United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-83-116
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE December 1983
Agency Atlanta, GA 30365
4>EPA Area wide Environmental Assessment
On The Development Of A
NEPA Compliance Strategy For
New Source Coal Mining Activity In
The Western Kentucky Coal Field
-------
-------
AREAWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
NEPA COMPLIANCE STRATEGY FOR
NEW SOURCE COAL MINING ACTIVITY
IN THE WESTERN 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
October 31, 1983
-------
-------
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 Western Kentucky Coal Field. In general, a "new source" is a
source built or altered after applicable new source performance standards
(NSPS) have been set under the authority of Section 306 of the Clean Water
Act. NSPS have been established for the coal mining industry, thus mandating
environmental reviews by USEPA of all New Source NPDES permit applications.
The Western Kentucky Coal Field Areawide Environmental Impact Assessment
(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 70 permit applications annually for New Source coal
mining activities in the Western 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 included the following elements:
Description of the environmental resources of the Western 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 western 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, Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet, Frankfort, Kentucky, and at USEPA Region IV in Atlanta,
Georgia.
If additional technical information on surface and underground 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 Western Kentucky Coal Field (Figure 1) encompasses 20 counties and is
characterized by rolling terrain and a rural setting. Coal is currently mined
in all but seven of the counties. Hopkins, Muhlenberg, Ohio, Union, and
Webster 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 three
principal watersheds (Tradewater River Basin, Green River Basin, and Ohio
River Minor Tributaries Basin) which eventually flow into the Ohio River.
Water quality varies across the Coal Field with siltation and acid mine drain-
age from coal mines identified as the principal sources of pollution. Ground-
ii
-------
Western Kentucky
Coal Field
^ \ I LEWIS / CHilNUF
KOvritisON ^-\ r^-^.
ciAKu \ IMINIFU J «o«i.»i<
Figure 1. Outline of the Western Kentucky Coal Field region.
-------
water 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 species
of flora and fauna. Approximately 7 species of animals are Federally listed
as endangered. 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 sensitive to coal
mining activities.
Broad expanses of forest and fertile agricultural lands characterize the
land use pattern of the Coal Field. Urban land uses are scattered throughout
the Coal Field. Coal raining activities are a major economic land use in the
southern half of the Coal Field. Prime agricultural land accounts for 41% of
the total area of the Coal Field and generally occurs in wide valley bottoms
as well as the rolling uplands. Recreational land use in the Coal Field is
abundant. Five Federal facilities, eight major State facilities, and other
county, local, or private facilities are located within the area or nearby.
Overall socioeconomic conditions in the Western Kentucky Coal Field have
improved markedly during the past several years. The renewed interest in coal
has initiated almost a full decade of increased employment and population
growth within many 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 western Kentucky.
Except in the large cities, coal mining, farming, and timber are the primary
and almost exclusive economic base for the region.
Cultural resources in the form of historic, archaeologic, and paleonto-
logic sites occur throughout the Coal Field. Altogether, 1,493 known archae-
ological sites and 163 historic properties in the Coal Field have been identi-
fied. These sites represent only a small portion of the cultural resources
that may exist in western Kentucky because of the lack of systematic cultural
resource surveys in the region.
iv
-------
The ambient air quality of the Coal Field is generally in compliance with
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The most extensive air pollu-
tant in western 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 a major noise source in rural western
Kentucky.
3. Adverse Environmental Impacts of Mining Activities
Coal mining activities in the Western Kentucky Coal Field can potentially
result in adverse impacts to the environmental resources of the area. Exist-
ing State and Federal regulations are designed to eliminate many of the poten-
tial 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:
Surface Water and
Aquatic Ecosystems
(including threatened
or endangered species)
Ground water
Terrestrial Ecosystems
(Including threatened or
endangered species)
Wetlands
Surface disturbances can adversely affect the
water quality of sensitive stream segments
causing a reduction, alteration in composition,
loss of diversity, elimination of certain forms
of aquatic life or reduction in water use oppor-
tunities 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 other identified sensitive areas.
Surface mining can result in the direct removal
or elimination of wetlands. The introduction of
v
-------
Environmentally Signifi-
cant Agricultural (ESA)
Lands
Recreational Lands
Historic/Archaeological
Sites
Air Quality
Noise
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 less than five of the past
ten years, unique farmland, and farmland of
statewide or local importance to non-agricul-
tural uses, reducing an economically important
resource in western Kentucky.
Mining can result in adverse impacts on 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.
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 Western Kentucky Coal Field, USEPA developed the concept of
Resource Threshold Criteria (RTC). The evaluation of the degree of environ-
mental effect of a proposed raining operation can be measured against the
criteria set forth in the RTC. Three basic levels or thresholds (Figure 2)
define four categories of environmental effect which result in differing
responses by USEPA. Under this concept information needs and permit process-
ing times are dependent upon the significance of impacts caused by the proposed
operation. The RTC concept is utilized in several of the NEPA compliance
alternatives considered in this document.
vi
-------
Figure 2. The use of Resource Threshold Criteria to determine USEPA
permit review actions.
c
o
M
H
I
-------
5. NEPA Compliance Alternatives
Five NEPA compliance alternatives were selected for final evaluation in
this EIA 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 making New
Source determinations 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 substantial benefits accomplished on those brought to the attention of
USEPA. It would also penalize those who sought to comply with the law.
Individual Review Alternative
Procedurally, this alternative is similar to the existing compliance
process used for other New Source industry. Individual environmental reviews
would be conducted for each of the estimated 70 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 a Western
Kentucky Coal Field Areawide Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and that
Che 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
viii
-------
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 proposed projects meet Level I,
individual environmental reviews would be undertaken. Should significant
impacts which are not mitigated be expected from a particular project, an EIS
would be prepared.
Areawide-Subareawide-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 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 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
IX
-------
NEPA review process. A moderate manpower requirement of 0.6 manyears would be
required by USEPA to implement the review process. This alternative would
also satisfy USEPA1s 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 processing
for the non-environmentally significant mining projects. It also provides a
means to focus limited resources on the review of mining projects which demon-
strate the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental impacts.
Since the initial writing of this document, several changes have occurred.
Kentucky has received primacy for Implementation and enforcement of the SMCRA
requirements, and delegation of the USEPA NPDES program has been completed.
Additionally, there have been several revisions to both the SMCRA regulations
and the new source performance standards, some of which are final, and 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,provision for their consideration was built into the review strategy.
The environmental review requirements of NEPA apply only to Federal
actions. Under delegation of the NPDES program,state-issued permits will not
be subject to these requirements. Environmental concerns may be voiced through
the public comment period provided at issuance of draft permits, or through the
Lands Unsuitable for Mining petition process.
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENTS xi
LIST OF TABLES xiv
LIST OF FIGURES xv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xvi
LIST OF PREPARERS xix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF THE WESTERN KENTUCKY COAL FIELD 2-1
2.1 COAL RESOURCES AND MINING ACTIVITY 2-1
2.1.1 Coal Resources of the Western Kentucky Coal Field 2-1
2.1.2 Mining Activity in the Western Kentucky Coal Field 2-2
2.1.2.1 Historical Summary 2-2
2.1.2.2 Current Mining Activity 2-3
2.1.2.3 Coal Processing 2-5
2.1.2.4 Future Mining Activity 2-7
2.2 WATER RESOURCES 2-8
2.2.1 Surface Water 2-8
2.2.2 Groundwater 2-11
2.3 LAND RESOURCES 2-12
2.3.1 Land Use 2-12
2.3.2 Recreation Areas 2-14
2.3.3 Prime Farmlands 2-16
2.4 ATMOSPHERIC RESOURCES 2-16
2.4.1 Climat e 2-16
2.4.2 Air Quality 2-19
2.4.3 Sound Quality 2-20
2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2-22
2.5.1 Terrestrial Flora 2-22
2.5.2 Fauna 2-24
2.5.3 Wetlands 2-26
2.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 2-26
2.5.4.1 Animals 2-26
2.5.4.2 Plants 2-28
2.5.5 Critical Natural Areas 2-28
2.6 GEOENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 2-29
2.6.1 Topography 2-31
2.6.2 Geology 2-32
2.6.3 Soils 2-33
2.6.4 Acid Mine Drainage 2-35
2.7 HUMAN RESOURCES 2-37
2.7.1 Population 2-37
2.7.2 Economy 2-39
2.7.2.1 Income 2-39
2.7.2.2 Labor Force Characteristics 2-41
2.7.3 Transportation Network 2-41
2.8 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 2-46
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.0 REGULATIONS GOVERNING MINING ACTIVITIES IN THE WESTERN
KENTUCKY COAL FIELD , 3-1
3.1 USEPA'S REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES 3-2
3.1.1 New Source Coal Mining Activities under the NPDES Permit
Program 3-2
3.1.2 Regulatory Timetable and Existing NEPA Implementation
Procedures 3-4
3.2 OSM'S REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES 3-4
3.2.1 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 3-4
3.2.2 Mining Performance Standards under SMCRA 3-7
3.3 MSHA'S REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES 3-7
3.4 STATE REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES 3-7
3.4.1 NPDES Delegation to Kentucky 3-8
3.4.2 SMCRA Primacy to Kentucky 3-9
3.4.2.1 Permit Application Permit Requirements and Review.... 3-10
3.4.3 Other State Laws Regulating Coal Mining Activities in
Kentucky 3 -13
3.4.3.1 Kentucky Statutes 3-14
3.4.3.2 Kentucky Regulations 3-16
4.0 IMPACTS OF MINING ACTIVITIES AND LEVEL OF PROTECTION PROVIDED
BY EXISTING REGULATIONS 4-1
4.1 EARTH RESOURCES 4-1
4.1.1 Steep and Unstable Slopes 4-1
4.1.2 Toxic Overburden 4-3
4.1.3 Floodplains 4-3
4.1.4 Level of Protection for Earth Resources 4-5
4.2 WATER RESOURCES 4-6
4.2.1 Surface Water 4-6
4.2.2 Groundwater 4-9
4.2.3 Level of Protection for Water Resources 4-11
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4-11
4.3.1 Elimination of Terrestrial Habitats 4-12
4.3.2 Elimination of Aquatic Habitats 4-13
4.3.3 Increased Sedimentation 4-14
4.3.4 Level of Protection for Biological Resources 4-15
4.4 LAND RESOURCES 4-16
4.4.1 Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands 4-16
4.4.2 Recreational Resources 4-17
4.4.3 Level of Protection for Land Resources 4-19
4.5 HUMAN RESOURCES 4-19
4.5.1 Level of Protection for Human Resources 4-22
4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-22
4.6.1 Level of Protection for Cultural Resources 4-24
4.7 ATMOSPHERIC RESOURCES 4-24
4.7.1 Air Quality 4-24
4.7.2 Noise 4-26
4.7.3 Protection of Air Quality and the Acoustic Environment... 4-27
4.8 SUMMARY 4-28
Xll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
5.0 ALTERNATIVE NEPA COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES 5-1
5.1 CURRENT COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES 5-1
5.2 RESOURCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA 5-3
5.2.1 Effect of Public Comment 5-7
5.3 ALTERNATIVES 5-8
5.3.1 No Action Alternative 5-8
5.3.2 Individual Review Alternative 5-9
5.3.3 Areawide Review Alternative 5-11
5.3.3.1 Areawide Finding of No Significant Impact 5-11
5.3.3.2 Impacts Not Mi tig at able by USEPA 5-14
5.3.3.3 General Conditioning 5-15
5.3.4 Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative 5-16
5.3.5 Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review
Alternative 5-21
5.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 5-21
5.4.1 Environmental Benefit 5-21
5.4.2 Manpower and Costs 5-24
5.4.3 Processing Time 5-25
5.4.4 Compliance with USEPA's Statutory Responsibilities 5-25
5.4.5 Duplication of Effort 5-26
5.4.6 Flexibility 5-26
5.5 THE SELECTED ACTION 5-26
5.5.1 Overall Recommendation 5-26
5.5.2 Permit Review Procedure 5-27
6.0 CONSEQUENCES OF THE SELECTED ACTION 6-1
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 6-1
6.2 TEMPORAL EFFECTS 6-5
6.3 USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS 6-5
6.4 FINANCIAL IMPACTS TO USEPA AND PERMIT APPLICANTS 6-5
7.0 BIBILIOGRAPHY 7-1
APPENDIX A - RESOURCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA
APPENDIX B - USEPA AND APPLICANT COSTS
APPENDIX C - GENERAL AND STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
2.1-1 Coal production in the Western Kentucky Coal Field by
type and county, 1975 and 1980 ............................
2.3-1 Prime farmland acreage by county in the Western Kentucky
Coal Field ................................................ 2-17
2.4-1 Noise levels produced by coal mining equipment at
100 feet .................................................. 2-21
2.5-1 Kentucky animal and plant element status: summarization
of special categories ..................................... 2-27
2.7-1 Population trends in the Western Kentucky Coal Field,
1960-1980 ................................................. 2-38
2.7-2 Population projections for the Western Kentucky Coal
Field, 1980-2020 .......................................... 2-40
2.7-3 Labor force characteristics of residents of the Western
Kentucky Coal Field, 1979 ................................. 2-42
3.4-1 Environmental resources addressed by Kentucky statutes
and regulations related to coal mining activities ......... 3-18
4.8-1 Summary of coal mining impacts by resource for the
Western Kentucky Coal Field that are not regulated by
State or Federal laws .................................... 4-29
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
2.1-1 Mining operations in the Western Kentucky Coal Field 2-6
2.2-1 Major river basins and counties of the Western Kentucky
Coal Field 2-9
2.2-2 Stream segment classifications in the Western Kentucky
Coal Field 2-10
2.3-1 General land use pattern of the Western Kentucky Coal
Field 2-13
2.3-2 Major State and Federal recreation facilities in or near
the Western Kentucky Coal Field 2-15
2.3-3 Prime farmland as a percent of total land area of Western
Kentucky Coal Field counties 2-18
2.5-1 Critical areas in the Western Kentucky Coal Field 2-30
2.6-1 Western Kentucky Coal Field general soil associations 2-34
2.7-1 Major highways of the Western Kentucky Coal Field 2-43
2.7-2 Railroads in the Western Kentucky Coal Field 2-45
2.8-1 Archaeological sites and historic properties listed on
Cultural Resource Index for the Western Kentucky Coal
Fi eld 2-47
3.1-1 General NEPA compliance procedures for the USEPA Region IV
NPDES program 3-5
5.2-1 The use of Resource Threshold Criteria to determine USEPA
permit review actions 5-4
5.3-1 Individual Review Alternative for NEPA review process for
the issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in
western Kentucky 5-10
5.3-2 Areawide Review Alternative for NEPA review process for
the issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in
western Kentucky 5-12
5.3-3 Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative for NEPA
review process for the issuance of New Source coal mining
NPDES permits in western Kentucky 5-17
5.3.4 Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review
Alternative for NEPA review process for the issuance of
New Source coal mining NPDES permits in western
Kentucky 5-22
xv
-------
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
EID Environmental Information Document
EIR Environmental Information Request
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order (of the President)
xvi
-------
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
xvii
-------
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
OSA Office of State Archaeology
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
xviii
-------
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
STORE! 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
xix
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
USEPA
Mr. Robert Howard Chief, NEPA Compliance Section
Mr. Richard D. Green Project Officer, Aug. 78 - Aug. 1979
Ms. Amy Mills Project Officer, Oct. 1979 to July 1980
Ms. Sally Bethea Project Officer, April 1981 to Oct. 1981
Ms. Patricia Brooks Project Officer, Nov. 1981 to Present
WAPORA, Inc.
EIA Chapter 1.0 Mark L. Cameron
2.0 Fred C. Mason, Walker J. Duncan, Kenneth W. Simonton,
Mark L. Cameron, Dr. William J. March, David M. Conner,
Steven D. Bach, Alyse L. Gardner, Ruthanne L. Mitchell
3.0 Dr. Jan E. Dillard, Jerald D. Hitzemann
4.0 Dr. Jan E. Dillard, Mark L. Cameron
5.0 Dr. Jan E. Dillard, Mark L. Cameron
6.0 Dr. Jan E. Dillard, Mark L. Cameron
Production Eleanor Clements, Judith Kamen, Alice Hels
Graphics Ruthanne L. Mitchell
Editing Wesley Powell
EPIC
Land Use and Land Cover Overlays and Mining Operations Overlays for the
Western Kentucky Coal Field Environmental Resource and Mining Atlas
Susan Titus - Project Officer
Jim Simons, Pete Stokely, and Tony Slonecker - Photo Interpreters
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commisssion
Western Kentucky Coal Field: Preliminary Investigations of Natural
Features and Cultural Resources
Volume I Donald F. Harker, Jr., Richard R. Hannan, Melvin L.
Warren, Loy R. Phillippe, Keith E. Camburn, Ronald S.
Caldwell, Sam M. Coll, Glen J. Tallo, Daniel Van
Norman
Volume II Donald F. Harker, Jr., Thomas C. Barr
xx
-------
Volume III Donald F. Harker, Jr., Perry B. Wigley, Ronald S.
Caldwell
Volume IV Donald F. Harker, Jr., Glen J. Tallo, Richard R.
Hannan
Volume V Donald F. Harker, Jr. David Van Norman, Sara L.
Sanders
xxi
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 uSC
4321 ^t 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 Western Kentucky Coal Field. In general, a "new
source" is a source built or altered after applicable new source performance
standards (NSPS) have been set under the authority of Section 306 of the Clean
Water Act. As NSPS have been proposed and finalized for the coal mining
industry, environmental reviews of all New Source NPDES permit applications by
USEPA are mandatory.
The Western Kentucky Coal Field Areawide Environmental Impact Assessment
(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 stream-
line 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 70
permit applications per year from the Western 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. Consequently, the selected NEPA compliance strategy must
simultaneously meet USEPA's 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 follow-
ing elements:
Description of the environmental resources of the Western Kentucky
Coal Field in order to identify those resources which are sensitive to
coal mining activity;
1-1
-------
Description and analysis of the existing and anticipated regulatory
framework in 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 mitigative measures in the form of permit conditions
for identified sensitive resources;
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 require-
ments, costs to the applicant, time frame, and duplication of effort.
The information presented in this Areawide EIA is supported and sup-
plemented 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 Refer-
ence Document and Resource Atlas are available for inspection at USEPA Region
IV in Atlanta, Georgia, and at the Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program Office,
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Frankfort, Kentucky.
The chapters that follow provide a description of mining activities and
the existing condition of the environment, the impacts of mining activities on
the environment, and the measures that can be applied to mitigate the environ-
mental impacts of mining activities in the Western 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 conse-
quences 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.
1-2
-------
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF THE WESTERN KENTUCKY COAL FIELD
This chapter presents a brief summary of the principal natural resources
and coal mining activities in the Western Kentucky Coal Field. It is included
in this EIA to summarize the environmental concerns related to coal mining.
These concerns must be addressed by USEPA in order to fulfill the intent of
NEPA during the NPDES permitting process. The chapter first describes the
present level of mining activity and identifies areas where the potential
impacts of mining would occur. In subsequent sections, the water resources,
land resources, air quality, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, historic and
cultural features, and socioeconornic environments of the Western Kentucky Coal
Field are described. For additional details, the interested reader is referred
to the Technical Reference Document prepared in conjunction with this project.
2.1 COAL RESOURCES AND MINING ACTIVITY
2.1.1 Coal Resources of the Western Kentucky Coal Field
The Western Kentucky Coal Field is an important coal producing region
comprising approximately 5,000 square miles in the southeastern tip of the
Illinois Basin. The geology and physiography combine to make this area con-
ducive to coal mining. The geologic formations are gently dipping to flat-
lying such that the economically important coal beds are extensive in area and
thickness. The physiography consists of gently rolling hills which make
reclamation easier in western Kentucky than in eastern Kentucky where the
terrain is rugged and steep.
Approximately 80 coal beds have been identified in the Illinois Basin.
Two of these beds, the Illinois No. 5 and Illinois No. 6 (also known as the
Western Kentucky No. 9 or Mulford bed and No. 11 or Herrin bed), account for
most of the coal already mined and the remaining reserves. In western Kentucky,
33 coal beds have been identified (Rice et al. 1979). Most of these beds have
been given numbers (lowest numbers being the oldest stratigraphically) although
some are known by local names. Of the 33 coal beds or zones identified, seven
are economically important and contain a majority of the known resources
(Smith and Brant 1978). The No. 9 and the No. 11 beds are the most extensive
2-1
-------
and economically important coal beds in western Kentucky. Both are currently
mined in the central part of the Coal Field. The No. 9 bed accounts for
approximately 25% of western Kentucky's coal resources (Smith and Brant 1978)
and the No. 11 (combined with the No. 12) accounts for approximately 23% of
the resources. The No. 12 (Paradise Coal), No. 13 (Baker Coal), and No. 14
(Coiltown Coal) beds which are also found in the central part of the Western
Kentucky Coal Field are less extensive than the No. 9 and No. 11 and are of
secondary economic importance. In the southern rim of the Coal Field, two
additional coal beds are economically important: the Davis Coal (No. 6) and
the Mannington Coal (No. 4). These seven coal beds make up approximately 90%
of the known reserves in western Kentucky. Twenty-six additional recognized
beds constitute the remaining 10% of the known reserves.
According to recent estimates of total coal resources (Smith and Brant
1978), approximately 40.9 billion short tons exist in western Kentucky. This
figure is based upon measured, indicated, and inferred resources. Smith and
Brant (1978) estimate the remaining resources of the Western Kentucky Coal
Field to be about 38.6 billion short tons while the total amount of western
Kentucky coal that has been mined or lost is estimated at 2.3 billion short
tons.
2.1.2 Mining Activity in the Western Kentucky Coal Field
2.1.2.1 Historical Summary
The earliest commercial mining in the Western Kentucky Coal Field devel-
oped prior to the establishment of railroads or effective road transportation.
Coal produced from the early mines was generally shipped out by barges on the
Green, Tradewater, and Mud Rivers to Henderson, Kentucky and Evansville,
Indiana and then shipped to other markets (Pickard 1969). Some coal was also
shipped overland by wagon to Russellville, Kentucky. The coal produced during
this period was used largely for space heating, the manufacture of salt from
brine, and metal working. In fact, the early expansion of activity in the
Coal Field was spurred by an abortive attempt to build an iron and steel
complex at Airdrie in Muhlenberg County during 1854. This effort brought
skilled labor into the area who ultimately ended up mining coal after the
2-2
-------
complex was abandoned (Pickard 1969). As markets for coal expanded, new mines
opened in Breckenridge, Daviess, Hancock, McLean, and Union Counties prior to
the Civil War. This growth in coal production ceased during the Civil War
when very little coal was produced in the seven-county mining region.
The introduction of rail service into western Kentucky after the Civil
War expanded the market for coal especially in the iron and steel industry.
By the end of the 19th century, annual coal production in the Western Kentucky
Coal Field was nearly 50 times the maximum annual production prior to the
Civil War. During the 1900's, production increased until the Depression years
(1929-1940) and then decreased. Production increased again after the Depres-
sion with sporadic peaks and slumps occurring in the early and late 1950's.
The 1960's showed a steady increase, which again becane sporadic during the
1970"s and remains so at the present time. Most recent production fluctua-
tions reflect increased production of the low sulfur No. 6 coal and a decrease
in 1981 as a result of the UMW strike.
2.1.2.2 Current Mining Activity
Coal production in the Western Kentucky Coal field reached its highest
level in 1975. Since then, total coal production has fallen from 55.7 million
tons in 1975 to 40.9 million tons in 1980, a production decrease of approxi-
mately 26% (Table 2.1-1). Ten of the twenty coal-producing counties in the
Western Kentucky Coal Field reported decreased production from 1975 to 1980.
Both surface and underground raining production has decreased over the
period although surface mining has consistently produced more coal in the
Western Kentucky Coal Field than underground mining. Surface mining accounted
for approximately 54% to 56% of the total coal production in the Coal Field.
Nevertheless, production from surface mines has decreased approximately 10
million tons during the last ten years. The high sulfur content of the coal
which has made compliance with air quality regulations more difficult is
generally credited for the overall decrease in demand of western Kentucky coal
(Thorpe 1980). Surface mining also suffers from two other problems that have
contributed to increased production costs: surface mining regulations and the
decreased availability of surface minable coals (Greenbaum 1975). Increased
2-3
-------
Table 2.1-1. Coal production (in short tons) in the Western Kentucky Coal Field
by type and county, 1975 and 1980 (KDMM 1975, 1980).
S3
I
County
Breckenridge
Butler
Caldwell
Christian
Crittenden
Daviess
Edmonson
Grayson
Hancock
Hart
Henderson
Hopkins
Logan
McLean
Muhlenberg
Ohio
Todd
Union
Warren
Webster
Surface
0
698,960
0
199,445
0
975,582
34,555
40,292
261,088
0
0
4,341,026
0
855,790
17,273,467
6,265,955
0
0
0
261,351
1975
Underground
0
41,772
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,180,016
5,448,431
0
0
5,196,902
3,386,741
0
7,757,258
0
1,746,336
Total
0
740,732
0
199,445
0
975,582
34,555
40,292
261,088
0
1,180,016
9,789,457
0
855,790
22,470,369
9,652,696
0
7,757,258
0
2,007,687
1980
Surface
0
1,301,047
226,082
77,640
0
1,070,478
0
25,668
33,011
0
0
4,850,441
0
204,420
6,825,861
5,714,466
0
113,811
0
957,366
Underground
0
11,031
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
610,065
3,615,728
0
0
3,618,664
1,451,056
0
6,262,433
0
3,989,180
Total
0
1,312,078
226,082
77,640
0
1,070,478
0
25,668
33,011
0
610,065
8,466,169
0
240,420
10,444,525
7,165,522
0
6,376,244
0
4,946,546
Total
31,207,511
24,757,456
55,964,967
21,400,291
19,558,157
40,958,448
-------
demand (Fish and Nickel 1975) and technical advances in earthmoving equipment
have enabled surface mining to enlarge its share of total coal production
(Currens and Smith 1977).
Between 1971 and 1975 underground mining began to regain a portion of its
share in production, however. Reported underground production increased from
about 15.9 million tons of coal in 1971 to almost 24.8 million tons in 1975, a
36% increase. Production from underground mining increased from 33% to 44% of
the total Western Kentucky coal output during this period (Currens and Smith
1977). Since 1975, a decrease has occurred in both underground and surface
mining production, with losses of 20% and 25% respectively.
Coal mining activity has historically been concentrated in the southern
counties of the Coal Field where the coal was most easily accessible. As
indicated in Figure 2.1-1, most mining activity has occurred in Hopkins, Muhl-
enberg, and Ohio Counties. Most of the Coal Field counties have experienced
some level of mining activity in the past.
2.1.2.3 Coal Processing
Most of the coal produced from surface and underground mines includes
noncombustible materials such as roof rock and underclay. This run-of-the-mine
(ROM) coal usually is cleaned before being shipped to consumers. The cleaning
operation generally includes crushing, sizing, wet or dry separation, and
drying if wet separation is utilized. Coal cleaning for sulfur reduction is
not widely practiced in western Kentucky, but is becoming more feasible with
the continued development of the technology. Pyritic sulfur is removed from
coal during a wet process that takes advantage of the great difference in
their densities. Salable coal is separated from the waste on the basis of
differences in density or specific gravity. The waste from wet operations is
dewatered in tailings ponds. Wet coal is fed through a thermal dryer and then
stored for shipment or loaded directly into waiting coal cars.
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
2-5
-------
n
.
.jfc*' V. * j |
"" '
MINING OPERATIONS
WESTERN KENTUCKY
N3
I
Figure 2.1-1. Mining operations in the Western Kentucky Coal Field.
-------
long periods of operation. Current Federal regulations [Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act (SMCRA); PL 95-87; 30 USC 1201 et seq.; 30 CFR 700-950]
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.
2.1.2.4 Future Mining Activity
Almost all of western Kentucky coal is sold to public utilities for the
generation of electricity. Demand for electricity is predicted to be strong
well into the future and alternatives to coal for electric generation are not
expected to supplant coal until early in the next century. However, environ-
mental concerns limit the use of western Kentucky coal and much of the future
demand will depend on whether high sulfur coal can be burned cleanly or whether
air quality standards will be relaxed.
Based on current mining trends, coal reserves, and current markets, the
future demand for western Kentucky coal appears uncertain. Although signifi-
cant reserves exist, major technological changes will be required or air
quality regulations will need to be relaxed to continue the utility market for
western Kentucky coal. Various synfuel projects in Kentucky and the Midwest
region may also continue the demand for coal as will foreign markets.
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL 1978) projections of western
Kentucky coal production indicate no change in the location of mining activity
during the remainder of this century. According to these projections, Muhlen-
berg County should continue to be the major producer of coal with Hopkins,
Ohio, Union, and Webster Counties following.
Based on the quantity and type of coal reserves remaining in the Western
Kentucky Coal Field, underground mining methods will be utilized more fre-
quently in the future. Four counties in the Coal Field (Muhlenberg, Ohio,
Hopkins, and Webster) will deplete their remaining surface mineable coal
reserves before the end of this century if recent (1980) production rates are
maintained. Muhlenberg County will deplete the surface mineable resources
before 1990 if current surface production continues, whereas the latter three
counties' surface resources should last until the mid-to-late 1990's.
2-7
-------
2.2 WATER RESOURCES
2.2.1 Surface Water
The surface water resources of the Western Kentucky Coal Field are com-
prised of: (1) the Green River Basin; (2) the Tradewater River Basin; and
(3) minor tributaries to the Ohio River (Figure 2.2-1). Surface mining activ-
ities affect the hydrology of the area by causing ponding, by altering small
drainage divides, and by causing a reduction in water quality. Most of the
surface mining activity in the Western Kentucky Coal Field is taking place in
the Tradewater River Basin.
The potential for the reduction of water quality in the Western Kentucky
Coal Field is significant. The major water quality concerns are high iron and
manganese concentrations. The erosion of exposed soil, waste piles, and coal
storage piles and overflows from sedimentation ponds during extreme storm
events result in the release and transport of sediments, toxic substances, and
other water quality reducing elements to western Kentucky streams. Water
quality data indicate that unreclaimed, orphaned lands are major contributors
to the region's low water quality. As indicated in Figure 2.2-2, large areas
of the Coal Field are water quality limited. Streams in these regions (partic-
ularly in the Tradewater River Basin) are not able to assimilate pollutants as
well as areas without such orphaned lands. Acid drainage problems from aban-
doned mines currently exist in both the Tradewater River Basin and the Green
River Basin. Also, inadequate site development, mine preparation, and poor
mining practices may lead to severe soil erosion resulting in annual sediment
yields of up to 30 tons per acre. Surface mining activities in the Western
Kentucky Coal Field also affect the area's hydrology by reducing peak flood
flows and by increasing base flows. The flow modification has been most
pronounced in the Tradewater River Basin where most of the surface mining
activity currently is taking place.
The areas of concern in protecting surface water resources include water
supply, floodplains, water quality, and other water uses including recreation.
These concerns are addressed in detail in the Technical Reference Document and
are summarized briefly below:
2-8
-------
Crittenden
K3
I
VO
Caldwell
Breckenridge
:-^I-~-^--^--^\r-z->?:-Z-z-z^ Butler------fei Edmundson-Z^g
Muhlenberg r^zX^Z-Z-Z^--- - - ____ ----^Z-ze---------^--^^
Tradewater River Basin
IH:^ Green River Basin
Ohio River Minor Tributaries Basin
Figure 2.2-1. Major river basins and counties of the Western
Kentucky Coal Field (Metcalf and Eddy 1975; Roy F. Weston 1975)
-------
N>
I
WATER QUALITY
SEGMENT CLASSIFICATION
WESTERN KENTUCKY
Figure 2.2-2. Stream segment classifications in the Western Kentucky Coal Field.
-------
Water Supply. The primary concern with water supply is to maintain
the integrity of the supply source and to minimize the risk of its
contamination. To accomplish this, the watersheds above water supply
withdrawal points must be protected including both streams and impound-
ments.
Floodplains. Protecting floodplains from encroachment and maintaining
floodplain storage capacity are the major concerns.
Water Quality. Water quality problems are of primary concern where
surface mining activities are undertaken. Much of the poor water
quality in the Western Kentucky Coal Field, especially in the Trade-
water River Basin, can be traced to lands which were mined and aban-
doned before current surface mining reclamation requirements were
established. These orphaned lands are testimony to the potential for
environmental degradation caused by strip-mining activities.
Water Use Concerns. Protection of other water use concerns is designed
to preserve the natural balance of an area and to provide continuing
recreational value to the people.
2.2.2 Groundwater
The groundwater table of the Western Kentucky Coal Field is usually
encountered within the first few tens of feet beneath the ground surface. The
chemical composition of the groundwater in this area is variable, however.
The major objectionable chemical constituents of groundwater in the Western
Kentucky Coal Field are iron, chloride, and hardness. Locally, the occurrence
of acidity, sulfate, nitrate, and fluoride has been reported to cause ground-
water problems. The primary sources of iron and chloride are saline water and
acid mine drainage.
Saline water in some areas of the Western Kentucky Coal Field is respons-
ible for high chloride concentrations in groundwater obtained from Pennsyl-
vanian and Mississippian rocks. Nevertheless, throughout most of the Coal
Field the fresh-saline water interface is more than 200 feet below the sur-
face.
Acid mine drainage (AMD) is the principal water quality problem asso-
ciated with coal mining in the region. It is dependent upon the following
conditions (Appalachian Regional Commission 1969):
2-11
-------
The availability 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 opera-
tionally active or inactive; and
The influence of micro-organisms on pyrite oxidation.
Many surface streams in the Western Kentucky Coal Field are naturally
acidic. It is therefore very likely that the groundwater in some areas is
also naturally acidic and may thus contain high concentrations of objection-
able metals. Coal mining activities in these areas cause a greater increase
in the rate of exposure of acid-producing materials which in turn may increase
the rate of AMD production. In areas where groundwater is naturally acidic,
pathways of contaminated water migration have most likely already been estab-
lished.
2.3 LAND RESOURCES
2.3.1 Land Use
The Western Kentucky Coal Field encompasses all or portions of 20 counties
and covers about 5,000 square miles of land area or approximately 12% of the
total area of Kentucky. The most economically important land resources that
occur within the Coal Field are broad, fertile agricultural lands, forested
lands, and coal-bearing lands. Overall, the character of the Western Kentucky
Coal Field is one of a rural, earth-resource oriented region with farming and
forestry comprising the vast majority of the land uses. Figure 2.3-1 indi-
cates the general pattern of land uses in the Coal Field.
Agricultural land in the Western Kentucky Coal Field totals 3,998,500
acres or about 75% of the land in the study area. Silviculture accounts for
approximately 2,196,200 acres within the Coal Field and six counties of the
study area contain 40% to 50% of the commercial forest land. Mining activities
do not account for significant areas of land in the Western Kentucky Coal
Field when compared to agriculture or silviculture. However, large areas of
2-12
-------
I
r'
LO
I I Agriculture
Silviculture
Mining Related
Urban
Figure 2.3-1. General land use pattern of the Western Kentucky Coal Field (Metcalf
and Eddy, Inc. 1975; Roy F.-Weston, Inc. 1975).
-------
land have been affected by coal mining and associated activities. Slightly
more than 87,000 acres are currently covered by active or inactive mining
permits. Only 27,139 acres are currently subject to surface mining, however,
while only 3,324 acres are subject to underground mining. Much of the urban
land in the Western Kentucky Coal Field is concentrated along the Ohio River.
The two largest urban concentrations are located in Owensboro and Henderson.
In contrast to the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field, the urban land of the Western
Kentucky Coal Field is much more evenly distributed in the form of small towns
and villages.
2.3.2 Recreation Areas
The Western Kentucky Coal Field is situated in an area of abundant natural
resources and recreational attractions of regional and national significance
(Figure 2.3-2). There are over 71,500 acres of State and local recreation and
hunting lands in the study area as well as rivers, streams, and lakes for
recreational use by the residents of the Coal Field. No Federal recreational
facilities exist within the Coal Field, but many are located within easy
driving distance of the area.
Eight major State recreational facilities are located within the Western
Kentucky Coal Field. These facilities include:
John James Audubon State Park. Located in Henderson County, this park
is a memorial to the famous naturalist, ornithologist, artist, and
natural scientist. In addition to nature trails, camping, picnicking,
fishing, and swimming facilities, the Audubon Museum is located at
this Park.
Pennyrile Forest State Resort Park. Comprised of 13,440 acres of land
in Caldwell and Christian Counties, recreation facilities offered here
include camping, picnicking, hiking, boating, fishing, and swimming.
In addition, there is a lodge and cabins for overnight visitors.
Lake Malone State Park. This 338 acre park is located in Muhlenberg
County on Lake Malone and offers camping, picnicking, and water sports
activities.
Rough River State Resort Park. Located in Breckenridge County on the
2,180 acre Rough River Lake, this 377 acre park offers overnight
accommodations, camping, swimming, picnicking, and boating facilities.
2-14
-------
Mammoth Cave National Park
:;i||:;j National Forest
Wildlife Refuge Area
* TVA Park
*-* '
\ State Park/State Resort
Figure 2.3-2. Major State and Federal recreation facilities in or near the Western
Kentucky Coal Field.
-------
Nolin River Lake. This 2,890 acre reservoir is located in Hart,
Grayson, and Edmonson Counties. Although no recreation facilities
have been developed to date, the Lake does provide potential recrea-
tional activities.
Htggins-Henry Wildlife Management Area. This area is located in Union
County and provides hunting and fishing facilities.
Green River Scenic River. This consists of 25 miles of protected
river that flows through the Mammoth Cave National Park.
Jones Keeny Wildlife Area. This hunting preserve, located in Caldwell
County, consists of approximately 1,600 acres.
2.3.3 Prime Farmlands
Three-quarters of the land area in the Western Kentucky Coal Field is
used for agriculture. Within the Coal Field, approximately 2,323,700 acres
(41%) of the land are classified as prime farmland. This land constitutes
about 39% of all prime farmland in Kentucky. An additional 196,284 acres of
land could be classified as prime farmland if drained and/or protected from
flooding. Table 2.3-1 indicates the areal extent of prime farmland by county
in the Coal Field. Figure 2.3-3 indicates prime farmland as a percent of
total Coal Field land area by county.
Prime farmland acreage has been reduced by urban growth as well as other
competitive uses. In the Western Kentucky Coal Field, approximately 20,000
acres of prime farmland were converted to urban uses during the period from
1969 to 1979. The average income from Western Kentucky Coal Field farms was
$22,641 or $2,326 per acre compared to the overall State average of $16,740
per farm of $122 per acre (USDOC 1980). The agricultural land resources of
the Western Kentucky Coal Field appear to be of great importance to the State's
economy and should be protected from degradation by other land uses.
2.4 ATMOSPHERIC RESOURCES
2.4.1 Climate
The western Kentucky region has a temperate climate with hot, humid
summers and winters which are moderately cold. Annual precipitation averages
about 44 inches. Slightly more precipitation falls during spring than in the
2-16
-------
Table 2.3-1. Prime farmland acreage by county in the Western
Kentucky Coal Field (USDA 1980).
County
Total Prime
Land Area Farmland
Additional
% Prime
of Total Farmland**
Prime Farmland
Lost to Urban
Growth, 1969-1979
Breckinridge*
Butler*
Caldwell*
Christian*
Crittenden*
Daviess
Edmonson*
Gray son*
Hancock
Hart*
Henderson
Hopkins
Logan*
McLean
Muhlenberg
Ohio
Todd*
Union
Warren*
Webster
Total
361,116
283,158
228,774
464,593
233,276
295,898
194,823
317,954
119,718
272,080
277,398
353,820
360,026
164,519
307,089
381,091
240,453
217,888
349,489
216,850
5,640,013
87,029
71,639
93,340
205,350
77,681
168,070
38,575
96,340
42,500
50,879
186,134
157,450
190,814
114,670
89,670
133,382
128,402
143,370
123,719
124,689
2,323,703
24.1
25.3
40.8
44.2
33.3
56.8
19.8
30.3
35.5
18.7
67.1
44.5
53.0
69.7
29.2
35.0
53.4
65.8
35.4
57.5
41.0%
700
9,835
5,222
22,530
16,824
19,000
1,500
11,700
1,660
450
18,500
15,000
11,200
2,500
32,250
14,570
0
3,000
5,143
4,700
196,284
400
100
100
5,000
100
3,000
200
1,000
50
1,800
1,900
1,125
620
20
750
21
12
30
3,500
100
19,828
**
Indicates partial inclusion in study area.
Available if drained and/or protected from flooding.
2-17
-------
N3
I
CALDWELC
CHRISTIAN
0% - 24%
24% - 49%
over 50%
Figure 2.3-3. Prime farmland as a percent of total °
land area of Western Kentucky Coal Field
counties (USDA 1980) . 0
Km
30
Ml
WAPORA, INC.
20
-------
other seasons. Thunderstorms are common from March through September. Spring
thunderstorms usually accompany cold fronts moving rapidly through the area
while summer thunderstorms are usually slow moving, locally intense events
which may bring three or more inches of rain. Approximately 50% to 60% of the
precipitation that falls on the Coal Field returns to the atmosphere through
the process of evapotranspiration or enters the groundwater system. The
remaining 40% to 50% leaves as surface runoff.
Streamflow normally is highest in the spring and lowest during the late
summer and autumn. Although the topography is relatively flat, the land
generally is not urbanized and local flooding is not a major problem during
summer thunderstorms. In small, heavily disturbed (e.g., strip-mined) water-
sheds, however, the potential for local flooding does exist.
2.4.2 Air Quality
The major air pollutant emission from coal mining activities in the
Western Kentucky Coal Field is fugitive dust. Other pollutants are emitted
into the atmosphere during coal mining but not in significant anounts. Ambient
air quality in most parts of the Coal Field is in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for total suspended particulates (TSP),
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, and ozone, although
some non-attainment areas have been designated for TSP. The primary concern
regarding the impact of coal mining on air quality in western Kentucky is the
effect of particulate matter emitted from coal mining operations.
Various factors affect the amount of fugitive dust emissions from coal
mining, preparation, and transportation. These factors include the method of
mining, the type of equipment used, climatic conditions, and transportation
method. Mining coal by surface methods produces greater amounts of fugitive
dust emissions than underground mining because larger areas of disturbed land
are exposed to the air. Dust emissions are produced during drilling, blasting,
overburden removal, coal removal, and material loading and transfer operations
during surface mining. Coal preparation plants produce fugitive dust emis-
sions at conveyor system transfer points, load-in and load-out operations,
storage pile maintenance, and wind erosion on storage piles. The transporta-
2-19
-------
tion of coal, particularly by haul trucks on unpaved haul roads, can result in
emissions of fugitive dust over wide areas.
No Class I air quality areas have been designated within the Western
Kentucky Coal Field. However, the Mammoth Cave National Park, a designated
Class I area, is located just outside the Coal Field in Edmonson County.
Class I areas are so designated because of their pristine air quality. All
other areas are designated Class II which indicates moderate industrial activity.
Class III areas have inferior ambient air quality. There are no designated
Class III areas in the Western Kentucky Coal Field.
2.4.3 Sound Quality
The existing noise environment of western Kentucky includes both urban
and rural noise. The urban noise environment is complex and consists of many
factors. Typically, noise intrusions occur from surface transportation, air
transportation, industry, construction, and animals. In general, urban noise
is a function of city size and density (USEPA 1974); as these factors increase,
noise levels increase. A study of environmental noise in 20 Kentucky communities
revealed that transportation sources constitute the primary source of noise
intrusion in each community (Watkins and Associates 1979). Based on the
results of this study and a USEPA study (NRG 1977), a day/night noise level
(Ldn) °f 60 dBA appears to be representative of the average urban environment.
This value should be considered a reference value only and impact assessment
should be based on site-specific data gathered at the time of the environmental
assessment.
Few data are available concerning the rural noise environment. This can
be attributed to the low noise levels associated with rural areas which cause
little concern to those residing there. The quietness of rural areas, however,
makes these areas especially sensitive to noise intrusions. Thus, industrial
or commercial site selection for rural areas is often more critical than that
for urban areas. Based on limited typical information and the findings of the
National Research Council, a typical outdoor ambient L, noise level of 45 dBA
dn
is assumed to be representative of rural areas in western Kentucky. In general,
the identification of typical noise levels in the rural environment is less
2-20
-------
difficult than in the complex urban environment because the types and likeli-
hood of noise intrusion are limited.
Noise levels for a variety of activities associated with both surface and
underground methods of mining are presented in Table 2.4-1. Major noise
producing equipment used in surface mining operations typically consist of a
dragline, front loaders, blasting, 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. Under-
ground mining operations have slightly different noise characteristics than
surface mines. Major sources of noise in underground mining activities consist
of the mine vent fan, front 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 may be considered very intrusive.
Table 2.4-1. Noise levels produced by coal mining equipment
at 100 feet (USGS 1976; USEPA 1971; Watkins and Associates
1979).
Equipment Sound Level (dBA)
Dragline 74
100 ton truck (loaded) 70
Tractor 72
Water Truck 65
Scraper 67
Front loader 73
Backhoe 71
Mine vent fan 77
Historically, the mining and preparation of coal from surface and under-
ground mines in western Kentucky has resulted in a degradation of the noise
environment adjacent to the mine sites. The noise effects of the coal mining
operation are geographically small, affecting only receptors immediately
2-21
-------
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 increases in western Kentucky, the total area of noise impact
will grow. It logically follows that the total number of affected receptors
will also increase.
2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The assessment of existing biological resources in the Western Kentucky
Coal Field is based on a synthesis and incorporation of studies conducted by
the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC 1980 a through f). The bio-
logical resources addressed in this discussion include the terrestrial flora
and fauna of the Coal Field as well as the aquatic animals of the streams and
wetland areas.
2.5.1 Terrestrial Flora
The Western Kentucky Coal Field is located in the Shawnee Hills Section
of the Interior Low Plateaus Physiographic Province. The major types of plant
communities include upland forests, prairies, and bottomland forests. The
area is considered to be a broad transition zone where local climatic, topo-
graphic, and edaphic factors have distributed species of similar ecological
tolerances into a mosaic of vegetation types (Braun 1950). No single climax
or combination of dominants characterizes the forests of this region.
The bottomland forests occupying the alluvial plain of the Mississippi
River and lower portions of the Ohio, Wabash, Green, and Tradewater Rivers
have been found to be floristically uniform throughout (Braun 1950). Because
of this uniformity, these bottomland forests in Kentucky are considered to be
extensions of the Southeastern Evergreen Forest Region into the Western Meso-
phytic Forest Region. The forests of this transition region are generally
less luxuriant than those of the Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region. Although a
mixed forest, there is a tendency in the Western Mesophytic Forest Region for
the concentration of dominance by a few species. While mixed mesophytic
communities may be found in localized habitats, there is a greater frequency
of oak dominated communities. Extensive swamp forests occupy the broad allu-
2-22
-------
vial valleys of major rivers. The greater degree of agricultural utilization
of this region, as compared with that of the Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region,
has resulted in a much more fragmentary forest vegetation. It has been esti-
mated that 31% (260,970 ha) of the area remains forested (KNPC 1980a). Those
areas which remain forested have periodically been subjected to lumbering and
other disburbances which have altered their composition and structure.
The upland forests are located on the western lobe of the Shawnee Hills
section which includes a circular area of rolling plateau. A similarity has
been noted between the woody species of the Western Kentucky Coal Field and
the surrounding sections of the Interior Low Plateaus as well as the Appalach-
ian Plateaus. The Coal Field also resembles the Mississippi Embayment (East
Gulf Coastal Plain) of Kentucky which is attributable to the species typical
of southern floodplain forests found in the extensive bottomlands of both
areas. Secondary oak and/or oak-hickory forests dominate the rolling plateau.
The vegetation of the upland forests of the Mammoth Cave area includes the
Quercus alba - Quercus velutina - Liriodendron tulipifera (white oak-black
oak-tulip poplar) communities. Similar Quercus spp. - Liriodendron tulipifera
forests were found where valleys were less deeply cut into the upland.
The prairie is a vegetational type that has received little scientific
attention in Kentucky (Bryant 1977). The Western Kentucky Coal Field, while
outside of the interpreted extent of the original boundaries of the Barrens of
Kentucky, does include a few isolated remnant outliers of this type of vegeta-
tion. These outliers add to the vegetational diversity of the Coal Field
region and further increase the transitional aspect of the Western Mesophytic
Forest Region.
The flora of the Western Kentucky Coal Field within the Western Meso-
phytic Forest Region has a notable lack of endemics and may be best thought of
as a mixing zone. This area does not have a unique flora of its own. The
rich mesic gorges of the uplands in the Western Kentucky Coal Field have
numerous affinities with the flora of the Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region. The
wetlands of the Western Kentucky Coal Field are similar to the wetlands of the
Coastal Plain and are a part of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain of the South-
eastern Evergreen Forest Region. This similarity is expressed by the flora
2-23
-------
and vegetation of these wetlands. An understanding of the mixing of floristic
regions enables one to better realize the importance of this area as an ex-
tended and/or isolated gene pool of numerous Mixed Mesophytic Forest species
and as the farthest northeastern extension of important wetlands which contain
species of the Coastal Plain and Mississippi Alluvial Plain Forests.
2.5.2 Fauna
The history of animal distribution in the Western Kentucky Coal Field has
been characterized by repeated major migrations, immigrations, and emigrations
in response to changes in the environment over geologic time. The present
distribution of animals in the region is a dynamic cumulation of these influ-
ences. Some animals with general habitat requirements are limited primarily
by food supply and occur throughout most of the Coal Field (e.g., the white-
footed deermouse). Other species have a marked preference for certain habi-
tats, and as such are primarily restricted to one of the major environmental
types present in the area. Some species which are found throughout the State
occur in greater densities in the Coal Field due to abundant suitable habitat
(e.g., the least shrew). Also, because Kentucky is centrally located in the
eastern United States, both northern and southern species occur in the State
as they reach the limits of their range. For example, the masked shrew (a
northern species) and the southeastern shrew (a southern species) both occur
in western Kentucky. An overview of present animal distributional patterns in
the Western Kentucky Coal Field reveals three major components: (1) physio-
graphic and topographic areas; (2) drainage evolution; and (3) southern and
northern affinities. The following discussion focuses on these components in
relation to the biogeography of the fauna.
The Manmoth Cave Plateau area contains the most rugged relief in the Coal
Field. Prominent features include rocky, steep-gradient streams and numerous
rockhouses along the escarpment. In this rugged topography there are a number
of salamander species which prefer this mesic, cool, protected environment.
The area is also inhabited by Sorex fumeus (smokey shrew) which ranges in the
United States from the northeast as far south as the mountains of northern
Georgia. Several fish species are also characteristic of the enviromentally
distinct escarpment area. The riffle dwelling darters Etheostoma barbouri
2-24
-------
(teardrop darter) and Etheostoma bellum (orangefin darter) are both Green
River endemics which reach their downstream limits of distribution in this
area. Where Mississippian limestone outcrops in the Western Kentucky Coal
Field, a karst topography prevails and its concomitant unique fauna occurs.
In several instances, the total distribution of a species is limited to the
band of karst topography that extends from southern Indiana to northern Alabama.
The Ohio River Hills and Lowlands Subsection, the central region of the
Coal Field, is highly alluviated and contains broad river valleys and exten-
sive swampland. Streams in the interior area are generally low gradient and
lack the characteristic gravel-cobble substrate of the escarpment area. Of
major interest ecologically are the wetlands, hardwood bottomlands, cypress
swamps, and isolated, open-water oxbows. This area provides several different
habitat types. Due to its relatively low elevation, a variety of lentic and
lotic habitats are available. The area has been greatly altered due to drain-
age of the land for agriculture and strip mining; however, fine examples of
streams and wetlands still remain.
Several species indicative of this area have the major portions of their
ranges to the south, but reach the Western Kentucky Coal Field via the Missis-
sippi Embayment. Exemplary fish species are Etheostoma histrio (harlequin
darter) and Percina ouachitae (yellow darter). These species inhabit riffles
and shoals of the interior region streams. Centrarchus macropterus (flier)
and Elassoma zonatum (banded pygmy sunfish) are two swampland species that are
indicative of the basin area. All these species are primarily distributed in
the southern Coastal Plain but range up the Embayment.
Other vertebrates occurring in the interior wetland areas include wading
birds and ducks. The lowlands provide excellent habitat for these birds.
Most species of ducks in the Western Kentucky Coal Field do not represent
breeding populations, but are residents for several months of the year. A
notable exception is Aix sponsa (wood duck), a breeding inhabitant of bottom-
land hardwood wetlands. Wading birds such as Butorides virescens (green
heron) and Ardea herodias (great blue heron) breed in Kentucky and have colo-
nial nesting areas in the lowlands.
2-25
-------
Geologic events which have determined the drainage basins have also
influenced the present distribution of animals in the Western Kentucky Coal
Field. Drainage patterns have changed greatly since preglacial times. As the
glaciers repeatedly advanced and receded, the Upper Ohio River was formed and
many of the old Teays tributaries of the east (e.g., Big Sandy, Little Sandy,
Licking, Kentucky, and Kanawha Rivers) were diverted to the New Ohio. This
drainage change allowed some eastern fish (i.e., fishes of the Teays River) to
disperse into the drainages of the Western Kentucky Coal Field (Green and
Tradewater Rivers).
2.5.3 Wetlands
The Western Kentucky Coal Field harbors a large and diverse system of
wetlands and streams. In many instances it is neither possible nor practical
to separate for management purposes wetlands from streams. In addition to
riparian wetland systems, the area contains a variety of stream types ranging
from rocky, high gradient, upland to sluggish, meandering lowland streams. A
preliminary inventory of wetlands in the Coal Field was made by KNPC (KNPC
1980b). A total of 40 wetland areas were identified and described in their
inventory.
2.5.4 ^rhr^eatened And Endangered Species
2.5.4.1 Animals
Table 2.5-1 summarizes the status of the animal elements in the Western
Kentucky Coal Field. A total of 66 faunal species have attained special cate-
gory status in Kentucky. Seven of these species are classified as endangered
by the Federal government, and one additional species (Kentucky cave shrimp)
is a candidate for Federal listing. Appendix A to Chapter IX of the Technical
Reference Document provides a complete listing of the animal elements. This
should not be considered finalized however, as elements listed are monitored
continually by KNPC staff.
2-26
-------
to
I
t-o
Table 2.5-1. Kentucky animal and plant element status: summarization of special categories (KNPC 1980f).
An i ma I
Status
Endangered (Kentucky)
Endangered (Federal)
Threatened (Kentucky)
Threatened (Federal)
Special Concern (Kentucky)
Undetermined (Kentucky)
Federal Candidate for
Li sting
Tota I s
Plant
Endangered (Kentucky)
Endangered (Federal)
Threatened (Kentucky)
Th rea tened (Fede raI)
Special Concern (Kentucky)
Undetermined (Kentucky)
Federal Candidate for
Li sting
Pelecypod Crustacean
18 1
n
1
__
3
--
1
22 6
Spec ia I
Gymnosperms
Fi sh Amphib ian
--
8 2
--
12 2
5
__
25 4
Spec ia 1
Monocots
Reoti le Bi rd
2
1
1 2
__
1
2 1
__
4 6
Tota I
Mamma I
5
2
4
--
--
6
--
17
Tota I
26
7
18
0
18
14
1
84
TotaIs
28
-------
2.5.4.2 Plants
Table 2.5-1 also summarizes the State and Federal status of floral species
in the Western Kentucky Coal Field. A total of 22 plants are classified as
special category species. The complete list is provided in Appendix A. to
Chapter IX of the Technical Reference Document. Seventeen are recognized as
either threatened or endangered by the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission.
Six of these species are under consideration for Federal listing. No plants
in the Western Kentucky Coal Field are presently classified by the Federal
government as threatened or endangered.
Table 7.5-1 represents the most current information on plant and animal
element status. The element list is a dynamic document and is updated period-
ically.
2.5.5 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 KDNREP as an
outstanding resource water;
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;
2-28
-------
A fish and wildlife habitat identified by KDNREP-Fish and Wildlife
Division; and
Wetlands.
Definitions of these critical area categories are as follows:
High quality stream. Stream in or near a natural, unpolluted con-
dition.
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 representa-
tive examples of natural flora and fauna; and/or water quality char-
acteristics of a given physiography, hydrologic, or topographic unit;
and/or a habitat necessary for the continued safe 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 organiza-
tions, 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, or Ecological Areas are included.
As a result of the KNPC study, certain eavironmentally sensitive areas
have been designated as High Potential Critical Areas (HPCA) or Known Critical
Areas (KCA). A map depicting the general location of these sensitive aquatic
and other natural resources of the Western Kentucky Coal Field is included as
Figure 2.5-1. These areas are indicated in detail in the USEPA Resource
At 1 as.
2.6 GEOENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The Western Coal Field is one of six distinct physiographic provinces in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky (McFarlan 1943). The Coal Field comprises 11.6%
of the total area of Kentucky and is approximately 103 miles (east to west) by
62 miles (north to south). The generally accepted geological boundary of the
Western Kentucky Coal Field is the limit of the Pennsylvanian aged strata
outcrop.
2-29
-------
Figure 2.5-1. Critical areas in the Western Kentucky Coal Field.
CRITICAL AREAS
WESTERN KENTUCKY
N3
I
U)
o
-------
2.6.1 Topography
The Western Kentucky Coal Field is comprised of two regions, the central
coal field area and the rim or Pottsville Escarpment, with slight topograph-
ical and geomorphological differences. The central portion is characterized
by gently rolling to hilly uplands separated by wide, flat alluvial valleys
(Burroughs 1924). It is a mature upland that is well dissected by drainage
features and covered by a blanket of loess (fine grained, wind deposited
materials) which gives the hills their characteristic gently rounded subdued
appearance (Harvey 1956). The minor streams cut narrow, steep-sided valleys
through the uplands while the major streams (notably the Green, Tradewater,
Mud, and Pond Rivers) have characteristic broad, flat alluvial valleys that
are often poorly drained and swampy (McGrain and Currens 1978). These valleys
are often flooded during winter and spring rises of river levels (Harvey
1956).
Elevations in the central portion of the Coal Field range from approxi-
mately 340 feet mean sea level (msl) to around 500 to 600 feet msl in the
upland areas. An exception to this is a belt of increased relief, five to ten
miles wide, that follows the trend of the Rough Creek Fault Zone in an easterly
direction across the Coal Field (Harvey 1956).
The rim or perimeter of the Coal Field is an outward facing cuesta
(McFarlan 1943), the Pottsville Escarpment, which is capped by resistant
sandstones of the Caseyville Formation. The Pottsville Escarpment is the
limit of Pennsylvanian aged rock outcrop and as such is the limit of the
Western Kentucky Coal Field physiographic province. The escarpment is char-
acterized by sandstone-capped hills and ridges with steep slopes that may be
precipitous (McGrain and Currens 1978). The terrain is rugged and charac-
terized by narrow, gorge-like valleys (McGrain and Currens 1978) and relief
may reach as much as 400 feet. Elevations in the Escarpment range from approx-
imately 400 feet near major streams to 850 feet.
2-31
-------
2.6.2 Geology
The Western Kentucky Coal Field, a portion of the Illinois Basin, is part
of a cratonic area that is characterized by deposition and deformation (region-
al warping and differential sinking) since the Precambrian Era (Atherton
1971). The oldest sedimentary rocks found in the Coal Field are south of the
Rough Creek Fault Zone and are Middle Cambrian in age (Kraussee in Palmer and
Dutcher 1979). Shales deposited during this period represent the first trans-
gression of the seas followed by deposition of clastic sediments during Upper
Cambrian times. Deposition of marine limestones and shales occurred during
Ordovician and Silurian times with minor periods of intermittent erosion. The
Devonian Period marked the beginning of major transgressions of the seas;
oscillation of the shoreline ended in the Middle Devonian Period which was
also a period of uplift and erosion (Atherton 1971). The Illinois Basin was
slowly subsiding and deposition continued gradually through the Devonian into
the Mississippian Period. The rhythmical alterations of oscillating seas
caused deposition of limestone dominated rocks during the Upper Mississippian.
The shoreline then retreated as the Basin was tilted to the south and eroded
(Atherton 1971) and Pennsylvanian sediments were later deposited on this
Mississippian erosional surface.
Pennsylvanian strata represent continuous deltaic deposition on a broad,
shallow, slowly subsiding shelf. Terrigenous sediments (e.g., mud, silt, and
sand) were deposited as numerous shifting and prograding delta lobes of the
Michigan River System. Sediment sources were the Canadian Shield and the
Appalachian Highlands (Pryor and Sable 1974). Broad, regional uplift followed
deposition of the Pennsylvanian sediments which was followed in turn by erosion
and leveling of the Illinois Basin (Pryor and Sable 1974).
Pennsylvanian sediments are cyclic with at least 50 cyclic units being
recognized (Atherton 1971). World-wide sea level fluctuations probably account
for the rhythmic nature of these sediments; the earlier transgressions entered
the basin from the east and the later transgressions entered from the west
around the north side of the Ozark Dome (Atherton 1971). The fluctuations in
sea level also account for the beginnings and terminations of coal forming
swamps in the Illinois Basin. As many as 33 different coal beds have been
2-32
-------
identified in western Kentucky (Rice et al. 1979). It is believed that the
coal fields of eastern and western Kentucky were once continuous across the
Cincinnati Arch (McFarlan 1943).
2.6.3 Soils
Ten general soil associations occur within the Western Kentucky Coal
Field. These associations are described below and their locations are indi-
cated in Figure 2.6-1. Data for the soil associations were compiled from
large scale maps and published soil surveys. For detailed descriptions of
site-specific soils, the local Soil Conservation Service office or agricul-
tural extension office should be consulted.
* HuntingtonKelvin Association. Deep, well-drained to poorly-drained
soils that occur on floodplains of the Ohio River. The soils are
mixed alluvial soils, non-acid, have very high to high moisture-
supplying capacity, and consist of silt loams, sandy loams, and silty
clay loams (USDA 1967).
* Un i ont own -P att on As s o ci at i on. Deep, well-drained to poorly drained
soils that occur on level, wide terraces of the Ohio River. The soils
are silty and consist of silt loams and silty clay loams (USDA 1967).
Belknap-Karnak Association. Deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils
that occur on floodplains of the Green River and Tradewater River and
their tributaries. The soils are medium to fine textured and consist
of silt loams and silty clays (USDA 1974).
* _Elk~Weinbach-Melvin Associ at ion. Deep, well-drained to poorly drained
soils that are nearly level and occur on flood plains and terraces of
the Ohio River. The soils are mixed alluvial soils and are silt loams
(USDA 1974).
Memphls-Loring Association. Deep, well-drained to moderately well-
drained soils that are gently sloping to steep on uplands and soils
that are somewhat poorly drained and nearly level on floodplains. The
soils are medium textured and occur as silt loams and silty clay loams
(USDA 1974).
* Grenada-Loring Associ at ion. Deep, moderately well-drained soils that
are gently sloping to moderately steep and occur on uplands. The
soils formed in loess and are silt loans (USDA 1980d).
* Zanesville-Frondorf Association. Deep and moderately deep, well-
drained to poorly drained soils that are nearly level to steep and
occur on uplands and undulating broad ridgetops. The soils are medium
textured and formed from acid sandstones, shales, and thin loess
mantles. They occur as silt loams (USDA 1977).
2-33
-------
LEGEND
I
OJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Hunting ton-Melvin
Uniontown-Pat ton
Belknap-Karnak
Elk-Weinbach-Melvin
Memphis-Loring
Grenada-Lor ing
Zanesville-Frondorf
Caneyville-Zanesville-Frondorf
Loring-Wellston
Sadler-Zanesville
Figure 2.6-1. Western Kentucky Coal Field general- soil associations (USDA 1979).
-------
Caneyville-Zanesville-Frondorf Association. Moderately deep and deep,
moderately well-drained soils that are gently sloping to steep. The
soils occur on narrow hilltops and side slopes and formed in loess,
sandstone, siltstone, and limestone. They occur as silt loams (USDA
1980d).
Lor ing -Wei 1st on As sod at ion.. Deep, moderately well-drained and well-
drained soils that are gently sloping to steep. The soils are medium
textured to loamy and occur on uplands, hilltops, and side slopes.
They formed in loess and the underlying sandstone, siltstone, and
shale and occur as silt loams (USDA 1974).
Sadler-Zanesville Association. Deep, moderately well drained to well
drained soils that are gently sloping to moderately steep. The soils
are medium textured, formed from loess, sandstone and shale, and occur
on uplands as silt loams (USDA 1977).
2.6.4 Acid Mine Drainage
Acid mine drainage includes all types of mine drainage associated with
coal mining operations such as discharges pumped from or draining from coal
operations that are acid, alkaline, or neutral but still produce substantial
amounts of unwanted pollutants. Chemical pollution occurs when soluble or
leachable compounds present in coal, soil, overburden, or other mine wastes
enter the drainage systems in mining areas. Most of this pollution results
from the oxidation of sulfide minerals such as pyrite and marcaslte (USEPA
1973). The oxidation of these compounds results in the production of ferrous
iron and sulfuric acid and continues to form ferric hydroxide and more sulfuric
acid. When exposed to air and water, iron sulfides that occur in coal and the
overburden oxidize to form a series of hydrous sulfates that are soluble in
water. This process creates the bulk of acid mine drainage. The amount and
rate of acid formation are functions of the amount and type of iron sulfides
in the overburden rock and in the coal, the time of exposure, the character-
istics of the overburden, and the amount of available water (Hill and Grim
1975).
The addition of acid mine dainage to a drainage system can result in
chemical and physical changes in stream characteristics. Physical changes
result from either deposition of metal hydroxides upon the strean substrate or
from metal hydroxides remaining in suspension, resulting in reduced light
penetration. Chemical changes occur as: (1) reduction of the stream pH;
2-35
-------
(2) alteration of the bicarbonate buffering system; (3) a chemical oxygen
demand If the mine drainage is poorly oxidized; and (4) the addition of metal
salts (Herricks 1975). The quality of waters affected by acid mine drainage
is variable but general characteristics of affected streams include (Herricks
and Cairns 1974):
pH - less than 6.0
Acidity - greater than 3 mg/1
Alkalinity - normally 0
Alkalinity/Acidity - less than 1.0 mg/1
Fe - greater than 0.5 mg/1
SO - greater than 250 mg/1
Total suspended solids - greater than 250 mg/1
Total dissolved solids - greater than 500 mg/1
Total hardness - greater than 250 rag/1
The Western Kentucky Coal Field contains vast known reserves of unmined
coal. Of these, only 5% have been mined (Smith and Brant 1978). This large
reserve of mineable coal indicates a high potential for erosion and acidic or
toxic overburden problems. Surface mines have the potential to cause erosional
problems and acid mine drainage problems. Surface mining in western Kentucky
takes the form of area stripping rather than contour stripping or mountaintop
removal and this method generally produces fewer problems than the others.
Toxic overburden and runoff are easier to control in area stripping operations.
Underground mining as practiced in western Kentucky may also involve acid mine
drainage problems. Also, there are large areas of abandoned or orphan mined
lands in western Kentucky which usually have erosional and acid drainage
problems associated with them.
Strata in the Western Kentucky Coal Field that are generally considered
to be toxic include certain shales and sandstones. All black shales are
tioxtc. Black shales are found in all of the coal-bearing formations (Trade-
water, Carbondale, and Sturgis Formations) in the Coal Field. The basal 15 to
20 feet of most sandstone units is considered toxic (Williamson 1980). Because
limestones are also found in the coal-bearing strata, the neutralization
potential is also high for most sections of overburden.
Acid mine drainage from open pits, underground mines, abandoned spoils,
gob piles, and other coal-related wastes Is a potential hazard. All western
2-36
-------
Kentucky coals have substantial sulfur contents (Harvey 1977) so that in any
area where coal beds have been exposed or disturbed or where coal-related
wastes are piled the potential hazard for acid mine drainage is significant. ,
Of the most economically important western Kentucky coals, the No. 9 Coal and
the No. 6 Coal are the beds usually associated with acidic or toxic problems.
The No. 11 Coal and the No. 12 Coal are usually separated by the Providence
Limestone which buffers the potential for acid formation and thereby reduces
environmental problems. The No. 13 Coal and the No. 14 Coal are not associated
with any major problems (Williamson 1980).
2.7 HUMAN RESOURCES
2.7.1 Population
The twenty-county Western Kentucky Coal Field study area has shown three
distinct periods of growth. The Coal Field was initially settled in the late
1700's by settlers originating primarily from Virginia, the Carolinas, and
Pennsylvania. The population grew at a slow but constant rate until the
beginning of the twentieth century, with much of the growth attributed to
immigration rather than natural increases. Between 1900 and 1960, population
growth in the Coal Field slowed dramatically and the number of inhabitants
remained relatively constant, fluctating between 400,000 and 450,000 persons.
During the decade of the 1960's, an increased rate of population growth occurred,
closely approximating the 6.0% increase seen in the Commonwealth as a whole
(Table 2.7-1). Only eight of the twenty Coal Field counties did not experi-
ence net increases in population during this period. Two counties, Hancock
and Warren, exhibited dramatic population increases of 32.8% and 26.2%, re-
spectively, between 1960 and 1970.
Between 1970 and 1980 the Coal Field counties as a group grew at a faster
rate than the Commonwealth as a whole. All of the counties experienced net
increases during this period with most of the major coal-producing counties
(Muhlenberg, Ohio, Union, Webster, Hopkins, Butler, Daviess, Henderson, and
McLean Counties) exhibiting rapid rates of increase (Table 2.7-1).
2-37
-------
Table 2.7-1. Population trends in the Western Kentucky Coal
Field, 1960-1980 (USDOC 1973; USDOC 1981).
% Change
County
Kentucky
Study Area
Breckinridge*
Butler*
Caldwell*
Christian*
Crittenden*
Daviess
Edmonson*
Grayson*
Hancock
Hart*
Henderson
Hopkins
Logan*
McLean
Muhlenberg
Ohio
Todd*
Union
Warren*
Webster
1960
3,038,156
450,281
14,734
9,586
13,073
56,904
8,648
70,588
8,085
15,834
5,330
14,119
33,519
38,458
20,896
9,355
27,791
17,725
11,364
14,537
45,491
14,244
1970
3,220,711
476,949
14,-789
9,723
13,179
56,224
8,493
79,486
8,751
16,445
7,080
13,980
36,031
38,167
21,793
9,062
27,537
18,790
10,823
15,882
57,432
13,282
1980
3,661,433
548,992
16,861
11,064
13,473
66,878
9,207
85,949
9,962
20,854
7,742
15,402
40,849
46,174
24,138
10,090
32,238
21,765
11,874
17,821
71,828
14,823
1960-1970
6.0
5.9
0.4
1.4
0.8
-1.2
-1.8
12.6
8.2
3.9
32.8
-1.0
7.5
-0.8
4.3
-3.1
-0.9
6.0
-4.8
9.3
26.2
-6.8
1970-1980
13.7
15.1
14.0
13.8
2.2
18.9
8.4
8.1
13.8
26.8
9.4
10.2
13.4
21.0
10.8
11.3
17.1
15.8
9.7
12.2
24.1
11.7
Indicates partial inclusion in study area.
2-38
-------
Official population projections for Kentucky to the year 2020 have been
prepared by the University of Kentucky (Brockway and Sager 1979). As indi-
cated in Table 2.7-2, the populations of Kentucky, the Western Kentucky Coal
Field study area, and the counties that comprise the study area are projected
to increase in size through 2020. The study area is projected to increase by
20.4% from 1980 to 2000 and 19.5% from 2000 to 2020. With only a few excep-
tions, the rate of population change in the twenty-county study area is pro-
jected to decrease after 2000, although the number of residents will continue
to increase. The three exceptions to this projected trend are Christian,
Logan, and Todd Counties which are only partially included in the study area,
and are evidently influenced by different growth factors than the other Coal
Field counties.
2.7.2 Economy
2.7.2.1 Income
The income characteristics of residents of the Western Kentucky Coal
Field can best be described by measures of per capita income, median family
income, changes in per capita and median family income levels, and the rela-
tive number of low income families living in the study area counties. The
most recent income data available at the 'county level are for income earned
during 1977.
The 1977 per capita income of the residents of the study area ranged from
$3,431 in Edmonson County to $7,526 in Hopkins County. Statewide, the 1977
per capita income was $5,989. The study area had the fastest growing per
capita income of all regions of the State.
Median family income in 1977 for the counties in the study area ranged
from $8,000 in Hart County to $14,700 in both Daviess and Henderson Counties.
The average of all median family income by county for the study area was
approximately $10,800 while the median family income of the State was $12,300.
Another indicator of the economic conditions in a county is the percen-
tage of low income families. A low income family is defined as one having an
2-39
-------
Table 2.7-2. Population projections for the Western Kentucky Coal
Field, 1980-2020 (Brockway and Sager 1979).
% Chanee
County
Kentucky
Study area
Breckinridge*
Butler*
Caldwell*
Christian*
Crittenden*
Daviess
Edmonson*
Grayson*
Hancock
Hart*
Henderson
Hopkins
Logan*
McLean
Muhlenberg
Ohio
Todd*
Union
Warren*
Webster
1980
3,567,144
505,608
16,111
10,612
13,368
70,412
9,253
82,088
9,555
20,032
7,406
15,391
39,125
11,936
22,281
11,011
32,320
22,522
15,505
18,571
65,425
15,684
1990
3,966,653
556,772
17,593
11,410
14,168
80,307
10,287
89,672
10,377
23,058
7,928
16,828
43,686
13,001
24,084
12,963
34,182
25,950
13,701
20,376
69,653
17,548
2000
4,355,851
608,685
18,897
12,002
14,954
94,290
11,379
95,905
11,063
26,033
8,407
18,123
47,873
14,066
26,047
15,000
35,690
29,498
14,972
22,134
72,808
19,544
2010
4,747,005
665,224
20,199
12,571
15,778
114,219
12,599
100,849
11,619
29,177
8,736
19,503
51,756
15,179
28,176
17,228
37,023
33,361
16,420
23,841
75,178
21,812
2020
5,138,795
726,156
21,403
12,981
16 , 601
140,772
13,894
105,062
12,033
32,247
8,957
20,887
55,389
16,316
30,470
19,588
38,056
37,290
18,008
25,476
76,515
24,211
1980-
2000
22.1
20.4
17.3
13.1
11.9
33.9
22.9
16.8
15.8
30.0
13.5
17.8
22.4
17.8
16.9
36.2
10.4
30.9
19.7
19.2
11.3
24.6
2000-
2020
18.0
19.5
11.7
8.2
9.9
49.3
22.1
9.5
8.8
23.9
6.5
15.3
15.7
16.0
17.0
30.6
6.6
26.4
20.3
15.1
5.1
23.9
*Indicates partial inclusion in study area.
2-40
-------
income of less than 80% of the median family income of the county. Two Coal
Field counties, Christian and Hart, had 50% or more of their resident families
classified as low income in 1977. Most of the remaining counties had from 30%
to 40% low income families while only one-quarter of the families in Hancock
County were classified as low income in 1977. Statewide, 38% of all families
in Kentucky are classified as low income.
2.7.2.2 Labor Force Charact eristics
The characteristics of the 1979 civilian labor force for each of the
Western Kentucky Coal Field counties, the Coal Field as a whole, and the State
are indicated in Table 2.7-3. The Coal Field had a total civilian labor force
in 1979 of 237,692 persons representing approximately 15% of the labor force
of Kentucky. As with the State as a whole, the vast majority (88.2%) of Coal
Field workers are employed in non-agricultural industries. Only 6.2% of the
study area labor force was engaged in agricultural work in 1979.
The rate of unemployment in the Coal Field counties ranged from 3.4% in
Union County to 14.5% in Edmonson County in 1979. Generally, the counties
with larger labor forces exhibited lower unemployment than counties with
smaller labor forces. The study area as a whole had an unemployment rate of
5.6% which was equal to the overall State unemployment rate.
In 1979, 10,634 persons were directly employed by coal mining activities
in the Western Kentucky Coal Field. A total of 193 mines were operating in
that year with all but 32 of these being surface mines (KDMM 1979). Muhlen-
berg County had the greatest number of persons employed by raining activities
(2,852) and also produced the most coal (12,218,134 tons) in the Coal Field.
Hancock County at the other extreme had only nine persons employed by coal
mining and produced only 834 tons of coal in 1979.
2.7.3 Transportation Network
Transportation facilities are available within the Western Kentucky Coal
Field in the form of highways, railways, air fields, and navigable waterways.
As indicated in Figure 2.7-1, the study area is served by a network of major
2-41
-------
Table 2.7-3. Labor force characteristics of residents of the
Western Kentucky Coal Field , 1979 (KDHR 1980).
County
Breckinridge*
Butler*
Caldwell*
Christian*
Crittenden*
Daviess
Edmonson*
Grayson*
Hancock
Hart*
Henderson
Hopkins
Logan*
McLean
Muhlenberg
Ohio
Todd*
Union
Warren*
Webster
Study Area
State
Civilian
Labor Force
6,570
3,468
5,398
22,327
4,078
37,927
2,689
8,718
3,540
5,989
18,582
21,895
10,506
4,614
13,250
12,331
4,565
8,406
36,101
6,738
237,692
1,563,000
Agricultural
1,112
409
455
1,471
356
1,332
218
826
192
1,242
636
485
1,408
473
388
537
863
616
1,416
421
14,852
73,049
Employment
Non-agricultural
5,008
2,744
4,494
19,601
3,430
34,465
2,080
7,219
3,125
4,279
16,987
20,131
8,573
3,845
12,139
11,258
3,406
7,500
33,271
6,024
209,579
1,402,951 1
Total
6,120
3,149
4,949
21,072
3,786
35,797
2,298
8,045
3,317
5,521
17,623
20,616
9,981
4,318
12,527
11,795
4,269
8,116
34,687
6,445
224,431
,476,000
Rate of
Unemployment
6.8
9.2
8.3
5.6
7.2
5.6
14.5
7.7
6.3
7.8
5.2
5.8
5.0
6.4
5.5
4.3
6.5
3.4
3.9
4.3
5.6
5.6
^Indicates partial inclusion in the study area.
2-42
-------
I
-P-
U)
Figure 2.7-1. Major highways of the Western Kentucky
Coal Field (Karan and Mather 1977).
Km
30
Ml
I
0
WAPORA, INC.
20
-------
highways and toll roads. US 431 extending from Owensboro south to Nashville
roughly divides the Coal Field in half while US 60 is the primary highway
corridor running along the Ohio River on the northern border of the study
area. Multi-lane toll roads or parkways complete the highway transportation
network in the study area. The Pennyrile Parkway extends from Henderson on
the Ohio River south to Hopkinsville. The Western Kentucky Parkway extends
from the Blue Grass region of the State across the study area to the southwest
corner of the State and is the major east-to-west highway passing through the
Coal Field. Other parkways include the Green River Parkway connecting Owens-
boro with Bowling Green and the Audubon Parkway connecting Owensboro to
Henderson.
Rail transportation service is provided to the Western Kentucky Coal
Field by two railroad companies. Illinois Central Gulf (ICG) and Louisville
and Nashville (L&N) operate railroad lines between major cities in the study
area and provide access to major trunk lines extending to other parts of the
State and country (Figure 2.7-2). As coal production increases in western
Kentucky, greater importance will be placed on rail transportation as a pri-
mary means of coal movement.
Air transportation services are not highly developed in the Western
Kentucky Coal Field because of the relatively low population densities occur-
ring in most areas. The only airport with scheduled commercial flights is
located at Owensboro. Other commercial airports are located outside the Study
Area at Bowling Green and Paducah. General aviation airfields are located in
most counties of the study area.
The Green River and Ohio River provide water transportation opportunities
within the Western Kentucky Coal Field. The Green River provides a six-foot
deep channel from the Mammoth Cave Area to near Central City and a nine-foot
channel from Central City to the Ohio River. The Ohio River has a nine-foot
channel and connects the study area to the Mississippi River to the west. The
principal commodity moved by water in the study area is coal (Karan and Mather
1977).
2-44
-------
hO
I
-P-
Ui
CRITTENDE
CALDWEL
CHRISTIAN
Figure 2.7-2. Railroads in the Western Kentucky
Coal Field (Karan and Mather 1977).
Km
30
Ml
WAPORA, INC.
-------
2.8 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
The cultural resources that can be expected to occur in the Western
Kentucky Coal Field include both prehistoric and historic remains representing
a time span of nearly 15,000 years of human occupation. The types of archaeo-
logical resources which have been recorded in western Kentucky include rock-
shelters, mound complexes, petroglyph earthworks, burial sites, and caves. A
variety of prehistoric Indian sites, post-European contact sites related to
military actions, early farming and frontier settlements, historic dumps,
cemeteries, and sites related to industry, commerce, engineering, and religion
can be expected to occur throughout the Western Kentucky Coal Field. Pre-
historic sites are often the most numerous entities identified during envi-
ronmental impact archaeological surveys. In Kentucky, four broad prehistoric
cultural traditions/classifications have been defined (KNPC 1980):
Paleo-Indian 15,000 B.C. to 4,000 B.C.
Archaic 8,000 B.C. to 1,500 B.C.
Woodland 1,500 B.C. to A.D. 900
Mississippian A.D. 900 to European Contact
Previous archaeological research in the Western Kentucky Coal Field has
been neither extensive nor systematic (Collins et al. 1981). As of November
1980, 1,493 archaeological sites had been recorded. Figure 2.8-1 depicts the
number of known archaeological sites on each of the USGS topographic quadran-
gles comprising the Coal Field (KNPC 1980).
Although few archaeological sites have been adequately surveyed and
documented, major contributions to the archaeology of eastern North America
have resulted from research in the Western Kentucky Coal Field. Data gathered
from "Green River Archaic" sites represent a significant contribution to the
study of the Archaic tradition (Collins et al. 1981). Because a number of
geological, geographical, and biological variables in western Kentucky may
have influenced the cultural resource potential of past landscapes, a variety
of environmental areas may have been amenable to prehistoric human groups.
Alluvial valley floors, terraces, flood plains, hillsides, uplands, slopes,
sandstone rock shelters, and caves may have been locations of past human occu-
pancy.
2-46
-------
Number of
Archaeological Sites
Number of
Historic Properties
Figure 2.8-1. Archaeological sites and historic properties listed
on Cultural Resource Overlay Index for the Western Kentucky
Coal Field (KNPC 1980).
\
o
Km
30
Ml
WAPORA, INC.
20
-------
Historic surveys have been completed by the Kentucky Historic Commission
(KHC) in only two counties within the Western Kentucky Coal Field, Christian
and Daviess. Historians and architectural historians have recorded a variety
of historic structures and buildings including but not limited to the following;
houses (both vernacular and great architecture); commercial and institutional
buildings; barns; smokehouses; springhouses; corn cribs; carriage houses;
churches; schools; and bridges. The KHC surveys have been concentrated in
those areas where development threatens historic structures. Existing data on
known historic structures and properties are indicated on the KNPC inventory
maps. As of December 1980, KNPC reported 163 recorded historic properties
within the Coal Field.
The method of coal extraction in the Western Kentucky Coal Field which
most threatens archaeological resources is termed box-cut mining, a technique
which involves opening up large surface area strip-mining pits. This method
as well as underground mining require additional mining-related activities
such as coal preparation plants and transportation systems. Topsoil removal,
sediment ponds, hydrologic control structures, spoil and stock piles, and
blasting contribute to the amount of ground surface alterations and to the
destruction of archaeological materials on or in the ground.
Evidence of past human occupation and behavior is extremely fragile and
can easily be obliterated by relatively minor modifications of the ground
surface. The analysis and interpretation of archaeological remains requires
examination of the total physical and ecological context. Disruption of the
context, such as may occur during coal mining activities, can reduce or com-
pletely destroy the recoverable information about past human existence, thus
constituting an irretrievable loss for scientific study.
2-48
-------
3.0 REGULATIONS GOVERNING MINING ACTIVITIES IN
THE WESTERN KENTUCKY COAL FIELD
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 USC 4321 et seq.)
mandates the consideration of environmental factors by Federal decisionraakers
during the evaluation of major Federal actions which may significantly 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; 30 USC 1201 et seq.) and by other government agencies. The issu-
ance 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 pursuant to an approved state program. While state issuance of the
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 (MOU) 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 require-
ments, and duplication of programmatic responsibilities. One such Memorandum
of Understanding signed during the Carter Administration (November 1980; 45
FR 246) establishes an overall agreement outlining the responsibilities of
each agency designed to substantially eliminate the potential for regulatory
duplication. No such similar agreement, however, currently exists between
USEPA and other Kentucky agencies although one is contemplated. The develop-
ment and implementation of a NEPA compliance strategy for USEPA is complicated
3-1
-------
by the uncertain status and often duplicative nature of the various 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 mining operations and the interrelationships which exist between the
responsibilities of the various agencies. It identifies the existing mecha-
nisms which can control or eliminate any possible adverse impacts. This
chapter also identifies significant impacts in each resource area which remain
for further investigation and mitigation through the USEPA NEPA compliance
program.
3.1 USEPA'S REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1.1 New Source Coal Mining Activities Under the NPDES Permit Program
Section 511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act stipulates 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 2586), and amended on 28
December 1979 (44 FR 76788) and 13 October 1982 (47 FR 45382). The following
types of coal mining facilities have been defined as New Sources and require
NEPA review:
Coal preparation plant and associated area, the construction of which
is commenced after 13 October 1982.
A surface or underground mine, the construction of which is commenced
after 29 May 1981; or
A surface or underground mine that USEPA determines is a "major altera-
tion" after taking into account whether it:
- Begins to mine a new coal seam.
Discharges effluent into a new drainage basin.
- Causes extensive new surface disruption.
- Begins construction of a new shaft, slope, or drift.
- Acquires additional land or mineral rights.
- Makes significant additional capital investments.
- Otherwise has characteristics deemed appropriate by the Regional
Administrator to place it in the New Source category.
3-2
-------
The decision regarding whether a mine constitutes a New Source is deter-
mined 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 dis-
charge wastewater into the surface waters of the United States. The effluent
limitations apply to discharges from active mining areas as well as to post-
mining discharges for both surface and underground mines. The post-mining
limitations apply until release of the performance bond required by SMCRA.
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 issu-
ance of an NPDES permit is subject to the NEPA review process described in
Section 3.1.3. 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.
Federal regulations and laws applicable under the provisions of NEPA
protect many environmental resources including the following:
surface water 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 level of protection afforded each resource
area is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.0.
3-3
-------
3.1.2 Regulatory Timetable and Existing NEPA Implementation Procedures
USEPA follows a multi-step procedure for NEPA compliance. This procedure
includes provisions for: (1) the early identification of candidate 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 EIS preparation pending the review of additional information (if
needed), preparation of an Environmental Information Document (EID), 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 other information available;
(6) the preparation of an EIS (if necessary) or the issuance of a FONSI; (7)
public review and comment of a draft New Source NPDES permit with appropriate
permit conditions; and (8) the issuance or denial of a final New Source NPDES
permit. This decisionmaking process is shown schematically in Figure 3.1-1.
3.2 OSM's REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
3.2.1 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 in areas where reclamation is not feasible;
to maintain a balance between the agricultural productivity of land,
the need for coal resources, and protection of the environment;
to allow the public to participate in decisions affecting the environ-
ment which might be affected by coal mining; and
to achieve reclamation of previously mined and abandoned lands.
The Federal government has taken the lead in establishing a national surface
mining regulatory progran through the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). A
primary purpose of SMCRA, however, is to assist the states in developing and
implementing a state regulatory program (Section 102(g)). Consequently, SMCRA
authorizes the transfer of responsibility and authority to the states through
3-4
-------
45 days
SELECTION OF
THIRD-PARTY
CONSULTANT
200-300
days
THIRD-PARTY
PREPARATION OF
DEIS & FEIS
IDENTIFICATION OF
NEW SOURCE APPLICANT
30 days
INITIAL INFORMATION REQUEST
30 days
PRELIMINARY
NEPA/NPDES DECISION
45 days
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
REQUEST
90 days
PREPARATION
OF EID
15 days
30 days
30-45 days
FINAL NEPA/NPDES
DECISION
30-45 days
200-300
days
45 days
USEPA PREPARATION
OF DEIS & FEIS
45 days
45 days
ISSUE OR DENY
NPDES PERMIT
Note: The time to complete
any path can be determined
by adding days noted next
to each aspect of the pro-
cess.
Figure 3.1-1. General NEPA compliance procedures for the USEPA
Region IV NPDES program.
3-5
-------
the submittal of a program by each state to OSM for approval. Once the state
program is approved, OSM will work with the states to ensure that the mining
programs fulfill the objectives of SMCRA.
Kentucky's proposed program was submitted to OSM in December 1981 and
final approval is expected during 1982. Once Kentucky is granted primacy,
implementation of the mining control and reclamation program will be the
State's responsibility. OSM will continue, however, to have a role by:
(1) conducting an oversight progran to ensure that the State program is operat-
ing satisfactorily; (2) regulating mining on Federal lands within Kentucky in
the event Kentucky does not elect to enter into a State/Federal Cooperative
Agreement; and (3) identifying imminent hazards to public health and the
environment.
The SMCRA regulations of the interim Federal program remain in effect
until the State program is approved, however. The regulations governing
activities subject to SMCRA were first published 13 December 1977 as interim
standards (42 FR 62630). These interim regulations will be superseded by the
permanent regulatory program (44 FR 15313, 13 March 1979) and the approved
State progran. The permanent program regulations are substantially different
from the interim regulations; the latter include only those environmental
performance standards of 30 CFR Parts 715 through 718, the inspection and
enforcement procedures of 30 CFR Parts 720 through 723, and the reimbursements
to the State of 30 CFR Part 725.
SMCRA regulates all surface mines and many underground mines that require
New Source NPDES permits. SMCRA also regulates most freestanding coal pre-
paration plants located outside the permit areas of active mines. Underground
mines are regulated under SMCRA unless they disturb less than 2 acres of
surface lands including haul roads. Substantial exploration activities also
require permits under SMCRA. 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 limita-
tions as the standards for all reclamation regulated by SMCRA (43 FR 181:41744-
41745, 18 September 1978).
3-6
-------
3.2.2 Mining Performance Standards Under SMCRA
By the authority designated in Title V of SMCRA, the Federal regulations
which implement SMCRA set forth minimum performance standards describing how
coal must be mined and the reclamation activities required to protect the
environment and public health. Title V establishes the requirements and
procedures to be used by the appropriate state or Federal agency responsible
for controlling 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.
3.3 MSHA's REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
The Coal Mine Health and Safety Act (CMHSA) is Federal legislation in-
tended 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 identifica-
tion number will be assigned to that operator. 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 inspections. This number also is used in
citations for violations and required legal action.
3.4 STATE REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
The Commonwealth of Kentucky is actively regulating coal mining activi-
ties through their Bureau of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (BSMRE).
Other State agencies also exercise various levels of control over certain
mining or mining-related activities. In addition, both USEPA in the NPDES
3-7
-------
regulations and OSM in the SMCRA provisions have established procedural mech-
anisms and minimum regulatory standards for transferring program implementa-
tion 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.
3.4.1 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 procedures and laws of the state require
the application and enforcement of standards of performance to at least the
same extent as required by Section 306 of CWA, the state can be authorized to
administer the NPDES program.
Under current NPDES regulations, the state's progran 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 prograa provide adequate authority to do so;
a Memorandum of Agreement between USEPA and the state including pro-
visions 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 Memo-
randum of Agreement. More than one state agency may have authority to ad-
3-8
-------
minister aspects of the NPDES permit program, but each relevant agency must
have statewide jurisdiction over a class of activities. Proposed USEPA revi-
sions to the NPDES regulations are unlikely to alter these program require-
ments 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
pre-treatraent programs. If the NPDES penult progran is delegated to the
state, NEPA review requirements are not applicable because NPDES permit issu-
ance 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 Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet (KNREPC) through its Division of Water is negotiating NPDES
delegation with USEPA Region IV. It is likely that NPDES delegation will be
granted to Kentucky during FY 1983.
3.4.2 SMCRA Primacy to Kentucky
SMCRA contains provisions for enforcement of the environmental perform-
ance standards by the state if the state can demonstrate that it can satis-
factorily fulfill this function. In order to obtain primacy from OSM, Ken-
tucky 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. Under Federal stipulations, Kentucky's
proposed laws and regulations must be no less stringent than the Federal model
but may be more stringent. After reviewing the program, OSM can either accept
and approve the State program or it can adopt and implement its own program
for the State. If the OSM progran is implemented, the State may submit a new
application.
Once Kentucky is granted primacy, OSM will still exercise certain responsi-
bilities under SMCRA. OSM is required to monitor the State's enforcement of
the progran on a regular basis and evaluate the State's administration of the
progran at least annually. Should the State not meet OSM's requirements in
carrying out the program, OSM can implement and enforce its own program within
3-9
-------
the State. OSM will retain regulatory control over coal mining on Federal
(and Indian) lands unless the State submits and has approved a State/Federal
Cooperative Agreement which permits the State to regulate surface coal mining
activities on Federal lands.
Kentucky's proposed program was first submitted to OSM in March 1980. In
order to submit the program, the Kentucky General Assembly passed during the
1980 session House Bill 566 which amended KRS 350 and established adequate
legal authority for assuming primacy. The General Assembly mandated, however,
that Kentucky requirements are to be no more stringent than the minimum Federal
standards. The proposed program was returned to the State for various revisions,
A court injunction, however, delayed further review of the program and its
fiaal approval. The revised program was finally submitted to OSM in December
1981 and final approval with several conditions was received in early 1982.
3.4.2.1 Permit Application Requirements and Review
Applications for permits are required for both exploratory and surface
mining activities. The application process is initiated by the applicant in
one of the Regional Offices of the Kentucky Department for Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement located in Middlesboro, Jackson, Prestonburg,
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, an application number is assigned.
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
3-10
-------
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.
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 appli-
cation. These agencies and their areas of concern include:
3-11
-------
Local
City or County Government - public parks
Area Development District - historic sites, public parks and buildings
State
KNREPC - Division of Hazardous Materials and Waste Management - RCRA
compliance
KNREPC - Division of Water - CWA compliance, coal preparation plants,
and dam construction
Kentucky Department of Transportation - transportation plan
Kentucky Heritage Commission - historic sites and places
KNREPC - Division of Air Pollution Control - compliance with Clean Air
Act
KNREPC - Office of Policy and Program Analysis - lands unsuitable for
mining determination
Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Commission - fish and wildlife impacts
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 impacts
US Army Corps of Engineers - permit application review within Corps
watershed
US Soil Conservation Service - prime farmland restoration
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 infor-
mation). Necessary arrangements for each agency's review are subsequently
made. The Administrative Review Section Supervisor additionally coordinates
the date, time, and location of all information conferences requested by any
3-12
-------
other Federal, State, or local government agency on a particular mining appli-
cation.
All public and agency comments are compiled and forwarded to the appli-
cant and the Regional Office from which the application is sent to the Tech-
nical Review Section. The technical review consists of a determination that
all requirements of the regulatory program are fulfilled including a determi-
nation of the probable cumulative impacts. At this point, conditions or
operating limitations may be appended to the application. 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.
3.4.3 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 which regulate various aspects of the coal
mining industry. Specifically, the relevant statutes and regulations are as
follows:
Statutes
KRS 42 and 177 - Local Government Economic Assistance
KRS 146 - Wild Rivers System; Nature Preserves
KRS 151 - Geology and Water Resources; Floodplains Protection
KRS 224 - Water Pollution Control; Air Pollution Control
KRS 350 - Kentucky Surface Mining Law
KRS 352 - Mining Health and Safety
Regulations
401 KAR
Chapter 2 - Solid Waste
Chapter 4 - Water Resources
Chapter 5 - Water Quality
Chapter 63 - General Standards of Performance
3-13
-------
405 KAR
Regulations for Surface Mining and Reclamation Operations and
Coal Exploration Operations
805 KAR
Chapter 3 - Surface Mining Safety Standards
Chapter 5 - 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.
3.4.3.1 Kentucky Statutes
Under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 42.330 and 177.960, the State
adopted the Local Government Economic Assistance Act which provides an alloca-
tion formula for the coal severance 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 coun-
ties (i.e., those counties with no active mines but through which coal is
transported) receive 10%. The Act establishes ten priority areas for the use
of these funds including health, recreation, libraries, social services,
government administration, economic development, and vocational education.
Under KRS Chapter 146, the State has been divided into nine soil and
water conservation areas. This statute also establishes the Division of Soil
and Water Conservation within KNREPC. Title 146.200 establishes 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 boun-
daries 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 boundaries
of the area.
3-14
-------
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, KNREPC's
Division of Water requires that a permit application be completed for con-
struction 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
floodplain of streams.
KRS Chapter 224 establishes KNREPC as the regulatory authority to imple-
ment controls on septic tanks, solid waste disposal, air pollution, and noise.
It also establishes the State as a member of the Ohio River Valley Sanitation
Compact, the Tennessee River Basin Water Pollution Control Compact, the Inter-
state 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 KNREPC the power to control and regulate strip mining
and reclamation in accordance with KRS Chapter 350.
KRS Chapter 350 establishes Kentucky's Surface Mining Law and provides
the authority for regulating surface mining activities in the State. The
chapter also establishes the Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (DSMRE) within the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet (KNREPC). Chapter 350 provides the primary statutory
authority for Kentucky's permanent mining program. Aspects of the statute
were revised by the 1980 General Assembly pursuant to Federal requirements for
Kentucky's permanent regulatory program.
Mining health and safety 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
3-15
-------
well locations, water pools, hazardous areas, land ownership, property lines,
elevations, and contours are required.
3.4.3.2 Kentucky Regulations
A number of regulations have been enacted to implement the statutes
governing various activities related to coal raining in Kentucky. KNREPC is
the designated agency in Kentucky responsible for enforcing these regulations.
The following information summarizes those regulations.
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
Water Quality
Aquatic 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
Regulations controlling landfills and
reporting procedures.
Requirements and reporting procedures
for permits to withdraw water.
Permit exemption for Department 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.
Definition of water quality terminology.
Water quality standards for protection of
cold and warm water aquatic life.
Aquatic life 24 hr. pH not less than 6.0;
pH not more than 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.
3-16
-------
805 KAR 3:020 Mine Safety General safety standards for coal and
clay mines.
805 KAR 3:030 Mine Safety Safety standards and ground control plans.
The major aspects of the State regulations for implementing the permanent
program granted to Kentucky are listed below:
405 KAR 7:040E General obligations of operators and permittees
405 KAR 7:060E Experimental practices mining
405 KAR 7:080E Small Operators Assistance
405 KAR Chapter 8 Permits
405 KAR Chapter 10 Bond and issuance requirements
405 KAR Chapter 12 Inspection and enforcement
405 KAR Chapter 16 Performance standards for surface mining activities
405 KAR Chapter 18 Performance standards for underground mining activities
405 KAR Chapter 20 Special performance standards
405 KAR Chapter 24 Areas unsuitable for mining
Table 3.4-1 summarizes the various Kentucky statutes and regulations in
relation to the areas of environmental protection provided by them in regard
to coal mining activities.
3-17
-------
Table 3.U-I. Environmental resources addressed by Kentucky statutes
and regulations related to coal mining activities.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Surface & groundwater
qua 1 i ty
Sensitive ecosystems
Floodpla ins
Wild & scenic rivers
Wetlands
Endangered species
habitats
OJ
,L Significant
oo agricultural lands
Recreat iona 1
land uses
Noise and vibration
leve 1 s
Historic, archaeolog ic,
or pa leonto logic sites
Community integrity and
qua 1 ity of 1 ife
A ! r nua 1 i fr.v
KRS KRS KRS
146 151 177
(Wild (Geol. (Local
Rivers & Government
System) Water Assistance)
Res. )
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KRS
224
( Wa te r
Po 1 lut ion
&
Air
Pol lut ion
Control )
X
X
X
X
KRS KRS
350 352
(Surface (Mine
Mining) Safety
and
Hea Ith)
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
401 405
KAR KAR
(Environ. (Surface
Protection) Mining)
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
805
KAR
(Mining
Safety
and
Health)
X
Geologic and soiI
characteristics
X
-------
4.0 IMPACTS OF MINING ACTIVTIES AND LEVEL OF PROTECTION
PROVIDED BY EXISTING REGULATIONS
The environmental impacts associated with coal mining and associated
activities and the existing State and Federal regulations that provide pro-
tection for environmental resources are described in this chapter. Impacts
that are not mitigated by regulations of other Federal or State agencies are
Identified for further consideration by USEPA.
4.1 EARTH RESOURCES
The construction and operation of coal mines, haul roads, loadout facil-
ities, and coal preparation plants can cause impacts on local earth resources.
The major concerns of mining impacts on earth resources center on steep and
unstable slope conditions, toxic overburden, and floodplain conditions.
4.1.1 Steep and Unstable Slopes
Mining or related activities which occur on steep or unstable slopes,
slopes greater than 20°, or lesser slopes that are underlain by bedrock of low
bearing strength or other poor geotechnical quality have a high probability of
causing damaging landslides. Activities which result in the placement of
spoil on downslopes, the elimination of htghwalls, or the disturbance of land
above the highwall directly threaten those activities in the paths of poten-
tial landslides.
OSM Regulations
A number of provisions of SMCRA provide for the protection of existing
geologic and soil characteristics and for the prohibition of mining on poten-
tially hazardous areas. Under the SMCRA program, protection of geologic and
soil characteristics is provided through provisions relating to topsoil hand-
ling, 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.
4-1
-------
Under the permanent SMCRA program, the regulatory authority has the power
to prohibit mining activities on areas with unstable geologic characteristics.
SMCRA regulations (30 CFR Part 826) 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 con-
siderations). 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. Nevertheless, the perma-
nent 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 826.12). Variances from
the requirement to return land to the original contour may be granted in
accordance with 30 CFR 785.15-785.16.
Kentucky Regulations
State regulations require that a permit be obtained for all strip mining
activities in the State (405 KAR 8:030E). Such a permit may be denied if the
underburden is expected to cause unsolvable problems with substantial deposi-
tion of sediment in streambeds or with landslides. Under the permanent State
program, performance standards have been established for raining on slopes of
20° or more (405 KAR 20:060E). Like the Federal program, Kentucky regulates:
the placement of spoil or waste materials on downslopes; the elimination of
highwalls; the disturbance of land above the highwall; the use of woody materials
as fill material; and the construction of unprotected drainage channels (405
KAR 20:060 Section 2). State law also requires that all land be restored to
its original contour with highwalls and spoil banks eliminated (KRS 350.410).
The State does, however, allow for a variance from the original contour require-
ment for steep slopes. The variance may be granted to: (1) improve watershed
control of lands within the permit area and adjacent lands; or (2) make the
land within the permit area suitable for an industrial, commercial, residential,
or public use (405 KAR 8:050E Section 5).
4-2
-------
4.1.2 Toxic Overburden
The disturbance of overburden materials that are toxic or acidic has the
potential for causing adverse environmental impacts. Exposure of such strata
to water and the atmosphere can result in the formation of acid mine drainage
and leaching problems. The lowering of the pH of groundwater and surface run-
off can cause toxic substances in the overburden to be carried into the ground-
water and surface water systems.
OSM Regulations_
SMCRA requires coal operators to use the best control technology currently
available to treat acid and other toxic mine drainage [Section 515(6)]. Dis-
charges 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 both interim and permanent SMCRA regulations
which are designed to protect the hydrologic balance (30 CFR 816.48). Both
regulatory programs vest the agency with the power to determine when certain
activities are detrimental to water quality and the surrounding environment.
Kent ucky Reg ulat ions
The permanent Kentucky program requires permittees to avoid drainage from
acid-forming and toxic-forming spoil by: identifying, burying, and treating
spoil determined to be detrimental to vegetation or water quality; preventing
water from coming into contact with acid-forming or toxic-forming spoil; and
burying or treating such spoil within 30 days after initial exposure on the
mine site (405 KAR 16:060?; Section 4). In addition, the Kentucky Environmental
Protection Act establishes a general prohibition against the discharge of any
substance that shall cause or contribute to the pollution of the waters of the
Commonwealth (KRS 224.060).
4.1.3 Floodplains
Certain mining operations such as coal preparation plants and loadout
facilities may encroach upon floodplains and cause modifications to the hydro-
4-3
-------
logic capacity of neighboring streams and result in the back-up of flood
waters upstream. Also, sediment which runs off of mined lands reduces the
flood-carrying capacity of streams. When the sane magnitude flood must cover
a larger area due to the reduction in water-carrying capacity of a stream
channel, adverse economic and social impacts may result from the damages
caused by the higher flood waters.
OSM Regulations
The permanent SMCRA program sets forth provisions for designating areas
as unsuitable for mining. Within these provisions, the regulatory authority
can prohibit mining in areas where natural hazard lands are affected including
areas subject to frequent flooding. Under the permanent program, stream
buffer zones are established for land within 100 feet of an intermittent or
perennial stream (30 CFR 816.57). The permanent regulations do not, however,
specifically protect the 100-year floodplain.
USEPA Regulat ipns_
Undeveloped floodplains are protected by Executive Order 11988 as imple-
mented 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 sup-
port of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.
The Agency must also incorporate floodplain management goals into its plan-
ning, regulatory, and decisionmaking processes. To the greatest extent pos-
sible, USEPA must:
reduce the hazard and risk of flood loss and, wherever it is possible,
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 flood-
plains;
4-4
-------
require the construction of USEPA structures and facilities to be xn
accordance with the standards and criteria of the regulations promul-
gated pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program;
identify floodplains which require restoration and preservation,
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.
Kentucky Regulations
The permanent Kentucky program, like the final OSM regulations, estab-
lishes stream buffer zones for land within 100 feet of a perennial stream or a
stream with a biological community as determined according to 405 KAR 16:060
Section 11(3). These zones are not to be disturbed by surface mining opera-
tions unless authorized by KNREPC pursuant to 405 KAR 16:060E Section 11 and
405 KAR 18:060E Section 9. The Division of Water of KNREPC also 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 strean, or 100-year floodplain
(KRS 151.250). All permit applications must include a cross section of the
affected streambed. If any building exists within 1,000 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 signifi-
cant being the exemption of activities which locate where the watershed area
is less than one square mile.
4.1.4 Level of Protection for Earth Resources
Existing regulations provide an adequate level of protection against
impacts to the earth resources of western Kentucky. Impacts on steep and
4-5
-------
unstable slopes are subject to the provisions of both State and Federal per-
formance standards. Toxic overburden is adequately regulated by OSM and
Kentucky regulations. Permittees are required to take action to avoid drain-
age from acid-forming and toxic-forming spoil. Floodplains are generally
protected by the OSM and Kentucky requirement of a strean buffer zone of 100
feet. State regulations also require a permit for construction in floodplains
and prohibit activities which increase existing flood heights more than one
foot, increase water velocities, and flood upstream structures. Because
Federal and State agencies provide adequate protection for earth resources,
further consideration of these areas by USEPA pursuant to NEPA responsibil-
ities is not required.
4.2 WATER RESOURCES
The mining of coal from surface and underground mines in the Western
Kentucky Coal Field has resulted in the degradation of surface water and
groundwater resources of the Coal Field. Future mining activities may affect
water resources by further degrading the quality of the water and by reducing
the quantity of available water supplies.
4.2.1 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 activi-
ties 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. The erosion of exposed soil, coal
refuse piles, and coal storage piles and overflow from sedimentation ponds
during storm events result in the release and transport of sediment, toxic
substances, and other water quality reducing elements to streams.
4-6
-------
OSM Regulations
Many of the provisions of SMCRA are designed to protect hydrologic balance-
water quality, quantity, and the location of surface channels and streams (30
CFR 816.41-816.57). The permanent program performance standards require that
the permittee plan and conduct coal mining and reclamation operations so as to
minimize changes to the prevailing hydrologic balance in both the permit area
and adjacent areas and to prevent long-term adverse changes in the hydrologic
balance (30 CFR 816.41). The permittee is to 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 816.52).
Several general methods established for protecting the hydrologic balance
include diverting runoff, planting vegetation, regulating channels, and mulch-
ing.
All surface drainage from disturbed areas that have been graded, seeded,
or planted must be maintained until revegetation requirements are met and
untreated drainage for disturbed areas complies with applicable water quality
standards (30 CFR 816.42). Discharges must meet USEPA's NPDRS effluent stan-
dards. Any legitimate water supplies which are contaninated, diminished, or
interrupted must be replaced. The permittee is required to monitor surface
water quantity and quality and to make regular reports to either the regula-
tory authority designated under SMCRA or the authority designated under the
NPDES permit program (30 CFR 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 sedimentation
pond or series of ponds before leaving the area (30 CFR 816.42). SMCRA regu-
lations establish both design and performance standards for sedimentation
ponds (30 CFR 816.46).
Regulations have also been established regarding the diversion of streams
and surface runoff, channel lining, sediment control, and spoil disposal (30
4-7
-------
CFR 816.44-816.48). The diversion channel 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 additions of sediment to streams. To avoid contamination
and runoff of water from acid or toxic forming spoil, an operator must bury
and/or treat the spoil. Spoil must be buried within 30 days after it is first
exposed although temporary storage may be permitted.
USEPA Regulations
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) finalized on 12 January 1979
and amended on 28 December 1979 and 13 October 1982 provide for effluent
limitations for new coal mining activities based on the use of the best available
demonstrated technology (BADT). Less stringent limitations are allowed for
any discharge or increase in discharge caused by a storm event less than,
equal to or greater than a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt
of equal volume) which occurs within any 24 hour period. These alternate
limitations are not available to discharges from underground workings at
underground mines (unless commingled with surface area discharges), or to new
source preparation plants which are subject to a zero discharge requirement.
Separate effluent limitations are provided for post-mining discharges
from reclamation areas and abandoned underground mines, until release of the
SMCRA performance bond.
Kentucky Regulations
The permanent Kentucky program establishes requirements for the protec-
tion of the hydrologic balance in the Western Kentucky Coal Field including
requirements for the protection of surface water quantity and quality (405 KAR
16:060E - 16:110E). Like the Federal SMCRA progran, surface mining activities
must be planned and conducted to minimize changes to the prevailing hydrologic
balance in both the permit area and adjacent areas in order to prevent long-term
adverse changes in that balance (405 KAR 16:060E Section 1). The State r
egulations stipulate that in no case shall Federal and State water quality
standards or effluent limitations be violated. Each permittee must emphasize
4-8
-------
mining and reclamation practices that prevent or minimize water pollution.
Appropriate sediment control measures are to be designed, constructed, and
maintained using the best technology currently available (405 KAR 16:060E
Section 2).
Under the Kentucky program all surface drainage from disturbed areas must
pass through a sedimentation pond or series of sedimentation ponds before
leaving the permit area (405 KAR 16:070E). The ponds and any other treatment
facilities must be properly maintained and are not to be removed until all
disturbed areas in the drainage area above the facility have been backfilled,
graded, and revegetated in accordance with the stipulations of 405 KAR 16:070E.
KNREPC may exempt a permittee from the requirements only when: (1) the dis-
turbed drainage area is small; and (2) the permittee demonstrates that the
ponds and treatment facilities are not necessary for the drainage to be in
compliance at all times with all applicable Federal and State water quality
standards. State regulations have also been established regarding the diver-
sion of surface runoff and stream channels, channel lining, and sediment
control (405 KAR 16:080E-16:100E).
4.2.2 Groundwater
The major impacts of coal mining upon the groundwater resources of the
Western Kentucky Coal Field is the migration of acid mine drainage into the
groundwater and disruption of groundwater supplies. Several mining practices
affect the formation of acid mine drainage and its migration into 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 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 hlghwall. Exposed auger holes
are direct sources of mine drainage emissions and can cause subsurface water
pollution through surface water inflow (USEPA 1975) and consequent infiltra-
tion. Local supplies of groundwater can be disrupted by mining operations.
When raining operations must penetrate through aquifers to expose the coal
4-9
-------
seam, the natural flow of groundwater is altered. The supply of groundwater
at local water wells may diminish or disappear as a result of such operations.
OSM Regulations
Pursuant to the permanent 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 816.50-816.52). Reclamation
must allow water to enter and recharge groundwater levels as it did before
mining activities began. The recharge capacity is to be restored to a condi-
tion which supports an approved post-mining land use; minimizes disturbances
to the prevailing hydrologic balance; and provides a rate of recharge that
approximates the pre-mLning recharge rate. The quantity and quality of ground-
water resources must be monitored. Such monitoring must routinely assess
infiltration rates, subsurface flow, and storage characteristics in a manner
approved by the regulatory authority.
USEPA Regulations
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, protection of groundwater resources is
established through regulation of underground injection of hazardous wastes
and control of public water supplies. The Act gives USEPA enforcement power
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 where the appropriate state and local authorities have not acted. Sludge
produced from the treatment of acid mine drainage is the only waste from coal
mining activities that currently falls under USEPA's definition of hazardous
waste.
Kentucky
The Kentucky program requires surface mining activities to be conducted
in a manner that facilitates reclamation which will restore approximate pre-
mining recharge capacity and which will allow a recharge capacity that supports
the approved post-mining land use (405 KAR 16:060E Section 5). Like the
Federal SMCRA program, backfilled materials must be placed so as to minimize
4-10
-------
contamination of groundwater systems with acid, toxic, or otherwise harmful
mine drainage and to minimize the adverse effects of mining on groundwater
systems outside the permit area. In addition, groundwater monitoring is
required for groundwater levels, infiltration rates, subsurface flow, and
storage characteristics in a manner specified and approved by KNREPC (405 KAR
16:110E Section 1).
4.2.3 Level of Protection for Water Resources
Existing regulations provide adequate protection for most surface water
resources. Especially sensitive water resources, however, 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. Further consideration of adverse impacts to surface water resources
is required.
State and Federal regulations establish a groundwater protection program
which requires coal operators to replace any contaminated or diminished water
supplies. The responsibility, however, rests with the well owner to prove
that the well has been impacted. In certain cases, individuals may not know
their water is contaninated or may have to use the contaminated water until an
alternative supply can be made available. The regulations are not designed to
consider future impacts on off-site wells prior to the commencement of mining
activities. Consideration of the impacts on specific off-site wells could
prevent future contamination and reduce the need for replacing such sources of
water. USEPA should consider this adverse impact to groundwater resources
pursuant to its NEPA responsibilities.
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The construction and operation of coal mines, haul roads, preparation
plants, and other mining facilities can cause severe impacts on the biological
resources of the Western Kentucky Coal Field. Direct effects may include
elimination of terrestrial vegetative and wildlife habitats on mine sites
4-11
-------
(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 pro-
ducing changes in the hydrologic regime in the receiving streams. Wetland
areas can also be adversely affected by these types of mining-related impacts.
4.3.1 Elimination of Terrestrial HabjLtjts^
Terrestrial habitats in the Coal Field may be affected by both under-
ground and surface mining operations. Underground mining may result in the
direct elimination or disturbance of terrestrial vegetation and associated
animal communities at the mine mouth and along haul roads. Underground mining
can also cause subsidence or changes In groundwater levels which may alter
growth patterns and species composition of terrestrial vegetation. Surface
raining may affect terrestrial communities by direct removal of vegetation or
by alteration of the substrate. Coal removal alone is seldom the most impor-
tant impact of surface mining, however, unless rare or endangered species are
eliminated. More significant disturbances result from soil modification
caused by overburden removal.
OSM Regulations
SMCRA regulations provide detailed revegetation requirements including
timing of revegetation, mulching, and use of introduced species (30 CFR
816.111-816.117). The permanent SMCRA regulations require that the best
available mining technology be used to minimize on-site disturbance of sensi-
tive resources. All disturbed land, except certain water areas and surface
areas of roads, must be seeded or planted to achieve a permanent vegetative
cover of the same seasonal variety native to the region and capable of self-
regeneration and plant succession (30 CFR 816.111). Surrounding biological
habitats and potential off-site impacts are not regulated, however.
USEPA Regulations
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
4-12
-------
Wildlife Service when streams and other water bodies are altered. In addi-
tion, the US Department of Interior and the US Department of Agriculture as
well as appropriate Kentucky agencies have the opportunity to comment on
terrestrial ecosystem impacts during the New Source NPDES permit review pro-
cess. 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.
Kentucky Regulations
The permanent Kentucky program establishes requirements for the revege-
tation of areas affected by surface mining activities. These requirements
include stipulations regarding the temporary and permanent vegetative cover,
use of introduced species, the timing of revegetation, mulching and other soil
stabilizing practices, standards for measuring revegetation success, and
reporting requirements (405 KAR 16:200E). Each permittee must establish on
all affected land a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover of the
same seasonal variety native to the region or species that support the approved
post-mining land use. Areas determined to be of particular ecological impor-
tance or value may be designated by the Commonwealth as nature preserves and
as such preempt mining activities within their boundaries.
4.3.2 Eltmination of Aquatic Habitats
The major concerns regarding the possible effects of mining on aquatic
habitats in the Western Kentucky Coal Field include: (1) direct elimination
of additional wetlands, strean segments, and associated impacts; (2) dis-
turbance of receiving streams, rivers, and wetlands by increased acid mine
drainage and sedimentation in an area already significantly affected by pre-
vious 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 activi-
ties in ^particular may result in the direct removal of stream segments and
wetlands. Both streams and wetlands may also be signficantly affected by acid
runoff, fertilizers, lime, and sedimentation from the mined areas during re-
4-13
-------
clamation activities. Potential impacts primarily include changes in ground-
water 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 in-
creased erosion from mined areas and coal washing facilities (Haynes et al.
1979).
OSM Regulations
Aquatic habitats are protected indirectly through water quality stipula-
tions and directly through SMCRA regulations which provide for review of
mining activities by fish and wildlife agencies. Impacts to water quality are
subject to permanent SMCRA regulations protecting the hydrologic balance (30
CFR 816) and these regulations also serve to protect aquatic habitats.
USEPA Regulations
Effluent limitations are established for the coal mining industry under
the Clean Water Act and are administered by USEPA through the NPDES permit
program. Implementation of the NSPS provides additional protection to aquatic
ecosystems beyond the requirements of the existing source discharge limita-
tions. 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
larger buffer areas adjacent to especially sensitive strean segments. Sedi-
ment 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 Administrator, however, has
rarely been stipulated.
4-14
-------
Kentucky Regulations
The permanent Kentucky program requires each permittee, to the extent
possible using the best technology currently available, to minimize disturb-
ances and adverse impacts of surface mining activities on fish, wildlife, and
related environmental values, and to achieve enhancement of such resources
where practicable (405 KAR 16:180E). Each permittee is required to promptly
report to KNREPC the presence in the permit area of any critical habitat of a
threatened or endangered species or any plant or animal listed by the Common-
wealth of Kentucky as threatened or endangered. Additional requirements are
established for preserving wetland areas and for establishing fish or wildlife
habitats as primary or secondary post-mining land uses. In addition, partic-
ularly sensitive resources may be protected under Kentucky's regulation of
areas unsuitable for mining (405 KAR Chapter 24).
4.3.3 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 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).
OSM Regulations
The permanent SMCRA regulations establish requirements regarding diver-
sion of streams and surface runoff, channel lining, sediment control, and
spoil disposal. Coal mining operators not only are required to meet perform-
ance standards concerning mining methods, but also must initiate monitoring
systems to prove they are not adversely affecting the hydrologic balance.
4-15
-------
USEPA Regulations
The NSPS for coal mining are administered by USEPA through the NPDES
permit program. The standards are applied to discharged water from active
raining areas and to post-mining discharges occurring during the reclamation
process, until release of the performance bond required by SMCRA.
Kentucky Regulations
Kentucky's permanent regulatory program establishes requirements for the
removal and redistribution of topsoil, sediment control, the diversion of
streams and surface runoff, channel lining, and spoil disposal (405 KAR 16:050E;
060E; 07OE; 080E; 130E). Appropriate sediment control measures must be de-
signed, constructed, and maintained using the best technology currently avail-
able to: (1) prevent additional contributions of sediment to streamflow or to
runoff outside the permit area; and (2) minimize erosion to the extent possible.
Sediment control measures include practices carried out within and adjacent to
the disturbed area. In addition, 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 which should minimize
erosion.
4.3.4 Level of Protection for Biological Resources
Existing regulations protecting biological resources relate primarily to
direct, on-site impacts. Sensitive aquatic habitats located within the permit
area are provided protection directly through the State or Federal mining
permit program and indirectly through water quality protection requirements.
Existing regulations do not provide protection to sensitive terrestrial eco-
systems or wetlands unless they have been designated as unsuitable for mining
by the Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program. Therefore, USEPA should provide
consideration of sensitive terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands through NEPA.
4-16
-------
4.4 LAND RESOURCES
The continued extraction of coal from the Western 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 extraction and associated activ-
ities: (1) the conversion of Environmentally Significant Agricultural (ESA)
lands to non-farming use; and (2) the conversion of recreational land resources
to other uses and the degradation of the environment adjacent to recreational
facilities.
4.4.1 Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands
The cumulative effect of continued coal production and increasing popula-
tion levels in the Western Kentucky Coal Field will result in the conversion
of ESA land to urban, mining-related, or other uses. The conversion of ESA
land in the Western Kentucky Coal Field is considered a significant adverse
impact because of the high economic value of this land resource in the Coal
Field. Agricultural land not only produces food and fiber, it 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 wastewater discharges.
OSM Regulations
Sections 507(b)(16) and 515(b)(7) of SMCRA authorize special performance
standards regarding mining on prime farmlands. Under the 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. The SMCRA
performance standards are designed to ensure that soil removal, soil stock-
piling 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 823).
4-17
-------
USEPA Regulations
It is USEPA policy to consider the protection of Environment ally Sig-
nificant Agricultural lands from irreversible conversion to uses which result
in its loss as an environmental or essential food production resource (USEPA's
Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands, memorandum
from Douglas Costle, Administrator, to Assistant Administrator, Regional
Administrators, and Office Directors, 8 September 1978). Significant agri-
cultural lands include the prime, unique, and additional farmlands with national,
statewide, or local significance as defined by the US Department of Agri-
culture, Soil Conservation Service. USEPA has a special interest in pro-
tecting farmlands that: (1) 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 signifi-
cant capital investments for the purpose of soil erosion control. Before
undertaking an action, USEPA must determine whether there are ESA 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 impacts
avoided to the extent possible.
Kentucky Regulations
As with the Federal SMCRA requirements, the Kentucky program mandates
that an applicant submit to KNREPC a plan for restoration of any prime farm-
land within permit boundaries (405 KAR 8:050E). The Kentucky program estab-
lishes special requirements for the removal, stockpiling, replacement, and
revegetation of prime farmland (405 KAR 20:040E). The prime farmland must be
restored to equivalent or higher levels of yield than 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.
4.4.2 Recreational Resources
Recreational land resources are not only threatened by the conversion to
mining or other uses, but also may be affected by mining activities which
4-18
-------
generate noise and dust and degrade water and the visual environment. The
recreational land resources of the Western Kentucky Coal Field are important
regional resources. The direct and indirect effects of mining activities
should be considered in order to enhance future recreational opportunities for
the region's population.
OSM Regulations
Interim SMCRA regulations do not address protection of public parks. The
permanent regulatory 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 affirma-
tive finding by the Secretary of Interior that multiple uses of the National
Forest would not be impaired by the proposed mining. The public notice pro-
visions of SMCRA provide opportunity for owners of private recreational facil-
ities to comment on coal mine permit applications that may affect the opera-
tion of such facilities.
USEPA Regulations
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 En-
dangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.).
Kent ucky Regulat ions
Part of Kentucky's program for designating lands unsuitable for mining
(405 KAR 24:040E) authorizes KNREPC to deny a permit if lands on which the
proposed operation would be conducted include:
4-19
-------
lands within the boundaries of the National Park System; the National
Wildlife Refuge System; the National System of Trails; the National
Wilderness Preservation System; the Wild and Scenic Rivers System,
including study rivers; and the National Recreation Areas; or
lands within 300 feet of any park, public building, school, church, or
community building.
Recreational lands are also protected 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 recreational streams is maintained by
the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission (KNPC).
4.4.3 Level of Protection of Land Resources^
Under both interim and permanent SMCRA regulations and the Kentucky
progran, stipulations are established for those lands classified as prime
farmland and used previously as cropland. Prime farmlands not farmed for five
of the last ten years, lands classified as unique farmland, farmland of state-
wide importance, farmland of local importance, farmland in or contiguous to
Environmentally Sensitive 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 Federal and State permanent regulatory programs surface mining
operations are prohibited within 300 feet of any public park and restricted on
any lands which may adversely affect public parks. This park restriction
includes any area designated by a Federal, State, or local agency for public
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.
4.5 HUMAN RESOURCES
Coal mining and associated activities in the Western Kentucky Coal Field
will have both beneficial and adverse impacts on human resources and trans-
4-20
-------
port ation. These impacts occur in the form of economic effects, rapid popula-
tion growth, increased demand in public and private services, and transporta-
tion impacts.
The economic effects of coal resource development in western 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 opportuni-
ties, 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.
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 avail-
able to them. These new residents require adequate levels of basic community
services and facilities.
As population grows, the demand increases 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 aad 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 may
occur. 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 infra-
structure (roads, sewers, water, etc.), the unavailability of construction
and/or mortgage credit, or the inability to assemble land needed for new
housing developments.
Local transportation networks, primarily the road system, can also be
adversely affected by mining activities and mining-induced population growth.
4-21
-------
Public safety and congestion problems on local roads can occur as a result of
the larger volumes of private vehicles (primarily coal haul trucks) using
public roadways, and increases in coal-related rail traffic which cause a
higher probability of rail-highway accidents and delays. The larger volume of
coal haul trucks using public roadways may also degrade the quality of road
surfaces.
OSM Regulations
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 sector infrastructure. Under the SMCRA program, all appli-
cants must submit with the mining application a transportation plan approved
by the State Department of Transportation. 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 dwell-
ing 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 (30
CFR761.11). The general performance standards also set forth requirements
for mining roads and require that post-mining land use be compatible with land
use policies and plans.
Kentucky_Reg ulat i ons
The permanent Kentucky program, like the OSM program, regulates opera-
tions within 100 feet of a public right-of-way; within 300 feet of an occupied
dwelling without the owner's consent; within 300 feet of any public, institu-
tional, or community building; or within 100 feet of a cemetery (405 KAR
24:040E). In addition, an access permit must be obtained for haul roads or
entrances to proposed mining facilities which intersect State routes. The
State Department of Transportation reviews proposed plans and the plans must
be approved prior to issuance of the access permit. Kentucky's Local Govern-
4-22
-------
ment Economic Assistance Act also provides a means for allocating revenues
from coal severance taxes among the local governments. The Act establishes
priority areas for the expenditure of these funds. Impacts on local communi-
ties in coal producing areas are mitigated by this economic assistance.
4.5.1 Level of Protection for Human Resources
The impacts of coal mining activities on human resources are sufficiently
mitigated by existing State and Federal laws and regulations. Impacts to the
transportation networks are controlled by the mining regulations while socio-
economic impacts are mitigated by the distribution of the coal severance tax
revenues under the Local Government Economic Assistance Act.
4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Coal mining activities in the Western Kentucky Coal Field can result in
adverse 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 His-
toric Places. Cultural resources are highly susceptible to damage by coal
mining particularly by surface mining activities. Adverse impacts to cultural
resources include destruction of a site, isolation of a site from the surround-
ing environment, alteration of a site, and neglect of a site resulting in
deterioration or destruction.
OSM Regulations
The permanent program of 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
Preservation Office (SHPO). 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.
4-23
-------
USEPA Regulations
USEPA is subject to the requirements of the National Historic Preserva-
tion 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. If a USEPA under-
taking affects any property with historic, architectural, archaeological, or
cultural value that is listed on or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the responsible official must 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 proper-
ties affected by the undertaking that are potentially eligible for listing on
the National Register and request a determination of eligibility from the
Keeper of the National Register, Department of the Interior. 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 preserva-
tion activities.
USEPA will issue a New Source NPDES permit for mining operations that
will affect a National Register site only after appropriate interagency co-
ordination has been pursued. The applicant may be asked to furnish site-
specific information to enable USEPA in cooperation with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether any resources potentially
eligible for the National Register are to be affected by proposed mining
activities.
Kentucky Regulations
Under the Kentucky program, mining operations will be prohibited on lands
which will adversely affect any publicly owned places included on the National
Register of Historic Places unless jointly allowed by all affected agencies
4-24
-------
(805 KAR 24:040E). In addition, 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 govern-
ment agencies concerning means of achieving these two goals. The procedures
of the Commission require that relevant agencies consult with the State His-
toric Preservation Office to identify historical, structural, and archaeolog-
ical sites in the project area and consider these resources in project plan-
ning.
4.6.1 Level of Protection f°_r_Cjiltural^ 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 State and Federal mining programs, however,
and apply solely to resources already identified and listed on the National
Register [30 CFR 761.11(c)]. The regulations do not require the consideration
of resources which may be eligible for listing. If the resource has not
already been identified or is privately owned, it probably will not be ad-
dressed under SMCRA regulation.
4.7 ATMOSPHERIC RESOURCES
4.7.1 Air Quality
Coal mining and associated activities in the Western Kentucky Coal Field
may result in significant amounts of fugitive dust emissions. Other pollu-
tants may be emitted into the air as a result of these operations, but normal-
ly in insignificant amounts. Fugutive dust emissions are generated primarily
by trucks on haul roads. Other sources include surface mining, blasting,
preparation, coal loading and unloading, and wind erosion. The transportation
of coal by truck on unpaved public and private haul roads is the major con-
tributor of fugitive dust emissions from coal-related activities in western
Kentucky.
4-25
-------
OSM Regul at i o n s_
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). The specific fugi-
tive dust control measures are to be determined by the regulatory agency
adminLstering the progran. The methods generally include watering, chemical
treatment or paving of roads, revegelzation, covering of haul trucks, and the
use of 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 of applicable
Federal and State air quality standards, climate, existing air quality, and
size and type of proposed operations. The regulations do not consider pollut-
ants other than fugitive dust, but SMCRA does require compliance with all
other applicable Federal and State air quality laws.
USEPA _Regulat ions
Because the granting of a New Source NDPES permit by USEPA is considered
a major Federal action subject to NRPA compliance, air quality impacts must be
addressed. USEPA addresses the impact on air quality pursuant to the provi-
sions of the Clean Air Act (CAA; USC 7401-7642 as amended by 88 Stat. 246, 91
Stat. 1401-02). This permit program is administered by the KNREPC 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 primary 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.
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
4-26
-------
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Under USEPA's 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 station-
ary sources for each class up to a level considered to he significant for that
area. Class I areas need extraordinary protection from air quality deteriora-
tion 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 in-
creases in air pollution levels that usually accompany we11-controlled growth.
Class III increments allow increases in air pollution levels up to the NAAQS.
Kentucky Regulations
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 pacticulate matter from becoming airborne. Methods sug-
gested to prevent such emissions include the application of certain substances
(e.g., water, oil, chemicals) on surfaces creating dusts; the installation of
dust-reduction equipment; the use of covers for transportation vehicles; and
the maintenance of paved roadways.
The permanent State program establishes requirements for the control and
monitoring of air pollution from surface mining activities with specific
measures for the control of fugitive dust (405 KAR 16:170E). Each permittee
must plan and employ fugitive dust control measures as an integral part of
site preparation, coal mining, and reclamation operations. In addition, air
monitoring equipment must be installed and monitoring conducted according to
an approved monitoring plan.
4.7.2 Noise
The noise impacts from coal mining operations and coal haul trucks can be
significant at nearby sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors located adjacent
to mines, processing plants, and coal haul routes may be adversely affected by
the noise generated by these facilities. As the number of mines increases in
western Kentucky, the number of affected sensitive receptors will increase.
4-27
-------
OSM Regulations
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. No other specific noise regulations exist.
Kentucky Regulations
The Kentucky program establishes specific requirements for the use of
explosives including restrictions on the timing and location of blasting (405
KAR 16:120E). Blasting may be conducted only between sunrise and sunset,
unless otherwise approved, and may occur only for a limited amount of time.
No other requirements exist for the regulation of noise impacts, however.
4.7.3 Protection of Air Quality and the Acoustic Environment
The Kentucky regulations provide the primary source of control over
emissions caused by surface mining activities. Until the permanent program is
adopted, however, State mining regulations do not establish specific provi-
sions controlling air emissions. The basic protection is provided by existing
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 presently limits its review of mining operations primarily
to cleaning and processing operations.
The permanent SMCRA regulations for fugitive dust emissions are re-
stricted 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. Consequently, 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
4-28
-------
acoustic environment from other mining operations including noise emissions
associated with coal haul trucks on public and private roads.
4.8 SUMMARY
Many of the impacts of coal mining activities in western Kentucky are
controlled or otherwise mitigated by Federal or State regulations. Some
impacts, however, still remain unmitigated. Table 4.8-1 presents a summary of
the unmitigated impacts of coal mining activities by resource category.
4-29
-------
Table 4.8-1. Summary of coal mining impacts by resource for the Western
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
Surface disturbances can adversely affect
the water quality of sensitive stream
segments possibly causing a reduction,
alteration in composition, loss of diversity,
elimination of certain forms of aquatic life
or reduction in water use opportunities for
domestic consumption or industrial processes.
Migration of acid mine drainage into ground-
water, particularly in groundwater recharge
areas, can adversely affect 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 dis-
turbance 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
flow, and alteration of soil moisture
levels may result in the degradation of
wetlands.
LAND RESOURCES
Environmentally Significant
Agricultural (ESA) Lands
Recreation Lands
Mining can result in the conversion of prime
farmland cultivated less than 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 western Kentucky.
Mining can result in adverse impacts on
recreational lands adjacent to mining
operations by noise, degraded water, dust,
and/or visual effects.
4-30
-------
Table 4.8-1. Summary of coal mining impacts by resource for the Western
Kentucky Coal Field that are not regulated by State or Federal laws
(concluded).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic/Archaeological Sites
AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
Air Quality
Noise
Under the interim Federal program, mining
operations can alter, destroy, or otherwise
affect sites that are listed on or are
eligible for inclusion on the National
Register. When the permanent Kentucky
regulations become effective, those sites
that are eligible for inclusion but not
listed will remain unprotected. Limited
survey work in western Kentucky increases
the potential for impacting such eligible
sites.
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.
Mining operations and coal transportation
on public and private haul roads can in-
crease 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.
4-31
-------
-------
5.0 ALTERNATIVE_NEPA COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES
During the process of developing a suitable strategy for compliance with
NEPA in the review of New Source coal mining NPDES applications for western
Kentucky, a total of 29 possible compliance alternatives were developed and
evaluated by USEPA. In order to be considered feasible, a compliance alterna-
tive 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 iraplementable 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 the No Action
Alternative, and the Recommended Action.
5.1 CURRENT COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Current USEPA NEPA compliance procedures work well for large singular
projects, but are resource and time consuming for the substantial number of
coal mining applications to be processed. 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:
5-1
-------
FONSI - 30 to 45 days for USEPA issuance;
additional information - 45 days for applicant response plus 30 days
for USEPA decision;
EID - 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 progran.
The first component involves the use of the USEPA Resource Atlas developed
as part of this study effort and the Geographic Information System (CIS)
developed by the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection for environmental review decisions. 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 frequently 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 FONSIfs and Environmental Impact Assessments based on the areawide
environmental review and experience gathered in the NEPA compliance program
for coal mining activities. This Areawide EIA has generated substantial
analyses of impacts of and alternatives for mitigating the effects of mining
operations. These discussions will be of significant value in preparing
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-
5-2
-------
mental protection already provided. USEPA is therefore able to concentrate
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 OSM of Kentucky's primacy for program implementation. USEPA has prepared
its initial request for environmental data based on the assumption that the
Commonwealth permanent progran will be in effect basically as now constituted.
Under this assumption, duplication between the programs in terras 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, further alternatives analysis). 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. Section 5.2 discusses this concept further.
5. 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 5.2-1,
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
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.
5-3
-------
Figure $.2-1. The use of Resource Threshold Criteria to determine USEPA
permit review actions.
t
4-1
W
w
0)
M
M
60
C
H
CO
CO
OJ
Wi
O
C
Level III Criterion
Resource level III criterion
tripped would result in an
EIS
Level II Criterion
Resource level II criterion
tripped would result in the
requirement for an alternative
analysis 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
L
No significant impact
5-4
-------
Environmental 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 IT 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 alternatives analysis or a third
party EIS by the applicant would be indicated. Essentially, this means that a
detailed analysis of alternatives would be required. A permit approval recom-
mendation could be made 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
groundwat er
sensitive terrestrial ecosystans
wetlands
noise
air quality
environmentally significant agricultural land
recreational land
historic and archaeological sites
public and Federal, State, and local government comments
5-5
-------
Appendix A contains the Resource Threshold Criteria for each of the
resource areas listed above. 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.
Chapter 4.0 discussed the resource protection afforded through existing
Federal and State regulations. The development of the RTC's and the areas of
potential impact assumed the implementation of Kentucky's permanent regulatory
program for surface coal mining and reclamation operations. If these regula-
tions are significantly modified, USEPA's reliance on them to mitigate signif-
icant impacts would have to be reexamined.
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. 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.
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, alternatives analyses, 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 applicant and USEPA costs are outlined for strategies using all Resource
Threshold Criteria.
5-6
-------
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.
The right of the public, the permit applicant and interested government
agencies to comment on the appropriateness and sufficiency of the
environmental review for each individual permit is maintained.
5.2.1 Effect of Public Comment
The Public Comment Criteria referenced previously (which includes Federal,
State, and local agency comments as well as individuals) 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 resources. However, because of the great variety of environ-
mental resources potentially impacted as well as changes in the coal mining
industry, the identified resources and levels may not always identify signifi-
cant impacts. Therefore, public, local, State, and Federal agency comment can
provide valuable input into the environmental review process by providing for
a more comprehensive identification of any significant adverse impacts.
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 unacceptable threat to the environment. This decision may
have been based on alternatives and mitigating measures in the form of permit
conditions.
5-7
-------
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 on a re-
source area identified under Level I.
Level III Unmitigated significant adverse impacts will result on a
resource area identified under Level I.
5.3 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.
5.3.1 No Action Alternative
This alternative assumes that USEPA Region IV would avoid making New
Source determinations 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 lowest
level environmental enhancement occurring for the majority of coal operations
with sone substantial environmental protection benefits occurring on those
operations brought to the attention of USEPA.
5-8
-------
The No Action Alternative involves minimal resources (less than one
man-year of effort), and allows some flexibility regarding which projects are
addressed. However, this alternative would likely be a legally indefensible
policy if challenged and could result in significant delays in permit issuance,
thus precluding any real flexibility.
5.3.2 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 70 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 5.3-1 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 50%. The level of environmental
protection would be high due to the site-specific analysis of each applica-
tion.
Under this alternative, the environmental review process would be con-
ducted individually for each application. Full public notice and appeal
opportunities under NRPA 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
5-9
-------
Figure 5.3-1. Individual Review Alternative for NEPA review process for the
issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in western Kentucky.
NPDES Permit
Application &
EIR Submitted
NEPA
.Review
Ul
i
J
20
Third Party
EIS Prepared
200-300
Applicant
Prepares
BID
60
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
JSEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Denied
JSEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
25
JSEPA Prepares
EIS
200-300
Total Days
80
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
325-
425
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
USEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Denied
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
165
410-
510
Numbers represent estimated days required to complete each action.
-------
estimated based on USEPA and consultant studies that 7 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 1.2 manyears
would be required.
This alternative would fully comply with USEPA1s 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.
5.3.3 Areawide Review Alternative
The Areawide Review Alternative assumes that the Western 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 5.3-2 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) contend
that no future action by USEPA would result in significant impacts; (2) contend
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.
5.3.3.1 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 western 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.
5-11
-------
Figure 5.3-2. Areawide Review Alternative for NEPA review process for the
issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in western Kentucky.
NPDES Permit
Application
Submitted
Review By
USEPA Permits
Branch
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
Total Days
60
Numbers represent estimated days required to complete each action.
I
I
NJ
-------
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 Western 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;
(7) recreational land; and (8) groundwater. These resources typically are not
fully considered at the local, state or other Federal agency level. Sig-
nificantly 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 prograu for the Western Kentucky Coal
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 and the requirements of NEPA would not be met. 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.
5-13
-------
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, and is unlikely to be legally defensible.
5.3.3.2 Impacts Not Mitigatable by USEPA
This option would change the EIA to an EIS which would contend 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
potentially significant these impacts are not so severe as to justify denial
of an NPDES 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 western Kentucky. It is one
of the least costly in the short run to mining applicants. However it dis-
regards present knowledge of mitigative measures. Consequently, it too entails
a likelihood for lawsuits challenging the strategy, which could cause 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 is of doubtful value
5-14
-------
in light of existing regulations that require the Agency to address alternatives
available to all parties, not only USEPA. The argument of marginal utility
could be attemptedthat is that the cost of compliance and enforcement outweighs
the environmental benefit of the potential mitigative measures.
5.3.3.3 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 5.2 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.
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.
5-15
-------
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.
5.3.4 Areawide-Indlvldual Combined Review Alternative
This alternative combines the last two general approaches described into
a single strategy using the Resource Threshold Criteria. This Areawide EIA,
together with site-specific information provided by the applicant, 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 environ-
mental reviews would be undertaken. Figure 5.3-3 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
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-
5-16
-------
Figure 5.3-3. Areawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative for NEPA review
process for the issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in western Kentucky.
Total Days
NPDES Permit
Application &
EIR Submitted
I
I1
^J
Review by
USEPA EIS
Branch
20
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
80
Third Party
EIS Prepared
200-3OO
USEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
325-
425
NPDES Permit
Denied
Applicant
EID 60
USEPA Review &
WPP A ~n £*r\ ^ *? -t *-x^,
JNIirA U6CXS1OT1
25
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
USEPA Prepares
EIS
2OO-3OO
USEPA Reviews
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
165
410-
510
NPDES Permit
Denied
Numbers represent estimated days required to complete each action.
-------
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. IP 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 5.2.
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 5.2.1).
Depending on the significance of the identified impact and its ability to
be mitigated, additional information, an alternatives analysis, or an EIS
would be required. It is estimated that 70% of all New Source applications
would follow the fast track procedure using this strategy.
This alternative has the potential to result in significant environmental
benefits to the Western Kentucky Coal Field area. The Resource Threshold
Criteria have been developed to focus envi ron.nent al review efforts on the most
significant impact areas. Significant mitigation of adverse impacts on sensi-
tive 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 archaeological and historical resources, on recreational
land, and on wetlands would be realized.
Approximately 0.6 manyears would be required to handle the workload
anticipated using this compliance alternative. An additional $100,000 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.
5-18
-------
This alternative has advantages in the time necessary to process a per-
mit. In comparison to time frames for exist Lag 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 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 alternatives analysis)
where an application trips one or more initial threshold and
additional questions are involved.
Alternatives Analysis - approximately 60 days for applicant response
plus 25 days for a USEPA NEPA decision.
EIS - 200-300 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, and
would thus be legally defensible. 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
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 as to whether or not the proposed operation meets or
exceeds any Level I Resource Threshold Criteria. If it does, standard con-
5-19
-------
ditions 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
to be instituted. This could again contribute to stifling new ideas in impact
mitigation.
5-20
-------
5.3.5 Ateawide-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 ulti-
mately reduce the number of New Sources in the subarea requiring individual
analysis 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 5.3-4 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 de-
scribed under the Areawide-Individual approach (unless a subareawide review
was required which would necessitate a longer time frame).
5.4 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.
5.4.1 Environmental Benefit
The level of environmental benefit or protection provided by the alter-
natives varies widely. The greatest level of environmental protection is
5-21
-------
Figure 5.3-4. Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative for NEPA review
process for the issuance of New Source coal mining NPDES permits in western Kentucky.
Total Days
NPDES Permit
Application &
EIR Submitted
Ul
i
NEPA
Review By
USEPA *
20
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
Third Party
EIS Prepared
200-300
USEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Denied
Applicant
Prepares
Alternatives
Analysis
DO
USEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
25
USEPA Prepares
EIS
200-3OO
80
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
325-
425
NPDES Permit
Issued
60]
USEPA Review &
NEPA Decision
45
NPDES Permit
Issued
60
165
410-
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.
-------
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 raining 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
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 spectru-u, 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.
5-23
-------
Both the Areawide-Itidividual 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 significant adverse impacts are not identified (no Level I thresholds are
met). In effect, these combined review alternatives will provide for a pro-
ject-specific enviro rune fit al review when the possibility of adverse impacts is
identified while allowing for fast-track permit processing when significant
impacts are not expected. The implementation of either of these alternatives
would result in a substantial level of protection of surface water and ground-
water, sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, wetlands, environmentally
significant 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. Under this alternative
some significant impacts coruld occur should significant effects occur which
are not covered by the Resource Threshold Criteria, or in those instances
where other agencies fail to meet their responsibilities.
5.4.2 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 0.6 manyears for the Areawide-Individual and Areawide-Subareawide-
Individual Review Alternatives, to 1.2 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
$100,000 with the Areawide-Individual and Areawide-Subareawide-Individual
Review Alternatives. NPDES permit applicants will incur costs for supplying
environmental data and preparing the alternatives analysis or EIS's that might
be required under some of the review alternatives. No costs would be incurred
by applicants under the Areawide Review Alternative since no environmental
data or EIS's are required in order to obtain the NPDES permit. With the
Individual, Areawide-Individual, or Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Alterna-
tives, USEPA has estimated the applicants would spend a total of $1.0 million
5-24
-------
annually to provide the environmental data required by USEPA. This cost
figure is based on the 70 New Source NPDES permit applications expected annually
from western Kentucky. Applicants would spend significantly more than this
amount to provide the mining plans and other data necessary to obtain the
BSMRE mining permit under the permanent program. The costs associated with
obtaining the NPDES permits are minute when compared with the $1.1 billion in
annual revenues generated by coal mining in the Western Kentucky Coal Field.
5.4.3 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 up to 500 days if an 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 environmental information indicates no signifi-
cant impacts will occur. Otherwise, permit issuance would require from 80 to
up to 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. Subsequent permit applications located
within the subarea could be expedited as with the areawide approach, however,
after the subareawide review is completed.
5.4.4 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 No Action Alternative and 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.
5-25
-------
5.4.5 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.
5.4.6 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.
5.5 THE SELECTED ACTION
5.5.1 Overall Recommendation
The results of the analysis of alternatives indicate that the Areawide-
Subareawide-Individual Combined Review Alternative would best fulfill USEPA's
responsibilities. All of the alternatives and their variations present dis-
tinct 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 preferable. However, the USEPA resources required are not reason-
5-26
-------
able given the current personnel and funding allocations. The Areawide FONSI,
on the other hand, is superior from a cost, processing, and manpower stand-
point, but deficient in terms of environmental benefits, ability to withstand
legal challenges, 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
flexibility 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 consequencesboth positive and negativethat will result
from implementing this alternative.
5.5.2 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 environmental information.
4. An Environmental Impact Assessnent (EIA) and FONSI (both standardized)
are 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 raitigatable, an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and FONSI is prepared.
7. If a Level II RTC is triggered, an alternatives analysis is prepared
by applicant.
8. If a Level III RTC is triggered, an EIS is prepared by USEPA or
third party contractor.
5-27
-------
9. Issue penult, issue permit with conditions, or deny permit.
Us lag the Proposed Action, the review of NPDSS permit applications would be
significantly streamlined while maintaining a high level of environmental
protection.
5-28
-------
6.0 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 Western Kentucky Coal Field, on applicants for New
Source coal mining NPDES permits in the Coal Field, and on IJSEPA. Impacts on
the environment are described in terms of the level of protection provided for
the sensitive resources of western 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.
6.1 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 IJSEPA 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 endangerment. Under the Selected Action, a
proposed mining operation with a discharge that occurs within five miles
upstrean 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. Vhis procedure assures the protection of the resource against
6-1
-------
mining-related impacts that may alter species composition, reduce water use
opportunities, or otherwise adversely impact the sensitive characteristics of
the resource.
Groundwater quality and quantity would be protected by the review pro-
cedure incorporated in the Selected Action. The existance of private water
supply wells within 2,000 feet of the permit area of a proposed coal prepara-
tion plant or mine permit area, and public water supply wells within one saile
of the proposed permit areas would initiate site-specific groundwater reviews
(if the producing aquifer is not hydraulically separated from potential pollu-
tion sources such as spoil stockpiles and refuse disposal areas). In this
way, the quality and quantity of local grouadwater resources can be considered
by requiring permit applicants to investigate alternatives and address mitiga-
tive 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
considered for 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. IP 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 addressed 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 minimize adverse impacts.
Impacts to Environmentally Significant Agricultural (ESA) lands as defined
by USEPA national policy would be addressed by the site-specific review require-
6-2
-------
ments of the Selected Action. Coal mining activities, 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 appropriate. This review procedure will minimize the permanent conversion
of ESA land and promote the protection of this valuable natural resource.
The Selected Action will address impacts to recreational land from 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 possibility and signif-
icance of adverse impacts caused by noise pollution, air pollution, or other
forms of pollution that would degrade the quality of recreational opportunities
at the facility. This review and the resultant mitigative measures or permit
action will allow protection of recreational lands from significant adverse
impacts of mining operations where approprite.
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
significance of possible impacts. Alternative haul routes or other mitigative
measures 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 raining-related noise by
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
6-3
-------
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 r >
thereby minimizing adverse effects from exposure to mining-related noise
levels.
The Selected Action will provide protection for cultural resources (historic,
archaeologic, and paleontologic sites) of the Western Kentucky Coal Field from
significant 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 determines 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 signif-
icant 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. Should those agencies fail to meet their responsibilities,
significant advese impacts could occur which would not be addressed by USEPA
through this review process.
6-4
-------
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.
6.2 TEMPORAL EFFECTS
The implementation of the Selected Action will streamline the permit
review process, thereby reducing the time required to process the NPDES 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
EID 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.
6.3 USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
The manpower requirements necessary for USEPA to fully implement the
Selected Action are moderate. Based on an estimated 70 permit applications
per year, approximately 0.6 USEPA manyears of effort would be needed to ade-
quately implement the review process. This compares favorably to the estimated
7 manyears that would be required to perform NEPA compliance reviews utilizing
conventional methods.
6.4 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 70 NPDES permit appli-
6-5
-------
cations to be processed annually, USEPA would expect to spend an estimated
$100,000 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 $1.0 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 cost to New Source NPDES permit applicants is
relatively small when compared to the costs associated with obtaining mining
permits or the revenues that are derived from the sale of coal mined in western
Kentucky.
6-6
-------
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appalachian Regional Commission. 1969. Acid mine drainage in Appalachia.
Atherton, Elwood. 1971. Tectonic development of the eastern interior region
of the United States. Illinois Petroleum 96. Illinois State Geological
Survey, Urbana IL, p. 29-43.
Braun, B.A. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press,
New York NY.
Brockway, James M., and Thomas J. Sager. 1979. How many Kentuckians: Popula-
tion forecasts, 1970-2020. The 1979 update. Prepared by the University
of Louisville, Louisville KY, 87 p.
Burroughs, Wilbur Greeley. 1924. The geography of the Western Kentucky Coal
Field. Prepared for Kentucky Geological Survey. Frankfort KY, 205 p.
Bryant, W.S. 1977. The Big Clifty Prairie, a remnant outlier of the Prairie
Peninsula, Grayson County, Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy
of Science 38(1-2):21-25.
Collins, Michael B., David Pollack, and Kenneth Robinson. 1981. Distri-
butional and locational trends of archaeological sites in the Western
Kentucky Coal Field. University of Kentucky Department of Anthropology
Archaeological Report 63. Submitted to the Kentucky Nature Preserves
Commission. 127 p.
Currens, James C., and Gilbert E. Smith. 1977. Coal production in Kentucky,
1790-1975. Information Circular 23. Kentucky Geological Survey, Uni-
versity of Kentucky, Lexington KY, 66 p.
Fish, Birney R., and Robert E. Nickel. 1975. Coal mining and the environment:
Seeking a balance in Appalachia. In Energy Sources for the Future:
Symposium. NIIS Conf-750733. Sponsored by ERDA. Oak Ridge Associated
Universities, Oak Ridge TN, p. 89-106.
Greenbaum, Margaret E. 1975. Kentucky coal reserves: Effects on coal
industry structure and output. Prepared for Institute for Mining and
Minerals Research. University of Kentucky, Lexington KY, 23 p.
Harvey, Edward J. 1956. Geology and groundwater resources of the Henderson
area, Kentucky. US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1356. Prepared
in cooperation with the Agricultural and Industrial Development Board of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky. US Government Printing Office, Washington
DC, 227 p.
Harvey, Curtis E. 1977. The economics of Kentucky coal. The University
Press of Kentucky, Lexington KY, 173 p.
Herricks, E.E. 1975. Recovery of streams from chronic pollutional stress-
acid mine drainage. _In_ J. Cairns, Jr., K.L. Dickson, and E.E. Herricks
(Editors), Recovery and restoration of damaged ecosystems. University of
Virginia Press, Charlottesville VA, p. 43-71.
7-1
-------
Herricks, E.E. , and J. Cairns, Jr. 1974. Rehabilitation of streams receiving
acid mine drainage. Virginia Water Resources Research Center Bulletin
Number 66. Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 284 p.
Hill, R.D., and E.C, Grim. 1975. Environmental factors in surface mine
recovery, jta J. Cairns, Jr., K.L. Dickson, and E.E. Herricks (Editors),
Recovery and restoration of damaged ecosystems. University Press of
Virginia, Charlottesville VA, p. 290-302.
Karan, P.P., and Cotton Mather (Editors). 1977. Atlas of Kentucky. Uni-
versity Press of Kentucky, Lexington KY, 182 p.
Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals. 1975. Annual report. Lexington
KY, 210 p.
. 1979. Annual report. Lexington KY, 187 p.
. 1980. Annual report. Lexington KY, 190 p.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. 1980a. Western Kentucky Coal Field:
Preliminary investigation of natural features and cultural resources.
Introduction and ecology and ecological features of the Western Kentucky
Coal Field, Volume 1 (Part 1) Technical Report, December 1980. Submitted
to US Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta GA, 584 p.
. 1980b. Western Kentucky Coal Field: Preliminary investi-
gation of natural features and cultural resources. Introduction to
ecology and ecological features of the Western Kentucky Coal Field,
Volume 1 (Part II) Technical Report, December 1980. Submitted to US
Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta GA, 584 p.
. 1980c. Western Kentucky Coal Field: Preliminary investi-
gation of natural features and cultural resources. Cultural resources
overlay index, volume 5. 131 p.
. 1980d. Western Kentucky Coal Field: Preliminary investi-
gation of natural features and cultural resources. Caves and associated
fauna of the Western Kentucky Coal Field. Technical Report, December
1980. Submitted to US Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta GA.
. 1980e. Western Kentucky Coal Field: Geologic diversity of
the Western Kentucky Coal Field. Submitted to US Environmental Protection
Agency, Atlanta GA.
. 1980f. Western Kentucky Coal Field: Preliminary investi-
gation of natural features and cultural resources. Water resources and
natural features overlay index. Volume IV. Technical Report, December
1980. Submitted to US Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta GA, 128
P-
. 1980g. Kentucky natural areas plan. January 1980.
7-2
-------
McFarlan, Arthur C. 1943. The geology of Kentucky. Waverly Press, Baltimore
MD, 309 p.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1975. Section 303(e) Kentucky River basin water
quality management plan, Ohio River basin. Prepared for Division of
Water Quality, Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, variously
paged.
McGrain, Preston, and James C. Currens. 1978. Topography of Kentucky.
Special Publication 25, Series X. Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington
KY, 76 p.
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Noise abate-
ment policy alternatives for transportation. Washington DC.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1978. National coal utilization assessment; a
preliminary assessment of coal utilization in the South. Oak Ridge TN,
variously paginated.
Palmer, James E. , and Russell R. Dutcher (Editors). 1979. Depositional and
structural history of the Pennsylvanian system of the Illinois Basin,
Part I. Guidebook 15, Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana IL, 116
P.
Pickard, Claude Eugene. 1969. The Western Kentucky Coal Field: The influ-
ence of coal mining on the settlement patterns, forms, and functions.
Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Nebraska, Lincoln NB, 294
P-
Pryor, W.A., and E.G. Sable. 1974. Carboniferous of the Eastern Interior
Basin. In Briggs and Garrett (Editors), Carboniferous of the South-
eastern United States. Geological Society of America, Inc., Special
Paper 148, p. 281-313.
Rice, Charles L., Edward C. Sable, G.R. Denver, and Thomas M. Kehn. 1979.
The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) systems in the United
States - Kentucky. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1110-F, in
cooperation with the Kentucky Geological Survey. US Government Printing
Office, Washington DC, 32 p.
Smith, Gilbert E., and Russell A. Brant. 1978. Western Kentucky coal
resources. Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington KY. Prepared for
Institute for Mining and Minerals Research, Lexington KY, 152 p.
Thorpe, Jim. 1980. Personal communication, Jim Thorpe, Western Kentucky
District Supervisor, Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals, 20 December
1980.
US Department of Agriculture. 1967. Soil survey of Henderson County, Ken-
tucky. Prepared by H.T. Converse, Jr., and F.R. Cox, Jr. for Soil Con-
servation Service in cooperation with Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
Station. 108 p. plus maps.
7-3
-------
1974. Soil survey of Daviess and Hancock Counties, Ken-
tucky. Prepared by F.R. Cox, Jr. for Soil Conservation Service in cooper-
ation with Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 81 p. plus maps.
. 1977. Soil survey of Hopkins County, Kentucky. Prepared by
J.P. Fehr et al. for Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Kentucky
Agricultural Experiment Station. 62 p. plus maps.
. 1979. Prime farmland soils of Kentucky. Soil Conservation
Service, Lexington KY, map.
. 1980. Kentucky prime farmlands; estimating as of January
1980. Soil Conservation Service, Lexington KY.
US Department of Commerce. 1973. Census of population: 1970; Vol. 1:
Characteristics of the populations - Part 19. Kentucky. US Bureau of
the Census. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
. 1974. Population distribution of the United States as a
function of outdoor noise level. Washington DC.
. 1980. 1978 census of agriculture -Preliminary report.
Kentucky Bureau of the Census. Washington DC, variously paged.
. 1981. 1980 census of population and housing: Kentucky
Final population and housing unit counts. US Bureau of the Census.
PHC80-V-19. Washington DC, 21 p.
US Geological Survey. 1976. Final environmental statement, proposed 20-year
plan of mining and reclamation, Westmoreland Resources Tract III, Crow
Indian Ceded Area, Montana.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1975. Section 303(e) Kentucky River basin water quality
management plans; Volume 3, Green River basin. Prepared for Division of
Water Quality. Kentucky Department for Natural Resources, variously
paged.
Williamson, Allen D. 1980. Personal communication, Allen Williamson, Ken-
tucky Geological Survey, Henderson Field Office, 12 December 1980.
7-4
-------
APPENDIX A
RESOURCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA
A-l
-------
RESOURCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Given the existing level of protection afforded by current State and
Federal regulations, USEPA must consider the environmental effects of per-
mitting activities related to New Source coal raining NPDES discharges on the
following resource areas:
surface water and groundwater
sensitive ecosystems
wetlands
environmentally significant agricultural lands
recreational lands
noise
historic, archaeologic, or paleontologic sites
air quality
public comment
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 resource areas listed above are not ade-
quately protected by the State or by Federal agencies other than USEPA.
Therefore, pursuant to NEPA requirements, it is the responsibility of USEPA to
ensure that every effort is made to protect them. In an effort to provide
such protection, USEPA may choose to establish a set of Resource Threshold
Criteria for each resource area. The following sections identify possible RTC
for each area.
SURFACE WATER
Level I Criterion - There are receiving stream segments within 5.0 stream miles
downstreaa of the proposed discharge:
designated or proposed for designation as a domestic
water supply; or
designated or proposed for designation as coldwater
aquatic habitat; or
designated or proposed for designation as an Out-
standing Resource Water of the Commonwealth; or
likely to be inhabited by a Federally listed or
proposed species in danger of extinction or threat-
ened with endangerment as identified by KNPC; or
A-2
-------
identified as a Sensitive Aquatic Ecosystem by KNPC;
or
identified as a high or moderate water quality stream
by KNPC.
Level II Criterion - Proposed coal mining operations are likely to have
a significant adverse impact on the characteristics of
the strean segments listed in the Level I criterion
which make them unique, outstanding, or otherwise sig-
ni f ic ant.
Level III Criterion -
Proposed coal mining operations will have a signifi-
cant adverse impact on the characteristics of the stream
segments listed in the Level I criterion which make them
unique, outstanding, or otherwise significant which has
not or cannot be mitigated.
GROUNDWATER
Level I Criterion
Level II Criterion -
Level III Criterion -
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, or
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 storsge
or refuse disposal area, and no barrier is known to
preclude hydraulic connection between a potential pollu-
tion source and producing aquifers.
There is likely to be a significant adverse impact on
private or public water supply wells, except those used
solely by the applicant.
Proposed coal mining operations will have an unmitigated
significant adverse impact on public or private water
supply wells, except those used solely by the applicant.
Level 1 Criterion -
SENSITIVE TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
Surface disturbance caused by coal mining operations
proposed within 2,000 feet of: (1) a Sensitive Ecosystem
identified by KNPC; or (2) an area identified by KNPC
likely to be inhabited by Federally listed or proposed
species in danger of extinction or threatened with
endangeraent as designated by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
A-3
-------
Level II Criterion - Surface disturbance caused by proposed coal mining
operations is likely to have a significant adverse
impact on the characteristics of the habitat or eco-
systems defined by the Level I criterion which makes the
habitat unsuitable for those sensitive ecosystems.
Level III Criterion - 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 unsuit-
able for those sensitive ecosystems.
Level I Criterion
WETLANDS
- Wetlands located within or adjacent to the area pro-
posed for surface disturbance by coal mining activities.
Coal mining operations will discharge into or hydrauli-
cally modify a wetland area.
Level II Criterion - Proposed coal mining activities are likely to create
a significant disturbance to wetland areas.
Level III Criterion - Proposed coal mining activities will create a signifi-
cant unmitigated adverse impact to significant wetland
areas.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Level I Criterion
- 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 Criterion - Proposed coal mining activities are likely to create
a significant adverse impact on prime farmlands.
Level HI Criterion - Proposed coal mining activities will irretrievably
convert a signficant acreage of ESA lands.
Level I Criterion
RECREATION LANDS
- Proposed 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.
A-4
-------
Level II Criterion - Coal mining operations proposed are likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the resources described in
the Level I criterion.
Level III Criterion - Proposed coal mining operations will have a signifi-
cant unmitigated adverse impact on the resources de-
scribed in the Level I criterion.
NOISE
Level I Criterion - Coal production exceeds 1.5 million tons per year,
and sensitive receptors are projected to experience an
L 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).
Level II Criterion - Coal haul truck traffic would produce an L of 70
dBA at the closest sensitive receptor on coal haul roads
identified under the Level I criterion after consider-
ation of existing natural topographic or vegetative
barriers or other site-specific conditions.
Level III Criterion - Proposed haul trucks would produce an L of 73 dBA,
or an L of 70 dBA, at the closest sensitive receptor.
HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGIC, AND PALEONTOLOGIC SITES
Level I Criterion - 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 Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Kentucky Office
of State Archaeology (OSA)).
Letter from Kentucky SHPO or OSA indicates the existence
of an adverse impact on historic, archaeologic, or
paleontologic resources from proposed coal mining activ-
ities.
Level II Criterion - 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 Criterion - Proposed coal mining operations will have a significant
unmitigated adverse impact on the resources defined in
the Level I criterion.
A-5
-------
Figure A-l. Nomagraph of estimated noise levels from mine haul roads,
1000
900
800
700
600
50C
400
300
200
W 100
§ 90
8f 80
u 70
< 60
Jo
5
50
40
3J2
20 y
II
50
40
10
30
20
5Q_
40
20
SO 40 JO ZO 10
HAUL TRUCKS/HOUR
10
80
70
60
dBA
A-6
50
40
30
-------
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 these 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 investi-
gate alternatives and/or address mitigation.
A-7
-------
Level I Criterion
Level II Criterion -
AIR QUALITY
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).
Significant adverse impacts are likely to occur from
proposed activities.
Level III Criterion - Mitigative measures are not sufficient to reduce
emissions to below the level described in Level I.
Unmitigated significant adverse impacts will occur from
the proposed operation.
Level I Criterion
Level II Criterion -
Level III Criterion -
PUBLIC COMMENT
Significant issues raised by public, local, state, or
Federal parties on a resource area not otherwise identi-
fied or adequately addressed.
Significant adverse impacts are likely to result to
resource area identified under Level I.
Unmitigated significant adverse impacts will result
to resource area identified under Level I.
A-8
-------
Figure A-2. Nomagraph of estimated fugitive dust emissions from
mine haul roads.
400
O
C£
LLJ
U
z
300
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-9
-------
RESOURCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA CALCULATIONS
FOR 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 approximately 30 feet from the
centerline of an unpaved road, NAAQS would be exceeded at approximately 90
truck passbys per day, or 45 loaded passbys per day. At 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 these criteria would be requested to identify unpaved haul
roads proposed for use, and sensitive receptors along these routes which
(according to the Air Quality Nomagraph) could be subjected to fugitive dust
emissions in excess of NAAQS.
If a potential problem is docunented, operations would be required to investi-
gate alternatives and/or address mitigation.
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
USEPA AND APPLICANT COSTS
B-l
-------
USEPA AND APPLICANT COSTS
USEPA is anticipating issuing an annual average of 70 NPDES permits for
New Source coal mines in the Western Kentucky Coal Field. A primary objective
of this analysis of NEPA compliance strategies is to reduce the time and
monetary expenditures associated with permit issuance. Thus, identification
of the associated costs is essential to this study. The sections which follow
present estimates of the costs associated with each of the three strategies.
The costs are identified by resource area and include: (1) USEPA manpower
requirements; (2) USEPA costs associated with EIS preparation and review; and
(3) the monetary costs expected to be incurred by applicants. These costs are
based on the number of permit applications expected to trigger each of the
Resource Threshold Criteria levels as identified for each resource area.
In order to determine these costs, several assumptions are made in the
analysis. Under the Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Strategy, USEPA's initial
review of applications should take a total of 250 man-hours. The applicant's
cost of submitting the information required for the initial review varies from
$100 to $1,000 per resource area depending upon the activities proposed.
USEPA's review of additional information will vary among the resource
areas and will depend upon the level of impacts associated with the proposed
project. The review of additional questions is expected to be required for
those projects with impacts which equal or exceed a Level I RTC. The USEPA
manpower requirements for reviewing the additional questions are estimated to
be about one hour each. The applicant's costs for submitting additional
information should vary from $100 to $5,000 per resource area.
An evaluation of alternatives can be expected when impacts equal or
exceed a Level II RTC. An alternatives evaluation would not be prepared,
however, when a third party EIS is prepared. The time required for USEPA to
review an alternatives analysis is expected to be approximately 10 man-hours
and to cost the applicant about $5,000.
B-2
-------
When a Level III RTC is equalled or exceeded, an EIS must be prepared
either by the applicant or by USEPA. It is estimated that about 80% of the
EIS's will be third party and paid for by the applicant. USEPA's review of a
third party EIS is estimated to require about 160 hours per application. The
applicant's cost for each third party EIS should be about $100,000. It is
estimated that about 20% of the EIS's will be prepared by USEPA at a cost of
approximately $100,000. The time required for USEPA to review the EIS is
expected to total about 160 man-hours.
The total costs to USEPA and the applicant are determined by multiplying
the number of permit applications expected to trigger each RTC level of a
given resource area by the associated expenditures identified above. The
USEPA costs and the applicant expenditures are totalled for all areas to
derive summary estimates. From this analysis it appears that USEPA could
spend 0.6 man-years using the Areawide-Subareawide-Individual Strategy. An
estimated $100,000 would be spent in the preparation of EIS's.
The following sections summarize the costs associated with the NPEES
review of New Source coal mines for the Western Kentucky Coal Field.
B-3
-------
SURFACE WATER
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS (Annual Estimate)
< LI
LI
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Preparation Plants
Total
16
LIII'
48
4
2
12
2
2
2
0
1
1
1
0
Applications tripping LII and/or LIII also trip LI.
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS (Annual Estimate)
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS
Total
16 hours
30 hours
320 hours
366 hours
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
EIS Costs
@ $100,000 per EIS
$40,000 (100,000 x (20% of 2))
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire @ $100 per application $ 7,000 ($100 x 70)
Additional Questions @ $2,000 per application $ 32,000 ($2,000 x 16)
Preparation of EID's and EIS's (See Summary Table)
B-4
-------
GROUNDWATER
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS (Annual Estimate)
< LI LI LII* LIII"
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Preparation Plants
Total 42 28 5
Applications tripping LII and/or LIII also trip LI.
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS (Annual Estimate)
36
4
_2
24
2
_2
3
1
1.
1
0
0
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS
Total
28 hours
50 hours
160 hours
238 hours
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
$20,000 ($100,000 x (20% of 1)
EIS Costs
@ $100,000 per EIS
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire @ $800 per application $ 56,000 ($800 x 70)
Additional Questions @ $1,000 per application $ 28,000 ($1,000 x 28)
Preparation of EID's and EIS's (See Summary Table)
B-5
-------
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS (Annual Estimate)
< LI LI LII* LIII*
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Preparation Plants
Total
*
Applications tripping
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
30
3
_2
35
30
3
_2
35
LII and/or LIII also
(Annual
Estimate)
6
1
JL
8
trip LI.
2
0
^)
2
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application 35 hours
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each 80 hours
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS 320 hours
Total 435 hours
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
EIS Costs
@$100,000 per EIS $40,000 ($100,000 x (20% of 2))
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire @ $400 per application $ 28,000 ($400 x 70)
Additional Questions @ $100 per application $ 3,500-($100 x 35)
Preparation of EID's and EIS's (See Summary Table)
B-6
-------
RECREATION LAND
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS (Annual Estimate)
< LI LI LII* LIII*
Surface Mines 54 6 1 0
Underground Mines 51 0 0
Preparation Plants 31 0 0
Total 62 8 1 0
*
Applications tripping LII and/or LIII also trip LI.
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS (Annual Estimate)
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application 8 hours
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each 10 hours
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS _j) hours
Total 18 hours
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
EIS Costs
@$100,000 per EIS
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire @ $200 per application $14,000 ($200 x 70)
Additional Questions @ $400 per application $ 3,200 ($400 x 8)
Preparation of EID's and EIS's (See Summary Table)
B-7
-------
SENSITIVE TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS (Annual Estimate)
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Preparation Plants
Total
*
< LI
64
LI
LIII
54
6
4
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Applications tripping LII and/or LIII also trip LI.
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS (Annual Estimate)
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS
Total
6 hours
20 hours
0 hours
26 hours
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
EIS Costs
@ $100,000 per EIS
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire @ $100 per application $ 7,000
Additional Questions @ $1,000 per application $ 6,000
Preparation of EID's and EIS's
($100 x 70)
($1,000 x 6)
(See Summary Table)
B-8
-------
AIR QUALITY
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS (Annual Estimate)
< LI LI LII* LIII*
Surface Mines 56 4 1 0
Underground Mines 421 0
Preparation Plants _3 _i _i Q_
Total 63 7 3 0
*
Applications tripping LII and/or LIII also trip LI.
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS (Annual Estimate)
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application 7 hours
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each 30 hours
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS _jO hours
Total 37 hours
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
EIS Costs
@ $100,000 per EIS
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire @$200 per application $ 14,000 ($200 x 70)
Additional Questions @$5,000 per application $ 35,000 ($5,000 x 7)
Preparation of EID's and EIS's (See Summary Table)
B-9
-------
NOISE
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS . (Annual Estimate)
< LI LI LII*
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Preparation Plants
Total
*
59
6
_3
68
1
0
1
0
0
0.
0
LITE*
0
0
0
0
i\
Applications tripping LII and/or LIII also trip LI.
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS (Annual Estimate)
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS
Total
2 hours
0 hours
JD hours
2 hours
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
EIS Costs
@ $100,000 per EIS
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire@ $200 per application
Additional Questions @ $1,500 per application
Preparation of EID's and EIS's
$14,000 ($200 x 70)
$ 3,000 ($1,500 x 2)
(See Summary Table)
B-10
-------
WETLANDS
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS (Annual Estimate)
< LI LI LII* LIII*
Surface Mines 45 15 2 0
Underground Mines 600 0
Preparation Plants _J3 _JL JL £
Total 54 16 3 0
Applications tripping LII and/or LIII also trip LI.
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS (Annual Estimate)
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application 16 hours
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each 30 hours
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS 0
Total 46 hours
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
EIS Costs
@ $100,000 per EIS
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire @ $100 per application $ 7,000 ($100 x 70)
Additional Questions @ $1,000 per application $ 16,000 ($1,000 x 16)
Preparation of EID's and EIS's (See Summary Table)
B-ll
-------
ARCHAEOLOGICAL. HISTORIC AND PALEONTOLOGIC
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS (Annual Estimate)
< LI
LI
Lir
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Preparation Plants
Total
48
22
LIIIJ
40
5
_3
20
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
«
Applications tripping LII and/or LIII also trip LI.
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS (Annual Estimate)
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS
Total
22 hours
50 hours
0 hours
72 hours
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
EIS Costs
@ $100,000 per EIS
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire @ $600 per application
Additional Questions @$1,500 per application
Preparation of EID's and EIS's
$ 42,000 ($600 x 70)
$ 33,000 ($1,500 x 22)
(See Summary Table)
B-12
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT
APPLICATIONS TRIPPING RTC LEVELS (Annual Estimate)
< LI LI LII* LIII*
Surface Mines
Underground Mines
Preparation Plants
Total
*
Applications tripping
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
50
4
_3
57
10
2
_J,
13
LII and/or LIII also
(Annual
Estimate)
0
0
0.
0
trip LI.
0
0
0
0
Review of Additional Questions
@ 1 hour per application 13 hours
Review of alternatives analysis
@ 10 hours each ° hours
Review of EIS's
@ 160 hours per EIS -° hours
Total 13
USEPA EXPENDITURES (Annual Estimate)
EIS Costs
@ $100,000 per EIS
EXPENDITURES BY APPLICANTS (Annual Estimate)
Initial Questionnaire N/A
Additional Questions @ $800 per application $10,400 ($800 x 13)
Preparation of EID's and EIS's (See Summary Table)
B-13
-------
SUMMARY OF US EPA AND APPLICANT COSTS
USEPA MANPOWER REQUIREMENT
Initial Review 250
Review of Additional Information 153
Review of Alternatives Analyses 350
Review of EIS's 800
Total 1,553 manhours
USEPA EXPENDITURES
EIS Preparation $100,000
PERMIT APPLICANT EXPENDITURES
Initial Information $189,000
Additional Information 170 000
Preparation of Alternatives Analyses 150,000
Preparation of EIS's 400,000
Tot al $909^000
B-14
-------
APPENDIX C
GENERAL AND STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS
C-l
-------
GENERAL AND STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS
USEPA may choose to adopt permit conditions that could be applied to
nunerous permit applicants. The purpose of such an action would be to estab-
lish standardized measures for mitigating coal mining impacts to environmental
resources. The establishment of such conditions would provide a consistent
means of regulating the effects of coal mining activities.
USEPA could choose to establish general conditions that would apply to
every New Source coal facility permit applicant. A condition would be written
for each resource area for which significant impacts might occur. As part of
the condition, a description of when that condition would be applicable would
be included. The conditions would be included in all permits and would not be
related to the specific project evaluation.
Another option would be for USEPA to establish standard conditions. In
contrast to the general conditions, a standard condition would be stipulated
only after it has been determined that a significant adverse impact may result
in a given resource area. The condition would result directly from the pro-
ject review.
The use of general and/or standard conditions would provide USEPA with an
expedient means of establishing consistent requirements. Project-specific
data may not be available, however, to justify the stipulation of such con-
ditions for a given project. While individual project conditions pose require-
ments related to the specific project, such conditions can vary greatly from
project to project. General and standard conditions constitute consistent
mechanisms for regulating the effects of coal mining activities. Identified
below are general conditions and standard conditions that USEPA could apply to
NPDES permits for New Source coal mining activities in western Kentucky.
C-2
-------
SURFACE WATER
General Conditioning - A general condition such as the following could be used
to mitigate surface water impacts by inclusion in every New Source NPDES
permit:
The applicant shall ensure that raining discharges will not adversely
affect any of the following resources located within five miles down-
stream 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 Common-
wealth (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).
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as the following could be
used to mitigate surface water impacts for those mining operations meeting or
exceeding the Level I criteria.
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
will be provided quarterly to EPA, Water Management Division, Region IV,
to the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protec-
tion (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.
GROUNDWATER
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the following could
be used to mitigate groundwater impacts by inclusion in every New Source NPDES
permit :
The applicant shall assure the protection of groundwater quantity and
quality at public supply wells and private water supply wells.
C-3
-------
Standard Conditioning - Standard conditions such as the following could be
used to mitigate groundwater impacts for those mining operations meeting or
exceeding the Level I criteria. For underground mining operations the condi-
tion would state:
Mine seals, either dry seals or hydraulic seals, will be installed in all
mine shafts Which will prevent the formation of acid mine drainage.
For preparation plants and surface mines the condition could state:
Acid forming overburden, spoil, and refuse will be isolated from oxygen
contact by compaction and burial and/or by neutralization with basic
material.
SENSITIVE TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
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 iden-
tified by KNPC, or (2) an area identified by KNPC as likely to be in-
habited by a Federally listed or proposed species in danger of extinction
or threatened with endangerment as designated by USFWS.
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 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 accep-
table to EPA and KNPC to avoid or mitigate such impacts.
C-4
-------
WETLANDS
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the following could
be used to mitigate impacts to wetlands 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.
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 applicant shall establish buffer zones to separate mining activities
from identified wetland areas. Water quality in wetlands shall be pro-
tected by the applicant maintaining natural groundwater flow rates and
preventing any discharge of degraded water into the wetland area.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the following could
be used to mitigate impacts 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.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as the following could be
used to mitigate impacts for those surface mining operations meeting or exceed-
ing the Level I criteria.
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), unique farmlands, and farmlands of statewide or local importance.
(NOTE: The sheet attached to the permit would outline the four steps
required for soil removal, storage, and replacing.)
C-5
-------
RECREATION LANDS
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the following could
be used to mitigate impacts to recreation lands 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 the nonintrusive levels.
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 could state:
The applicant shall construct barriers, use natural topographic features
as barriers, or redefine the mining boundary area to minimize mining
and/or visual impacts on recreational land. Mining and related activi-
ties shall be staged to minimize the adverse effects on adjacent recrea-
tional land. Where appropriate, haul routes shall be relocated to avoid
impacts on recreational land.
AIR QUALITY
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 recep-
tors does not exceed NAAQS particulate limits.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as the following could be
used to mitigate air quality impacts for those operations meeting or exceeding
Level I criteria. The standard condition could 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.
C-6
-------
NOISE
General Conditioning - A general permit condition such as the following could
he 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 70
dBA L (24).
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. For coal preparation plants located within 200 feet of a
sensitive receptor (and therefore likely to cause noise levels equal to or
greater than 70 dBA), the condition could 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 L, of 73 dBA is
projected. dn
For coal transportation routes where sensitive receptors would be expected to
receive a noise level of 70 dBA, 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 as many sensitive receptors, and nighttime coal hauling
will be avoided where sensitive receptors are located and an L of
73 dBA is projected. dn
ARCHAEOLOGIC. HISTORIC AND PALEONTOLOGIC RESOURCES
General Conditioning - A general condition such as the following could be used
to mitigate impacts by inclusion in every New Source NPDES permit:
At least forty-five (45) days prior to initiation of new mining activities
on undisturbed portions of the permit area, the applicant shall provide a
professional reconnaissance survey addressing whether buildings or sites
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places may be
present and affected to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
C-7
-------
and EPA. Should any such eligible sites be located, completion of the
consultation requirements pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act shall be accomplished prior to initiation of mining
affecting such sites.
Standard Conditioning - A standard condition such as the following could be
used to mitigate impacts for those mining operations where the SHPO or OSA
indicates that the proposed operation will impact a historic, archaeologic, or
paleontologic resource (i.e., Level I is triggered).
Mining and construction activities will be rerouted to avoid the iden-
tified historic, archaeologic, or paleontologic site(s). During construc-
tion, 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.
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981*-71*8- 257 5 0 6 REGION NO. 4
C-8
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |