United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-83-114
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE Auaust 1983
Agency Atlanta, GA 30365
4>EPA Areawide Environmental Assessment
on the Development of a NEPA
Compliance Strategy for New Source
Coal Mining Activity in the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field
-------
-------
AREAWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
NEPA COMPLIANCE STRATEGY FOR
NEW SOURCE COAL MINING ACTIVITY
IN THE EASTERN KENTUCKY COAL FIELD
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Environmental Assessment Branch
NEPA Compliance Section
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
August 11, 1982
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Background
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is required to conduct
an environmental review prior to the issuance of each New Source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for coal mining activi-
ties in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. New Source coal mining operations
refer to all such operations which began construction after 17 September 1977.
On that date draft standards of performance for New Sources were published for
the coal mining industry. Simultaneously, environmental reviews by USEPA of
all New Source NPDES permit applications became mandatory.
The Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Areawide EIA was initiated with the
objective of developing a strategy to streamline USEPA's permit review process
while fulfilling the legislative requirements of the Clean Water Act and NEPA.
The need to streamline the permit review process arises from the existing
large volume and projected increase in coal mining permit applications meeting
New Source criteria. USEPA Region IV could be faced with as many as 350
permit applications annually for New Source coal mining activities in the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. The financial and human resources necessary to
support the responsibility of reviewing these permit applications utilizing
standard procedures are not currently available and do not appear likely to be
available in the future.
The strategy development process utilized in order to achieve the objec-
tive included the following elements:
• Description of the environmental resources of the Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field in order to identify those resources which are sensitive to
coal mining activity;
• Description and analysis of the existing and anticipated regulatory
framework in eastern Kentucky regarding coal mining activities in
order to determine the regulatory constraints with which a NEPA com-
pliance strategy must comply;
• Identification of those resources sensitive to coal mining which are
not protected by the existing regulatory framework in whole or in
part;
-------
• Development of generalized NEPA compliance strategies;
• Identification and analysis of the various options which could be
incorporated into NEPA compliance strategies including resource threshold
criteria and standard mitigating measures in the form of permit conditions
for identified sensitive resources;
• Development of specific alternative NEPA compliance strategies; and
• Evaluation of those feasible strategies with regard to level of environ-
mental benefit, USEPA resource requirements, costs to the applicant,
time frame, and duplication of. effort.
The information presented in this Areawide EIA is supported and supple-
mented by a Technical Reference Document and environmental baseline data
illustrated in a Resource Atlas which consists of quadrangle base maps with
overlays that display various environmental resources. The Technical Refer-
ence Document and Resource Atlas are available for inspection at the Lands
Unsuitable for Mining Program Office, Kentucky Department for Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection, Frankfort, Kentucky, and at USEPA Region IV in
Atlanta, Georgia.
The key feature of EPA's approach to NEPA analyses of coal mine permit
applications will be the evaluation of regulatory requirements placed on the
coal mining industry by State and Federal agencies, and the evaluation of
environmental effects of mine development against Resource Threshold Criteria.
State requirements, the requirements of other Federal Agencies and the Threshold
Criteria are presented in Section 5.5, Chapter 6 and Appendix A of this report.
We suggest that particular attention be paid to these sections of the report.
Also, if additional technical information on surface and underground coal
mining is desired, EPA's Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines on New
Source Surface Coal Mines (EPA-130/6-79-005) and New Source Underground Coal
Mines and Coal Cleaning Facilities (EPA-130/6-81-002) should be consulted.
2. Study Area Description
The Eastern Kentucky Coal Field encompasses 39 counties and is character-
ized by rugged terrain and a rural setting. Coal is mined in all but nine of
the counties. Pike, Martin, Harlan, Breathitt, Bell, Perry, Knott, Floyd,
ii
-------
Letcher, and Leslie Counties are currently the largest producers of coal and
are projected to remain so through the end of this century.
The surface water resources of the Coal Field are comprised of five
principal watersheds (Little Sandy-Ohio-Tygarts Creek Basin, Licking River
Basin, Big Sandy RLver Basin, Kentucky River Basin, and Upper Cumberland River
Basin) which eventually flow into the Ohio River. Water quality varies great-
ly across the Coal Field with silt at ton and acid mine drainage from coal mines
identified as the principal sources of pollution. Groundwater resources are
commonly encountered within the first few tens of feet beneath the ground
surface and are the principal source of potable water supply in many regions
of the Coal Field.
The biological resources of the Coal Field are comprised of many northern
and southern species of flora and fauna. Eastern Kentucky is an overlap zone
where many species once ranged, but are now found only in isolated locations.
Approximately 23 species of plants and animals are Federally listed as endan-
gered or threatened. The Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC) has
designated certain environmentally sensitive areas in the Coal Field as High
Potential Critical Areas or Known Critical Areas which are especially sensi-
tive to coal mining activities.
Broad expanses of forest area interspersed with agricultural lands in the
river valleys and plateau regions characterize the land use pattern of the
Coal Field. Urban land uses are concentrated primarily in the northern por-
tions of the region along the Kentucky-Ohio border. Coal mining activities
are a major economic land use in the southeastern half of the Coal Field.
Prime agricultural land accounts for only 6% of the total area of the Coal
Field and generally occurs in wide valley bottoms, the higher terraces, and
gently rolling ridges. Recreational land use in the Coal Field is abundant.
Five Federal facilities, ten State parks, and other county, local, or private
facilities are located within the area.
Overall socioeconomic conditions in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field have
improved markedly during the past several years. The renewed interest in coal
has initiate^ almost a full decade of increased auployment and population
iii
-------
growth within most of the Coal Field counties. A large part of this growth is
a result of in-migration. Attracted by the employment opportunities and the
higher wages of the coal mining industry, many new and displaced miners and
their families have moved into the towns and settlements of eastern Kentucky.
Except in the large cities, the coal mining industry is the primary and almost
exclusive economic base for eastern Kentucky.
Cultural resources in the form of historic, archaeologic, and paleonto-
logic sites occur throughout the Coal Field. Altogether, 1,631 known archae-
ological sites and 357 historic properties in the Coal Field have been mapped
by KNPC. These sites represent only a small portion of the cultural resources
that may exist in eastern Kentucky because of the lack of systematic cultural
resource surveys in the region.
The anbient air quality of the Coal Field is generally in compliance with
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The most extensive air pollu-
tant; in eastern Kentucky is particulate matter which is also the major air
pollutant emitted from coal mining operations.
Noise levels in the Coal Field are. believed to be typical of rural areas.
With the increase in coal mining, transportation, and preparation activities,
noise levels may become locally intense in some parts of the Coal Field. Coal
mining activities are reported to be the major noise source in rural eastern
Kentucky.
3. Adverse Environmental Impacts of Mining Activities
Coal mining activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field can potentially
result in adverse impacts to the environmental resources of the area. Existing
State and Federal regulations are designed to eliminate many of the potential
impacts resulting from the mining, transportation, and preparation of coal.
USEPA has identified specific resources which are not protected from mining-
related impacts by existing State or Federal regulations. These resource
areas and associated impacts are as follows:
iv
-------
Surface Water and
Aquatic Ecosystems
(including threatened
or endangered species)
Groundwater
Terrestrial Ecosystems
(Including threatened or
endangered species)
Wetlands
Environmentally Signifi-
cant Agricultural (ESA)
Lands
Recreational Lands
Historic/Archaeological
Sites
Air Quality
Surface disturbances can adversely affect the
water quality of sensitive stream segments
causing a reduction, alteration in composition,
or elimination of aquatic life and reduction in
water use opportunities for domestic consumption
or industrial processes.
Contamination of aquifers by acid mine drainage
froin underground mines or migration of leachates
from coal refuse and storage piles at coal
preparation plants and dewatering of underground
mines can adversely affect the quality and
quantity of water at public and private water
supply wells.
Mining can cause elimination or disturbance of
Identified sensitive plant and animal habitats,
and other identified sensitive areas.
Surface mining can result in the direct removal
or elimination of wetlands. The introduction of
acid mine drainage and sediments into wetlands,
changes In the rate and quality of groundwater
and surface water inflow, and alteration of soil
moisture levels may result in the degradation of
wetlands.
Mining can result in the conversion of prime
farmland cultivated at least five of the past
ten years, unique farmland, and farmland of
statewide or local importance to non-agricul-
tural uses, reducing an already scarce resource
in eastern Kentucky.
Mining can result In the pollution of recrea-
tional lands adjacent to mining operations by
noise, degraded water, dust, and/or visual
effects.
Mining operations can alter, destroy, or other-
wise affect sites that are eligible for inclu-
sion on the National Register of Historic Places.
Coal transportation by haul trucks on unpaved
public roads not within the permit area can
result In fugitive dust emissions at sensitive
receptors, affecting public health and general
welfare.
Noise
Mining operations and coal transportation on
public and private haul roads can increase
ambient noise levels significantly at sensitive
receptors located near the operations or along
roads with high volumes of coal truck traffic,
thereby affecting the public health and general
welfare.
-------
4. Resource Threshold Criteria
In order to simplify the review of possible impacts to the environmental
resources of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field, USEPA developed the concept of
Resource Threshold Criteria (RTC). The evaluation of the degree of environ-
mental effect of a proposed mining operation can be measured against the
criteria set forth In the RTC. Three basic levels or thresholds (Figure 1)
define four categories of environmental effect which result in differing
responses by USEPA. Under this concept information needs and permit pro-
cessing times are dependent upon the significance of impacts caused by the
proposed operation. The RTC concept is utilized in several of the NEPA com-
pliance alternatives considered in this document.
5. NEPA Compliance Alternatives
Five NEPA compliance alternatives were selected for final evaluation in
this EIS out of approximately 29 alternatives that were initially developed.
These five alternatives include the No Action, Individual Review, Areawide
Review, Areawide-Individual Combined Review, and Areawide-Subareawide-Individ-
ual Combined Review Alternatives. A general description of each alternative
follows.
No Action Alternative
This alternative assumes that USEPA Region IV would avoid determining New
Sources for the coal industry and would entail the use of NEPA compliance
activities only when requested by the applicant or an outside party whether
Federal, State, or local. This strategy would result in minimal environmental
benefits being realized for the majority of coal operations with some substan-
tial benefits accomplished on those brought to the attention of USEPA.
Individual Review Alternative
Procedurally, this alternative is similar to the existing compliance
process used for other new source industry. Individual environmental reviews
vi
-------
Figure 1. The use of Resource Threshold Criteria to determine USEPA
permit review actions.
w
00
c
•H
CO
a)
-------
would be conducted for each of the estimated 350 New Source NPDES coal mining
applications with FONSI's or EIS's being prepared on a case-by-case basis.
Areawide Review Alternative
The Areawide Review Alternative assumes the preparation of an Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field Areawide Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the
analysis therein would constitute the substantive analysis for all future
actions regarding permitting of coal-related operations. There are three
options available to the Agency to implement this type of a strategy. USEPA
could: (1) reason that no future action by USEPA would result in significant
impacts; (2) reason that although some actions may cause significant impacts,
there are no means available to mitigate these impacts; or (3) develop general
conditions to be placed on all permits to address the identified significant
impact areas.
Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative
This alternative combines the latter two approaches into a single strat-
egy and incorporates the Resource Threshold Criteria. The Areawide EIA would
be the substantive basis for satisfying USEPA's NEPA responsibility for those
New Source coal mining activities which do not create significant adverse
environmental impacts (i.e., those which are considered below Level I for each
of the Resource Threshold Criteria). Where applications meet Level I, indiv-
idual environmental reviews would be undertaken. Should significant impacts
which are not mitigated be expected from a particular project, an EIS would be
prepared.
Areawide-Subareawlde-Individual Combined Review Alternative
This alternative is virtually identical to the Areawide-Individual Com-
bined Review Alternative with one additional option. If the region which
surrounds a proposed permit area: (1) has similar sensitive resources; (2) is
projected to be the focus of intense coal raining interests; or (3) has the
potential for significant cumulative impacts on the watershed, USEPA may
decide to conduct its own subareawide review prior to permit issuance. This
viii
-------
review could ultimately reduce the number of New Sources in the subarea re-
quiring individual analysis by establishing standard mitigative measures for
mining activities within its boundaries.
5. Conclusion
Each of the NEPA compliance alternatives and their variations present
distinct advantages over the present NEPA compliance process. When analyzed
in terms of the level of environmental benefits, manpower requirements, time
requirements, financial impacts, and flexibility, however, the Areawide-Sub-
areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative is the most attractive alter-
native for meeting USEPA's NEPA requirements. This alternative provides a
high level of environmental protection while significantly streamlining the
NEPA review process. A moderate manpower requirement of 1.5 manyears would be
required by USEPA to implement the review process. This alternative would
also satisfy USEPA's statutory responsibilities and would further represent an
innovative approach to NEPA compliance based not only on procedural ease but
the ability to effect environmental benefits. The Areawide-Subareawide-Individual
Combined Review Alternative is the most flexible alternative available to
USEPA because it provides a mechanism to significantly expedite permit pro-
cessing for the non-environment ally significant mining projects. It also
provides a means to expend increasing a-nounts of resources on the review of
mining projects which demonstrate the greatest potential for significant
adverse environmental impacts.
Since the initial writing of this document, Kentucky has received primacy
for implementation and enforcement of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act (SMCRA) requirements. Additionally, there have been numerous revisions
to the SMCRA regulations, some of which are final, some of which are undergoing
litigation in the courts. The Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review
Alternative and the Resource Threshold Criteria were designed to provide the
flexibility necessary to consider changes to existing regulations which may
affect the level of protection afforded to identified sensitive resources.
Thus although some specific changes are not reflected in this document, pro-
vision for their consideration has been built into the review strategy itself.
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS ±
LIST OF TABLES '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. X
LIST OF FIGURES XV.
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.' XV±
LIST OF PREPARERS xvm
xxii
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
1-1
2.0
MINING ACTIVITY 2-1
2.i HISTORICAL SUMMARY I.'!!!!!!!!!!!!.'!!.'!!!! 2-1
2.2 CURRENT MINING 2-5
2.2.1 Surface Mining !!!!'' 2-5
2.2.2 Underground Mining 2-7
2.2.3 Coal Preparation 2-8
2.3 FUTURE MINING 2-9
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF THE EASTERN KENTUCKY COAL FIELD 3-1
3.1 CLIMATE '.'.'.'.'" 3-2
3.1.1 Precipitation !!'**' 3-2
3.1.2 Temperature 30
3.1.3 Wind ...\. .[...... ....]. 3-3
3.1.4 Mixing Heights 3-4
3.1.5 Micrometeorological Conditions 3_4
3 .2 EARTH RESOURCES 3-5
3.2.1 Physiography 3_5
3.2.2 Regional and Economic Geology 3_5
3.2.3 Toxic Material 3.7
3. 3 WATER RESOURCES 3-7
3.3.1 Surface Water Resources 3_7
3.3.1.1 Streamflow Characteristics 3-12
3.3.1.2 Quality of Surface Water Resources 3-13
3.3.1.3 Water Uses * 3_15
3.3.2 Groundwater Resources 3-15
3.3.2.1 Aquifer in the Region 3-16
3.3.2.2 Groundwater Quality Characteristics 3-16
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3_18
3.4.1 Vegetation 3-18
3.4.2 Wildlife 3-19
3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 3-23
3.4.4 Critical Natural Areas 3-23
3.5 LAND RESOURCES '.'..'.'.'. 3-27
3.5.1 Forestry 3-27
3.5.2 Agriculture 3-30
3.5.3 Recreational Land 3-32
3.5.4 Urban Land 3-33
3.6 HUMAN RESOURCES 3-35
3.6.1 Socioeconomic Conditions 3-35
3.6.2 Transportation 3-36
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
3. 7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3~37
3.7.1 Cultural Resources Inventory 3-37
3.7.2 Prehistory and History of Eastern Kentucky 3-39
3.8 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 3-4°
3.8.1 Air Quality 3"AO
3.8.2 Noise 3~41
4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4-1
4.1 EARTH RESOURCES 4-1
4.1.1 Impacts on Earth Resources 4-1
4.1.1.1 Steep or Unstable Slopes 4-1
4.1.1.2 Toxic Overburden 4-2
4.1.1.3 Floodplains 4-2
4.1.2 Mitigation of Earth Resource Impacts 4-3
4.1.2.1 Steep or Unstable Slopes 4-3
4.1.2.2 Toxic Overburden 4-4
4.1.2.3 Floodplains 4-4
4. 2 WATER RESOURCES 4-5
4.2.1 Surface Water Impacts 4-5
4.2.2 Groundwater Impacts 4-6
4.2.3 Mitigation of Surface Water Impacts 4-8
4.2.4 Mitigation of Groundwater Impacts 4-9
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4-11
4.3.1 Biological Impacts 4-11
4.3.2 Mitigation of Biological Impacts 4-14
4.4 LAND RESOURCES 4-16
4.4.1 Impacts on Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands 4-17
4.4.2 Impacts on Recreational Resources 4-18
4.4.3 Mitigation of ESA Land Impacts 4-18
4.4.4 Mitigation of Recreational Land Impacts 4-21
4.5 HUMAN RESOURCES 4-21
4.5.1 Impacts on Human Resources 4-21
4.5.2 Mitigation of Human Resource Impacts 4-23
4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-24
4.6.1 Impacts on Cultural Resources 4-24
4.6.2 Mitigation of Cultural Resource Impacts 4-26
4. 7 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 4-28
4.7.1 Impacts on Air Quality 4-28
4.7.2 Impacts on Noise 4-29
4.7.3 Mitigation of Air Quality Impacts 4-33
4.7.4 Mitigation of Noise Impacts 4-34
4.8 SUMMARY 4-35
5.0 REGULATIONS GOVERNING MINING ACTIVITIES IN THE EASTERN KENTUCKY
COAL FIELD 5-1
5.1 USEPA' s REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES 5-2
5.1.1 New Source Coal Mining Activities Under the NPDES Permit
Program 5-2
XI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
5.1.2 Applicable Laws and Regulations Under NEPA 5.4
5.1.2.1 Surface and Groundwater Quality !!.!!! 5-4
5.1.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystems 5_c
5.1.2.3 Floodplains *' c_g
5.1.2.4 Wild or Scenic Rivers c_7
5.1.2.5 Wetlands ............. 5.7
5.1.2.6 Endangered Species Habitat !!!.!..! 5-8
5.1.2.7 Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands .'...' 5-8
5.1.2.8 Recreational Land Uses [[[[ 5.9
5.1.2.9 Noise and Vibration eg
5.1.2.10 Historic, Archaeologic and Paleontologic Sites 5-10
5.1.2.11 Community Integrity and Quality of Life 5-11
5.1.2.12 Air Quality '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.".'.'.'.'.'. 5-11
5.1,2.13 Geology and Soils .'!.'.'!.'!!.'!.'!' 5-12
5.1.3 USEPA's Consolidated Permit Program 5-19
5.1.4 Regulatory Timetable and NEPA Implementation Procedures....... 5-13
5.1.4.1 Identification of New Source Applicants 5-13
5.1.4.2 Initial Information Submittal ]'*" 5.15
5.1.4.3 Preliminary NEPA/NPDES Decisions '.'.'.'.'. 5-16
5.1.4.4 Final NEPA Decision 5-22
5.1.4.5 Issue or Deny Permit 5-23
5. 2 OSM' s REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES 5-24
5.2.1 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 5-24
5.2.2 Mining Performance Standards Under SMCRA 5-26
. 5.2.2.1 Surface and Groundwater Quality and Quantity 5-26
5.2.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystems 5-26
5.2.2.3 Floodplains 5-27
5.2.2.4 Wild or Scenic Rivers 5-28
5.2.2.5 Wetlands 5-28
5.2.2.6 Endangered Species Habitat 5-28
5.2.2.7 Significant Agricultural Lands 5-28
5.2.2.8 Recreational Land Use 5-29
5.2.2.9 Noise and Vibration Levels 5-29
5.2.2.10 Historic, Archaeologic, and Paleontologic Sites... 5-29
5.2.2.11 Community Integrity and Quality of Life 5-30
5.2.2.12 Air Quality 5_30
5.2.2.13 Geologic and Soil Conditions 5-31
5.3 MSHA1 s REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES '.'.'.'. 5-31
5.4 STATE REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES !!!!!!! 5-32
5.4.1 NPDES Delegation to Kentucky 5-32
5.4.2 SMCRA Primacy to Kentucky '.'.'.'.'.'. 5-34
5.4.2.1 Permit Application Reguirements and Review 5-35
5.4.3 Other State Laws Regulating Goal Mining Activities in
Kentucky 5-39
5.4.3.1 Kentucky Statutes 5-40
5.4.3.2 Kentucky Regulations 5-42
5 .5 LEVEL OF PROTECTION \ . \ 5.43
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
5.5.1 Earth Resources 5-43
5.5.1.1 Steep and Unstable Slopes 5-45
5.5.1.2 Toxic Overburden 5-45
5.5.1.3 Floodplains 5-46
5.5.1.4 Protection of Earth Resources 5-47
5.5.2 Water Resources 5-48
5.5.2.1 Surface Water 5-48
5.5.2.2 Groundwater 5~50
5.5.2.3 Protection of Water Resources 5-51
5.5.3 Biological Resources 5-52
5.5.3.1 Elimination of Terrestrial Habitats 5-52
5.5.3.2 Elimination of Aquatic Habitats 5-52
5.5.3.3 Increased Sedimentation 5-53
5.5.3.4 Protection of Biological Resources 5-54
5.5.4 Land Resources 5-54
5.5.4.1 Environmentally Significant Agricultural Land 5-55
5.5.4.2 Recreational Resources 5-55
5.5.4.3 Protection of Land Resources 5-56
5.5.5 Human Resources 5-57
5.5.5.1 Economic Impac ts 5~5'
5.5.5.2 Population Impacts 5-57
5.5.5.3 Increased Demand for Public and Private Services 5-58
5.5.5.4 Impacts on Transportation 5-58
5.5.5.5 Protection of Human Resources 5-59
5.5.6 Cultural Resources 5-60
5.5.6.1 Protection of Cultural Resources 5-61
5.5.7 Air Quality and Noise 5-61
5.5.7.1 Impacts on Air Quality 5-61
5.5.7.2 Noise Impacts 5~62
5.5.7.3 Protection of Air Quality and the Acoustic Environment 5-63
5.5.8 Summary 5~64
5.6 REGULATORY INTERRELATIONSHIPS 5-64
5.6.1 Delegation of Authority to the State 5-64
5.6.2 Overlapping Jurisdiction and Level of Protection 5-67
5.6.3 Temporal Relationships Between Regulatory Programs 5-68
6.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE SELECTED ACTION 6-1
6.1 CURRENT COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES 6-1
6.2 RESOURCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA 6-3
6.2.1 Effect of Public Comment 6-7
6.3 ALTERNATIVES 6-9
6.3.1 No Action Alternative 6-9
6.3.2 Individual Review Alternative 6-9
6.3.3 Areawide Review Alternative 6-12
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONCLUDED)
6.3.3.1 Areawide Finding of No Significant Impact .................. 6-13
6.3.3.2 Impacts Not Mitigatable by USEPA ....... . .................. 6-14
6.3.3.3 General Conditioning ................................... ... 6-15
6.3.4 Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative ............... 6-1 6
6.3.5 Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative. .. 6-21
6.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................ 6_23
6.4.1 Environmental Benefit ......................................... 6-23
6.4.2 Manpower and Costs ............................................ 6-24
6.4.3 Processing Time ............................................... 6-25
6.4.4 Compliance with USEPA's Statutory Responsibilities ............ 6-26
6.4.5 Duplication of Effort ......................................... 6-26
6.4.6 Flexibility [[[ 6-26
6.4.7 Resource Specific Comparison .................................. 6-27
6.5 THE SELECTED ACTION ............................................... 6-27
6.5.1 Resource Specific and Overall Recommendation .................. 6-27
6.5.2 Permit Review Procedure ................ ....................... 6-28
7 . 0 CONSEQUENCES OF THE SELECTED ACTION ............................. ____ y_!
7 . 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................... ................. j-i
7 . 2 TEMPORAL EFFECTS ........................................ .'.'!'!.'!!.'! 7-5
7 . 3 USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS .................. ..................... 7.5
7.4 FINANCIAL IMPACTS TO USEPA AND PERMIT APPLICANTS .......... ........ 7.5
8 . 0 HISTORY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
2.1-1 Tonnages proposed from eastern Kentucky coal mines in short
tons, 1978 and 1980 2-2
3.2-1 Coal seams associated with toxic overburden in eastern
Kentucky 3-10
3.4-1 Species of mammals occurring in the Applachian Plateaus
Province of Kentucky that exhibit northern or southern
affinities 3-21
3.4-2 Summary of special categories of Kentucky animal element status
as determined by KNPC 3-24
3.4-3 Summary of the status of terrestrial plants in the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field as determined by KNPC 3-25
3.8-1 Monitoring points where NAAQS are not met for particular
standards 3-42
4.8-1 Summary of coal mining impacts by resource for the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field 4-36
5.4-1 Environmental resources addressed by Kentucky statutes and
regulations related to coal mining activities 5-44
5.5-1 Summary of coal mining impacts by resource for the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field that are not regulated by State or Federal
laws 5~65
5.6-1 Summary of environmentally protective laws and identification
of the best protection available exclusive of USEPA NEPA
compliance program 5-69
8.0-1 Public agencies and private organizations consulted during the
preparation of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Areawide ElA.... 8-2
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
Page
2.1-1 Accumulated coal production (tons) for 1980 by county in the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field 2-3
2.1-2 Surface mines of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field based on
mapping from 1978 aerial photographs by the USEPA Environmental
Photographic Interpretation Center 2-4
2.1-3 Coal preparation facilities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field
based on mapping from 1978 aerial photographs by the USEPA
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center 2-6
2.3-1 Counties in eastern Kentucky with projected significant increases
in coal mining activity through the year 2000 2-11
3.2-1 Physiographic sections in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field 3-6
3.2-2 Geology of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field 3-8
3.2.3 Projected coal reserves in eastern Kentucky for 1 January 1985... 3-9
3.3-1 Major river basins in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field 3-11
3.4-1 Sensitive aquatic and other natural resources of the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field 3-28
3.5-1 Generalized land use in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field 3-29
3.5-2 Population of urban and semi-urban areas in the Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field 3-34
3.6-1 Principal railroad routes in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field 3-38
4.7-1 The 24-hour NAAQS for TSP as a function of haul truck passbys
and distance 4-30
4.7-2 Estimated noise levels (Leq) from coal haul trucks 4-32
5.1-1 General NEPA compliance proceduresr.for USEPA's NPDES Program 5-14
5.4-1 Application process proposed by the KDNREP for the administration
of a permanent regulatory program under SMCRA in Kentucky 5-36
6.2-1 The use of Resource Threshold Criteria to determine USEPA permit
review action _
xvi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Page
6.3-1 Individual Review Alternative for NEPA review process for the
issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in eastern
Kentucky 6~ -°
6.3-2 Areawide Review Alternative for NEPA review process for the
issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in eastern
Kentucky 6~12
6.3-3 Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative for NEPA review
process for the issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits
in eastern Kentucky 6-17
6.3-4 Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative for
NEPA review process for the issuance of New Source coal mining
NPDES permits in eastern Kentucky 6-22
xvii
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADD Area Development District
AMD Acid Mine Drainage
AQCR Air Quality Control Region
ARC Appalachian Regional Commission
ARDA Appalachian Regional Development Act
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BSMRE Bureau of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
BTU British Thermal Unit
°C degrees Celcius
CAA Clean Air Act
CEQ National Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CMSHA Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
dBA the sound level measured in decibels (A-scale)
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
BID Environmental Information Document
EIR Environmental Information Request
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order (.of the President)
xviii
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
EPIC Environmental Photo Interpretation Center
ESA Environmentally Significant Agricultural land
°F degrees Fahrenheit
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration
FHA Federal Housing Administration
FHBM Flood Hazard Boundary Map
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HPCA High Potential Critical Area
KCA Kentucky Coal Association
KDHR Kentucky Department for Human Resources
KDLG Kentucky Department for Local Government
KDMM Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals
KDNREP Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection
KDOC Kentucky Department of Commerce
KDP Kentucky Delphi Process
kg/MT kilograms per metric ton
km kilometer
km^ square kilometers
KNPC Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission
xix
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (.CONTINUED)
KYGS Kentucky Geological Survey
Leq the equivalent energy averaged sound level
m meter
mgd million gallons per day
mg/1 milligrams per liter
2
mi square miles
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration
MT metric ton
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSPP New Source Permit Program
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
ORBES Ohio River Basin Energy Study
POM polycyclic organic material
ppm parts per million
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RTC Resource Threshold Criteria
SCMRO Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operation
SCS Soil Conservation Service, also listed as USDA-SCS
xx
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONCLUDED)
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plans
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
SMSA Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
sq mi square mile
STORET Storage and Retrieval data base system maintained by EPA
T Ton
TDS total dissolved solids
TSP total suspended particulates
TSS total suspended solids
USBOM United States Bureau of Mines
USCOE United States Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOC United States Department of Commerce
USDOE United States Department of Energy
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
USHCRS United States Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
USHUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
USMSHA United States Mine Safety and Health Administration, also
listed as MSHA
USOSM United States Office of Surface Mining
xxi
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
US EPA
Mr. Robert B. Howard
Ms. Amy Mills
Ms. Sally Bethea
Ms. Patricia Brooks
Chief, NEPA Compliance Section
Project Officer, Oct. 1979 to July 1980
Project Officer, April 1981 to Oct. 1981
Project Officer, Nov. 1981 to Present
WAPORA. Inc.
EIA Chapter 1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Production
Graphics
Editing
Roger D. Moose
Carl D. Peretti, David J. Lechel,
Dr. Jan E. Dillard
Dr. James A. Schmid, Michael McCarthy,
Roger D. Moose, Gale Organist, Sherman
Smith, D. Michael Conner, Mark L. Cameron,
Dr. Steven D. Bach, Alyse L. Gardner,
Dr. Jan E. Dillard, Robert A. Scott,
Holly E. Righter, Robert W. MacLeod
Dr. William March, Michael McCarthy,
Roger D. Moose, Walker J. Duncan,
D. Michael Conner, Dr. Steven D. Bach,
Ruthanne L. Mitchell, Mark L. Cameron
Roger D. Moose, Jerald D. Hitzemann,
Dr. Jan E. Dillard
Jerald D. Hitzemann, Robert W. MacLeod,
Mark L. Cameron
Mark L. Cameron
Mark L. Cameron
Robert W. MacLeod
Susan Beal, Carol Mandell, Wesley Powell
Jerome Gold, William Bale
Wesley Powell
xxii
-------
EPIC
Land Use and Land Cover Overlays and Mining Operations Overlay for the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Environmental Resources and Mining Atlas
Amy Mills Project Officer
Jim Simons, Michael Lee, Kris Stout Photo Interpreters
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field: Preliminary Investigation of Natural Features
and Cultural Resources
Volume I: Donald F. Barker, Jr., Dr. Loy R. Phillippe, Richard R. Hanson,
Ronald S. Caldwell, Max E. Medley, Wayne C. Houtcooper
Volume II: Donald F. Marker, Jr., Dr. Loy R. Phillippe, Richard R. Hanson,
Ronald S. Caldwell
Volume III: Donald F. Barker, Jr., Thomas C. Barr, Jr.
Volume IV: Donald F. Barker, Jr., Dr. Perry B. Wigley
Volume V: Donald F. Barker, Jr., Sara L. Sanders
Volume VI: Donald F. Barker, Jr., Loy R. Phillippe, Richard R. Hanson,
Ronald S. Caldwell
xxiii
-------
-------
1.0. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 USC
4321 et seq.), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is
required to conduct an environmental review prior to the issuance of New
Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for
coal mining activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. For coal mining
activities, "New Source" refers to all such operations which began construc-
tion after 17 September 1977. On that date draft standards of performance
for New Sources were published to control the discharge of pollutants from
coal mining activities. Simultaneously, environmental reviews of all New
Source NPDES permit applications became mandatory for USEPA.
The Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Areawide Environmental Impact Assess-
ment (EIA) was initiated to develop an effective NEPA compliance strategy.
The purpose of developing a NEPA compliance strategy is to streamline
USEPA's permit review process while still fulfilling the legislative
requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 USC 1251 et seq.) and NEPA.
The need to streamline the permit review process arises from the projected
influx of New Source coal mining permit applications during the next twenty
years. If, as expected, future market conditions warrant increased coal
production, USEPA Region IV will be faced with the responsibility of
processing perhaps as many as 350 permit applications per year from the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. However, the financial and human resources
necessary to support this responsibility using existing procedures are not
currently available and do not appear likely to be forthcoming. Conse-
quently, the selected NEPA compliance strategy must simultaneously meet
USEPA1s environmental review responsibilities while also streamlining the
review process in order to minimize time-consuming delays and the commitment
of USEPA resources.
In order to achieve these objectives, a process was designed to
develop alternative NEPA compliance strategies. This process has included
the following elements:
1-1
-------
Description of the environmental resources of the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field in order to Identify those resources
which are sensitive to coal mining activity;
Description and analysis of the existing and anticipated
regulatory framework in eastern Kentucky regarding coal
mining activities in order to determine the regulatory
constraints with which a NEPA compliance strategy must
comply;
Identification of those resources sensitive to coal mining
which are not protected by the existing regulatory
framework in whole or in part;
Discussion of generalized NEPA compliance strategies which
defined the conceptual basis for individual, subareawide,
and areawide strategies;
Identification and analysis of the various options which
could be incorporated into NEPA compliance strategies
including resource threshold criteria and standard
mitigating measures in the form of permit conditions for
identified sensitive resource;
Development of alternative NEPA compliance strategies
which evaluated the options available at each stage as
well as the temporal effects in order to define the
feasible alternatives for individual, subareawide,
areawide, and combined strategies; and
Detailed description of those feasible strategies which
were evaluated in regard to level of environmental
benefit, USEPA resource requirements, costs to the
applicant, time frame, and duplication of effort.
The information presented in this Areawide EIA is supported and
supplemented by a Technical Reference Document and environmental baseline
data Illustrated in a Resource Atlas which consists of quadrangle basemaps
with overlays that display various environmental resources. The Technical
Reference Document and Resource Atlas are available for inspection at the
Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program Office, Kentucky Department for Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection, Frankfort, Kentucky, and at USEPA
Region IV in Atlanta, Georgia. The Resource Atlas is also available for
inspection at the Office of Surface Mining in Knoxville, Tennessee.
1-2
-------
The chapters that follow provide a description of mining activities,
the existing condition of the environment, the impacts of mining activities
on the environment, and the measures that can be applied to mitigate the
environmental impacts of mining activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field. Also described are the State and Federal regulations that govern
mining activities, the alternative NEPA compliance strategies considered by
USEPA, and the consequences of implementing the proposed compliance strategy
in terms of the level of environmental protection and the cost and time
requirements for application preparation and the environmental review of the
application.
1-3
-------
-------
2.0 MINING ACTIVITY
2.1 HISTORICAL SUMMARY
The mining of coal in eastern Kentucky commenced during the late
1700's. The first known commercial mine opened during 1790 near Beattyville
in Lee County. Until the mid 1860's when rail transportation was
introduced, production remained relatively constant. Except during a few
periods, the production of coal has increased steadily since the 1860's.
Estimated coal production between 1790 and the early 1900's was not
differentiated by mining method. These estimates presumably represent
production from underground mines as the first surface mine was reported to
commence production in 1928. Production from surface mines rose rapidly in
the mid 1960's to levels that began to exceed production from underground
workings in the mid 1970's.
However, by 1980 underground mining had again taken the lead in eastern
Kentucky coal production. As the demand for lower sulfur coal increased and
as surface mining regulations became more economically burdensome, the total
amount of coal produced from surface mining decreased 9% from 54 million
short tons in 1978 to 49 million short tons in 1980 (KDMM 1980; Table
2.1-1). Meanwhile, the coal production from underground mining increased
from 27 million short tons in 1978 to over 59 million short tons in 1980, an
increase of 120%.
Overall, the coal mining industry in eastern Kentucky has grown,
increasing from 81 million short tons in 1978 to over 108 million short tons
in 1980. By 1980 more than 41,000 people were reported working on 2,134
eastern Kentucky coal mines. While the percentage of coal produced from
surface mining fell to 45% of the total, the actual number of surface mines
(1,169) was greater than that of underground mines (965) for 1980. Figure
2.1-1 depicts the distribution of coal production among the counties in
eastern Kentucky while Figure 2.1-2 portrays the dispersion of surface mines
among the counties.
2-1
-------
Table 2.1-1. Tonnages produced from eastern Kentucky coal mines in short tons,
1978 and 1980 (KDMM 1980).
COUNTY
Bath
Bell
Boyd
Breathitt
Carter
Clay
Clinton
Elliott
Estill
Floyd
Greenup
Harlan
Jackson
Johnson
Knott
Knox
Laurel
Lawrence
Lee
Leslie
Letcher
Lewis
Madison
Magoffin
Martin
McCreary
Menifee
Montgomery
Morgan
Owsley
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Rockcastle
Rowan
Wayne
Whitley
Wolfe
TOTAL
SURFACE MINING
1978
3,707,771
646,640
5,861,838
470,774
964,807
9,244
920,026
-
2,810,112
422,315
1,275,621
195,000
1,955,042
2,548,260
1,441,872
1,332,245
1,333,706
293,400
2,400,492
1,324,914
2,353,284
6,126,461
750,808
32,250
2,063,609
1,197,954
5,139,754
3,140,139
388,167
99,005
274,808
2,151,451
437,154
1980
4,377,927
366,929
7,244,083
357,465
1,787,540
-
716,946
400
1,212,050
62,637
579,026
129 , 500
861,345
2,622,633
1,527,777
1,433,193
837,405
52,550
2,418,754
1,752,418
2,717,428
8,294,846
213,039
-
469,229
268,371
3,995,595
2,913,347
381,941
201,157
_
1,348,496
75,381
% Change
+18
-48
+24
-24
+85
n/a
-22
n/a
-57
-85
-55
-34
-56
+3
+6
+8
-37
-82
+1
+32
+15
+35
-71
n/a
-77
-78
-22
-7
—9
+103
n/a
-37
-83
UNDERGROUND MINING
1978
1,872,818
165,087
935,181
2,953,713
7,846,130
30,000
254,265
3,039,094
183,520
23,234
9,652
2,695,540
3,467,734
244,892
3,145,877
53,113
-
-
15,319
8,000
112,691
1980
2,276,458
66,874
714,404
4,401,361
11,680,421
398,762
3,323,977
377,824
281,687
1,939,157
3,286,858
401,832
4,937,838
520,668
2,662
2,494,959
22,306,014
4,226
187,448
% Change
+22
-59
-24
+49
+49
n/a
+57
+9
+106
+1100
n/a
-28
-5
+64
+57
+881
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
+66
54,068,926
49,189,411
-9
27,055,860
59,603,430
+120
2-2
-------
Legend
• <1,000
• 1,000 - 99,999
• 100,000 - 999,999
1,000,000 - 9,999,999
>10,000,000
f
, ,- j
V—1
*
"*
c
^\
„.„... \
-
?
I •
^^t POWCLl
K"
»•" s
\ •M
,A
\.
Figure 2.1-1. Accumulated coal production (tons) for 1980 by county
in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
2-3
-------
Figure 2.1-2. Surface mines of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field based on
mapping from 1978 aerial photographs by the USEPA Environmental Photo-
graphic Interpretation Center.
2-4
-------
Most of the coal that is produced in Kentucky from underground mines
requires some form of cleaning for the removal of ash-forming materials.
Coal preparation plants are found predominantly in the southeastern half of
the Coal Field (Figure 2.1-3).
2.2 CURRENT MINING
2.2.1 Surface Mining
Surface coal mining in eastern Kentucky is practiced where the ratio of
overburden thickness to coal thickness does not exceed 30:1. Typically,
minable coal seams are exposed along the flank of a mountain and are mined
by contour surface mining methods. In contour stripping, an initial cut is
made into the mountainside to the point at which the overburden to coal
ratio limits the economic feasibility of further mining or where the
authorized bench width is achieved. Subsequent cuts are then made into the
mountain adjacent to the previous ones. Overburden stripped from an active
cut is used to regrade the previous cut to the approximate original contour.
This process continues around the mountainside, producing a long, sinuous
line of reclaimed surface-mined land.
If the overburden is not excessively thick, another form of strip
mining known as mountaintop removal can be practiced. In mountaintop
removal the first cut is usually made parallel to the ridge. Overburden
from the first cut is stored in a he ad-of-ho How fill and the coal is then
removed. Subsequent cuts are made adjacent to the first, and the overburden
is deposited in the previous cut to approximate the original topography.
This process continues until the entire mountaintop has been removed. The
result of mountaintop removal reclamation procedures can be a flat or gently
rolling expanse which can have a higher land use potential than the
original, steeper slopes.
The development of surface mines requires the creation of haul roads,
one or more active pits, reclaimed areas, and surface water diversion,
retention, and discharge structures. As surface mining continues,
2-5
-------
Figure 2.1-3. Coal preparation facilities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field
based on mapping from 1978 aerial photographs by the USEPA Environmental
Photographic Interpretation Center.
2-6
-------
additional sections of each permit area are disturbed while previously mined
areas are reclaimed.
2.2.2 Underground Mining
Underground coal mining has been practiced in eastern Kentucky for
nearly 200 years. The earliest mines were cut directly into coal seams
exposed along the hillsides of major waterways. The modern underground coal
mine bears faint resemblance to the mine of days past. A modern underground
mine may be reached through shaft, drift, or slope entryways. Shafts and
slope entryways are driven through overburden to reach the coal seam where
it is not exposed at an outcrop. The choice of vertical shaft versus slope
entryway usually depends on the proposed size of the entryway and the pro-
posed haulage system as well as the ventilation system and other service
considerations. A drift entryway is driven into a coal seam from its
outcrop.
Coal can be extracted using two basic layouts. Many mines in eastern
Kentucky use a combination of both of the following:
• Room and pillar - Entryways are driven through the seam to
the area to be mined. Crosscuts for ventilation are
driven perpendicular to the entryways. The typical
passageway is 15 feet wide. Coal is cut from panels at
the ends of passageways, leaving pillars of uncut coal to
support the roof. The pillars may be extracted prior to
abandoning the passageways.
• Longwall and shortwall - Entries and crosscuts are
developed as in room and pillar mining. Long panels of
coal are left unexcavated, providing working faces for
coal cutting machinery. Coal is planed or shaved from the
panels and loaded out by conveyor belts that run parallel
to the panels. The roof in the immediate vicinity of a
working panel is supported by large jacks or props. As
mining proceeds into the panel, the roof supports advance
toward the retreating panel. The roof over the mined area
behind the supports collapses.
2-7
-------
The direction in which a mine is developed with respect to the dip of a
coal seam has a direct bearing on the production and movement of acid drain-
age during and after active mining operations. In mines developed in a coal
seam that rises from the horizontal as it is entered (an up-dip mine), water
drains freely in response to gravity without the need for pumping. This
free-flowing water is difficult or impossible to stop following mining, and
as a source of contamination may require perpetual treatment. If sulfur-
containing pyritic materials are present and are exposed to air and then
dissolved by water flowing through the mine, acid mine drainage may result.
It generally is not feasible to flood up-dip mines in order to prevent the
formation of acid mine drainage.
Down-dip mines and mines developed with shafts or sloped entryways
typically must have nuisance water removed by pumps during operations.
After the deepest sections of the seam are mined, they then can be allowed
to flood with natural drainage. The mine pool elevation generally is con-
trolled during operation of the mine and is allowed to stabilize with the
local hydrogeologic regime after the mine is abandoned. Such flooding can
successfully isolate the acid-produeing materials in the mine from air,
thereby preventing the formation of acid mine drainge. Should uncontrolled
fluctuation of the mine pool occur, acid drainage could result and
contaminate aquifers and/or surface water bodies.
2.2.3 Coal Preparation
Most of the coal which is produced from underground mines requires some
form of cleaning and grading before its sale. Unprocessed coal is termed
run-of-mine coal. Surface-mined coal is generally less contaminated with
ash-forming materials than underground-mined coal which typically contains
roof rock and underclay that must be removed to enhance the marketability of
the coal. Run-of-mine coal is generally moved from the mines to the
preparation plant by truck.
The coal and refuse are dewatered after processing and shipped to
market or spoil disposal areas as appropriate. From the preparation plant,
2-8
-------
the processed coal may be shipped by rail, barge, or truck. The facilities
required to process coal therefore include transportation facilities for
run-of-mine coal.and cleaned coal, a receiving area, a crusher, the
processing plant itself, administrative and repair buildings, a product
storage area, and spoil banks.
Most coal preparation plants are relatively small physically, requiring
minimal acreage for facilities exclusive of the spoil sites. The spoil
sites may require substantially more area than the plant itself, especially
after long operation. Current Federal Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA; PL 95-87, 30 USC 1201 et seq.) regulations require
that spoil piles be constructed outside floodplains and in accordance with
proper engineering practice. Toxic materials must be isolated to prevent
the long-term formation of a contaminated discharge.
2.3 FUTURE MINING
Coal supply models developed for the purpose of projecting future
mining activity require a number of approximations, any one of which may
adversely affect the reliability of the projection. Some of the assumptions
that are least reliable involve projections of foreign coal demand,
substitution of petroleum based fuels, a lack of major breakthroughs in
energy technology (nuclear, solar, or hydropower), little substitution of
western coal for Appalachian coal, and real increases in the price paid for
coal. For the purposes of this projection, which is based upon the National
Coal Model of the US Department of Energy (USDOE 1978), steadily increasing
demand for Appalachian (Kentucky) coal and a real price increase to an
average of at least $35 per ton by 1985 (1975 dollars) was assumed. Also
assumed was approximately constant production on a county-by-county basis
from 1985 through 2000.
Based on the projected future demand for low sulfur coal, underground
mining probably will increase significantly during the early 21st century.
Counties with large reserves of high quality coal could expect a
considerable increase in mining activity at that time. Eight counties in
eastern Kentucky have reserves of high quality coal in excess of 400 million
2-9
-------
tons. Production projections through 1985 indicate that reserve depletion
in these counties will be relatively insignificant. Therefore, a
considerable increase in mining activity is projected for Floyd, Harlan,
Knott, Leslie, Letcher, Breathitt, Perry and Pike Counties through the year
2000 (Figure 2.3-1).
The projections indicate that the number of NPDES permit actions
required by USEPA should be approximately constant through the year 2000.
During 1980, as the most recent base year, the Kentucky Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Bureau of Surface Mining
(KDNREP-BSM) processed 657 New and Amendment Surface Mine Permits and 437
New and Amendment Underground Mine Permits in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field. In addition, KDNREP BSM processed and issued permits for 79 new coal
preparation plants in the entire State during 1980. A separate permit is
issued for each mining application filed. These figures reflect several
factors which may or may not influence the number of future permit
applications including:
• Coal preparation plants were subject to KDNREP BSM review
for the first time in 1980, resulting in a large first
year influx of applications.
• Applications submitted under the presumably less stringent
Interim SMCRA Program were accepted by KDNREP BSM only
through 1 December 1980. Consequently, many operators may
have submitted applications for areas which they expect to
mine during the next five years in order to avoid the more
stringent Permanent Program regulations.
USEPA has used a different approach in the issuance of NPDES permits
for mining operations. The NPDES application includes information
describing the projected five year mining plan for the operation. With this
information and data on the location of point source discharges, Region IV
consolidates NPDES applications and issues an "area" NPDES permit sufficient
for five years. Any additional mining facilities initiated during the five
year period within such an area is covered under this area permit. This
approach reduces the number of NPDES permits issued by USEPA significantly
in comparison to KDNREP-BSM mining permits. During 1980, 250 NPDES permits
were issued by USEPA for the entire state of Kentucky. While annual permit
application figures could be as high as 500 per year due to increased
2-10
-------
££v
\
J X>
V- I
-•' V '
•>• „ •
v r
-J f ...TLCT
**THC ,'• HC C*C ART 'f
-./
)
/'
U/'
'£•*'
<.!> «
Figure 2.3-1. Counties in eastern Kentucky with projected significant
increases in coal mining activity through the year 2000.
2-11
-------
emphasis on coal production, an annual figure of 350 is used in this study.
The categorical breakdown for this estimated annual number of permit
applications is:
180 Surface Mine Applications
120 Underground Mine Applications
50 Preparation Plant Applications
350 Total Applications Per Year.
2-12
-------
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF TOE EASTERN KENTUCKY COAL FIELD
This chapter presents a brief summary of the principal natural
resources existing in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. The existing
conditions of the climate, earth, water, biological, land, human, cultural,
air, and noise environment are described in this chapter. For additional
details concerning these resource categories, the interested reader is
referred to the Technical Reference Document prepared in conjunction with
this Environmental Impact Assessment which covers the following subject
areas:
Current Mining Activity
Future Mining Activity
Surface Water Resources
Groundwater Resources
Topography
Soils
Geology
Air Quality and Meteorology
Biological Resources
Land Resources
Human Resources
Cultural and Recreational Resources
Geoenvironmental Resources
Acoustic Environment
In addition, a Resource Atlas consisting of resource overlays for the
USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field has been
prepared. The resource overlays cover the following subject areas:
Mining Operations
Land Use
Cultural Resources
Water Resources and Natural Features
Additional Features
Interpreted Critical Areas
Unstable Slopes and Prime Agricultural Lands
The Technical Reference Document and one copy of the Resource Atlas are
available for inspection at USEPA Region IV in Atlanta, Georgia. Additional
copies of the Atlas are available at the Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program
3-1
-------
Office, Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection, Frankfort, Kentucky.
3.1 CLIMATE
The climate of eastern Kentucky is influenced strongly by the diverse
topography of the Commonwealth. Westerly winds bring a succession of
low-pressure storm systems to the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. These
low-pressure systems include winds that circulate counter-clockwise, as is
the case with all storm systems in the northern hemisphere. Storms that
approach the Coal Field from the west, therefore, are accompanied by
southwest winds that contain warm, moist air from the southern states and
the Gulf of Mexico. The low-pressure systems periodically are displaced by
high-pressure systems including winds that circulate in a clockwise
direction. High-pressure systems, therefore, bring cool, dry air from the
northwest (Karan and Mather 1977).
The frequently alternating passage of low- and high-pressure systems
results in changeable weather conditions during each season. Weaker storms
that originate in the east generally are blocked by Pine Mountain and the
Cumberland Mountains along the eastern boundary of Kentucky. Hurricanes in
the Gulf of Mexico generally produce rainstorms in Kentucky.
3.1.1 Precipitation
In eastern Kentucky, the greatest amount of precipitation occurs during
spring; the least amount occurs during autumn (NOAA 1977). Precipitation
patterns throughout the Coal Field generally are uniform. Annual rainfall
in eastern Kentucky varies by less than 10 inches (Karan and Mather 1977).
The highest and lowest average annual rainfall recorded in the Coal Field
from 1951 through 1974 differed by only 13 inches. The lowest average
annual rainfall (40.77 inches) was recorded at Ashland in the northern part
of the Coal Field. The highest annual average rainfall (53.07 inches) was
reported at Cumberland in the southern, mountainous part of the Coal Field.
3-2
-------
Thunderstorms with heavy rainfalls frequently occur during the spring and
summer. Total rainfall during a thunderstorm often exceeds 2 or 3 inches.
Precipitation may exceed 5 or 6 inches during a 24-hour period. Flash
floods frequently result from these intense storms. Warm, moist tropical
air predominates during the summer when the relative humidity is
consistently high (NOAA 1977).
On average, the Coal Field generally experiences precipitation as rain,
sleet, or snow for a minimum of 110 days of the year. The maximum number of
days with precipitation may exceed 150 annually on the southeastern fringe
of the Coal Field (Karan and Mather 1977). Snow and sleet may occur at
certain reporting stations during 6 to 8 months of the year. From 1951
through 1974, the average annual accumulation of snow and sleet in the Coal
Field was approximately 15 inches.
3.1.2 Temperature
The prevailing climate of Kentucky is continental, leading to wide
extremes of temperature within the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. The mean
annual temperature ranges from 54.8°F at Ashland in the northern part of the
Coal Field to 55.2°F at Cumberland in the southern part. Temperatures
during June, July, and August may exceed 100°F. The average temperature
during summer generally is about 75°F while minimum temperatures of 0°F or
lower may occur in the Coal Field during December, January, and February.
Average temperatures during these three winter months generally range from
30° to 40°. The last spring freeze in the Coal Field generally occurs
during April while the first autumn freeze usually occurs during October
(NOAA 1977). The average duration of freeze-free conditions in the Coal
Field is 166 days.
3.1.3 Wind
The average wind velocity in Kentucky is 7 to 12 miles per hour (mph)
from the south and southwest. In some parts of eastern Kentucky, the
prevailing winds during autumn are from the north. The highest wind speeds
3-3
-------
usually are 50 to 70 mph, but during some storms (generally squalls
associated with thunderstorms) gusts of wind may exceed these speeds. One
tornado per year usually is reported in Kentucky. Actual frequencies of
tornado occurrence range from none for several years to several during one
year (NOAA 1977).
3.1.4 Mixing Heights
Mixing layer height is defined as the height above the ground through
which relatively vigorous mixing occurs. Atmospheric pollutants are
relatively concentrated below the mixing layer. The mean annual morning
mixing height in the Coal Field is approximately 1,700 feet. The mean
afternoon mixing heights range from approximately 2,300 to 5,900 feet during
spring and 1,300 to 4,600 feet during autumn. Mixing heights in eastern
Kentucky are generally high relative to those of other areas in the
continental US. The high mixing heights are due in part to the rugged
topography which varies from the highly dissected Cumberland Plateau in the
western part of the Coal Field to the parallel alternating ridges and
valleys of the east. This topography promotes the formation of vertical air
currents that enhance the mixing of ambient air. Long-lasting, low-level
inversions and extreme air pollution episodes, therefore, are infrequent in
the Coal Field although some air quality problems may occur.
3.1.5 Micrometeorological Conditions
The rugged topography of eastern Kentucky is a contributing factor to
local variations in climate and air quality. Wind direction, wind speed,
temperature, precipitation, and mixing heights can be influenced locally by
the complex terrain. Meteorological conditions also are influenced by the
length, depth, and breadth of valleys and the steepness and orientation of
slopes. The numerous, narrow valleys in eastern Kentucky are susceptible to
localized inversions and air quality problems.
3-4
-------
3.2 EARTH RESOURCES
3.2.1 Physiography
The eastern one-third of Kentucky (including the entire Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field) is in the Appalachian Highlands physiographic division.
The Appalachian Highlands is the mountainous region of the eastern United
States. The central part of the Highlands includes four divisions that can
be distinguished by their structural geologic origins. These include the
Piedmont Province, the Blue Ridge Province, the Valley and Ridge Province,
and the Appalachian Plateau Province.
All of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is included within two of these
provinces. The Valley and Ridge Province is represented by the Cumberland
mountain section (Figure 3.2-1). The Appalachian Plateau Province includes
the Kanawha section and the Cumberland Plateau section (Killburn et al.
1962; Price et al. 1962). The Cumberland Plateau section has
characteristically lower relief than the Kanawha section. The latter is
more strongly dissected by surface drainage ways.
The greatest topographic relief found in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field as well as the highest elevation in the State (4,139 feet) is found on
Black Mountain between Pine Mountain and Cumberland Mountain. The lowest
point in the Coal Field is 485 feet, the normal pool elevation of the Ohio
River as it leaves Greenup County.
3.2.2 Regional and Economic Geology
The coal-bearing rocks of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field were formed
from sediments which accumulated in the coastal environment of a shallow
inland sea which existed during the Pennsylvanian Period. This coastal
environment included a complex deltaic system comprised of rivers, swamps,
estuaries, barrier islands, and back-barrier lagoons. Migration of this
ancient coastline and delta complex followed a northwesterly trend producing
a thick clastic wedge of coal-bearing strata. The erosion of crystalline
rocks in the Piedmont provided a sediment source for the deltas. Deposited
rocks were later folded and faulted by tectonic deformational stresses.
3-5
-------
Figure 3.2-1. Physiographic sections in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field
(Kilburn et al. 1962; Palmquist and Hall 1960; Price et al. 1962).
3-6
-------
Surface rocks in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field range in age from Devonian
through Pennsylvanian. The Devonian and Mississippian rocks are primarily
exposed along the western border of the Coal Field. The coal-bearing
Pennsylvanian strata underlie most of eastern Kentucky (Figure 3.2-2).
The coal reserves of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field are quite
extensive. As indicated in Figure 3.2-3 the counties with the larger
reserves are located in the eastern part of the Coal Field. Eight counties
have reserves of high quality coal in excess of 400,000,000 tons. These
counties include Breathitt, Floyd, Harlan, Knott, Leslie, Letcher, Perry,
and Pike Counties. Pike County has the largest coal reserves with over 2
billion tons. Eight counties have reserves of from 90 to 400 million tons,
and the remaining counties have less than 90,000,000 tons.
3.2.3 Toxic Material
Toxic overburden includes earth materials which contain significant
amounts of sulfur-bearing minerals with acid-forming potentials that exceed
the neutralization capacity of associated strata. The extent to which an
overburden is toxic is a function of its chemical and physical characteris-
tics. The distribution of toxic overburden in eastern Kentucky is a
function of the depositional environments in which the coal-bearing strata
were formed. Coal seams associated with toxic overburden in eastern
Kentucky are listed in Table 3.2-1.
3.3 WATER RESOURCES
3.3.1 Surface Water Resources
The surface water resources of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field are
comprised of five principal watersheds: (1) the Little Sandy-Ohio-Tygarts
Creek Basin; (2) the Licking River Basin; (3) the Big Sandy River Basin; (4)
the Kentucky River Basin; and (5) the Upper Cumberland River Basin (Figure
3.3-1). Each of these river systems eventually flows to the Ohio River.
Surface mining activities affect these surface water resources by causing
3-7
-------
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM
PENNSYLVANIAN CONEMAUGH AND
MONONGAHELA FORMATIONS
POST -LEE FORMATION
PENNSYLVANIAN ROCKS
UNDIFFERENTIATED
PENNSYLVANIAN BREATHITT FORMATION -
PENNSYLVANIAN LEE FORMATION
MISSISSIPPIAN and DEVONIAN
ROCKS UNDIFFERENTIATED
Figure 3.2-2. Geology of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field, based on data from
the USGS 7.5 series of geological quadrangle maps.
3-8
-------
>2000
1000-2000
400-1000
90-400
< 90
CLINTON -"
I w«tkl
/
X.V.--..-- ," :•..::-•.••" •*• <
["I'•.•.-.•:.•'!•- ••.•..•••:.•• ••*^*'
. (ySV:':'.V-.':'.v.v.'-'.': '':':•• ;'•:'.^ ••*•*"
Figure 3.2-3. Projected coal reserves (millions of tons) in eastern
Kentucky for 1 January 1985.
3-9
-------
Table 3.2-1. Coal seams associated with toxic overburden in eastern
Kentucky (USFS n.d.; Kimball n.d.).
Seam Number
100
134,135
212
294
HIGH POTENTIAL
Seam Name
Hazard No. 8, Francis
Sterling
Lily, Horse Creek
Beaver Creek, Stearns No. 2
Seam Number
100
104
142
151
154
157
212
233
MODERATE POTENTIAL
Seam Name
Peach Orchard Zone, Sebastian, Fugate, Mudseam
Hazard No. 7, Nickell, Oakley, Red Springs, High
Splint
Amburgy, Williamson, Gun Creek, Moss Creek, Low
Splint, Cannel City, Rim
Upper Elkhorn No. 3, Van Lear, Tom Cooper,
Jellico, Straight Creek, Darby, Little Caney,
Thacker, Cedar Grove, Nosben, Sidney,
Kellioka
Upper Elkhorn No. 2
Upper Elkhorn No. 1, Blue Gem, Alma, Hance
Sachariah, Wheelersburg, Manchester, River Gem,
Swamp Angel, Vanclerie
Clear Fork, Naese
3-10
-------
^o
ftPO»». IHC
Figure 3.3-1. Major river basins in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
3-11
-------
ponding, by altering drainage divides, and by causing a reduction in the
quality of these waters. The character of the surface water resources in
the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is affected by climatic conditions, stream-
flow characteristics, and water quality conditions in the five basins.
3.3.1.1 Streamflow Characteristics
Data for the five subbasins in the Coal Field show that the volume of
water flowing in the streams varies greatly from season to season and from
year to year. Streamflow tends to be highest in the early spring and lowest
during the late summer and autumn. Thunderstorms in small watersheds can
give rise to local floods from March through September. During times of the
low flow, many small tributaries cease flowing altogether; only the larger
streams have sustained low flows. The Ohio River mainstem has a low flow
volume of 9,900 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Given the steep topography and frequency of thunderstorms in the
region and the prevailing settlement pattern which intensively utilizes the
narrow stream valleys, floods are a recurrent problem of major significance.
The principal agency concerned with structural flood control measures in the
region is the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Control measures include
13 reservoirs that provide flood storage capacity among other purposes and
25 channel improvement, floodwall, and levee construction projects. The
Community Flood Damage Abatement Program in the Kentucky Division of Water
Resources provides funds and technical assistance to local governments to
abate flooding problems. Floodprone areas have been identified in many
areas and are discussed in the Technical Reference Document and delineated
in the Resource Atlas.
The 7-day, 10-year low flow figure represents the lowest average flow
over a consecutive 7-day period that is expected to recur at 10-year
intervals. Most of the streams in the Coal Field have 7-day, 10-year low
flows of 0.0 cfs. These tributaries typically cease to flow during low flow
periods. Only the raainstem streams of the major basins and a few of their
principal tributaries sustain a flow during low flow periods. KDNREP sets
3-12
-------
stricter criteria on certain effluents for lowflow streams than it does for
permanent streams due to the low flow stream's inability to dilute
contaminants. Water quality tends to be poorest at times of late summer low
flow when dilution of contaminants is least and temperatures are highest.
Acid mine drainage, raw sewage, and other contaminants are most harmful
during this period when the lack of dilution can lead to fish kills in
reaches far downstream from the source.
3.3.1.2 Quality of Surface Water Resource^
Information on water quality in the surface waterways of the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field is sparse and is based on data from a widely spaced set
of sampling stations that have been operated at various times by various
agencies. The most comprehensive reports available are the basin-wide water
quality management plans developed in accordance with Section 303(e) of the
CWA during the mid-1970's. In general, these five basin-wide water quality
management plans focus on organic pollution and sewage treatment needs
rather than degradation caused by or resources susceptible to coal mining.
Nevertheless, the basin plans provide considerable information on the water
resources of the Coal Field. In addition, data on high quality streams of
the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field are provided by the Kentucky Nature
Preserves Commission (KNPC 1979).
The extent of water quality problems varies across the five basins.
The Licking River Basin includes 1,390 square miles and 91% of the Basin is
considered to have long-term water quality problems. However, surface coal
mining activities (as of 1975) are reported to affect only seven square
miles or less than 1%. Substantial mining activity has occurred, however,
since 1975. The Big Sandy River Basin includes more than 2,000 square miles
and the water quality limited classification has been applied to about 69%
of the Basin. About half of the Big Sandy River Basin (1,037 square miles)
is affected by acid mine drainage. In addition, surface mines and timbering
contribute to widespread erosion and sedimentation. The Little Sandy-Ohio-
Tygarts Creek Basin extends over 1,120 square miles with about 65% of the
Basin having long-term water quality problems. The coal-affected areas
3-13
-------
include about 31% of the Basin. The Upper Cumberland River Basin consti-
tutes the largest of the five and extends over 4,500 square miles. About
31% of this Basin is considered to have long-term water quality problems.
The Kentucky River Basin includes more than 3,400 square miles and approxi-
mately 22% (778 square miles) are considered to have long-term water quality
problems. Coal mining is estimated to affect about 83% of this Basin.
Future mining activity will be concentrated primarily in the Kentucky and
Big Sandy River Basins.
Water quality varies greatly across the Coal Field. Siltation and acid
mine discharge from coal mines are the principal sources of stream
pollution. Acid mine drainage (AMD) is the result of the oxidation of iron
disulfide minerals, principally pyrite and marcasite, found in overburden,
coal, and black organic shales. There also are discharges of "blackwater,"
waters laden with coal fines and related sediments during storm periods.
The scattered monitoring data collected during the 1960's and early 1970's
demonstrated various instances of low pH, high acidity, hardness, sulfates,
iron, and dissolved solids. Iron, manganese, and fluoride concentrations
were observed to exceed US Public Health Service (USPHS) drinking water
standards. In many locales, mine acid discharges are neutralized by
limestone and other carbonate minerals.
The Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC) has noted that stream
quality in the region is subject to rapid change because degradation can
proceed quickly. Recovery from degradation is a slower process. In the
Coal Field as a whole, 51 streams were labeled as high quality, 12 of which
also had significant recreational use. The high quality streams are
considered to be in or near their natural, unpolluted condition. Five other
streams in the Coal Field were labeled as having significant recreational
use. The greatest number of high quality streams was in the Upper
Cumberland River Basin (35). The Kentucky River Basin had nine high quality
streams; the Little Sandy-Ohio-Tygarts Creek Basin had five; the Licking
River Basin had two; and the Big Sandy River Basin had one.
The KNPC (1979) identified streams with moderate water quality which
were judged to be able to recover within a reasonable period of time if
human perturbations were to cease. Half of the ten moderate quality streams
3-14
-------
in the Coal Field were in the Upper Cumberland Basin. The Kentucky Basin
accounted for three, and there was one each in the Big Sandy and Little
Sandy- Ohio-Tygarts Creek Basins. The earlier KNPC study identified 12
additional streams with moderately degraded biota, with at least one in each
major basin.
3.3.1.3 Water Uses
The KDNREP Division of Water issues permits for the withdrawal of
surface water from the streams of the Commonwealth. Data regarding these
permits are computerized and updated periodically by KDNREP. The intake
locations of these withdrawal points are indicated in the Resource Atlas.
Surface water supplies may be dedicated to municipal, water district,
institutional, or other uses. As of 15 November 1979, there were 40 active
surface water withdrawal points, primarily municipal and water district
users.
There are 32 publicly owned non-Federal lakes and reservoirs in the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. Most serve a variety of purposes and in total
they cover more than 2,400 acres.
3.3.2 Groundwater Resources^
Groundwater is the principal source of potable water supply in many
regions. For eastern Kentucky, groundwater use is presently limited to
small domestic supplies. KDNREP has permitted 47 groundwater withdrawal
points in the Coal Field. These are issued primarily to users with large
water withdrawal requirements such as schools, institutions, municipalities,
and water district users.
In the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field the groundwater table is commonly
encountered within the first few tens of feet beneath the ground surface.
Contaminants in acid mine drainage from coal and other mines are capable of
locally degrading the groundwater supplies. The cumulative effect of coal
mining in eastern Kentucky may be the degradation of this resource over
broad areas.
3-15
-------
3.3.2.1 Aquifers in the Region
The groundwater resources of eastern Kentucky occur in both consoli-
dated and unconsolidated sediments. There are four principal sedimentary
units in which aquifers occur in eastern Kentucky including: (1) Quaternary
alluvium; (2) the Conemaugh and Breathitt Formations; (3) the Lee Formation;
and (4) rocks of the Mississippian System (Figure 3.2-2). These formations
also contain aquitards. The aquifers of the region are not continuous in
their water yielding or water quality characteristics across the region due
to depositional environment and erosion.
3.3.2.2 Groundwater Quality Characteristics
The chemical composition of the groundwater in the Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field is variable. It is governed by the original chemistry of the
water prior to its infiltrating into the subsurface, the amount of time it
has been in contact with the rock or unconsolidated sediment, and the
chemical characteristics of the strata through which it passes during its
journey through the subsurface. The major objectionable chemical
constituents of groundwater in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field are iron,
chloride, and hardness. Locally, total dissolved solids, sulfate, nitrate,
fluoride, and acidity have been reported to be problems. The primary
sources of iron and chloride are acid mine drainage and saline water,
respectively.
Acid mine drainage is the principal water quality problem associated
with coal mining in the region. AMD can consist of iron hydroxide, sulfuric
acid, ferrous and ferric sulfates, and other acid salts. While these
constitutents are normally added to groundwater at a very slow rate in the
natural weathering processes, mining activity accelerates these natural
processes to such an extent that the quality of subsurface waters undergoes
substantial degradation.
Many surface streams in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field have naturally
•
acid waters. It is therefore very likely that the groundwater in some areas
3-16
-------
is also naturally acid and possibly contains relatively high concentrations
of objectionable metals. The problem with coal mining in these areas is
that the mining activities may increase the rate of exposure of acid
producing materials which may in turn increase the rate of AMD production.
Acid mine drainage is dependent upon several factors:
• The availabilty of air, water, and iron disulfide minerals
and the length of time water is in contact with the
minerals;
• Hydrologic, geologic, and topographic features of the
surrounding terrain and the placement of the mine with
respect to them;
• The type of mining method employed and whether the mine is
operationally active or inactive; and
• The influence of micro-organisms of pyrite oxidation
(Appalachian Regional Commission 1969).
Sources of acid mine drainage include but are not limited to deep mines,
strip mines, spoil piles, slurry ponds, auger holes, and exploratory drill
holes. Groundwater contamination results when water with high
concentrations of the products of AMD migrate into the groundwater
reservoir. Water with greater concentrations of iron may affect food
processing and favor the growth of iron bacteria which can clog water
transmission lines and drainage systems.
Saline water in some areas of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is
responsible for high chloride concentrations in groundwater obtained from
Pennsylvanian and Mississippian rocks. Chloride salts in large enough
concentrations may make the water unpotable and objectionable for various
specialized industrial uses of water. The presence of chloride affects not
only the quality but also the quantity of fresh water resources recoverable
from the aquifers. The boundary between fresh and salt water is called the
fresh-saline water interface. The interface is not a place but a zone of
3-17
-------
varying thickness ranging from less than 100 feet (throughout most of
Kentucky) to greater than 500 feet in parts of the Blue Grass region.
Two principal sources of saline water contamination in the upper
aquifers are unplugged oil and gas wells extending into the Mississippian
marine sediments and saline wastewater from oil recovery operations
discharged at the surface and infiltrating into the groundwater. Coal
mining activities are not expected to contribute to chloride contamination
of groundwater, except possibly where the combination of coal mining and oil
and gas production creates failure of properly designed oil and gas wells.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section summarizes information generated by the Kentucky Nature
Preserves Commission on the biological resources of the Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field which was published in the KNPC report entitled Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field; Preliminary Investigation of Natural Features and Cultural
Resources (KNPC 1979) which include the following volumes:
Volume I Introduction and the Natural Heritage Program
Volume II Ecology and Ecological Features of Eastern
Kentucky
Volume III Caves and Associated Fauna of Eastern Kentucky
Volume IV Geologic Diversity of Eastern Kentucky
Volume V Cultural Resources of Eastern Kentucky and
Cultural Resources Overlay Index
Volume VI Water Resources and Natural Features Overlay
Index
3.4.1 Vegetation
The flora of eastern Kentucky generally is similar to that of the
Allegheny Mountains (Braun 1937). Eastern Kentucky is a floral overlap zone
representing an area where many northern and southern species ranged,
3-18
-------
but are now found only as disjuncts. These disjuncts remain as a function
of the diverse topographic and edaphic features of the region which provide
local habitats and suitable environments for both northern and southern
species. These local habitats include regions of elevational extremes
(i.e., deep gorges to mountains), moisture extremes, and cool areas at cave
mouths. A few examples of these species which are now disjunct in suitable
habitats of eastern Kentucky include: mountain maple; beard grass;
black-seeded rice grass; and American yew.
Species with Coastal Plain affinities compose another interesting
assemblage of plants well-represented in the Cumberland and Allegheny
Plateaus, especially near the western margin. Clues to the probable vegeta-
tional history of this area are provided by those relict species which are
well-represented in a number of species, but occur on an infrequent basis.
A few of these Coastal Plain species found in the Cumberland Plateau
include: bushy beard grass; screw grass; Virginia willow; and primrose-
leaved violet.
Limestone outcroppings allow certain species (calciophiles) which
require a limestone habitat to become part of the local floral assemblage.
Typical examples include wall-rue spleenwort, oblong-leaf aster, blue ash,
and yellow oak. In addition, several species which are endemic to small
areas (i.e., Cumberland rosemary, Lucy Braun's white snake root, and
mountain lover) or are limited in distribution to rockhouses and the like
have been classified as rare by the KNPC.
3.4.2 Wildlife
Kentucky's central location in the eastern United States and its
physiography allows for an admixture of northern and southern faunal compo-
nents reflecting the diversity of the eastern United States fauna. The
richest fauna in Kentucky is found in the Appalachian Plateaus Province
(Figure 3.2-1). Harbour and Davis (1974) have established that mammal
species representative of boreal, temperate, and tropical climates are found
in the Province. The three geographic patterns are exemplified respectively
3-19
-------
by Capper's red-backed vole, rauskrat, and golden mouse. Different optimum
temperature requirements for different species is partially responsible for
these geographic patterns (Hall and Kelson 1959). Table 3.4-1 indicates
that within the Province two mammalian faunal assemblages are represented.
The skew towards the northern species can be explained by the generally
mountainous terrain and mean annual temperature of the Plateau.
The ichthyofauna of central Appalachian drainages comprises approxi-
mately 277 native freshwater species distributed among 22 families (Jenkins
et al. 1971). Five families are predominant in the central Appalachian
region's fauna; minnows; suckers; catfishes; sunfishes; and perches.
The rivers of eastern Kentucky harbor a fairly diverse fauna. Stream
modifications in this unglaciated region have been numerous and are
reflected in the distribution of certain of the region's fish. For example,
Miller (1968) theorized that the Kentucky River population of the greenside
darter either gained access to the system through stream capture from the
Cumberland River or that the stream capture allowed gene flow between the
two populations. Kuehne and Bailey (1961) documented a Cumerland-Kentucky
headwater exchange which in part explains the present distribution of the
arrow darter. Drainage exchanges between the Cumberland and Tennessee
Rivers in the Cumberland Gap vicinity of Kentucky are discussed by Ross
(1971). The strong faunal resemblances of the Tennessee and Cumberland
Rivers are depicted in Jenkins et al. (1971) and Starnes et al. (1977) lend
further support for drainage exchange.
The presence of Cumberland Falls on the Cumberland River is a classic
example of an instream barrier limiting fish dispersal. The ichthyofauna
above the Falls is represented by approximately 30 forms in contrast to 150
forms below. A detailed discussion of the development of the fauna is given
in Jenkins et al. (1971). The zoogeography associated with drainage evolu-
tion in the eastern Kentucky region is quite complex and far from being
understood. Numerous geological, climatic, and hydrological events have
been interacted to produce a perplexing and enigmatic distribution of fish
species.
3-20
-------
Table 3.4-1. Species of mammals occurring in the Appalachian Plateaus
Province of Kentucky that exhibit northern or southern affinities (Barbour
and Paris 1974).
NORTHERN SPECIES
Sorex cinereus
S_. fumeus
S_. dispar
Parascalops breweri
Myotis leibii
Sylvilagu8_ transitionalis
Peromyscus maniculatus nubiterrae
Clethrionomys gapperi
Microtus pennsylvanicus
M. ochrogaster
Synaptomys cooperi
Zapus hudsonius
Napaeozapus insignis
masked shrew
smokey shrew
long-tailed shrew
hairy-tailed mole
small-footed Myotis
New England cottontail
cloudland deer mouse
Capper's red-backed vole
meadow vole
prairie vole
southern bog lemming
jumping mouse
woodland jumping mouse
SOUTHERN SPECIES
Plecotus rafinesquii
Oryzomys palustris
Reithrodontomys humulis
Ochrotomys nuttalli
Sigmodon hispidus
Neotoma floridana
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
rice rat
eastern harvest mouse
golden mouse
hispid cotton rat
eastern woodrat
3-21
-------
The Province can be thought of as a refugium of biological repository.
Hubbard (1971) states that a probable massive invasion of the southern
Appalachians by northern fauna transformed these mountains into a major
refugium for boreal biota. Paleontological evidence shows that some of the
small mammals of the Province were more widely distributed in the State than
at present (Guilday et al. 1971). An example of this is Microsorex
thompsoni (Thompson's pigmy shrew) which has been found in cave deposits in
Woodford County with the Interior Low Plateaus (Guilday et al. 1971). These
deposits date to the Pleistocene and are approximately 13,000 years old. At
that time, the climate of Kentucky was much colder due to the glacial
advance. Microsorex thompsoni at present is a species of northern affini-
ties and is only known from the Province at high elevations (610 m or 2,000
feet). Other mammal species in the Woodford County (Welsh Cave) deposits
with northern affinities were Sorex palustris (water shrew) and Microtus
chrotorrhinus (yellow-nosed vole).
Diversity of the fauna is reflected by the percentage of vertebrate
species in Kentucky represented in the Province. The lowest percentage is
57% and the percentage of all the vertebrates of the State represented in
the Province is 77%. These figures connote the great faunal diversity of
the Province. This diversity is reflected in the salamanders. Of the
salamanders that occur in Kentucky, 84% are found in the Province. One
species, Black Mountain salamander, is endemic to the Province and probably
evolved in this area of Kentucky (Caldwell and Trauth, in press). The
largest complement of salamander fauna is contained within the family
Plethodontidae (lungless salamanders). Dunn (1926) has postulated the
evolution of this family and placed its origin in the Blue Ridge Physio-
graphic Province in the southern Appalachians. Since the evolution of the
family, much adaptive radiation has occurred due to the adaptive zones
available (Wake 1966). These can be thought of as diversity zones, and the
fact that such a large complement of plethodontid species inhabit the
Province is evidence of the diversity of habitat present there. Studies
into centers of dispersal for crayfish species (Hobbs 1969) reveal this
important biological phenomenon in the fauna of the Province. Hobbs (1969)
believes the Province to be the ancestral home and center of dispersal for
3-22
-------
the following genera of crayfish: Cambarus; Orconectes; Hobbeus; Faxonella;
and Fallicambarus. The number of endemic species of crayfish is high in
this area (Hobbs 1969). This again underscores the zoological contribution
of the Province.
3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 summarize the status of the animal and plant
elements in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. The element list should not be
considered finalized since it is a dynamic document reflecting the most
current information. Elements listed are continually monitored and their
status updated. All animals on the list are provided with their scientific
name, common name, and an element code number which corresponds to the Water
Resources and Natural Features Overlay of the Resource Atlas and files kept
on that species at the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. Those elements
which are not known within the study area are also listed. They have not
been given a Kentucky status as they will be dealt with in much greater
detail in further studies conducted by the Kentucky Nature Preserves
Commission.
3.4.4 Critical Natural Areas
Interpreted critical areas, either known or high potential areas, were
defined by KNPC as those resources that were considered to be irreplaceable
or highly significant. Information on "known critical areas" concerns those
areas that are considered irreplaceable resources, "High potential critical
areas" are considered to be highly significant resources including sites
managed as multiple use areas. For the purposes of evaluating New Source
mining applications in the sensitive ecosystem, surface water, and wetlands
categories, critical areas include:
• Stream segments designated or proposed for designation by
KDNREP as coldwater aquatic habitat;
• Stream segments designated or proposed for designation by
KNDREP as an outstanding resource water;
3-23
-------
Table 3.4-2. Summary of special categories of Kentucky animal element status as determined by KNPC (officially
listed Federal species are indicated in parentheses; KNPC 1979 ).
Status
Pelacypod Gastropod Crustacean Fish
Endangered 11 (2)
Threatened 0
Special Concern 1
Undetermined 2
Total
14
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
6
9(lpt*)
26
5
46
0
1
2
0
3
Amphibian Reptile Bird Mammal Total
0 2 (2) 7 (3) 28
103 14
302 34
3 17 8 34
7 19 20 111
kpt = "proposed" threatened species (Official Federal designation)
-------
Table 3.4-3. Summary of the status of terrestrial plants in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field as determined
by KNPC (those in parentheses are listed in the Smithsonian report; KNPC 1979 ).
i
K>
Status
Endangered
Threatened
Special Concern
Undetermined
Total
Special
Pteridophyte
3
1
—
1
5
Special
Gymnosperm
1
1
—
2
Habit
Annuals
Biennials
Porrenial Herbs
Saprophytes
Vines
Shrubs
Trees
Special Special
Monocot Dicot Total
4 27 (2) 34
13 (5) 28 (8) 43
2 47
5 7 13
24 (5) 66 (10) 97 (15)
6
1
70
1
1
13
5
Total
97
-------
• Stream segments identified as a Sensitive Aquatic
Ecosystem by KNPC;
• Stream segments identified as a high or moderate water
quality stream by KNPC;
• A Sensitive Terrestrial Ecosystem designated by USEPA or
USFWS and identified by KNPC;
• A fish and wildlife habitat identified by KDNREP-Fish and
Wildlife Division; and
• Wetlands.
Coldwater aquatic habitats and outstanding resource waters are defined by
the KDNREP (Surface Water Resources Task Report). In addition, KNPC defines
the following:
• High quality stream. Stream in or near a natural,
unpolluted condition.
• Moderate quality stream. Streams able to recover within a
reasonable period of time if human perturbations were to
cease.
• Sensitive aquatic ecosystem. All streams designated or
proposed for designation as outstanding resource waters
including but not limited to unique floral and/or faunal
assemblages; unique and/or representative examples of
natural flora and fauna; and/or water quality characteris-
tics of a given physiography, hydrologic, or topographic
unit; and/or a habitat necessary for the continued state
existence of a species or a group of species.
• Sensitive terrestrial ecosystem. All areas designated or
proposed for designation as a public park, National Park,
National Wildlife Refuge, State wildlife management area,
State or National Forest, National System of Trails,
Wilderness Area, National Natural Landmark, Rare II area,
Nature Preserves, land owned by private conservation
organizations, university owned natural areas, and areas
where rare plant and animal elements occur. In addition,
areas identified by KNPC as special geologic areas, karst
areas, and Ecological Areas are included.
As a result of the KNPC study, certain environmentally sensitive areas
have been designated as High Potential Critical Areas (HPCA) or Known
3-26
-------
Critical Areas (KCA). A map depicting the general location of these
sensitive aquatic and other natural resources of the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field is included as Figure 3.4-1. These areas are indicated in detail in
the USEPA Resource Atlas.
3.5 LAND RESOURCES
The Eastern Kentucky Coal Field comprises 38 counties and includes
approximately one-fourth of the total area of the Commonwealth. The
topography of the Coal Field is primarily mountainous and drains into five
major river basins. Coal, timber, and agricultural products are the major
economic land resources derived from the Coal Field. More than one-half of
the coal produced in the Commonwealth originates from the Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field. Commercial timber also is a major industry while agricultural
production is the least productive of the three dominant industries (Karan
and Mather 1977).
The land use pattern of the Coal Field (Figure 3.5-1) is characterized
by broad expanses of silvicultural (forest) area interspersed with
agriculture in the river valleys and plateau regions. Urban land uses are
concentrated primarily in the northern portions of the region along the
Kentucky-Ohio border between Portsmouth and Ashland. Mining -ctivity is a
major economic land use in the southeastern half of the Coal Field.
3.5.1 Forestry
The forest product industry is an important element of the economy of
Kentucky. Approximately 18,000 people are employed by the forest industry
in the Commonwealth accounting for an annual payroll of more than $100
million. The majority of Kentucky's commercial forests are located within
the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field (Karan and Mather 1977). Approximately 80%
of the total land area of eastern Kentucky is forested (Karan and Mather
1977). Much of this land is utilized for the commercial production of
timber. While 16 counties have more than 80% of their land area devoted to
3-27
-------
r '»»,t
R /
*. CL*f . t
. h : ' * > •="
Figure 3.4-1. Sensitive aquatic and other natural resources of the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field (based on mapping by the Kentucky Nature Preserves
Commission 1978).
3-28
-------
] SILVICULTURE
AGRICULTURE
URBAN
Figure 3.5-1. Generalized land use in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
3-29
-------
commercial forests, only Floyd and Boyd Counties have less than 60% of their
land area in commercial forests.
A slight decrease in the total forest acreage has occurred over the
past ten years in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. Approximately 40,000
acres of forests have been converted to other uses during the past decade
within the five major river basins that comprise the Coal Field (KDNREP
n.d.). New uses for the once forested areas include cropland, pastureland,
highways, urban development, power lines, reservoirs, and to an undetermined
extent, surface coal mining.
3.5.2 Agriculture^
Cropland, pastureland, and land for livestock production account for
approximately 16% of the total land area of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
Most counties have less than 45% of their total land devoted to farms. Only
Elliot County has more than 65% of its land area as farms. The counties
with higher proportions of farm area mainly occur on the western border of
the Coal Field. In the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field, most farming income is
derived from the production of tobacco and beef cattle. The primary cash
crop is tobacco which generally is produced in the western and central
portions of the Coal Field. Livestock and poultry are produced in the
eastern and southern counties. Farms in classes 1 through 5 also are
concentrated along the western border of the Coal Field. Classified farms
produce at least $2,500 worth of commodity annually.
The majority of counties have from 1.0% to 3.4% of the land devoted to
harvested crops. The counties located on the western border of the Coal
Field show a greater tendency toward commercial agriculture than the other
counties of the Coal Field. The commercial crops and products produced in
eastern Kentucky include tobacco, corn, soybeans, hay, wheat, and
pastureland.
Trends in farm activity in eastern Kentucky from 1969 through 1974 show
a decline in the total number of farms and total acreage devoted to farming
3-30
-------
(USDOC 1975). The loss of agricultural acreage occurred in each county in
the Coal Field. The general decrease of agricultural lands in the Coal
Field has continued beyond 1974. The small farming operations that are
characteristic of agriculture in the Coal Field are vulnerable to economic
pressures including crop prices and competitive land uses. As a result,
many small farms produce commercial lumber as an income supplement (Karan
and Mather 1977). Eventually, these farms discontinue agricultural
production in favor of commercial lumber operations as economic conditions
reduce the profit margin on agricultural products.
The USEPA recognizes several categories of agricultural land as worthy
of protection from conversion to non-farm land uses. These lands, known as
Environmentally Significant Agricultural lands, include prime farmland;
unique farmland; additional farmland of statewide importance; additional
farmland of local importance; farmlands in or contiguous to Environmentally
Sensitive Areas; farmlands of waste utilization importance; and farmlands
with significant capital investments in Best Management Practices (BMP's).
Of these farmland types, only prime farmlands have regulatory significance
under SMCRA.
Prime farmland is that land which has the best combination of physical
and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and
oilseed crops. To qualify as prime, the farmland must be available for
agricultural uses. Such lands include cropland, pastureland, rangeland,
forest land, and other open lands. Urban areas and water, however, cannot
qualify as prime farmland. Prime farmland in eastern Kentucky generally
occurs in valley bottoms, higher terraces, and gently rolling ridgetops.
The US Department of the Interior (USDI) definition of prime farmland
excludes steeply sloping, erodible terrain (30 CFR 716.7; 42 FR 239: 62693
- 62695). This restriction effectively limits prime farmlands in eastern
Kentucky to slopes less than 10%. Less than 6% of the total land area in
the Coal Field is defined as prime farmland.
3-31
-------
3.5.3 Recreational Land
The major areas of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field which are classified
as recreational lands include that land in the Daniel Boone National Forest,
the Jefferson National Forest, Beaver Creek National Wilderness Area, the
Cumberland Gap National Historic Park, the Big South Fork Cumberland River
National River and Recreation Area, and various State parks.
The Daniel Boone National Forest is located in parts of 21 counties in
the western and south-central portion of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
Approximately one thousand square miles of rugged, mostly forested land
comprise this National Forest. The Forest provides land for conservation
and recreation for the population of the region and also provides land for
timber production, mining, and other commercial activities. Coal mining has
occurred in most of the counties that are encompassed by the Daniel Boone
National Forest. Surface coal mining activity in the past quarter century
has been concentrated in Leslie, Whit ley, Bell, and Laurel Counties (Currens
and Smith 1977). Underground mining has also taken place in many of the
counties that are encompassed by the Forest. Most underground coal mining
has been in Leslie, Bell, and Harlan Counties. With the exception of seven
counties, all of the remaining counties have seen some amount of underground
mining since the middle of this century (Currens and Smith 1977).
Surface ownership is held by the Federal government for all land within
the Daniel Boone National Forest. Mineral ownership is held by both private
parties and the Federal government. Approximately 32,823 acres of land have
partial mineral ownership while approximately 15,570 acres of mineral rights
are owned privately but will return to Federal ownership at a predetermined
expiration date. Private ownership of mineral rights are held for 409,688
acres and will not revert to Federal ownership.
The Jefferson National Forest is located on the eastern edges of Pike
and Letcher Counties in eastern Kentucky. Both surface and underground
mining take place in the Jefferson National Forest with surface mining
predominant.
3-32
-------
Ten State recreational facilities serve the residents of the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field. These facilities include: (1) Natural Bridge State
Park; (2) Levi Jackson Wilderness Road State Resort Park; (3) Grayson Lake
State Resort Park; (4) Greenbo Lake State Resort Park; (5) Carter Caves
State Resort Park; (6) Pine Mountain State Resort Park; (7) Jenny Wiley
State Resort Park; (8) Buckhorn Lake State Resort Park; (9) Cumberland Falls
State Resort Park; and (10) Kingdom Come State Resort Park.
3.5.4 Urban Land
Urban land uses are concentrated primarily in the northern areas of the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. The heaviest urban concentrations occur along
the Kentucky-Ohio border between Portsmouth and Ashland. This land along
the Ohio River is more heavily industrialized than any of the other parts of
the Coal Field. The other four river basins include only scattered,
isolated urban areas.
The urban system in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is neither well
developed nor possesses the attributes which would indicate a significant
potential for urbanization in the future. A heavy reliance on primary
economic activities such as coal mining and lumbering may be the reason.
Only 137,879 persons comprising 18.2% of the total population live in urban
areas of 2,500 people or more. Compared to the 1970 nationwide average of
over 70%, eastern Kentucky is sparsely urbanized (USDOC 1978).
Eastern Kentucky exhibits a stream-oriented distribution of urban
areas. The service areas or hinterlands of the larger urban settlements
such as Ashland, Middlesboro, and Somerset extend upstream into mountainous
areas. Towns decrease in size toward the mountains and the interior valleys
of the Coal Field. Hence, the hierarchically ordered system of eastern
Kentucky's cities and towns mirrors the hierarchically ordered stream net-
work of the Ohio-Big Sandy, Kentucky, and Cumberland drainage basins (Blome
1970). Most towns are situated in the crescent-shaped area that extends
from Ashland, south toward Middlesboro, and west toward Somerset (Figure
3.5-2).
3-33
-------
D
O
OVER 25,000
10,000-25,000
5,000-10,000
2,500 - 5,000
1,000-2,500
BELOW 1,000
A7* Sbuth Shore
$ \Greenup
""* 'orthington
"°" (
Hazard! • Hindmao
ilkhorn City
Middlesborough
Figure 3.5-2. Population of urban and semi-urban areas in the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field.
3-34
-------
3.6 HUMAN RESOURCES
The population of eastern Kentucky entered a period of steady economic
and population decline beginning in 1950. This decline ended in the early
1970's. It was followed by an increase in mining activity and a population
in-migration that has continued to date. By 1976, the population of the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field amounted to about 760,000 persons or 30% of the
population of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The existing population distribution and transportation network has
been greatly influenced by stream patterns and associated topographic
features (Blome 1970). The inhabitants either reside in small, densely
settled communities that extend along the bottom of narrow river valleys or
in scattered rural communities perched on steep mountain slopes (Langman
1971).
3.6.1 Socioeconomic Conditions
Overall socioeconomic conditions in the Coal Field of eastern Kentucky
have improved markedly during the past several years. The renewed interest
in coal has initiated almost a full decade of increased employment and popu-
lation within most of the Coal Field counties. A large part of this growth
is a result of in-migration. Attracted by the employment opportunities and
the higher wages of the coal mining industry, many new and displaced miners
and their families have moved into the towns and settlements of eastern
Kentucky. Except in the largest cities (e.g., Ashland, Middlesboro, and
Somerset), the coal mining industry is the primary and almost exclusive
economic base for eastern Kentucky. This strong association with coal
mining has proven to be beneficial in raising the living standards of
eastern Kentucky residents in recent years. However, the lack of diversifi-
cation in the economy could lead to serious problems in the future should
the present strong demand for coal be reversed.
3-35
-------
The 12,366 square mile area of eastern Kentucky had a total population
of 759,398 in 1976. The population density for the entire area was 61
persons per square mile. The density varied from 332 persons per square
mile in Boyd County to less than 25 persons per square mile in Menifee
County. However, as the population density provides only a general picture
of population distribution, a more realistic approach to population density
in this deeply dissected plateau region would be to compare the county popu-
lations to the amount of land that has already been developed or has the
potential for future development. The difficult terrain coupled with the
existing pattern of land ownership renders less than 10% of all land as
suitable for development, thereby increasing the actual population density
tenfold. Pike County, for example, has an effective density approaching 800
persons per square mile because of the lack of developable land.
The existing demographic pattern of the Coal Field is most easily
understood in the context of the net migration pattern. Prior to the early
1970's, net migration in eastern Kentucky was strongly negative because of
the decreasing priority placed on the utilization and mining of coal and the
higher economic growth experienced by industrial areas in the northeast and
midwest. Shortly after 1970, but before the 1973 energy supply problems
became acute, this migration trend was reversed and in-migration replaced
out-migration. Between 1970 and 1977, the Coal Field experienced an average
in-migration of 9.3%. The major coal mining counties (Bell, Breathitt,
Floyd, Harlan, Johnson, Knott, Leslie, Letcher, Martin, Perry, and Pike)
experienced a higher in-migration rate (10.1%) than the minor coal mining
counties (7.6%).
3.6.2 Transportation
The Eastern Kentucky Coal Field suffers from transportation
inadequacies that are responsible for significant, negative spillover
3-36
-------
effects in terms of regional development and diversification. The deeply
dissected, forested plateaus of the Coal Field have caused major transpor-
tation corridors to locate outside the region or to follow alignments
through major valleys. Throughout large areas of the Coal Field, there is a
lack of extensive valley systems suited for the construction of major trans-
portation corridors (Preston 1970). A substantial amount of eastern
Kentucky's coal is transported in trucks that carry up to 80,000 pounds on
State and county maintained roads. Two Interstate highways, 1-64 and 1-75,
cross only the northern and southwestern sections of the Coal Field.
Limited access toll roads include the Mountain Parkway, the Daniel Boone
Parkway, and a small portion of the Cumberland Parkway. These highways play
a significant role in coal transportation and accommodate substantial
amounts of the interregional traffic between the Midwest and South and the
mid-Atlantic seaboard and Midwest.
Most coal in eastern Kentucky is transported by freight train. Eastern
Kentucky's busiest rail lines include the Paintsville Line operated by the
Chessie System, the Whitesburg line operated by the Louisville and Nashville
Railway, the Southern, the Norfolk and Western, and the Kentucky and
Tennessee (Figure 3.6-1). The Paintsville and Whitesburg lines serve the
major coal producing counties. They transport 20-40 million gross-tons/mile
(Karan and Mather 1977; KDOC 1977) which is most of the coal for urban and
industrial centers, ports, and power plants in the Northeast, Midwest, and
South. These trunk lines support a branch-like system of feeder lines that
ascend the many close-ended coal mining valleys located in the headwaters of
river basins.
3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.7.1 Cultural Resources Inventory
The Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission obtained the locations of all
documented historic and prehistoric archaeological sites and historic
structures (cultural resources) in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field from
files of the Kentucky Heritage Commission in Frankfort, Kentucky and the
3-37
-------
CHEASAPEAKE a OHIO
KST KENTUCKY a TENNESSEE
L8N LOUISVILLE 3 NASHVILLE
SOU SOUTHERN
NSW NORFOLK 8 WESTERN
Figure 3.6-1. Principal railroad routes in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
(KDOC 1976).
3-38
-------
office of the State Archaeologist in Lexington, Kentucky. This inventory of
sites is representative of the known cultural resource data base as of
February 1979, but it is considered by KNPC to be neither exhaustive nor
representative of the total number of cultural resources in the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field. The results of the KNPC study were summarized in an
October 1979 Technical Report (Barker and Sanders 1979) to the USEPA.
Altogether, 1,631 known archaeological sites and 357 historic
properties in the Coal Field were mapped on 234 USGS topographic quadrangle
maps. The KNPC report also lists these known occurrences by quadrangle.
The degree of significance was indicated for those sites which were: (1)
listed on the National Register of Historic Places; (2) determined eligible
for the National Register; (3) approved by the State Review Board but not
placed on the National Register; or (4) considered potentially eligible for
the National Register by the State Historic Preservation Officer but not yet
submitted to the State Review Board. These data can be used by USEPA during
its regional prioritization and permit review process, but they are no
substitute for site-specific permit data.
In order to provide a more useful method of identifying and protecting
cultural resources, attempts have been made to develop predictive models of
site locations and densities (Dincauze 1978; D'Elia and Douglas n.d.; Lewis
and Murphy 1978). At present, an insufficient number of systematic surveys
have been conducted in Kentucky to develop reliable predictive models of
site locations and densities. Until data collected with a systematic
controlled framework are available, only a rough estimate may be made of
relevant variables which might predict where historic and archaeological
sites probably will occur in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field (Harker and
Sanders 1979). No mechanism is available for assessing areas where no
cultural resource surveys have been conducted or landforms for which no
sites have been reported.
3.7.2 Prehistory and History of Eastern Kentucky
The first evidence of human habitation in eastern Kentucky related to
the Paleo-Indian period, perhaps as far back as 14-15,000 years ago. Sites
3-39
-------
from this period have been discovered in the Cumberland drainage of the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. The Archaic period follows the Paleo-Indian
with sites dated approximately 8,000 years ago. Archaic sites are found
frequently in rockshelters and on hilltops and have been found throughout
eastern Kentucky. The Woodland period, which began roughly 3,000 years
ago, is known for its earthen "burial" mounds. Sites from this period have
produced pottery and indications of the beginnings of the practice of
horticulture. The Fort Ancient period began around 1000 years ago and is
the most recent prehistoric period in eastern Kentucky. It is characterized
by the rise of villages and maize cultivation. The beginning of the
historic period in eastern Kentucky is marked by the earliest European
contact in this area.
3.8 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
3.8.1 Air Quality
Fugitive dust is the major source of air pollution in the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field. Other sources of pollutants that affect air quality in
the Coal Field are located in the industrialized sections of western
Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio.
Two candidate Class I areas have been designated in the Coal Field on
the basis of their pristine air quality. These are the Cumberland Gap
National Park (Bell County) and the Beaver Creek National Wilderness Preser-
vation Area (McCreary County). All other areas are Class II Areas, a desig-
nation which was originally applied to all areas of the nation, but now
indicates areas affected by moderate industrial activity. A third class
(III) with inferior ambient air quality has been established, but no such
areas have been designated to date in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
Ambient air quality is generally in compliance with National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, and ozone. Those monitoring
3-40
-------
stations where NAAQS are not met for a particular standard are listed in
Table 3.8-1. The most extensive air pollutant in eastern Kentucky is
particulate matter. Hydrocarbon concentrations are not monitored in eastern
Kentucky.
The major air pollutant emitted from coal mining and preparation
activities that can be considered significant is fugitive dust emissions.
Mining operations that contribute to the emission of fugitive dust includes
drilling, blasting, overburden stripping, material loading and unloading,
transportation of material by truck, removal of the coal from the seam,
cleaning and preparation of the coal, and the storage of coal or overburden
in piles where wind erosion occurs.
3.8.2 Noise
An accurate description of the environmental acoustic conditions of the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is not possible because of the lack of rural
noise level data. The noise levels of urbanized areas in the Coal Field,
based on a sample of six communities, may be high enough to cause annoyance,
stress, complaints, and difficulty in conversing or relaxing outdoors. The
most prevalent source of environmental noise is transportation with
industrial sources ranked close behind. Within rural areas of the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field, coal mining and preparation activities can be assumed
to be one of the most common stationary sources of noise. The
transportation of coal would create transient noise sources along haul
roads. The impact of these noise sources will depend upon the proximity of
sensitive receptors (residences, health care facilities, schools, public
parks or churches) to the source.
Major noise producing equipment used in surface mining operations
typically consist of draglines, front-end loaders, tractors, haul trucks,
scrapers, backhoes, and water trucks. The operation of these pieces of
equipment generally is spread out over a relatively large area with little
cumulative effect. Underground mining operations have slightly different
3-41
-------
Table 3.8-1. Monitoring points where NAAQS are not met for particular
standards.
Total Suspended
Particulates (TSP)
Areas which do not meet
primary or secondary
standards:
Bell County
Boyd County
Louisa (Lawrence
County)
Hazard (Perry County)
Pikeville (Pike County)
Corbin (Whitley County)
STANDARDS
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO )
Areas which do not meet
primary standards:
Boyd County
Areas which do not meet
Primary or secondary
standards:
Greenup
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) _
Designated Non-
Attainment Areas:
Boyd County
3-42
-------
noise characteristics than surface mines. Major noise sources consist of
the mine vent fan, front-end loaders, haul trucks, and water trucks.
Another source of noise associated with mining operations is haul
roads. Unlike the noise from the mining operation which is assumed to
radiate from the center, the noise from haul roads is assumed to travel
outward parallel to the road. In addition to haul roads, many mining
operations are also served by rail. Although noise from railroad operations
is generally not as frequent as the other types of noise, the events can be
considered very intrusive.
Coal preparation plants are also considered to be major sources of
noise in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. Typically, the major noise
producing machinery that occurs at preparation plants are crushers,
conveyors, dryers, rock crushers, and sizing screens.
3-43
-------
-------
4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The environmental, economic, and social impacts associated with New
Source coal mining and related activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field
are described in this chapter. Impacts are described for the earth, water,
biological, land, human, cultural, and air and noise resources. Appropriate
measures that can be implemented to mitigate or lessen adverse impacts are
also described.
4.1 EARTH RESOURCES
Coal mining activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field can result in
adverse impacts on certain elements of the earth resources of the area. The
impacts of mining and mitigation techniques for earth resources predomin-
ately relate to steep slopes, unstable slopes, toxic overburden, and
floodplains.
4.1.1 Impacts on Earth Resources
4.1.1.1 Steep or Unstable Slopes
The construction and operation of coal mines, haul roads, loadout
facilities, and coal preparation plants can cause impacts on local earth
resources. Mining or related activities that take place on steep or
unstable slopes, slopes greater than 20°, or lesser slopes that are under-
lain by bedrock of low bearing strength or other poor geotechnical quality
have a high probability of causing damaging landslides. Activities that
take place on steep or unstable slopes that are located above residences,
public facilities, or public roadways can endanger the public health and
safety and become an adverse economic impact on the owners of such property
if a landslide occurs. Any activity on slopes that involve the following
activities may induce slope failure:
4-1
-------
• removal of vegetation
• increased loading on a slope;
• undercutting the slope; or
• alteration of the hydrologic balance.
Coal mining activities commonly involve all of these operations.
4.1.1.2 Toxic Overburden
The chemical characteristics of overburden may also create adverse
impacts. Toxic overburden is earth material situated above a coal seam that
has the potential to produce adverse chemical and biological conditions in
the soil, surface water, or groundwater if it is disturbed by mining.
Surface water is affected by surface runoff from disturbed areas while
groundwater is affected by the seepage of water through the toxic overburden
and into an aquifer. Toxic overburden has a low pH and also may contain
elements that are poisonous to plants and animals, acid-producing, or both.
Excessive amounts of sodium salt, sulfur, copper, nickel and other trace
elements in the water or the soil derived from rained overburden will have a
detrimental effect on aquatic organisms or plants and may hinder revegeta-
tion. Arsenic, boron, and selenium are other elements that may be present
in overburden. If they enter the food chain in low concentrations, these
elements may be concentrated to toxic levels in the tissues of animals at
higher levels of the food chain. Extremely acidic material or material with
the potential of becoming acidic upon oxidation (pH 4.0 or less; chiefly the
minerals pyrite and marcasite) have the capability to cause water pollution
by chemical reactions resulting in increased acidity, low pH, and the
presence of dissolved iron and other metals.
4.1.1.3 Floodplains
Mining activities can also create adverse impacts on floodplains in
eastern Kentucky. Certain mining activities such as coal preparation plants
and loadout facilities may encroach upon floodplains and cause modifications
to the hydrologic capacity of the stream and result in the back-up of flood
4-2
-------
waters upstream. Also, sediment which runs off mined lands reduces the
flood carrying capacity of streams. When the same magnitude flood must
cover a larger area due to the reduction in water carrying capacity of a
stream channel, negative economic and social impacts result from the damages
caused by the higher flood waters. The costs of these impacts are born by
the persons and businesses affected by the flood and by the region as a
whole due to reduced productivity and increased payments under the National
Flood Insurance Program.
4.1.2 Mitigation of Earth Resource Impacts
Adverse impacts to earth resources resulting from coal mining
activities can be minimized by several potential mitigative measures. The
application of these techniques will provide a consistent and meaningful
level of protection to Kentucky's environmental resources. These mitigative
measures include:
• the restriction of certain mining practices or operations
on steep and unstable slopes;
• the use of neutralizers to combat acid formation in
overburden, diversion of surface waters, and burial and
reclamation of spoil to prevent the formation of toxic
water pollution; and
• the prevention of mining activities in floodplains or the
proper design of facilities that must occur in the
floodplain.
4.1.2.1 Steep or Unstable Slopes
Where mining activities must take place on steep slopes mitigative
measures can be taken to minimize the likelihood of slope failure. These
mitigatible measures are in the form of restrictions on certain mining
practices that can cause slope failure. Generally, the placement of spoil,
waste materials, debris, and abandoned or disabled equipment on the down-
slope should be prohibited. Unlined or unprotected drainage channels should
not be constructed on backfill areas. Prompt reclamation of mined areas,
4-3
-------
the elimination of highwalls, and the return of the mined area to original
contours will also minimize the potential for damaging landslides.
If mining is to take place in an area where geotechnical problems may
be encountered, such as constructing haul roads or structures on formations
subject to sliding, sensitive receptors may be protected by relocating haul
routes or structures to avoid such strata or to avoid sensitive receptors.
Where relocation is not possible, careful design and construction of
facilities can relieve or reduce possible impacts. Proper engineering and
design is important in mitigating potential geotechnical related impacts.
4.1.2.2 Toxic Overburden
The adverse impacts caused by mining in areas where toxic or
acid-forming overburden occur can be minimized by neutralizing the
acid-forming potential of the disturbed overburden, isolation of the
disturbed overburden, and by controls to prevent or reduce the rate of
pollution formation. Neutralization is accomplished by thoroughly mixing
the overburden with alkaline material. The alkaline material may occur
naturally as on-site strata or it may have to be transported to the mining
site. Isolation of toxic or acid-forming overburden can be accomplished by
burying the overburden as deep as possible and then covering it with at
least four feet of soil before reclamation of surface area. Certain
controls or practices can be implemented to prevent or reduce the rate of
pollution formation from toxic overburden. These controls include the
diversion of surface runoff away from areas where overburden has been
disturbed, the construction of impoundments to detain runoff from disturbed
areas for treatment, and prompt reclamation and revegetation of the
disturbed area.
4.1.2.3 Floodplains
The impact of mining activities on floodplains is best mitigated by the
prevention of the encroachment of mining facilities into the floodplain. If
facilities must be located in the floodplain, they should be designed to
inhibit floodwater flow to the least extent possible so as to minimize flood
damage upstream. The facility should be located as close to the edge of the
4-4
-------
delineated floodplain as practical. Affected structures upstream from the
proposed facility may be relocated at the applicant's expense to locations
not affected by floodwater back-up. Affected structures could also be
purchased by the applicant and removed.
4.2 WATER RESOURCES
Historically, the mining of coal from surface and underground mines in
the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field has resulted in the degradation of the
surface water and groundwater resources of the Coal Field. Generally,
mining activities can impact water resources by degrading the quality of the
water and by reducing the quantity of water available for use.
4.2.1 Surface Water Impacts^
The quantity and quality of surface water resources can be adversely
affected by coal mining activities. Surface mining and the surface portion
of underground mining affect the hydrologic characteristics of an area by
reducing peak flood flows and by increasing base flows. The land
disturbances associated with mining activities result in the on-site ponding
of rain water which would otherwise run naturally into streams. This
ponding results in reduced flood peaks and somewhat reduced flood volumes.
The slow infiltration of water into the ground from the on-site ponds and
subsequent movement of groundwater into the streams increases base flows in
the streams during dry weather.
The quality of surface water is affected by mining activities through
the introduction of high iron and manganese concentrations, acid mine water,
and high sediment loads and concentrations. The erosion of exposed soil,
coal refuse piles, and coal storage piles and overflow from sedimentation
ponds during storm events results in the release and transport of sediment,
toxic substances, and other water quality reducing elements to streams. The
increased sediment loads, toxic wastes, acid mine drainage, and high
dissolved solids contribute to a significant reduction in stream water
quality which causes a reduction, alteration in composition, or elimination
4-5
-------
of aquatic life; an alteration, reduction, or elimination in water use
opportunities for industrial processes and domestic consumption; and/or a
decrease in the water-carrying capacity of downstream channels and/or flood-
plains. These water quality impacts are particularly significant when
sensitive aquatic resources are located downstream. These sensitive aquatic
resources include streams that are designated or proposed for designation
for domestic water supply use, coldwater aquatic habitat use, Outstanding
Resource Water of the Commonwealth, or identified as a Sensitive Aquatic
Ecosystem by KNPC. Streams likely to be inhabited by a federally listed or
proposed species in danger of extinction or threatened with endangerment as
identified by KNPC are also included.
4.2.2 Groundwater Impacts
The major impact of coal mining upon the groundwater resources of the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is the migration of acid mine drainage into the
groundwater. Several mining practices affect the formation of acid mine
drainage and its migration into the groundwater. Abandoned deep mines are
the major source of acid mine drainage contamination in the region. These
mines lie below the water table and provide for the free access of air to
the shale and coal seams which contain the iron disulfide minerals. Since
water, air, and the iron disulfide minerals are available, the formation of
acid mine drainage results. Deep mines in which water is unable to freely
discharge to the land surface require dewatering during their active life to
allow work below the water table. Dewatering lowers water levels and can
result in the oxidation of exposed iron disulfides. When deep mines are
abandoned and dewatering is discontinued, portions of the depleted aquifer
may be replenished with acid mine water as the mine refills with water. For
this reason, abandoned mines may be a greater source of groundwater
contamination than are operating mines (USEPA 1980). If the rate of ground-
water recharge from an abandoned underground mine is slower than the rate of
seepage into the mine, the openings become flooded and oxidation may stop.
4-6
-------
Surface mines which have not been reclaimed or are presently in opera-
tion can produce acid mine drainage by several means. Contour surface
mining frequently incorporates the mining of a highwall from a level bench
and disposal of overburden downslope of the bench. The disposal of over-
burden downslope is not always complete and may result in the formation of a
mound of overburden on the edge of the bench. The area between the mound
and the highwall provides an area for the formation of pools of acid mine
water. The pools can then migrate via fractures into the groundwater
aquifer and contaminate it.
The overburden from strip mine operations and shales from cleaning
operations in deep mines commonly contain relatively large concentrations of
iron disulfides. When disposed in waste piles or used as fill for roads,
the overburden and shale can serve as an acid mine drainage contamination
source for groundwater.
Auger mining consists of horizontally augering the coal seam along a
highwall. Exposed auger holes are direct sources of mine drainage emission
and can cause subsurface water pollution through surface water inflow (USEPA
1975) and consequent infiltration. Exploratory drillholes that have not
been properly backfilled are also avenues for the flow of surface pollutants
and acid mine drainage into aquifers.
Sedimentation ponds are used for the settling out of fine particle
matter contained in slurry from coal cleaning operations. The fine particle
matter is capable of producing acid mine drainage since it consists of shale
and coal which contain the iron disulfide minerals. These ponds, commonly
constructed without impermeable liners, can be sources of groundwater
contamination. When constructed without impermeable barriers they allow the
migration of impounded water into the subsurface to occur.
Conditions which will have the greatest effect on groundwater quality
due to degradation by acid mine drainage exist where a mine or other point
source of acid mine drainage serves as a recharge area. Recharging of an
aquifer with acid mine drainage will contaminate it. However, sources of
4-7
-------
acid mine drainage present in aquifer discharge areas will not affect the
quality of the groundwater.
A.2.3 Mitigation of Surface Water Impacts
The adverse impacts of coal mining activities on surface water quality
can be minimized by a variety of mitigative measures. These mitigative
measures include:
• at source controls to prevent or reduce the rate of
pollution formation;
• treatment of polluted water before discharge;
• techniques for dispersing and diluting released polluted
waters;
• techniques for isolating polluted water; and
• requirements for more intensive water quantity and quality
monitoring signal the need for additional control efforts.
At source controls reduce or prevent the rate of pollution formation
and include surface land reclamation, drainage diversions, impoundments,
refuse pile reclamation, and revegetation. Land surface reclamation activi-
ties include prompt backfilling, grading, and revegetation of ground dis-
turbed by excavation. To minimize erosion problems during reclamation,
construction of water diversion ditches may be required. Drainage diver-
sions are designed to channel surface waters or mine waters to control
volume, direction, and retention time. Impoundments are designed to
restrict waters within an isolated area of a surface mine. These waters may
be treated and released or disposed of in some other way. Waste rock and
other refuse may be reclaimed by burying or covering and by then revege-
tating the area. Revegetation is usually the final step in land rehabilita-
tion and involves planting and maintaining grasses, legumes, and/or trees on
the surface areas disturbed or altered by excavation or dumping.
4-8
-------
Several approaches may be utilized for treating polluted waters.
First, all sources of surface flow and runoff should be diverted to identi-
fiable points of treatment and discharge. At these points or along drainage
channels, the polluting effects of acid mine drainage can be chemically
counteracted by neutralizing the acid with lime, sodium hydroxide, or
hydrous ammonium. Other treatment methods are available, however high costs
make them unsuitable for mining effluent.
In lieu of or in addition to treating polluted waters before release,
volumes, rates, times, and locations of the releases may be planned so as to
enhance dispersion or dilution of the pollutants. If the regulations
developed for Underground Injection Control (UIC) can be met, polluted
waters may be isolated by injection into deep wells.
4.2.4 Mitigation of Groundwater Impacts
Acid mine drainage is the principal source of groundwater pollution in
the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. Measures to prevent groundwater pollution
from acid mine drainage include:
• prevent the formation of acid mine water in underground
mines by using mine seals or well dewatering;
• isolation and/or neutralization of spoil from mines; and
• treatment of acid mine water before discharge into streams
or wells.
Abandoned deep mines are the worst single source of acid mine drainage
affecting groundwater. There are two methods of controlling acid mine
drainage from within the mine, mine seals and well dewatering. There are
two types of sealing methods, dry seals and hydraulic seals. Dry seals
prevent the free passage of air and water into the mine. This type of seal
is used only where there is a slight possibility of hydraulic head forming
behind the seal. Hydraulic mine seals are placed at a point of gravity
discharge. The seals then dam up water behind them and flood the mine
workings, keeping out oxygen and preventing or reducing the formation of
4-9
-------
acid mine water. Hydraulic seals should be controlled with overflow
mechanisms in the event that the seal fails as a result of too large a total
head of water developing behind the seal.
The second type of mine drainage control from within a mine is through
well dewatering. Unlike seals, mine dewatering via wells is possible while
mining operations are in progress. Mine dewatering is the method by which
water flow into the mine is curtailed and contamination prevented by
developing well schemes to control water flow and contact with acid
producing formations.
Spoil piles from underground workings and from surface mines are also
sources of acid mine drainage. The formation of acid mine drainage can be
reduced by surface restoration of these spoil piles. Surface restoration
reduces formation of acid mine drainage by promoting: (1) rapid runoff,
thereby decreasing infiltration; (2) vegetative consumption (transpiration);
(3) near surface moisture retention with eventual evaporation; and
(4) reduction of oxygen contact with acid forming minerals. Spoil pile
neutralization will also prevent the formation of acid mine drainage. Spoil
pile neutralization is the treatment of spoil piles with neutralizing
agents. This is accomplished by injecting a neutralizing slurry containing
pulverized limestone and/or hydrated lime into the spoils through grout
sleeves.
Treatment of acid mine drainage water is usually undertaken only after
all other preventative measures have been carried out to the fullest extent.
This is because acid mine water treatment has the greatest long term cost.
High long term costs are encountered due to labor and material expenditures.
Neutralization is the most cost effective treatment method. Neutralization
techniques are developed around mixing a chemically basic substance with
acid mine drainage to neutralize acid and precipitate salts. Lime, lime-
stone, or a combination of both have been extensively used for neutraliza-
tion. An analysis of topography, geology, and availability of materials
must be carried out to determine the nature of the treatment plan to be
used.
4-10
-------
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The construction and operation of coal mines, haul roads, and
preparation plants can cause severe impacts on the biological resources of
the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. These impacts include loss or disturbance
of terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitats, wetlands, and sensitive species.
Direct effects may include elimination of terrestrial vegetation and wild-
life habitats on mine sites (especially significant for strip mines) and
elimination of aquatic life in receiving streams due to stream removal,
increased sedimentation, or changes in water chemistry. Mining activities
may also cause direct effects by producing changes in the hydrologic regime
in the receiving streams.
4.3.1 Biological Impacts
Many of the terrestrial ecosystems in eastern Kentucky have been
greatly affected by man's activities in the past. These activities have
included logging, raining, farming, and urban expansion. The major issues
with respect to terrestrial ecosystems in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field
are: (1) elimination or disturbances of terrestrial habitat by mining acti-
vities; (2) potential effects of mining on identified sensitive natural
areas; and (3) the ability to successfully reclaim mined areas including
orphan mines. Terrestrial habitats in the Coal Field may be affected by
both underground and surface mining operations. Underground mining may
result in the direct elimination or disturbance of terrestrial vegetation at
the mine mouth and along haul roads. This affects both plant and animal
communities. Underground mining can also cause subsidence or changes in
groundwater levels which may alter growth patterns and species composition
of terrestrial vegetation. Surface mining may affect terrestrial communties
by direct removal of vegetation or by alteration of the substrate. Coal
removal alone is seldom the most important impact of surface mining,
however, unless rare or endangered species are eliminated. More significant
disturbances result from soil modification caused by overburden removal.
Potential impacts may include changes in drainage patterns, disruption of
soil organisms responsible for nutrient recycling, changes in soil structure
4-11
-------
and soil composition which in turn affects nutrients and moisture
availability, and changes in soil chemistry. Therefore, the primary concern
for the protection of biological resources in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field is the ability to effectively reclaim mined areas.
Reclamation of orphan mine lands in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is
also a major issue since these areas represent degraded ecosystems which
reduce overall habitat value and also contribute significantly to degra-
dation of aquatic habitats. Even if reclamation efforts are successful,
however, the reclamation process itself may have adverse impacts on area
aquatic systems due to increased runoff of fertilizers, lime, or pesticides
which may be used to manage revegetated areas. Such materials may cause
eutrophication or produce toxic effects in aquatic systems if reclamation is
done improperly.
The major issues with respect to the possible effects of mining on
aquatic habitats in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field are: (1) direct elimi-
nation of wetlands, streams segments, and associated impacts; (2) distur-
bance of receiving streams, rivers, and wetlands by increased acid-mine
drainage and sedimentation in an area already significantly affected by
previous mining activities; (3) potential impacts on remaining sensitive
aquatic and wetland habitats; and (4) effectiveness of reclamation efforts
in reducing or minimizing impacts on aquatic and wetland habitats.
Surface mining activities in particular may result in the direct
removal of stream segments and wetlands. Although streams may be replaced
by grading to original contour following raining activities, several years or
more may be required for full recovery (Herricks and Cairns 1974). Both
streams and wetlands may also be significantly affected by acid runoff,
fertilizers, lime, and sedimentation from the mined areas during reclamation
activities. Direct removal of stream segments during mining may cause
changes in groundwater levels that result in downstream changes in flow
rates, frequency and duration of flooding, and increases in erosion and
sedimentation rates (Darnell 1976; Haynes et al. 1979). This also may
result in elimination of benthic organisms, fish, and microscopic plant
4-12
-------
life. Replacement of stream segments by sediment ponds also reduces the
quality of aquatic life since such ponds are typically characterized by
reduced water quality (e.g., higher levels of sulfates, acids, metals;
Haynes et al. 1979). Wetlands may also be affected by changes in the hydro-
logic balance (Darnell 1976). Potential impacts primarily include changes
in groundwater inflow and soil moisture levels, both of which may result in
direct impacts on wetland vegetation or changes in species composition.
Aquatic habitats and wetlands may already be significantly affected by
acid mine drainage and sedimentation caused by post-mining activities.
Sedimentation generally has the more significant potential impact on aquatic
life due to increased erosion from mined areas and coal washing facilities
(Haynes et al. 1979). Sedimentation may cause increased scouring in
streams, shading of benthic plants, direct smothering of benthic
invertebrates, or creation of unstable substrates unsuitable for animal
colonization (Hart and Fuller 1974). The loss of benthic plants and animals
typically results in elimination of fish from affected areas (Haynes 1970).
Sedimentation may also directly affect fish by clogging gills, causing
osmotic stress, smothering eggs deposited in the substrate, reducing disease
resistance, or changing migratory patterns (Dvorak et al. 1977). High BOD
loadings may also be associated with increased sedimentation which can have
direct effects on aquatic biota or increased availability of toxic
compounds.
Acid mine drainage may cause additional stress on the aquatic life of
receiving streams. Acid drainage usually is characterized by high TDS
levels (primarily 804), high levels of heavy metals, and high hardness.
Biological impacts are highly variable and site-specific (Roback and
Richardson 1969). Acid drainage may lower the pH of receiving waters,
thereby increasing the release of sulfur by iron and sulfur bacteria (Dugan
1972); reducing growth of benthic algae; eliminating fish life by direct and
indirect mechanisms; and increasing the availability of heavy metals (Haynes
et al. 1979). Altered TDS levels may cause osmotic stress in aquatic
organisms or alter the toxicity of metals (National Academy of Science,
National Academy of Engineering 1973). Benthic substrates can also be
4-13
-------
covered by ferric hydroxide precipitates (yellowing) which smothers benthic
life and obstructs fish gills.
Mining activities in eastern Kentucky have a great potential to produce
impacts on threatened or endangered species, species of special concern, and
species of undetermined status. As of 1979 there were 111 animal and 97
plant species with these classifications in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
Of these, seven endangered animals, two endangered plants, and 13 threatened
plants are Federally listed. Surface mining in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field has a great potential to produce impacts on these sensitive
terrestrial species due to the relatively large amount of land disturbed by
this type of mining. Impacts on sensitive plants are typically a result of
direct elimination during land clearing operations. Site-specific surveys
are usually necessary to assure protection of sensitive plants. Impacts on
sensitive animals are usually an indirect result of habitat destruction.
4.3.2 Mitigation of Biological Impacts
The mitigation of mining-related impacts on the terrestrial and aquatic
biological resources of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field can be accomplished
by:
• the avoidance of mining in sensitive resource areas;
• the protection of water quality in receiving streams;
• prompt reclamation of disturbed land;
• the replacement of lost resources with resources of
comparable value;
• the establishment of buffer zones around sensitive
biologic resource areas; and
• changes in the rate or scheduling of mining activities to
minimize adverse impacts to biological communities.
Water pollution mitigation measures have been described previously in
Section 4.2. Reclamation is one of the key mitigative measures to be used
4-14
-------
to reduce the long-term impacts of mining on biological resources in the
Coal Field.
The re-establishment of vegetation on denuded areas is a key measure in
reducing erosion and runoff impacts. According to Plass (1975), birch and
Eleagnus species were successful on mine spoils as well as silk tree, tree
of heaven, French tamerisk, Japanese fleeceflower, and amur private. Black
locust and evergreens are successful (Garner 1953) and often used in
reclamation practices. Vimmerstedt (1970) found that European alder could
be used to replace black locust as a nitrogen fixing tree.
Vogel and Berg (1968) stated that the relative success of plants on
mine spoils is determined by pH. Eragrostis curvula is successful on acid
spoils. Plant cover can protect spoil surfaces until trees are established.
According to Ruffner (1962), crown vetch is good on less acid spoil slopes,
sweet clover is good for erosion control, narrow leaf trefoil is the best
legume for dry shallow shale spoils, tall oat grass is good in moderate acid
spoils, exotic bluestems are successful during midsummer drought, and switch
grass is good in steep areas or in stoney high limey spoils. Hill (1973)
found that weeping lovegrass and European alder were successful on mine
spoils. Vegetation should be chosen not only for its ability to survive on
the reclaimed land but for its ability to support wildlife.
Fertilization, liming, and mulching are important processes for
reconditioning the soil. Fertilization is necessary to replace nutrients
lost through stripping topsoil and erosion. The application of flyash,
composed wastes, processed sewage, and bark is being used to aid in soil
improvement in disturbed areas. Municipal wastewater aids in revegetation
and that sewage is a good pH neutralizer.
Liming is usually necessary preliminary to planting. Liming is applied
to raise pH, thus making soil more alkaline. Liming, therefore, improves
the success of vegetation.
4-15
-------
Hydraulic seeding on slopes has been found to be very advantageous
(Rogers 1971), while broadcast seeding with no bed preparation is not very
successful. Green and Hansen (1969) found that heavier seeds exhibit a
higher percent of germination as compared to light seeds. Mulching and
seeding should be achieved at the earliest possible time after an area has
been mined.
Another means of developing mitigative measures is through a
preliminary environmental study such as those conducted for OSM's Small
Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). Various hydrological, geological, and
biological data are obtained and analyzed which can aid in determining
possible impacts produced by mining activities. Specific mitigative
measures can then be applied to reduce the severity of the identified
impacts.
In some cases, the adverse impacts of mining on biological resources
can be mitigated by the replacement of lost resources with resources of an
equal value. An example of this type of mitigative measure would be the
restocking of animal species after mining or the replacement of one type or
area of wildlife habitat with another.
Where particularly sensitive or unique biological habitats occur,
mining activities may have to be prohibited in order to preclude serious
impacts. A buffer zone around the sensitive area might also be required to
protect the sensitive species from the noise, dust, erosion, and other
associated impacts caused by mining.
4.4 LAND RESOURCES
The continued extraction of coal resources from the Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field will create adverse impacts on the land resources of the Coal
Field. Two major impacts will occur as a result of coal resource extraction
and the associated activities: (1) the conversion of Environmentally
Significant Agricultural (ESA) land (as defined in 3.5.2.) to non-farming
4-16
-------
use; and (2) the conversion of recreational land resources to other uses and
the degradation of the environment adjacent to the recreational facility.
4.4.1 Impacts on Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands
The cumulative effect of continued coal production and increasing
population levels in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field will result in the
conversion of ESA land to urban and mining-related uses. The conversion of
ESA land in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is considered a significant
adverse impact because of the relative scarcity and high economic value of
this land resource in the Coal Field. The further reduction of this
farmland in eastern Kentucky would diminish the area's cropland base and
diminish environmental quality by reducing the beneficial role which the
land itself can play. Agricultural land reduces runoff by absorbing
precipitation, aids in replenishing groundwater supplies, buffers environ-
mentally sensitive areas from encroaching development, and can serve in
wastewater treatment through land treatment processes. Other benefits of
retaining agricultural land in or near urbanizing areas are the value of
convenient sources of food production in proximity to consumer markets
enabling reduced consumption of scarce fossil fuels for transportation,
which in turn will assist in protecting ambient air quality, and the open
space; recreational, and aesthetic setting these lands may provide for
fuller enjoyment of cleaned waters.
Reclaimed surface mining areas can be used to create additional
agricultural land. The quality of these reclaimed lands for agricultural
production may vary however.
Preparation plants are located necessarily in the flat valleys of
eastern Kentucky in proximity to the transportation networks. These flat
valley floors are also the location of most prime agricultural lands in the
Coal Field. In addition to the plant facilities themselves, disposal of
sludge from plants creates the potential for significant adverse impacts on
agricultural lands. Where sludge is deposited covering prime agricultural
soils the soils cannot be reclaimed.
4-17
-------
4.4.2 Impacts on Recreational Resources
The recreational land resources of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field
include National, State, and local public parks; National Wildlife Refuges
and Wilderness Areas; National System of Trails; State wildlife management
areas; and State or National Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers including
rivers that are under study for such designation. These recreational lands
are important regional resources that require protection from the direct and
indirect effects of mining activities in order to preserve future
recreational opportunities for the region's population.
Mining activities can adversely impact recreation land through the
direct conversion to mining or other land uses as well as by the indirect
effect of pollutants produced by the mining activities on nearby recrea-
tional facilities. These pollutants include noise and dust emissions as
well as the degradation of the aesthetic value of the recreation land.
Noise and dust emissions from nearby mining activities including mines,
preparation plants, and haul roads can interrupt recreational activities and
reduce the recreational value of the land. Wildlife habitats that are part
of the recreation area can be similarly impacted, reducing the value of the
land for nature observation, conservation, and education activities.
Mining, particularly surface mining, that occurs near recreational land can
reduce the aesthetic quality of the viewshed for persons utilizing the
recreation land. Even after the mined area is restored and revegetated the
aesthetic quality of the viewshed may never equal pre-mining levels. The
recreational value of areas from which the mining activity can be viewed is
thereby reduced.
4.4.3 Mitigation of ESA Land Impacts
Coal mining activities, especially surface mining, on Environmentally
Significant Agricultural lands can permanently destroy the productive
potential of the natural soil. Where mining activities take place on these
lands, mitigative measures should include the consideration of underground
mining methods where surface mining would disturb large areas of prime
4-18
-------
farmland. Where underground mining methods cannot be utilized, surface
mining and reclamation operations' impacts on agricultural land can be
minimized by utilizing the following soil removal, stockpiling, and
replacement procedures:
1. Topsoil materials to be used in the reconstruction of the
farmland topsoil should be removed before drilling, blasting,
or mining, in accordance with Section 2 below, and in a manner
that prevents mixing or contaminating these materials with
undesirable material. Where removal of soil materials could
result in erosion that may cause air and/or water pollution,
appropriate methods to control erosion of exposed overburden
should be used.
2. Soil Removal
(a) Surface coal mining and reclamation operations on prime
farmland should be conducted to:
(1) Separately remove the entire A horizon or other
suitable soil materials which will create a final
soil having an equal or greater productive capacity
than that which existed prior to mining.
(2) Separately remove the B horizon of the soil, a
combination of B horizon and underlying C horizon,
or other suitable soil material that will create a
reconstructed soil of equal or greater productive
capacity than that which existed before mining.
(3) Separately remove the underlying C horizons, other
strata, or a combination of horizons or other
strata, to be used instead of the B horizon. When
replaced, these combinations should be equal to, or
more favorable for agricultural products than the B
horizon.
(b) The minimum depth of soil and soil material to be removed
for use in reconstruction of farmland soils should be
sufficient to meet the soil replacements of Section
4(a).
3. Soil Stockpiling
If not utilized immediately, the A horizon or other suitable
soil materials specified in Section 2(a)(l) and the B horizon
or other suitable soil materials specified in Sections 2(a)(2)
and 2(a)(3) should be stored separately from each other and
from spoil material. These stockpiles should be placed within
4-19
-------
the permit area where they are not disturbed or exposed to
excessive water or wind erosion before the stockpiled horizons
can be redistributed.
4. Soil Replacement
Surface coal mining and reclamation operations on farmland
should be conducted according to the following:
(a) The minimum depth of soil and soil material to be recon-
structed for farmland should be 48 inches, or to a depth
equal to the depth of a subsurface horizon in the natural
soil that inhibits root penetration, whichever is
shallower. A depth greater than 48 inches may be appro-
priate wherever necessary to restore productive capacity
due to uniquely favorable soil horizons at greater
depths. Soil horizons shall be considered as inhibiting
root penetration if their densities restrict or prevent
penetration by roots of plants common to the vicinity of
the permit area and have little or no beneficial effect
on soil productive capacity.
(b) Replace soil material only on land which has been first
returned to final grade and scarified unless site speci-
fic evidence is provided showing that scarification will
not enhance the capability of reconstructed soil to
achieve equivalent or higher levels of yield.
(c) Replace the soil horizons or other suitable soil material
in a manner that avoids excessive compaction. Compaction
shall be considered excessive if, on more than 10 percent
of the replacement area, any layer of reconstructed soil
has a moist bulk density of 0.1 gram per cubic centimeter
more than the values for the equivalent layer of the
undisturbed soil.
(d) Replace the B horizon or other suitable material speci-
fied in Sections (a)(2) and (a)(3) to the thickness
needed to meet the requirements or paragraph (a) of this
section.
Whenever there is opportunity to create soil conditions more favorable
than occurring in the natural state, every consideration should be given to
promoting these conditions.
4-20
-------
4.4.4 Mitigation of Recreational Land Impacts
The adverse impacts resulting from coal mining activities located
adjacent or near to recreational land can be mitigated or minimized through
various actions and methods. These include:
• Reduction or redefinition of surface mined areas to
boundaries where impacts on recreation land are eliminated
or reduced.
• Selection of haul routes that will avoid recreation
areas.
• Construction of barriers or use of natural topographic
features as barriers to reduce or eliminate noise and
visual impacts.
. Consideration of underground mining methods where surface
mining is responsible for significant impacts.
• Relocation of surface facilities of underground mines
where those facilities create major impacts.
• Stage mining and mining related activities to minimize
adverse impacts.
4.5 HUMAN RESOURCED
Coal mining and associated activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field will have both beneficial and adverse impacts on human resources and
transportation. These impacts occur in the form of economic effects, rapid
population growth, increased demand in public and private services, and
transportation impacts.
4.5.1 Impacts on Human Resource^
In general, the economic effects of coal resource development in
eastern Kentucky would be considered beneficial to the economic well-being
of the region. Changes will occur in the economic base of the Coal Field as
well as in the economic status of the residents. As coal mining becomes
more extensive and provides more employment opportunities, the economic base
of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field will become further oriented towards coal
mining.
4-21
-------
A heavy reliance on coal mining however, has many inherent risks, thus
endangering the economic and social well-being of residents of eastern
Kentucky. This heavy reliance may lead to unforeseen fluctuations in
employment, particularly should a situation of decreasing demand for coal
occur. The heavy out-migration of eastern Kentucky residents during the
1960's would have been far less severe had the economy exhibited greater
diversification.
The most significant adverse effects of coal resource development on
human resources are caused by rapid population growth. Rapid population
growth occurs in response to the sudden creation of jobs in an area that
does not have a local labor force of sufficient size and/or skill to fill
the available positions. When this happens non-local workers and their
families are attracted to the area because of the employment opportunities
made available to them. These new residents require adequate levels of
basic community services and facilities (infrastructure) such as housing,
wastewater treatment, water, health care, education, transportation network,
fire and police protection, and recreational facilities. In most instances,
the existing tax base of the community cannot supply these services and
facilities to the new residents on such a short notice. Because of the lag
in the receipt of tax revenues from the new residents and the long lead
times and high costs of required public improvement projects, serious
strains on existing infrastructure elements occur.
The availability of adequate housing is often one of the most serious
problems that results from rapid population growth. The provision of
housing for the new residents of an area may lag several years behind the
need because of the lack of adequate public infrastructure (roads, sewers,
water, etc.), the unavailability of construction and/or mortgage credit, or
the inability to assemble land needed for new housing developments. As a
result, the cost of existing housing as well as any new units built
increases beyond the financial capability of most of the population. Many
people are forced to live in mobile homes in rural areas that are not
provided adequate services or must commute long distances to work from areas
where housing is available.
4-22
-------
The rapid population growth experienced in eastern Kentucky during the
1970's has intensified many problems that have long plagued the area. The
combined effects of severe housing shortages, high construction costs, and a
lack of developable land have created problems for many local residents,
especially those with low and moderate incomes. Malfunctioning water and
wastewater systems are strained even further by the population influx (NACO
1979).
Local transportation networks, primarily the road system, can also be
adversely affected by mining activities and mining-induced population
growth. Public safety problems on local roads can occur as a result of the
larger volumes of private vehicles using the roadways, the larger number of
commercial vehicles (primarily coal haul trucks) using public roadways, and
increases in coal-related rail traffic which cause a higher probability of
rail-highway crossing accidents and delays. The larger volumes of coal haul
trucks using public roadways may also degrade the quality of the road
surface and weaken bridges as well as create noise and dust emissions that
disturb nearby sensitive receptors.
4.5.2 Mitigation of Human Resource Impacts
The mitigation of many of the impacts on human resources of the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field are difficult to accomplish because of the cumulative
nature of the impacts. Although population growth resulting from the
opening of one coal mine may not be considered significant, the cumulative
impact of the opening of several mines in an area may be serious enough to
severely impact local housing supply and services. This is a particularly
critical factor to consider in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field because of
the relative scarcity of human services in the area. Funding assistance to
local governments struggling with the impacts of rapid population growth is
one method of mitigating impacts.
The adverse impacts of coal mining activities on the transportation
network in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field can be lessened or eliminated by
employing a variety of mitigative measures. These measures include changes
4-23
-------
in operational procedures, routing, or mode of transport. The type of
mitigative measure employed should be matched to the type of impact that
occurs. Potential mitigative measures are as follows:
• Limitation of haul periods during the day to non-peak
periods to reduce congestion during peak traffic periods.
• Develop alternative haul routes to be used to relieve
primary haul routes during peak traffic volume periods if
congestion or public safety hazards develop.
• Consideration of alternative hauling methods (e.g., rail,
conveyor, barge, or pipeline) if other mitigative methods
are not able to lessen impacts.
• Relocation of facilities such as preparation plants or
tipples to reduce local transportation impacts.
4.6. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Coal mining has the potential to alter or destroy archaeological and
historic resources that occur at or near the mining site. Mitigative
measures are available to minimize or avoid the adverse impacts of mining
activities on cultural resources.
4.6.1. Impacts on Cultural Resources
Coal mining activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field will result
in primary and secondary impacts on the cultural resources of the area.
These resources may include archaeological and historic sites, properties,
structures, or objects that are listed on or determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. Primary impacts on cultural resources
are those adverse effects that would result from construction or operation
of coal mines or related facilities. Adverse effects are more common and
may consist of one or more of the following (36 CFR 800 as amended):
• Destruction or alteration of all or part of a property;
• Isolation from or alteration of its surrounding
environment;
• Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements
that are out of character with the property or alter its
setting;
4-24
-------
• Transfer or sale of Federally-owned property without
adequate conditions or restrictions regarding
preservation, maintenance, or use; and
• Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or
destruction.
Historic and archaeological resources are highly susceptible to damage
by the mining of coal, particularly by surface mining that entails an exten-
sive modification of large surface areas. Mine pits, haul roads, and fills
frequently encompass several landforms, all or any of which may contain
archaeological sites.
The secondary impacts on cultural resources are those beneficial or
adverse effects that may occur indirectly as a result of construction or
operation of coal mines or related facilities. Secondary adverse impacts on
archaeological and historic resource can include the indirect impacts that
result from induced related growth such as subsidiary industrial develop-
ment, development related to distribution and marketing of coal, or housing
development.
Development related to coal mining or alteration of open space
surrounding known historic structures and constituting an integral part of
their historic setting potentially may diminish the historic integrity of
such properties. Similarly, alteration of the character of designated or
potential historic districts by the introduction of structures, objects, or
land uses that are incompatible with the historic setting and buildings of
the district constitutes an adverse impact on the historic quality of the
the district. Occasionally, induced growth and industrialization increase
pressures to demolish historic buildings in order to make way for new
development.
Beneficial impacts of coal mining on archaeological resources may
include road construction that provides greater access to the sites for
scientific investigation and a possible increase in the site location data
base if surveys are made during the permit application process. Enhancement
4-25
-------
of the positive aspects can be accomplished if archaeological sites adjacent
to coal mine permit areas are formally registered with the SHPO. If
unrestricted access is provided to looters and vandals, however, the
potential benefits from the added roads can be negated.
4.6.2 Mitigation of Cultural Resource Impacts
Mitigative measures are developed on a case-by-case basis for each type
of site or property. Standard forms of treatment include, but are not
limited to the following:
• avoidance through rerouting locations of mining and
construction activities;
• recording and relocation and/or recording and demolition
of standing structures (recording means photographs,
measured drawings, and documentation according to National
Architectural and Engineering Record [NAER] standards);
• in-place preservation of archaeological properties through
the use of protective burial, barriers, or buffers and
designing structures over an archaeological site in such a
way as to minimize subsurface disturbances;
• archaeological monitoring during construction of
facilities; and
« data recovery/excavation of the archaeological site
conducted under a scope of work in consultation with the
SHPO, the Advisory Council, and USEPA.
Identification of cultural resources is the first step toward the
mitigation of mining impacts. In order to identify all historic structures,
properties, and places that may be eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places and that may be affected adversely by coal mines or related
facilities, a mechanism is needed to ensure that significant resources will
be identified prior to issuance of New Source permits. The State Historic
Preservation Officer is the mandated administrator of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 as amended in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As
such, the SHPO maintains responsibility for National Register and National
Register eligible sites as well as substantial file data not made available
4-26
-------
for USEPA use. The SHPO is familiar with the amount of survey work
previously conducted in the vicinity of each potential mine site or coal
preparation site in Kentucky for which a permit is sought. Should there be
insufficient available information regarding historic resources of the area,
the SHPO may recommend that a historic resources survey be conducted by the
applicant. The SHPO also is authorized under the US Advisory Council Proce-
dures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR 800 as
amended) to delineate the area of impact of any New Source coal mine.
If significant resources are identified that will be affected by coal
mining operations, several options are available as mitigation. The SHPO,
the appropriate USEPA officials, and the Executive Director of the US
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are required under US Advisory
Council Procedures (36 CFR 800) to confer and decide upon appropriate
mitigative measures on a case-by-case basis. Such mitigation can range from
permit conditions that require the avoidance of disturbance to the historic
structure (if demolition is indicated) to planting of trees and shrubs to
screen the mining activities from the historic property in order to retain
its historic setting. When mitigation measures have been agreed upon, a
Memorandum of Agreement concerning the necessary NPDES permit conditions
will be executed formally. If mitigation either cannot be identified or if
the applicant will not accede to the permit conditions required, the New
Source permit cannot be issued by USEPA without the preparation of an EIS.
The procedures for assessing the potential impacts on archaeological
resources is similar to that used for historic structures and properties.
The SHPO may recommend special permit conditions to protect significant
archaeological resources and/or recommend on-the-ground surveys to identify
unknown archaeological resources, as appropriate. If archaeological
resources that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
are identified during surveys, nomination forms should be submitted by the
USEPA or the applicant to the SHPO. Resources considered eligible by the
SHPO then are forwarded by him to the US Secretary of the Interior for a
determination of eligibility. If eligible, mitigative measures probably
will be necessary where such resources potentially would be affected by
4-27
-------
proposed mining operations. USEPA officials, the US Advisory Council, and
the SHPO are required to confer and develop appropriate mitigative measures
on a case-by-case basis. If mitigation either cannot be identified or if
the applicant will not agree to the permit conditions required, the New
Source permit cannot be issued by USEPA.
4.7 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
4.7.1 Impacts on Air Quality
Coal mining and associated activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field may result in significant amounts of fugitive dust emissions. Other
pollutants may be emitted into the air as a result of these operations, but
in insignificant amounts. Fugitive dust emissions are generated primarily
due to truck traffic on unpaved public or private haul roads. Other sources
include surface mining, blasting, preparation, coal loading and unloading,
and wind erosion. The transportation of coal by truck on unpaved haul roads
is the major contributor of fugitive dust emissions from coal-related
activities in eastern Kentucky.
The close proximity of many residential sites to haul roads exacerbates
the problem of fugitive dust emissions in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
Many haul roads in the Coal Field are unpaved and therefore are a major
source of fugitive dust. In addition, residences and other sensitive recep-
tors are generally located much closer to haul road routes than to actual
mining or preparation areas. For these reasons the fugitive dust emissions
along the coal truck haul routes, particularly unpaved routes, can result in
significant adverse environmental impacts. Initial investigations have
determined that there is potential for significant violations of primary
ambient air quality standards at sensitive receptors along unpaved haul
roads. These sensitive receptors include any place where humans live, work,
or otherwise congregate.
An analysis was performed to determine the impact to sensitive
receptors along unpaved roads due to haul truck traffic. Emission factors
4-28
-------
for haul truck operations were developed and used with the HIWAY-2 air
pollution computer model to determine ground level total suspended particu-
late (TSP) concentrations. This computer model generated emission data that
was used to calculate the maximum daily number of haul truck passbys versus
various distances of sensitive receptors from the centerline of the roadway
which would result in concentrations equal to or greater than the NAAQS for
TSP. This resulting data is indicated in the graph in Figure 4.7-1. This
graph can be used to determine the maximum allowable number of haul truck
passbys per raining operation for sensitive receptors located at various
distances from the haul route.
4.7.2 Impacts on Noise
Historically, the mining and preparation of coal from surface and
underground mines in eastern Kentucky has resulted in a degradation of the
acoustic environment adjacent to these mines, although monitoring data are
not available to substantiate this statement. Coal haul trucks, rock
drills, mine vent fans, preparation plants, and blasting are the major
sources of mining-related noise in the Coal Field. The noise effects of
mining operations are geographically small, affecting only receptors
immediately adjacent to the mining site. Only mines which are extremely
close to each other result in cumulative or synergistic noise impacts.
However, as the number of mines increase in eastern Kentucky, the total area
of noise impact will grow. It logically follows that the total number of
affected receptors will also grow.
The acoustical problems and issues associated with the mining
activities in eastern Kentucky are those associated with increased noise
exposure. Excessive noise is known to interfere with communication and
cause hearing loss, heart disease, harmful effects on the unborn and
children, annoyance, interference with activities at home and work, mental
and social problems, and even loss of life (USEPA 1978b). These effects
vary with the intensity and duration of the noise as well as with the
individual. Noise from a coal mining operation (mining, haul roads, rail
line, and blasting) may be sufficient to cause some or all of the above
4-29
-------
Figure 4.7-1. The 24-hour NAAQS for TSP as a function
of haul truck passbys and distance.
400
o
a:
U-
LU
U
z
<
t—
in
Q
300
200
100
24 HOUR NAAQS
100
200 300 400
TRUCK PASSBYS PER DAY
4-30
-------
problems. In addition, blasting may cause physical damage to structures
through vibration.
Nearly one-half of the population of this country is regularly exposed
to levels of noise that interfere with normal activities such as speaking,
listening, and sleeping. Many people are subjected to high levels of noise
in their homes or at work. The suburbs near urban centers are beginning to
experience levels of traffic and industrial noise once confined to the
cities. And even deep in the country's parks and forests, quiet is often
shattered by the noise of motorcycles and air planes (CEQ 1979).
In the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field, the rugged terrain necessitates the
close geographic association of sensitive noise receptors (residences,
schools, churches, and health care facilities) with certain coal mining
activities. Railroads, coal haul roads, loadout facilities, and preparation
plants are usually located in the relatively narrow river valleys along with
other types of development including sensitive receptors. Noise from coal
haul routes has the potential to affect many sensitive receptors because of
the potential widespread distribution of this noise source. This close
association between noise sources and sensitive noise receptors in the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field has the potential to cause significant noise
impacts to sensitive receptors.
The noise emissions characteristics for coal mining, coal preparation,
and coal transportation were modelled to obtain typical noise emissions that
can be expected from these operations at various distances. The composite
noise level from a typical coal mining operation was shown to be 79 dBA at
100 feet. A typical coal preparation plant was found to emit a composite
noise level of 76 dBA at 100 feet. Noise from coal haul trucks was pre-
dicted using the Federal Highway Noise Prediction Computer Model, resulting
in the nomograph indicated in Figure 4.7-2 which shows the relationship
between the number of truck passbys per hour, the distance to sensitive
receptors, and the resultant noise level.
4-31
-------
Figure 4.7-2. Estimated noise levels (Leq) from coal haul trucks,
SO 40 10 20 10
HAUL TRUCKS/HOUR
-------
4.7.3 Mitigation of Air Quality Impacts
Fugitive dust emissions are the major adverse impacts of coal mining on
air quality and can be mitigated by the following methods:
• wet suppression of dust;
• chemical stabilization;
• paving of haul roads;
• reduce speed of haul vehicles;
• stabilization of vegetative areas; and
• reduction of fall distance of coal, enclosure of dust
resources, and exhaust systems at coal transfer points.
Wet suppression of dust using water or water plus a wetting agent is
the most widely used fugitive emission control and can be employed for
temporary control of dust from unpaved roads, materials handling, stock-
piles, waste heaps, and general mining and construction activities during
prolonged dry periods or when visible dust emissions occur. Chemical
stabilization utilizes binding materials that, upon drying, bind with
surface particles to form a crust which isolates the dust-forming material
from climatic factors. The paving of coal haul roads is a very effective,
although expensive, mitigative measure for reducing fugitive dust emissions.
If unpaved roads must be used to transport coal, reducing the speed of haul
vehicles on those roads can significantly reduce fugitive emissions by
reducing the pulverization of road material and the turbulent wake of the
haul vehicle. Vegetative stabilization can be used to reduce fugitive dust
emissions from exposed soil areas, but is restricted to inactive areas where
the vegetation will not be mechanically disturbed. Other dust emission
control measures include the reduction of fall distances at material
transfer points, enclosure of the dust source, and the use of exhaust
systems to collect dust emissions.
4-33
-------
4.7.4 Mitigation of Noise Impacts
Several techniques are available for the mitigation of coal mining
induced noise impacts in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. These include
site planning, equipment maintenance, use of noise barriers, personnel
training, and operational noise restrictions.
Site Planning - Initial site planning offers an excellent
opportunity to implement abatement measures. At this time
in the planning process, the location of the noise
generating activities can be planned with sensitive noise
receptors in mind. It is anticipated that with proper
site planning most impacts can be eliminated by providing
adequate buffer zones and topographical barriers.
Equipment Maintenance - New and properly maintained equip-
ment is generally quieter than older equipment. Noise
sensitive components and noise control devices should be
inspected and noise measurements made periodically with
any necessary repairs and replacements made to maintain
original equipment noise levels. Typical devices used for
equipment noise abatement are mufflers, derating engines,
and sealed and lubricated tracks. Abatement measures
include engine vibration isolation, turbocharging, and
lowered exhaust pipe exit height.
Noise Barriers - The feasibility of erecting noise
barriers in order to mitigate specific impacts can be
assessed during the site planning stage. For example,
mine vent fans are a stationary noise source throughout
the mining operation, therefore noise shields around the
fan would be an effective and feasible long term noise
abatement measure. In addition, the use of barriers for
surface mining operations seems very appealing in that
overburden storage could provide an effective earth berm
barrier.
Personnel Training - Personnel should be made aware of the
need for noise abatement. It may be desirable to imple-
ment a program to instruct equipment operators on the
quietest use of their equipment.
Operational Noise Restrictions - Time scheduling of opera-
tions during non-noise sensitive times can effectively
reduce overall noise to acceptable levels. For instance,
nighttime operation could be curtailed in areas where
sensitive receptors are located, thus reducing the
or Leq(24) values to acceptable levels.
4-34
-------
4.8 SUMMARY
The impacts of coal mining and mining related activities as well as the
mitigative measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts have been presented
in this chapter. Table 4.8-1 presents a summary of the impacts of coal
mining activities by resource category.
4-35
-------
Table 4.8-1. Summary of mining impacts by resource for the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field.
EARTH RESOURCES
Steep, Unstable Slopes
Toxic Overburden
Floodplains
WATER RESOURCES
Surface Water
Groundwater
Undercutting, increased loading, removal of vege-
tation and alteration of hydrologic balance may
result in landslides endangering public health
and safety.
Changes in chemical and biological conditions in
soil, surface water, or groundwater may result in
detrimental effects on aquatic organisms and
plants, and hinderance to revegetation.
Modifications to the hydrologic capacity of
streams may back-up flood water and increase
sediment loads to streams with costs to
individuals and business in the region.
Surface disturbances can (1) reduce peak flood
flows and increase base flows, (2) adversely
affect water quality through the introduction of
iron and manganese, acid mine water, and sediment
loads, (3) reduce, alter in composition, or
eliminate aquatic life, (4) reduce water use oppor-
tunities for domestic consumption and industrial
processes, and (5) reduce waste assimilative
capacity of downstream channels.
Contamination of aquifers by acid mine drainage
from underground mines or migration of leachates
from coal refuse and storage piles at coal pre-
paration plants and dewatering of underground
mines can adversely affect the quality and quan-
tity of water at public and private water supply
wells.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Terrestrial Ecosystems
(Including threatened or
endangered species)
Mining can cause (1) elimination or disturbance
of identified sensitive plant and animal sensitive
habitats, and identified sensitive areas, and
(2) reduction in the ability to successfully
reclaim areas due to soil modification (changes in
drainage patterns, disruption of nutrient
recycling, changes in soil horizon composition).
4-36
-------
Table 4.8-1. Summary of coal mining impacts by resource for the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field (cont.).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Aquatic Ecosystems
(Including threatened or
endangered species)
Wetlands
LAND RESOURCED
Environmentally Significant
Agricultural (ESA) Lands
Recreational Lands
HUMAN RESOURCES
Economic Base
Population Growth
Transportation Networks
Mining can cause (1) elimination or disturbance of
stream segments and other sensitive aquatic habi-
tats (changes in groundwater inflow or changes in
species composition) and (2) disturbance of
receiving streams and rivers with increased AMD
(lowers pH of receiving waters and increases
availability of heavy metals) and sedimentation
(stream scouring, smothering of benthic inverte-
brates, elimination of fish, high BOD loadings)
Mining can cause the elimination or disturbance of
wetlands by changing the rate and quality of
groundwater and surface water inflow and by
altering soil moisture levels which can affect
wetland vegetation.
Mining can result in conversion of Prime Farmland
(and other ESA categories) to non-farming uses
reducing an already scarce resource in eastern
Kentucky. ESA lands can also provide beneficial
uses (runoff absorption, buffering of sensitive
areas) other than food production that could be
lost or reduced.
Mining can result in conversion of recreational
land to non-recreational uses and/or pollution o£
recreation land adjacent to mining operations by
noise, degraded water and/or visual effects.
Heavy reliance on coal mining can lead to
unforeseen fluctuations in employment due to the
lack of industrial diversification, potentially
affecting the social well-being of residents.
Mining can result in rapid population growth in
areas without local labor supplies of sufficient
size or skill, resulting in demand on the existing
tax base of affected community and strains on
infrastructure, including housing.
Transportation of coal by haul trucks can result
in public safety problems and degradation of road
surfaces due to the heavy weight of vehicles.
4-37
-------
Table 4.8-1. Summary of coal mining impacts by resource for the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field (concluded).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic/Archaeological
Sites
AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
Air Quality
Noise
Mining operations, including haul roads can (1)
destroy or alter sites, (2) isolate sites from
their surrounding environment, (3) introduce
elements out of character with the sites and their
setting, (4) transfer or sell sites without
conditions regarding maintenance or preservation,
or (5) neglect the sites, allowing deterioration.
Limited survey work in Eastern Kentucky increases
the potential for impacting sites eligible for the
National Register (i.e. not already listed).
Mining operations (blasting, loading, and prepara-
tion) and coal transportation on unpaved public
and private haul roads can result in fugitive dust
emissions at sensitive receptors, affecting public
health and general welfare.
Mining operations (equipment and blasting) and
coal transportation on public and private haul
roads can increase ambient noise levels signifi-
cantly for sensitive receptors located near the
operations or along roads with high coal truck
traffic, affecting public health and general
welfare.
4-38
-------
5.0 REGULATIONS GOVERNING MINING ACTIVITIES IN THE
EASTERN KENTUCKY COAL FIELD
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 USC 4321 et
seq.) mandates the consideration of environmental factors by Federal deci-
sionmakers during the evaluation of major Federal actions which may signifi-
cantly affect the environment. The issuance of a New Source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit by USEPA was defined
by Congress in the Clean Water Act (CWA Section 511(c); 33 USC 1251 et seq.)
to be a major Federal action. USEPA must thus conduct NEPA reviews when
processing NPDES permits for the construction and operation of New Source
coal mines and coal cleaning facilities.
USEPA's responsibilities in the regulation of coal mining operations
are paralleled by those of the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) or the
delegated State regulatory authority under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA; PL 95-87, 30 USC 1201 et seq.) and by other
government agencies. The issuance of mining and operations permits under
SMCRA by OSM is subject to the provisions of NEPA, but OSM intends for these
permits to be issued by State agencies. While State issuance of the SMCRA
permit will not trigger NEPA compliance, the State programs will apply the
environmental standards of SMCRA to coal mining activities.
The overlapping responsibilities of USEPA and OSM or their designated
State regulatory authorities have been addressed in several Draft Memoranda
of Understanding between USEPA and the Department of Interior (DOI) of which
OSM is a part. These memoranda concern regulatory responsibilities related
to such concerns as state program review, NEPA compliance requirements, and
duplication of programmatic responsibilities. One such Memorandum of
Understanding signed under the Carter Administration in November 1980 (45 FR
246) establishes an overall agreement outlining the responsibilities of each
agency designed to substantially eliminate the potential for duplication.
No such similar agreement, however, currently exists between USEPA and other
Kentucky agencies, although one is contemplated. The development and
implementation of a NEPA compliance strategy for USEPA is complicated by the
5-1
-------
uncertain status and often duplicative nature of these three levels of
control over coal mining activities. This chapter provides an overview of
the environmentally protective Federal and State laws and regulations that
apply to coal raining operations and the interrelationships which exist
between the responsibilities of the various agencies. It identifies the
existing mechanisms which can control or eliminate the adverse impacts
Identified In Chapter 4.0. This chapter also identifies any remaining
significant Impacts In each resource area for further investigation in this
EIA to mitigate through the USEPA NEPA compliance program.
5.2 USEPA's REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
5.1.1 New Source Coal Mining Activities Under the NPDES Permit Program
Section 511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act provides that the issuance by
USEPA of a New Source NPDES permit is a major Federal action subject to the
review provisions of NEPA. NPDES regulations originally addressed coal
mines as existing sources of wastewater, focusing permit review on the
attainment of minimum effluent limitations. The draft New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for the coal mining point source category were
issued 17 September 1977 and activated the New Source NPDES permit program
for the industry. The final standards were published 12 January 1979 (44 FR
9:2586-2592). New Source coal mining facilities requiring NEPA review
include the following:
o Coal preparation facilities for which construction is
initiated after 1? September 1977, independent of coal mine
permit areas.
o Surface and underground mines that are assigned
Identifying numbers by the US Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) on or after 17 September 1977.
o Surface and underground mines with earlier MSHA numbers
that meet one or more of the following criteria.
-Begin to mine a new coal seam.
5-2
-------
-Discharge effluent to a new drainage basin.
-Cause extensive new surface disruption.
-Begin construction of a new shaft, slope, or drift.
-Acquire additional land or mineral rights.
-Make significant additional capital investments.
-Otherwise have characteristics deemed appropriate by the
Regional Administrator to place them in the New Source
category.
The decision of whether a mine is a New Source is determined for each
individual project, based largely on the information supplied with the
permit application. At a minimum, New Source coal mines must meet the New
Source Performance Standards for the industry if they propose to discharge
wastewater into the surface waters of the United States. The effluent
limitations apply only to wastewater discharged from active mining areas.
Runoff from lands undergoing reclamation are considered a sub-category
separate from active mines and coal preparation plants. USEPA best
practices guidelines for coal mining (Best Practices for New Source Surface
and Underground Coal Mines, 1 September 1977 memorandum to Regional
Administrators incorporated by reference in the New Source discharge
limitations) mandate that mine plan engineer:ng must nr^vent, minimize, or
mitigate the discharge of any noxious materials that would adversely affect
downstream water quality or uses following the temporary or permanent
closing of a mine.
Each New Source coal mine as described above must obtain an NPDES
permit prior to commencement of point source discharge(s) from the site.
The application for an NPDES permit is subject to the NEPA review process
described in Section 5.1.2. The NEPA review requirement during the permit
process allows: (1) public and interagency input to the NPDES permit review
process prior to the initiation of mine site discharges; (2) effective
environmental review and consideration of alternatives that may avoid or
minimize adverse effects; and (3) development of environmentally protective
permit conditions. This review may include a full Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and/or various less extensive forms of environmental review
and mitigation.
5-3
-------
5.1.2 Applicable Laws and Regulations Under NEPA
Federal regulations and laws applicable under the provisions of NEPA
protect many environmental resources including the following:
Surface and groundwater quality
Sensitive ecosystems
Floodplains
Wild or scenic rivers
Wetlands
Endangered species habitat
Environmentally Significant Agricultural lands
Recreational land uses
Noise and vibration levels
Historic, archaeologic, and paleontologic sites
Community integrity and quality of life
Air quality
Geologic and soil characteristics.
Under the provisions of NEPA, USEPA is required to make every reasonable
effort to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment through the
protection of these resources. The sections that follow describe the
regulatory framework which provides for the protection of these resources
under USEPA's NEPA responsibilities.
5.1.2.1 Surface and Groundwater Quality
The primary goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are to make the waters
of the Nation fishable and swimmable by 15 June 1983 and to eliminate water
pollution by 1985. As one means to accomplish these goals, the Congress
established the NPDES permit program. Coal mining is one of 21 industrial
categories (New Sources) for which more stringent effluent limits were
required. The eventual goal of the NPDES program is the elimination of all
pollutant-laden discharges to the Nation's waters.
Section 303(e) of CWA provides the Commonwealth of Kentucky with the
opportunity to establish baseline water quality data, stream management
objectives, and stream water quality criteria to protect the established
water uses. The New Source NPDES permit program, in turn, can be tailored
5-4
-------
to achieve a desirable level of environmental protection through the utili-
zation of the NEPA review process and the application of discharge limita-
tions that are based on specific water quality management objectives and
that may be more stringent than the nationwide New Source standards.
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) finalized on 12 January
1979 provide for effluent limitations from new coal mining activities based
on the use of the best available demonstrated control technology (BACT).
The limitations do not apply to: (1) overflow or bypass discharge that may
result from a storm of 24-hour duration and 10-year return period (or
equivalent snowmelt); (2) overflow or bypass discharge caused by any
precipitation or snowmelt where the treatment facility is designed and
maintained to treat the volume of water covered by the regulations during a
10-year, 24-hour discharge-precipitation event (44 FR 250:76791, 28 December
1979); and (3) drainage from areas other than active mining areas provided
that such drainage is not commingled with untreated mine drainage that is
subject to the limitations. Provision also is made for a higher pH in the
final effluent where the effective removal of manganese requires a pH above
9.
5.1.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystems
•
Implementation of the more stringent NSPS provides additional
protection to aquatic ecosystems beyond the requirements of the existing
source discharge limitations. The USEPA Administrator may impose even more
stringent limitations where such are considered necessary to provide a
greater degree of protection to sensitive aquatic ecosystems. These more
stringent limitations may be appropriate for stream segments that include
spawning grounds of game fish such as trout or the habitat of mussels
endangered with extinction. The Administrator also may suggest permit
conditions such as requirements for large buffer areas adjacent to
especially sensitive stream segments. Sediment control structures that
provide more environmental protection than would be afforded by structures
constructed under BACT also could be mandated. This imposition of more
stringent limitations by the Regional Administrator, however, has rarely, if
ever, been stipulated.
5-5
-------
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (PL 89-72) requires
USEPA and any other Federal agency to consult and coordinate with the US
Fish and Wildlife Service when streams and other water bodies are altered.
In addition, the DOI and the US Department of Agriculture (DOA), as well as
appropriate Kentucky agencies will have the opportunity to comment on
terrestrial ecosystem impacts during the New Source NPDES permit review
process. Based on the comments received during the review process, USEPA
can propose revisions to permit applications or suggest permit conditions
that will mitigate impacts on terrestrial ecosystems if necessary. In this
way, USEPA can assist in the conservation and protection of terrestrial
ecosystems.
5.1.2.3 Floodplains
Undeveloped floodplains are protected by Executive Order 11988 as
implemented by guidelines of the Water Resources Council (43 FR
29:6030-6055, 10 February 1978). USEPA, under the provisions of Executive
Order 11988, must avoid wherever possible the long- and short-term impacts
associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and avoid
direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a
practicable alternative. The Agency must also incorporate floodplain
management goals into its planning, regulatory, and decisionmaking
processes. To the greatest extent possible USEPA must:
• Reduce the hazard and risk of flood loss and, wherever it
is possible, to avoid direct or indirect adverse impacts
on floodplains;
• Where there is no practical alternative to locating in a
floodplain, minimize the impact of floods on human safety,
health, and welfare, as well as the natural environment;
• Restore and preserve natural and beneficial values served
by floodplains;
• Require the construction of USEPA structures and
facilities to be in accordance with the standards and
criteria of the regulations promulgated pursuant to the
National Flood Insurance Program;
5-6
-------
• Identify floodplains which require restoration and
preservation and recommend management programs necessary
to protect these floodplains and include such
considerations as part of on-going planning programs; and
• Provide the public with early and continuing information
concerning floodplain management and with opportunities
for participating in decisionmaking including the
(evaluation of) tradeoffs among competing alternatives.
5.1.2.4 Wild or Scenic Rivers
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1274 et seq.) provides that the
Secretary of Agriculture or Interior and the KDNREP review and comment on
permit applications that affect designated wild and scenic rivers or rivers
that are being considered for such designation. USEPA cannot assist through
grant, loan, license, permit or otherwise, the construction of a project
that would have a direct and adverse effect on rivers designated as wild and
scenic under Section 3 of the Act or those designated as having potential
for inclusion under Section 5 of the Act. If, after proper consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture or Interior, an action is found to have a
direct and adverse impact, USEPA must provide mitigative measures. No
action may be taken if the adverse effect cannot be avoided and approval
from the appropriate Secretary cannot be obtained.
5.1.2.5 Wetlands
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires USEPA to avoid,
to the greatest extent possible, the adverse impacts associated with the
destruction or loss of wetlands and to avoid support of new construction in
wetlands if a practicable alternative exists. The USEPA Statement of
Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection (5 January 1979)
requires that USEPA determine whether proposed actions will be in or will
affect wetlands. If so, the responsible official must prepare a wetlands
assessment which will be part of the environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement. The responsible official shall either avoid
5-7
-------
adverse impacts or minimize them if no practicable alternative to the action
exists.
In addition, Section 404 of CWA requires Army Corps of Engineers permit
approval for activities that would result in the placement of fill in wet-
lands. The US Department of Agriculture, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US
Army Corps of Engineers, KDNREP, and the public have opportunity to review
and comment on NPDES permit applications that propose activities that may
affect wetlands. These comments may address the identification of impacts,
mitigative measures, and additional regulatory activities on a case-by-case
basis.
5.1.2.6 Endangered Species Habitat
The USEPA is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 USC 1531 et seq.) from jeopardizing species in danger of extinction or
threatened with endangerment and from adversely modifying habitats essential
to their survival. NEPA requires USEPA to identify all designated endan-
gered or threatened species or their habitats that may be affected by an
NPDES permitting action. If such identified species or their habitats may
be affected, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service under
Section 7 of the Act is required. If the consultation reveals that the
action will adversely affect a listed species or habitat, acceptable
mitigation measures must be undertaken or the proposed action terminated.
5.1.2.7 Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands
It is USEPA policy to consider the protection of Environmentally Signi-
ficant Agricultural lands from irreversible conversion to uses which result
in its loss as an environmental or essential food production resource. This
policy is stated in USEPA1s Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant
Agricultural Lands (Policy memorandum from Douglas Costle, Administrator, to
Assistant Administrator, Regional Administrators, and Office Directors,
8 September 1978). Significant agricultural lands include the prime,
unique, and additional farmlands with national, statewide, or local
5-8
-------
significance as defined by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. USEPA has a special interest in protecting farmlands
that: CD are within or contiguous to environmentally sensitive areas and
that protect or buffer such areas; (2) are suitable for the land treatment
of organic wastes; or (3) have been improved with significant capital
investments for the purpose of soil erosion control. USEPA may modify or
deny a New Source NPDES permit application that proposes coal mining
activities on significant agricultural lands if that application includes
inadequate provisions for the avoidance or mitigation of adverse impacts to
such lands.
5.1.2.8 Recreational Land Uses
Agencies that coordinate with USEPA during the review of NPDES New
Source permit applications have the responsibility and authority to ensure
that recreational land uses are not adversely affected by the proposed
actions. If USEPA review of the application indicates that recreational
land uses will be unacceptably disturbed, after the preparation of an EIS
USEPA can deny the permit, suggest special permit conditions, or prepare
revisions to the application for such a permit. Additional protection is
provided to various types of recreational land through the provisions of the
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC 131-1136), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1976
(PL 90-542, as amended through PL 94-486), and the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 USC 1531
et seq.)-
5.1.2.9 Noise and Vibration
USEPA is required by its NEPA responsibilities to ensure that New
Source activities will not directly or through induced development have
significant adverse effects upon local ambient noise levels. As a condition
to a New Source NPDES permit, USEPA may require that blasting be performed
according to the most stringent applicable performance standards that are
promulgated and enforced by the OSM, MSHA, and KDNREP. The permit applicant
may be asked to supply to USEPA data on noise receptors and proposed
operations. USEPA may attach conditions to the permit that restrict
5-9
-------
are
operating hours and equipment noise levels if such restrictions
necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of affected parties.
5-1<2<1° Historic. Archaeologic and Paleontologic Sites
USEPA is subject to the requirements of the National Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.), the Archaeological
Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469 et seq.), and Executive Order
11593 entitled "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment."
These provisions and regulations establish review procedures which USEPA
must follow when significant cultural resources are or may be involved.
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Execu-
tive Order 11593, if a USEPA undertaking affects any property with historic,
architectural, archaeological, or cultural value that is listed on or eli-
gible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the
responsible official shall comply with the procedures for consultation and
comment promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in 36
CFR Part 800. Such undertakings include any new and continuing projects and
program activities carried out pursuant to a Federal permit (36 CFR 800.2).
The responsible official must identify properties affected by the
undertaking that are potentially eligible for listing on the National
Register and shall request a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of
the National Register, Department of the Interior, under the procedures in
36 CFR Part 63.
Under the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, if a USEPA
activity may cause irreparable loss or destruction of significant
scientific, prehistoric, historic, or archaeological data, the responsible
official or the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to undertake data
recovery and preservation activities. Applicable procedures are found in 36
CFR Parts 64 and 66.
USEPA will issue a New Source NPDES permit for mining operations that
will affect a National Register site only after appropriate interagency
5-10
-------
coordination has been pursued. The applicant may be asked to furnish site-
specific information to enable USEPA in cooperation with the SHPO to
determine whether any resources potentially eligible for the National
Register are to be affected by proposed mining activities.
5.1.2.11 Community Integrity and Quality of Life
Under the provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1508.14) the evaluation of impacts
on the human environment is to be considered broadly. This means that the
preparation of an environmental impact statement must include the consider-
ation of effects on the social and economic environment as well as the
natural and physical environment. "Effects" is to include not only those
directly caused by the action, but also those reasonably foreseeable as
indirectly resulting from the action. Such indirect effects may include
growth inducing effects and other impacts related to induced changes in the
pattern of land use, population density or growth rate (40 CFR 1508.8).
Consequently, USEPA1s environmental evaluation requirements triggered by
NEPA compliance includes the analyses of local social and economic impacts
and incorporates this consideration into the NPDES review process.
5.1.2.12 Air Quality
Because the granting of a New Source NPDES permit by USEPA is
considered a major Federal action subject to NEPA compliance, air quality
impacts must be addressed. USEPA addresses the impact on air quality
pursuant to the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA; USC 7401-7642 as
amended by 88 Stat. 246, 91 Stat. 684, and 91 Stat. 1401-02). This permit
program is administered by the KDNREP under a program approved by USEPA.
Ambient air quality standards (40 CFR 50) specify the ambient air
quality that must be maintained outside the project boundary or within the
boundary where the general public has access. Standards designated as pri-
mary are those necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the
public health; secondary standards are those necessary to protect the public
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of an air pollutant.
5-11
-------
In 1974, USEPA issued regulations for the prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality (PSD) under the 1970 version of the Clean Air
Act (PL 90-604). These regulations established a plan for protecting areas
that possess air quality which currently is cleaner than the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Under USEPA1s regulatory plan, clean
air areas of the Nation could be designated as one of three classes. The
plan allows specified numerical increments of air pollution increases from
major stationary sources for each class up to a level considered to be
significant for that area. Class I areas need extraordinary protection from
air quality deterioration and only minor increases in air pollution levels
are allowable. Under this concept, virtually any increase in air pollution
in Class I (pristine) areas would be considered significant. Class II
increments allow for increases in air pollution levels that usually
accompany well-controlled growth. Class III increments allow increases in
air pollution levels up to the NAAQS.
5.1.2.13 Geology and Soils
Section 102(c) of NEPA requires that all agencies of the Federal
government must include in "every recommendation or report on proposals for
legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, a detailed environmental impact
statement." During the course of its NEPA review of New Source NPDES permit
applications, USEPA will consider potential adverse impacts that could
result from mining in unstable, acid-forming, or exceptionally erosive
geologic or soil conditions.
5.1.3 USEPA's Consolidated Permit Program
In an effort to streamline their various permitting activities, USEPA
proposed regulations consolidating the procedures which govern the issuance
of permits under five separate permit programs (44 FR 34244, 14 June 1979).
These regulations were published in the Federal Register (45 FR 33066, 19
May 1980). The five programs covered by the proposed regulations are: (1)
Hazardous Waste Management Program under the Resource Conservation and
5-12
-------
Recovery Act; (2) Underground Injection Control Program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act; (3) NPDES permits under CWA; (4) Dredge or Fill Program
under CWA; and (5) Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program under the
Clean Air Act. The adoption of this program is still tentative, however.
5.1.4 Regulatory Timetable and NEPA Implementation Procedures
USEPA follows a multlstep procedure for NEPA compliance. This
procedure includes provisions for: (1) the early identification of candi-
date New Source applicants; (2) an initial request for Information from each
New Source permit applicant; (3) a preliminary NEPA/NPDES decision either to
prepare an EIS or to defer the E1S preparation pending the review of
additional information from the applicant; (4) a second request to the
applicant for additional information (if needed), preparation of an Environ-
mental Information Document (BID), or a third party EIS; (5) a final
decision to prepare an EIS or to issue a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) based on an EID or the other information requested; (6) the prepara-
tion of an EIS (if necessary) or the issuance of a FONSI; and (7) the
issuance or denial of a draft New Source NPDES permit with appropriate
permit conditions for public review and comment. This decislonmaklng
process is shown schematically in Figure 5.1-1.
5.1.4.1 Identification of New Source Applicants
The publication of the final New Source Performance Standards for the
coal mining point source category (12 January 1979) activated the New Source
NPDES permit program for the industry. The USEPA criteria for identifying a
mining operation as a New Source are indicated In Section 5.1.1. The New
Source NPDES regulations require that an applicant for a New Source NPDES
permit must receive the permit prior to causing a point source discharge.
Hence, it is advantageous to the applicant that contact with USEPA Region IV
be Initiated early in the planning process.
Prior to the publication of the New Source Performance Standards, the
NPDES regulations addressed coal mines only as existing sources of waste-
water. Currently, USEPA Region IV relies on the Water Management Division
5-13
-------
Initial
Information Request
Preliminary NEPA/
NPDES Decision
Figure 5.1-1. General NEPA compliance procedures for USEPA's NPDES program.
Notes: The number of days required to complete any of the paths can be
determined by adding the days noted next to each aspect of the
process.
5-14
-------
to identify New Source coal mining activities from NPDES permit
applications.
5.1.4.2 Initial Information Submittal
If it is determined that a particular applicant may qualify as a New
Source under NPDES regulations, USEPA will conduct a New Source meeting to
determine whether the applicant is a New Source and to inform him of the New
Source requirements. An environmental information request is given to the
applicant at this meeting. The applicant is requested to supply information
to the USEPA EIS Branch, Region IV. A letter is subsequently sent by USEPA
officially informing the applicant of the New Source determination. The
environmental information requested currently includes the following types
of information:
• Present land use and vegetative cover including public
access roads and residences.
• Proposed method of mining and transporting coal, including
haul routes.
• Water requirements and source of water supply.
• Water pollution control system and sediment control
structures.
• Presence of nearby wells and proposed monitoring program.
• Estimated noise levels for mining equipment and coal haul
traffic near sensitive receptors.
• Methods to control fugitive dust emissions on unpaved
public and private haul routes.
• Refuse handling plan and expected composition of coal
refuse (including toxic wastes).
• Documentation of contact with appropriate State and/or
Federal agencies regarding historic and archaeological
sites, wild and scenic rivers, recreation areas, habitats
of threatened and endangered species, wetlands,
floodplains, environmentally significant farmland, and
Federal lands.
5-15
-------
The environmental information requested also includes maps indicating the
layout of the proposed facility and the geology and groundwater flow of the
area.
The applicant's preparation of the environmental information normally
takes up to 90 days. If the applicant opts to supply data prior to the New
Source determination, the timeframe can be reduced.
5-1.4.3. Preliminary NEPA/NPDES Decision
Based on the information submitted to USEPA as well as other
information sources, USEPA will take one of the following actions:
• Determine that the proposed New Source coal mining
facilities will produce no significant impacts on the
environment (FONSI);
• Recommend that the permit applicant initiate the
preparation of an EIS;
• Request additional, resource-specific information from the
applicant or from government agencies that have permit
review responsibilities;
• Direct the permit applicant to prepare a detailed
analysis of alternatives to the proposed action.
This preliminary decision will be based on the adequacy of the
available information to indicate to what extent the proposed coal mining
activity would affect the environment and to what extent adverse effects
could be avoided, minimized, or mitigated through the implementation of the
proposed facility plans with or without special USEPA conditions or
stipulations. The options which could result from this preliminary
NEPA/NPDES decision are discussed in the following sections. Normally, 15
to 30 days are required by USEPA to make this preliminary decision.
Finding of No Significant Impact
In cases where no significant impacts would result from a proposed coal
facility or when a set of permit conditions agreeable to the applicant can
5-16
-------
modify the project to where no significant impacts will result, USEPA can
issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). USEPA review requirements
to make this determination normally take 30 to 45 days. USEPA encourages
permit applicants to integrate environmentally protective measures into the
initial stages of the mine planning process. The applicant thus may avoid
the costly delays or changes in plans that could result from the need to
prepare an EIS or the suggestion of permit conditions by USEPA.
Permit conditions could take one of several possible forms. The USEPA
document "Best Practices for New Source Surface and Underground Coal Mines-
includes several examples of conditions that could be added to an approved
NPDES permit such as special requirements for spoil handling, reclamation
activities, and mine abandonment procedures. The Best Practices guidelines
have not been published formally, but they are incorporated by reference
into the NSPS promulgated on 12 January 1979. The guidelines were issued on
1 September 1977 in a memorandum to Regional Administrators that provides
interim guidance on the application of NEPA to New Source coal mining acti-
vities. The Best Practices guidelines currently are being revised by
USEPA.
If the NEPA decision is to issue a FONSI, the NPDES permit can be
issued following the public notice period if no serious objections are
raised regarding significant impacts.
Third Party Preparation of Draft and Final EIS
During the preliminary NEPA review, USEPA may decide that an EIS
probably will be required on the proposed project. The applicant and USEPA
jointly can choose to employ a third party consultant to prepare the EIS.
If the third party method is desired by the applicant, the proposed
consultant must be approved and directed by USEPA. USEPA criteria for
approval of a third party consultant include assuring the objectivity of the
consultant and the expertise in the preparation of environmental impact
statements.
5-17
-------
USEPA encourages the use of the third party EIS procedure. The third
party method has the compelling advantage of potentially reducing the
applicant's processing time for approval or disapproval of a permit
application when an EIS will be required. This benefit results from a
single consultant performing the collection and analysis of the baseline
environmental data concurrent with the preparation of the mine plan and the
EIS. The integrated third party procedure is monitored closely by USEPA to
assure the integrity of the final product. No opportunity is provided for
prior review of third party work products by the applicant. USEPA retains
the ultimate responsibility, to accept, modify, or reject any portion of the
EIS prepared by the third party. To ensure the technical integrity of the
EIS, the third party may be requested to furnish to USEPA all of the
environmental data that are collected in conjunction with the EIS.
Each EIS must address a standard range of topics (CEQ Regulations
150.10-150.18; 40 CFR Part 6; 44 FR 216: 64174-64193, 6 November 1979):
• The environmental impact of the proposed action;
• Any adverse, unavoidable environmental effects that would
result from implementation of the proposed action;
• Alternatives to the proposed action;
• The relationship between local short-term uses of the
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity; and
• Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources that may result from the proposed action.
The intent of the CEQ regulations and EPA's EIS preparation is to focus on
reasonable alternatives.
Close coordination between the consultant and USEPA is necessary to
ensure that the environmental review requirements are being fulfilled. The
length of time required to complete the third party EIS varies with the
applicant's needs, but it can normally be completed in less than a year (320
•Jays).
5-18
-------
Additional Information Submittal
The preliminary NEPA analysis described in Section 5.1.4.3. may indi-
cate that additional information is needed to facilitate a more thorough
assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed facility on one or
more significant resources which may experience adverse impacts. For
example, if the preliminary information at Region IVs disposal indicates
the presence of toxic overburden, USEPA may require the applicant to conduct
a systematic overburden analysis as described in the USEPA document "Field
and Laboratory Manual for Overburden Analysis" (EPA-600/2-79-054) or to
provide the results of such an analysis prepared for another agency. The
applicant's response to this type of tailored information request, together
with the data that previously were available, will provide the substantive
input for the final NEPA decision on the permit application (Section
5.1.4.4.). Generally, approximately 45 days are required by the applicant
to respond to this information request although a longer or shorter time-
frame may be appropriate depending on the complexity of the request.
Environmental Information Document
In cases where several environmental resources are inadequately charac-
terized by the available data or in cases that require close review because
of their complex or controversial nature, USEPA may require the permit
applicant to collect appropriate new data and prepare an evaluation of
alternatives based on those data. This document (called an Environmental
information Document [BID]) provides USEPA and the permit applicant with the
opportunity to assemble and review relevant environmental information,
alternatives to the project, impacts of the proposed project and available
mitigative measures. Published USEPA guidelines are available that describe
the preparation of this evaluation for surface coal mines
(EPA-130/6-79-005).
The major emphasis of the BID is directed toward identifying available
alternatives and their impacts. USEPA requires the EID where it is deter-
mined that an EIS would be required and the applicant chooses not to use the
third party EIS process. In this case, the presentation and evaluation of
all reasonable alternatives in the EID is necessary.
5-19
-------
The permit applicant may elect to prepare an unsolicited BID on the
basis that one or more of the previously listed sensitive features or
conditions is certain to require the analysis of operational features for
the proposed facility. To ensure that this independent, unsolicited effort
is directed toward the appropriate issues, all applicants for New Source
NPDES permits are strongly urged to make early, voluntary contact with USEPA
Region IV for guidance on preparing permit applications and supporting
documents and to discuss the potential advantages of the third party
process.
The form and content of each solicited BID is determined by the USEPA
official responsible for conducting the environmental review of the permit
application. The official may require that the BID address all reasonable
alternatives and their impacts on any or all of the following topics:
• Cultural Resources
-Archaeological sites
-Historical sites
-Community integrity and quality of life
-Acoustic environment
-Recreational land uses
-Wild and scenic rivers
• Topography
-Unstable terrain features
-Steep slopes
• Climate
-Rainfall
-Snowfall
-Temperature
-Wind speed and direction
-Severe weather events
• Ecological Resources
-Sensitive ecosystems
-Habitats of endangered or threatened species
-Wetlands
-National natural landmarks
• Vegetation
-Species composition and distribution of types
-Importance as wildlife habitat
-Local and regional uniqueness
-Noteworthy specimens or associations of plants
-Threatened or endangered species
-Species of economic importance
5-20
-------
Wildlife habitat for resident or migratory species
-Amphibians
-Reptiles
-Birds
-Mammals
-Threatened or endangered species
-Game species
Water Resources
-Surface water features, including:
Seeps
Springs
Streams
Imp oundme nt s
Wetlands
-Surface water hydrology
-Drainage basin areas
-Low flow of streams
-Mean flow of streams
-Flood flow of streams
-Flood control plans
-Flood control structures
-Groundwater
-Water quality parameters
Temperature
pH
Acidity
Alkalinity
Hardness
Dissolved oxygen
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Turbidity
Sulfate
Ammonia
Concentrations of total dissolved iron, manganese,
zinc, aluminum, and nickel
Air Quality
-Particulates
-N°x . ,
-Other parameters that may be required by the Regional
Administrator
Geoenvironmental Resources
-Prime agricultural lands
-High sulfur coal seams
-Toxic overburden
-Floodprone areas
-Steep slopes (greater than 25%)
Coal transfer activities
-Raw coal transport to cleaning facility
-Raw coal transfer to stacking hopper
5-21
-------
-Stacking
-Raw coal storage
-Raw coal transfer to cleaning operation
-Coal fine transfer to gob pile
-Cleaned coal transfer to storage and transportation
facilities
-Cleaned coal transport
• Coal cleaning activities
-Preliminary sizing (wet processes)
-Dry crushing and sizing
-Pneumatic separation
-Thermal drying
-Dryfeed and product transfer and loading
• Geotechnical properties of coal seam and overburden materials
-Compressive strength
-Mineralogy
-Structure
-Tensile strength
Applicant information submitted in the EID will provide USEPA with
information on which to base the final NEPA/NPDES decision (Section
5.1.4.4.). Due to its complexity, an EID may require 90 days or more to
complete.
5.1.4.4 Final NEPA Decision
Based on an EID or an applicant's responses to specific information
requests, USEPA will make a final decision to prepare an EIS or issue a
FONSI. The decision will account for all of the environmental effects of
the proposed facility that are to be avoided, minimized, or mitigated by the
applicant's proposed raining procedures and agreement to follow these
procedures or practices through permit conditions.
The final NEPA decision will result from the culmination of the various
levels of environmental review performed by USEPA. This review is
designated to determine those New Source permit applications which: (1)
warrant the preparation of an EIS; (2) warrant approval with no further
review because they do not result in significant environmental effects; or
(3) warrant that conditions be negotiated in order to mitigate or minimize
potential environmental impacts. USEPA makes this final decision in
approximately 30 to 45 days from receipt of additional information.
Additional time may be required for complex projects where EID's have been
prepared.
5-22
-------
Finding of No Significant Impact
The demonstrated absence of significant environmental impacts or a
reasonable assurance that the permit applicant will avoid, minimize or
mitigate the adverse impacts would lead to the issuance of a FONSI. The
details of FONSl's are addressed in Section 5.1.4.3.
USEPA Preparation of EIS
USEPA would prepare a draft and final EIS where it has been determined
that significant unmitigated adverse impacts would result from the project
and where the applicant has previously decided not to use a third party
consultant. The same EIS requirements as previously discussed in Section
5.1.4.3. are applicable. However, the time required to complete the NEPA
process would be extended. Contracting procedures and the availability of
contract funds for EIS preparation contracts can significantly affect
schedules.
5.1.4.5 Issue or Deny Permit
The USEPA NEPA compliance procedure ultimately results in either the
issuance, issuance with conditions, or denial of the New Source NPDES
permit. The decision to take one of these courses of action could occur
early or later in the review of the project. The denial of any permit
application would be based on the finding that the New Source coal mining
activity cannot operate without significant adverse impact to the
environment even with appropriate mitigative measures and that the public
benefit from the mining is less than the public damage from the mining.
This decision could take 45 or more days depending on the complexity of
issues. The applicant is notified of this decision and its basis.
Issuance of the permit could take one of several forms. USEPA may
determine that the New Source facility as proposed or modified will have no
significant effect on the environment and issue a FONSI without conditions.
After appropriate public review, the permit would be issued. The permit may
5-23
-------
also be granted with conditions or stipulations based either on proposed
actions by the applicant, USEPA review during the screening procedures,
public review and comment, or review and comment by other State or Federal
agencies during EIS review. Depending on the steps taken to reach this
decision, 45 or more days may be required for permit issuance.
5.2 OSM's REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
5.2.1 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
The major goals of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA) as passed in 1977 are:
• To set a national standard and define a detailed program
for mining coal and reclaiming land;
• To prohibit mining from areas where reclamation is not
feasible;
• To balance the agricultural productivity of land against
coal resources and ensure adequate production from and protection of
both;
• To allow the public to participate in decisions affecting the
environment when it might be affected by coal mining;
• To achieve reclamation of previously mined and abandoned
lands.
The Federal Government through the Department of Interior's Office of
Surface Mining (OSM) has taken the lead in establishing the national surface
mining regulatory program. The Act provides for a shift of responsibility
and authority to the states through the submittal of a program by each state
to OSM for approval. Kentucky's proposed program was submitted to OSM
during March 1980 with a decision on primacy expected between 3 September
1980 and 3 January 1981. A court injunction, however, delayed Kentucky's
submittal of the final program and primacy is not expected until late 1982.
Even if primacy is granted to Kentucky, OSM will continue to play a role by:
(1) conducting an oversight program to make sure the State program is
5-24
-------
operating satisfactorily; (2) regulating mining on Federal lands within
Kentucky; and (3) identifying imminent hazards to public health and the
environment.
SMCRA regulates all surface mines and many underground mines that
require New Source NPDES permits. SMCRA also regulates freestanding coal
preparation plants located outside the permit areas of active mines.
Underground mines will be regulated under SMCRA unless they will disturb
less than 0.8 ha (2 ac) of surface lands including haul roads. Substantial
exploration activities also require permits under SMCRA.
The regulations governing activities subject to SMCRA were published 13
December 1977 as interim standards (42 FR 62639). These interim regulations
will be superseded by the permanent regulatory program published 13 March
1979 (44 FR 15313) and the approved State program. The final regulations
are substantially different from the interim regulations and the latter
includes only those environmental performance standards of 30 CFR Parts 715
through 718, the inspection and enforcement procedures of Parts 720 through
723, and the reimbursements to States of Part 725. Until the State program
is approved, interim regulations governing coal mining are in effect and
enforced by the Kentucky Bureau of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement.
The permanent regulations of OSM would apply existing source NPDES
discharge limitations to areas undergoing reclamation and revegetation. OSM
expects eventually to use the USEPA New Source limitations as the standards
for all reclamation regulated by SMCRA (43 FR 181:41744-41745, 18 September
1978). The OSM regulations are currently undergoing many changes. Various
regulations have been amended, many have been suspended, and still others
are in the process of being rewritten. The final form of OSM's permanent
SMCRA program is unknown at this time and therefore, the following sections
primarily outline the requirements of the interim program.
5-25
-------
5.2.2 Mining Performance Standards Under SMCRA
By the authority designated in Title V of the Act (Sections 501-529),
the final Federal regulations which implement SMCRA set forth minimum
performance standards describing how coal must be mined and what reclamation
activities are required to protect the environment and public health. Title
V of the Act establishes the requirements and procedures to be used by the
appropriate state or Federal agency to control the environmental impacts of
surface coal mining, the surface effects of underground mines, and coal
exploration activities. Provisions for mining permits, reclamation plans,
performance bonds, and public hearings are also included in Title V. The
following sections briefly outline the general and specific provisions of
the Act and regulations which provide protection to the environment either
parallel to or in addition to USEPA1s NEPA responsibilities. The
performance standards address many environmental protection issues that
would be raised during NEPA reviews. Unless otherwise noted, requirements
identified in these sections are applicable to the interim program.
5.2.2.1 Surface and Groundwater Quality and Quantity
Surface and groundwater quality and quantity are protected to varying
degrees by stipulations regarding hydrologic balance. Attention must be
given to the depth of groundwater, the location of surface drainage channels
and streams, and NPDES effluent limitations for iron, manganese, total
suspended solids, and pH. Other provisions require the control of runoff
and leachate from spoil areas and mandate the casing and sealing of
exploration holes and openings. Sediment control structures are required
including sedimentation ponds. Dams, embankments, and underground mine
discharges are also regulated. The interim regulations also require
replacement of legitimate water supplies which have been affected by
contamination, diminution, or interruption from surface mining activities.
5.2.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystems
Aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are provided protection indirectly
under surface water quality protection and directly through provisions of
5-26
-------
SMCRA which require review by fish and wildlife agencies to ensure that
post-mining land uses will protect fish, aquatic, and wildlife habitats.
The interim regulations mandate that fish and wildlife habitat and water and
vegetation of significant value for wildlife be protected in consultation
with appropriate fish and wildlife management agencies (30 CFR 715.17(d)).
The interim revegetation requirements stipulate that the permittee must
establish on all disturbed land a diverse, effective, and permanent vegeta-
tive cover of species native to the area (30 CFR 715.20). The interim and
permanent SMCRA programs provide detailed revegetation requirements,
Including timing of revegetat^ou, iiiuiuuxu^, emu the use 01 introduced
species.
The interim regulations require the determination of premining and
postraining land use capabilities of a proposed permit area. All disturbed
areas must be restored to land uses equal to or higher than premining condi-
tions. The KDNREP has opportunity to review and propose revisions to any
reclamation plan that does not provide for the avoidance or mitigation of
long-term, adverse impacts to the terrestrial ecosystem of a proposed mine
site. The permanent regulatory program of OSM earlier required that the
permit applicant prepare a fish and wildlife plan. While the interim regu-
lations do provide for the minimization of disturbances and adverse impacts
to the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, the requirement of a fish and
wildlife plan has been suspended.
5.2.2.3. Floodplains
SMCRA sets forth provisons for designating specific areas as unsuitable
for mining and the permanent regulations allow the regulatory authority to
prohibit mining in areas which affect natural hazard lands including areas
subject to frequent flooding. Under both the interim and permanent pro-
grams, no land within 100 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream may be
disturbed unless authorized by the regulatory authority (30 CFR 816.57 and
715.17(d)(3)). In addition, floodplaln configurations must be adequate to
safely pass the peak runoff of a 10-year precipitation event for temporary
diversions and a 100-year event for permanent diversions. The interim
regulations do not, however, specifically protect the 100-year floodplain.
5-27
-------
5.2.2.4. Wild or Scenic Rivers
Included among the lands which are explicitly excluded from mining by
SMCRA (Section 522) are areas within the boundaries of study rivers or
designated rivers of the Wild and Scenic River system. The interim program,
however, does not establish specific requirements related to the Wild and
Scenic River system other than those applicable to the protection of the
hydrologic system (30 CFR 761.11).
5.2.2.5. Wetlands
SMCRA and the interim regulations do not specifically address the
protection of wetland areas from mining activities. The interim program
establishes protection of wetland areas primarily through water quality
control regulations and floodplain buffer zones. Wetland areas also would
likely be afforded protection under the general OSM performance standards
for protecting fish and wildlife habitat.
5.2.2.6. Endangered Species Habitat
In addition to the protection given by SMCRA to fish and wildlife
habitat through the protection of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, the
Act also requires the operator to report the presence of any critical
habitat of a threatened or endangered species or any bald or golden eagle.
Under the interim program if a fish or wildlife habitat is to be the primary
or secondary post-mining land use, efforts must be made to assure a suitable
environment including the use of appropriate replacement vegetation.
5.2.2.7. Significant Agricultural Lands
SMCRA sets forth special performance standards regarding mining on
prime farmlands. The provisions of SMCRA are designed to ensure that soil
removal, soil stockpiling and replacement, and revegetation and reclamation
methods will return a level of agricultural productivity of mined land equal
to that which it had before disturbance. Initially, prime farmland included
5-28
-------
land with suitable resource characteristics that has been used as cropland
for at least five of the previous ten years. This definition, however, has
been subject to litigation and the regulations are currently being
definitized. The interim regulations do, however, establish stipulations on
the use of prime farmlands (30 CFR 716.17).
5.2.2.8 Recreational Land Use
The interim SMCRA program does not address protection of recreation
areas. The permanent program, however, prohibits new surface mine
operations within 300 feet of any public park and stipulates that all new
coal mining operations that may affect a public park be approved by the
agency with jurisdiction over the park as well as by other relevant
agencies. In addition, the program prohibits new coal mining operations
within National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, the National System of
Trails, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Recreation
Areas. National Forests may be excluded from mining activities, although
exceptions are allowed upon the affirmative finding by the Secretary of
Agriculture that multiple uses of the National Forest would not be impaired
by the proposed mining.
5.2.2.9 Noise and Vibration Levels
The regulations of OSM under SMCRA require that noise and vibration
from blasting operations be controlled to minimize the danger of adverse
effects from airblast and vibration to humans and structures. The interim
regulations establish procedures for requesting pre-blast surveys, and
establish requirements regarding blasting schedules, limits on airblasts,
and explosives rules.
5.2.2.10 Historic, Archaeologic. and Paleontologic Sites
SMCRA stipulates that no new coal mines will be permitted that may
affect publicly owned places that are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places unless such mining is approved by the State Historic
5-29
-------
Preservation Office. In accordance with this stipulation, the Office of
Surface Mining (OSM) and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation
(ACHP) have signed a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (PMOA) (10
September 1980) which establishes the process for consultation with ACHP in
connection with the Secretary of Interior's approval of the State permanent
regulatory submissions by OSM. Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(c) (1), states with
approved programs will be required to amend their programs to meet the
requirements of the final permanent program regulations as outlined by PMOA.
ACHP will review state programs and OSM will provide ACHP with the
opportunity to comment on the proposed state programs pursuant to Section
503(b) of SMCRA. The interim program has not established specific
requirements for protecting such resources.
5.2.2.11 Community Integrity and Quality of Life
The interim program has not established regulations specifically
designed to protect community integrity but the interim performance
standards do mandate that postmining land uses must be compatable with
adjacent land uses (30 CFR 716.13). The permanent SMCRA program prohibits
new mining operations within 100 feet of a public road right-of-way, except
where a mine haul road enters or adjoins the right-of-way. The public has
opportunity to comment and ensure that it is adequately protected from the
potentially adverse effects of additional traffic and right-of-way
acquisition. The program also prohibits mining operations within 300 feet
of an occupied dwelling without the owner's consent; within 300 feet of any
public, institutional, or community building, church, or school; or within
100 feet of a cemetery.
5.2.2.12 Air Quality
SMCRA provides for the protection of air resources through the control
and reduction of fugitive dust emissions from haul roads on the permit area
and areas disturbed during mining. The methods which must be used for
controlling fugitive dust emissions are to be approved on a site-specific
basis for each mine. Site-specific measures will be determined on the basis
5-30
-------
of applicable Federal and State air quality standards, climate, existing air
quality, and size and type of proposed operations. The interim regulations
do not establish specific stipulations related to controlling air quality.
5.2.2.13 Geologic and Soil Conditions
A number of provisions of SMCRA provide for the protection of existing
geologic and soil characteristics and for the prohibition of mining on
potentially hazardous areas. Under the interim program protection of
geologic and soil characteristics is provided through provisions relating to
topsoil handling, elimination of highwalls, return of the land surface to
approximate original contour, subsidence controls for underground mining,
woody material disposal restrictions, downslope spoil disposal restrictions,
and standards for head-of-hollow and valley fills.
5.3 MSHA's REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
The Coal Mine Health and Safety Act (CMHSA) is Federal legislation
intended to improve mine safety. This Act established the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) as the regulatory authority for ensuring mine
safety. The Act also authorized the implementation of regulations requiring
approval of mining ground control plans and detailed operational and design
standards for underground and surface mines and coal preparation plants.
MSHA is responsible for assigning an identification number by county to
all surface and underground coal mines. Although a particular mine operator
may have more than one operational mine within a county, only one
identification number will be assigned to that operator. Consequently, MSHA
numbers will not identify all of the New Source coal mining activity for
which USEPA is responsible.
MSHA does not in the course of its requirements issue a permit to mine.
Instead, the identification number is used as a means to identify the person
responsible for a particular mining operation and as a reference during
5-31
-------
inspections. Citations for violations and required legal action use this
number as a reference also.
5.4 STATE REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
The Commonwealth of Kentucky is actively regulating coal mining
activities through their Bureau of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement. Other State agencies also exercise various levels of control
over certain mining or mining-related activities. In addition, both USEPA
in the NPDES regulations and OSM in the SMCRA provisions have established
procedural mechanisms and minimum regulatory standards for transferring
program implementation and enforcement responsibilities to the State.
Although Kentucky has not yet received approval for either of these
functions, the State is pursuing the delegation of both of these regulatory
programs.
5.4.1 NPDES Delegation to Kentucky
Section 306(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) enables each state to
develop and submit to the Regional Administrator a procedure under state law
for applying and enforcing standards of performance for New Sources located
in each state. If USEPA finds that the procedure and the laws of the state
require the application and enforcement of standards of performance to at
least the same extent as required by Section 306, the state can be
authorized to apply and enforce these standards.
Under current NPDES regulations, the state's program submission must
contain the following elements:
• A letter from the Governor requesting program approval;
• A State Attorney General's statement indicating that the
state has the legal authority to carry out the program and
that the laws designed to implement the program provide
adequate authority to do so;
5-32
-------
• A Memorandum of Agreement between USEPA and the state
Including provisions for transfer of pending permit
applications, USEPA permit review functions, state
reporting requirements, the state enforcement program,
joint processing procedures, and USEPA review waivers;
• A complete program description including state permitting
procedures, program organization, priorities for permit
issuance, priorities for enforcement, funding arrangements,
personnel qualifications, and implementation procedures;
• Copies of the state's permit application and permit
forms; and
• Copies of all applicable state statutes and regulations.
Upon approval by USEPA, the NPDES program may be delegated to the state
subject to the review, reporting, and coordination requirements of the
Memorandum of Agreement. More than one State agency may have authority to
administer aspects of the NPDES permit program but each relevant agency must
have statewide jurisdiction over a class of activities. Proposed USEPA
revisions to the NPDES regulations are unlikely to alter these program
requirements substantially. Several additional features may be required of
the state programs in the future, however, including use of USEPA's standard
discharge monitoring report forms, assumption of permitting and enforcement
activities for Federal facilities, and implementation of best management
practices and pretreatment programs. If the NPDES permit program is
delegated to the state, NEPA review requirements are no longer applicable
because NPDES permit issuance by a state does not constitute a Federal
action.
The current status of Kentucky's efforts to receive delegation of the
NPDES program is uncertain. The Kentucky Department for Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection (KDNREP) through their Division of Water is
negotiating NPDES delegation with USEPA Region IV. Although no timetable
for resolution of these problems has been set, it is likely that NPDES
delegation will be granted to Kentucky during FY1983. Consequently, no
details regarding the regulatory program's timeframe or procedural
5-33
-------
requirements are currently available. It is expected that SMCRA primacy
will be obtained before the NPDES permit program is delegated.
5.4.2. SMCRA Primacy to Kentucky
SMCRA contains provisions for enforcement of the environmental perfor-
mance standards by the state if the state can demonstrate that it can satis-
factorily fulfill this function. In order to obtain primacy from OSM, the
state must submit an application to OSM indicating that the state program
has a basis in state law and a set of procedures and regulations that are
adequate to enforce the Federal standards. The state's proposed laws and
regulations must be no less stringent than the Federal model and may be more
stringent, but the Kentucky Legislature has declared that Kentucky require-
ments are to be no more stringent than the minimum Federal standards. OSM
after review can either accept and approve the state program or it can adopt
and implement its own program for the state. If the OSM program is imple-
mented, the state may submit a new application.
If the state is granted primacy, OSM still exercises certain responsi-
bilities under SMCRA. OSM is to monitor the state's enforcement of the
program on a regular basis and will evaluate the state's administration of
the program at least annually. Should the state not meet OSM's requirements
in carrying out the program, OSM can enforce its own program within the
state. OSM also retains regulatory control over coal mining on Federal (and
Indian) lands.
In its efforts to obtain primacy, the Kentucky General Assembly passed
during the 1980 session House Bill 566 which amended KRS 350 to meet the
legal requirements of the State's application to OSM. Kentucky's applica-
tion package was submitted in March 1980 and the package received "partial
approval" in October 1980. Revisions to the program were to be submitted to
OSM before approval of the permanent program could be granted. A court
injunction, however, postponed OSM's final review. The revised permanent
program must be reviewed by OSM to determine compliance with Federal
5-34
-------
requirements. Delegation of primacy to Kentucky will greatly depend upon
delays in this final review process.
5.4.2.1 Permit Application Requirements and Review
Figure 5.4-1 indicates the permit application review process proposed
for Kentucky's implementation of the SMCRA program. Applications for
permits are required for both exploration and surface mining activities.
The application process is initiated by the applicant in one of the Regional
Offices of the Kentucky Bureau of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforce-
ment located in Middlesboro, Hazard, Prestonsburg, Pikeville, London and
Grayson. The preliminary application submitted by the applicant includes
information pertaining to the following items:
Location and operation of the mining area;
Coal seam information;
Type of disturbance;
Proposed postmining land use changes;
Watershed data;
Surface and underground water monitoring;
Air quality;
Fish and wildlife studies; and
Geologic information.
Upon receipt of the preliminary application, it is assigned an application
number.
A preliminary review of the proposed site is conducted by the Regional
Office within 21 days of receipt of the preliminary application. Simultane-
ously, a review is conducted to determine the specific data available and
the additional studies which will be required. At this time, a decision
will also be made regarding the lands unsuitable review. Upon completion of
these reviews, a preliminary review worksheet is prepared and a bond amount
assigned. If sufficient information exists to complete a full application
and there are no reasons to prevent mining in the proposed permit area, the
applicant is advised to proceed with the full application. All of this
information is then filed with the Central Office.
5-35
-------
1.
2.
Submits Preliminary
Application
J,
REGIONAL OFFICE
4, 21 days
Conducts Preliminary
Review of Permit Site
7
3.
3. A
Preminlng Data
Availability Study
>U
Sent to the Lands Unsuitable
For Mining Review Team
1
A
P
P
L
1
C
A
N
T
5.
Notifies Applicant of
Data Availability and
if Land Is Unsuitable
Bond
Amount
6.
Notifies Central Office of Number
Assigned and Bond Amount and Sends
Preliminary Review Worksheet
7.'
8.
Receives Application and
Copies from Applicant
Initial Review
For Completeness
9.
21 days
Recommend s
Application For
Acceptance
10.
J,
8. A
Sends Application, and Review
Forms to the Frankfort Office
11.
CENTRAL OFFICE of tie DIVISION of PERMITS
Administrative Review
For Accuracy
1
3
30
days
11 -A
Requests Comment from Outside
Agencies that will be Affected
Accepts
Application
11. B
Technical Review
Accepts Applica-
tion as Techni-
cally Correct
Withdraws
Application for
Correction
ll.A-1
ll.A-2
11 .A-3
14.
Final Review
ll.D-1
11.0-2
17. r
Permit Issued
18.
Final Processing and
Notifications
Figure 5.4-1. Application process proposed by the KDNREP for the
administration of a permanent regulatory program under SMCRA in Kentucky.
5-36
-------
The full permit application is submitted to the Regional Office for
administrative review. The basic information requirements are as follows:
• Type of mining and annual coal production;
• Location, watershed, and county of proposed mining
activity,
• Acreage to be disturbed by type;
• Cultural or historic areas on site;
• Required variances or special provisions;
• Adjacent land uses including Federal or State parks, US
Corps of Engineers flood control reservoir projects, and
active deep mines;
• Average slope of permit area;
• Overburden analysis;
• Identification of aquifers, present users and condition,
and potential mining effects;
• Identification of surface waters, measured discharges,
water quality, and uses;
• Range of diversity indices for fish and macroinvertebrate
data at each aquatic sampling station;
• Disturbance of wetland areas or endangered species
habitats;
• Premining and postmining land uses; and
• Presence of prime farmland.
When the application is deemed administratively complete, it is forwarded to
the Central Office where it undergoes an accuracy review. It is at this
point that appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies are notified of
the application. These agencies and their areas of concern include:
Local
• City or County Government - public parks;
5-37
-------
• Area Development District - historic sites, public parks
and buildings;
State
• KDNREP - Division of Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management - RCRA compliance;
• KDNREP - Division of Water - CWA compliance, and coal
preparation plants, and dam construction;
• Kentucky Department of Transportation - transportation
plan;
• Kentucky Heritage Commission - historic sites and places;
• KDNREP - Division of Air Pollution Control - compliance
with Clean Air Act;
• KDNREP - Office of Policy and Program Analysis - lands
unsuitable for mining determination;
• Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Commission - fish and wildlife
plan;
• State Archaeologist - places of archaeological
significance;
Federal
• US Forest Service - permit application review within
National Forest boundaries;
• US Fish and Wildlife Service - fish and wildlife plan;
• US Army Corps of Engineers - permit application review
within Corps watershed;
• US Soil Conservation Service - prime farmland restoration
plan; and
• US Environmental Protection Agency - water quality.
Once the permit application has been administratively accepted by the
Division of Permit's Frankfort Office and the Administrative Review Section
Supervisor has notified each outside agency of the permit filing, each
,/• ^
agency is allowed thirty (30) days to make comments (and/or to request
further information). Necessary arrangements for each agency's review is
5-38
-------
subsequently made. The Administrative Review Section Supervisor shall
additionally coordinate the date, time, and location of all informal confer-
ences requested by any other Federal, State, or local government agency on a
particular mining application.
All public and agency comments are compiled and forwarded to the
applicant and the Regional Office from which the application is sent to the
Technical Review Section. The technical review consists of a determination
that all requirements of the regulatory program are being complied with
including a determination of the probable cumulative impacts. At this
point, conditions or operating limitations may be appended to the applica-
tion. This review will result in a final recommendation of: (1) permit
denial; (2) permit issuance; or (3) permit withdrawal. A final check on
lands unsuitable determinations is also made at this time. This information
is then included in the final review along with other considerations such as
final checks on the performance bond and notice of intent to mine.
5.4.3 Other State Laws Regulating Coal Mining Activities in Kentucky^
Due to the prevalence of coal mining activities in Kentucky, a number
of other State laws have been enacted to regulate various aspects of the
coal mining industry. Specifically, the relevant statutes and regulations
are as follows:
Statutes
KRS 42, KRS 177 - Local Government Economic Assistance Act
KRS 146 - Wild Rivers System; Nature Preserves
KRS 151 - Geology and Water Resources; Floodplains Protection
KRS 224 - Water Pollution Control; Air Pollution Control
KRS 352 - Mining Regulations
Regulations^
401 KAR
Chapter 2 - Solid Waste
Chapter 4 - Water Resources
Chapter 5 - Water Quality
Chapter 63 - General Standards of Performance
5-39
-------
805 KAR
Chapter 3 - Surface Mining Safety Standards
Chapter 4 - Explosives and Blasting
These laws would be in effect even if the State or Federal SMCRA regulations
were overturned or weakened by future litigation. The following sections
briefly summarize the level of protection and permits required under these
laws.
5.4.3.1 Kentucky Statutes
Under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Sections 42.330 and 177.960, the
State adopted the Local Government Economic Assistance Act which provides an
allocation formula for the coal severence tax collected by the Kentucky
Department of Revenue on all coal produced in the State. Any funds in
excess of $177.6 million are to be divided equally between the State and
local governments. Coal-producing counties receive 90% of the local share
and coal impact counties (i.e., those counties with no active mines but
through which coal is transported) receive 10%. This Assistance Act
establishes ten priority areas for these funds, including health,
recreation, libraries, social services, government administration, economic
development and vocational education.
KRS Chapter 146, the State has been divided into nine soil and water
conservation areas. This statute also established the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation within KDNREP. Title 146.200 of KRS 146 also established
the Wild Rivers System in order to preserve certain designated streams in
their free-flowing condition and to prevent future infringement on their
beauty caused by impoundments or other man-made works. No mining is allowed
within the boundaries of a designated stream including at least the visual
horizon from the stream but not more than 2,500 feet from the center of the
stream. This boundary also includes access points at the upstream and
downstream boundary of the area.
5-40
-------
KRS Chapter 151 establishes the Kentucky Geological Survey to aid the
State in developing its mineral resources. Title 110 of this chapter sets
forth the State's water resources policy: to prohibit pollution; maintain
normal streamflow; prevent flooding; regulate construction, operation, and
maintenance of dams; prevent obstructions from dumping; and to conserve and
properly develop the water resources. Pursuant to this statute, KDNREP's
Division of Water requires that a permit application be completed for
construction or alterations of dams and for the withdrawal of water. The
Division of Water must notify the applicant within 20 working days after
receipt of the application whether the permit will be issued. This chapter
also establishes State regulations requiring a permit for construction
activities in the 100-year floodplains of streams.
KRS Chapter 224 establishes KDNREP as the regulatory authority to
implement controls on septic tanks, solid waste disposal, air pollution, and
noise. It additionally establishes the State as a member of the Ohio River
Valley Sanitation Compact, the Tennessee River Basin Water Pollution Control
Compact, the Interstate Compact on Air Pollution, and the Interstate
Environmental Compact. These interstate agreements were created to control
air and water pollution problems between states with common boundaries.
Section 6 of Title 033 of this chapter also gives KDNREP the power to
control and regulate strip mining and reclamation in accordance with KRS
Chapter 350.
Mining regulations are established under KRS Chapter 352 which includes
numerous provisions relating to both surface and underground mining. The
regulations are primarily directed to mine safety and health, although some
baseline data concerning mine maps, coal bed dip, oil and gas well
locations, water pools, hazardous areas, land ownership, property lines,
elevations, and contours are required. Additional information and
regulations governing mining are contained in KRS Chapter 350 which is part
of the State's SMCRA submittal to OSM.
5-41
-------
5.4.3.2 Kentucky Regulations
A number of regulations have been enacted to implement the statutes
governing coal mining activities in Kentucky. KDNREP is the designated
agency in Kentucky responsible for enforcing these regulations. The
following information summarizes those regulations applicable to coal
mining.
401 KAR 2:010 Solid Waste
401 KAR 4:010 Water Resources
401 KAR 4:020 Water Resources
401 KAR 4:030 Dams
401 KAR 4:040 Impoundments
401 KAR 5:026 Water Quality
401 KAR 5:029
401 KAR 5:031
Water Quality
Aquatics
Wildlife
401 KAR 5:031 Water Quality
401 KAR 5:035 Water Quality
401 KAR 63:005 Air Quality
805 KAR 3:010 Mine Safety
805 KAR 3:020 Mine Safety
Regulations controlling landfills and
reporting procedures.
Requirements and reporting procedures for
permits to withdraw water.
Permit exemption for Dept. of Defense
retention structures.
Minimum design criteria for dams and
associated structures in Kentucky.
Requirements for certification of plans
for embankments greater than 25 feet in
height or having an impounding capacity
of 50 acre-feet.
Classification of waters by priority and
point source.
Water Quality Definition water quality terminology.
Water Quality standards for protection of
cold and warm water aquatic life.
Aquatic life 24 hr. pH not <6.0
pH not >9.0
Sets flow and temperature limits. Total
Suspended Solids (no specified limits).
Water treatment requirements for point
sources.
Establishment of primary and secondary
air quality standards.
Safety standards for coal and clay
mines.
General safety standards for coal and
clay mines.
5-42
-------
805 KAR 3:030 Mine Safety & Safety standards and ground control
Reclamation plans.
Table 5.4.-1 summarizes the various Kentucky statutes and regulations
in relation to the areas of environmental protection provided by them in
regard to coal mining activities.
5.5 LEVEL OF PROTECTION
Under current regulation, environmental resources receive varying
levels of protection. Both State and Federal agencies may have the author-
ity to mitigate certain impacts, but the extent of the protection available
fluctuates. The following sections summarize previously identified adverse
impacts to various resources, the present level of protection afforded each
area, and potentially remaining adverse impacts currently not addressed.
Pursuant to Section 502 of SMCRA an initial regulating program has been
established until permanent programs are approved in accordance with
Sections 502, 503 or 523 of the Act. The initial regulatory program
establishes "interim" regulations for coal mining operations until the
permanent regulations go into effect. This initial regulatory program
includes Parts 715 through 718, 720 through 723, and Part 725 of Volume 30,
Code of Federal Regulations. Where differences occur between the interim
and permanent program, the permanent regulations are distinguished.
5.5.1 Earth Resources
The construction and operation of coal mines, haul roads, loadout
facilities, and coal preparation plants can cause impacts on local earth
resources. The major concerns of mining impacts center on steep and
unstable slope conditions, toxic overburden, and floodplain conditions.
5-43
-------
Table 5.4-1.
Environmental resources addressed by Kentucky statutes and regulations related to coal mining
activities.
Surface & groundwater
quality
Sensitive ecosystems
Floodplains
Wild & scenic rivers
Wet lands
Wild
Rivers
System
Nature
Preserves
KRS
146
X
X
X
X
X
Geol.
&
Water
Res.
KDNREP
KRS
151
X
X
Water
Pollution
&
Air
Pollution
Control
KDNREP
KRS
224
X
Mine
Regs.
Safety
&
Health
KDNREP
KRS
352
X
Solid
Waste
401
KAR
Chapter
2
X
Water
Resources
401
KAR
Chapter
4
X
Water
Quality
401
KAR
Chapter
5
X
X
General
Stands.
of Perf.
401
KAR
Chapter
63
Surface
Mining
Safety
Standards
805
KAR
Chapter
3
Explosion
and
Blasting
805
KAR
Chapter
4
Endangered species
habitats
Significant
agricultural lands
Recreational land
uses
Noise and vibration
levels
Historic archaeologic
or paleontologic sites
Community integrity
and quality of life
Air quality
Geologic and soil
characteristics
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
5.5.1.1 Steep and Unstable Slopes
Mining or related activities that take place on steep or unstable
slopes, slopes greater than 20° or lesser slopes that are underlain by bed-
rock of low bearing strength or other poor geotechnical quality, have a high
probability of causing damaging landslides. A number of provisions of SMCRA
provide for the protection of existing geologic and soil characteristics and
for the prohibition of mining on potentially hazardous areas (30 CFR 701.5;
716.2; 816.102; 816.116; 817.102; 817.116; and 826). The regulatory author-
ity has the power to prohibit mining activities on areas with unstable
geologic characteristics.
SMCRA regulations apply special performance standards to mining on
slopes of 20" or more (although the regulatory authority may define areas
less than 20° as steep slopes based upon soil, climate, or other consider-
ations). These standards apply only to areas where steep slopes are the
dominant landform. The SMCRA standards of this section do not apply where
mining is done on a flat or gently rolling terrain with an occasional steep
slope through which the mining proceeds and leaves a plain or predominantly
flat area, or where mining is governed under Section 824 or 716.3 (30 CFR
716.2 and 30 CFR and 8.6.11). Both interim and permanent program
performance standards regulate: the placement of spoil materials on
downslopes; the elimination of highwalls; the disturbance of land above the
highwall; the use of woody material as fill material; and the construction
of unprotected drainage channels in backfills (30 CFR 716.2 and 826.12).
State regulations require a permit be obtained for all strip mining
activities in the State (405 KAR 1:020). Such a permit may be denied if the
underburden is expected to cause unsolvable problems with substantial
deposition of sediment in streambeds, or with landslides. State law also
requires all land be restored to its original contour with highwalls and
spoil banks eliminated (405 KAR 1:230).
5.5.1.2 Toxic Overburden
The disturbance of overburden materials that are toxic or acidic has
the potential for causing adverse environmental impacts. Exposure of such
5-45
-------
strata to water and the atmosphere can result in the formation of acid mine
drainage and leaching problems. The lowering of the pH of rainwater and
surface runoff can cause toxic substances in the overburden to be carried
into the groundwater and surface water systems.
The Surface Mining Act requires coal operators to use the best control
technology currently available to treat acid and other toxic mine drainage
(Section 515(6)). Discharges from disturbed areas must ordinarily meet
effluent standards established by OSM. Drainage from acid-forming and
toxic-forming spoil into ground and surface waters is controlled by SMCRA
regulations which are designed to protect the hydrologic balance (30 CFR
715.17(g) and 816.48). The regulations vest the regulatory agency (OSM)
with the power to judge when certain activities are detrimental to water
quality and the surrounding environment (30 CFR 715.17(g) and 816.48).
The Commonwealth of Kentucky establishes similar regulations for toxic
overburden through mining regulations administered by the Kentucky Depart-
ment for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (405 KAR 1:150). In
addition, the Kentucky Environmental Protection Law establishes a general
prohibition against the discharge of any substance that shall cause or
contribute to the pollution of the waters of the Commonwealth (Section
224.060, KRS).
5.5.1.3 Floodplains
Certain mining activities such as coal preparation plants and loadout
facilities may encroach upon floodplains and cause modifications to the
hydrologic capacity of the stream and result in the back-up of flood waters
upstream. Also, sediment which runs off mined lands reduces the flood
carrying capacity of streams. When the same magnitude flood must cover a
larger area due to the reduction in water carrying capacity of a stream
channel, negative economic and social impacts result from the damages caused
by the higher flood waters.
5-46
-------
The permanent SMCRA program sets forth provisions for designating areas
as unsuitable for mining. Within these provisions, the regulatory authority
can prohibit mining areas which affect natural hazard lands including areas
subject to frequent flooding. Under the interim program stream buffer zone
limits of 100 feet from a perennial stream or a stream with a biological
community are established (30 CFR 715.17(d)(3)) . The regulations do not,
however, specifically protect the 100-year floodplain.
The Kentucky Division of Water of KDNREP requires a permit for the
construction, reconstruction, relocation, or improvement of any building
dam, embankment, levee, bridge, dike, fill or any obstruction across or
along any stream, floodway of any stream, or 100 year floodplain (Section
151.250, KRS).
All permit applications must include a cross-section of the affected
streambed. If any building exists within 1000 feet of the proposed
obstruction, cross-sections of the floodway at the building must also be
submitted indicating the first floor elevation. While the specific criteria
for issuing the floodway permit varies with the type of construction
proposed, the major stipulation for all activities is the prohibition of any
activity which would result in raising the 100 year flood level more than
one foot. Certain activities are exempt from floodway permit review, the
most significant being the exemption of activities which locate where the
watershed area is less than one square mile.
5.5.1.4 Protection of Earth Resources
The SMCRA regulations provide protection for two of the major areas of
concern related to impacts on earth resources. Impacts on steep and
unstable slopes are subject to the provisions of SMCRA performance
standards. Since steep slopes are a dominant landform in the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field, this earth resource is sufficiently protected by SMCRA.
Toxic overburden also appears to be adequately regulated by SMCRA
provisions. However, OSM does have discretionary power to determine when
certain activities are detrimental. Floodplains are protected by the SMCRA
5-47
-------
requirement of a stream buffer zone of 100 feet. State regulations require
a permit for construction in floodplains and prohibit activities which
increase the existing flood height more than one foot, increase water
velocities by more than one foot, and flood upstream structures beyond the
limits.
5.5.2 Water Resources
The mining of coal from surface and underground mines in the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field has resulted in the degradation of surface water and
ground water resources of the Coal Field. Mining activities may affect
water resources by further degrading the quality of the water and by
reducing the quantity of available water supplies.
5.5.2.1 Surface Water
Surface mining and the surface portions of underground mining affect
the hydrologic characteristics of an area by reducing peak flood flows and
by increasing base flows. The land disturbances associated with mining
activities result in the on-site ponding of rain water which would otherwise
run naturally into streams. The quality of surface water is affected by
mining activities through the introduction of high iron and manganese
concentrations, acid mine water, and high sediment loads and concentrations.
The erosion of exposed soil, coal refuse piles, and coal storage piles and
overflow from sedimentation ponds during storm events results in the release
and transport of sediment, toxic substances, and other water quality
reducing elements to streams.
Many of the provisions of SMCRA are designed to protect hydrologic
balance — water quality and quantity and the location of surface channels
and streams (30 CFR 715.17 and 816.41-816.57). Both interim and permanent
program performance standards require that the permittee plan and conduct
coal mining and reclamation operations so as to minimize disturbance to the
prevailing hydrologic balance and to prevent long-term adverse changes in
the hydrologic balance (30 CFR 715.17 and 816.41). The permittee is to
5-48
-------
emphasize those mining practices which prevent or minimize water pollution
and changes in flow over the use of water treatment facilities. Coal mining
operators not only face requirements concerning mining methods, but also
must initiate monitoring systems to prove they are not adversely affecting
the hydrologic balance (30 CFR 715.17(b) and 816.52). Several general
methods are established for protecting hydrologic balance such as land
shaping, diverting runoff, planting vegetation, regulating channels,
mulching, and protecting water from waste.
All surface drainage from disturbed areas that have been graded, seed-
ed, or planted must be maintained until revegetation requirements are met
and untreated drainage from disturbed areas complies with applicable water
quality standards (30 CFR 715.17(a) and 816.42). Discharge must meet
USEPA's NPDES effluent standards. Any legitimate water supplies which are
contaminated, diminished, or interrupted must be replaced. The permittee is
required to monitor surface water quantity and quality and make regular
reports to either the regulatory authority designated under SMCRA or the
authority designated under the NPDES permit program (30 CFR 715.17(b) and
816.52).
Where treatment of mine water is necessary, it must continue as long as
water quality problems exist. A major feature of SMCRA is the requirement
that all surface drainage from the disturbed area pass through a sedimenta-
tion pond or series of ponds before leaving the area (30 CFR 715.17(a) and
816.42). Many of the sedimentation pond requirements are being challenged
in the courts. SMCRA regulations establish both design and performance
standards for sedimentation ponds (30 CFR 715.17(e) and 816.46).
Regulations have also been established regarding the diversion of
streams and surface runoff; channel lining, sediment control, and spoil
disposal (30 CFR 715.17(c)(g) and 816.44-816.48). The diversion of streams
and runoff is required to avoid contamination from disturbed areas and such
diversion must be approved by the appropriate regulatory authority.
Regulations require that permanent diversion channels be lined. Sediment
control measures must incorporate the best technology available to prevent
5-49
-------
additions of sediment to streams. To avoid contamination and runoff of
water from acid or toxic forming spoil, an operator must bury and treat the
spoil. Spoil must be buried within 30 days after it is first exposed al-
though temporary storage may be permitted.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has established minimum criteria necessary
to prevent degradation of surface waters by settling solids; floating
debris; oil or other nuisance materials; substances producing objectionable
odors, taste or turbidity; substances which injure aquatic or human life;
and specific types or levels of radionuclides (405 KAR 1:160-170). In
addition, standards have been developed for levels of pollutants allowable
in discharge mixing zones and for nutrient inputs into impoundments and
their tributaries which are subject to eutrophication problems.
5.5.2.2 Groundwater
The major impact of coal mining upon the groundwater resources of the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is the migration of acid mine drainage into the
groundwater. Several mining practices affect the formation of acid mine
drainage and its migration into the groundwater. Abandoned deep mines are
the major source of acid mine drainage contamination in the region. These
mines lie below the water table and provide for the free access of air to
the shale and coal seams which contain the iron disulfide minerals. Surface
mines which have not been reclaimed or are presently in operation can
produce acid mine drainage by the disposal of overburden downslope of a
level bench and by the formation of pools of acid mine water. Auger mining
consists of horizontally augering the coal seam along a highwall. Exposed
auger holes are direct sources of mine drainage emission and can cause
subsurface water pollution through surface water inflow (USEPA 1975) and
consequent infiltration.
Pursuant to SMCRA regulations, attention must be given to the depth of
groundwater resources, the location of surface drainage channels, and the
design of sedimentation ponds (30 CFR 715.17(h) and 816.50-816.52).
Reclamation must allow water to enter and recharge groundwater levels as it
5-50
-------
did before mining activities began. The recharge capacity is to be restored
to a condition which supports approved postmining land use; minimizes dis-
turbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance; and provides a rate of
recharge that approximates the pre-mining recharge rate. The quantity and
quality of groundwater resources must be monitored. Such monitoring must
routinely assess infiltration rates, subsurface flow, and storage character-
istics in a manner approved by the regulatory authority.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky likewise requires the recharge capacity of
reclaimed lands to be restored to the premining capacity (405 KAR 1:180).
Backfilled materials are to be placed to minimize adverse effects on ground-
water flow and quality, to minimize offsite effects, and to support approved
postmining land uses. In addition, groundwater levels, infiltration rates,
subsurface flow and storage characteristics, and the quality of the ground-
water are to be monitored in a manner approved by KDNREP.
5.5.2.3 Protection of Water Resources
Existing regulations provide protection for surface and groundwater
resources. However, especially sensitive water resources may not receive
the degree of protection necessary to maintain the aspect of the resource
which deems it sensitive. Neither State nor SMCRA requirements control
upstream discharges which may cause impacts on sensitive surface water
segments located downstream. These sensitive water resources are listed in
Section 4.2.1.
SMCRA regulations provide a groundwater protection program which
requires coal operators to replace any contaminated water supplies. The
responsibility rests with the well owner to prove contamination. In certain
cases, individuals may not know their water is contaminated or may have to
use the contaminated water until an alternative supply can be made avail-
able. However, the regulations are not designed to consider future impacts
on off-site wells prior to the commencement of mining activities. Consider-
ation of the impacts on specific off-site wells could prevent future
contamination and reduce the need for replacing such sources of water.
5-51
-------
Further, SMCRA regulations do not provide for any protection of groundwater
resources which may be needed at some future date.
5.5.3 Biological Resources
The construction and operation of coal mines, haul roads, and
preparation plants can cause severe impacts on the biological resources of
the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. Direct effects may include elimination of
terrestrial vegetative and wildlife habitats on mine sites (especially
significant for strip mines) and elimination of aquatic life in receiving
streams due to stream removal, increased sedimentation, or changes in water
chemistry. Mining activities may also cause direct effects by producing
changes in the hydrologic regime in the receiving streams.
5.5.3.1 Elimination of Terrestrial Habitats
Terrestrial habitats in the Coal Field may be affected by both
underground and surface mining operations. Underground mining may result in
the direct elimination or disturbance of terrestrial vegetation at the mine
mouth and along haul roads. This affects both plant and animal communities.
Underground mining can also cause subsidence or changes in groundwater
levels which may alter growth patterns and species composition of
terrestrial vegetation. Surface mining may affect terrestrial communities
by direct removal of vegetation or by alteration of the substrate. Coal
removal alone is seldom the most important impact of surface mining,
however, unless rare or endangered species are eliminated. More significant
disturbances result from soil modification caused by overburden removal.
5.5.3.2 Elimination of Aquatic Habitats
The major issues with respect to the possible effects of mining on
aquatic habitats in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field are: (1) direct
elimination of additional wetlands, streams segments, and associated
impacts; (2) disturbance of receiving streams, rivers, and wetlands by
increased acid-mine drainage and sedimentation in an area already
5-52
-------
significantly affected by previous mining activities; (3) potential impacts
on remaining sensitive aquatic and wetland habitats; and (4) effectiveness
of reclamation efforts in reducing or minimizing impacts on aquatic and
wetland habitats. Surface mining activities in particular may result in the
direct removal of stream segments and wetlands. Both streams and wetlands
may also be significantly affected by acid runoff, fertilizers, lime, and
sedimentation from the mined areas during reclamation activities. Potential
impacts primarily include changes in groundwater inflow and soil moisture
levels, both of which may result in direct impacts on wetland vegetation or
changes in species composition. Aquatic habitats and wetlands may already
be significantly affected by acid mine drainage and sedimentation caused by
post-mining activities. Sedimentation generally has the more significant
potential impact on aquatic life due to increased erosion from mined areas
and coal washing facilities (Haynes et al. 1979).
5.5.3.3 Increased Sedimentation
Sedimentation may cause increased scouring in streams, shading of
benthic plants, direct smothering of benthic invertebrates, or creation of
unstable substrates unsuitable for animal colonization (Hart and Fuller
1974). The loss of benthic plants and animals typically results in elimina-
tion of fish from affected areas (Haynes 1970). Sedimentation may also
directly affect fish by clogging gills, causing osmotic stress, smothering
eggs deposited in the substrate, reducing disease resistance, or changing
migratory patterns (Dvorak et al. 1977).
Aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are provided protection indirectly
under SMCRA via surface water quality protection and directly through SMCRA
regulations which provide for review by fish and wildlife agencies to ensure
that post-mining land uses will protect fish, aquatic, and wildlife
habitats. The revegetation requirements provide protection to terrestrial
ecosystems by requiring equal or higher value land uses after reclamation
and standards for success of revegetation (30 CFR 715.20 and
816.111-816.117). If a fish and wildlife habitat is to be a primary or
secondary post-mining land use, additional efforts must be made to assure a
5-53
-------
suitable environment. Extra care must be taken to select appropriate
vegetation to replace that removed for mining. If post-mining land uses are
for cropland or residential land, areas must be left that can support
wildlife.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky requires that coal mining operators must
establish on all land that has been disturbed, a diverse, effective, and
permanent vegetative cover of species native to the area. State regulations
also require mining operations to be conducted in such a way as to minimize
disturbance of the hydrologic balance on which fish and wildlife depend.
5.5.3.4 Protection of Biological Resources
Existing regulations protecting biological resources relate only to
direct, on-site impacts. Very few provisions have been established
requiring the consideration of impacts to resources outside the permit area.
SMCRA regulations stipulate that reclamation of the site must offer the same
or better protection to terrestrial ecosystems as existed before the mining
operations. Yet surrounding biological habitats and potential impacts are
not considered. The protection of sensitive biological areas that would be
significantly adversely impacted if mined is provided by SMCRA only through
the permanent program designation of lands unsuitable for mining (30 CFR 762
through 769). No such designation exists for the interim program.
5.5.4 Land Resources
The continued extraction of coal resources from the Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field will create adverse impacts on the land resources of the Coal
Field. Two major impacts will occur as a result of coal resource extraction
and the associated activities: (1) the conversion of Environmentally
Significant Agricultural (ESA) land to non-farming use; and (2) the
conversion of recreational land resources to other uses and the degradation
of the environment adjacent to the recreational facility.
5-54
-------
5.5.4.1 Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands
The cumulative effect of continued coal production and increasing
population levels in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field will result in the
conversion of ESA land to urban and mining-related uses. The conversion of
ESA land in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field is considered a significant
adverse impact because of the relative scarcity and high economic value of
this land resource in the Coal Field. The further reduction of this farm-
land in eastern Kentucky would further diminish the nation's cropland
acreage. Agricultural land reduces runoff by absorbing precipitation, aids
in replenishing groundwater supplies buffers environmentally sensitive areas
from encroaching development, and can serve in the land treatment of waste-
water discharge.
Sections 507(b)(16) and 515(b)(7) of SMCRA authorize special perform-
ance standards regarding mining on prime farmlands. Under an earlier OSM
definition, prime farmland is land with suitable resource characteristics
(as determined by the Soil Conservation Service) that also has been used as
cropland for at least five of the ten years before acquisition for mining
purposes. While this definition is under contention, the SMCRA performance
standards are designed to ensure that soil removal, soil stockpiling and
replacement, and revegetation and reclamation methods will return a level of
agricultural capacity of mined land equal to that which it had before
disturbance (30 CFR 716.7 and 823).
As with SMCRA requirements, Kentucky law mandates that an applicant
must submit to KDNREP a plan for restoration of any prime farmland within
permit boundaries (405 KAR 1:250). The applicant must convince the depart-
ment that the prime farmland will be restored to equivalent or higher levels
of yield as unmined prime farmland in the surrounding area. All soil
horizons to be used in the reconstruction of the soil must be removed before
drilling, blasting, or mining of such lands (405 KAR 1:250).
5.5.4.2 Recreational Resources
Recreational land resources are not only threatened by the conversion
to mining or other uses, but by the pollutants emitted by mining activities.
5-55
-------
These pollutants Include noise, dust, degraded water, and the visual effects
of mining operations when viewed from recreational land. The recreational
land resources of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field are important regional
resources that require protection from the direct and indirect effects of
mining activities in order to preserve future recreational opportunities for
the region's population.
Interim SMCRA regulations do not address protection of public parks.
The permanent program does prohibit new surface mine operations within 300
feet of any public park or on any lands which will adversely affect any
publicly owned park. In addition, the permanent program prohibits new coal
mining operations on any lands within National Parks, National Wildlife
Refuges, the National System of Trails, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic
Rivers, and National Recreation Areas. National Forests also may be
excluded from mining activities, although exceptions to such exclusions are
allowed upon the affirmative finding by the Secretary of Interior that
multiple uses of the National Forest would not be impaired by the proposed
mining. The public notice provisions of SMCRA provide opportunity for
owners of private recreational facilities to comment on coal mine permit
applications that may affect the operations of such facilities.
State protection of recreational lands is provided under Kentucky
Revised Statute (KRS) Chapter 146 which established a Statewide system of
Nature Preserves and Wild Rivers. An inventory of these and other areas of
recreational value including camping grounds, scenic overlooks, and recrea-
tional streams is maintained by the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission
(KNPC).
5.5.4.3 Protection of Land Resources
The protection of land resources is rather limited. Under both interim
and permanent SMCRA regulations, stipulations are established only for those
lands classified as "prime farmland" and used previously as cropland. Lands
classified as unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of
local importance, farmland in or contiguous to Environmentally Sensitive
5-56
-------
Areas, farmland of waste utilization importance, or farmland with
significant capital investments in Best Management Practices are not
considered for protection by SMCRA or the State.
Under the permanent program surface mining operations are prohibited
within 300 feet of any public park and restricted on any lands which may
adversely affect public parks. This SMCRA park restriction includes any
area designated by a Federal, State or local agency for public recreational
use including any land leased, reserved, or held open to the public for
recreational use. Surface mining activities on lands beyond 300 feet and
affecting public parks may be subject to joint review by the mining
regulatory agency and the agency with jurisdiction over the park. Such
restrictions are not applicable, however, to the interim program.
5.5.5 Human Resources
Coal mining and associated activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field will have both beneficial and adverse impacts on human resources and
transportation. These impacts occur in the form of economic effects, rapid
population growth, increased demand in public and private services, and
transportation impacts.
5.5.5.1 Economic Impacts
The economic effects of coal resource development in eastern Kentucky
are expected to be beneficial to the economic well-being of the region.
However, as coal mining becomes more extensive and provides more employment
opportunities the economic base of the area will become more dependent upon
this single industry. Fluctuations in the coal industry will result in
major fluctuations in the area's economy.
5.5.5.2 Population Growth
The most significant adverse effects of coal resource development on
human resources are caused by rapid population growth. Rapid population
5-57
-------
growth occurs in response to the sudden creation of jobs in an area that
does not have a local labor force of sufficient size and/or skill to fill
the available positions. When this happens non-local workers and their
families are attracted to the area because of the employment opportunities
made available to them. These new residents require adequate levels of
basic community services and facilities.
5.5.5.3 Increased Demand for Public and Private Services
As population grows, so does the demand for basic community services
and facilities (infrastructure) such as housing, wastewater treatment,
water, health care, education, transportation network, fire and police
protection, and recreational facilities. In most instances, the existing
tax base of the community cannot supply these services and facilities to the
new residents on such a short notice. Because of the lag in the receipt of
tax revenues from the new residents and the long lead times and high costs
of required public improvement projects, serious strains on existing infra-
structure elements occur. The provision of housing for the new residents of
an area may lag several years behind the need because of the lack of ade-
quate public infrastructure (roads, sewers, water, etc.), the unavailability
of construction and/or mortgage credit, or the inability to assemble land
needed for new housing developments.
5.5.5.4 Impacts on Transportation
Local transportation networks, primarily the road system, can also be
adversely affected by mining activities and mining-induced population
growth. Public safety and congestion problems on local roads can occur as a
result of the larger volumes of private vehicles using the roadways, the
larger number of commercial vehicles (primarily coal haul trucks) using
public roadways, and increases in coal-related rail traffic which cause a
higher probability of rail-highway crossing accidents and delays. The
larger volume of coal haul trucks using public roadways may also degrade the
quality of road surface.
5-58
-------
Under the interim SMCRA program all applicants must submit a
transportation plan approved by the State Department of Transportation (DOT)
with the mining application. The State DOT classifies proposed routes
regarding weight limits and provides information regarding the existence of
any substandard bridges intended for use. The permanent SMCRA program
prohibits new mining operations within 100 feet of a public road
right-of-way, except where a mine haul road enters or adjoins the
right-of-way. The permanent program also prohibits mining operations within
300 feet of an occupied dwelling without the owner's consent; within 300
feet of any public, institutional, or community building, church, or school;
or within 100 feet of a cemetery (Section 522(3)(5)). The general
performance standards also set forth requirements for mining roads and
require that post-mining land use be compatible with adjacent land use
policies and plans.
5.5.5.5 Protection of Human Resources
SMCRA regulations incorporate very little consideration of impacts to
human resources. There are no provisions mandating the mitigation of
possible adverse effects to the economy of the area, any induced population
growth, or public and private service infrastructure. SMCRA regulations do
not consider the public safety aspects of using public roadways for coal
haul routes.
The State has provided some mitigation for socioeconomic impacts. An
access permit must be obtained for haul roads or entrances to proposed
mining facilities which intersect State routes. The State Department of
Transportation performs on-site reviews of proposed plans and the plans must
be approved prior to issuance of the access permit. Kentucky's Local
Government Economic Assistance Act also provides a means for allocating
revenues from coal severance taxes among the local governments. The Act
establishes priority areas for these funds and impacts on local communities
in coal producing areas seemed to be lessened somewhat by this economic
assistance.
5-59
-------
5.5.6 Cultural Resources
Coal mining activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field will result
in primary and secondary impacts on the cultural resources of the area.
These resources may include archaeological or historic sites, properties,
structures, or objects that are listed on or determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. Primary impacts on cultural resources
are those beneficial or adverse effects that would result from construction
or operation of coal mines or related facilities. The beneficial effects of
coal mining or preparation activities are those which improve the aesthetic
setting of historic structures or enhance the surrounding landscape.
Historic and archaeological resources are highly susceptible to damage
by the mining of coal, particularly by surface mining that entails an
extensive modification of large surface areas. The interim SMCRA program
does not address historic and archaeological resources but the permanent
program of SMCRA provides that no new coal mines will be permitted that may
affect publicly owned places that are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places unless such mining is approved by the State Historic
Preservation Office. The regulatory authority's discretionary power to
prohibit mining on certain lands incorporated in the permanent program
includes those areas where mining may affect historic lands of cultural,
historic, scientific, or aesthetic value. Sites eligible for the National
Register are not presently protected under SMCRA.
Pursuant to KRS 171.381, the Kentucky Heritage Commission is charged
with protecting and developing the historic resources of the State. The
Commission encourages, promotes, and advises State, local, and Federal
government agencies concerning means of achieving these two goals. The
procedures of the Commission require that relevant agencies consult with the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to identify historical,
structural, and archaeological sites in the project area and consider these
resources in project planning.
5-60
-------
5.5.6.1 Protection of Cultural Resources
Existing regulations require the identification of known historical,
cultural, or archaeological resources and prohibit surface mining activities
which adversely affect places on the National Register. These regulations
are established only in the permanent program, however, and apply solely to
resources already identified and listed on the National Register (30 CFR
761.11(c)). What is not required is the consideration of resources which
may be eligible for listing. If the resource has not already been
identified, it probably will not be addressed under SMCRA regulation.
Because very little cultural resource survey work has been performed in
eastern Kentucky, many undiscovered resources could be destroyed by coal
mining activities.
5.5.7 Air Quality and Noise
5.5.7.1 Impacts on Air Quality
Coal mining and associated activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field may result in significant amounts of fugitive dust emissions. Other
pollutants may be emitted in the air as a result of these operations, but in
insignificant amounts. Fugitive dust emissions are generated primarily
by trucks on haul roads. Other sources include surface mining, blasting,
preparation, coal loading and unloading, and by wind erosion. The trans-
portation of coal by truck on unpaved public and private haul roads is the
major contributor of fugitive dust emissions from coal-related activities in
eastern Kentucky.
The interim regulatory program does not establish specific air protect-
ion regulations. Permanent SMCRA regulations provide for the protection of
air resources through the control and reduction of fugitive dust emissions
from on-site haul roads and areas disturbed during mining (30 CFR 816.95).
Methods are established in the SMCRA regulations for controlling and re-
ducing fugitive dust (30 CFR 816.95 (b)). The methods generally include
watering, chemical treatment or paving of roads, revegetation, watering haul
trucks, and using conveyor systems. The methods which must be used for
controlling fugitive dust emissions are to be approved on a site-specific
basis for each mine. Site-specific measures will be determined on the basis
5-61
-------
of applicable Federal and State air quality standards, climate, existing air
quality, and size and type of proposed operations. The regulations do not
consider pollutants other than fugitive dust, but SMCRA does require compli-
ance with all other applicable air quality laws. However, 30 CFR 816.95 was
suspended 4 August 1980 (45 FR 51548) pending the final determination of a
US District Court ruling in May 1980 that barred OSM from regulating air
dusts other than those caused by wind erosion. The specific fugitive dust
control measures identified in 30 CFR 816.95(b) have currently been
dropped.
Kentucky air pollution control regulations establish standards and con-
trol measures for atmospheric emissions (401 KAR 50-65). Fugitive emissions
are addressed in 401 KAR 63:010 requiring that reasonable precautions should
be taken to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Methods
suggested to prevent such emissions include the application of certain sub-
stances (e.g., water, oil, chemicals) on surfaces creating dusts; the
installation of dust-reduction equipment; the use of covers for transporta-
tion vehicles; and the maintenance of paved roadways. Since the Federal
SMCRA regulations for air resources protection are currently suspended,
State air pollution control regulations provide the primary means of
presently controlling air emissions associated with surface mining opera-
tions.
5.5.7.2 Noise Impacts
The noise impacts from coal haul trucks may be a significant adverse
impact in eastern Kentucky because of the typically close proximity of
sensitive receptors to the haul routes and the large geographical area that
the land roads affect. The noise effects of these coal mining operations
are geographically small, affecting only receptors immediately adjacent to
the mining site. Only mines which are extremely close to each other result
in cumulative or synergistic noise impacts. However, as the number of mines
increase in eastern Kentucky, the total area of noise impacts will grow. It
logically follows that the total number of affected receptors will also
increase.
5-62
-------
The regulations of OSM under SMCRA require that noise and vibration
from blasting operations be controlled to minimize the danger of adverse
effects from airblast and vibration to humans and structures. The Act
authorizes pre-blast surveys, blasting schedules, limits on airblasts, and
explosives rules.
Kentucky law requires that a blasting plan be approved by KDNREP prior
to being conducted and also authorizes pre-blasting surveys, blasting
schedules, and requirements on blasting procedures (405 KAR 1:090).
5.5.7.3 Protection of Air Quality and the Acoustic Environment
Since OSM's authority to protect air resources is currently in
question, Kentucky regulations provide the primary source of control over
emissions caused by surface raining activities. State mining regulations,
however, do not establish specific provisions controlling air emissions.
The basic protection is provided by State air quality regulations. While
the State air quality law provides authority to review off-site as well as
on-site impacts, the State air quality protection agency limits its review
of surface mining operations primarily to cleaning and processing
operations.
The permanent SMCRA regulations for fugitive dust emissions are
restricted solely to on-site activities. Fugitive dust regulations
primarily restrict the emissions from on-site haul roads. SMCRA
stipulations do not regulate fugitive dust emissions on off-site public
roads which are used as haul roads. Violations of primary ambient air
quality standards can occur at sensitive receptors.
The regulation of noise from mining operations is limited to blasting
activities. Neither State nor SMCRA regulations require protection of the
acoustic environment from other mining operations, in particular noise
emissions associated with coal haul trucks on public and private roads.
5-63
-------
5.5.8 Summary
The impacts of coal mining activities in eastern Kentucky that are
controlled or otherwise mitigated by Federal or State regulations as well as
those impacts that remain unmitigated have been presented in Section 5.5.
Table 5.5-1. presents a summary of the unmitigated impacts of coal mining
activities by resource category.
5.6 REGULATORY INTERRELATIONSHIPS
As the preceding sections have indicated, USEPA, OSM, MSHA, and several
State agencies exercise various levels of control and regulation over the
coal mining industry. In a number of environmental resource areas, the
control exercised by these various agencies overlaps or intersects with each
agency generally operating under a different timeframe. Additionally, the
implementation of SMCRA in particular is still in its preliminary stages.
The precise nature of its procedural requirements is unlikely to be clear
until a flurry of litigation has been concluded. Consequently, the develop-
ment of an effective and efficient NEPA compliance strategy for USEPA Region
IV requires an understanding of these regulatory interrelationships as well
as the timeframe and level of control exercised by each agency.
5.6.1 Delegation of Authority to the State
The uncertain status of the delegation of both NPDES and SMCRA
regulatory authority to Kentucky complicates the development and implemen-
tation of NEPA compliance strategies for USEPA. As discussed in Sections
5.4.1. and 5.4.2., the environmental review responsibilities of both OSM and
USEPA will be diminished when their respective permitting programs are
delegated to the State. In addition (as addressed in Section 5.6.2.), any
Memorandum of Understanding between OSM and USEPA which sets forth certain
responsibilities and procedures for both agencies is greatly affected by the
delegation or retention of permitting responsibilities. Consequently, the
requirements, timing, coordination, and implementation of a USEPA NEPA
compliance strategy will be significantly influenced by the possible
delegation of permitting responsibilities to Kentucky.
5-64
-------
Table 5.5-1. Summary of coal mining impacts by resource for the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field that are not regulated by State or Federal laws.
WATER RESOURCES
Surface Water
Groundwater
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Terrestrial Ecosystems
(including threatened
or endangered species)
Aquatic Ecosystems
(including threatened
or endangered species)
WETLANDS
LAND RESOURCES
Environmentally
Significant
Agricultural
(ESA) Lands
Recreation Lands
Surface disturbances can adversely affect the
water quality of sensitive stream segments
possibly causing a reduction, alteration in
composition, or elimination of aquatic life
and reduction in water use opportunities for
domestic consumption or industrial processes.
Contamination of aquifers by acid mine drainage
from underground mines or migration of leachates
from coal refuse and storage piles at coal
preparation plants and dewatering of underground
mines can adversely affect the quality and
quantity of water at public and private water
supply wells.
Mining can cause elimination or disturbance
of identified sensitive plant and animal
habitats, and identified sensitive areas.
Mining can cause the elimination or disturb-
ance of identified sensitive aquatic habitats
and identified sensitive areas by changing the
water quality characteristics of streams.
Surface mining can result in the direct removal
or elimination of wetlands during land clearing
operations. The introduction of acid mine
drainage and sedimentation into wetland areas,
changes in groundwater and surface water flows,
and alteration of soil moisture levels may result
in the degradation of wetlands.
Mining can result in the conversion of prime
farmland cultivated at least five of the past
ten years, unique farmland, and farmland of
statewide or local importance to non-agricultural
uses, reducing an already scarce resource in
eastern Kentucky.
Mining can result in the pollution of recreational
lands adjacent to mining operations by noise,
degraded water, dust, and/or visual effects.
5-65
-------
Table 5.5-1. Summary of coal mining impacts by resource for the Eastern
Kentucky Coal Field that are not regulated by State or Federal laws
(concluded).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic/Archaeological Under the interim program mining operations
Sites can alter, destroy, or otherwise affect sites
that are listed on or are eligible for
inclusion on the National Register. When the
permanent SMCRA regulations become effective,
those sites that are eligible for inclusion
but not listed, will remain unprotected.
Limited survey work in eastern Kentucky
increases the potential for impacting such
eligible sites.
AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
Air Quality Coal transportation by haul trucks on unpaved
public and private roads not within the permit
area can result in fugitive dust emissions at
sensitive receptors, affecting public health
and general welfare.
Noise Mining operations and coal transportation on
public and private haul roads can increase
ambient noise levels significantly at
sensitive receptors located near the
operations or along roads with high volumes of
coal truck traffic, affecting public health
and general welfare.
5-66
-------
Four different regulatory scenarios could result depending on the
specific role of the State, OSM, and USEPA In the permitting processes. Due
to the uncertain status of each agency's future role, the NEPA Compliance
Strategies developed for USEPA must be able to accommodate the constraints
set forth by any of these regulatory scenarios. These strategies must
consider the following possible situations:
• State receives OSM primacy and also NPDES delegation.
Under such a situation all regulatory power would lie with
the State and USEPA would have only NPDES permit review
authority with no NEPA mandate.
• State receives OSM primacy and yet USEPA retains authority
over NPDES permit program. USEPA would retain authority
to issue NPDES permits thus subjecting NPDES permit appli-
cants to NEPA requirements. Efforts to coordinate NPDES
permit issuance with mining regulation would have to be
established between the State and USEPA.
• State receives delegation of the NPDES program but does
not receive OSM primacy^Federal mining regulations would
continue to be enforced by OSM yet NPDES permits would be
issued by the State and such action would no longer
require NEPA compliance.
• State receives no delegation of authority. USEPA would
continue to issue NPDES permits, subject to NEPA require-
ments, while OSM would retain authority over enforcement
of the Federal mining program.
5.6.2 Overlapping Jurisdiction and Level of Protection
Both the interim and permanent SMCRA program regulations of OSM have
been challenged in the courts and further legal action is expected. To date
the courts have largely upheld the major provisions and constitutionality of
SMCRA, but OSM has initiated several changes in the permanent program.
Further modifications are expected from OSM as it prepares for other legal
challenges. USEPA, while attempting to minimize duplication with OSM,
nevertheless must be prepared to administer independently its strategy for
NEPA compliance when reviewing NPDES New Source permits for coal mining
operations.
5-67
-------
The development and Implementation of a NEPA compliance strategy for
USEPA is further complicated by the various other State agencies involved in
the regulation of coal mining activities. Under many of the proposed
strategies, USEPA may be able to use some of the information required by
these agencies and merely piggyback their regulatory efforts if the level of
protection provided is sufficient. However, duplicative regulatory require-
ments could reduce the effectiveness of some or all of these agencies and
their coal mining regulatory programs.
Table 5.6-1 indicates the areas of regulatory responsibility for each
agency, the authorizing legislation, and the level of protection afforded to
each environmental resource. It is apparent from the table that USEPA could
piggyback many of their regulatory responsibilities with those of other
State and/or Federal agencies and still achieve the same or greater level of
protection as is currently afforded under NEPA.
5.6.3 Temporal Relationships Between Regulatory Programs
Each of the coal mining regulatory programs operates independent of the
other programs. No procedures have been established between the State and
Federal agencies involved in coal mining regulation. The various timeframes
that each program operates on complicates the potential for sharing inform-
ation and piggybacking regulatory responsibilities.
USEPA's permit review process operates on a somewhat indefinite time-
frame which varies with the ultimate level of review a particular NPDES per-
mit application must go through. As indicated in Figure 5.1-1, this review
can be completed and a permit issued in a minimum of 165 days to as much as
650 days. Through the implementation of a NEPA compliance strategy, it is
expected that these timeframes can be shortened significantly through the
use of information from other regulatory agencies, piggybacking of regu-
latory responsibilities, and subareawide or areawide environmental review.
5-68
-------
Table 5.6-1. Summary of environmentally protective laws and identification of best protection available
exclusive of USEPA NEPA compliance program.
RESOURCE
OSM
Legislative
Authority
EFA
Legislative Authority
Kentucky
Agency
Legislative
Authority
Most
Agency
Restrictive Agency
Protection
Surface and Ground-
water Quality
SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(10)
515(b)(24)
519(c)(2)
519(c)(3)
CUA
Safe Drinking Water Act
KDNREP
KRS 352
KRS 146
KRS 151
KRS 224
401 KAR 2,4,5
KDNREP classification of stream
segments and
non-degradation
clauses.
certification of
improvements having
capacity of 50 acre feet
or more
surface water withdrawal
permits
USEPA NPDES permitting system
SDWA protects ground-
water supplies
Aquatic Ecosystems
SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(10)(B)
515 (b) (24)
519(c)(2)
519(c)(3)
Floodplains
SMCRA Sec. 522(a)(3)(D)
522(b)(10)
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of
1958
KDNC
EO 11988
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of
1958
KDNREP
KRS 146
401 KAR 5
KRS 146
KRS 151
KDNREP standards for protection
of warm and cold water
aquatic life
OSM BAT required to minimize
effects on wildlife
requires Fish and
Wildlife Plan, USFUS
Coordination
OSM mining prohibited within
100 ft. of permanent
streams
USEPA EO 11988 protection of
undeveloped floodplains
Wild and Scenic Rivers
SMCRA Sec. 522(e)
KDNREP
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act
KRS 146
KDNREP Act protect stream
designated Wild River
System protects stream
and buffer of visual
horizon or 2500 feet
USEPA
W&SRA protects- streams
from development
-------
Table 5.6-1. Summary of environmentally protective laws (continued).
RESOURCE
Wetlands
OSM
Legislative
SMCRA Sec.
(implied)
Authority
EPA
Legislative Authority
Kentucky
Agency
522(a)(3) EO 11990 KDNREP
CWA Sec. 404
Legislative
Authority
Most
Agency
KRS 146 USEPA
Restrict Agency
Protection
EO 11990 protects
lands by review pi
wet-
-ocess
Endangered Species
Habitat
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Lands
SMCRA Sec. 515
SMCRA Sec. 508(a)
515
Endangered Species Act
of 1973 Sec. 7
KNDC
N/A
KRS 146
N/A
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act protects wetlands
along streams
KDNREP designated Wild River
System protects stream
and buffer of visual
horizon or 2500 feet
USFWS Endangered Species Act
SMCRA BAT required to minimize
effects on wildlife
Ui
requires Fish and
Wildlife Plan, USFWS
coordination
Significant Agricultural
Lands
Recreational Land Use
Noise and Vibration
Levels
Historic, Archaeolo-
gic and Paleontologic
Sites
SMCRA Sec. 507(b)(16)
515(b)(7)
SMCRA Sec. 522(e)(l)
522(e)(2)
522(e)(3)
522(e)(5)
SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(15)
SMCRA SEC. 522(e)(3)
Environmentally Signi-
ficant Agricultural Lands
Policy Memo (USEPA)
Wilderness Act of 1964
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act of 1976
Endangered Species Act
of 1973
EO 11593
National Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1966
Archaeological and His-
toric Preservation Act
of 1974
N/A
KNPC
KDNREP
KDNREP
KNPC
N/A
KRS 146
KRS 224
805 KAR 4
KRS 146
prohibits mining in
public parks
OSM special performance
standards for mining on
prime farmlands
USEPA environmentally signifi-
cant agricultural lands
protected
OSM prohibition of mining in
public parks mandated by
Congress
KNPC Kentucky Nature
Preserves
classification
OSM maximum airblast levels
defined for sensitive
receptors
OSM prohibition of mining
within 300 feet of
Federally listed places,
except with approval of
SI1PO
-------
Table 5.6-1. Summary of environmentally protective laws (concluded).
RESOURCE
Community Integrity
and Quality of Life
OSM
Legislative Authority
EPA
Legislative Authority
Kentucky
Legislative
Agency Authority
Most Restrictive Agency
Agency Protection
SMCRA Sec. 522(e)(4) KDNREP KRS 224 OSM requires publication of
522(e)(5) KRS 352 intent to mine
401 KAR 2
803 KAR 3 lands unsuitable
Ul
I Air Quality
Geology and Soils
SMCRA Sec. 515(b)(4)
SMCRA Sec. 510(d)
515(b)(2)-(7)
515(b)(25)
522(a)(3)(D)
Clean Air Act
program
prohibits mining within
specified ranges of
houses, roads,
hospitals, cemetaries,
churches, pipelines and
other public and private
facilities
KDNREP KRS 224 OSM fugitive dust control on
401 KAR 63 permit area
KDNREP CAA regulation of
processing plants
KDNREP KRS 146 OSM performance standards
KGS KRS 151 and special performance
KRS 352 standards for sediment
805 KAR control, steep slopes,
etc.
In addition to specific legislation, USEPA has the congressionally mandated NEPA responsibility for environmental considerations associated with
facilities requiring (CWA) New Source coal mining NPDES permits. This responsibility thrusts USEPA into a review capacity for all aspects of
environmental effects.
-------
-------
6.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE SELECTED ACTION
During the process of developing a suitable strategy for compliance with
NEPA in the review of New Source coal mining NPDES applications for eastern
Kentucky, a total of 29 possible compliance alternatives were developed and
evaluated by USEPA. All reasonable compliance alternatives were considered
through consultation with a Review Committee established as part of the study.
In order to be considered feasible, a compliance alternative had to be thorough
in its treatment of environmental effects such that USEPA compliance with the
provisions of NEPA was assured. The compliance alternative also had to result
in a streamlining of the review process such that the NPDES permit action
would not result in substantial delays in the opening of New Source coal
mines. Finally, the compliance alternatives which were carried through their
initial screening had to be technically feasible such that they were implemen-
table with a reasonable degree of ease. Four general compliance alternatives
evolved from the initial screening process.
This chapter describes the current NEPA compliance procedures utilized by
USEPA, the concept of Resource Threshold Criteria, the four general compliance
alternatives that resulted from initial screening processes and the Recommended
Action.
6.1 CURRENT COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Current USEPA NEPA compliance procedures are resource and time consuming.
When Region IV's Water Management Division determines an applicant to be a New
Source, USEPA usually conducts a New Source meeting to inform the applicant of
NEPA requirements and to request certain environmental information. Based on
the information submitted, USEPA makes a preliminary decision to: (1) issue a
finding of no significant impact (FONSI); (2) request additional information;
(3) request the applicant to prepare an environmental information document
(EID); or (4) require a Federally prepared environmental impact statement
(EIS). Normally up to 30 days are required by USEPA to make this decision
after the initial information is submitted. Once the decision is made, the
following time frames could generally be expected:
6-1
-------
• FONSI - 30 to 45 days for USEPA issuance;
• additional information - 45 days for applicant response plus 30 days
for USEPA decision;
• BID - 90 days for applicant response plus 45 days for USEPA decision;
and
• EIS - 365 days to complete plus 45 days for USEPA decision.
The NEPA compliance procedure ultimately results in either the issuance,
issuance with conditions, or denial of the New Source NPDES permit.
Several new components based on the information and analyses performed in
this EIA were developed which can be used in an environmental review. These
components were not a part of the previous compliance program.
The first component involves the use of the USEPA Resource Atlas and the
Geographic Information System (CIS) developed by the Kentucky Department for
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection for environmental review deci-
sions. The CIS was prepared subsequent to USEPA's Atlas and used much of its
data. Most importantly, the CIS is a computerized system which may be fre-
quently updated. These readily available data should greatly assist applicants
in providing information and should expedite the environmental review process
under any of the strategies.
A second component anticipates the use of standardized documents and/or
language in FONSI's, Environmental Assessments, EID's, and EIS's based on the
areawide environmental review and experience gathered in the NEPA compliance
program for coal mining activities. This Areawide EIA has generated substan-
tial analyses of impacts of and alternatives for mitigating the effects of
mining operations. These discussions will be of significant value in pre-
paring future review documentation.
A third component involves focusing on a smaller number of environmental
issues. This Areawide EIA has identified the resource areas where the poten-
tial for significant impact exists and has examined the regulatory responsi-
bility of other Federal and State agencies to determine the level of environ-
mental protection already provided. USEPA is therefore able to concentrate
6-2
-------
its efforts on those resource impact areas that are not regulated by other
agencies. This focusing will help avoid needless investigations.
A fourth component involves the SMCRA program, as well as the acceptance
by USOSM of Kentucky's primacy for program implementation. USEPA has prepared
its initial request for environmental data based on the assumption that the
Commonwealth interim program will be in effect basically as now constituted.
Under this assumption, duplication between the programs in terms of data
requests will be avoided.
A final element developed in this areawide analysis involves the use of
Resource Threshold Criteria (RTC). The RTC define levels of potential impacts
that could initiate various USEPA environmental review actions (e.g., FONSI,
request for additional information, EID, EIS). The RTC form the foundation of
streamlining procedures under several of the strategies, but are not an integral
part of all approaches for reasons described under those strategies. Sec-
tion 6.2 discusses this concept further. Appendix A examines each Resource
Threshold Criteria individually in terms of environmental impacts, costs to
applicants and to USEPA, compliance with statutes and regulations, and flexibil-
ity.
6.2 RESOURCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA
The concept of Resource Threshold Criteria (RTC) forms the basis for
streamlining environmental review decisions under several of the NEPA com-
pliance strategies evaluated in this EIA. Using the RTC concept, information
needs and permit processing times would depend upon the significance of environ-
mental impacts of the proposed mining operation. The evaluation of the degree
of environmental effect of a proposed mining operation would be measured
against the criteria set forth in the RTC. As indicated in Figure 6.2-1,
three basic levels or thresholds define four categories of environmental
effect which result in differing responses by USEPA.
Environmental effects in any resource area which are less than a Level I
threshold would be considered to be insignificant. A recommendation for
permit approval would be made based on NEPA compliance as established in this
6-3
-------
Figure 6.2-1. The use of Resource Threshold Criteria to determine USEPA
permit review actions.
t
Level III Criterion
Resource level III criterion
tripped would result in an
EIS
I
o
to
•H
I
QJ
CO
H
0)
I
00
•H
to
rt
cu
M
a
Level II Criterion
Resource level II criterion
tripped would result in the
requirement for a detailed
evaluation of alternatives
to the proposed action, an
EID, or a third party EIS
Level I Criterion
Resource level I criterion
tripped indicates the need
for additional information
including the evaluation of
mitigating measures to avoid
adverse environmental effects
No significant impact
6-4
-------
Areawide EIA. The determination that no significant impacts are anticipated
based on the areawide review would be contained in the public notice of the
proposed NPDES permit issuance.
Enviromental effects which are equal to or greater than Level I would
trigger the need for additional resource-specific information. This detailed
information should be sufficient to enable the decision to be made as to
whether the environmental impact is really insignificant (i.e., the Areawide
EIA can be relied upon for compliance with NEPA) or is significant (i.e.,
above Level II and requires a detailed consideration of alternatives and
impacts). If additional information indicates that Level II is not triggered,
a FONSI would be prepared and distributed.
Environmental effects found to be significant would trip the Level II
threshold. The need for preparation of an BID or a third party EIS by the
applicant would be indicated. Essentially, this means that a detailed analy-
sis of alternatives would be required. A permit approval recommendation could
be made in lieu of an EID or EIS if the applicant redefined the permit area or
utilized alternative methods of operation to reduce specific environmental
effects to insignificant levels. Conditions outlining an applicant's proposed
changes to his operation would be part of the permit. Further, a FONSI would
be prepared citing the measures to be used to assure that no significant
impacts would occur.
Any proposed activity which equals or exceeds the Level III threshold
would be considered for permit action only after the completion of an EIS.
This EIS could be prepared by either the conventional or third party process.
USEPA would encourage the use of the third party process to avoid sequential
decisionmaking and to expedite the environmental review process.
In response to these threshold levels, USEPA has developed draft Resource
Threshold Criteria for the following resources:
• surface water and sensitive aquatic resources
• groundwater
• sensitive terrestrial ecosystems
6-5
-------
wetlands
noise
air quality
environmentally significant agricultural land
recreational land
historic and archaeological sites
public and Federal, State, and local government comments
Appendix A contains the Resource Threshold Criteria for each of the
resource areas listed above and those areas which for various reasons were
deleted in the evaluation process (i.e., overlap by other regulatory agencies
or impacts were not considered significant or were not mitigatable). These
draft RTC incorporate specific comments made following a USEPA internal review
and review by State and Federal agencies. This review considered the detailed
comments of the Kentucky Coal Association (KCA) as well as other industry
spokesmen for each resource area. Where requested changes were determined to
be appropriate, the draft RTC were modified.
Section 5.2 discussed the resource protection afforded through the Sur-
face Mining Control and Reclamation Act administered by the Office of Surface
Mining. The development of the RTC's and the areas of potential impact assumed
the implementation of the interim program. As envisioned by the current
legislation, the Commonwealth-administered permanent SMCRA program could
control adverse environmental impacts in several of the areas which could be
reviewed using the Resource Threshold Criteria. If SMCRA is significantly
modified, USEPA's reliance on SMCRA1s current interim program to mitigate
significant impacts would have to be changed. If the Commonwealth reduces the
requirements for the interim program, reconsideration of potential impact
areas may be appropriate.
Each resource area is impacted to a different degree by coal mining
activities. These impacts may be mitigated at varying levels for each re-
source. The associated costs to USEPA and the applicants vary considerably.
Therefore, a single NEPA compliance strategy is not necessarily appropriate to
mitigate all coal mining impacts. An individual review recommendation is made
for each resource area. In addition to the alternatives available for each
resource area, USEPA has the option of excluding certain resources altogether
from the review process. This would demand fewer human and financial resources
on the part of USEPA.
6-6
-------
The permutations and combinations for use of these Resource Threshold
Criteria are many. The incremental environmental benefit must be weighed
against the demand for USEPA resources. The individual analyses of Resource
Threshold Criteria include: (1) an estimation of the annual number of permit
applications triggering the threshold levels; (2) the total annual cost to the
applicant of supplying data, EID's, and EIS's to USEPA; and (3) the annual
USEPA manpower and costs. The applicant and USEPA costs are based on the
estimations of applications triggering certain threshold levels. Total appli-
cant and USEPA costs are outlined for strategies using all Resource Threshold
Criteria.
A number of advantages result from the use of the Resource Threshold Criteria:
• There is a reduction in the number and complexity of the individual
decisions which must be made in evaluating applications. The focus is
on critical issues. This approach would lead to substantial savings
in time and ensure consistency among reviews.
• Coordination with Commonwealth and Federal agencies in the development
of the Resource Threshold Criteria clarifies concerns and procedures
at the outset. Agencies involved in the development of the Criteria
would not need to be notified of any applications falling below the
initial level.
• The coal mining industry is provided with a clearly established pro-
cedure which USEPA will use in evaluating environmental impacts of
proposed operations. A copy of the mining applicant Environmental
Information Request is included as part of Appendix B. Special atten-
tion has been given to clarity and data references.
6.2.1 Effect of Public Comment
The Public Comment Criteria referenced previously (which includes Federal,
State, and local agency comments) play a key role in providing flexibility to
the system. The resource threshold levels attempt to clarify the difference
between Insignificant and significant adverse impacts on environmental re-
sources. However, because of the great variety of environmental resources
potentially impacted as well as changes in the coal mining industry, the
identified resources and levels may not always identify significant impacts.
Therefore, public, local, State, and Federal agency comment can provide valu-
able input into the environmental review process by providing for a more
comprehensive identification of any significant adverse impacts.
6-7
-------
Some comments will be received by USEPA at the time the permit applica-
tion is being reviewed. Most, however, will probably not be received until
public notice of the proposed issuance of an NPDES permit has been given. At
this point USEPA has already made a preliminary decision that the mining
operation poses no significant threat to the environment. This decision may
have been based on alternatives and mitigating measures in the form of permit
conditions.
All comments received on a proposed NPDES permit could be reviewed by
USEPA. Substantive issues dealing with any of the resource areas could be
considered, reviewed, and decisions made on the basis of the following levels:
Level I Significant issues raised by public, local, State, or
Federal parties on a resource area not otherwise identi-
fied or adequately addressed.
Level II Significant adverse impacts are likely to result to re-
source area identified under Level I.
Level III Unmitigated significant adverse impacts will result to
resource area identified under Level I.
6.3 ALTERNATIVES
Four alternative NEPA compliance strategies, some with variations, were
chosen for detailed consideration. The general strategies are described as
Individual, Areawide, Areawide-Individual, and Areawide-Subareawide-Individual
alternatives. The No Action Alternative was also evaluated. Each potential
alternative is evaluated for NEPA compliance on the basis of:
environmental benefits
manpower and cost
processing time
compliance with statutes and/or regulations
elimination of duplication of effort
flexibility
A description of each general alternative follows.
6-8
-------
6.3.1 No Action Alternative
This alternative assumes that USEPA Region IV would avoid determining New
Sources for the coal industry and would entail the use of NEPA compliance
activities only when requested by the applicant or an outside party, whether
Federal, State, or local. This alternative results in maximum environmental
degradation occurring for the majority of coal operations with some substan-
tial environmental protection benefits occurring on those operations brought
to the attention of USEPA.
The No Action Alternative involves very minimal resources (one man-year
of effort currently). Should legal challenges occur to the use of this alter-
native in the future, significant additional resources to defend lawsuits
could be required. This approach allows some flexibility regarding which
projects are addressed, however, resource limitations preclude any real flex-
ibility since all manpower is consumed in reacting to issues raised elsewhere.
6.3.2 Individual Review Alternative
Procedurally, this alternative is similar to the existing compliance
process. It basically involves changing the number of reviews from approxi-
mately 20 per year to 350 per year. Individual environmental reviews would be
conducted for each New Source NPDES coal mining application with FONSI's or
EIS's being prepared on a case-by-case basis. The four components discussed
previously (available data, standardized language, issue focusing with the
RTC, and State/USEPA coordination) and the additional number of reviews per-
formed constitute the primary differences between this individual approach and
the existing compliance program.
Figure 6.3-1 indicates the various levels of review and corresponding
time frames that are possible using the Individual Review Alternative. Al-
though reviews would still be conducted on a case-by-case basis, some time
savings would result with use of the available data base and standardized
language. Processing time frames described for the existing procedures would
likely be reduced by approximately 15% to as much as 50%. The level of environ-
mental protection would be high due to the site-specific analysis of each
application.
6-9
-------
Figure 6.3-1. Individual Review Alternative for NEPA review process for the
issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in eastern Kentucky.
NPDES Permit
Awnl ~irAl~'frm &
EIR Submitted
NEPA
Revie
1
Third I
EIS Prep
w
20
'arty
>ared
300
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
JSEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
NPDES Permit
Denied
I
I-1
o
Total Days
80
425
Applicant
PrGparfis
EID 60
JSEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
25
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
NPDES Permit
Denied
165
JSEPA Prepares
EIS
300
USEPA Review &
TJPPA ?>0f -1 0-1 nr<
45
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
510
Numbers represent estimated days required to complete each action.
-------
Under this alternative, the environmental review process would be con-
ducted individually for each application. Full public notice and appeal
opportunities under NEPA would be available. Public or agency opposition to
environmental review decisions made in conjunction with the issuance of a
particular permit and the supporting FONSI or EIS would be considered through
established procedures.
The Individual Review Alternative anticipates the availability of ample
financial and human resources with which USEPA could conduct the large volume
of individual reviews and comply with NEPA requirements. It was originally
estimated based on USEPA and consultant studies that 30 USEPA man-years would
be required to perform NEPA compliance using this approach. Due to the detailed
analysis conducted in developing the Resource Threshold Criteria and the data
base developed for this EIA, it is now estimated that approximately one-third
this amount (i.e., approximately 10 manyears) would be required.
This alternative would fully comply with USEPA's statutory responsi-
bilities. It would also allow for virtually complete flexibility in handling
site-specific impact mitigation and NEPA processing. This alternative has the
greatest possibility for duplication of effort between USEPA and other Federal
and State agencies because the responsibilities of other agencies are not
considered.
6.3.3 Areawide Review Alternative
The Areawide Review Alternative assumes that the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field Areawide EIA and the analysis therein would constitute the substantive
analysis for all future actions regarding permitting of New Source coal-
related operations. Figure 6.3-2 indicates the general permit process that is
used with the Areawide Review Alternative. There are three options available
to the Agency to implement this kind of a strategy. USEPA could: (1) argue
that no future action by USEPA would result in significant Impacts; (2) argue
that although some actions may cause significant impacts there are no means
available to mitigate these impacts; or (3) develop general conditions to be
placed on all permits to address the identified significant impact areas. A
more detailed discussion of each follows.
6-11
-------
Figure 6.3-2. Areawide Review Alternative for NEPA review process for the
issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in eastern Kentucky.
NPDES Permit
Application
Submitted
Preparation of
Draft NPDES
Permit and
Public Notice
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
Total Days
60
Numbers represent estimated days required to complete each action.
-------
6.3.3.1 Areawide Finding of No Significant Impact
This alternative would be intended to satisfy USEPA's substantive NEPA
review responsibility for all New Source NPDES permitting in eastern Kentucky
through a single document, this Areawide EIA. All substantive NEPA review
requirements would be handled at the time of the issuance of the EIA. A NEPA
review of individual applications would not be carried out with this alterna-
tive. Rather, the public notice on each permit would reference the Areawide
EIA conclusion that no significant impacts would be anticipated through a
brief standard FONSI statement.
Processing time and manpower requirements for site-specific environmental
reviews and decisions on FONSI's, EID's, and EIS's would be eliminated.
Region IV would issue New Source mining permits based totally on the identifi-
cation of no significant adverse impacts and the description of mitigative
measures available through other Federal, State, and/or local programs identi-
fied in the Areawide EIA. All impacts of coal mining in the Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field would either be characterized as not significantly affecting the
quality of the environment or as subject to mitigation by another agency.
This option affords the least environmental protection and the least
opportunity for minimizing significant adverse impacts. It would involve no
attempt to mitigate adverse impacts either through assistance to applicants or
through the imposition of permit conditions. This NEPA compliance strategy
would not address any site-specific impacts from a particular coal mining or
coal-related facility, and as such would make it difficult to justify as
meeting NEPA requirements. The major areas that would not receive considera-
tion by USEPA are: (1) environmentally sensitive terrestrial and aquatic
resources; (2) noise; (3) fugitive dust generation on haul roads; (4) water
supply intakes; (5) wetlands; (6) archaeological and historical resources; and
(7) groundwater. These resources are typically not considered at the local or
State level or by another Federal agency. Significantly less mitigation of
adverse impacts would result should USEPA select this alternative.
The Areawide FONSI Alternative is potentially the most direct and exped-
ient method to administer the permitting program for the Eastern Kentucky Coal
6-13
-------
Field. It is the least costly to the mining applicants, since they would not
be providing USEPA with detailed environmental data for analysis. However, it
is arguable that with this broad brush review approach the goals of NEPA would
not be furthered. In addition, the likelihood of a lawsuit challenging the
strategy is greater under this option than under any other except the No
Action Alternative. The delay such a legal challenge would have on specific
permit issuances cannot be accurately estimated. A successful legal challenge
of this approach could require further revisions of the Areawide EIA.
Procedurally, a short standard FONSI statement would be included in the
notice of each permit. Concerns involving unique site-specific environmental
impacts could not be met under this alternative, thus making legal challenges
to permit issuance more likely.
This alternative does provide the greatest opportunity for elimination of
duplication of effort. Little would be done by USEPA that could duplicate
other agencies' efforts. This alternative, however, is the least flexible of
all considered.
6.3.3.2 Impacts not Mitigatable by USEPA
This option would change this EIA to an EIS which would argue that there
are no means available to mitigate some types of impacts, even though they may
be significant. USEPA Region IV would issue New Source mining NPDES permits
recognizing that some types of significant adverse impacts may occur for which
there are no mitigative measures available for USEPA or other Federal, State,
and/or local programs to implement. USEPA would argue, however, that although
significant these impacts would not justify denial of an NPEES permit.
Processing time and manpower requirements for site-specific environmental
reviews and decisions on FONSI's, EID's, and EIS's would be similar to the
Areawide FONSI alternative discussed above. There would be a corresponding
lack of environmental protection. This option is also a direct and expedient
method to administer the permitting program for eastern Kentucky. It is one
of the least costly in the short run to mining applicants. However, it too
entails a likelihood for lawsuits challenging the strategy which could cause
6-14
-------
delays in permit issuance. There would be little duplication of effort since
USEPA would be doing virtually nothing that could duplicate other agencies'
efforts. This approach has no flexibility concerning impacts.
The argument for this option is that Federal agencies should only expend
manpower and taxpayers' dollars to address issues for which mitigation is
available and can be implemented by USEPA. This option might not fully comply
with existing regulations that require the Agency to address alternatives
available to all parties, not only USEPA. The argument of marginal utility
could be made—the cost of compliance and enforcement far outweighs the environ-
mental benefit of the potential mitigative measures.
6.3.3.3 General Conditioning
This option would establish general conditions that would apply to each
New Source coal facility permit applicant. These conditions would be devel-
oped and fully described in the Areawide EIA. A condition would be written
for each resource area for which significant impacts might occur. As part of
each condition, a description of when that condition would be applicable would
be included. Procedurally, a very brief FONSI statement would be included in
the notice of each permit.
The resource areas described in Section 6.2 would be the areas of major
emphasis. General permit conditions could be imposed which would mitigate
impacts on any or all of these resource areas. The permit conditions could
recognize that any one of several options to mitigate adverse impacts would be
satisfactory.
This alternative could be argued to result in potentially significant
environmental benefits because every permit would require the imposition of
these conditions. However, since the general conditions would necessarily be
environmentally conservative, this alternative would at times result in costs
imposed on the permittees which would not be imposed under site-specific
review alternatives.
6-15
-------
This alternative would not require additional manpower to perform indiv-
idual reviews since each permit would have the same conditions. There would
clearly be other resources required to be available under this option, how-
ever, since there would likely be a number of adjudicatory hearings requested
by applicants objecting to the imposition of conditions. The actual man-years
required to prepare for and hold these hearings are unknown.
An opportunity to contest the environmental review process would be
available after the Areawide EIA has been issued through comment on the brief
FONSI. Also, opportunity to review the NPDES conditions would be available
through the standard permit review process.
Several problems could be encountered with this method of using condi-
tions. General conditions are by their nature a quick but inflexible regula-
tory mechanism. Site-specific analysis and documentation of the appropriate-
ness of any conditions would be lacking. Providing the site-specific documen-
tation to support conditions in an adjudicatory hearing would not be possible.
This option would make it more difficult for an innovative and potentially
more effective control measure to be instituted. This could potentially
contribute to stifling new ideas in impact mitigation.
6.3.4 Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative
This alternative combines the last two general approaches described into
a single strategy using the Resource Threshold Criteria. This Areawide EIA
would be the substantive basis for satisfying USEPA's NEPA responsibility for
those New Source coal activities which do not create significant adverse
environmental impacts (i.e., those which are considered below Level I for each
of the Resource Threshold Criteria). Where applications trigger Level I,
individual environmental reviews would be undertaken. Figure 6.3-3 indicates
the various levels of review and corresponding time requirements that could
result using this alternative.
This approach would involve an initial review to determine whether addi-
tional information is needed to determine if significant impacts are likely to
occur from the proposed project. If not, a fast track permit and brief FONSI
6-16
-------
Figure 6.3-3. Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative for NEPA review process for the
issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in eastern Kentucky.
Total Days
NPDES Permit
Application &
EIR Submitted
I
I—1
-J
Review by
USEPA EIS
Branch
20
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
80
Third Party
EIS Prepared
3001
USEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
425
NPDES Permit
Denied
Applicant
Prepares
EID 60
USEPA Review &
JN-tjr A Decision
25
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
165
USEPA Prepares
EIS
300
USEPA Reviews
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
510
NPDES Permit
Denied
Numbers represent estimated days required to complete each action.
-------
statement issuance process would occur. If the initial review indicated that
there is the possibility of significant impact, then specific additional ques-
tions would be asked of the applicant. The USEPA would then evaluate this
information to determine if significant impacts are likely. If not, a FONSI
would be issued. If the determination is that significant impacts are likely,
then the applicant would be required to develop and evaluate specific alterna-
tives to the proposed project that would mitigate the potential impact. If
the impact can reasonably be mitigated and the mitigation is acceptable to the
applicant, then a permit condition stipulating the mitigative action would be
imposed. If not, the Agency would prepare an EIS fully analyzing the impact
of the proposed project and any alternatives. A more detailed description of
this procedure using the Resource Threshold Criteria is provided in Section 6.2.
This alternative utilizes a process where NEPA requirements for mining
operations with insignificant impacts would be satisfied very rapidly and with
a minimum of resources. USEPA would cite the Areawide EIA and the finding
that no significant impacts would be expected when no Level I criterion was
triggered. The public notice on the permit would reference the Areawide EIA
for NEPA compliance for these insignificant projects and would contain a brief
standard FONSI statement. If significant issues are raised contesting the
adequacy of the environmental decision that led to the draft permit, an indiv-
idual review of the mining operation could result. Such issues would be raised
through the use of the Public Comment Criteria (Section 6.2.1).
Depending on the significance of the identified impact and its ability to
be mitigated, additional information, an BID, or an EIS would be required. It
is estimated that 70% of all New Source applications (or 245 per year) would
follow the fast track procedure using this strategy.
This alternative has the potential to result in significant environmental
benefits to the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field area. The Resource Threshold
Criteria have been developed to focus efforts on the most significant impact
areas. Significant mitigation of adverse impacts on sensitive terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems, from noise due to truck traffic, from dust emanating from
unpaved haul roads, on groundwater quality, on water supply intakes, on arch-
aeological and historical resources, and on wetlands would be realized.
6-18
-------
Approximately 1.5 manyears would be required to minimally handle the
workload anticipated using this compliance alternative. An additional
$320,000 is estimated to be required to prepare the site-specific analyses or
EIS's where the applicant determined that the conventional EIS route should be
used.
This alternative has advantages in the time necessary to process a per-
mit. In comparison to time frames for existing procedures, processing times
under the Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative would be reduced
substantially:
• From the date the applicant responds to the initial questions and
additional questions (if required):
- immediate screening by the NPDES permitting staff and draft
NPDES permit preparation if the application does not trip any
initial thresholds (i.e., an insignificant impact), or
- 20 days for an applicant response and 20 additional days to a
•USEPA decision (i.e., FONSI or BID) where an
application trips one or more initial threshold and additional
questions are involved.
• EID - approximately 60 days for applicant response plus 25 days for a
USEPA NEPA decision.
• EIS - 300 days or more to complete.
• The time frame required to prepare and circulate the NPDES permit is
in addition to these time frames. It is projected that an additional
60 days is required to complete permit issuance.
This alternative has the potential of employing a direct, expedient
approach for those operations with little environmental effect, while retain-
ing a method to effect environmental protection and impact mitigation for
operations with potentially significant adverse impacts. This alternative
would fully comply with USEPA statutory requirements for NEPA compliance.
Further, the flexibility of this alternative is higher than any others except
the general conditioning approach described below.
A variation of this strategy could also be used to include the option of
conditioning a permit at an earlier stage. The general conditioning approach
6-19
-------
could be modified to make use of the Resource Threshold Criteria to insert
standard NEPA based permit conditions related to the site-specific environ-
mental impacts. When a permit application is received by USEPA, a determi-
nation could be made by a permit writer as to whether or not the proposed
operation meets or exceeds any Level I Resource Threshold Criteria (Section 6.2),
If it does, standard conditions would then be inserted in the NPDES permit. A
brief standard FONSI statement would be included in the notice of each permit.
This alternative would result in potentially significant environmental
benefits. Every permit triggering a Level I criteria would have the imposi-
tion of a permit condition. Although the condition might not be appropriate
in every case, this approach could be argued to be environmentally conserva-
tive for those resource areas covered.
This option would require additional effort for review to determine when
a condition would be required due to meeting or exceeding Level I criteria.
There would also be additional resources required under this option as with
the previous general conditioning option since adjudicatory hearings could be
expected. The actual number of man-years required is unknown, but would
likely be less than the conditioning option without the initial review.
An opportunity to contest the environmental review process could be
argued to be available after the Areawide EIA has been issued through review
of the brief FONSI included in the permit notice. Opportunity to review the
NPDES conditions and to comment on their consistency with the areawide require-
ments would also be available through the standard permit review process.
This alternative is more flexible than the general conditioning option,
but suffers from the same basic problems. The initial information submitted
in the applicant questionnaire would rarely be sufficient to fully document
the need for the specific permit conditions. Standard conditions are by their
nature a quick but inflexible regulatory mechanism. Site-specific analysis
and documentation of the appropriateness of any conditions would still be
lacking. Providing site-specific documentation to support conditions in an
adjudicatory hearing would not be possible. This option would also make it
more difficult for an innovative and potentially more effective control measure
6-20
-------
to be instituted. This could again contribute to stifling new ideas in impact
mitigation.
A detailed investigation of each resource area evaluating the different
strategies for possible inclusion in an Areawide-Individual approach is in-
cluded as Appendix A. The implications of an areawide FONSI, unmitigatable
impacts, general condition, standard condition, or individual review strategy
are evaluated in detail for each identified impacted resource area. A recom-
mendation of the most appropriate strategy for each resource area is given.
6.3.5 Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative
This strategy is virtually identical to the Areawide-Individual Combined
Review Alternative with one additional option. If the region which surrounds
a proposed permit area: (1) has similar sensitive resources; (2) is projected
to be the focus of intense coal mining interests; or (3) has the potential for
significant cumulative impacts on the watershed, USEPA may decide to conduct
its own subareawide review prior to permit issuance. This review could ultimate-
ly reduce the number of New Sources in the subarea requiring individual analy-
sis by establishing standard mitigative measures for mining activities within
its boundaries. USEPA review time and applicant costs for providing detailed
information should be reduced. Although it is doubtful that USEPA would make
frequent use of this subareawide review approach, it would further increase
the Agency's flexibility. Figure 6.3-4 indicates the various levels of review
and corresponding time requirements resulting from this alternative.
This strategy outlines an approach based on options to evaluate permits
on any level. The environment would be adequately protected against adverse
impacts from mining operations and USEPA resource requirements would be rela-
tively low. Overall, processing time requirements would be reduced as described
under the Areawide-Individual approach (unless a subareawide review was re-
quired which would necessitate a longer time frame similar to a site-specific
EIS process).
6-21
-------
Figure 6.3-4. Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative for NEPA review process
for the issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in eastern Kentucky.
Total Days
NPDES Permit
Application
EIR Submitted
NEPA
Review By
USEPA
20
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
80
Third Party
EIS Prepared
300
USEPA Review &|
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
425
NPDES Permit
Denied
Applicant
Prepares
Alternatives
Analysis
USEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
25
NPDES Permit
60
165
USEPA Prepares
EIS
300
USEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
510
*USEPA may decide to prepare a
subareawide review at this point.
Up to 300 additional days may be
required to complete this review.
NPDES Permit
Denied
Numbers represent estimated days required to complete each action.
-------
6.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Each of the alternatives described above have advantages and disadvan-
tages in terms of the level of environmental benefit, costs, processing time,
compliance with USEPA's statutory responsibilities, the elimination of dupli-
cation of effort, and flexibility. This section compares the alternatives in
terms of these parameters. A comparison of the alternatives by specific
resource categories is also presented.
6.4.1 Environmental Benefit
The level of environmental benefit or protection provided by the alter-
natives varies widely. The greatest level of environmental protection is
afforded by the Individual Review Alternative while the least amount of pro-
tection is provided by the Areawide Review Alternative. The two Combined
Review Alternatives also provide for a level of environmental protection
similar to the Individual Review Alternative.
The Individual Review Alternative provides the highest level of environ-
mental protection through the project-specific review required of all proposed
New Source mining operations. These individual project reviews would utilize
the Resource Threshold Criteria to determine possible impacts to surface water
quality and quantity including threatened and endangered aquatic species
habitats; groundwater quality and quantity; sensitive terrestrial ecosystems
including threatened and endangered species habitats; wetlands; sensitive
noise receptors such as residences, schools, and health care facilities;
sensitive fugitive dust receptors located along unpaved public haul roads;
environmentally significant agricultural land except those prime farmlands
already protected by SMCRA provisions; recreational land; and those historic
or archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places. USEPA has identified these resource areas as
being sensitive to coal mining activities, not protected by other Federal or
State regulations, and requiring protection under NEPA. In addition to these
resource areas, USEPA can respond to other significant adverse impacts that
may be identified through the public comment process which allows the general
public, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments to voice
6-23
-------
concerns about aspects of a particular mining operation. Through this indiv-
idual review process, USEPA can provide the maximum level of environmental
benefit.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Areawide Review Alternative
provides little environmental protection. This alternative does not provide
for site-specific environmental reviews of proposed New Source mining opera-
tions, therefore no protection against unique site-specific adverse impacts
would result. Some environmental protection could result using the general
conditioning option which requires mitigation of impacts through general
permit conditions; however, conditions would not be tailored to site-specific
impacts. Little environmental benefit would be realized through the Areawide
Review Alternative.
Both the Areawide-Individual and Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined
Review Alternatives provide a high level of environmental protection. As in
the Individual Review Alternative, the Resource Threshold Criteria would be
utilized to determine possible impacts to each of the ten resource areas
identified by USEPA. Unlike the Individual Review Alternative, an initial
review of the proposed mining operation could result in prompt permit issuance
if no possibility of adverse impact is identified (no Level I thresholds are
met). In effect, these combined review alternatives will provide for a project-
specific environmental review when the possibility of adverse impacts is
identified while allowing for fast-track permit processing when no potential
impacts are found. The implementation of either of these alternatives would
result in a substantial level of protection of surface water and groundwater,
sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, wetlands, environmentally signif-
icant agricultural land, recreation land, sensitive noise receptors, sensitive
receptors of fugitive dust, and historic and archaeological sites as described
above for the Individual Review Alternative.
6.4.2 Manpower and Costs
The additional manpower requirements necessary for USEPA to implement the
various alternatives ranges from zero with the Areawide Review Alternative, to
approximately 1.5 manyears for the Areawide-Individual and Areawide-Subareawide-
6-24
-------
Individual Review Alternatives, to 10 manyears for the Individual Review
Alternative. Estimated USEPA financial commitments for the preparation of
site-specific EIS's would range from zero with the Areawide Review option to
$320,000 with the Areawide-Individual and Areawide-Subareawide-Individual
Review Alternatives. NPDES permit applicants will incur costs for supplying
environmental data and preparing the EID's or EIS's that might be required
under some of the review alternatives. No costs would be incurred by appli-
cants under the Areawide Review Alternative since no environmental data or
EID's/EIS's are required in order to obtain the NPDES permit. With the Indiv-
idual, Areawide-Individual, or Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Alternatives,
USEPA has estimated the applicants would spend a total of $2.2 million annually
to provide the environmental data and EID's/EIS's required by USEPA. This
cost figure is based on the 350 New Source NPDES permit applications expected
annually from eastern Kentucky. Applicants would spend more than three times
this amount, or approximately $17 million, to provide the mining plans and
other data necessary to obtain the BSMRE mining permit under the interim OSM
program. The costs associated with obtaining the NPDES permits are minute
when compared with the $3.2 billion in annual revenues generated by coal
mining in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field.
6.4.3 Processing Time
The amount of time required by USEPA to process an NPDES permit applica-
tion from the receipt of all information required of the applicant will vary
with each alternative. The Individual Review Alternative would require a
minimum of 80 days if a FONSI were issued to more than 500 days if an EID and
EIS were required . The Areawide Review Alternative would require only 60 days
to issue a permit since no individual environmental reviews would be performed
on the proposed mining operations under this alternative. Using the Areawide-
Individual Combined Review Alternative an NPDES permit could be processed
within 60 days if the initial review of the EIR indicates no significant
impacts will occur. Otherwise, permit issuance would require from 80 to more
than 500 days as in the Individual Review Alternative. Processing time for
the Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative would be the
same as for the Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative unless a
subareawide review were required which necessitates an additional 300 or more
6-25
-------
days to prepare. Subsequent permit application located within the subarea
would be greatly expedited, however, after the subareawide review is prepared.
6.4.4 Compliance With USEPA's Statutory Responsibilities
USEPA's statutory responsibilities would be fully met using the Indiv-
idual Review, Areawide-Individual Combined Review, or the Areawide-Subareawide-
Individual Combined Review Alternatives. The three options available under
the Areawide Review alternative present the likelihood of legal challenges
occurring because of the lack of consideration of site-specific issues.
6.4.5 Duplication of Effort
In terms of eliminating the duplication of effort of other agencies, the
Individual Review Alternative is least desirable because resource areas that
other agencies are responsible for would also be reviewed by USEPA. The three
options under the Areawide Review Alternative do not include site-specific
environmental reviews; therefore, no duplication of effort would occur. The
Areawide-Individual and Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review Alter-
natives include reviews of environmental resource areas not covered by other
agencies, therefore eliminating the possibility of duplication of effort while
still providing environmental protection.
6.4.6 Flexibility
In terms of the ability of an alternative to identify and mitigate site-
specific impacts and allow expedient permit processing, the Individual Review
Alternative has complete flexibility whereas the options available under the
Areawide Review Alternative are very restrictive and have virtually no flexi-
bility. The Areawide-Individual and Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined
Review Alternatives combine the flexibility of the Individual Review Alterna-
tive and significantly simplify permit processing.
6-26
-------
6.4.7 Resource Specific Comparison
A comparison of review alternatives was conducted for each of the 14
environmental resource areas in order to determine the most advantageous
alternative for each specific resource. The methodology employed in this
comparison consisted of summarizing the impacts of coal raining activities on
the resource, outlining the technical alternatives available to mitigate
adverse impacts, cataloging existing Federal and State regulations that con-
trol mining impacts on the resource, analyzing how each review alternative
would address the potential impact, evaluating the costs and benefits of the
alternatives available in terms of USEPA manpower requirements and costs as
well as applicant costs, and recommending a preferred alternative that would
fulfill USEPA's statutory responsibilities and mitigate impacts to the indivi-
dual resource. Appendix A contains this detailed analysis of alternatives for
each of the 14 resource categories.
6.5 THE SELECTED ACTION
6.5.1 Resource Specific and Overall Recommendation
The results of the resource specific analysis of alternatives (Appendix A)
indicate that for 10 out of 14 resource areas, the Areawide-Individual Combined
Review Alternative would best fulfill USEPA's responsibilities. The four
resource areas for which this alternative was not recommended (transportation,
socioeconomics, geology, and floodplains) were found to be adequately protected
from adverse impacts of coal mining by other State or Federal regulations.
All of the alternatives and their variations present distinct advantages
over the NEPA compliance process currently used by USEPA. The Individual
Review Alternative and the Areawide Review Alternative with the FONSI option
are on either end of the NEPA compliance spectrum. They differ dramatically
in terms of environmental benefits, USEPA resource demands, overall processing
time requirements, and flexibility to accommodate specific situations. From
an environmental protection perspective, the former approach is highly prefer-
able. However, the USEPA resources required are not reasonable given the
current personnel and funding allocations. The Areawide FONSI, on the other
6-27
-------
hand, is superior from a cost, processing, and manpower standpoint, but defi-
cient in terms of environmental benefits, ability to withstand legal chal-
lenges, and flexibility. The Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review
Alternative, however, provides a high level of environmental benefits with
moderate manpower and financial requirements and a greater degree of flexi-
bility to accommodate specific problems that may occur during the permit
review process.
The Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative is
selected as the Proposed Action because it provides USEPA with the greatest
number of options and flexibility in performing its NEPA-related duties.
There are, however, certain consequences—both positive and negative—that
will result from implementing this alternative.
6.5.2 Permit Review Procedure
Using the Selected Action, a step-by-step procedure would be followed to
accomplish the environmental reviews required under NEPA for New Source NPDES
permit issuance. Generally, this procedure is as follows:
1. Determine if applicant is classified as a New Source.
2. Applicant provides environmental information.
3. USEPA reviews EIR.
4. A FONSI is issued if no Level I Resource Threshold Criteria (RTC)
are triggered.
5. If Level I RTC is triggered applicant supplies additional data from
which the significance of the impact can be determined.
6. If impact is determined to be insignificant or mitigatable, an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and FONSI is prepared.
7. If a Level II RTC is triggered, an evaluation of alternatives or an
EID is prepared by applicant.
8. If a Level III RTC is triggered, and EIS is prepared by USEPA or
third party.
9. Issue permit, issue permit with conditions, or deny permit.
6-28
-------
Using the Selected Action, the review of NPDES permit applications would be
streamlined to the greatest extent possible while maintaining a high level of
environmental protection.
6-29
-------
-------
7.0 CONSEQUENCES OF THE SELECTED ACTION
The implementation of the Selected Action, the Areawide-Subareawide-
Individual Combined Review, will result in both adverse and beneficial impacts
on the environment of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field, on applicants for New
Source coal mining NPDES permits in the Coal Field, and on USEPA. Impacts on
the environment are described in terms of the level of protection provided for
the sensitive resources of eastern Kentucky by the Selected Action. Impacts
to the New Source coal mining NPDES permit applicants and USEPA are described
in terms of temporal effects, manpower requirements, and/or financial impacts.
7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The Selected Action has been developed to provide for environmental
reviews of New Source coal mining activities with a sufficient level of detail
to identify probable adverse impacts to sensitive resources. The resources
that have been identified as particularly sensitive to coal mining activities
and that are not protected by other Federal or State regulatory programs
include surface water, groundwater, sensitive ecosystems identified by KNPC,
wetlands, significant agricultural land as defined by USEPA national policy,
recreational land, noise, air quality, and cultural resources.
The Selected Action will provide protection for certain sensitive surface
water resources that occur within five miles downstream of a proposed effluent
discharge. These resources include stream segments that are: (1) designated
or proposed for domestic water supply; (2) designated or proposed as coldwater
aquatic habitat; (3) designated or proposed as an Outstanding Resource Water
of the Commonwealth; (4) identified as a Sensitive Aquatic Ecosystem by KNPC;
(5) identified as a high or moderate water quality stream by KNPC; and (6)
likely to be inhabited by a Federally listed or proposed species in danger of
extinction or threatened with endangerinent. Under the Selected Action, a
proposed mining operation with a discharge that occurs within five miles
upstream of one of these sensitive stream segments would be reviewed in more
detail in order to assess the exact nature of possible impacts on the sensi-
tive resource. This procedure assures the protection of the resource against
7-1
-------
mining-related impacts that may alter species composition, reduce water use
opportunities, or otherwise adversely impact any of the sensitive character-
istics of the resource.
Groundwater quality and quantity would be protected by the review pro-
cedure incorporated in the Selected Action. The exLstance of private water
supply wells within 2,000 feet of the permit area of a proposed coal prepara-
tion plant or underground mine permit area, and public water supply wells
within one mile of the proposed permit areas would initiate site-specific
groundwater reviews (if the producing aquifer is not hydraulically separated
from potential pollution sources such as spoil stockpiles and refuse disposal
areas). In this way, the quality and quantity of local groundwater resources
will be protected by requiring permit applicants to investigate alternatives
and address mitigative measures in more detail.
Sensitive terrestrial ecosystems as identified by KNPC and areas identi-
fied by KNPC that are likely to be inhabited by Federally listed or proposed
species in danger of extinction or threatened with endangerment would be
protected from possible adverse mining impacts by the Selected Action. Mining-
related surface disturbances within 2,000 feet of sensitive terrestrial eco-
systems will require additional investigations by the applicant and USEPA to
determine the possibility of adverse impacts on the area. If significant
adverse impacts are determined likely to occur from the proposed mining opera-
tion, mitigative measures will be developed to reduce or eliminate the impacts
to acceptable levels before issuance of the NPDES permit.
Wetlands would be protected by the Selected Action through the site-
specific review to be initiated if the proposed mining-related surface dis-
turbances occur within or adjacent to wetlands. The site-specific review
would also be required when coal mining operations discharge wastewater into
or hydraulically modify a wetland area. The site-specific review will deter-
mine the significance of any impacts occurring to wetlands so that mitigative
measures can be developed to counteract adverse impacts.
7-2
-------
Environmentally Significant Agricultural (ESA) lands as defined by USEPA
national policy would be protected from significant adverse impacts by the
site-specific review requirements of the Selected Action. Coal mining activi-
ties, exclusive of coal haul roads and preparation plant sites, that cause
surface disturbance on ESA land, except those prime farmlands protected by
SMCRA, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the significance
of impacts and develop mitigation where required. This review procedure will
prevent the permanent conversion of ESA land and protect this valuable natural
resource.
The Selected Action will protect recreational land from the adverse
impacts of coal mining activities. Proposed coal mining operations, including
public and private haul roads, located within 2,000 feet of a public park,
National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, State Wildlife Management Area,
National System of Trails, Wilderness Area, or State or National Wild, Scenic,
or Recreational River will receive individual reviews to determine the possibil-
ity and significance of adverse impacts caused by noise pollution, air pollu-
tion, or other forms of pollution that would degrade the quality of recreation-
al opportunities at the facility. This review and the resultant mitigative
measures or permit action will protect recreational lands from any significant
adverse impacts of mining operations.
The Selected Action will preserve air quality in the Coal Field by pro-
tecting sensitive receptors from unhealthy levels of fugitive dust emissions
that may result from coal haul truck traffic on unpaved off-site haul routes.
Proposed mining operations that would generate enough truck traffic on unpaved
haul routes to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for total
suspended particulates at nearby sensitive receptors (as determined by a simple
nomograph) would be reviewed individually in order to determine the signifi-
cance of possible impacts. Alternative haul routes or other mitigative mea-
sures would be required before the NPDES permit is approved if significant
adverse impacts are likely to occur.
Sensitive noise receptors such as residences, health care facilities,
churches, or educational facilities located near mines or along coal haul
routes will be protected from exposure to excessive mining-related noise by
7-3
-------
the Selected Action. If sensitive receptors are expected to experience an L
eq
of 70 dBA from coal haul truck traffic, a site-specific review would be per-
formed to determine more accurately what noise levels will be generated by the
proposed activity. Mitigative measures will be required to reduce noise
emissions exceeding an L, of 73 dBA or an L of 70 dBA at sensitive receptors,
dn eq
thereby protecting them from exposure to excessive mining-related noise levels.
The Selected Action will protect the cultural resources (historic, archaeo-
logic, and paleontologic sites) of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field from possible
adverse impacts of coal mining operations by requiring the permit applicant to
obtain clearance from the Kentucky SHPO and/or OSA. If the SHPO or OSA deter-
mines that the permit area contains resources that are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or are eligible for inclusion on the National
Register and that coal mining operations are likely to have significant adverse
impacts on the resource, mitigative measures will be developed to preserve the
resource as a condition to permit issuance. USEPA will work closely with the
SHPO and/or OSA in the review and protection of cultural resources.
The sensitive resources described above are reviewed and the degree of
impact assessed by using the Resource Threshold Criteria. In addition, local,
State, and Federal agency review comments as well as review comments from the
general public provide for the identification of possible significant impacts
not otherwise addressed by USEPA. Where significant adverse impacts are
determined likely to occur, they can be resolved by the application of permit
conditions that mitigate the adverse impact or the preparation of an EID and/
or EIS which describes mitigative measures to be taken in the form of feasible
alternatives.
USEPA has determined that some environmenal resource areas such as flood-
plains, steep slopes, transportation networks, etc. are adequately protected
from the adverse impacts of coal mining by the regulations of other Federal or
state agencies. To avoid duplicating the efforts of these other agencies,
USEPA will not perform its own review of these resources. Instead, USEPA will
rely on the review and permit requirements of the appropriate agency to fulfill
its responsibilities.
7-4
-------
In summary, the Selected Action provides an environmental review mech-
anism that can identify significant adverse impacts early in the review pro-
cess so that a detailed, site-specific investigation can be instigated prior
to permit approval. Those projects for which no significant adverse impacts
are identified in the initial review can be permitted rapidly while still
providing an adequate level of environmental protection.
7.2 TEMPORAL EFFECTS
The implementation of the Selected Action will streamline the permit
review process, thereby reducing the time required to process the NPEES permit
application considerably. Both the permit applicant and USEPA will benefit
from this time savings. For example, if no significant environmental impacts
are encountered during the initial review, the final NPDES permit could be
issued in approximately 60 days. If the initial RTC are triggered but further
investigation indicates the impacts are not significant or the applicant
agrees to accept appropriate mitigative measures and permit conditions, approxi-
mately 80 days would be required for final permit issuance. In cases where an
BID and/or EIS is required, permit issuance could require from 165 to more
than 300 days depending on the complexity of the issues to be resolved. The
vast majority of permits will likely be issued within the 60 to 80 day time
frame.
7.3 USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
The manpower requirements necessary for USEPA to fully implement the
Selected Action are moderate. Based on an estimated 350 permit applications
per year, approximately 1.5 additional USEPA manyears of effort would be
needed to adequately implement the review process. This compares favorably to
the estimated 10 manyears that would be required to perform NEPA compliance
reviews utilizing conventional methods.
7.4 FINANCIAL IMPACTS TO USEPA AND PERMIT APPLICANTS
The costs of implementing the Selected Action would be borne by both
USEPA and permit applicants. Based on the estimated 350 NPDES permit appli-
7-5
-------
cations to be processed annually, USEPA would expect to spend an estimated
$320,000 for the preparation of EIS's not prepared under the third-party
system. The permit applicants as a group are estimated to require a total
financial commitment of approximately $2.2 million per year under the Selected
Action. This estimated cost to applicants would be required to initially
supply data for USEPA review, to obtain additional data, and to prepare EID's
and EIS's as needed. This $2.2 million cost to New Source NPDES permit appli-
cants is relatively small when compared to the costs associated with obtaining
interim mining permits or the revenues that are derived from the sale of coal
mined in eastern Kentucky. It is estimated that up to $17 million would be
required to provide mining plans, special studies, and other information
necessary to obtain mining permits for these New Source mines from BSMRE under
the interim OSM program. Revenues from the sale of coal from eastern Kentucky
mines would likely exceed $300 billion annually at current coal prices. The
costs associated with obtaining New Source NPDES permits in eastern Kentucky
are relatively small (.2%) when compared to the revenues generated by the sale
of coal or the costs of obtaining mining permits.
7-6
-------
8.0 HISTORY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
To assist in the identification of issues pertinent to the preparation
of this document, USEPA established a Review Committee comprised of
representatives from various Federal and State agencies, the coal mining
industry, universities, and conservation groups (Table 8.0-1). Review
committee meetings were held prior to project commencement and on 24
September 1980 and 19 February 1981. The purpose of these meetings was to
provide a forum where project personnel and committee members could discuss,
in detail, the various NEPA compliance strategies and related implementation
procedures. In particular, participants were invited to comment on the
proposed Resource Threshold Criteria. All comments received were considered
by USEPA and, where appropriate, incorporated into this document.
In addition to the Review Committee USEPA solicited comments from other
public agencies, private corporations and environmental groups (Table 8.0-1)
through numerous phone conversations and correspondence. Similarly, all
substantive recommendations received from these organizations were
considered during the preparation of this document.
8-1
-------
Table 8.0-1. Public agencies and private organizations consulted during the
preparation of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Areawide EIA.
FEDERAL
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Office of Surface Mining*
US Forest Service
US Geological Survey
STATE
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission*
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection*
Division of Water*
Division of Air Pollution Control
Bureau of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement*
Office of Special Projects
Office of Policy and Program Analysis*
Kentucky Geological Survey*
Kentucky Department of Local Government
Kentucky Department of Transportation
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources*
Kentucky Department of Community and Regional Development
State Historic Preservation Officer
Kentucky Office of State Archaeology
PRIVATE
Kentucky Audubon Society*
Appalachian Coalition*
Appalachian Research and Defense Fund*
Kentucky Wesleyan College
Kentucky Coal Association*
MAPCO Coals, Inc.*
US Steel Corp.*
Peabody Coal Company
General Energy Corporation*
*Review Committee Members
8-2
-------
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appalachian Regional Commission. 1969. Acid mine drainage in Appalachia.
Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1974. Mammals of Kentucky. Kentucky
University Press, Lexington KY.
Blome, Donald A. 1970. A spatial model of the urban structure of
Appalachia. The Proceedings of the Association of American
Geographers. Volume 2. 12-16 p.
Braun, E.L. 1937. Some relationships of the flora of the Cumberland
Plateau and Cumberland Mountains in Kentucky. Rhodora 39:193-208.
Caldwell, R.S. and S.E. Trauth. In press. Use of toe pad and tooth
morphology in differentiating three species of Desmognathus (Amphibia,
Urodela, Plethodontidae). J. Herpetol.
Currens, James C. and Gilbert E. Smith. 1977. Coal production in Kentucky,
1790-1975. Kentucky Geological Survey. Info, circa. 23. 66 p.
D'Elia, L. and J. Douglas, n.d. Archaeological Sites: A Predictive
Analysis. Landscape Architecture Department, Harvard University,
Cambridge MA.
Dincauze, D. F. 1978. Predicting Site Encounter: Two Techniques for
Landscape Analysis. American Society for Conservation Archaeology
5 (3):2-ll.
Dugan, P. R. 1972. Biochemical ecology of water pollution. Plunum Press,
New York NY.
Dunn, E.R. 1926. Salamanders of the family Plethodontidae. Smith College
Publ., Northampton MA.
Dvorak, A. J., C. D. Brown, E. H. Dettman, R. A. Hinchman, J. D. Jastrow,
C. R. LaFrance, B. G. Lewis, R. T. Lundy, R. D. Olsen, J. I. Parker, E.
D. Pentecost, J. L. Saquinsin, W. S. Vinikour. 1977. The
environmental effects of using coal for generating electricity.
NUREG-0252. Argonne National Laboratoy, Argonne IL.
Garner, R. V. 1953. Revegetation of strip-mined areas in Oklahoma. Pro.
Okla. Acad. Sci. 34:208-209.
Green, N. F. and R. M. Hanson. 1969. Relationship of seed weight to
germination of six grasses. J. Rang. Manage. 22(2):133-134.
Guilday, J.E., H.W. Hamilton, and A.D. McCrady. 1971. The Welsh Cave
peccaries (Platygonus) and associated fauna, Kentucky Pleistocene.
Ann. Carnegie Mus. 43:249-320.
9-1
-------
Hall, E.R. and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America. Ronald
Press Co., New York NY.
Hall F. R. and W. N. Palmquist, Jr. 1960. Availability of groundwater in
Oiark, Estill, Madison, and Powell Counties, Kentucky. US Geological
Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-19.
Barker, D. F. and S. L. Sanders. 1979. Eastern Kentucky Coalfield-
Preliminary Investigations of Natural Features and Cultural Resources
Volume IV. Cultural Resources of Eastern Kentucky and Cultural
Resources Overlay Index. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission
Frankfort KY. 158 p.
Hart, C. W., Jr., and S. L. H. Fuller. 1974. Pollution ecology of
freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press, New York NY.
Haynes, R. J., J. F. McBrayer, R. M. Cushman, and R. D. Roop. 1979.
Environmental impacts of coal extraction in Alabama: 1978-1985
Environmental Sciences Division Pub. No. 1323, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. 201 p.
Herricks, E. E., and J. Cairns, Jr. 1974. Rehabilitation of streams
receiving acid mine drainage. Center for Environmental Studies
Bulletin 66. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg VA. '
Hill, p. R. 1973. Reclamation and revegetation of 640 acres of surface
mines - Elkins WV. 417-450 p.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1969. On the distribution and phylogeny of the crayfish
genus Cambarus. In: The distributional history of the biota of the
southern Appalachians. Part I: Invertebrates. P.C. Holt, ed. V P I
State University, Blacksburg VA.
Hubbard, J.P. 1971. The avifauna of the southern Appalachians: past and
present. In: The distributional history of the biota of the southern
Appalachians. Part III: Vertebrates. P.C. Holt, ed. V.P.I. State
University, Blacksburg VA.
Jenkins, R.E., E.A. Lachner, and F.J. Schwartz. 1971. Fishes of the
central Appalachians drainages: their distribution and dispersal. In-
The distributional history of the biota of the southern Appalachians
Part III: Vertebrates. P.C. Holt, ed. V.P.I. State University
Blacksburg VA.
Karan, P.P., and Cotton Mather (eds). 1977. Atlas of Kentucky. The
University of Kentucky, Lexington KY. 182 pp.
Kentucky Department of Commerce (KDOC). 1973-1977. Kentucky labor force
estimates, annual averages. Frankfort KY, 3 p. (each). 1976 Kentucky
Airports. Map.
Kentucky Department of Commerce (KDOC). 1976. Kentucky Airports. Map.
9-2
-------
Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals. 1978. Annual Report. 218 p.
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
(KDNREP). n.d.a. The river basin water quality management plan for
Kentucky: Ohio River. Frankfort KY. Variously paged.
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
(KDNREP). n.d.b. The river basin water quality management plan for
Kentucky: Big Sandy River. Frankfort KY. Variously paged.
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
(KDNREP). n.d.c. The river basin water quality management plan for
Kentucky: Licking River. Frankfort KY. Variously paged.
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
(KDNREP). n.d.d. The river basin water quality management plan for
Kentucky: Kentucky River. Frankfort KY. Variously paged.
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
(KDNREP). n.d.e. The river basin water quality management plan for
Kentucky: Upper Cumberland River. Frankfort KY. Variously paged.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC). 1979a. Eastern Kentucky
coalfield: preliminary investigations of natural features and cultural
resources. Frankfort KY.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC). 1979b. Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field: preliminary investigations of natural features and cultural
resources. Volume I: Introduction and the Natural Heritage Program.
Technical Report. October 1979.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC). 1979c. Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field: preliminary investigations of natural features and cultural
resources. Volume II: Ecology and ecological features of eastern
Kentucky.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC). 1979d. Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field: preliminary investigations of natural features and cultural
resources. Volume III: Caves and associated fauna of eastern
Kentucky.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC). 1979e. Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field: preliminary investigations of natural features and cultural
resources. Volume IV: Geologic diversity of eastern Kentucky.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC). 1979f. Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field: preliminary investigations of natural features and cultural
resources. Volume VI: Water resources and natural features overlay
index.
9-3
-------
Kilburn, Chabot, W. E. Price, Jr., and D. S. Mull. 1962. Availability of
groundwater in Bell, Clay, Jackson, Knox, Laurel, Leslie, McCreary,
Owsley, Rockcastle, and Whitley Counties, Kentucky. US Geological'
Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-38. 3 sheet.
Kimball, L. R. n.d. Surface mine water quality control in the eastern
Kentucky coalfields. Manual. A Study Sponsored by the Appalachian
Regional Commission and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 30 p.
Kuehne, R.A. and R.M. Bailey. 1961. Stream capture and the distribution of
the percid fish Etheostoma sagitta with geologic and taxonomic
considerations. Copeia. p. 1-8.
Langman, R.C. 1971. Appalachian Kentucky: an exploited region.
McGraw-Hill RyersonLtd., Toronto, Canada. 116 p.
Lewis, R. B. and S. A. Murphy. 1978. Archaeology site distributions in
Central Illinois: Development of an initial predictive model.
Illinois State Museum Society. Springfield IL.
Miller, R.V. 1968. A systematic study of the greenside darter, Etheostoma
blenniodes Rafinesque (Pisces: Percidae). Copeia. p. 1-40~
National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering 1973
Water quality criteria. 1972. EPA-R-73-033. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington DC.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1977. Local
climatological data annual summaries for 1977. National Climatic
Center, Asheville NC. Variously paged.
Palmquist, W. N., Jr., and F. R. Hall. I960. Availability of groundwater
in Lewis and Rowan Counties, Kentucky. US Geological Survey Hydrologic
Investigations Atlas HA-17.
Plass, W. T. 1975. An evaluation of trees and shrubs for planting surface
mined spoils. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. NE-317. Northeast Forest
Exp. Sta., Upper Darby PA.
Preston Associates, Inc. and Appalachian Regional Commission. 1970.
Highway transportation and Appalachian development. Appalachian
Research Report No. 13. 209 p.
Price, W. E., Jr., Kilburn, C., and Mull, D. S. 1962a. Availability of
groundwater in Boyd, Carter, Elliott, Greenup, Johnson, Lawrence, Lee,
Menifee, Morgan and Wolfe Counties, Kentucky. Hydrologic
investigations Atlas HA-37, US Geologic Survey, 3 sheets.
Price, W. E., Jr., Mull, D. S., and Kilburn, C. 1962b. Reconnaissance of
groundwater resources in the eastern coalfield region of Kentucky.
USGS Water Supply Paper 1602. Prepared in cooperation with the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Economic Development, and the
Kentucky Geologic Survey. 56 p.
9-4
-------
Roback S S., and J. W. Richardson. 1969. The effects of acid mine
drainage'on aquatic insects. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia PA,
121:81-107.
Rogers, A. 1971. Derelict land reclamation. Revegetation °f coal and
ironshale tips. Land Reclamation Office, Monmouthshire, Derelict Land
Reclamation Joint Committee, Monmouthshire, England. 8 p.
Ross, R.D. 1971. The drainage list of the biota of the southern
Appalachians. Part 3: Vertebrates. P.C. Holt (ed.). Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg VA.
Ruffner, J. D. 1962. New plants for strip-mine soils and shale soils.
Soil Conserv. 27:209-210.
Starnes, W. 1977. Zoogeograhic implications of the rediscovery of Penaeid
genus Amocrypta in the Tennessee River drainage. Copeia. 783-786 p.
US Department of Commerce (USDOC) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
1968. Development of water resources in Appalachia. Appendix E.
economic base study. Office of Business Economics and Office of
Appalachian Studies. Cincinnati OH. 171 p.
US Department of Commerce. 1975. 1974 Census of Agriculture.
US Department of Energy. 1978. National Coal Model-Coal Supply Curves.
DOE/EIA-0103/2.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Groundwater protection.
USEPA. 1975. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards.
USEPA. 1978. Noise: a health problem. Washington DC.
US Forest Service (USFS). n.d. Series of 7.5 minute quadrangle maps that
show Federal Ownership status in the Daniel Boone National Forest.
88 sheets. Atlanta GA.
US Forest Service, n.d. Revegetation research in the eastern Kentucky
coalfields. Field Manual. US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Berea KY. 101 p.
US Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking Water Standards.
Vimmerstedt, J. P. 1970. Stripmine reclamation: 22 years of continuing
research. Ohio Rep. Res. Development 55(4):60-61.
Vogel W. G. and W. A. Berg. 1968. Grasses and lagumes for cover on acid
strip mine spoils. J. Soil Water Conserv. 23:89-91.
Wake D B 1966. Comparative osteology and evoluation of the lungless
'salamanders, family Plethodontidae. Mem. South California Acad. Sci.
4:1-111.
9-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
The following pages contain benefit and cost analyses
(applicant and EPA) for each resource area. Each analysis
includes a description of the impact of coal mining activities
on the resource, technical alternatives, existing regulations,
NEPA compliance alternatives, an evaluation and a
recommendation.
The threshold criteria for each resource area are used to
streamline the NEPA process under two of the four strategies,
the Areawide-lndividual and Areawide-Subareawide-Individual
strategies. These analyses have been prepared to aid in
decisions weighing the environmental benefits inherent in
protecting a certain resource against the associated costs.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Surface Water A-l
Sensitive Ecosystems A-10
Groundwater A-18
Archaeologic, Historic, Paleontologic A-25
Recreational Land A-33
Wetlands A-39
Noise A-45
Resource Threshold Criteria Calculations for Noise A-53
Air Quality A-54
Resource Threshold Criteria Calculations Fugitive Dust
Emissions A-61
Environmental Significant Agricultural Lands A-62
Public Comment A-71
Transportation A-74
Socioeconomic A-77
Geology A-79
Floodplains A-81
-------
SURFACE WATER
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
The quality of surface water is affected by mining activities
through the introduction of iron and manganese concentrations,
acid mine water and sediment loads. The erosion of exposed
soil, coal refuse piles, and coal storage piles and overflow
from sedimentation ponds during storm events can result in the
release and transport of sediment, toxic substances and other
water quality reducing elements to streams. The increased
sediment loads, toxic wastes, acid mine drainage, and high
dissolved solids decrease stream water quality and can cause
(1) a reduction, alteration in composition, or elimination of
aquatic life, (2) an alteration, reduction, or elimination of
water use opportunities for industrial processes and domestic
consumption, and/or (3) a decrease in waste assimilative
capacity.
Mining activities in Eastern Kentucky have a great potential to
produce impacts on threatened or endangered species, species of
special concern, and species of undetermined status. Direct
removal of stream segments may result in elimination of benthic
organisms, fish, and microscopic plant life. Replacement of
stream segments by sediment ponds also reduces the quality of
aquatic life. Potential impacts include changes in groundwater
inflow arid soil moisture levels, both of which may result in
direct impacts on wetland vegetation or changes in species
composition. Sedimentation generally has the more significant
potential impact on aquatic life due to increased erosion from
mined areas and coal washing facilities. Acid mine drainage
may cause additional stress on the aquatic life of receiving
streams by lowering the pH of receiving waters and increasing
the release of sulfur by iron and sulfur bacteria.
It is possible that adverse impacts on aquatic life and water
supply sources could occur as far as five miles downstream from
a coal mining discharge.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate these
impacts:
• At source controls to prevent or reduce the rate of
pollution formation (e.g. surface land reclamation, drainage
diversions, impoundments, refuse pile reclamation,
revegetation);
A-l
-------
• Treatment of polluted water before discharge (e.g. chemical
neutralization of acid mine drainage);
• Techniques for dispersing and diluting released polluted
waters (e.g. scheduling of volumes, rates, times, and
locations);
• Techniques for isolating polluted water;
• Requirements for more intensive aquatic water quantity and
water quality monitoring to document compliance with
EPA/NPDES requirements and to identify trends toward adverse
impacts.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
Many of the provisions under both the interim and permanent
SMCRA programs are designed to protect hydrologic balance, i.e.
water quality and quantity and the location of surface channels
and streams. Coal mining operators not only face performance
standards concerning mining methods, but also must initiate
monitoring systems to prove they are not adversely affecting
the hydrologic balance. Regular monitoring reports are
required. Several general methods are established for
protecting hydrologic balance, such as land shaping, diverting
runoff, planting vegetation, regulating channels, mulching, and
protecting water from waste. The regulations also address the
diversion of streams and surface runoff, channel lining,
sediment control, and spoil disposal.
According to SMCRA, all surface drainage from the disturbed
area must pass through a sedimentation pond or series of ponds
before leaving the area. The regulations establish both design
and performance standards for sedimentation ponds, however,
many of these requirements are being challenged in the courts.
The most stringent effluent limitations for surface runoff are
the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) established for the
coal mining industry under the Clean Water Act administered by
EPA though the NPDES permitting process. The standards are
presently applied to discharges of water from the active mining
areas. Discharges from upgradient diversion ditches and from
regraded and successfully reclaimed areas are not presently
subject to the NSPS if their runoff is separated from the
discharge of the active mining areas. The NSPS and water
quality standards consider protection of general aquatic
habitat, but do not take into consideration sensitive or unique
downstream biological resources or identified public v/ater
supply intakes. They do specifically regulate certain
A-2
-------
parameters of the point source discharge. These standards do
not address reliability of treatment processes. The EPA
Regional Administrator may also impose more stringent discharge
limitations than the NSPS for stream segments where they are
considered necessary to protect sensitive aquatic ecosystems,
designated surface water use, or existing high quality water.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has established minimum criteria
to prevent the degradation of surface waters, which criteria
include prevention of substances which injure aquatic or human
life. However, no formal procedure is prescribed including
standards for protecting sensitive or unique aquatic life.
Significant impacts, therefore, could potentially occur with
the (1) reduction, alteration in composition or elimination of
sensitive or unique aquatic life and (2) reduction in water use
opportunities for domestic consumption or industrial
processes. A single significant pollution episode as far as
five miles upstream from a sensitive area could destroy or
significantly affect these resources.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to EPA through the
NEPA process to address this potential impact. These options
are:
Areawide FONSI - EPA could attempt to argue that the surface
water impacts of coal mining and preparation operations are not
significant. EPA could argue that existing Commenwealth, EPA
and SMCRA requirements fully address and mitigate potential
impacts. This argument can be made for nonsensitive and
nonunique resources. However, impacts of coal mining on
receiving streams can significantly affect downstream sensitive
or unique biological resources and/or identified public water
supply intakes. This impact would be difficult to be argued to
be insignificant.
Significant But Not Mitigatable - EPA could argue that although
the impact is significant, there are not technical or
institutional means to mitigate the impact. However, technical
solutions are available that are relatively inexpensive to the
applicant and would help significantly mitigate impacts on
sensitive or unique aquatic life and water use opportunities.
General Conditioning - A general condition such as the
following could be used to mitigate impacts by inclusion in
every new source NPDES permit:
A-3
-------
The applicant shall ensure that mining discharges will not
adversely affect any of the following resources located
within five miles downstream of proposed operations: (1)
designated or proposed domestic water supplies/ (2)
designated or proposed coldwater aquatic habitats, (3)
designated or proposed Outstanding Resource Waters of the
Commonwealth (which category includes but is not limited to
(a) Federally listed or proposed species in danger of
extinction or threatened with endangerment (b) Sensitive
Aquatic Ecosystems identified by the Kentucky Nature
Preserves Commission, and (c) high or moderate water quality
streams identified by KNPC).
Areawide-Individual - An individual review for each project
employing the resource threshold criteria concept could analyze
impacts utilizing the following criteria/levels. With this
alternative, should a significant impact be identified,
appropriate technical mitigation measures, such as those listed
above could be selected on a case by case basis. The five mile
distance from the proposed discharge is used simply as an
outside limit for possible significant impacts on resources
located within the segment.
Level I
Receiving stream segments within 5.0 miles
downstream of proposed discharge:
designated or proposed for designation as
domestic water supply use, or
designated or proposed for designation as
coldwater aquatic habitat use, or
designated or proposed for designation as an
Outstanding Resource Water of the
Commonwealth, or
identified as a Sensitive Aquatic Ecosystem by
KNPC, or
likely to be inhabited by a Federally listed
or proposed species in danger of extinction or
threatened with endangerment identified by
KNPC, or
identified as a
stream by KNPC.
high or moderate water quality
Level II
Proposed coal mining operations are likely to have
a significant adverse impact on the
characteristics of the stream segments listed in
the Level I criterion which makes them unique,
outstanding, or otherwise significant.
A-4
-------
Level III Proposed coal mining operations will have a
significant adverse impact on the characteristics
of the stream segments listed in the Level I
criterion which makes them unique, outstanding, or
otherwise significant which has not or cannot be
mitigated.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as the
following couldbeused to mitigate impacts for those mining
operations meeting or exceeding the Level I criteria described
above.
A surface water monitoring program will be conducted to
provide water quality and quantity data sufficient to allow
a detailed impact analysis on the (insert identified
sensitive resource) located downstream from the mining
discharge.Monitoring will be conducted at a minimum at the
mining effluent discharge point(s) and at the location of
the (insert identified sensitive resource). Monitoring data
willbeprovidedquarterlytoEPA,Water Management
Division, Region IV, to the Kentucky Department of Natural
Resources (Divisions of Water and Fish and Wildlife) and the
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. Should adverse impact
be detected the applicant shall initiate measures acceptable
to EPA and the Commonwealth to avoid or mitigate such
impacts.
EVALUATION:
Discharges to surface water have the potential to significantly
impact public water supply intakes and sensitive or unique
aquatic ecosystems. There are measures that can be taken to
mitigate these impacts for the East Kentucky Coal Field. The
General Conditioning, Areawide-Individual, and Standard
Conditioning alternatives each have cost, environmental, timing
and flexibility differences.
EPA's mandate in this area is clear as evidenced by Section 302
of the Clean Water Act which states that the Regional
Administrator may impose more stringent discharge limitations
than the New Source Performance Standards for stream segments
where such standards are considered necessary to protect
sensitive aquatic ecosystems, designated surface water use, or
existing high quality water.
In terms of environmental benefits, the General Conditioning
approach has potential benefits since every NPDES permit would
include a condition requiring control of adverse impacts on
sensitive or unique aquatic ecosystems and public water supply
A-5
-------
intakes. However, it would be very difficult to enforce the
condition without having identified and having surface water
data collected for specific sensitive resources. It is
probable that applicants would ignore this condition, since no
specific information would be available to EPA. Therefore, it
is doubtful that this potential for environmental benefits
would be realized. This option has the least likelihood of
realizing environmental benefit.
Under the Standard Conditioning alternative permit conditions
would be applied only to those operations with identified
sensitive resources located within five miles downstream from
the discharge(s). Therefore, it is less probable that
applicants will ignore the conditions. Greater environmental
benefits should be possible. However, it is very difficult to
draft a standard permit condition appropriate to mitigate
impacts on the wide variety of sensitive aquatic habitats and
water supply sources identifiable in the East Kentucky Coal
Field. For this reason, the environmental benefits to be
realized from the Standard Conditioning alternative are not as
great as those possible under the Areawide-Individual
approach. The latter provides for individual reviews,
including identification of the sensitive resource, collection
and analysis of water quality data and evaluation of potential
means to avoid or minimize possible impacts prior to imposition
of a permit condition. This option has the greatest likelihood
of realizing environmental benefit.
While all of the alternatives could be argued to comply with
the statutory requirements of NEPA, they differ in their
potential for challenge through adjudicatory hearings. The
sensitive resources deserving protection (e.g. habitats of
endangered species and public water supply intakes) are not
widespread throughout the Coal Field. Under the General
Conditioning approach, challenges to conditions might be
expected for which EPA would have little site-specific
documentation to support the condition. The sensitive
resources are identified under the Standard alternative prior
to conditioning, however, the significance of the impact is not
assessed due to the lack of water quality data. Therefore, it
is still likely that using this alternative, operations would
be conditioned inappropriately. The Areawide-Individual
alternative appears to be the most implementable of the three.
Processing time requirements are zero under the General
Conditioning alternative. With the Standard Conditioning
alternative it would take approximately five days to review the
initial environmental information and advise the Water
Management Division whether or not to include the standard
condition in the NPDES permit. Twenty days would be required
A-6
-------
to process an application under the Areawide-Individual
alternative to make a Level II decision (i.e. review additional
information submitted by the applicant) and an additional 30
days to review an BID, if required, and formulate a decision.
These time frames do not consider applicant response times,
which could include 60 days to prepare an BID. Over 300 days
may be requirewd to prepare an BIS.
The following analysis considers specific EPA manpower
requirements and costs and mining applicant costs for this
resource area.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR SURFACE WATER
(annual estimate)
Surface Mines LI 145 LI
Underground Mines LI 105^ LI
Prep Plants LI 2_0 LI
TOTAL 270
LIII
LIII
LIII
80
23
5
EPA MANPOWER
estimations)*
AND COST (annual manpower based on above
Initial Review
Review of additional questions
Review of EIDs
Preparation of EISs
Total Work Hours
175
80
552
824
hours
hours
hours
hours
1631
EIS Costs $ 100,000
Initial information
Additional questions
EIDs
EISs
(4 x 100,000 + 1
$
x 5,000
35,000
160,000
90,000
405,000
= 405,000)
(100 x 350 )
(80 x 2000)
(18 x 5,000 )
TOTAL
$690,000
*Assumptions: (1) An BID will cost an average $5,000 and
require 24 hours of EPA review time, (2) 80% of the EISs will
be "third party" (i.e. no applicant BID preparation and a
$100,000 applicant cost for preparation of the third party
EIS), (3) 20% will require applicant preparation of the BID
A-7
-------
with EPA responsibility for the EIS, at a cost to EPA of
$100,000, (4) EPA manpower requirements are 160 hours to
process third party EISs and 184 hours for the EID/EIS
combination.
The General Conditioning alternative would cost the applicant
nothing in terms of data supplied to EPA, since none would be
required. The general permit condition described above would
be included as a matter of course in each NPDES permit by the
Region IV Water Management Division and, therefore, require no
additional manpower. The Standard Conditioning alternative
would require 175 EPA workhours of effort to review the initial
environmental information and advise the Water Management
Division to include the standard condition. The cost to mining
applicants would be approximately $35,000 per year to supply
the Level I information. The EPA workhours required to handle
the Areawide-Individual alternative would be greater, an
estimated 1631 workhours and a potential EIS cost of $100,000.
Applicants would probably spend $690,000 annually responding to
requests for additional information, and preparing the
estimated EIDs and EISs, including the initial information.
The Areawide-Individual alternative is the most flexible in
terms of providing the appropriate mitigation measures and the
likelihood that these measures would be implemented for the
proposed mining operation. The Standard Conditioning and
General Conditioning approaches would be evaluated a distant
second and third respectively.
Duplication of effort with other state and Federal laws and
regulations has been taken into consideration prior to the
development of any of the above described alternatives.
However, due to its individual review the Areawide-Individual
analysis would be able to prepare mitigation measures
considering the most current existing regulations. This
additional coordination would not be immediately available
under the General Conditioning and Standard Conditioning
alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Areawide-Individual alternative is recommended as the most
appropriate approach to mitigate significant surface water
impacts in the East Kentucky Coal Field. It is more costly to
EPA and to the applicant than the other two alternatives, yet
it provides a much greater degree of environmental benefit.
This benefit is felt to outweigh the additional costs involved
A-8
-------
and the additional processing time requirements due to the
significance of the resources and potential impacts. Further,
in comparison to the General and Standard Conditioning
alternatives, this approach would likely result in better
protection against specific adverse impacts, is more flexible,
would result in a greater ability to legally defend any
conditions, and allows for coordination of effort with other
regulations.
A-9
-------
SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT;
Sensitive Ecosystems include areas so identified by KNPC
including areas determined to be inhabited by Federally listed
or proposed species in danger of extinction or threatened with
endangerment and designated by USFWS. The construction and
operation of coal mines, haul roads and preparation plants can
cause adverse impacts on sensitive biological ecosystems of the
Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. Direct effects may include
elimination of terrestrial vegetative and wildlife habitats on
mine sites (especially significant for strip mines). Mining or
major human activity in proximity to certain sensitive systems
may also cause adverse effects from noise, dust and other
related impacts.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate this
impact.
• Relocate or prohibit mining activities to avoid impacts on
sensitive areas.
• Alter the rate or schedule of mining activities to minimize
adverse impacts to nearby Sensitive Ecosystems.
• Establish buffer zones around sensitive resource areas.
• Implement prompt reclamation and revegetation of disturbed
land.
• Mine during periods of the year when the ecosystem is less
sensitive to alteration or impact.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
Existing regulations protecting Sensitive Ecosystem resources,
including endangered species, relate to direct, on-site
impacts. Very few provisions have been established requiring
the consideration of impacts to resources outside proposed
permit areas.
Both interim and permanent SMCRA programs provide detailed
revegetation requirements, including timing of revegetation,
n.ulching and use of introduced species. The permanent SMCRA
regulations also require that the best available mining
technology be used to minimize the on-site disturbance of
A-10
-------
sensitive biological resources. Reclamation of the site must
offer the same or better protection to terrestrial ecosystems
as existed before the mining operations. Yet, surrounding
biological habitats and potential impacts are not considered.
The protection of sensitive biological areas that would be
significantly adversely impacted if mined is provided by SMCRA
through the process of designation of "lands unsuitable" for
mining (30 CFR762 through 769), a segment of the permanent
program. However, a recent Federal court action has decided
that SMCRA may not require detailed information concerning fish
and wildlife habitats in its permanent program applications.
States may request such data, but it appears to be the
intention of Kentucky that its program will be no more
stringent than Federally required.
The Endangered Species Act prohibits Federal agencies from
jeopardizing species in danger of extinction or threatened with
endangerment and from adversely modifying habitats essential to
their survival. If consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service reveals that an action will affect a fisted species or
habitat adversely, acceptable mitigation measures must be
undertaken or the proposed action terminated.
The greatest level of state protection afforded Sensitive
Ecosystems is provided by the Nature Preserves Act. Areas
determined to be of particular ecological importance or value
are designated as nature preserves and as such preempt mining
activities within their boundaries. However, at this time no
preserves have been officially designated by the Commonwealth.
The Kentucky Nature Preserve Commission has performed an
inventory of ecologically, biologically, and geologically
significant areas in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. Animal
and plant species listed include; (I) those recognized or
proposed as Federally threatened; (2) those which may have
recently been extirpated from Kentucky; (3) those whose
populations and/or distribution are decreasing to levels where
extinction is possible; (4) those whose occurences in Kentucky
represent distributional limits; and (5) those which in the
opinion of experts warrant special consideration.
None of the described programs provides a mechanism by which
the applicant is to supply biological data for the proposed
mining site. Impacts on Sensitive Ecosystems on adjacent lands
are not even discussed under SMCRA. While KNPC has inventoried
Sensitive Ecosystems, there is no accompanying regulatory
mechanism to protect these areas, other than the Commonwealth
Nature Preserves Act. SMCRA does not require identification of
these resources. Significant impacts could be expected without
an established method to identify Sensitive Ecosystems in close
proximity to mining operations and provide control measures.
A-ll
-------
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to EPA through the
NEPA process to address this potential impact. These options
are:
Areawide FONSI - The impacts of coal mining and related
activities on Sensitive Ecosystems, including endangered
species, could be significant, resulting in the perturbation or
destruction of these resources. These areas and such species
have been identified within the Coal Field. This impact could
not be argued to be insignificant.
Significant But Not Mitigatable - EPA could argue that although
the impact is significant there are not technical or
institutional means to mitigate the impact. However,
mitigative measures are available to protect these resource
areas from coal mining impacts.
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the
following could be used to attempt to mitigate impacts on
sensitive resources by inclusion in every new source NPDES
permit:
The applicant shall ensure that mining operations will not
adversely impact any of the following resources: (1) a
Sensitive Ecosystem identified by KNPC, or (2) an area
identified by KNPC as likely to be inhabited by a Federally
listed or proposed species in danger of extinction or
threatened with endangerment and designated by USFWS.
Areawide-Individual - An individual review for each project
employing the resource threshold criteria concept could analyze
possible impacts to Sensitive Ecosystems. With this approach,
appropriate technical mitigative measures could be selected on
a case by case basis when significant impacts are identified.
Level I Surface disturbance caused by coal mining
operations proposed within 2,000 feet of (1) a
Sensitive Ecosystem identifed by KNPC or (2) an
area identified by KNPC as likely to be inhabited
by Federally listed or proposed species in danger
of extinction or threatened with endangerment as
designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Level II Surface disturbance caused by proposed coal
mining operations is likely to have a significant
adverse impact on the characteristics of the
habitat or ecosystems defined by the Level I
criterion which makes the habitat unsuitable for
those sensitive ecosystems.
A-12
-------
Level III Surface disturbance by proposed coal mining
operations will have a significant unmitigated
adverse impact on the characteristics of the
habitat or ecosystems defined by the Level I
criterion which makes the habitat unsuitable for
those sensitive ecosystems.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as the
following could be used to mitigate impacts for those mining
operations meeting or exceeding the Level I criteria described
above:
The applicant shall establish buffer zones around Sensitive
Ecosystems. Where ecosystems cannot be buffered from
adverse mining impacts, mining activities shall be
relocated. Mining activities shall be phased to minimize
adverse impacts to nearby ecosystems and revegetation
on-site shall follow SMCRA procedures. A monitoring
program will be conducted to provide data sufficient to
allow a detailed impact analysis. Monitoring data will be
provided quarterly to EPA, Water Management Division,
Region IV and to the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission.
Should adverse impacts be detected, the applicant shall
initiate measures acceptable to EPA and KNPC to avoid or
mitigate such impacts.
Coal mining has the potential to significantly impact Sensitive
Ecosystems in East Kentucky through direct elimination or
habitat pollution. This impact is mitigatable. The General
Conditioning, Areawide-lndividual, and Standard Conditioning
alternatives each have cost, environmlental, timing and
flexibility implications.
EPA's mandate to protect endangered species is clear. The
Endangered Species Act requires certain procedural activities
on the part of the agency. Through its NEPA responsibility EPA
is required to evaluate the environmental consequences of its
actions on the existing environment. One element of the
existing environment is specifically stated to be "plant and
animal communities which may be affected, especially those
containing threatened or endangered species". It is evident
that it is EPA's responsibility to bring impacts on Sensitive
Ecosystems to the attention of the public.
In terms of environmental benefits, the General Conditioning
approach has potential since every NPDES permit would include a
condition requiring control of adverse impacts. However, it
A-13
-------
would be very difficult to enforce the condition withouthaving
identified and having data collected for specific Sensitive
Ecosystems. It is probable that applicants would ignore this
condition, since no specific information would be available to
EPA. Therefore, it is doubtful that this potential for
environmental benefits would be realized. This option has the
least likelihood of realizing environmental benefit.
The Standard Conditioning alternative probably has more
potential for realizing environmental benefits than the General
Conditioning alternative. Permit conditions would be applied
only to those operations where Sensitive Ecosystems are
identified on the proposed permit area or within 2,000 feet.
Although not as inclusive as the General Conditioning
alternative, Standard Conditoning would be environmentally
conservative in comparison to the Areawide-Individual approach
(i.e. mitigation measures would be required of some operations
which would probably not be required after an individual
analysis).
The Areawide-Individual would require mitigation only of those
operations with potential for significant impact on Sensitive
Ecosystems. The likelihood is greatest that the impact would
be mitigated under this more detailed investigation procedure.
Applicants would be required to investigate alternatives and
address mitigation more carefully. This option has the
greatest likelihood of realizing environmental benefits.
While all three of the alternatives could be argued to comply
with the statutory requirements of NEPA, they differ in their
potential for legal challenge through adjudicatory hearings.
Mining impacts on Sensitive Ecosystems have the potential to be
significant as described above, however, these ecosystems are
not widespread throughout the Coal Field.
Under the General Conditioning approach, challenges to
conditions might be expected for which EPA would have little
site-specific documentation to support the condition. While
this is also a potential problem under the Standard
Conditioning alternative, the likelihood is not as great since
some site-specific factors would have been considered prior to
conditioning. The Areawide-Individual alternative with its
individual analysis creates the least potential for losing such
challenges and would likely result in the greatest level of
mitigation. It appears to be the most implementable of the
three alternatives.
Processing time requirements are zero under the General
Conditioning alternative. The Standard Conditioning approach
would take approximately five days for review of the initial
A-14
-------
environmental information and notification to the Water
Management Division to include the standard condition. Twenty
days would be required to process an application under the
Areawide-lndividual alternative to make a Level II decision and
an additional 30 days to review an BID, if required, and
formulate a decision. These time frames do not consider
applicant response times, which could include 60 days to
prepare an BID. Over 300 days may be required to prepare an
EIS.
The following analysis considers specific EPA manpower
requirements and costs and mining applicant costs for this
resource area.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS
(annual estimate)
Surface Mines LI 176 LI
Underground Mines LI 120 LI
Prep Plants LI 49 LI
TOTAL
EPA MANPOWER
estimations)*
345
_4_
5
LII
LII
LII
_0_
1
LIII
LIII
LIII
_0_
0
AND COST (annual manpower based on above
Initial Review
Review of additional questions
Review of EIDs
Preparation of EISs
Total Work Hours
BIS Costs
175
24
204
hours
hours
hours
hours
$
0
APPLICANT COST (Annual cost based on above estimations)*
Initial information
Additional questions
EIDs
EISs
TOTAL
$ 35,000
5,000
5,000
0
(100 x 350)
(1,000 x 5)
(1 x 5,000)
$
45,000
* Assumptions; (1) An BID will cost an average $5,000 and
require 24 hours of EPA review time, (2) 80% of the EISs will
be "third party" (i.e. no applicant BID preparation and a
$100,000 applicant cost for preparation of the third party
EIS), (3) 20% will require applicant preparation of the BID
with EPA responsibility for the BIS, at a cost to EPA of
A-15
-------
$100,000, (4) EPA manpower requirements are 160 hours to
process third party EISs and 184 hours for the EID/EIS
combination.
The General Conditioning alternative would cost the applicant
nothing in terms of data supplied to EPA, since none would be
required. The general permit condition described above would
be included as a matter of course in each NPDES permit by the
Region IV Water Management Division and, therefore, require no
additional manpower. The Standard Conditioning alternative
would require 175 EPA workhours of effort to review the initial
environmental information and advise the Water Management
Division to include one or both of the standard conditions.
The cost to mining applicant would be approximately $35,000 per
year to supply the Level I information. The EPA workhours
required to handle the Areawide-Individual alternative would be
greater, an estimated 204 workhours and a potential EIS cost of
$0. Applicants would probably spend $45,000 annually
responding to requests for initial information, additional
information, and preparing the estimated EIDs and EISs.
The Areawide-Individual alternative is the most flexible in
terms of providing the appropriate mitigaton measures and the
likelihood that these measures would be implemented for the
proposed mining operation. The Standard Conditioning and
General Conditioning approaches would be evaluated a distant
second and third respectively.
Duplication of effort with other state and Federal laws and
regulations has been taken into consideration prior to the
development of any of the above described alternatives.
However, due to its individual review the Areawide-Individual
analysis would be able to prepare mitigation measures
considering the most current existing regulations. This
additional coordination would not be immediately available
under the General Conditioning arid Standard Conditioning
alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Areawide-Individual alternative is recommended as the best
approach that can be utilized to protect Sensitive Ecosystems
in terms of environmental benefits. Site specific data would
be used to determine possible impact and to develop specific
mitigative measures. This approach would result in a greater
ability to legally defend any conditions and allows for
coordination of effort with other regulations. The
Areawide-Individual approach is also the only alternative that
could satisfy EPA's NEPA requirements for the protection of
Federally listed threatened and endangered species and
A-16
-------
habitats. It is more costly to EPA and to the applicant than
the other two alternatives, yet it provides a much greater
degree of environmental benefit. This benefit is felt to
outweigh the additional costs involved and the additional
processing time requirements due to the significance of the
resources and potential impacts.
A-17
-------
GROUNDWATER
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
Coal mining in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field can impact the
quantity and quality of groundwater resources. Underground
mining can cause the formation and the migration of acid mine
drainage (AMD) into the groundwater aquifer. Dewatering of
underground mines can cause the loss of private or public
wells. Leachate from refuse and storage piles at preparation
plants can enter groundwater aquifers. The potential for
impact continues beyond the operating life of the proposed
operations where air and water access is provided to shale or
other AMD producing strata. While there is a potential for
impact on groundwater from surface mining, this impact does not
appear to be significant.
The contamination or loss of groundwater resources by coal
mining activities can adversely affect users of this resource
Public and private groundwater users can lose their source of
potable water through the introduction of AMD into groundwater
aquifers or dewatering unless a natural barrier (aquitard)
exists between the source of the contamination and the well.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate this
impact.
• Mine Seals - Mine seals prevent the passage of air into
abandoned underground mines. Dry seals can be used where
no hydraulic head is likely to form behind the seal.
Hydraulic seals are used to dam up water behind them and
flood the mine, keeping out oxygen.
• Well Dewatering - Dewatering a mine by using wells curtails
the flow of groundwater into the mine, thereby reducing
contact with acid-producing minerals.
• Isolation - Acid forming overburden or spoil can be
isolated from oxygen contact by burying the material. The
spoil should be compacted and buried deep enough to prevent
exposure to air.
• Neutralization - Acid producing overburden and spoil can be
neutralized by mixing with or otherwise introducing
neutralizing material such as limestone, lime, or alkaline
strata .
• Replacement - A contaminated or dry well can be replaced.
A-18
-------
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
The interim and permanent SMCRA regulations provide a
groundwater protection program which requires coal operators to
replace any wells contaminated or depleted by mining
activities. The responsibility rests with the well owner to
prove that contamination or depletion has resulted from the
mining operation. The regulations are not designed to consider
the possible impacts of the proposed operation to off-site
wells prior to the commencement of mining. However, the
interim program application does require that the applicant
provide a groundwater monitoring plan for his mining
operation. This plan should include information on groundwater
levels, infiltration rates, subsurface flow, storage
characteristics and water quality. Although depletion of water
quantity is an inconvenience, loss of water or pressure is a
recognizable effect, and an alternate source could be provided
for a private well. Provisions of alternate sources for a
public well may pose a more significant problem. However,
water quality changes may not be as discernable. The potential
health effects of water quality degradation highlight the
significance of this impact.
The Safe Drinking Water Act addresses two aspects of
groundwater water quality, underground injection of wastes and
controls of public water supplies. The Act gives EPA
enforcement powers in cases where contaminants are present or
are likely to enter a public water system and may present an
imminent and substantial danger to the public health and which
the appropriate state and local authorities have not acted
upon. Sludge produced from the treatment of AMD is the only
waste from coal mining activity that currently falls under
EPA's definition of hazardous waste.
Significant impacts can potentially occur due to groundwater
supply loss or contamination by underground coal mining, AMD
treatment sludge disposal and preparation plant activities in
Eastern Kentucky.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to EPA through the
NEPA process to address this potential impact. These options
are:
Areawide FONSI - Groundwater impacts from coal mining
activitiescould be argued to be acceptably addressed by
existing regulations. Water wells in the vicinity of mining
operations that become contaminated by AMD or are depleted must
be replaced by the applicant. Monitoring is now required
somewhat routinely to detect any adverse impacts.
Significant But Not Mitigatable - EPA could argue that although
thereTspotentialfor significant impact, there are not
technical or institutional means to mitigate the impact. In
A-19
-------
the case of groundwater, however, technical solutions are
available to the applicant and could help mitigate the impact
of groundwater contamination.
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the
following could be used to attempt to mitigate groundwater
impacts by inclusion in every new source NPDES permit:
The applicant shall assure the protection of groundwater
quality at public supply wells and private water supply
wells .
Areawide-Individual - An individual review for each project
employing resource threshold criteria could analyze groundwater
impacts utilizing the following criteria levels. With this
alternative, should a significant impact be identified,
appropriate technical mitigation measures could be selected on
a case by case basis.
Level I Private water supply wells, except those used
solely by the applicant, occur within 2,000 feet
of a proposed underground permit area which has
the potential to produce AMD, an AMD treatment
sludge disposal area or a preparation plant coal
storage or refuse disposal area, and no barrier
is known to preclude hydraulic connection between
a potential pollution source and producing
aquifers, p_r
Public water supply wells occur within one mile
of a proposed underground permit area, an AMD
treatment sludge disposal area, or a preparation
plant coal storage or refuse disposal area, and
no barrier is known to preclude hydraulic
connection between a potential pollution source
and producing acquifers.
Level II There is likely to be a significant adverse
impact on private or public water supply wells,
except those used solely by the applicant.
Level III Proposed coal mining operations will have an
unmitigated significant adverse impact on the
public or private water supply wells, except
those used solely by the applicant.
Standard Conditioning - Standard conditions such as the
followingcould beused to mitigate impacts for those mining
operations meeting or exceeding the Level II criteria described
above. For underground mining operations the condition would
state:
Mine seals, either dry seals or hydraulic seals, will be
installed in all mine shafts to prevent the formation of
acid mine drainage.
A-20
-------
For preparation plants the condition would state:
Acid forming overburden, spoil, and refuse will be isolated
from oxygen contact by compaction and burial and/or by
neutralization with basic material.
EVALUATION:
Groundwater contamination and depletion has the potential to be
a significant impact from underground coal mining and
preparation plant activities in Eastern Kentucky. This impact
is mitigatable. The General Conditioning, Areawide-Individual,
and Standard Conditioning alternatives each have cost,
environmental, timing and flexibility implications.
EPA's mandate to protect underground public drinking water
supplies is clear as evidenced by the Safe Drinking Water Act
described above.
In terms of environmental benefits, the General Conditioning
approach has potential benefits since every NPDES permit would
include a condition requiring control of adverse impacts.
However, it would be very difficult to enforce the condition
without having identified and having groundwater monitoring
data collected for specific public and private wells. It is
probable that applicants would ignore this condition, since no
specific information wuld be available to EPA. Therefore, it
is doubtful that this potential for environmental benefits
would be realized. This option has the least likelihood of
realizing environmental benefit.
The Standard Conditioning alternative probably has more
potential for realizing environmental benefits than the General
Conditioning alternative. Permit conditions would be applied
only to those operations exhibiting a likelihood of signficant
groundwater impacts. Although not as inclusive as the General
Conditioning alternative, Standard Conditioning would be
environmentally conservative in comparison to the
Areawide-Individual approach (i.e. mitigation measures would be
required of some operations which would probably not be
required after an individual analysis).
The Areawide-Individual would require mitigaton only of those
operations demonstrating the potential for significant impacts
on nearby public and private wells . The likelihood is
greatest that the impact would be mitigated under this more
detailed investigation procedure. Applicants would be required
to investigate alternatives and address mitigation more
carefully. This option has the greatest likelihood of
realizing environmental benefits.
While all three of the alternatives could be argued to comply
with the statutory requirements of NEPA, they differ in their
A-21
-------
potential for challenge through adjudicatory hearings.
Groundwater impacts have the potential to be signficant as
described above. in addition, as the Coal Field becomes more
populated, the potential for degrading nearby wells becomes
greater.
Under the General Conditioning approach, challenges to
conditions might be expected for which EPA would have little
site-specific documentation to support the condition. While
this is also a potential problem under the Standard
Conditioning alternative, the likelihood is not as great since
some site-specific factors would have been considered prior to
conditioning. The Areawide-Individual alternative with its
individual analysis creates the least potential for losing such
challenges and would likely result in the greatest level of
mitigation. It appears to be the most implementable of the
three alternatives.
Processing time requirements are zero under the General
Conditioning alternative. The Standard Conditioning approach
would take approximately five days for review of the initial
environmental information and notification to the Water
Management Division to include one or both of the standard
conditions. Twenty days would be required to process an
application under the Areawide-Individual alternative to make a
Level II decision and an additional 30 days to review an BID,
if required, and formulate a decision. These time frames do
not consider applicant response times, which could include 60
days to prepare an BID. Over 300 days may be required to
prepare an BIS.
The following analysis considers specific EPA manpower
requirements and costs and mining applicant costs for this
resource area.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR GROUNDWATER (annual
estimate) ~ ''
Underground Mines
Prep Plants
TOTAL
LI 90
LI 20
110
LI 30
LI 30
60
LII
LI I
LIII
LIII
EPA MANPOWER AND COST (annual manpower based on above
estimations)*
Initial Review
Review of additional questions
Review of EIDs
Preparation of ElSs
Total Work Hours
175 hours
60 hours
96 hours
0 hours
331
A-22
-------
EIS Costs
$
APPLICANT COST (Annual cost based on above estimations)*
Initial questionnaire
Additional questions
EIDs
EISs
TOTAL
$ 280,000
60,000
20,000
0
$ 360,000
(350 x 800)
(60 x 1000)
(4 x 5,000)
*Assumptioris: (1) An BID will cost an average $5,000 and
require 24 hours of EPA review time, (2) 80% of the EISs will
be "third party" (i.e. no applicant BID preparation and a
$100,000 applicant cost for preparation of the third party
EIS), (3) 20% will require applicant preparation of the BID
with EPA responsibility for the EIS, at a cost to EPA of
$100,000, (4) EPA manpower requirements are 160 hours to
process third party EISs and 184 hours for the EID/EIS
combination.
the applicant
none would be
The General Conditioning alternative would cost
nothing in terms of data supplied to EPA, since
required. The general permit condition described above would
be included as a matter of course in each NPDES permit by
Region IV Water Management Division and, therefore, requires
additional manpower. The Standard Conditioning
would require 175 EPA workhours of effort to review
environmental information and advise the Water
Division to include one or both of the standard
the
no
alternative
the initial
Management
conditions.
The cost to mining applicants would be approximately $280,000
per year to supply the Level I information. The EPA workhours
required to handle the Areawide-Individual
greater, an estimated 331 workhours and a potential
$0. Applicants would probably spend
responding to requests for initial
information, and preparing the
alternative would be
EIS cost of
$360,000 annually
information, additional
estimated EIDs and EISs.
The Areawide-Individual alternative is the most flexible in
terms of providing the appropriate mitigation measures and the
likelihood that these measures would be implemented for the
proposed mining operation. The Standard Conditioning and
General Conditioning approaches would be evaluated a distant
second and third respectively.
Duplication of effort with other state and Federal laws and
regulations has been taken into consideration prior to the
development of any of the above described alternatives.
However, due to its individual review the Areawide-Individual
analysis would be able to prepare mitigation measures
A-23
-------
considering the most current existing regulations. This
additional coordination would not be immediately available
under the General Conditioning and Standard Conditioning
alternatives. ^
RECOMMENDATION:
The Areawide-Individual alternative is recommended as the most
appropriate approach to mitigate significant groundwater
impacts in the East Kentucky Coal Field. While this
alternative is slightly more costly to EPA in terms of manpower
and to applicants in terms of dollars, it should result in
greater environmental benefits. The mitigation measures
described above in the Standard Conditioning alternative are
potentially expensive and restrictive. with the
Areawide-Individual approach, these measures will be required
only of those operations where significant impacts on
groundwater resources are likely. Additionally, this
alternative does not have as great a probability of legal
challenge and loss as that encountered with the other two
approaches and provides for greatest flexibility
A-24
-------
ARCHAEOLOGIC, HISTORIC, PALEONTOLOGIC
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
Coal mining activities in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field will
result in primary and secondary impacts on the cultural
resources of the area. These resources may include
archaeological and historic sites, properties, structures, or
objects that are listed on, or determined eligible for, the
National Register of Historic Places. Primary impacts on
cultural resources are those adverse effects that would result
from construction or operation of coal mines or related
facilities, such as:
• Destruction or alteration of all or part of a site;
• isolation from, or alteration of, the site's
surrounding environment;
• introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric
elements that are out of character with the site or
would alter its setting;
• Transfer or sale of a Federally-owned site without
adequate conditions or restrictions regarding
preservation, maintenance, or use; or
• Neglect of a site resulting in its deterioration or
destruction.
Historic and archaeological resources are highly susceptible to
damage by the mining of coal, particularly by surface mining
that entails an extensive modification of large surface areas.
However, most of these resources are located in flat, populated
floodplain areas rather than on the hillsides where surface
mining occurs. Preparation plants and their sludge disposal
facilities are by necessity located in the flat valleys close
to transportation networks. These mining activities have the
greatest potential for adversely impacting archaeological and
historic resources.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate this
impact:
• Avoidance of identified site(s) by rerouting locations of
mining and construction activities;
A-25
-------
• Recording (e.g. with photographs, measured drawings, and
documentation) and relocation of site and/or recording and
demolition of standing structures;
• In-place preservation of archaeological properties through
the use of protective burial, barriers, or buffers and
designing structures over an archaeological site in such a
way as to minimize subsurface disturbances;
• Archaeological monitoring during construction of
facilities; or
• Data recovery/excavation of the archaeological site
conducted under a scope of work in consultation with the
SHPO, the Advisory Council, and EPA.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
Historic and archaeological resource protection is provided
under several Federal mandates. EPA is subject to the
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended; the Archaeological Historic Preservaton Act of
1974; and Executive Order 11593, entitled "Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment". Should coal mining
activities have potential to result in adverse impacts to known
historic properties or archaeological sites listed on or
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, Section 106 review procedures, outlined in the US
Advisory Council Procedures for the Protection of Historic
Cultural Properties, are required. Therefore, EPA should
maintain appropriate interagency coordination in its issuance
of new source permits to mining operations with potential to
affect a National Register or eligible National Register site.
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is the mandated
administrator of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
in Kentucky. The SHPO maintains responsibility for sites on,
and eligible for, the National Register. The SHPO is familiar
with the amount of survey work previously conducted in the
vicinity of each potential mine site or coal preparation site
in Kentucky. Should there be insufficient information
available regarding historic or archaeological resources of the
area, the SHPO may recommend that a historic or archaeological
resources survey be conducted by the applicant. Further, the
SHPO is authorized to delineate the area of impact of any new
source coal mine.
If significant resources are identified that will be affected
by coal mining operations, several mitigation options are
available. Usually, appropriate mitigation measures are
A-26
-------
decided on a case-by-case basis, and range from requirements to
avoid the site(s) altogether to the planting of vegetative
buffers.
SMCRA does not address archaeological resources under its
interim program, however, under its permanent program the
regulation provides that no new coal mines will be permitted
that may affect publicly owned places that are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places unless such mining is
approved by the SHPO. Mining is prohibited on certain lands
where mining may affect historic lands of cultural, historic,
scientific, or aesthetic value.
Significant impacts, therefore, could potentially occur to
historic and archaeological sites in the East Kentucky Coal
Field due to coal mining operations or preparation plant
construction and operation. Sites that are eligible for the
National Register, but not officially listed, are especially
vulnerable due to the lack of regulatory control. Since very
little systematic survey work has been accomplished in Eastern
Kentucky, the number of eligible sites is unknown.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to EPA through the
NEPA process to address this potential impact. These options
are:
Areawide FONSI - EPA could attempt to argue that the impact of
coalminingand preparation plants on archaeological and
historic resources are not significant. However, coal mining,
and preparation plants in particular, can significantly impact
currently unknown historic and archaeological resources.
Significant But Not Mitigatable - EPA could argue that although
the impact is significant there are not technical or
institutional means to mitigate the impact. However, technical
solutions are available to the applicant that can mitigate
impacts on historic and archaeological resources.
General Conditioning - A general condition such as the
following could be used to mitigate impacts by inclusion in
every new source NPDES permit:
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of final NPDES permit
and prior to initiating surface disturbance, the applicant
shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) and Office of State Archaeology (OSA) for their
A-27
-------
determination of whether the proposed action would affect
buildings or sites on or eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. The applicant shall provide such
information as deemed necessary by the SHPO/OSA to make
such a determination. A copy of the SHPO/OSA determination
shall be provided to EPA prior to initiation of surface
disturbance. Any recommendations pursuant to Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act shall constitute
a condition of this permit.
Areawide-Individual - An individual review for each project
employing the resource threshold criteria concept could analyze
impacts utilizing the following criteria/levels. With this
alternative, should a significant impact be identified,
appropriate technical mitigation measures, such as those listed
above could be selected on a case by case basis.
Level I Absence of letters indicating that no known or
eligible National Register sites may be affected
by the proposed operation from Kentucky Heritage
Commission (State Historic Preservaton Officer,
SHPO) and Kentucky Office of State Archaeology
(OSA)). yy
Letter from Kentucky SHPO or OSA indicating a
potential impact on historic, archaeologic and
paleontologic resources from proposed coal mining
activities.
Level II Proposed coal mining operations are likely to
have a significant adverse impact on the
characteristics of the resources defined in the
Level I criterion. (Requires consultation with
the SHPO and OSA, as appropriate).
Level III Proposed coal mining operations will have a
significant unmitigatable adverse impact on the
resources defined in the Level I criterion.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as
following, among others, could be used to mitigate impacts
where SHPO or OSA indicates that
impact a historic, archaeologic
(i.e. Level I described above
those mining operations
proposed operation will
paleontologic resource
triggered) .
the
for
the
or
is
Mining and construction activities will be rerout<
avoid the identified historic, archaeologic,
PaleOntolOaiC Sltefs^ . niiririn rrme-l- rnr-t- i ,-in mnr, •; 4- ^ v •;
to
or
of
~.VJ.« «.iic J.UCUL.J.J. j.^u nistonc, arcnaeoiogic, or
paleontologic site(s). During construction, monitoring of
the historic site will be conducted periodically to ensure
that deterioration does not occur. All monitoring reports
will be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation
Officer.
A-28
-------
EVALUATION:
Coal mining and preparation plants have the potential to
significantly impact archaeological, historic and paleontologic
resources in the East Kentucky Coal Field. This impact is
mitigatable. The General Conditioning, Areawide-Individual,
and Standard Conditioning alternatives each have cost,
environmental, timing and flexibility implications. EPA's
mandate to protect cultural resources is clear, as evidenced by
the Federal laws discussed under Existing Regulations. EPA
must consider possible impacts to sites listed on, or eligible
for, the National Register in its issuance of new source NPDES
permits.
In terms of environmental benefits, the General Conditioning
approach has potential since every NPDES permit would include a
condition requiring control of adverse impacts on cultural
resources. EPA could work closely with the SHPO and OSA to
ensure the identification and protection of these resources.
The SHPO and OSA would be included on the mailing list for the
Public Notice of the Proposed Issuance of each NPDES Permit.
The applicant thus would not be required to consult with the
SHPO and OSA or perform any recommended surveys prior to permit
issuance. Section 106 review procedures specific to the
SHPO/OSA's findings would automatically be included as a
condition to the NPDES permit. Notification of proposed
operations to the SHPO/OSA at issuance of the Draft NPDES
permit would make this condition difficult to ignore. This
option has the likelihood of realizing environmental benefits.
Under the Standard Conditioning alternative permit conditions
would be applied only to those operations with identified
cultural resources. However, it is very difficult to draft a
standard permit condition appropriate to mitigate the wide
variety of impacts on the cultural resources identifiable in
the East Kentucky Coal Field. For this reason, the
environmental benefits to be realized from the Standard
Conditioning alternative are not as great as those possible
under the General Conditioning or the Areawide-Individual
approach. The General Conditioning alternative would provide
for identification of cultural resources and collection of
impact data as a permit condition, while the
Areawide-Individual approach would provide for the same prio:r
to permit issuance. Thus, the Areawide-Individual option has
the greatest likelihood of realizing environmental benefits.
While all three of the alternatives could be argued to comply
with the statutory requirements of NEPA, they differ in their
potential for legal challenge through adjudicatory hearings.
A-29
-------
Impacts on cultural resources may be significant, as described
above, however, the resources are not widespread throughout the
Coal Field. EPA clearly has the authority to require site
specific documentation as a permit condition. Under the
General Conditioning approach, the permit condition would be
flexible enough to incorporate site specific findings of the
SHPO/OSA. Provision is thus made for assessing the
significance of impacts. Under the Standard Conditioning
alternative, the cultural resources are identified prior to
conditioning, however, the significance of the impact is not
assessed due to the lack of impact data. Therefore, it is
still possible that using this alternative, operations would be
conditioned which would not have been if an individual analysis
were conducted as provided under the Areawide-Individual or
General Conditioning approach.
Processing time requirements are zero under the General
Conditioning alternative. With the Standard Conditioning
alternative it would take approximately five days to review the
initial information and advise the Water Management Division
whether or not to include the standard condition in the NPDES
permit. Twenty days would be required to process an
the Areawide-Individual alternative to make a
(i.e. review additional information submitted
and an additional 30 days to review an BID,
formulate a decision. These time frames do
not consider applicant response times, which could include 60
days to prepare an BID. Over 300 days may be required to
prepare an EIS.
application under
Level II decision
by the applicant)
if required, and
The following analysis considers specific EPA manpower
requirements and costs and mining applicant costs for this
resouce area.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR
HISTORIC AND PALEONTOLOGIC (annual estimate)*
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Prep Plants
TOTAL
EPA MANPOWER
estimations)*
LI 170
LI 120
LI 40
330
_0_
2
20
AND COST (annual manpower based on above
Initial Review
Review of additional questions
Review of EIDs
Preparation of EISs
175
20
hours
hours
72 hours
0 hours
A-30
-------
Total Work Hours
EIS Costs
267
$
0
APPLICANT COST (Annual cost based on above estimations)
Initial information
Additional questions
EIDs
EISs
TOTAL
$
35,000
30fOOO
15,000
(100 x 350)
(20 x 1500)
(3 x 5,000)
0
$
80,000
* Assumptions; (1) An BID will cost an average $5,000 and
24 hours of EPA review time, (2) 80% of the EISs will
require
be "third party" (i.e. no
$100,000 applicant cost for
EIS), (3) 20% will require
with EPA responsibility for
$100,000, (4) EPA manpower
process third party EISs
combination.
applicant EID preparation and a
preparation of the third party
applicant preparation of the EID
the EIS, at a cost to EPA of
requirements are 160 hours to
and 184 hours for the EID/EIS
The General Conditioning alternative would initially cost the
applicant nothing in terms of data supplied to EPA, since none
would be required. The general permit conditon described above
would be included as a matter of course in each NPDES permit by
the Region IV Water Management Division and, therefore, require
no additional manpower. The Standard Conditioning alternative
would require 175 EPA workhours of effort to review the
responses to the initial environmental information and advise
the Water Management Division to include the standard
conditon. The cost to mining applicants would be approximately
$35,000 per year to supply the Level I information. The EPA
workhours required to handle the Areawide-Individual
alternative would be an estimated 267 workhours and a potential
EIS cost of $0. Applicants would probably spend $80,000
annually responding to requests for additional information, and
preparing the estimated EIDs and EISs, including the initial
information.
The Areawide-Individual alternative is the most flexible in
terms of providing the appropriate mitigation measures and the
i i kpl i hnnrl hhat these measures would be implemented for
terms ^
likelihood that these measures
proposed mining operation. The
offers basically the same
requiring data prior to permit
difficult to enforce. The
the
would be evaluated a distant third.
would be x nif j-ciucji i-cu j-wi. L. ut
_ General Conditioning approach
flexibility, however, by not
issuance, would probably be more
Standard Conditioning approach
A-31
-------
Duplication of effort with other state and Federal laws and
regulations has been taken into consideration prior to the
development of any of the above described alternatives.
However, the Areawide-Individual and General Conditioning
approachs would be able to reflect mitigation measures
considering the most current existing regulations. This
additional coordination would not be immediately available
under Standard Conditioning alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Areawide-Individual alternative is recommended as the most
appropriate approach to mitigate significant cultural resource
impacts in the East Kentucky Coal Field. The extra cost
involved to EPA and the applicant is minimal. This approach
provides the greatest degree of environmental benefit. This
benefit is felt to outweigh the additional costs involved.
Where time constraints on permit issuance are identified as a
problem, the General Conditioning alternative is recommended.
The additional costs would be the same as for the
Areawide-Individual alternative. Only the timing would be
different. Assuming appropriate enforcement, the environmental
benefit should be very close to that realized by the
Areawide-Individual approach. Further, in comparison to the
Standard Conditioning alternative, these approaches comply with
regulation requirements, are more flexible, result in
significant reduction in time to process permits (General
Conditioning), and allow for coordination of effort with other
regulations.
A-32
-------
RECREATION LAND
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT;
The recreation land resources of the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field include National, State, and local public parks; National
Wildlife areas; National System of Trails; State wildlife
management areas; and State or National Wild, Scenic or
Recreational Rivers including rivers that are under study for
such designation. Mining activities can adversely impact
recreation land through the direct conversion to mining or
other land uses as well as by the indirect effect of pollutants
produced by the mining activities on nearby recreational
areas. Noise and dust emissions from nearby mining activities
including mines, preparation plants, and haul roads can
interrupt recreational activities and reduce the recreational
value of the land. Mining area runoff or drainage waters can
flow to recreational waters affecting the aesthetic quality of
the waters. Mining operations can visually detract from
recreational experiences.
State and National forests are not included in the definition
of recreational lands under this resource area since master
plans for these areas do not designate or officially plan for
recreational sites within the forests, according to the U.S.
Forest Service.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate this
impact:
• Reduction or redefinition of surface mined areas to
boundaries where impacts on recreation land are eliminated
or reduced.
• Selection of haul routes that will avoid recreation areas.
• Construction of barriers or use of natural topographic
features as barriers to reduce or eliminate noise and
visual impacts.
• Consideration of underground mining methods where surface
mining is responsible for significant impacts.
• Stage mining and mining related activities to minimize
adverse impacts.
• Relocation of surface facilities of underground mines
where those facilities create major impacts.
A-33
-------
EXISTING REGULATIONS;
Interim SMCRA regulations do not address protection of public
parks. The permanent SMCRA program (30 CFR 761.11) does
prohibit coal mining activities on any lands within National
Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, the National System of
Trails, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National
Recreation areas. This regulation also prohibits surface mine
operations within 300 feet of any public park or on any lands
which will adversely affect any publicly owned park. These
regulations do not protect recreation land from the adverse
effects of mining, such as noise, dust, and visual intrusions,
that occur more than 300 feet away.
Significant impacts, therefore, could occur to recreational
lands from mining activities occurring more than 300 feet from
the boundary of the recreational land.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to EPA through the
NEPA process to address this potential impact. These options
are:
Areawide FONSI - The impact of mining operations on adjacent
recreational land can be significant, degrading the quality of
recreational activities or eliminating such activities. This
impact could not be argued to be insignificant because of the
many recreational areas located in the Coal Field.
Significant But Not Mitigatable - EPA could argue that although
the impact is significant there are not technical or
institutional means to mitigate the impact. However,
mitigative measures are available that can be used to reduce or
eliminate impacts on nearby recreational land.
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the
following could be used to attempt to mitigate noise impacts by
inclusion in every New Source NPDES permit:
Mining activities shall be located or phased so that
impacts to adjacent recreational land, such as high noise
levels, dust emissions, and visual effects, will be
minimized to nonintrusive levels.
Areawide-Individual - An individual review for each project
employing the resource threshold criteria concept could analyze
impacts utilizing the following criteria/levels. With this
alternative, should a significant impact be identified,
appropriate technical mitigation measures, such as those listed
above could be selected.
A-34
-------
LEVEL I Coal mining operations, including coal-related
private and public haul roads, are located
within 2,000 feet of a public park, National
Park, National Wildlife Refuge, State Wildlife
Management Area, National system of Trails,
Wilderness area, State or National Wild, Scenic
or Recreational River.
LEVEL II Coal mining operations proposed are likely to
have a significant adverse impact on the
resources described in the Level I criterion.
LEVEL III Coal mining operations proposed will have a
significant unmitigated adverse impact on the
resources described in the Level I criterion.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition, such as the
following, could be used to mitigate impacts for those mining
operations meeting or exceeding the Level I criteria. The
standard condition would state:
The applicant shall construct barriers, use natural
topographic features as barriers or redefine the mining
boundary area to minimize mine and/or visual impacts on
recreational land. Mining and related activities shall be
staged to minimize the adverse effects on adjacent
recreational land. Where appropriate, haul routes shall
be relocated or reselected to avoid impacts on
recreational land.
EVALUATION;
Coal mining impacts on recreation land have the potential to be
significant in East Kentucky. This impact is mitigatable. The
General Conditioning, Areawide-Individual and Standard
Conditioning alternatives each have cost, environmental, timing
and flexibility implications.
Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, EPA is precluded from
taking any action with a direct, adverse impact on rivers
designated under Section 3 of the Act or those designated as
having potential for inclusion under Section 5. Although EPA's
mandate to protect other recreational lands is less
well-defined, it can be assumed that most wildlife refuges,
national parks, management areas and wilderness areas were
established to protect species and their habitats regulated by
the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
A-35
-------
In terms of environmental benefits, the General Conditioning
approach has potential benefits since every NPDES permit would
include a condition requiring control of adverse impacts.
However, it would be very difficult to enforce the condition
without having identified the impacts of specific projects. It
is probable that applicants would ignore this condition, since
no specific information would be available to USEPA.
Therefore, it is doubtful that this potential for environmental
benefits would be realized. This option has the least
likelihood of realizing environmental benefit.
The Standard Conditioning alternative probably has more
potential for realizing environmental benefits than the General
Conditioning alternative. Permit conditions would be applied
only to those operations exhibiting a likelihood of significant
impacts to recreational land adjacent to the proposed mining
site or along coal haul transportation routes. Although not as
inclusive as the General Conditioning alternative, Standard
Conditioning would be environmentally conservative in
comparison to the Areawide-Individual approach (i.e. mitigation
measures would be required of some operations which would
probably not be required after an individual analysis) . The
Areawide-lndividual requires mitigation only of those
operations demonstrating, in accordance with detailed
assessments, the potential for significant impacts.
While all three of the alternatives could be argued to comply
with the statutory requirements of NEPA, they differ in their
potential for challenge through adjudicatory hearings. Impacts
have the potential to be significant as described above,
however, they are not widespread. Size and type of mining
operation determines actual impact, in addition to proximity to
the recreational land. Additionally, recreational resources
are not spread throughout the East Kentucky Coal Field. Under
the General Conditioning approach, challenges to conditions
might be expected for which EPA would have little site-specific
documentation to support the condition. While this is also a
potential problem under the standard Conditioning alternative,
the likelihood is not as great since some site-specific factors
would have been considered prior to conditioning. The
Areawide-lndividual alternative with its individual analysis
creates the least potential for losing such challenges and
would result in the greatest level of mitigation.
USEPA processing time requirements are zero under the General
Conditioning approach. The Standard Conditioning approach
would take approximately five days for review of the initial
environmental information and notification to the Water
Management Division to include the standard condition. The
Areawide-lndividual approach would require 20 days to make a
A-36
-------
Level II decision and an additional 30 days to review an BID.
These time frames do not consider applicant response times,
which could include 60 days to prepare an BID. Over 300 days
may be required to prepare an EIS.
The following analysis considers specific EPA manpower
requirements and costs and mining applicant costs for this
resource area.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR RECREATIONAL LAND
(annual estimate)
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Prep Plants
LI 162 LI 18
LI 110 LI 10
LI
TOTAL
EPA MANPOWER
LII
LII
LII
_4_
_!_
0
LIII
LI 1 1
LIII
33
AND COST (annual manpower based on above
estimations) *
Initial Review
Review of additional questions
Review of EIDs
Preparation of EISs
175
33
120
165
hours
hours
hours
hours
Total Work Hours _4S3
EIS Costs $20,000
APPLICANT COST (Annual cost based on above estimations)*
Initial information
Additional questions
EIDs
EISs
TOTAL
$
70,000
13,200
20,000
81,000
(200 x 350)
(400 x 33)
(4 x 5,000)
(.8 x 100,000 + .2 x 5,000 = 81,000)
$184,200
* Assumptions; (1) An BID will cost an average $5,000 and
require 24 hours of EPA review time, (2) 80% of the EISs will
be "third party" (i.e.
$100,000 applicant cost
EIS), (3) 20% will require
with EPA responsibility for
$100,000, (4) EPA manpower
process third party EISs
combination.
no applicant BID preparation and a
for preparation of the third party
applicant preparation of the BID
the EIS, at a cost to EPA of
requirements are 160 hours to
and 184 hours for the EID/EIS
A-37
-------
The General Conditioning alternative would cost the applicant
nothing in terms of data supplied to EPA, since none would be
required. The general permit condition described above would
be included as a matter of course in each NPDES permit by the
Region IV Water Management Division and, therefore, require no
additional manpower. The Standard Conditioning alternative
would require 175 EPA workhours of effort to review the initial
environmental information and advise the Water Management
Division to include the standard condition. The cost to mining
applicants would be approximately $70,000 per year to supply
the Level I information. The EPA workhours required to handle
the Areawide-Individual alternative would be greater, an
estimated 493 workhours and a potential EIS cost of $20,000.
Applicants would probably spend $184,200 annually responding to
requests for initial information, additional information, and
preparing the estimated EIDs and EISs.
The Areawide-Individual alternative is the most flexible in
terms of providing the appropriate mitigation measures and the
likelihood that these measures would be implemented for the
proposed mining operation. The Standard Conditioning and
General Conditioning approaches would be evaluated a distant
second and third respectively.
Duplication of effort with other state and Federal laws and
regulations has been taken into consideration prior to the
development of any of the above described alternatives.
However, due to its individual review the Areawide-Individual
analysis would be able to prepare mitigation measures
considering the most current existing regulations. This
additional coordination would not be immediately available
under the General Conditioning and Standard Conditioning
alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Areawide-Individual alternative is recommended as the most
appropriateapproachto mitigatesignificant recreational land
impacts in the East Kentucky Coal Field. It is more costly to
EPA and to the applicant than the other two alternatives, yet
it provides a greater degree of environmental benefit. This
benefit is felt to outweigh the additional costs involved and
the additional processing time requirements due to the
significance of the resources and potential impacts. In
comparison to the General and Standard Conditioning
alternative, this approach would likely result in better
protection against specific adverse impacts, is more flexible,
woud result in a greater ability to legally defend any
conditions, and allows for coordination of effort with other
regulations and agencies.
A-38
-------
WETLANDS
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
Coal mining can significantly impact wetlands, a rare resource
in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field. Surface mining can result
in the direct removal or elimination of wetlands during land
clearing operations. Wetlands are also subject to indirect
impacts from mining activities located nearby. The
introduction of acid mine drainage and sedimentation into
wetland areas, changes in groundwater and/or surface water
flow, and alteration of soil moisture levels resulting from
adjacent mining operations may result in the degradation of
wetlands. Adverse impacts can result on vegetation and changes
in species composition can occur. Mining operations also may
use wetlands as areas in which to discharge effluent.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate this
impact.
• Establish undisturbed buffer zones around wetlands to
separate mining activities from the wetland area.
• Maintain natural groundwater flow rates into wetlands.
• Prohibit water of degraded quality from entering wetland
areas.
• Reclaim disturbed land adjacent to wetlands as quickly as
possible.
• Avoid mining in wetlands.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
Existing regulations do not directly protect wetlands from the
possible impact of mining operations in the Eastern Kentucky
Coal Field. If a wetland is (1) designated as a Sensitive
Ecosystem, (2) included in the habitat of a Federally listed
threatened or endangered species, or (3) identified for
protection under SMCRA's "lands unsuitable" program, a segment
of the Act's permanent program, mining in the area could be
prohibited. Additionally, the avoidance of wetland areas by
mining operations might be required by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers through its permit program authorized by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act.
A-3S
-------
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to EPA through the
NEPA process to address this potential impact. These options
are:
Areawide FONSI - The impacts of coal mining and related
activities on wetlands could be argued to be insignificant
since there are so few wetlands in the East Kentucky area.
Significant But Not Mitigatable - EPA could argue that although
the impact is significant there are not technical or
institutional means to mitigate the impact. However,
mitigative measures are available to protect these resource
areas from coal mining impacts.
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the
following could be used to mitigate impacts by inclusion in
every NPDES permit:
The applicant shall ensure that mining operations will not
adversely affect wetlands located on or adjacent to the
permit area.
Areawide-Individual - An individual review for each project
employing the resource threshold critera concept could analyze
possible impacts to wetlands utilizing the following
criteria/levels. with this approach, appropriate technical
mitigative measures could be selected on a case by case basis
when significant impacts are identified.
Level I Wetlands located within or adjacent to the area
proposed for surface disturbance by coal mining
activities.
Coal mining operations will discharge into, or
hydraulically modify, a wetland area.
Level II Proposed coal mining activities are likely .to
create a significant disturbance to wetland areas.
Level III Proposed coal mining activities will create a
signficant unmitigated adverse impact to
significant wetland areas.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such .as the
following could be used to mitigate impacts for those mining
operations meeting or exceeding the Level I criteria described
above:
A-40
-------
The applicant shall establish buffer zones to separate
mining activities from identified wetland areas. Water
quality in wetlands shall be protected by the applicant
maintaining natural groundwater flow rates and preventing
any discharge of degraded water into the wetland area.
EVALUATION:
Coal mining activities have the potential to create significant
impacts on wetlands in Eastern Kentucky. This impact is
mitigatable. The General Conditioning, Areawide-Individual and
Standard Conditioning alternatives each have cost,
environmental, timing and flexibility differences.
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands", requires
Federal agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the
destruction or loss of wetland areas. EPA is also directed to
avoid support of new construction in wetlands if a practicable
alternative exists. The EPA Statement of Procedures on
Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection (1/5/79)
stipulates that EPA must determine whether proposed actions
will affect a wetland area. If so, a wetlands assessment must
be prepared which analyzes avoiding or miniminzing EPA's
adverse impacts. EPA's mandate to protect wetlands is clear.
In terms of environmental benefits, the General Conditioning
approach has potential since every NPDES permit would include a
condition requiring control of adverse impacts. However, it
would be very difficult to enforce the condition wihout having
identified and having data collected for wetlands. It is
probable that applicants would ignore this condition, since no
specific information would be available to EPA. Therefore, it
is doubtful that this potential for environmental benefits will
be realized. Permit conditions would be applied only to those
operations directly or indirectly impacting wetlands. Although
not as inclusive as the General Conditioning alternative,
Standard Conditioning would be environmentally conservative in
comparison to the Areawide-Individual approach (i.e. mitigation
measures would be required of some operations which would
probably not be required after an individual analysis).
The Areawide-Individual would require mitigation only of those
operations demonstrating the potential for significant impacts
on wetlands. The likelihood is greatest that the impact would
be mitigated under this more detailed investigation procedure.
Applicants would be required to investigate alternatives and
address mitigation more carefully. This option has the greatest
likelihood of realizing environmental benefits.
A-41
-------
While all three of the alternatives could be argued to comply
with the statutory requirements of NEPA, they differ in their
potential for challenge through adjudicatory hearings. Coal
mining impacts on wetlands are not likely to be widespread.
Eastern Kentucky contains few wetland areas.
Under the General Conditioning approach, challenges to
conditions might be expected for which EPA would have little
site-specific documentation to support the condition. While
this is also a potential problem under the Standard
Conditioning alternative, the likelihood is not as great since
some site-specific factors would have been considered prior to
conditioning. The Areawide-Individual alternative with its
individual analysis creates the least potential for losing such
challenges and would likely result in the greatest level of
mitigation. It appears to be the most implementable of the
three alternatives.
Processing time requirements are zero under the General
Conditioning alternative. The Standard Conditioning approach
would take approximately five days for review of the initial
environmental information and notification to the Water
Management Division to include the standard condition. Twenty
days would be required to process an application under the
Areawide-Individual alternative to make a Level II decision and
an additional 30 days to review an BID, if required, and
formulate a decision. These time frames do not consider
applicant response times, which could include 60 days to
prepare an BID. Over 300 may be required to prepare an EIS.
The following analysis considers specific EPA manpower
requirements and costs and mining applicant costs for this
resource area.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR WETLANDS (annual
estimate)
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Prep Plants
TOTAL
EPA MANPOWER AND
LI
LI
LI
COST
170
118
40
328
LI
LI
LI
( annual
10
2
10
22
LII
LII
LII
manpower
4
~2~
6_
LIII
LIII
LIII
based on
1
_0
_2
above
estimations)*
Initial Review
Review of additional questions
Review of EIDs
Preparation of ElSs
175 hours
22 hours
hours
hours
144
330
A-42
-------
Total Work Hours
EIS Costs
671
$40_,_000_
APPLICANT COST (Annual cost based on above estimations)*
Initial information
Additional questions
EIDs
EISs
$
35,000
22,000
30,000
(100 x 350)
(1,000 x 22)
(6 x 5,000)
162,000
(1.6 x 100,000 + .4 x 5,000)
$ 249,000
TOTAL
*Assumptions: (1) An BID will cost an average $5,000 and
require 24 hours of EPA review time, (2) 80% of the EISs will
be "third party" (i.e. no applicant BID preparation and a
$100,000 applicant cost for preparation of the third party
EIS), (3) 20% will require applicant preparation of the BID
with EPA responsibility for the EIS, at a cost to EPA of
$100,000, (4) EPA manpower requirements are 160 hours to
process third party EISs and 184 hours for the EID/EIS
combination.
The General Conditioning alternative would cost the applicant
nothing in terms of data supplied to EPA, since none would be
required. The general permit condition described above would
be included as a matter of course in each NPDES permit by the
Region IV Water Management Division and, therefore, require no
additional manpower. The Standard Conditioning alternative
would require 175 EPA workhours of effort to review the initial
environmental information and advise the Water Management
Division to include one of the standard conditions. The cost
to mining applicants would be approximately $35,000 per year to
supply the Level I information. The EPA workhours required to
handle the Areawide-lndividual alternative would be greater, an
estimated 671 workhours and a potential EIS cost of $40,000.
Applicants would probably spend $249,000 annually responding to
requests for additional information, and preparing the
estimated EIDs and EISs, including the initial information.
The Areawide-lndividual alternative is the most flexible in
terms of providing the appropriate mitigation measures and the
likelihood that these measures would be implemented for the
proposed mining operation. The Standard Conditioning and
General Conditioning approaches would be evaluated a distant
second and third respectively.
Duplication of effort with other state and Federal laws and
regulations has been taken into consideration prior to the
development of any of the above described alternatives. The
A-43
-------
Areawide-lndividual analysis would be able to prepare
mitigation measures considering the most current existing
regulations. This additional coordination would not be
immediately available under the General Conditioning and
Standard Conditioning alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Areawide-lndividual alternative is recommended as the most
appropriate approach to mitigate significant wetlands impacts
in the East Kentucky Coal Field. It is more costly to EPA and
to the applicant than the other two alternatives, yet it
provides a greater degree of environmental benefit. This
benefit is felt to outweigh the additional costs involved and
the additional processing time requirements due to the
significance of the resources and potential impacts. Because
of the relative scarcity of this resource in Eastern Kentucky,
few mining applicants should become involved in impact
assessments for wetlands. Further, in comparison to the
General and Standard Conditioning alternatives, this approach
would likely result in better protection against specific
adverse impacts, is more flexible, would result in a greater
ability to legally defend any conditions, and allows for
coordination with other regulations.
A-44
-------
NOISE
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
In the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field, the rugged terrain
necessitates the close geographic association of sensitive
noise receptors (residences, schools, churches, and health care
facilities) with certain coal mining activities. Coal haul
roads, railroads, loadout facilities, and preparation plants
are usually located in the relatively narrow river valleys
along with other types of development including sensitive
receptors. Each of these noise operations can produce
significant noise impacts. While the mining sites are usually
located in more remote areas, noise effects of rock drills and
mine vent fans associated with deep mines can be significant.
In addition, blasting may cause physical damage to structures
through vibration.
This close association between noise sources
noise receptors in the Eastern Kentucky Coal
impacts to sensitive
terms of dBA
receptors in
potential to cause significant
receptors. These impacts are
the A weighted
and sensitive
Field has the
noise
measured in
scale) and significance
(decibels on the A weighted scale) and significance is
determined to be an effect on a sensitive receptor equal to, or
greater than, an Ldn of 73 dBA, which is approximately equal
to an L0n of 70 dBA. Noise calculations for coal haul trucks
jeq of 70 dBA". Noise calculations for coal
included in the attached Figure are presented in terms of
Leq, an easier measurement with which to make calculations,
Noise
an
levels
to be very
the attached Figure
which to
.,^_ *. above Leq 70 dBA are considered
significant, potentially resulting in communication
interference, hearing loss, heart disease, harmful effects on
the unborn and children, mental and social problems, and even
loss of life (EPA 1978b).
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate this
impact.
• Site Planning - With proper site planning most impacts can
beeliminated by providing adequate buffer zones and
topographical barriers.
• Equipment Maintenance - New and properly maintained
equipmentTigenerally quieter than older equipment.
Noise sensitive components and noise control devices can
be inspected and noise measurements made regularly with
any necessary repairs and replacements made to maintain or
lower original
A-45
-------
equipment noise levels. Typical devices used for
equipment noise abatement are mufflers, derating engines,
and sealed and lubricated tracks. Abatement measures can
include engine vibration isolation, turbocharging, and
lowered exhaust pipe exit height.
• Noise Barriers - The feasibility of erecting nose barriers
in order to mitigate specific impacts can be assessed
during the site planning stage. For example, mine vent
fans are a stationary noise source throughout the mining
operation. Noise shields around the fan could be an
effective and feasible long term noise abatement measure.
In addition, overburden storage could provide an effective
earth berm barrier.
• Personnel Training - Equipment operators can be instructed
on the quietest use of their equipment which may include
lowered speed, slower acceleration, and lowered engine RPM.
• Operational Noise Restrictions - Time scheduling of
operations during non-noise sensitive times can
effectively reduce the overall noise impact to acceptable
levels. For instance, nighttime operation could be
curtailed in areas where sensitive receptors are located,
thus reducing the Ldn or Leq(24) values.
• Coal Haul Trucks - Assure muffler systems are installed,
operating properly, and maintained on haul trucks.
Scheduling of hauling can also be an effective means of
reducing the impact on sensitive receptors.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
Few existing regulations control the noise impact identified
above. SMCRA requires control of noise and vibration from
blasting operations through use of pre-blast surveys,
schedules, limits and explosive rules under both its interim
and permanent programs. The permanent program also prohibits
surface mining within 300 feet of occupied dwellings and other
sensitive receptors, without consent waivers. While rock
drills have been identified as a major source of noise by EPA,
noise emission standards have not been published. Rock drills
and mine vents have been determined to have the potential to
elevate noise levels above Leg 70 dBA at 300 arid less feet
from the noise source(s). Neither SMCRA nor any other Federal
law addresses noise from coal hauling on public or private
roads. The attached figure demonstrates the potentially
significant impact resulting from large scale truck hauling.
Coal loading facilities and preparation plants can also result
in significant noise production.
A-46
-------
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to EPA through the
NEPA process to address this potential impact. These options
are:
Areawide FONSI - EPA could attempt to argue that the noise
impacts of coal mining, loading and preparation operations and
coal haul truck traffic are not significant. However, it is
possible to document noise levels exceeding 70 dBA at sensitive
receptors emanating from on-site equipment and at sensitive
receptors along transportation routes. This impact would be
difficult to be argued to be insignificant since EPA's own
reports document this decibel level as significantly affecting
health.
Significant But Not Mitigatable - EPA could argue that although
the impact is significant there are not technical or
institutional means to mitigate the impact. In the case of
noise, however, technical solutions are available that are
relatively inexpensive to the applicant and could help mitigate
the impact of increased noise levels. The institutional means
to cause mitigation and any subsequent enforcement would be
difficult.
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the
following could be used to attempt to mitigate noise impacts by
inclusion in every new source NPDES permit:
The applicant shall ensure that noise levels at sensitive
receptors to the mining operation and near coal
transportation routes are less than an Leq of 70 dBA.
Areawide-Individual - An individual review for each project
employing the resource threshold criteria concept could analyze
noise impacts utilizing the following criteria/levels. With
this alternative, should a significant impact be identified,
appropriate technical mitigation measures, such as those listed
above could be selected on a case by case basis.
Level I Coal production exceeds 1.5 million tons per
year, and sensitive receptors are projected to
experience an Leq of 70 dBA from coal truck
traffic on public or private haul roads (See
attached nomograph for distance from the
centerline of the road versus number of trucks
per hour, and calculations showing the
possibility of significant impact for
operations with production of 1.5 million
tons or more per year).
A-47
-------
Level II Coal haul truck traffic would produce an Leq
of 70 dBA at the closest sensitive receptor on
coal haul roads identified under the Level I
criterion after consideration of existing
natural topographic or vegetative barriers or
other site-specific conditions.
Level III Proposed haul trucks would produce an Ldn of
73 dBA, or an Leq of 70 dBA, at the closest
sensitive receptor.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as the
following could be used to mitigate impacts for those mining
operations meeting or exceeding the Level I criteria described
above. For coal transportation routes with sensitive receptors
located sufficiently close to the road to expect 70 dBA (based
on trucks per day and as reflected in the attached nomograph),
the condition would state:
All coal haul trucks shall have muffler systems installed
and maintained for proper operation. Where practicable,
transportation routes will be altered to avoid sensitive
receptors , and nighttime coal hauling will be avoided
where sensitive receptors are located and an Ldn of 73 dBA
is projected.
EVALUATION:
Noise has the potential to be a significant impact from coal
operations in East Kentucky. This impact is mitigatable. The
General Conditioning, Areawide-Individual, and Standard
Conditioning alternatives each have cost, environmental, timing
and flexibility implications.
In the Noise Control Act of 1972 (as amended by the Quiet
Communities Act of 1978), Congress declared it to be the policy
of the United States to promote an environment for all
Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or
welfare. To that end, it stated one of the Act's purposes as
being the provision of information to the public respecting the
noise emission characteristics of noise producing products.
Although EPA's mandate in the area of noise is not specific or
of a regulatory nature, it is clear that the agency has been
directed to bring this issue to the public's attention.
In terms of environmental benefits, the General Conditioning
approach has potential benefits since every NPDES permit would
include a condition requiring control of adverse impacts (ie.
noise levels of less than 70 dBA Leq) . However, it would be
very difficult to enforce the condition without having
identified and having noise data calculated for specific
A-48
-------
sensitive receptors. It is probable that applicants would
ignore this condition, since no specific information would be
available to EPA. Therefore, it is doubtful that this
potential for environmental benefits would be realized. This
option has the least likelihood of realizing environmental
b.enef it.
The Standard Conditioning alternative has more potential for
environmental benefits. Permit conditions would be applied
only to those operations exhibiting a likelihood of significant
noise impacts (i.e. 70 dBA or greater) along coal haul
transportation routes. Although not as inclusive as the
General Conditioning alternative, Standard Conditioning would
be environmentally conservative in comparison to the
Areawide-lndividual approach (i.e. mitigation measures would be
required of some operations which would probably not be
required after an individual analysis).
The Areawide-lndividual would require mitigation only of those
operations demonstrating, in accordance with detailed noise
studies, the potential for significant noise impacts. The
likelihood is greatest that the impact would be mitigated under
this more detailed investigation procedure. Applicants would
be required to investigate alternatives and address mitigation
more carefully. This option has the greatest likelihood of
realizing environmental benefits.
While all three of the alternatives could be argued to comply
with the statutory requirements of NEPA, they differ in their
potential for legal challenge through adjudicatory hearings.
Noise impacts have the potential to be significant as described
above, however, they are not widespread. Size and type of
mining operation determines actual noise levels, in addition to
proximity of sensitive receptors.
Under the General Conditioning approach, challenges to
conditions might be expected for which EPA would have little
site-specific documentation to support the condition. While
this is also a potential problem under the Standard
Conditioning alternative, the likelihood is not as great since
some site-specific factors would have been considered prior to
conditioning. The Areawide-lndividual alternative with its
individual analysis creates the least potential for losing such
challenges and would likely result in the greatest level of
mitigation. It appears to be the most implementable of the
three alternatives.
Processing time requirements are zero under the General
Conditioning alternative. The Standard Conditioning approach
would take approximately five days for review of the initial
information and notification to the Water Management Division
to include the standard condition. Twenty days would be
A-49
-------
required to process an application under the
Areawide-Individual alternative to make a Level II decision and
an additional 30 days to review an EID, if required, and
formulate a decision. These time frames do not consider
applicant response times, which could include 60 days to
prepare an EID. Over 300 days may be required to prepare an
EIS.
The following analysis considers specific EPA manpower
requirements and costs and mining applicant costs for this
resource area.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR NOISE (annual
estimate)
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Prep Plants
TOTAL
EPA MANPOWER AND
LI 179 LI
LI 118 LI
LI
LII
LII
LII
1
LIII
LIII
LIII
_0_
0
COST (annual manpower based on above
estimations)*
Initial Review
Review of additional questions
Review of EIDs
Preparation of EISs
Total Work Hours
EIS Costs
100
8
hours
hours
24 hours
0 hours
132
$
APPLICANT COST (Annual cost based on above estimations)*
Initial information
Additional questions
EIDs
EISs
$
70,000
6,000
5,000
(200 x 350)
(1,500 x 4)
(5,000 x 1)
TOTAL
81,000
*Assumptions: (1) An EID will cost an average $5,000 and
require 24 hours of EPA review time, (2) 80% of the EISs will
be "third party" (i.e. no applicant EID preparation and a
3100,000 applicant cost for preparation of the third party
EIS), (3) 20% will require applicant preparation of the EID
with EPA responsibility for the EIS, at a cost to EPA of
$100,000, (4) EPA manpower requirements are 160 hours to
process third party EISs and 184 hours for the EID/EIS
combination.
A-50
-------
The General Conditioning alternative would cost the applicant
nothing in terms of data supplied to EPA, since none would be
required. The general permit condition described above would
be included as a matter of course in each NPDES permit by the
Region IV Water Management Division and, therefore, require no
additional manpower. The Standard Conditioning alternative
would require 100 EPA workhours of effort to review the initial
environmental information and advise the Water Management
Division to include one or both of the standard conditions.
The cost to mining applicants would be approximately $70,000
per year to supply the Level I information. The EPA workhours
required to handle the Areawide-Individual alternative would be
greater, an estimated 132 workhours and a potential EIS cost of
$0. Applicants would probably spend $81,000 annually
responding to requests for the initial informtion, additional
information, and preparing the estimated EIDs and EISs.
The Areawide-Individual alternative is the most flexible in
terms of providing the appropriate mitigation measures and the
likelihood that these measures would be implemented for the
proposed mining operation. The Standard Conditioning and
General Conditioning approaches would be evaluated a distant
second and third respectively.
Duplication of effort with other state and Federal laws and
regulations has been taken into consideration prior to the
development of any of the above described alternatives.
However, due to its individual review the Areawide-Individual
analysis would be able to prepare mitigation measures
considering the most current existing regulations. This
additional coordination would not be immediately available
under the General Conditioning and Standard Conditioning
alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Areawide-Individual alternative is recommended as the most
appropriate approach to mitigate significant noise impacts in
the East Kentucky Coal Field. It is more costly to EPA and to
the applicant than the other two alternatives, yet it provides
a much greater degree of environmental benefit. This
environmental benefit outweighs the incremental cost and
processing time requirements in a marginal analysis. Further,
in comparison to the General and Standard Conditioning
alternatives, this approach would likely result in better
protection against specific adverse impacts, is more flexible,
would result in a greater ability to legally defend any
conditions, and allows for coordination of effort with other
regulations.
A-51
-------
NOISE NOMAGRAPH
Estimated noise levels (Leq) from coal haul trucks.
SO 40 10 20 10
HAUL TRUCKS/HOUR
10
A-52
-------
RESOURCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA CALCULATIONS FOR NOISE
ASSUMPTIONS: Noise Nomagraph
70 dBA = Maximum acceptable noise level.
30 feet = Distance from centerline where expect to meet
dBA of 70 from coal haul traffic.
50 = Number of passbys/hour to meet 70 dBA at 30
feet (25 loads/hour).
35T = Average capacity/haul truck.
8 = Hours/day of operation.
220 = Days/year of operation.
At 25 loaded passbys per hour, each carrying 35 tons, 875 tons
per hour, or 7,000 tons per day, or 1.5 million tons per year
would represent the annual production rate which (given all
assumptions) might indicate a significant noise impact to
sensitive receptors 30 feet from the centerline of haul roads.
Operations meeting this criteria would be requested to identify
haul roads proposed for use, and sensitive receptors along
these routes which (according to the Noise Nomagraph) could be
subjected to noise levels in excess of 70 dBA.
If a potential problem is documented, operations would be
required to investigate alternatives and/or address mitigation.
A-53
-------
AIR QUALITY
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
Coal mining activities can result in significant amounts of
fugitive dust emissions. Other pollutants may also be emitted
into the air as a result of these operations, but typically in
insignificant amounts. Fugitive dust emissions are generated
primarily due to truck traffic on haul roads. Other sources
include surface mining, blasting, coal preparation, coal
loading and unloading, and wind erosion. The transportation of
coal by truck on unpaved/public and private haul roads is the
major contributor of fugitive dust emissions from coal-related
activities in eastern Kentucky.
The close proximity of many residential sites to haul roads
exacerbates the problem of fugitive dust emissions. Residences
and other sensitive receptors (e.g., health care facilities,
schools, churches, and public parks) are generally located much
closer to haul road routes than to actual mining or preparation
areas. It is possible for significant impacts, in the form of
primary ambient air quality standard violations, to occur along
heavily travelled unpaved haul routes. A study performed by
Evans and Cooper (1981) indicates that the major contribution
to high TSP levels in the U.S. comes from fugitive dust
sources. The attached figure demonstrates the potentially
significant impact resulting from large scale truck hauling.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate this
impact.
• We-t Suppression - Spraying unpaved haul roads with water
or water plus a wetting agent can significantly reduce
fugitive dust emissions.
• Chemical Stabilization - The application of chemical
stabilizers to unpaved haul road surfaces can bind the
dust particles together and prevent or reduce the amount
of dust emissions created by traffic.
• Speed Reduction - Reducing the speed of haul trucks on
unpaved coal haul routes can reduce dust emissions.
• Alternative Routes - Using alternative haul routes to
minimize use of unpaved roads can result in an overall
reduction of fugitive dust emissions.
A-54
-------
• paving - Paving haul routes, although expensive, can
eliminate significant dust emissions.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
The existing Federal and State regulations governing air
emissions, including fugitive dust emissions, apply only to
stationary sources or on-site sources of pollution. No
regulations exist governing fugitive dust emissions resulting
from coal truck traffic on off-site haul roads. Under certain
circumstances these emissions can cause significant impacts.
There are no requirements for dust suppression or other
mitigation measures to be used on these off-site unpaved
roads Many of the haul routes used in eastern Kentucky are
public roads, and some are both unpaved and have sensitive
receptors located nearby.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to EPA through the
NEPA process to address this potential impact. These options
are:
Areawide FONSI - EPA could argue that fugitive dust emissions
from off-site unpaved roads used for coal transportation is not
significant. It is possible, however, to document fugitive
dust levels at sensitive receptors adjacent to unpaved roads
equal to or in excess of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This impact would be difficult to argue as
insignificant.
Significant But Not Mitigatable - EPA could argue that although
thfimpactissignificantthere are no technical or
institutional means to mitigate the impact. However,
mitigation measures are available to the applicant to reduce or
eliminate fugitive dust emission impacts from unpaved haul
roads as described under technical alternatives.
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the
following could be used to attempt to mitigate fugitive dust
impacts by inclusion in every New Source NPDES permit:
The applicant shall utilize fugitive dust control measures
on unpaved public and private haul roads to assure air
quality at sensitive receptors does not exceed NAAQS
particulate limits.
Areawide-lndividual - An individual review for each project
employing the resource threshold criteria concept could analyze
fugitive dust emission impacts utilizing the following criteria
A-55
-------
levels. With this alternative, should a significant impact be
identified, appropriate technical mitigation measures could be
selected on a case by case basis.
LEVEL I
Coal production exceeds 350,000 tons/year and
fugitive dust emissions created by coal haul
truck traffic on unpaved public or private
haul roads without controls may exceed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
total suspended particles at nearby sensitive
receptors (e.g., residences, health care
facilities, schools, churches, and public
parks). (See attached nomagraph for distance
from the centerline of the road versus number
of trucks per day, and calculations showing
the possibility of significant impact for
operations with production of 350,000 tons or
more per year.)
LEVEL II
LEVEL III
Significant adverse impacts are
occur from proposed activities.
likely to
Applicant proposed mitigative measures are not
sufficient to reduce emissions from proposed
project operations to below the level
described in Level I.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as the
could be used to mitigate impacts for those
meeting or exceeding Level I criteria. The standard
following
operations
condition would
state
Unpaved off-site haul roads adjacent to identified
sensitive receptors shall be periodically watered,
chemically stabilized, or paved, at the applicant's
option, to minimize fugitive dust emissions and to ensure
National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not exceeded at
the receptor due to project operations.
EVALUATION:
Fugitive dust
coal hauling
mitigatable.
and Standard
environmental,
has the potential to be a significant impact from
operations in east Kentucky. This impact is
The General Conditioning, Areawide-Individual,
Conditioning alternatives each have cost,
timing, arid flexibility implications.
A-56
-------
EPA's mandate to regulate fugitive dust emissions is not
clearly defined. While there is a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for total suspended particulates, this standard has
not been tied to fugitive emissions of coal haul trucks through
a regulatory procedure.
In terms of environmental benefits, the General Conditioning
approach has potential since every NPDES permit would include a
condition requiring control of adverse impacts. However, it
would be very difficult to enforce the condition without having
identified and having emission data calculated for specific
sensitive receptors. It is possible that applicants would
ignore this condition if not specifically notified of a
potential problem. Therefore, it is doubtful that this
potential for environmental benefits will be realized. This
option has the least likelihood of realizing environmental
benefit.
The Standard Conditioning alternative probably has more
potential for realizing environmental benefits than the General
Conditioning alternative. Permit conditions would be applied
only to those operations exhibiting a likelihood of significant
fugitive dust impacts along unpaved coal haul routes. Although
not as inclusive as the General Conditioning alternative,
Standard Conditioning would be environmentally conservative in
comparison to the Areawide-Individual approach (i.e.,
mitigation measures would be required of some operations which
would probably not be required after an individual analysis).
The Areawide-Individual would require mitigation only of those
operations demonstrating the potential for significant impacts
to sensitive receptors. The likelihood is greatest that the
impact would be mitigated under this more detailed
investigative procedure. Applicants would be required to
investigate alternatives and address mitigation more carefully.
While all three of the alternatives could be argued to comply
with the statutory requirements of NEPA, they differ in their
potential for legal challenge through adjudicatory hearings.
Fugitive dust impacts have the potential to be significant as
described above, however, they are not widespread. Size and
type of mining operation determines actual emission levels, in
addition to proximity of sensitive receptors. Under the
General Conditioning approach, challenges to conditions might
be expected for which USEPA would have little site-specific
documentation to support the condition. While this is also a
potential problem under the Standard Conditioning alternative,
the likelihood is not as great since some site-specific factors
would have been considered prior to conditioning. The
Areawide-Individual alternative with its individual analysis
creates the least potential for losing such challenges and
would likely result in the greatest level of mitigation.
A-57
-------
Processing time requirements are zero under the General
Conditioning approach. The Standard Conditioning approach
would take approximately five days for review of the initial
questionnaire and notification to the Water Management Division
to include the standard condition. The Areawide-Individual
approach would require 20 days to make a Level II decision, up
to 30 days to review an BID, and up to 45 days to review an
EIS, if required. These time frames do not consider applicant
response times which could include 60 days to prepare an
evaluation of alternatives (BID). Over 300 days may be
required to prepare an EIS.
The following analysis considers specific USEPA manpower
requirements and costs as well as cost occuring to mining
applicants for this resource area.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR AIR (annual estimate)
Surface Mines LI 162 LI 18 LII 3 LIII
Underground Mines LI TO8 LI 12 LII 2 LIII 0
Prep Plants LI 42 LI 8 LII 1 LIII 0
TOTAL 312 38
EPA MANPOWER AND COST (annual manpower based on above
estimations)*
Initial information 100 hours
Review of additional questions 76 hours
Review of EIDs 144 hours
Preparation of EISs 0 hours
Total Work Hours 320
EIS Costs 0
APPLICANT COST (Annual cost based on above estimations)*
Initial information $ 70,000 (200 x 350)
Additional questions 190,000 (5000 x 38)
EIDs 30,000 (6 x 5,000)
EISs 0
TOTAL $290,000
* Assumptions; (1) An BID will cost an average $5,000 and
require 24 hours of EPA review time, (2) 80% of the EISs will
be "third party" (i.e., no applicant BID preparation and a
$100,000 applicant cost for preparation of the third party
EIS), (3) 20% will require applicant preparation of the BID
with EPA responsibility for the EIS, at a cost to EPA of
$100,000 and, (4) EPA manpower requirements are 160 hours to
process third party EISs and 184 hours for the EID/EIS
combination.
A-58
-------
The General Conditioning alternative would cost the applicant
nothing in terms of data supplied to EPA, since none would be
required. The general permit condition described above would
be included as a matter of course in each NPDES permit by the
Region IV Water Management Division and, therefore, require no
additional manpower. The Standard Conditioning alternative
would require 100 EPA workhours of effort to review the initial
environmental information and advise the Water Management
Division to include the standard condition. The cost to mining
applicants would be approximately $70,000 per year to supply
the Level I information. The EPA workhours required to handle
the Areawide-lndividual alternative would be greater, an
estimated 320 workhours and a potential EIS cost of $0.
Applicants would probably spend $290,000 annually responding to
requests for additional information, and preparing the
estimated EIDs and EISs including the initial information.
The Areawide-lndividual alternative is the most flexible in
terms of providing the appropriate mitigation measures and the
likelihood that these measures would be implemented for the
proposed mining operation. The Standard Conditioning and
General Conditioning approaches would be evaluated a distant
second and third respectively.
Duplication of effort with other State and Federal laws and
regulations has been taken into consideration prior to the
development of any of the above described alternatives.
However, due to its individual review the Areawide-lndividual
analysis would be able to prepare mitigation measures
considering the most current existing regulations. This
additional coordination would not be immediately available
under the General Conditioning and Standard Conditioning
alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Areawide-lndividual alternative is recommended as the most
appropriateapproachtomitigate significant fugitive dust
impacts in the East Kentucky Coal Field. It is somewhat more
costly to EPA and to the applicant than the other two
alternatives, yet it provides a much greater degree of
environmental benefit. This environmental benefit outweighs
the incremental cost and processing time requirements in a
marginal analysis. Further, in comparison to the General and
Standard Conditioning alternatives, this approach would likely
result in better protection against specific adverse impacts,
is more flexible, would result in a greater ability to legally
defend any conditions, and allows for coordination of effort
with other regulations.
A-59
-------
AIR QUALITY NOMAGRAPH
400
o
300
u
Z
200
100
24 HOUR NAAOS
I
FOR TSP
100
200
300
400
TRUCK PASSBYS PER DAY
Task Report on Air Quality. Wapora, Inc.,
1981. Prepared in connection with the East
Kentucky Areawide EIS
A-60
-------
PESQURCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA CALCULATIONS
FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS
ASSUMPTIONS: Air Quality Nomagraph
Haul Roads Unpaved
Average Operation:
8 hours per day
220 days per year
Average Haul Truck = 35 Ton Capacity
Each Truck Passby = 1/2 Round Trip
According to the Air Quality Nomagraph, at aPPr°xi™*£j £0
feet from the center line of an unpaved road, NAAQS would be
exceeded at approximately 90 truck passbys per day, or 45
loaded passbys per day. It 35 tons per truck for 220 days ; of
operation, this would represent annual production of 346,500,
or rounded, 350,000 tons per year. Given all assumptions, a
sensitive receptor within 30 feet of the centerline of the
unpaved road would thus likely be impacted.
Operations meeting this criteria would be requested to identify
unpaved haul roads proposed for use, and sensitive receptors
along these routes which (according to the Air Quality
Nomriraph) could be subjected to fugitive dust emissions in
excess of NAAQS.
If a potential problem is documented, operations would be
required to investigate alternatives and/or address mitigation.
A-61
-------
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
The cumulative effect of continued coal production and
increasing population levels in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field
will result in the conversion of agricultural land to urban and
mining-related uses. This conversion is considered to be a
significant impact because of the relative scarcity and high
economic value of this land resource in the East Kentucky Coal
Field. Prime agricultural land accounts for approximately 6%
of the Coal Field.
Coal mining activities, particularly surface mining and
preparation plant operations, on agricultural lands can
permanently destroy the productive potential of the natural
soil. The further reduction of this farmland in Eastern
Kentucky would diminish the region's cropland base and diminish
environmental quality by reducing the beneficial role which the
land can play. Agricultural land reduces runoff by absorbing
precipitation, aids in replenishing groundwater supplies,
buffers environmentally sensitive areas from encroaching
development, and can serve in wastewater treatment through land
treatment processes.
Preparation plants are located necesarily in the flat valleys
of East Kentucky in proximity to transportation networks.
These flat floodplains are also the location of most prime
agricultural lands in the region. In addition to the plant
facilities themselves, disposal of sludge from plants creates
the potential for significant adverse impacts on agricultural
lands. Where sludge is deposited , covering prime agricultural
soils, the soils cannot be reclaimed.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate this
impact.
• Underground mining could be utilized where surface mining
would disturb large areas of farmland.
• Surface mining and reclamation operations could meet the
following techniques for soil removal, stockpiling, and
replacement:
1. Topsoil materials to be used in the reconstruction of
the farmland topsoil could be removed before drilling,
blasting, or mining in a manner that prevents mixing
or contaminating these materials with undesirable
material.
A-62
-------
2. Soil Removal
Surface coal mining and reclamation operations on
prime farmland could be conducted to:
(a) separately remove the entire A horizon or other
suitable soil materials and create a final soil having
an equal or greater productive capacity than that
which existed prior to mining;
(b) separately remove the B horizon of the soil, a
combination of B horizon and underlying C horizon, or
other suitable soil material and reconstruct the soil
to equal or greater productive capacity than that
which existed before mining;
(c) separately remove the underlying C horizons, other
strata, or a combination of horizons or other strata,
to be used instead of the B horizon. When replaced,
these combinations could be equal, or more favorable
for plant growth, than the B horizon.
3. Soil Stockpiling
If not utilized immediately, the A horizon or other
suitable soil materials and the B horizon or other
suitable soil materials can be stored separately from
each other and from spoil material. These stockpiles
can be placed within the permit area where they are
not disturbed or exposed to excessive water or wind
erosion before the stockpiled horizons are to be
redistributed.
4. Soil Replacement
Surface coal mining and reclamation operations on
farmland could be conducted according to the following:
(a) The minimum depth of soil and soil material to be
reconstructed for farmland can be 48 inches, or to a
depth equal to the depth of a subsurface horizon in
the natural soil that inhibits root penetration,
whichever is shallower. A depth greater than 48
inches can be restructured whereever appropriate to
restore productive capacity where uniquely favorable
soil horizons exist at greater depths.
(b) Soil material can be replaced on land which has
been returned to final grade and scarified to enhance
the capability of reconstructed soil to achieve
equivalent or higher levels of yield.
A-63
-------
(c) Soil horizons or other suitable soil material can
be replaced in a manner that avoids excessive
compaction.
There are no alternatives available to mitigate the adverse
impacts of locating preparation plants or their sludge disposal
areas on ESA lands other than relocation. Relocation is not
feasible due to the need for prep plants to be located near
transportation networks. Sludge disposal areas could be
required to be located away from the prep plant sites, on lands
not categorized as ESA lands.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
EPA's policy is to consider the protection of the nation's
Environmentally Significant Agricultural (ESA) lands from
irreversible conversion to uses which result in its loss as an
environmental or essential food production resource. Before
undertaking an action, EPA must determine whether there are
Environmentally Significant Agricultural lands in the proposed
permit area. If such lands are identified, direct and indirect
effects of the undertaking on the land must be evaluated and
adverse effects avoided or mitigated, to the extent possible,
in accordance with EPA's Policy to Protect Environmentally
Significant Agricultural Lands (EPA, September 8, 1978).
EPA defined ESA lands for the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field have
been determined to include prime farmland, unique farmland,
farmland of statewide importance, and farmland of local
importance. These categories are all identified by the Soil
Conservation Service, USDA. Other categories included in the
EPA definition of ESA lands (i.e. farmlands of waste
utilization importance, tarmlands serving as buffers to
environmentally sensitive areas, and farmlands used for
significant BMP projects) are covered elsewhere under the
resource threshold criteria or were not considered appropriate
for the East Kentucky environment. Contact with the SCS has
indicated no unique farmlands or farmlands of statewide or
local importance are located in Eastern Kentucky.
SMCRA interim and permanent programs require detailed impact
control measures (identical to those described under Technical
Alternatives above) for prime agricultural lands cultivated for
at least 5 of the 10 years prior to acquisition for mining
purposes. (Note: This SMCRA definition of prime farmland is
currently being finalized. It is anticipated that the
regulations will cover the land described above. If it is not
defined and regulated as stated above, the following statement
on significant impacts may have to be altered, as well as the
discussion of alternatives.)
A-64
-------
Significant impacts could be expected from surface coal mining
and preparation plant sludge disposal activities on prime
farmlands cultivated for less than 5 of the previous 10 years
since these are not covered by other statutes.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to EPA through tne
NEPA process to address this potential impact. These options
are:
Areawide FONSI - EPA could attempt to argue that the impacts of
coll mining and preparation plants on prime farmlands are not
significant9. Only 6% of the Coal Field is categorized as prime
farmland. Further, SMCRA fully addresses prime farmland that
has been in production 5 of the last 10 years EPA would have
to argue that the loss of the prime farmland not covered by
SMCRA would not be significant. Coal mining can impact
agricultural land by permanently destroying the productive
potential of the natural soil. This impact could not be argued
to be insignificant due to EPA's policy statement and the
importance of this rare resource in Eastern Kentucky.
sionificant But Not Mitigatable - EPA could argue that although
-fi* impact Ti significant there are not technical or
institutional means to mitigate the impact. However, technical
solutions are available, as described above, that could
mitigate the impact on the natural soils. No mitigation is
available for preparation plant siting other than relocation.
Relocation is not a realistic alternative. Since these plants
must be located adjacent to rail and/or roadways they tend to
be near rivers and streams, which are also the predominant
areas of prime farmlands in Eastern Kentucky.
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the
following could be used to attempt to mitl9at*J-m|f^s on the
natural soils by inclusion in every new source NPDES permit for
surface mining:
The applicant shall ensure that prime farmlands proposed
for surface mining are reclaimed through soil removal,
stockpiling and replacement according to SMCRA procedures.
Areawide-lndividual - An individual review for each project
employing the resource threshold criteria concept could analyze
impacts on prime farmlands utilizing the following
criteria/levels. With this alternative, should a significant
impact be identified, appropriate technical mitigation measures
could be selected on a case by case basis.
A-65
-------
Level I
Prime farmlands cultivated less than 5 of the
previous 10 years are proposed for surface
disturbance by coal mining and preparation
plant sludge disposal activities, exclusive of
coal haul roads or preparation plant site
facilities.
Level II
Level III
Proposed coal mining
create a significant
farmlands.
activities are likely to
adverse impact on prime
Proposed coal mining activities will
irretrievably convert a significant acreage of
ESA lands.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as the
following could be used to mitigate impacts for those surface
mining operations meeting or exceeding the Level I criteria
described above.
Surface mining and reclamation operations shall meet the
requirements for soil removal, stockpiling, and
replacement described on the attached sheet for prime
farmlands (whether or not cultivated in the previous ten
years). (NOTE: The sheet attached to the permit would
outline the four steps detailed under Technical
Alternatives above).
EVALUATION:
Coal mining and sludge disposal from preparation plants have
the potential to impact prime farmlands in East Kentucky. This
impact is mitigatable. The General Conditioning,
Areawioe-Individual and Standard Conditioning alternatives each
have cost, environmental, timing and flexibility implications.
Coal preparation facilities can also be expected to impact some
ESA lands, however, the number of acres impacted should be verv
small. J
EPA's mandate to protect Environmentally Significant
Agricultural lands is clear, as evidenced by its Policy to
Protect ESA Lands dated September 8, 1878 which recognized the
food production and environmental values of agricultural lands.
A-66
-------
farmlands cultivated at least 5 of the past 10 years will have
been identified under the SMCRA application. It is the
additional prime farmland which ^11 .not be identified through
any formal procedures. Therefore, it is doubtful that this
potential for environmental benefits be realized This option
has the least likelihood of realizing environmental benefit.
under the Standard Conditioning alternative, it is more
probable that these benefits will be realized. Once additional
disturbances on these lands.
The Areawide-lndividual alternative would reduce the number of
mining operations subject to the permit condition since , the
individual analysis would consider significance of effect on
the identified prime farmlands prior to imposing the condition
(e % conditions might not be imposed on an operation
-
^
required under the Areawide-lndividual, i.e. the soil
reclamation controls described under Technical Alternatives
above Therefore, environmental benefits are basically the
same under the Standard Conditioning and Areawide- Individual
approaches .
While all three of the alternatives could be argued to comply
Sith the statutory requirements of NEPA, they differ in their
potential for challenge through adjudicatory hearings. Mining
impacts on prime farmlands in Eastern Kentucky are not
widespread. The total land area in East Kentucky categorized
as prime farmland, and not subject to the SMCRA reclamation
requirements, is likely very small. Under the General
Conditioning approach, challenges to conditions might be
expected for which EPA would have little site-specific
documentaton to support the condition. While this is also , a
potential problem under the Standard Conditioning alternative,
the likelihood is not as great since additional prime farmland
would have been identified. The Areawide-lndividual
alternative with its individual analysis has a similar
likelihood for challenge as the Standard Conditioning.
A-67
-------
Processing time requirements are zero under the General
Conditioning alternative. The Standard Conditioning approach
would take approximately 5 days for review of the initial
environmental information and notification to the Water
Management Division to include the standard condition. Twenty
days would be required to process an application under the
Areawide-lndividual alternative to make a Level II decision and
an additional 30 days to review an BID, if required, and
formulate a decision. These time frames do not consider
applicant response times, which could include 60 days to
prepare an BID and over 300 for an BIS.
The following analysis considers specific EPA manpower
requirements and costs and mining applicant costs for this
resource area.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR ESA LANDS (annual
estimate) ~~ ~ s
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Prep Plants (sludge
disposal only)
TOTAL
LI 170 LI 10
LII
LII
LII
LIII
LIII
LIII
0
EPA MANPOWER AND COST (annual manpower based on above
A.ct- H ma t- i r\n cO *
estimations)
Initial Review
Review of additional questions
Review of EIDs
Preparation of EISs
Total Work Hours
BIS Costs
175 hours
20 hours
24 hours
0 hours
219
$
APPLICANT COST (Annual cost based on above estimations)*
Initial review
Additional questions
EIDs
EISs
TOTAL
$ 140,000
2,000
5,000
0
(400 x 350)
(100 x 20)
(1 x 5,000)
$ 147,000
A-68
-------
SB:
combination.
tould require 175 workhours of effort to review the initial
environmental information, make a d.ci.ion .. to «h.th.r or not
~
Dlicants would probably spend $147,000 annually responding to
requests for initial information, additional information, and
preparing the estimated EIDs and EISs.
The Areawide-lndividual alternative is the most flexible in
terms of providing the appropriate mitigation measures and the
likelihood that these measures would be implemented for the
proposed mining operation. The Standard Conditioning and
Genlrir Conditioning approaches would be evaluated a distant
second and third respectively.
Duplication of effort with other state and Federal laws and
regulations has been taken into consideration prior to the
development ofany of the above alternatives. However, due to
^individual review the Areawide-lndividual analysis would be
able to prepare mitigation measures considering the most
Current existing regulations. This coordination would not be
ilediately available under the General Conditioning and
Standard Conditioning alternatives.
RECOMMENATION:
The aroawide-lndividual alternative appears to be the most
e-
aproprae approach to mitigate significant impacts from coal
mining and sludge disposal on prime farmlands in the East
Kentucky Coal Field. This alternative is slightly "ore costly
to EPA and to the applicant, however, it is assumed that the
applicant
A-69
-------
would rather spend money investigating the significance of the
impact and possible various technical alternatives than
automatically be required to pay the high cost associated with
reclamation. Additionally, the number of acres subject to
additional investigation is not substantial. EPA's mandate to
protect Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands outlined
in Administrator Costle's policy memo is further reason to
recommend the Areawide-Individual approach for ESA lands
A-70
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
Public comment plays a key role in providing flexibility to the
environmental review process. The Resource Threshold levels
for the previous resource areas attempt to clarify the
difference between insignificant and significant adverse
impacts on environmental resources. However, because of the
great variety of environmental resources potentially impacted,
as well as changes in the coal mining industry, the identified
resources and levels may not always identify every potential
impact. Public, local, state and federal agency comment is
valuable input into the environmental review process. It is a
method of further identifying any significant adverse impacts.
EXISTING PUBLIC NOTICE PROVISIONS:
The interim SMCRA program requires a Notice of Intent be
published in a local newspaper prior to the submission of a
mining application to the state. This public notice occurs
prior to the NEPA compliance process/environmental review
undertaken by EPA in connection with applications for NPDES
permits. Some public concerns could be known and considered
during the initial environmental review process if an agreement
is reached with the state to supply EPA copies of any public
comments.
When the draft NPDES permit is proposed, there is another
public comment period specifically for the purpose of
addressing concerns related to proposed effluent discharges and
the environmental review conducted for the new source. It is
at this time that all public concerns should be known with
which EPA can make final decisions regarding its environmental
review.
ALTERNATIVES:
There are basically two alternatives with regard to this Public
Comment Criteria, either (1) use the public comment in a format
similar to that proposed for each of the resource areas
described earlier or (2) do not use the Criteria at all.
The Criteria would not become involved with those resource
areas determined to impact the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field
insignificantly or determined to be unmitigatable. The
Criteria is not appropriate for the General or Standard
Conditioning approaches since data gathering and determination
of significance of impact must be undertaken prior to the
A-71
-------
development of a condition. The environmental issues raised by
the public could vary substantially. If the Public Comment
Criteria is to be used, the appropriate format would be similar
to the Areawide-Individual alternative suggested for other
resource areas.
Areawide-Individual alternative - Substantive issues dealing
with any of the resource threshold areas could be considered,
and review decisions made, on the basis of the following
levels. With this alternative, should a significant impact be
identified, appropriate technical mitigation measures could be
selected on a case by case basis.
Level I Significant issues raised by public, local, state
or federal parties on a resource area not
otherwise identified or adequately addressed.
Level II Significant adverse impacts are likely to result
to resource area identified under Level I.
Level III Unmitigated significant adverse impacts will
result to resource area identified under Level I.
EVALUATION:
The following analysis considers specific EPA manpower benefits
and costs and mining applicant costs for the Public Comment
Criteria.
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
(annual estimate) "~~~~
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Prep Plants
TOTAL
EPA MANPOWER AND
LI 172 LI 18 LII
LI 108 LI 12 LII
LI 45 LI 5 LII
315
35
_0_
0
LIII
LIII
LIII
0
COST (annual manpower based on above
estimations)*
Initial Review
Review of additional questions
Review of EIDs
Preparation of EISs
Total Work Hours
EIS Costs
N/A
35
hours
hours
0 hours
0 hours
35
$
A-72
-------
APPLICANT COST (Annual cost based on above estimations)*
Initial information $ N/A
Additional questions 28,000 (35 x 800)
EIDs 0
EISs 0
TOTAL $ 28/000
* Assumptions; (1) An BID will cost an average $5,000 and
require 24 hours of EPA review time/ (2) 80% of the EISs will
be "third party" (i.e. no applicant BID preparation and a
$100/000 applicant cost for preparation of the third party
BIS), (3) 20% will require applicant preparation of the BID
with EPA responsibility for the BIS/ at a cost to EPA of
$100/000, (4) EPA manpower requirements are 160 hours to
process third party EISs and 184 hours for the BID/BIS
combination.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Public Comment Criteria be included
in the package of Resource Threshold Criteria in the form of
the Areawide-Individual approach suggested above. As discussed
earlier, the resources and levels identified for each of the
previous resource areas may not always identify every potential
impact due to the great variety of environmental resources
requiring protection and the changes in the coal mining
industry. The cost to EPA and to the applicant for providing
this additional environmental protection is considered minimal
when weighed against the potential benefits.
A-73
-------
TRANSPORTATION
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
Local transportation networks, primarily the road system, can
be adversely affected by mining activities and mining-induced
population growth. Public safety problems on local roads can
occur as a result of (1) the larger number of commercial
vehicles (primarily coal haul trucks) using public roadways,
(2) the larger volumes of private vehicles using the roadways,
and (3) increases in coal-related rail traffic which cause a
higher probability of rail-highway crossing accidents at
intersections. The larger volumes of coal haul trucks using
public roadways and trucks exceeding specified weight limits
may also degrade the quality of the road surface and weaken
bridges.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
• Develop alternative haul routes to be used to relieve
primary haul routes during peak traffic volume periods if
public safety hazards develop.
• Consideration of alternative hauling methods (e.g. rail,
conveyor, barge, or pipeline) if other mitigative methods
are not able to lessen impacts.
• Relocation of facilities such as preparation plants or
tipples to reduce local transportation impacts.
• Rebuild and/or repair existing bridges and/or roadways.
• Provide elevated rail or roadway crossings.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
Under the provisions of NEPA, the evaluation of impacts on the
human environment is to be considered broadly. Environmental
impact assessments must include consideration of effects on the
social and economic environment as well as the natural and
physical environment. These effects are those directly and
indirectly caused by the action (e.g. growth inducing effects,
changes in land use and transportation patterns and population
densities) . Therefore, local transportation impacts are
incorporated into the NPDES review process for new source coal
mines through the provisions of NEPA. There are, however, no
regulatory controls which address mitigation of the
transportation impacts described above.
A-74
-------
Under the interim SMCRA program all applicants must submit a
transportation plan approved by the state Department of
Transportation with their mining applications. Basically, the
state DOT classifies proposed routes in terms of weight limits
and provides information on any substandard bridges intended
for use. This data is passed on with the transportation plan.
DOT does not disapprove, or condition, any plans.
Regulating weight limits on coal haul trucks to lessen road
degradation has been difficult to enforce in Eastern Kentucky.
A coal severance tax (KRS 177.S60) is imposed on all coal mined
within Kentucky. This tax, a percentage of the sales price of
the produced coal, is paid monthly by coal companies to the
state Department of Revenue. According to the recently passed
Local Government Economic Assistance Act (KRS 42.455), any coal
severance funds collected in excess of $177.6 million are to be
divided equally between the state and the local governments
(i.e. counties and municipalities). Designated coal producing
counties receive 90% of the local share and designated coal
impact counties (i.e. those counties with no active mines but
through which coal is transported) receive 10%. Approximately
$200 million in coal severance tax is anticipated for fiscal
year 1981-82. The Local Assistance Act establishes ten
priority areas for these funds, including public safety,
environmental protection and public transportation. A minimum
of 30% of these funds must be used for road improvement,
including replacement of substandard bridges.
An access permit must be acquired for proposed mining
facilities intersecting state routes. DOT (District Office)
performs on-site reviews of proposed plans, analyzing drainage,
grade, location of access (depending on the type of road the
access must be a certain distance from any other access point),
public safety aspects and the number of vehicles serving the
facility. The proposed plans must be approved prior to
issuance of the access permit. A bond must be placed with DOT
to cover proposed access construction.
Public safety hazards at mining facility access
points/intersections appear to be sufficiently controlled by
the state DOT through its access permit program. Maintenance
of coal haul roads appears to be handled as efficiently as
possible through the state coal severence tax program which
regulates all mining operations. Therefore, transportation
impacts in the form of public safety problems associated with
coal mining activities can be argued to be adequately addressed
through the existing state regulations.
A-75
-------
RECOMMENDATION:
An Areawide FONSI should be the recommended alternative for the
transportation resource area. Transportation impacts
associated with coal mining activities are adequately addressed
through existing state regulations.
A-76
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
The economic impacts of coal development in Eastern Kentucky
can be considered beneficial to the economic base of the coal
field as well as in the economic status of the residents. As
coal mining becomes more extensive and provides more employment
opportunities, the economic base of the Eastern Kentucky Coal
Field will become further oriented towards coal mining.
A heavy reliance on coal mining, however, has inherent risks,
endangering the economic and social well-being of residents of
Eastern Kentucky. This heavy reliance may lead to unforeseen
fluctuations in employment, particularly in a situation of
fluctuating demand for coal. The heavy out-migration of
Eastern Kentucky residents during the 1960's would have been
far less severe had the economy exhibited greater
diversification.
The most significant adverse effects of coal resource
development on human resources are caused by rapid population
growth or declines. Rapid population growth occurs in response
to the sudden creation of jobs in an area that does not have a
local labor force of sufficient size and/or skill to fill the
available positions. The new residents require adequate levels
of basic community services and facilities (infrastructure)
such as housing, wastewater treatment, water, health care,
education, transportation network, fire and police protection,
and recreational facilities. Population declines can occur due
to loss of jobs should the demand for coal decline.
In most instances, the existing tax base of the community
cannot supply these services and facilities to the new
residents on short notice. Because of the lag in the receipt
of tax revenues from the new residents and the long lead times
and high costs of required public improvement projects, strains
on existing infrastructure elements occur. Most East Kentucky
mining operations are relatively small. Individual operations
rarely create "overnight" impacts on local communities.
However, the cumulative effect of increased coal mining can
lead to significant adverse impacts.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
• Taxing of the mining industry to provide assistance funds
to local governments to construct facilities and provide
services to accommodate rapid population growth in local
communities.
A-77
-------
• State or Federal appropriation of general funds to
specifically aid communities in the coal producing areas.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
Under the provisions of NEPA, the evaluation of impacts on the
human environment is to be considered broadly. Environmental
impact assessments must include consideration of effects on the
social and economic environment as well as the natural and
physical environment. These effects are those directly and
indirecty caused by the action (e.g. growth inducing effects,
changes in land use patterns and population densities).
Therefore, local social and economic impacts are incorporated
into the NPDES review process for new source coal mines through
the provisions of NEPA. There are, however, no regulatory
controls which address mitigation of the economic and social
impacts described above.
Planning assistance for local communities impacted by coal
mining was provided under the Section 601 program administered
by the Economic Development Administration. However, the
current administration has not extended funds for this program.
Kentucky recently passed the Local Government Economic
Assistance Act (KRS 42.455) which provides an allocation
formula for the coal severance tax collected by the state
Department of Revenue on all coal produced in the state. Any
funds in excess of $177.6 million are to be divided equally
between the state and the local governments (i.e., counties and
municipalities). Designated coal producing counties receive
90% of the local share and designated coal impact counties
(i.e., those counties with no active mines but through which
coal is transported) receive 10%. Approximately $200 million
in coal severance tax is anticipated for fiscal year 1981-82.
The Local Assistance Act establishes ten priority areas for
these funds, including health, recreation, libraries, social
services, government administration, economic development and
vocational education.
Socioeconomic impacts on local communities in coal producing
areas appear to be lessened to a certain extent through the
Local Government Economic Assistance Fund provided by the coal
severance tax. Therefore, it can be argued that existing state
regulations adequately address socioeconomic impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
An Areawide FONSI should be the recommended alternative for the
socioeconomic resource area. Socioeconomic impacts associated
with coal mining activities are adequately addressed through
existing state regulations.
A-78
-------
GEOLOGY
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
Mining activities can produce adverse impacts if they occur on
steep or unstable slopes or in areas with toxic overburden.
Mining on steep or unstable slopes, slopes greater than 20
degrees, or lesser slopes that are underlain by bedrock of low
bearing strength or other poor geotechnical quality, have a
high probability of causing landslides. Such landslides can
endanger public health and cause economic hardship to those
affected by them.
The disturbance of overburden materials that are toxic or
acidic and the exposure of such strata to water and the
atmosphere can result in the formation of acid mine drainage
and leaching problems. The lowering of the pH of rainwater and
surface runoff can cause toxic substances in the overburden to
be carried into the surface water system, causing adverse
impacts to users of these water sources.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
• Restrict certain mining practices or operations on steep
and unstable slopes or relocate operations to other areas.
• Divert surface waters to avoid contact with toxic
producing materials.
• Bury and reclaim spoil to prevent the formation of toxic
runoff or seepage.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
A number of provisions of SMCRA provide for the protection of
existing geologic and soil characteristics and for the
prohibition of mining on potentially hazardous areas (30 CFR
701.5; 716.2; 816.102; 816.116; 817.102; 817.116; and 826).
The regulatory authority has the power to prohibit mining
activities on areas with unstable geologic characteristics.
SMCRA requires coal operators to use the best control
technology currently available to treat acid and other toxic
mine drainage (Section 515(6)). Discharges from disturbed
areas must ordinarily meet effluent standards established by
OSM. Drainage from acid-forming and toxic-forming spoil into
ground and surface waters is controlled by SMCRA regulations
which are designed to protect the hydrologic balance (30 CFR
715.17(g) and 816.48). The regulations vest OSM with the power
A-79
-------
to judge when certain activities are detrimental to water
quality and the surrounding environment (30 CFR 715.17(g) and
816.48). The Commonwealth of Kentucky establishes similar
regulations for toxic overburden through mining regulations
administered by the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection (405 KAR 1:150).
In summary, the requirements of the interim and permanent
regulations of SMCRA, as well as state laws, are adequate to
provide protection against the possible adverse impacts of
mining on steep and unstable slopes and toxic overburden runoff
and leaching.
ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATION:
Areawide FONSI - Impacts caused by mining and related
activities on steep and unstable slopes or areas with toxic
overburden can be significant and cause damage or loss of
property and degrade water resources. However, the Kentucky
and SMCRA regulations will mitigate possible significant
impacts.
There is no reason to identify additional alternatives. EPA
general or standard conditioning or individual reviews would
result in a duplication of effort with no increase in
environmental benefits. The Areawide EIA should state that
there are no significant impacts in this area due to existing
state and Federal regulations.
A-80
-------
FLOODPLAINS
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
Mining activities such as coal preparation plants, loadout
facilities, and portions of surface mines may encroach upon
floodplains and cause modifications to the hydrologic capacity
of the stream that result in the back-up of flood waters
upstream. Sediment which runs off mined lands can also reduce
the flood carrying capacity of streams. When the same
magnitude flood must cover a larger area due to the reduction
in water carrying capacity of a stream channel, adverse
economic and social impacts result from the property damage
caused by the higher flood waters. The costs of these impacts
are born by the persons and businesses affected by the flood
and by the region as a whole due to reduced productivity and
increased payments under the National Flood Insurance Program.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES:
There are several alternatives available to mitigate this
impact.
• Relocation - Mining facilities that are proposed to be
located Tn the 100 year floodplain may be relocated to
other sites in order to eliminate floodwater back-up.
• Design - Mining facilities can be designed so as to
minimize the detainment of flood waters and eliminate
inundation of upstream structures during floods.
• Exclusion - Mining facilities with the potential to cause
damage of property and endanger human safety, and lacking
relocation sites, should be prohibited.
EXISTING REGULATIONS:
Interim and permanent SMCRA regulations require a stream buffer
zone of 100 feet, but do not specifically prohibit activity in
the 100 year floodplain (30 CFR715.17 and 816.57). Kentucky
regulations (KRS151) require a permit for construction of
facilities in the 100 year floodplain of streams. This permit
is not issued if engineering data indicates that the proposed
construction will increase the existing flood height more than
one foot, increase water velocities by more than one foot per
second, or if structures upstream will be flooded. In order to
A-81
-------
avoid duplication of effort within KDNREP the Division of
Permits, Bureau of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
is charged with the floodplain review responsibilities for
surface mining and the surface effects of deep mining (401
KAR4:040), using performance standards identical to those used
by the Division of Water.
The KDNREP performance standards include provisions such as the
following: proposed flood heights shall not increase more than
one foot over existing flood heights, otherwise the application
must be rejected (the HEC2 computer model is used to determine
flood heights); velocities shall not be significantly increased
(i.e. 1 fps); applicants must provide elevations on all homes
within 1,000 feet of the proposed construction; upstream homes
will not be flooded due to the proposed construction. It
appears that adequate floodplain protection is provided by the
State to reduce potential significant adverse impacts.
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain
Management, EPA is required to evaluate potential effects of
its actions taken in a floodplain to avoid adverse effects due
to the development of the resource. EPA's mandate to consider
protection of floodplains is clear.
ALTERNATIVES:
Areawide FONSI - Impacts on floodplains caused by mining and
related activities can be significant, resulting in damage or
loss of property. The Kentucky regulations and review
procedures regarding floodplain management should mitigate
potential significant impacts as described above. Therefore,
no significant impacts should remain with reliance on existing
state regulations.
There is no reason to identify additional alternatives. EPA
general' or standard conditioning or individual reviews would
result in a duplication of effort with no increase in
enviromental benefits. The Areawide EIA should state that
there are no significant impacts in this area due to existing
Commonwealth regulations. '
6U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:! 9 83 -651 -046/ 1*897
A-82
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |