations. At the same time,
many cumulative impacts could probably be
best defined at the tract evaluation
phase. We have suggested under Air Quality
Visibility discussions how this might take
place. Such an effort could also help
define cumulative threshold impacts from
nearby or successive leasing.
EPA thinks that the identification and
development of threshold criteria should be
one of the priorities of the future
regional EISs. This is discussed further
in a later section.
We recommend that a formal process be
set up in activity planning to utilize the
threshold concept mentioned on page 3-21.
The notion that "decisions may be oriented
more toward impacts dependent on levels or
rates of development" applies directly in
addressing environmental considerations.
Yet, a discussion of threshold development
levels was not included, and the
appropriate place to consider thresholds
was not specified. The threshold
evaluation process should be included as an
activity planning procedure.
xlstlnq Leases and PRLA's
In
of
ion to the rt
sting MFP's to meet unsui tabi 1 i ty
criteria for future leasing, the present
leases and PRLA's should be identified and
evaluated under the same criteria.
Recommendations for or against development
of these leases should be made at the MFP
level. This analysis could also be
integrated in the regional EISs or
developed in the f i nal programmatic EIS.
We think it is important that a systematic
evaluation of existing leases and PRLA's be
made rather than a lease-by-lease action.
ACTIVITY TRACT SELECTION AND RANKING
we have
discussed in
for ai
quality (vis
quif ers
reclamation
ri teria
the tract ev
poi nt
n the early p
the pri
cipal step wh
n be sc
eened out for
ajor in
ustry develop
. EPA
hinks that a
the pr
ce at this st
lopment
of the tract
system.
an environmen
be performed on each
analysi
is quite sit
em to p
•esume the dev
e most
probable hypot
a reaso
■able analysis
the probable locat i on
ned, re
•Tarnation need
rage, p
■eparation and
of the
mining operat
nt be a
lie to make us
Other r
•source to dev
define
en v i ronment a 1
nsuitabil 1 ty
bi 1 i ty) , sole
nd threshold
luation phase is a
anning process,
re speci fie lease
unsuitabi lity
ient commitments
ajor review effort
ge. As part of
election and
al analysis wi 1 1
pecific tract.
specific and
lopment of at
letical mining plan
This would
of annual coal
. and locations of
transportation
on. Will the
i of USBM experts
:lop these plans?
problems in the
air, water quality or any Other environmental
areas? Will OSM people be involved to make
initial evaluations of reclamation suitability?
This part of the program does seem to presuppose
DOI's Intention to pull together a fairly
sophisticated mul tidiscipl i nary team to do the
review and ranking steps.
During activity planning, tracts will be
ranked based on coal quality, cost, and
environmental, social and economic effects and
selected for sale- Ho indication has been
given, however, as to how this ranking would be
approached. The Office of Energy Activities at
the Environmental Protection Agency in Region
VIII has recently (November, 1978) compiled a
study with the consultant, SRI International,
which sets forth a methodology for representing
and comparing the effects that might be expected
from mining coal from particular tracts of
land. This study could be utilized in
proceeding with the ranking process.
In ranking tracts, coal content should be a
major consideration. Due to environmental
impacts from coal combustion, the most desirable
coal is low in ash, sulfur, and trace toxic
elements content. When the ash, sulfur, and/or
toxic element level of coal varies significantly
within a region, the best quality coal should be
sought for development.
EPA agrees with the Idea of a regional
ranking of tracts, but we wonder whether a
practical single value ranking can be made with
so many disparate factors such as economics,
coal quality, environmental desirability and all
of the other concerns involved. It would appear
that above a certain minimum qualification in
these different areas, many tracts might be
suitable. Also, if one area is slightly closer
to available transportaton, but less suitable
for reclamation, can these disparate units be
commonly compared?
DOE PRODUCTION GOALS - SUPPLY AND DEMAND ANALYSES
a. To determine coal production estimates,
an input will be the national demand for coal as
derived from OOE's national coal model (NCM).
Several assumptions In the model appear
questionable:
•Transportation costs are underestimated.
While the high-level projection seems
reasonable, the mid-range case and the low
case should reflect 1977 ICC rates with a
IX and 3X annual real escalation over
current rates, respectively. Moreover, ICC
rates for coal may be escalating due to
inflation at a rate much greater than the
assumed 5.5X per year.
•Synthetic fuel production levels an
greatly overestimated in the model, and
should be re-evaluated and documented more
completely.
•Some of the wage rates (labor costs per
ton of coal) used in the model may be too
low. There has been a decline in
productivity of eastern mine workers, a
factor which should be taken into account
in wage rate projections.
•In specifying utility environmental
regulatons, it should be clarified that the
low-level assumption of 90X FGO 1s based on
a monthly average. Further, the mid-range
assumption should be changed as follows:
90X FGO (monthly average) using eastern
high-sulfur coals and 60X FGD (monthly
average) using low-sulfur western coals.
It should also be noted that the 90* FGO
(monthly average) will be needed in many
western areas, either as a result of New
Source Performance Standards or Prevention
of Significant Deterioration regulations,
b. In projecting coal production level s-- a
key component In determining the magnitude of
the coal leasing program--the need for
"Judgemental decisions" has been indicated (page
4-7). Yet, the basis for these decisions was
not discussed. For example, how has the NCW
been judged against coal industry and other
forecasts? Further, which projection level
(mid, high or low) will be utilized by DO I in
deciding how much coal to lease? In that
regard, we assert that the high-level estimation
or' production is unrealistic and should not be
utilized; the probability that all the
K-173
assumptions made In the NCM's high-level run
will occur simultaneously is extremely small.
In any case, the development and proposed use of
the production levels must be further expla
ned.
c. Chapter 2, Appendix H and to a certain
extent Chapter 5 of the DEI S discusses the
projections of coal supply and demand. On page
5-3, the assumptions and analysis guidelines are
set out for the coal impact estimation program
that is in turn based on coal supply and demand
projections .
One of the key assumptions made in this
analysis is that "labor, equipment and capital
shortages will not significantly distort the
projected levels or timing of the Federal coal
management program." Yet in the same Chapter 5,
a very candid and striking analysis is made of
the huge capital and equipment shortfall that
faces just the railroad transportation sector
for projected 1975-1990 production and
distribution. The analysis concludes on page
5-113 that "the railroad industry's current
financial posture is relatively anemic," and
that SI billion dollars per year of externally
generated funds would have to be invested
through the year 1990.
We think the analysis is an excellent one
and should be extended to other sectors of the
coal production/distribution/consumption picture
projected for 1985 and 1990. For one, can
adequate coal extraction equipment (power
shovels, draglines, etc.), be produced in the
1985 time frame? What magnitude of investment
will be required in fossil-fuel steam generation
facilities in order to be able to utilize the
projected coal levels? Can this in fact be
accomplished in the relatively short term
1980-1995? What degree of conversion to coal
from oil and gas powerplant or industrial
facilities will be needed? We think such an
analysis would be extremely useful from both a
supply and demand side to determine whether such
projections can be met and to assess the
relative level of nation-wide impact.
EXPLORATION LICENSES
This area of activity is not specifically
discussed in the body of the El S, but the sample
regulations in Appendix A make provision for
it. It is not clear at what point in the
overall coal program where industry exploration
would be most appropriate.
We find the provision cited in Section
3461.3 to allow exploration in 'areas defined as
"unsuitable" somewhat puzzling. Allowing
exploration in such areas would seem to be just
creating future management problems for the BUM
or other Federal land managers. Certain
unsuitable areas (such as proximity to national
parks or eagle habitat) would seem to be
particularly inappropriate for exploration. As
a minimum, the land manager should be allowed in
the regulations the option of prohibiting
exploration on unsuitable areas. Allowing such
exploration should only be done after
consultation and agreement with other experts or
responsible agencies identified in the
unsui tab! 1 i ty criteria discussion.
EMERGENCY LEASING
Although the Department seems to suggest in
the EIS discussion (p. 3-27 and in the sample
regulations (Section 3425) that the emergency
leasing system would not be used as an
alternative to competitive leasing, EPA is
unsure of how the procedure would work. We have
indicated in our discussions on 'The Need for
New Leasing" that there can be strong economic
temptations by an industry to increase its
annual production output beyond that
contemplated in the original mining plan. There
should be assurances that the emergency leasing
system will not allow a great amount of coal to
be leased on a given mining operation than in
the original lease. The Department should
provide more specific examples of when the
emergency leasing provision would apply for the
criteria identified in Section 3425.2.
6.
DATA NEEDS AND STUDIES
EPA thinks that the data evaluation study
outlined on pages 3-42 and 3-43 of this EIS is a
very critical one. The preferred coal program
cannot be realistically developed unless the
level of available information is assessed. We
hope that the conclusions to this study will be
made prior to the startup of the program. We
also think that public and agency dissemination
of this information is important.
In view of our comments on the data
deficiencies in the already ongoing land-use
planning revisions using unsui tabi 1 i ty criteria,
we encourage the Department to include this
aspect in its data needs analysis before
proceeding further on implementing this program.
7.
PROCEDURES FOR EXISTING LEASES AND PRLAs
Ue suggest that the Department include in
its proposed regulations more detail regarding
how the Department will handle existing leases
and PRLA's at renewal time. If the Department
should be willing to adopt EPA's suggestion
regarding the early start of the leasing program
to trade or exchange unsuitable leases, there
would need to be specific regulations outlining
this process.
F. ALTERNATIVES
Two
areas of coal leasing occur to us that have not
real ly
>een evaluated under the basic alternatives. We
simply
submit these for your consideration:
1.
Using the EHARS "activity" approach involving
industry nominations once the basic
1 and-use/tract selection unsui tabi 1 i ty criteria
of the preferred program have been applied.
This approach would be based on industry
indications of need rather than the DOE
projections.
2.
Federal leasing in checkerboarded areas where
private or State leases are held.
The
latter may require some explanation. Since the
Federal
land management agency does not have jurisdiction
-41-
over some coal mineral rights (particularly involving
railroads), as well as many surface areas, how will the
preferred program treat those adjacent Federal leasable
areas? Will the full land-use planning process be
applied to these lands as well? will the agency
initially evaluate the leasing of these areas as a whole
irrespective of ownership or assume the fragmented land
ownership as a constraint to production?
G. FUTURE REGIONAL EISs
The Department has already committed itself to the.
specific idea of writing "super" regional EISs on some of
the coal producing regions. As a major reviewing agency
of Department of the Interior EISs, EPA 1s very, concerned
that the unfortunate experience in the last generation of
"regional" EISs be avoided. EPA does not want to see
EISs being written for their own sake simply to follow
procedural requirements. EPA reviewed all of the last
set of regional EISs and has formally expressed its
discontent to Assistant Secretary Martin by letter of
July 6, 1978, and we think that CEQ's recent directive
for more concise EISs oriented toward realistic
decisionmaking is very important here.
EPA strongly believes that "scoping" the content and
the form of these future regional EISs is absolutely
critical and should be accomplished as early as possible
in the EIS development process. The last generation of
regional EISs suffered from a lack of focus as to what
the EISs were supposed to accomplish. The EISs as they
now stand contain a cumulative summary of Impacts
expected from outdated mining plans. Regional
information, while compiled in massive amounts, has not
been developed in any way we can see that has future
usefulness to good decision-making.
EPA would be definitely Interested in helping to
define the scope of the future regional EISs. We hope it
is obvious from the earlier comments that we can see much
promise in this 001 coal management program, and that our
comments ire hopefully constructive as to what can and
should be done to Improve the program.
Our first question in developing these
superreglonals" 1s how does the Department plan
to
i'lize the tremendous amount Of work and effort that
went into the original 8 regional EISs on mining plans?
The EIS is not even clear as to which regional EISs
coincide with which "superregional areas." We think that
K-174
the West-Central Colorado area is included in the
Ui nta-5outhwestern area, but no mention is made of this
area in Chapter 4 of this EIS. A list of superregions
with their inclusive areas should be identified in the
programmatic FEIS.
We think that the greatest salvage value to the past
regional EIS eFforts lies in the extent to which special
regions 1 envi ronmenta 1 -soc ial problems have been
identified and discussed. Hopefully, this information
could be extended and made part of an initial "issues
development" paper that could be expanded upon and made
available for public and agency review during the scoping
process.
We can see the need for extensive public and agency
involvement at the early stages of planning for these
superregional EIS*. Local citizens can better identify
the types of overriding issues of a socioeconomic kind
that the EIS can focus on. EPA would be willing to scour
the past regional EISs to identify areas of priority
regional concern in each region from the perspective of
its own mandates. Given a set of thoroughly developed
issues from both the public and responsible agencies, the
EIS effort could then be focused towards the better
evaluation and possible resolution of many of these
real-world problems.
We do think that these EIS evaluations need to be
concrete; for instance, it is not enough to talk about
railroad crossing problems in the Powder River EIS in
generalities. The question of what can and should be
done in Gillette, Wyoming (or other known problem areas)
should be evaluated.
As a general presumption, we think that the
superregional EISs need to discuss socio-envi ronment al
concerns that cannot adequately be handled at the
land-use MFP planning level. In the example we gave of
the North Fork of the Gunnison, if a local Federal MFP
cannot adequately evaluate off-BLM land impacts, the
regional EIS should do so.
EPA also thinks that the superregional EIS is a good
place to identify and develop the idea of threshold
criteria. We think that in this initial go-round of
regional evaluations and updating MFPs, that the precise
identification of threshold criteria is still to be
developed. The EIS emphasis now should be toward a
better understanding of how these criteria can be
-43-
developed and how they would be applied. We can see both
the likelihood and the need for Intense public debate on
these issues. In many cases local or regional governing
bodies would be helping to define their own environmental
and economic futures.
EPA has already stated its preference that any new
leasing be strictly geared on an interim basis towards
Correcting past coal management deficiencies. By this we
specifically mean identifying and evaluating the
environmental, economic, and social merits of existing
but as yet undeveloped Federal leases and PRLA's. We
sincerely hope that this will be the focus of the renewed
Federal coal leasing program and the first round of
"superregional" EISs. In this we assume of course that
the Department has no option but to proceed with the
granting of legitimate PRLAs.
We can also see a need to include the important MFPs
1n this regional EIS evaluation, EPA is uncertain
whether to recommend EISs on Individual existing MFPs in
coal areas now undergoing re-evaluation with
unsui tabil i ty criteria. We think that if the
superregional EISs cull enough of the MFP descriptions
{at the management and conflict resolution level) to
identify the basic plans, resource tradeoffs and
especially ident if icaion of unsuitable areas, that this
information in the regional EIS would better substitute
for individual EISs on MFPs to be used initially in the
coal leasing program start-up.
Given the concurrent wilderness study areas by BIM,
we think that such areas of Inventoried wilderness and
any priority areas for wilderness recommendation also be
identified in the regional EISs.
A last issue of concern for EPA in the superregi onals
is end-use considerations of coal mining. We admit to
not having a definite recommendation at this time because
of the complexity of the issue. It obviously does not
make much sense to evaluate the end-uses of coal in a
coal producing regon a) if you don't know where it is
going to end up or b) if the coal will be burned out of
the region. On the other hand it makes a great deal of
sense to concurrently handle in one EIS a coal mine and
nearby mine-mouth powerplant. An added area of
uncertainty on this issue from our perspective is the
status and extent of DOE regional projections and other
DOI activities regarding industrial water development.
If either or both of these activities identify likely
future end-use locations of coal, these should be
factored into the regional EIS analysis. EPA would be
willing to accept a position of negotiation of this issue
at the time the superregional EISs are undergoing the
"scopi ng" process .
COMPLIANCE RECOMMENDATION
Of
Trie Department should consider t
stipulations similar to those found in air sni water
quality legislation that might prohibit a company from
obtaining a new lease if the company was in violation of
SMCRA regulations or the appropriate management
regulations on another coal lease. In the Final EIS, the
Department should evaluate the legal ramifications of
such ar\ approach.
00282
Mr. Frank Gregg
Office Of Coal Management: (140)
Bureau of Land Management
18th and C Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Mr. Gregg:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for Che Federal
Coal Management Prograa. We realize these comments are late and
unusually lengthy but hope they can still be considered In preparation
of the Final Environmental Statement.
Our Minerals and Geology Staff has participated In various aspects of
developing the Federal Coal Management Program. Ideally, we would
have been Involved In the procesa on a continuous basis, but personnel
ceilings and funding did not permit Chat level of participation.
Our main efforts have been aimed at getting recognition of NFHA, the
Foreat Service land management planning process and Forest Service
consent authority for leasing ond operating plan approvals, aa
provided by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976.
1. Chapter 3 creates s significant misapprehension that
the Forest Service has Che statutory authority and responaibllity
to plan for Che disposal of coal. We believe any such connotation
should be removed from the text in publishing the Final Environmental
Impact Statement, and that such authority and responsibility be
recognized as a funccion of the BLH.
The problem starts to surface in Section 3.1.1.1 Planning Sy stain
with the statement that the Department of the Interior would rely
on the land management agenciea' planning systems in both the land
use and activity planning stages to provide the initiative and
the forums for decisionmaking regarding Che Federal coal program.
Lon 3.2.2 Activity Planning It states
in, preliminary tracts would
be Identified within the areas designated acceptable for coal mining.
In delineating the tracts, the land management agenciea would consider
such Items as:
K-175
(a) technical coal data, including
itlon, including n
eluding terms of prj
In essence, BLM's activity plana ate analogous to Forest Service
functional plana. However, we know of no Forest Service authority,
under either the old or new planning concepts, which would allow planning
for disposal of a specific mineral resource other than common varieties,
such as sand and gravel.
The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 contains a mandate
that the Secretary of Agriculture take into consideration any
proposed coal development In "comprehensive land use plans.'1 It
further states that the. Secretary of Agriculture shall include an
assessment of the amount of coal, identifying the amount which ia
recoverable by deep raining, and the amount recoverable by surface
mining operations.
We perceive these requirements will be met in the process of develop-
ing the multi-functional Forest plan. Forest planning will also be
the forum In which lands suitable for coal mining are identified, as
well as giving broad consideration to the impacts from such activity.
2. The functions shown for the Forest S
should be broadened and rearranged, as folio'
a balance of programs!
■vice in Table 1-7
., to more nearly reflet
— 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 issuances and mining and
reclamation plan approvals;
iciUary
i abandoned mined land reclamatior
3. The purpose and major relevance columns of Table 1-5
should be reworded to reflect the primary impact of the National
Forest Management Act of 1976, aa related to coal mining:
Purpose: Provides for a comprehensive system of land and resource
management planning for National Forest System landa.
Major Relevance; Key factor in the Secretary of the Interior's
determination of where coal leasing will occur.
4. The major relevance column of Table 1-5 should be reworded
for the Multiple Uae-Sustained Yield Act of I960 to align it with
FLPHA:
Major Relevance: Mandates land management principles similar to those
required of the Department of the Interior under FLPHA.
5. The discussion under Section 1.3.1.4 Mineral Leasing Act for
Acquired Lands, regarding consent authority, should either be eliminated
or lead to the recognition that the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act
does not differentiate between acquired and public domain lands In
its consent authority provisions.
6. The end of the second paragraph under Section 1.3.2.4 Other
Federal Agencies with COal Related Responsibilities should be changed
from '" . . . leases in National Forests"' to " . . . leases on National
7. In Section 3.Z.1 Lond Use Planning, the term "Unit Plans"
in the second paragraph should be changed to "Forest Plans."
8. In example regulations 3400.0-4 Responsibilities, we
suggest the Forest Service planning responsibilities under NFMA be
recognized. Similar recognition should be included in 3410.1-5
Requirements for Land Use Planning.
To our knowledge, there are no guidelines by which conflicts between
oil and gas and coal production can be controlled or mitigated. Con-
versntlons with industry and governmental agencies have Indicated that
the two activities can occur on the same ground, but that protection of
the oil and gas well(s) and pipelines would be required. It is the
general opinion that leaving coal barriers or pillars to protect the
wells and pipelines Is perhaps the proper solution. If our :
is correct, it would require leaving a coal pillar 2,000 feet in dia-
meter to protect an oil or gas well where Che coal is 1,000 feet below
ground surface. This is assuming an angle of draw for subsidence of
45 degrees. Using an average coal thickness of 10 feet, this would
result in the leaving of about 1,000,000 tons of coal for each well.
A like amount would also be left for protection of each 2,000 feet of
pipeline. This generates the following questions:
1. Are supporting coal pillars a proven method for the
protection of oil and gas wells and pipelines?
Other questions which we feel require clarification i
mining of coal across abandoned oil and gas wells.
1. What would be the necessary (perhaps legal) procedure
for a coal company to be allowed to mine through an
abandoned well?
rell be <
isidered C
s basis?
We i
:ognlii
Interior, hoi
albllity for
management \i
mineral
mineral
ivitie
ivltie
such responsibilities lie with the Department of the
as a managing agency, the Forest Service has respon-
dent of the surface lands and resources. Such
itly affected and can be changed considerably by
i. As a surface manager, responsibility fat all
i off lease fall on the Forest Service, i.e., permits
pipelines, roads, off li
that the above questions be
mineral resources can be ati
can plan under the constraii
Forest Service guidelines n.
responsibilities.
We feel It is necessary
resolved so that (1) conservation of the
alned. (2) the mineral industries Involved
ta of the conflicts, and (3) provide the
ccssary to carry out their land management
Several additional comments are as follows:
1. The rationale used for redefining the 12 coal Regions to cause
the preparation of new coal ES's is not clear (pages 1-4, 1-5 DES) .
2. The delineation of the new Regions does not follow any normal
Federal land management agency jurisdiction/planning boundary.
n could make lc difficult co obtain concurrences
because the nev coal Regions would cross state
3. The delineate
in the leasing procei
boundaries.
4. The process has a built in "chicken-egg" enigma relative to
tract leasing (especially so for underground mining! . Namely, the
resolution of the Issues raised in land planning unaultability criteria,
resource evaluation, tract selection and ranking. Regional production
quotas, State government, public and Industry views, site-specific
Impacts, and cumulative effects. Unless the data is available from
all sources simultaneously, it would seem Impossible to reach a
decision.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this statanent and apologize
for the delay in forwarding our comments. We plan also to participate
on the interagency panel wherein final changes to the environmental
Statement will be dlacussed and additional problems resolved.
Sincerely,
R. MAX PETERSON
Deputy Chief
K-176
Bureau of Land Masiag
Library
Bldg. 50, Denver Fede
Denver, CO 80225 .-
•2*
tenter
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11