COAL LEASE TRACTS
IN THE WEST A CONCISE
COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
Cc_
Final Report
March 1979
Prepared for
Office of Energy Activities
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
t Denver, Colorado 80203
Prepared by -
' Mary
-------
COAL LEASE TRACTS
IN THE WEST - A CONCISE
COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
Final Report
March 1979
Prepared for:
Office of Energy Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIM
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Terry Thoem, Project Officer
Contract 68-01-4691
SRI Project 6682
Prepared by:
Mary E. Gray
Edward M. Dickson
Buford R, Holt
Susan J. Mara
Robert V. Steele
Irving W. Yabroff
Center for Resource and Environmental Systems Studies,
Report No. 67
-------
COAL LEASE TRACTS IN THE WEST
A CONCISE COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ARE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH WESTERN SURFACE COAL MINING?
The answer is an emphatic yes! Many reports
describe damage and changes resulting from
surface coal mining in the West. Most of the
studies documenting the effects of mining on
the surrounding areas were conducted after the
mines opened. Some, if not all, of these
effects could be prevented or mitigated if
problems were identified and corrective action
taken before mining begins.
CAN SOMETHING BE DONE TO MINIMIZE SUCH IMPACTS IN THE FUTURE?
Before coal-bearing, federally-owned tracts are
leased for mining, their environmental sensi-
tivity should be evaluated. If environmental
problems were considered early in the decision-
making process of federal coal leasing,
corrective measures could be developed or, if
problems are severe and currently insoluble,
the leasing of the most sensitive tracts could
be postponed.
So, because pressure to open federal lands for
coal mining is certain to continue, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is developing
methods for analyzing and comparing tracts to
determine which would be damaged least if
mining were to take place.
-------
HOW CAN THE METHOD IN THIS HANDBOOK HELP IN THIS PROCESS?
A method for comparing the environmental sen-
sitivity of candidate lease tracts is presented
in this easy-to-use handbook. The method helps
users analyze information on important aspects
of tracts proposed for coal leasing in three
ways: First, the method organizes information
and analysis about individual tracts according
to six critical environmental indicators.
Second, the analytical results are used to
compare and rank order the tracts from least
environmentally affected to most severely
affected by mining. Finally, the method
incorporates the values of various interest
groups into the rankings so that different
perspectives on the desirability of mining the
various tracts can be readily perceived.
WHAT DOES THE METHOD INCLUDE?
Six impact indicators are used in this hand-
book: coal resource economics, hydrology and
water quality, air quality, biology, socio-
economic effects, and legal/institutional
constraints or conflicts.
These indicators provide a framework for
relatively quantifying the probable effects of
a new coal mining operation on a lease tract.
Each indicator consists of several elements to
enable the user of the handbook to perform more
detailed analyses of proposed tracts. The
method includes all effects of coal mining
found to be environmentally significant in past
studies.
-------
HOW DOES THE METHOD ACHIEVE RANKINGS?
A system of relative ranking is used because
determining the absolute levels of impact would
be much more difficult. Points are assigned on
a scale of 0 to 100 to rate the various
tracts. The points for the six indicators are
totaled to determine a tract's overall un-
weighted rating. In this handbook, the higher
the rating, the more suitable a tract is for
coal mining (because of less severe environ-
mental impacts).
WHY IS COAL ECONOMICS AN IMPORTANT INDICATOR?
Determining the economic desirability of a
tract is essential because a company would not
lease a tract of land for mining if the return
on the investment promised to be low. Clearly,
therefore, knowing economic desirability of a
tract early in the decision-making process is
important.
WHY ARE HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY AN IMPACT INDICATOR?
Coal mining and construction of associated
facilities can disrupt underground water and
affect surface streams and rivers as well.
These disruptions often deteriorate water
quality and lessen the quantity of usable
water. Both impact elements are especially
important when the water affected is used for
domestic comsumption. Because water is a
precious resource in the arid portions of the
West where surface-mineable coal abounds, any
development that could have long-term effects
on the potable water supply there requires
careful analysis.
111
-------
WHAT ASPECT OF AIR QUALITY IS CONSIDERED?
"Fugitive" dust is the major air pollution
problem associated with coal mining. The
amount of emissions depends mainly on three
elements: the quantity of overburden moved and
stored, the amount of traffic on unpaved haul
roads, and the susceptibility of the area to
wind erosion. Based on these factors, fugitive
dust creation can be estimated before a tract
is leased.
WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR?
Coal mining often permanently alters the dis-
tribution of the animal and, especially, the
plant communities near the site. The biologi-
cal indicator appraises the reclamation poten-
tial of the proposed tracts and assesses the
relative uniqueness of each habitat (for
example, whether endangered species breed
there). Combined, these elements provide a
good basis for comparing proposed lease tracts.
WHY ARE SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS INCLUDED?
Many tracts proposed for federal coal leasing
are in sparsely populated areas. Communities
in these rural areas tend to be small and
oriented towards agriculture. Such small farm
communities generally lack a sufficient infra-
structure to handle the rapid population growth
that accompanies coal mines, and as a result,
new mines often cause the well-documented
"boomtown" phenomena. Many of the negative
effects of such unusually rapid development can
be avoided through planning and implementing
IV
-------
specific corrective measures. The socio-
economic impact elements identify potential
problems early and thereby allows time to
formulate mitigating measures.
WHAT ARE THE LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS?
The legal/institutional constraints on coal
development are many. Those resulting from
particular laws and regulations are reflected
in the air, hydrology and water quality, and
biology indicators. Consequently, the legal/-
institutional indicator deals primarily with
legal restrictions on the use of land. In
particular, it appraises alternative land uses
and possible conflicts between the owners of
surface and mineral rights. Split ownership of
these rights can create serious legal problems,
but possible ownership conflicts can often be
negotiated.
HOW ARE TRACTS COMPARED AND RATED TO DETERMINE RELATIVE SUITABILITY?
After points are assigned to each element
comprising an indicator, the points are added
to obtain a total score for each indicator.
This score permits a comparison among tracts
along each indicator without yet bringing in
the value orientations of interest groups.
Next, to include values orientations, each
indicator score is multiplied by a weighting
factor and the sum of these weighted indicators
gives a weighted overall rating for the
tracts. This process can be repeated for a
series of value-orientations held by interested
parties. Once tracts are ranked according to
their overall ratings for each interested
-------
party, users can see how different value
orientations could affect the rankings. This
provides insights into the way potential stake-
holders would view proposals to lease the
various areas, and therefore can help prepare
interested parties for the controversies that
may arise when tracts are offered for lease.
WHAT INTEREST GROUP VALUE ORIENTATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE HANDBOOK?
Five interest groups representative of the
people who would have a major interest in the
leasing of coal tracts are treated in this
handbook: environmental activists, coal mining
companies, local governments, local citizens,
and cognizant federal agencies (which might
adopt a weighting similar to those of the SRI
study team). Each group would weight the
impact indicators differently to specify the
relative importance that group attaches to each
indicator. All of the weightings employed in
the handbook are considered to be reasonable
reflections of the values held by members of
the groups represented.
HAS THE METHOD EVER BEEN TESTED?
The method was tested on 12 coal lease tracts
located in Yampa and Danforth Hills, 2 Known
Recoverable Coal Resource Areas (KRCRA) in
northwestern Colorado. This area was chosen by
the Environmental Protection Agency as the
testing ground for the methodology. The SRI
study team gathered data on the test case areas
through a combination of fieldwork, examination
of published souces, and personal communication
with experts in the various areas.
VI
-------
WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE TEST?
Once the indicators had been evaluated for all
the tracts, final rankings were obtained using
the comparative value perspective technique.
Several interesting things were revealed:
First, the different value perspectives of the
various groups often led to similar overall
rankings, but for disparate reasons. Second,
complete agreement was never achieved on the
desirability of a tract, although two groups
sometimes agree on the ranking order of a
particular tract.
CAN THIS METHOD BE APPLIED TO ANY TRACT PROPOSED FOR LEASING?
The method was specifically designed to evalu-
ate surface-mineable coal lease tracts in the
West. However, the concept is flexible and
could be applied to almost any area after
suitable modification of the indicators.
VII
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xi
LIST OF TABLES xiii
I INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Purpose 1-1
B. Method 1-1
C. Worksheets 1-3
D. Test Case 1-3
E. Other Information 1-3
II COAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS II-l
A. Introduction II-l
B. Necessary Information II-l
1. Amount of Coal in the Tract II-l
2. Minimum Selling Price of the Coal II-l
3. Heating Value of the Coal II-2
C. Methodology for Estimating the Coal Resources .... 11-4
1. Calculation of Amount of Coal in a Tract (Step 1) II-4
2. Estimation of the Minimum Selling Price (Step 2) . II-4
3. Estimation of the Heating Value (Step 3) II-8
4. Combining the Variables to Give the Indicator
(Step 4) II-8
5. Scaling the Indicators to the Standard Range
(Step 5) II-8
III HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR III-l
A. Introduction III-l
B. Data Sources III-l
C. Hydrology Element Methodology III-2
1. Groundwater Percent Recharge (Step 1) III-2
2. Alluvial Aquifers (Step 2) III-5
3. Surface Water Drainage Density (Step 3) III-5
4. Topography (Step 4) III-6
5. Potable Water Supply III-6
D. Water Quality Element III-6
Vlll
-------
1. Aquifers Intercepted (Step 1) III-7
2. Drainage Basin Intercepted (Step 2) III-7
3. Overburden Storage (Step 3) III-9
4. Elevation (Step 4) 111-10
5. Current Uses (Step 5) 111-10
IV AIR QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR IV-1
A. Methodology IV-1
1. Mining Operation (Step 1) IV-1
2. Haul Road Traffic (Step 2) IV-2
3. Wind Erosion (Step 3) IV-3
B. Weightings IV-3
V BIOLOGICAL IMPACT INDICATOR V-l
A. Introduction V-l
B. Data Sources V-3
C. Methodology V-4
1. Preferred Procedure V-4
2. Default Procedure V-4
a. Reclamation Potential (Step 1) V-4
b. Significance of Species (Step 2) V-5
c. Uniqueness of Habitats (Step 3) V-8
6. d. Integration of Biological Indicators (Step 4) V-8
VI SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT INDICATOR VI-1
A. Introduction VI-1
B. Determination of Ranking VI-3
C. Data Sources VI-3
D. Methodology VI-3
1. Population VI-3
a. Present Population (Step 1) VI-4
b. Growth Rates (Step 2) VI-4
c. Age Distribution (Step 3) VI-6
d. Male/Female Ratio (Step 4) VI-9
e. Total Points for Population Section (Step 5) . VI-9
2. Social Services VI-9
a. Schools (Step 1) VI-10
b. Hospitals and Doctors (Step 2) VI-11
IX
-------
c. Governmental Structure (Step 3) VI-12
d. Water and Sewage (Step 4) VI-13
e. Total Points (Step 5) VI-14
3. Present Economic Structure VI-14
a. Employment Distribution (Step 1) VI-15
b. Occupation Distribution (Step 2) VI-16
c. Unemployment Rate (Step 3) VI-17
d. Income (Payroll) (Step 4) VI-18
e. Total Points (Step 5) VI-19
4. Bond Capacity VI-19
5. Private Economic Activity VI-20
6. Housing VI-21
7. Summary VI-22
VII LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT INDICATOR VII-1
A. Introduction VII-1
B. Methodology VII-3
1. Alternative Land Use Element VII-3
2. Conflicts Associated with Surface Ownership and
Mineral Estate Ownership VII-5
a. Federal Ownership of the Coal (Mineral Estate)
(Step 1) VII-5
b. Federal Coal Adjacent to Privately or State-
Owned Coal (Step 2) VII-9
c. Total Points (Step 3) VII-10
VIII FINAL WEIGHTING VIII-1
A. Environmental Groups VIII-2
B. Mining Companies VIII-2
C. Local Government VIII-2
D. Local Citizens VIII-3
E. SRI Study Team VIII-3
APPENDIX A METHODOLOGY TEST CASE A-l
APPENDIX B LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK B-l
APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY C-l
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1-1 Scoring of each Tract Resulting in Ranking of the
II-l
II-2
III-l
IV-1
V-l
VI-1
VI-2
VII-1
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
A-4
A- 5
A-6
A- 7
A-8
A- 9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
Steps to the Coal Economic Impact Indicator
Appraisal Steps for the Hydrology /Water Quality
Appraisal Steps for the Air Quality Impact Indicator
Appraisal Steps for the Biological Impact Indicator . .
Appraisal Steps for the Socioeconomic Impact Indicator.
Age Group Profiles of Campbell County, Wyoming,
1960 and 1970
Appraisal steps for the Legal/Institutional Impact
Map of Northwest Colorado Including the Location of
Yampa and Danforth Hills KRCRA
Lease Tracts 1-5 Located in the Danforth KRCRA ....
Lease Tracts 6-12 Located in the Yampa KRCRA
Ranking of the Twelve Coal Lease Sites by the
Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 1 . .
Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 2 . .
Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 3 . .
Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 4 . .
Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 5 . .
Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 6 . .
Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 7 . .
Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 8 . .
1-4
1 1-5
II-7
III-3
IV- 2
V-2
VI-2
VI-8
VII-4
A- 3
A-4
A- 5
A-6
A-ll
A-12
A-13
A- 14
A-15
A- 16
A-17
A-18
XI
-------
A-13 Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 9 . . A-19
A-14 Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 10 . . A-20
A-15 Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 11 .. A-21
A-16 Comparative Value Perspective Rankings for Tract 12 . . A-22
Xll
-------
TABLES
III-l Characteristics Constituting the Hydrology Element
and Potential Values and Weights to be Assigned .... III-4
III-2 Characteristics Constituting the Water Quality Element
and Potential Values and Weights to be Assigned .... III-8
V-l Transformation Packer's Combined Rating to a
V-2
V-3
V-4
VI-1
VII-1
VII-2
VII-3
VIII-1
A-l
A- 2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
5-100 Scale
Index Values for Rare Species
Suitability/Unsuitability Criteria of the
Alternative Land Use Element and Potential Values
and Weights to be Assigned
Surface and Mineral Estate Ownership
Checkerboard Land and Mineral Ownership Potential
Values and Weights to be Assigned
Weighting Factors
Comparative Value Perspectives Rankings
Price, Heating Value, and Indicator . .
Hydrology/Water Quality Impact Indicator
Water-Bearing Characteristics of Geologic Formations
Characteristics of Geologic Formations
Air Quality
Summary of the Biological Elements for the Twelve
Test Tracts
Socioeconomic Indicators Summary Sheet
V-6
V-7
V-9
V-10
VI-7
VII-6
VII-8
. VII-12
, VIII-4
A-7
. A-8-10
A- 26
A-27
A- 29
A-30
A-43
A-49
A-6 3
Xlll
-------
A-10 Socioeconomic Rating for the Coal Lease Tracts .... A-64
A-ll Summary Table for Legal/Institutional Impact Indicator. A-87
A-12 Alternative Land Use Element Summary Sheet A-88
A-13 Surface-Ownership/Mineral Ownership Element Summary
Sheet A-90
B-l Summary of Important Water Resources Rules and
Regulations B-4
B-2 Effluent Limitations B-9
xiv
-------
I INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
This handbook sets forth six "impact indicators," for the purpose
of representing and comparing the effects that might be expected from
mining coal from particular tracts of land. These indicators are
Biology, Air Quality, Water Quality/Hydrology, Socioeconomic Effects,
Legal/Institutional Constraints, and Coal Resource Economics.
Because the indicators are not the results of quantitative models,
they can only be semi-quantitative. Also, for the purposes of comparing
lease tracts, they constitute measures that must be considered relative,
rather than absolute. An important underlying assumption is that in the
tracts being compared the coal is essentially identical in quality and,
therefore, interchangeable as far as the ultimate users are concerned.
B. Method
The method of estimating the impact indicators varies slightly from
one impact category to the next. Each topic, or indicator area,
requires the judgment of someone knowledgeable in the subject. Some
methods are more precise than others. The differences, however, are
understandable because some indicators are composed of elements which
are estimated in a concise, quantitative fashion, whereas others are
subject to many judgmental factors. With socioeconomic issues, for
example, most questions are not clear-cut, and the formulation and
evaluation of impact indicators depends primarily upon the judgment of
an experienced analyst. Hydrological issues, on the other hand, are
much easier to quantify.
Many of the impacts evaluated in deriving the indicator scores do
not occur at the same time and do not show the same persistence. Some
happen early and others occur later; some cease when the mining ceases
1-1
-------
and others persist for decades after the mining ends. However, rather
than complicate this methodology by introducing a time component in the
indicators, we have used our professional judgment to combine effects
and to allocate the relative stress the various impact elements that
occur at different times should receive. In the socioeconomic indi-
cator, for example, we emphasize the disruptive effects that occur early
even though the initial difficulties diminish as communities adjust as
time passes.
The user of this handbook should keep in mind that the purpose of
the handbook is to provide a technique to judge the relative desir-
ability of developing various coal lease tracts. The comprehensive
prediction of absolute levels of impacts is beyond the scope of this
work.
Because the indicators themselves are not physical quantities, they
must be expressed on an arbitrary scale. The scale chosen for all the
indicators is 0 to 100. The convention chosen for consistency is that
high indicator values correspond to a greater desirability of leasing
the tract and low values represent a lesser desirability.
Factors have been developed to help the user derive indicator
scores in each major impact category. The indicators are then added to
obtain an overall score for each lease tract. This is illustrated in
Figure 1-1. A final weighting system, "comparative value perspectives,"
is applied to the overall scores. The technique shows how conclusions
might vary depending on the values held by the person doing the
analysis. The scores are then used to rank the tracts. The tract that
has the highest score is the one that would be the most desirable to
mine, whereas the tract with the lowest score would be considered the
least desirable.
An examination of the methodology shows that considerable judgment
has been used in assigning values to the various elements that contri-
bute to the indicators, and in the procedure for combining those
1-2
-------
elements to obtain the scores of the indicators. Such judgments are
based upon the experience of the project team that developed this
handbook, as well as on an examination of the relevant literature.
Although we intend that users of the methodology follow the estimation
procedures set forth in the handbook, there is enough flexibility to
allow users to substitute their own judgments in the procedure whenever
they feel it is appropriate.
Although the methodology is intended for coal lease tracts in the
West, the approach is flexible and could be extended to other parts of
the United States after suitable modifications are made to the indi-
cators.
C. Worksheets
Worksheets are included in the handbook to facilitate its use. The
user can simply read through the handbook to gain an understanding of
the indicator areas, and then use the worksheets to systematize his
work. Each of the indicators has many inputs that are combined in a
final ranking of each tract for that particular problem area. A
weighting like a handicap in a horse race is applied to some of
the elements within the indicators so that each indicator will receive
equal stress.
D. Test Case
Northwest Colorado was the area chosen for testing the methodo-
logy. Twelve tracts in that area were selected, all of them in either
the Danforth Hills or Yampa Known Recoverable Coal Resource Areas
(KRCRA). The analysis of the test case is presented in Appendix A.
E. Other Information
A detailed look at pertinent federal legislation and an overview of
state and local regulatory measures make up Appendix B. A bibliography
of the information sources used in developing and testing the methodo-
logy is also included, to help users locate data required when they
apply the methodology.
1-3
-------
TRACT 1
TRACT 2
TRACT 3
FIGURE 1-1. SCORING OF EACH TRACT RESULTING IN RANKING
OF THE RELATIVE DESIRABILITY OF THE MINING
1-4
-------
II COAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS
A. Introduction
Determining the economic attractiveness or desirability of a tract
is an essential factor in the decision process. A company would
probably not lease a tract of land for mining if it had prior knowledge
that the return on the investment would be low. It is therefore
important to determine whether a particular tract is economically
desirable.
Three critical factors will be used as elements of the economic
desirability of a proposed lease tract: the amount of coal in the
tract, the minimum selling price of the coal, and the heating value of
the coal. These elements can be applied to any lease tract to determine
whether a company would choose to open a mine there.
B. Necessary Information
Before judgments of the economic desirability of a lease tract can
be made, specific information on each of the three elements must be
collected. Relative rankings of tracts must be based on adequate data
for each one.
1. * Amount of Coal in the Tract
This is the estimated quantity of coal in the tract that is
economically minable with present technology and at current prices. We
assume that tracts with larger amounts of strippable coal will be more
economically desirable. However, quantity is not the only factor to be
considered.
2. Minimum Selling Price of the Coal
This is the minimum price that a coal company must charge for
the coal to obtain a normal rate of return on its investment. Tracts
II-l
-------
that contain coal in thin seams or at great depth will have a higher
minimum price than those with coal in thick seams or at shallow depths.
The minimum selling price is inversely related to some of the impacts;
that is, a high minimum price reduces the income for the stockholders
because there will be less difference between the minimum selling price
and the actual price, allowing less additional profit above the minimum
price. This additional profit is sometimes called "economic rent." An
example of a direct relationship between minimum price and adverse
economic impact is that a higher minimum price will exert upward
pressure on the market price, resulting in further inflation. In other
cases, minimum price scales directly with beneficial impacts. For
example, higher production costs associated with a higher minimum price
provide greater employment. If those additional jobs are filled by
unemployed workers, more taxes are generated, providing greater
tax-supported benefits and reducing unemployment insurance and welfare
payments. In addition, greater production is required from industries
supplying goods and services to the mine.
3. Heating Value of the Coal
The heating value (conventionally expressed in units of Btu
per ton) is a direct measure of the usefulness of the coal as fuel per
unit cost of extraction. Extraction costs generally are proportional to
the quantity of coal, extracted irrespective of its heating value. To a
first approximation, the costs and economic resources required to
operate the mine are independent of the heating value of the coal being
mined.
Other measurable variables considered, such as the amount of
land surface required, the volume of overburden that must be removed, or
the number of employees required, scale in approximtely the same manner
as the quantity of coal. These are more applicable to air quality and
socioeconomic impacts, and are considered in those sections of the
handbook.
II-2
-------
Although none of the three variables described is an absolute
measure of the economic desirability of the site, the following
combination does yield a useful indicator in the following form:
Indicator = Q/Pa , where
Q = total energy content of the economically minable coal in
the tract (i.e., the product of tonnage to be mined and
the heating value per ton)
P = minimum selling price of the coal per million Btu
a = constant number less than 1.
Another, more directly useful expression of the indicator is given on
page I1-8.
The rationale behind this combination of elements is as
follows: It is logical to assume that the overall economic benefit of
opening new coal mines on a tract is beneficial, or else no mining
company would be interested, and the government would not be considering
a lease program. The dominant reason for leasing is to make available
to society additional energy resources. Hence, the quantity of energy
in a tract is useful as a primary element in determining an indicator.
Minimum selling price is a second element because it inversely repre-
sents the economic attractiveness of the tract to mining companies.
That is, the lower the minimum price that must be charged to make an
adequate profit, the greater the potential additional profit to a
company. Because the government has lease programs to encourage private
development of coal in the public interest, those tracts that have lower
costs of extraction (lower minimum prices) should generally be preferred
for lease. Use of the exponent, a, is merely a mechanism to reduce the
influence of the minimum selling price element relative to the quantity
of coal. The suggested magnitude of the exponent is %; this is a purely
subjective estimate.
II-3
-------
Data on the coal resources in each tract put up for lease will be
avilable from a coal inventory program being conducted by the USGS as
mandated by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 1976. For this
program, the USGS will prepare and publish Coal Resource Occurrence
(CRO) and Coal Development Potential (CDP) maps before preliminary
identification of proposed lease tracts. These maps will identify not
only the quantity of coal in each tract, but also seam and overburden
thickness. To date (February 1979), no CROs or CDPs are available for
public use, although several are in preparation. These maps and their
acompanying information are anticipated to be more definitive than any
other available sources, and should therefore be the primary data source
for information on quantity of coal in each tract, seam thickness, seam
depth, and energy content (Jobin, Daniel).
C. Methodology for Estimating the Coal Resources
1. Calculation of Amount of Coal in a Tract (Step 1)
Figure II-l illustrates the entire process for deriving the
coal resource economics impact indicator. Estimation of the amount of
coal in a tract (step 1) should be based on the data to be provided by
the USGS CDP and CRO maps.
2. Estimation of the Minimum Selling Price (Step 2)
To estimate the minimum selling price, the cost of extracting
the coal must be estimated. That requires assumptions concerning the
type of surface mining equipment to be used, the size of the mining
operation, the average depth of overburden to be removed, and the
average thickness of the seam. For the purposes of this methodology, a
mine producing 1 million tons of clean coal per year will be used as a
basic building block. That is, the estimated amount of coal in the
tract will be assumed to be mined by separate mining operations that
will each extract 1 million tons per year (mtpy). In many tracts with
100 million tons of coal or more, it is more economical to use larger
mining operations of 5 to 10 or more mtpy to realize economies of
scale. However, the economies of scale realized by developing large
surface mines rather than several small surface mines have been shown by
11-4
-------
CALCULATION
OF THE
AMOUNT OF COAL
IN A TRACT
ESTIMATION
OF THE MINIMUM
SELLING PRICE
ESTIMATION
OF THE
HEATING VALUE
COMBINE VARIABLE
TO GIVE
THE INDICATOR
SCALE
THE INDICATORS
TO THE
STANDARD RANGE
FIGURE 11-1. STEPS TO THE COAL ECONOMIC IMPACT INDICATOR
-------
a detailed simulation model analysis of both the operations and financial
performance of surface mines done by Fluor, Inc. (Fluor Utah, Inc.) to
be quite small for mines producing more than a half million tons per
year. The justification for the 1 mtpy building block is that the small
mine size allows price estimates for tracts that have relatively small
amounts of coal, as well as those with very large amounts.
The minimum selling price estimate can be based on the use of either
shovels and trucks or draglines for overburden removal. Generally,
draglines are used in the West unless the coal seam is very thick
(greater than about 20 ft) or very deep (greater than 100 ft), in which
case shovels and trucks are more commonly used.
We have assumed that the minimum economical lifetime for a mine is
at least 15 years. Thus, if a proposed tract is estimated by public
sources to have less coal than will support a 1-mtpy mine for 15 years,
one must assume that the mining company that proposed the tract for
leasing possesses measurement data that indicate at least 17 million
tons of coal (15 million tons of clean coal divided by a 0.9 recovery
factor).
The two most critical characteristics of coal that determine
the cost to surface-mine it are the overburden depth and seam thick-
ness. These characteristics are often combined into a measure called
the "strip ratio," but they must be dealt with separately in sizing a
mining operation. Estimates of these quantities should be obtained from
the USGS map information described previously.
Given the foregoing assumptions, in addition to a required
discounted cash flow rate of return on the investment of 15%, a typical
minimum price for a range of seam thickness values is shown in Figure
II-2. This curve was derived by using a detailed coal mining production
cost model developed by SRI from work done by NUS Corporation. By
entering the figure with an estimated average seam thickness for the
tract derived from the USGS data, as previously described, an estimated
minimum price can be obtained.
II-6
-------
30
20
I I I I I
PRODUCTION - 106 TONS/YR
OVERBURDEN DEPTH - 50 ft.
LIFETIME - 20 YEARS
15% DCF RATE OF RETURN
ROYLTIES - $1/TON
1976 DOLLARS
X
CL.
10
10
SEAM THICKNESS - feet
20
50
100
FIGURE II-2. ESTIMATED MINIMUM PRICE
-------
3. Estimation of the Heating Value (Step 3)
The heating value, in units of 10 Btu/ton, should be
obtained from the chemical analyses of the coal in proposed tracts
prepared by the USGS under the coal inventory program described
previously.
4. Combining the Variables to Give the Indicator (Step 4)
Once derived, the variables can be combined into the proposed
**
indicator, as follows :
Indicator = (T x B3/2)/]^ , where
T = amount of coal in million tons
R = minimum price in dollars/ton
B = heating value in million Btu/ton.
5. Scaling the Indicators to the Standard Range (Step 5)
To scale the set of raw indicators for the tracts being
compared to the range of 0 to 100, the highest raw indicator score can
be set to 100. The scaling factor used to adjust the other raw
indicator values is derived by dividing 100 by the highest raw indicator
score, all other raw indicators are then multiplied by this scaling
factor, to yield the adjusted indicator score.
* NUS Corporation, "Coal Mining Cost Models Surface Mines," for
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI GA-437 (1977).
** The formula is equivalent to that shown earlier in this section.
The variables T and R are the same as Q and P but are expressed in
units of tons rather than Btu. B is used to make the conversion.
Thus, (T x B3/2)/R% =
*** If the highest raw indicator value were 57, then the scaling
factor would be 100/57 = 1.75.
11-8
-------
COAL ECONOMICS WORKSHEET
Minimum . Unsealed
V 3.1U6
Quantity Price _ Raw Scaled
Tract (106 tons) ($/ton) (10 Btu/lb) Indicator Indicator Ranking
10
II-9
-------
Ill HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR
A. Introduction
This indicator incorporates two elements: hydrology and water
quality. Because each element consists of characteristics which do not
influence the elements in the same way, different weights must be
assigned. The most important characteristics were given the highest
weight on a scale of 0.01 to 1.0. The characteristics were assigned
weights based on how they compared to the first. The weights must sum
to 1.0. For instance, topography is assigned the weight 0.25. That
means that 25% of the value for the total indicator should be derived
from this characteristic. Likewise, potable supply is assigned a value
of 0.10, meaning that only 10% of the value for the hydrology element
should be derived from that characteristic. The weighted values for
each tract are then summed separately for the hydrology and water
quality elements. To determine the ranking of the lease tracts for the
Hydrology and Water Quality indicator, the values for the hydrology and
water quality elements are averaged for each tract. The result is one
score representing a composite of the two elements. The entire process
is illustrated in Figure III-l. Worksheets are located at the end of
the chapter.
B. Data Sources
The U.S. Geological Survey has computer storage and information
retrieval of most surface and ground water data collected by it. State
geological surveys or state water engineering offices have information
on water availability, water quality, and water use. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has a computer system that shows
location and amount of discharges. State natural resource or
environmental protection offices have similar data, as well as water
quality data from public drinking water supplies. State agricultural
agencies have some information on quantity and quality of irrigation
III-l
-------
waters. The Soil Conservation Service has soil maps for many areas or
can provide general information on soil erodability and composition.
Information on regional geology can be obtained from USGS maps or
district geologists, and from state geological survey maps and personnel.
C. Hydrology Element Methodology
This methodology was designed to be used by individuals who have
experience in hydrology. Five characteristics, categorized by data
type, make up the hydrology element: percent recharge, alluvial
aquifers, drainage density, topography, and potable supply. Table III-l
summarizes the characteristics and provides guidance for assigning
values to each.
1. Groundwater Percent Recharge (Step 1)
The amount of recharge area for groundwater aquifers or
alluvial systems in the coal lease area is an important measure of
potential hydrologic impact. Mining coal or constructing associated
facilities in a recharge area can have a disrupting effect on the
overall groundwater hydrology of the region. The magnitude of the
effect, however, depends primarily on the following characteristics of
the aquifer: geographic extent, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and
storage capacity. A change in water quality often accompanies a change
in groundwater hydrology.
As shown in Table III-l, the percentage of the coal lease area
considered to be recharge is correlated with a nominal scale according
to the relative effect expected. If less than 5% of the area is
recharge, there will probably be minimal effect on the groundwater
hydrology of the region. Therefore, this case is assigned a value of
100.
To estimate the amount of recharge, the boundaries of each
lease tract must first be drawn on a USGS 7% minute topographic map.
The recharge areas are then roughly outlined on each tract, the
percentage of the tract designated as recharge is estimated, and the
information is recorded on the worksheet located at the end of this chapter.
III-2
-------
I
OO
GROUND WATER-
PERCENT RECHARGE
ALLUVIAL
AQUIFERS
SURFACE WATER
DRAINAGE DENSITY
TOPOGRAPHY
POTABLE
WATER SUPPLY
AQUIFERS
INTERCEPTED
DRAINAGE BASIN
INTERCEPTED
OVERBURDEN
STORAGE
ELEVATION
CURRENT USERS
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
ASSESS AND SCALE
HYDROLOGICAL
IMPACTS
DETERMINE
AND SCALE
WATER QUALITY
COMBINATION
OF VARIABLES
TO ARRIVE
AT INDICATOR
FIGURE 111-1. APPRAISAL STEPS FOR THE HYDROLOGY WATER QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR
-------
TABLE III-l
CHARACTERISTICS CONSTITUTING THE HYDROLOGY ELEMENT AND POTENTIAL VALUES AND WEIGHTS TO BE ASSIGNED
Value3
Characteristics
Percent Recharge
Alluvial Aquifers
Drainage Density
Topography
Potable Supply
Minimal Effect 100 Points
Less than 5%
No known discharge areas; no perennial
streams; few intermittent streams.
Less than 1.0
Gentle upland slopes (less than 5%);
extensive alluvial plains.
Total dissolved solids are greater
than 1,000 mg/lj yield less than
Moderate Effect 50 Points
Ma jo:
r Effect 10 Pointsb
40%
No more than short stretches of
perennial stream crossing tract;
less than 5 intermittent streams;
one or more known discharge areas.
At least 2.5
Moderate upland slopes (less than
20%); moderate fan or floodplain
development.
Total dissolved solids are less than
500 mg/1; yield is at least 500 gpm.
More than 75%
At least one perennial stream; 5 or
more intermittent streams; several
known discharge area.
More than 5.0
Steep upland slopes (in excess of 30%)
high relief, little or no floodplain
development.
Total dissolved solids are less than
100 mg/1; yield greater than 1,000 gpm.
Assigned Weight
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.10
a Interpolation between the three levels can be made based on the experience of the user.
If a very severe effect is expected, the assigned value may be lower than 10.
-------
2. Alluvial Aquifers (Step 2)
Alluvial aquifers can be important local sources of water for
both humans and wildlife. Mining activities have the potential for
significant disruption of alluvial aquifers because of their sensitivity
to land use changes. Table III-l provides a guide for differentiation
among lease tracts. Basically, if few springs or streams are present,
effects will be minimal. The determination of alluvial aquifers and
discharge areas is based on an evaluation of USGS 7%-minute topographic
maps and hydrologic summaries of the region (if available).
3 . Surface Water Drainage Density (Step 3)
The major characteristic chosen for analysis is drainage
density (DD), defined simply as the stream length per unit area:
where ZL is the cumulative length of all streams on the tract and A is
the tract area. Traditionally, this concept has been applied solely to
drainage basins as an indication of the size of the drainage network in
each basin and as a basis for comparison among several basins (Leopold,
Wolman, and Miller, 1964). It is used here to define the size of the
drainage network in each lease tract as a measure of hydrologic effects
of mining. According to our analysis, with a larger drainage network
per unit of area, a larger effort is required to control runoff,
erosion, and groundwater contamination. Therefore, a tract with large
drainage density would receive a low value using our methodology (see
Table III-l).
Because lease tracts will usually be less than 15 square miles,
drainage density values will be quite low. To determine cumulative
stream length (L), the length of all perennial, intermittent, and
ephemeral streams (arroyos) is calculated from USGS 7%-minute
topographic maps using a map measure (opisometer) . Rills and gullies
need not be included. If the area of the tract is not available, it is
calculated with a planemeter.
III-5
-------
4. Topography (Step 4)
Topography has a significant effect on volume, intensity, peak,
and duration of runoff. Each of these in turn affects the surface water
control measures required for a particular lease tract. The values
shown in Table III-l were developed in a study by the Pacific
Southwest-Interagency Committee (PSIAC) (1968). Generally, steep slopes
result in rapid runoff. The influence of topography depends to a large
degree on geology, soils, ground cover, orientation, and size. However,
examination of topography alone should provide a reasonable
differentiation between tracts within a given region. General slope
percentages for each tract are estimated from USGS 7%-minute topographic
maps.
5. Potable Water Supply (Step 5)
If a perennial stream crossing the lease tract or an aquifer
under the lease tract contains potable water (meeting U.S. Public Health
Service and EPA Safe Drinking Water standards), the value of that water
is very high in the water-short western states. Therefore, using that
water for nondomestic uses or degrading its quality represents an
opportunity cost of development. As shown in Table III-l, the value
assigned depends on both water quality and quantity. The values
presented are a guide, and the user may decide to change them slightly,
on the basis of local water supply conditions. The figure for total
dissolved solids (TDS) has been selected as a simple measure of water
quality because of the availability of data and because excess salts
present a common problem in the West. Yield is taken to mean a measure
of quantity, and is defined in Table III-l as safe yield for aquifers
and a withdrawal equalling less than 50% of the mean low flow for
surface water streams. A lower value is assigned for water supplies
with good water quality and high yield. Interpolation between the
values must be based on the user's best judgment.
D. Water Quality Element
This methodology was designed to be used by individuals who have
experience in hydrogeology. Five characteristics have been selected to
III-6
-------
constitute the water quality element: aquifers intercepted, drainage
basin intercepted, overburden storage, elevation, and current uses.
Table III-2 provides a summary of the characteristics and the assigned
values and weights for each.
1. Aquifers Intercepted (Step 1)
The number of aquifers intercepted by mining operations and the
quality of the ground water contained in the aquifers will significantly
influence the control and treatment measures required to meet existing
federal and state regulations. According to the Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement Act (Federal Register, 13 December 1977, pp
62639 - 62716), the mine operator is required to treat all water
discharged from the site if it does not meet established water quality
standards. Therefore, if mine dewatering results in large volumes of
poor quality water, the operator must take provisions to store, control,
and treat the water, which imposes significant additional costs.
Furthermore, the likelihood of accidental discharge of contaminated
water is increased. With our methodology, the more aquifers intercepted
and the poorer the water quality of the aquifers, the lower the assigned
value (see Table III-2). The number of aquifers provides a simple
measure, rather than a detailed analysis, of the volume of discharge
(yield). TDS are taken as a reasonable representation of overall water
quality. Number and quality must be combined to assign a value.
Minimal effects are assumed if, for example, the water quality is fairly
good and the number of aquifers intercepted is low. However, some
judgment by the user is necessary to interpolate between the values
indicated. For example, poor water quality (on the order of 1,000 mg/1)
and a small number of aquifers intercepted (probably less than 3) should
have an assigned value somewhere between 40 and 80.
2. Drainage Basin Intercepted (Step 2)
Proximity of a lease tract to a major drainage basin is an
important indication of potential water quality problems. Any breaches
in holding ponds or reservoirs or upsets in the wastewater treatment
process can cause release of contaminants. If a large stream is
III-7
-------
TABLE III-2
CHARACTERISTICS CONSTITUTING THE WATER QUALITY ELEMENT AND POTENTIAL VALUES AND WEIGHTS TO BE ASSIGNED
Characteristics
Aqui f era
Intercepted
Drainage Basin
Intercepted
Overburden
Storage
Elevation
Current Uses
Value3
Minimal Effect 100 Points
No more than 1 aquifer intercepted;
total dissolved solids less than
300 mg/1.
Less than 50 square miles.
Moderate Effect 50 Points
At least 3 aquifers intercepted;
total dissolved solids less than
500 mg/1.
At least 500 square miles.
Small in comparison to storage sites. Moderate in comparison to storage
sites.
I
00
Generally greater than 8,000 feet.
More than 20 miles to nearest public
or domestic use.
Generally 7,000 feet.
At least 20 miles to nearest public
or domestic use
Major Effect 10 Pointsb Assigned Weight
More than 5 aquifers intercepted; 0.25
total dissolved solids more than
1,000 mg/1.
More than 1,000 square miles. 0.20
Large in comparison to storage sites. 0.10
Generally less than 6,000 feet. 0.20
Less than 0.5 miles to nearst public 0.25
or domestic use.
a Interpolation between the three levels can be made based on the experience of the user.
^ If a very severe effect is expected, the assigned value may be lower than 10.
-------
relatively close, contamination can move rapidly and at great distance
through the drainage basin before the release can be controlled. The
potential for affecting human water supplies is substantial.
Recognizing the importance of selecting a characteristic to
represent this potential water quality problem, we spent considerable
effort analyzing possible approaches. Several approaches were
investigated that would use Horton's stream ordering technique (Horton,
1945) as an analog for drainage basin size, or in other words, as a
determination for what should constitute a "major" drainage basin.
Although a variation of this technique might provide the necessary
differentiation, the mechanics of applying this technique are too
time-consuming.
The approach finally selected is simpler, yet provides the
necessary information. A USGS 7%-minute map is examined for each site.
The largest stream on each lease tract is selected and the drainage area
is estimated. If no perennial stream crosses the tract, a second step
is required. The user should select the largest intermittent stream and
proceed downstream until a perennial stream is encountered or until 10
stream miles are counted off. The drainage area of the perennial stream
is then estimated. The larger number is used in estimating the value as
shown in Table III-2.
3. Overburden Storage (Step 3)
The regulations of the Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement Act provide for handling and control of overburden.
Depending on the type of reclamation, some volume of overburden is
stored on site under carefully controlled conditions for some period of
years. Thus, the smaller the volume, the easier it is to control. In
addition, lease tracts with no arroyos or valleys in which to store the
overburden have more severe requirements. Consequently, the
characteristic selected takes both volume and storage locations into
account. We assume a worst case condition in which all overburden must
be stored for the life of the mine. In normal practice, storage is
III-9
-------
required only for the overburden from the initial cut. An average
overburden depth of 50 ft is used for this methodology. The "overburden
storage" column is calculated by multiplying the overburden thickness by
the surface area mined. The surface area mined is obtained by
multiplying the tonnage mined by the volume of a ton of coal and then
dividing by the thickness of the coal seam. Potential storage sites for
each lease tract should be identified on USGS 7%-minute topographic
maps. Care should be taken to select sites that are away from perennial
streams, springs, and ponds or reservoirs. The volume for each site
selected should be calculated by multiplying the average depth of the
valley by its surface area. This volume is then compared with the total
volume of overburden that must be stored. Because the scale is
relative, as shown in Table III-2, the users are required to employ
their best judgment in ranking the lease tracts in a region.
4. Elevation (Step 4)
Precipitation and other climatic factors affect the development
of vegetation and soil, erosional characteristics, evaporation rate,
snow accumulation, and overall basin water quality. Generally, the
amount of precipitation increases with increasing elevation. Therefore,
elevation has been selected as a water quality measure. At higher
elevations but below the timber line, vegetation is more dense and
reduces the volume and rate of runoff, thereby decreasing sediment
yield. At lower elevations, vegetation is sparse, and both runoff and
sediment yield are higher, although total precipitation is less. Table
III-2 provides guidelines for ranking lease tracts by elevation.
5. Current Uses (Step 5)
Proximity of the tract to the nearest public or domestic (non-
mine) water use is an important measure of the potential for harm to the
human population. Simply stated, the farther away the population is,
the better. A public water system has been defined by the Safe Drinking'
Water Act (P.L. 93-523) as "a system for the provision to the public of
piped water for human consumption if such a system has at least fifteen
service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five
111-10
-------
individuals." Domestic use is defined as water for human consumption.
Agricultural use is not included in this definition because irrigation
can probably be postponed or interrupted if a temporary water quality
problem occurs. Domestic uses, with or without treatment, must continue
unless water can be provided from another source. Contaminated
groundwater, in particular, might require decades to return to normal or
drinkable conditions. Table III-2 presents the values to be assigned to
this characteristic for each lease tract. The distance from the lease
tract to a city with a public water supply system should be determined
from available maps and ranked as shown in Table III-2.
III-ll
-------
10
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Percent Recharge
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.25)
111-12
-------
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Alluvial Aquifers
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
10
111-13
-------
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Drainage Density
Characteristics
Cumulative Weighted
Stream Area of Drainage Assigned Value
Tract Length ( L) Lease Tract (A) Density ( L/A) Value (x 0.20)
10
111-14
-------
10
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Topography
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.25)
111-15
-------
10
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Potable Supply
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.10)
111-16
-------
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Aquifers Intercepted
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.25)
10
111-17
-------
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Drainage Basin Intercepted
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
10
111-18
-------
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Overburden Storage
Characteristics Weighted
, _ Storage Overburden . r ,
Number of 6163 Assigned Value
Tract Storage Sites Volume (10 yd ) (10 yd ) Value (x 0.10)
10
111-19
-------
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Elevation
Weighted
Characteristics Assigned Value
Tract Elevation Range (ft) General Elevation (ft) Value (x 0.20)
10
111-20
-------
10
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Present Uses
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.25)
111-21
-------
HYDROLOGY ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET
Weighted Value
Percent Alluvial Drainage Potable
Tract Recharge Aquifer Density Topography Supply Total
10
111-22
-------
WATER QUALITY ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET
Weighted Value
Drainage
Aquifers Basin Overburden Present
Tract Intercepted Intercepted Storage Elevation Uses Total
10
111-23
-------
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR
Total Weighted Value
Water Average
Tract Quality Hydrology Value
10
111-24
-------
IV AIR QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR
Intertract comparison of air quality within a particular region is
very difficult. Wind data for each tract are rarely available, and
plans for mine development will not be available. Consequently,
fugitive dust is used as the primary measure of effects on air quality.
A study by PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. (1976) estimated that
more than 80% of fugitive dust emissions from mining activities in the
Powder River Basin could be attributed to three factors: mining
operation, haul road traffic, and wind erosion. Thus, these three
elements are good measures of the air quality. Note that these elements
are ranked on a relative scale; that is, the lease tract with the best
characteristics is ranked at 100 and the other tracts are ranked
relative to the first. This approach is different from that used in the
previous section, where absolute values (representing minimal, moderate,
or major effects) were assigned to each element. Figure IV-1 illus-
trates the ranking process. Worksheets are located at the end of the
chapter.
A. Methodology
1. Mining Operation (Step 1)
Emissions resulting from mining operations depend primarily on
the volume of overburden removed. Information on this can be obtained
from the Water Quality section. The volume of overburden is divided by
the estimated life of the mine to determine the rate of removal. Once
the rate of overburden removal has been determined for each tract, the
user will rank the tract with the lowest rate of overburden removal at
100. All other tracts will then be scaled relative to the first by a
simple proportion.
IV-1
-------
2. Haul Road Traffic (Step 2^
Annual fugitive dust emissions from traffic on unpaved haul
roads depends on the tonnage of coal mined each year, the weight limits
of the trucks used, and the length of each haul, Because the length of
each haul cannot be determined without a detailed mine plan for each
tract, the number of truckloads per year can be used as a surrogate
measure to characterize the fugitive dust emissions from haul road
traffic.
EXAMINE
DRAGLINE OPERATION
DETERMINE
HAUL ROAD TRAFFIC
ASSESS
WIND EROSION
APPLY
ASSIGNED
WEIGHT
COMBINE VARIABLES
TO ARRIVE AT
THE INDICATOR
FIGURE IV-1. APPRAISAL STEPS FOR THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR
IV-2
-------
After calculating the number of truckloads per year for each
tract, the tracts are scaled relative to each other, based on a value of
100 for the tract with the lowest number of truckloads.
3. Wind Erosion (Step 3)
The propensity of a particular tract to wind erosion depends
on climate, soil, vegetative cover, and topography. Studies have shown
that wind predominates as a natural erosive mechanism when annual
precipitation is low (less than 15 inches) and mean annual temperatures
are below 20 degrees F or above 60 degrees F (Leopold, Wolman, and
Miller, 1964). However, whenever ground cover is disturbed, the
potential for wind erosion and fugitive dust emissions increases
exponentially. PEDCo (1976) used an equation to estimate annual
emissions from a mine. The equation is based on one developed by
Woodruff and Siddoway (1965) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
applies to agricultural acreage.
Because available equations provide little differentiation
among sites, the amount of surface area exposed over a 2-year period has
been selected as the key characteristic. It is defined as the amount
that has been disturbed but not yet revegetated. This quantity can be
obtained by dividing the amount of coal produced in 2 years by the
recovery factor, (the percentage of the coal actually mined) to yield
the quantity of coal originally in the ground. This value is then
divided by the thickness of the coal seams to determine the surface area
disturbed over 2 years. The tract with the lowest value will be rated
100, and the others will be rated proportionally.
B. Weightings
The weightings to be applied' to each element to determine the
overall value of the air quality indicator, based on a report by PEDCO
(1976), are as follows:
Overburden removal 50
Haulroad traffic 35
Wind erosion 15
IV-3
-------
AIR QUALITY WORKSHEET
Mining Operations
Tract
Characteristics
ft o
Volume of Overburden (10 yd /yr)
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.50)
10
IV-4
-------
AIR QUALITY WORKSHEET
Haul Road Traffic
Characteristics Weighted
/- Estimated Assigned Value
Tract Coal Mined (10 tons/yr) Truckloads (10 /yr) Value (x 0.35)
10
IV-5
-------
AIR QUALITY WORKSHEET
Wind Erosion
Characteristics
Tract Surface Area Exposed (acres/year)
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.15)
10
IV-6
-------
AIR QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR
Weighted Value
Mining Haul Road Wind
Tract Operation Traffic Erosion Total
10
IV-7
-------
V BIOLOGICAL IMPACT INDICATOR
A. Introduction
To rank alternative coal lease tracts with respect to the bio-
logical acceptability of mining, three elements are important: first,
the legal or administrative constraints, such as designation of a site
as a wilderness area; second, the potential to restore the premining
biotic communities (or an equally desirable alternative); and third, the
significance of the exclusion of biota from the tract or adjacent areas
during mining. These elements are included in the appraisals of
potential impact on western coal lands published by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in a series of five documents under the general title
of "Ranking of Wildlife on Federal Coal Lands" (U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1977). These assessments are currently the most reliable
standardized assessments, and their use in the methodology described in
this report is described in Section C.I of this chapter.
A default procedure described in Section C.2 should be used if the
sites to be ranked are outside the areas covered by the Fish and
Wildlife Service ratings, or if these ratings are no longer current when
the comparison is made and cannot be readily updated. The criteria used
for ranking in the default procedure roughly paralles the criteria used
by the Fish and Wildlife Service in its ranking, and partially cover the
excluson criteria reviewed by Steward (1978). Criteria cited by Steward
that are not covered here are covered in other chapters, as appro-
priate. The criteria included in this chapter apply primarily to
terrestrial habitats because several of the criteria pertinent to
aquatic habitats are included under water quality (Chapter III). The
steps followed in the default procedure are diagrammed in Figure V-l.
Worksheets for this default procedure are included at the end of the
chapter.
V-l
-------
ESTIMATE
RECLAMATION POTENTIAL
APPRAISE
SIGNIFICANCE OF SPECIES
APPRAISE
UNIQUENESS OF HABITATS
ASSIGN WEIGHTS,
SUM INDEX NUMBERS,
AND DIVIDE BY 4
TO OBTAIN COMPOSITE
INDEX NUMBER
FIGURE V-1. APPRAISAL STEPS FOR BIOLOGICAL IMPACT INDICATOR
(DEFAULT METHOD)
V-2
-------
B. Data Sources
Appraisals of the overall wildlife value of lands in the major
western coal fields have been developed by the office of Biological
Services of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as noted above. These
appraisals rate the suitability of sites on a section-by-section or
quarter-section basis. Sites are ranked on a scale from 1 to 4 that
represents the integration of assessments of the status of endangered
species, the status of threatened species, the importance of species of
higher interest, and the potential for restoration, reclamation, and
mitigation. These overall ratings are presented in both graph (map) and
table for coal lands in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977). Staff of the Fish and
Wildlife Service's Region 6 or the Fish and Wildlife Service's Western
Energy and Land Use Team (WELUT) should be contacted for appraisals of
the currency of this data base or for any necessary details regarding
the integration of the ratings for the four criteria used.
Data on the distribution of legally protected animals can be
obtained from the federal resource management agencies, state environ-
mental or game management agencies, environmental organizations, and
university taxonomists. Regional offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Soil
Conservation Service, or the equivalent state agencies, are generally
the most convenient sources of these data. Data on plants of special
interest are obtainable from these same sources and from a few special-
ized data bases, particularly the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Plant
Information Network (PIN), and those of the Smithsonian Institution.
Data on the availability of native plants for reclamation and
rehabilitation of lands in northwestern Colorado and the Powder River
Basin can be obtained from PIN (Vories and Sims, 1978). Coverage may be
extended in the future as funds permit. WELUT staff should be consulted
for more recent dates. Complementary programs are operated by the Soil
V-3
-------
Conservation Service (Plant Materials Center), the U.S. Forest Service,
and other land management agencies.
C. Methodology
1. Preferred procedure
Ratings for individual sites should be obtained from the Fish
and Wildlife Service's 5-volume series, "Ranking of Wildlife on Federal
Coal Lease Lands," if the sites to be ranked are covered by this series,
and if the appraisals are still current. Because the details of the
assessment process are not given in the published reports, verification
of their currency will require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service Region 6 staff. If these ratings can be used, the ratings of
the Fish and Wildlife Service should be multiplied by 25 to make them
compatible with the methodology used in this report and the products
used in subsequent steps (Chapter VIII).
2. Default Procedure
If the Fish and Wildlife assessments are no longer current and
cannot be updated by means of consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service or other resource agencies, the following procedure provides an
alternative means of rating the biological significance of the sites.
a. Reclamation Potential (Step 1)
Reclamation potential is evaluated with Packer's index of
rehabilitation potential (Packer, 1974), an index value derived from the
most applicable soils and climatic data. This index is the algebraic
sum of indices of the potential productivity of a site (based on average
annual rainfall), soil type, and an index of the availability of
suitable seed stock for restoration of the original vegetation. The
values assigned to each vegetation type by Packer were based on expert
judgment of the then current technology and the seed market in
1973-1974, but may be readily updated by information from the PIN, local
agricultural extension agents, or mine reclamation experts. The seed
availability index, the only factor that is subject to rapid change,
should be deleted or updated when this methodology is updated. In
V-4
-------
either case, the higher the index value, the more readily reclaimed the
site, and the broader the land manager's range of options for postmining
use of the site. The published indices are only applicable in the
Northern Great Plains but extensions to other regions are in progress.
If the site to be evaluated is covered by Packer's
published work, use Table V-l to transform Packer's index values to a
5-100 scale compatible with the methodology used in this report. If the
site is not covered, the reclamation potential can generally be
approximated by the generation of simplified scales based on the highest
and lowest values for rainfall and soil fertility within the set of
lease tracts under consideration. Appendix A illustrates how these
scales or indices can be developed and used.
b. Significance of Species (Step 2)
Species which are legally protected by state or federal
law, would require action beyond the authority of the staff who are
expected to be responsible for the initial ranking of tracts. Con-
sequently, tracts containing plant or animal species that are protected
by federal or state law or are candidates for such protection will be
given an index value of 1 and should be marked as requiring attention at
later stages of decision making if these tracts are not otherwise
eliminated from consideration during the ranking process. At present
such sites are excluded from consideration for leasing (Steward, 1978).
Tracts without legally protected species or species of special interest
should be assigned a value of 100. If such species are present, the
values should be determined from Table V-2, the lowest value obtained
should be applied to the site.
Table V-2 requires that users define "rare" and "local"
for themselves. In practice, "rare" species might best be defined as
those designated as such by government agencies, conservation groups, or
academicians. Similarly, "local" will have to be defined in terms of
the mobility of the organisms. In the absence of a specific definition,
"local" might be defined as an area with a radius of 20 miles or less.
V-5
-------
Table V-l
TRANSFORMATION OF PACKER'S COMBINED
RATING TO A 5-100 SCALE
Packer's Rating Transformed Rating
+9
+8
+7
+6
+5
+4
+3
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Source: Packer, pp. 28, 29 (1974).
V-6
-------
Table V-2
INDEX VALUES FOR SPECIES OF CONCERN
A. Legally protected species 1
B. Unprotected species
1. Reductions in population size
None 25
Some 10
Significant (50% or more) 5
Extinction of local population is probable 1
Population size unknown/impacts unknown 1
2. Vulnerability of habitat to loss or change
None 25
Some 10
Will be significant 5
Will be total 1
Unknown 1
3. Population concentration
Never concentrated 25
Sporadically 15
Regularly in several locations 10
Regularly in one location 1
Unknown 1
4. Potential for recovery
Habitats will be continuously available 25
Habitat availability uncertain or unknown 15
Habitat availability on adjacent lands 1
Source: Modified from Sparrow and Wight (1976).
V-7
-------
Federally protected species include federally listed
endangered species, state listed endangered species, and certain other
species whose habitats are protected, such as the golden eagle, wild
burros, and migratory birds. In addition, species of special interest
because of their recreational value, status as game animals, or
scientific interest should be appraised using Table V-2. The statutory
authority for the protection of federally protected species is
summarized by Steward (1978).
C. Uniqueness of Habitats (Step 3^
Each coal lease tract is unique, but the significance of the
features that make it unique often are not readily quantified. A site
may have significant biological value because of an uncommon
juxtaposition in it of habitats that are individually quite common.
Significance may also derive from apparently arbitrary, historical
factors exemplified by the use of relatively small numbers of breeding
grounds by grouse. Uniqueness may also derive from an absence of prior
disturbance by man or from the presence of scientifically interesting
variants of a common species.
If one site meets one of the proposed Department of Interior
unsuitability criteria (Table V-3), assign it a value of 1. If none of
these criteria apply, derive a rating from Table V-4 by rating the site
with respect to each of the 24 items and summing the ratings for these
24 items to obtain an overall rating.
Alternatively, Table V-4 can be used to estimate ratings of
uniqueness if each of the four items is rated and the four then summed
to obtain a single value.
d. Integration of Biological Indicators (Step 4)
The index values for reclamation potential, species
rarity, habitat uniqueness, and the potential for recovery of plant and
animal populations should be summed and divided by three to obtain an
overall index value for biological impact.
V-8
-------
TABLE V-3
SUITABILITY/UNSUITABIITY CRITERIA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
1. Selected federal lands systems
2. Rights-of-way and easements
3. Buffer zones along rights-ofway and adjacent to communities
4. Wilderness study areas
5. Scenic areas
6. Lands used for scientific studies
7. Historic lands and sites
8. Natural areas
9. Federally listed endangered species
10. State-listed endangered species
11. Bald and Golden eagle nests
12. Bald and Golden eagle roost and concentration areas
13. Falcon cliff nesting sites
14. Migratory birds
15. State resident fish and wildlife
16. Wetlands
17. Floodplains
18. Municipal watersheds
19. National resource waters
20. State lands unsuitable
21. State proposed criteria
22. Prime farm lands
23. Alluvial valley floors
24. Reclaimability
Source: Stewart (1978)
V-9
-------
Table V-4
UNIQUENESS RATING
Presence of at least one uncommon animal habitat (e.g., inland salt
marsh)
Everything common 25
Locally3 rare or uncommon regionally*3 10
Rare regionally^3 5
Rare nationally 1
Presence of preferred habitat for at least one legally protected
species or species of special interest
Everywhere common 25
Locally common but uncommon regionally 10
Locally uncommon 5
Locally rare 2
Presence of at least one habitat useful for scientific study
Heavily modified (e.g., overgrazed lands) 25
Moderately modified (e.g., average grazing) 10
All areas slightly modified (e.g., lightly grazed) 5
Pristine environments present 1
Presence of at least one exceptional habitat or combination of
habitats not otherwise considered
Nothing exceptional 25
Locally exceptional 10
Regionally^3 uncommon habitat
combinations or species diversities 5
Exceptional everywhere encountered 1
a Locally is arbitrarily defined as an area with a 20-mile radius.
" Region here denotes an ecoregion of Bailey (1976).
V-10
-------
WORKSHEET FOR BIOLOGICAL IMPACT INDICATOR
Tract No.
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text)
Notes:
2. Important species (Table V-2)
Notes:
3. Habitat Uniqueness3
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness
Criticality
Scientific value
Combinations
Sum of above four items
Notes:
4. Total of items 1-3
5. Divide total by 3
6. Adjustments of line 5
7. Additional Comments:
Use only one of the two methods, for compiling the data
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant
digits.
V-ll
-------
VI SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT INDICATOR
A. Introduction
The socioeconomic elements chosen are those considered to be the
most seriously affected in rapidly growing communities. These elements
can provide insight into the possible impact of coal mining on the lives
of both present residents of communities near the mines and newcomers to
those communities. The six elements chosen for analysis are population,
social services, community economic structure, bonding capacity, private
economic activities, and housing. These elements were chosen for
several reasons. They were considered significant in previous studies
of boomtowns and energy-impacted communities. These studies, which are
listed in the bibliography, analyzed socioeconomic changes in
communities that had experienced rapid increases in population. Severe
impacts on several areas, including housing, social services, and health
services, were mentioned repeatedly. A report by the Federal Energy
Administration on energy-impacted communities also cites effects on all
of these elements as important areas of concern. Although the
methodology is intended to call out possible negative impacts as a kind
of early-warning system, while performing the analysis it is worth
keeping in mind that coal mining may have some offsetting positive
impacts as well.
Some of the elements, particularly population and social services,
are complex, and breaking them down into their components will enable a
more complete analysis to be made. Analysis of all the elements will
provide enough information to characterize the potential effects of coal
mine development on communities as severe, moderate, or light (see
Figure VI-1).
Ratings of significance have been assigned to each element in a
slightly different manner than that used in previous sections. The
VI-1
-------
DETERMINE
POPULATION
EFFECTS
Step
ASSESS THE
IMPACTS ON
SOCIAL SERVICES
Step 1
St»p 3
Step
GOVERNMENTAL
STRUCTURE
EXAMINE THE IMPACTS
ON THE PRESENT
ECONOMIC STRUCTURE
Step 1
Step 2
EMPLOYMENT
DISTRIBUTION
OCCUPATION
DISTRIBUTION
Step 3
St«p4
UNEMPLOYMENT
RATE
INCOME
(PAYROLL)
DETERMINE THE
BOND CAPACITY
AND CAPABILITY
ASSESS THE PRIVATE
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
APPRAISE THE IMPACTS
ON THE LOCAL HOUSING
FIGURE VI-1. APPRAISAL STEPS FOR THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT INDICATOR
VI-2
-------
components of each complex element have been assigned a maximum number
of points on the basis of their relative importance. These points add
up to 100 for each element. To be consistent with other rankings in
this report, communities that will be least affected will receive the
largest number of points. Remember to total the points at the end of
each section to obtain the overall ranking. The totals for all the
elements are then added and divided by 6 so that socioeconomic effects
will receive the same emphasis as the other indicators.
Under the discussions of elements and their components, instructions
are given for assigning points for possible effects of coal mine
development. Sample worksheets have been been provided to help the user
assemble the necessary information.
B. Determination of Ranking
These numbers become factors in the analysis of the desirability of
developing potential coal lease tracts. They should be applied to the
proposed lease tract by proximity; that is, the city or community
closest to the lease tract will probably be much more seriously affected.
Expert judgment must be used to apportion the effects if more than one
community is located near the tract or the community closest to the
tract is undesirable and there is a desirable one within commuting
distance. (See the test case in Appendix A.)
C. Data Sources
Data sources have been listed in the bibliography, Appendix C. The
data in many of these sources may be specific to the region they cover
(northwestern Colorado), but they are cited to suggest the kinds of
materials that are available to provide a basis for an analysis of
socioeconomic indicators.
D. Methodology
1. Population
The human population of the area is one of the primary elements
that will help determine how coal mining will affect nearby communities.
VI-3
-------
Several different components of the population element are important to
c ons i der.
a. Present Population (Step 1) Many of the coal leasing
sites are near very small farming or ranching communities of between 100
and 1,000 persons. When the starting population is very small, the
impact of operating even one coal mine could be significant because
smaller communities are generally less able than large ones to absorb a
large influx of new workers and their families. The original base
population is therefore a very good indicator of a community's ability
to absorb the new population.
Points are assigned to this component according to the
size of nearby communities. Two factors should be considered: the
number of communities within a 25 mile radius of the lease tract, and
the number of people residing in each community. Determining the impact
is closely related to the population of the affected communities. In
measuring the significance of the impact it is necessary to remember
that many of these communities are very small and would be seriously
affected by a large influx of people.
The base population is assigned 30 of the 100 points for
the population indicator. The points should be distributed as shown:
Base Population Points
1-1,000 persons 0
1,000-5,000 15
5,000 and above 30
b. Growth Rates (Step 2) A community's ability to absorb
new people depends not only on how many people enter it, but also on how
rapidly they enter. For example, if 600 people arrived in a single week
in a community of 500 people, impact on the community's support
services, as well as on its housing, traffic patterns, and noise levels,
would be intolerable. The community could handle the problems better if
VI-4
-------
the growth occurred over a longer time period or if it could prepare in
advance for the arrival of the new people.
To assign points to this component, several steps are
necessary The factors to be considered include the historical growth
rate and the projected growth rate. The projected growth rate for an
area should be calculated by estimating the number of miners from
outside the region, multiplying this number by a factor to account for
families and support workers, dividing by the present population to
obtain the percentage increase, and assuming that this growth would
occur during a period of 2 years.
The number of support personnel needed would vary with the
size of the base population. Small farming communities of less than
5,000 people would require more support personnel than a larger
community with a more diverse economic base. A multiplier is used to
determine the number of people who would come into a community for each
miner hired. For communities with less than 5,000 persons, a multiplier
of 5 should be used. For communities with a population of 5,000 or
more, a multiplier of 3 should be used. These multipliers provide very
general indications of the differences in the effects of a mining
operation on communities of different sizes.
The projected growth rate is a very important indicator of
how severly the community will be affected by coal mining. Thirty of
the 100 population points have been allocated to it. These points
should be assigned as follows:
Annual Growth Rate Points
1-3% 30
3-5% 20
6-10% 10
Over 10% 0
VI-5
-------
c. Age Distribution (Step 3) The age structure of a
community is important because it will affect how well new workers and
their families would interact with the existing population and how
easily they could be integrated into the community. For example, an
influx of miners and their families would have a dramatic effect on a
retirement community. Table VI-I presents the current U.S. national age
distribution and median age.
Several kinds of information are necessary. First,
ascertain the present age distribution of the affected communities (or
the county, if community figures are not available). Find examples of
age distribution changes in a rural community after a coal mine (see
Figure VI-2). Then determine the typical age characteristics of mine
workers and their families.
Using data from past examples, project the number of
people of various ages that will enter a community. These figures can
then be added to the most current age distribution pyramid of the
community to determine where important changes will occur.
The significance of the impact will be judged by comparing
age distribution pyramids. An age and sex pyramid of an energy impacted
area before and after the "boom" are included in this handbook. This
pyramid will be compared to current pyramids of the particular community
and the example pyramid that illustrates the changes likely to follow
the development of a lease tract (see Figure VI-2). The significance of
the impact increases as the growth becomes more unbalanced, particularly
if the majority of the new population will be in one or two age
groupings. This aspect of the population indicator was given 25 of the
100 points. They should be distributed as follows:
Growth Distribution Points
Evenly distributed 25
Fairly evenly distributed 15
Disproportionately distributed 0
VI-6
-------
Table VI-1
UNITED STATES AGE DISTRIBUTION3
Age Group Percentage of the Population
Under 5 8%
5-13 16
14-17 8
18-21 8
22-24 5
25-34 14
35-44 11
45-54 11
55-64 9
65 and over 10
Median Age 28.7 years
Q
The number of males and females in each age group is almost equal.
the only exception is the 65-years-and-older category in which the
women outnumber the men three to two.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1975.
VI-7
-------
1960
FEMALE
1
1
|
II
75+
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
1
1
MALE
1
f
|
]
|
|
1 II
NUMBER
100'S
19
1
II
70 1
7=
FEMALE 1
1
|
|
|
|
1 1
+75
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
i
I MAI F
I
|
I
|
]
[
I
]
I I III
8
8
NUMBER
100's
FIGURE VI-2. AGE GROUP PROFILES OF CAMPBELL COUNTY,
WYOMING, 1960 AND 1970
THE CHANGE IN AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION
IS READILY APPARENT
VI-8
-------
d. Male/Female Ratio (Step 4) A balance of men and women
in the community is desirable. Most communities are fairly evenly
balanced and the issue never surfaces as a problem. However, many of
the boomtown studies of mineral extraction areas have found that a
significant male/female imbalance can have detrimental social effects.
For example, in Rock Springs, Wyoming, after the boom, men outnumbered
women 10 to 1, and prostitution was common. A significant change in the
existing sex ratio can be an undesirable effect of coal development.
For comparison, the current U.S. male/female ratio is approximately
49/51.
Determination of the effects requires a consideration of
the normal sex balance (national, state, county), and estimating the
male/female ratio of the coal mine workers and their families. (This
may be determined from previous studies and company records of miner's
family characteristics.)
Add the number of men and women expected to enter the
community to the number already residing in the community. Determine
the difference between the new ratio and the old, as well as the
difference between the new ratio and state and national norms. The
change within the community should be used to determine the impact. The
other differences are included to provide a norm to be used for
comparison.
This aspect of population has been assigned 15 of the 100
population points. They should be distributed as follows:
Ratio Change Points
0-15% 15
15-30% 8
greater than 30% 0
e. Total Points for Population Section (Step 5) Add the
points together to obtain a ranking for the section component (use
worksheets to determine points).
VI-9
-------
2. Social Services
The social services element is a measure of the adequacy of
schools, hospitals and doctors, governmental structures, and water and
sewage treatment facilities. Such services are generally maintained at
a level that meets or exceeds the needs of the community, although
services are limited in most small rural communities. Small communities
tend to compensate for limited services by informal social networks and
organizations.
A rapid increase in population could have a very significant
impact on this delicate balance. Services could become so overloaded
that they would be unable to meet the needs of the residents, old or
new. This phenomenon has been documented repeatedly in boointown studies
(Gilmore, 1976). A disruption in social services may also cause worker
dissatisfaction, reduce the "quality of life," and increase social
stress.
a. Schools (Step 1) The number of classrooms and teachers
is gauged to the current size of the community. A sudden increase in
the number of students can decrease the quality of education for an
extended period of time; new sources of funding are required before
steps to solve the problem can begin, and building classrooms is time-
consuming. Both old and new residents would be affected by the strain
on the existing teachers and the facilities.
To determine points for this component, it is necessary to
know the current number of students, teachers, and classrooms, and the
projected number of new students. (For a minimum estimate, assume that
for every two workers, there is one child. Refer to the population
section to obtain the number of workers.) Subtract the number of new
students from the spaces available in the schools. A number greater
than zero indicates that available classroom space is adequate.
Adequate classroom space is very important because of the cost of
building new schools and the time required to complete construction.
The number of teachers can be adjusted more quickly, and doing so is
VI-10
-------
less expensive. The need for new teachers is an important
consideration, however, in remote communities because there are some
difficulties associated with hiring. Nevertheless, the impact would be
most significant when new classrooms are required. The number of new
classrooms needed can be estimated, by assuming 25 students per room.
Determine whether the number of classrooms is adequate for the expected
enrollment.
Thirty points have been assigned to this element. They
should be distributed as shown:
New Classrooms Required Points
No new classrooms 30
1-4 new classrooms 20
4 or more new classrooms 0
b. Hospitals and Doctors (Step 2) Many small rural
communities do not have hospitals, doctors, or dentists. The residents
must often travel 50 miles or more to a doctor, perhaps further to a
hospital. Health care is barely satisfactory, and the condition could
be made temporarily worse by a rapid increase in population which would
further increase the ratio of patient to doctors as well as decreasing
the ratio of beds to patients in a hospital.
This condition could improve over time as services catch
up with demand and the community is able to attract more doctors and
dentists and to enlarge hospital facilities. However, isolated rural
areas often have difficulty attracting medical personnel. Neither
population growth in rural regions nor an increase in regional income
has guaranteed that more dentists, physicians, or surgeons will move
into an area (R. Parker and Tuxell, April 1967; J. Hambleton).
To assign points for this factor, determine the current number
of persons per doctor and dentist, and the adequacy of the supply of
hospital beds per 1,000 people. On the basis of estimates of how many
VI-11
-------
people would be added as a result of coal development (refer to the
population element), calculate what the new ratios would be, and compare
them to the current ratio in the particular county or state (the county
or state health department should be able to supply this information).
Compare the current and projected numbers of persons per doctor in the
coal lease area with the ratio obtained from either the county or state
health department. Similarly compare current and projected ratios of
population to number of available hospital beds. Twenty points have
been assigned to this indicator. Assign the points as follows:
Comparison with Standard Ratios Points
Services are close to adequate 20
One exceeded by 50% 10
Both exceeded by 50% 0
c. Governmental Structure (Step 3) A community's ability
to deal with day-to-day as well as long-term problems depends on its
governmental structure. The government has the responsibility of
ensuring that community problems are solved and that the community is a
pleasant place to live. Community governments accomplish this by
delegating responsibility and by planning, budgeting, and meeting
directly with the citizens to determine their needs and desires.
In a small community, the formal governmental structure
usually consists of a part-time mayor, sometimes supplemented by a
planner or an engineer. Many problems are solved through informal
communication. Zoning ordinances, building codes, and subdivision codes
are usually found only in communities with more elaborate governmental
structures. These codes are often considered unnecessary by the
residents of a small town. On the contrary, they consider them to be
infringements of their rights. For these reasons, it is clear that many
communities are simply not prepared for rapid growth. The community
cohesiveness and casual structure are destroyed by growth, and
governmental services are thereby disrupted. Without an adequate staff,
VI-12
-------
it is nearly impossible for community leaders to direct and control
growth.
The effects of a coal mine will be closely related to the
available planning expertise; that is, the size and composition of the
governmental staff. Communities without planners and engineers that
have only a part-time mayor or town manager would be least able to
control new growth. With an increasing number of planners, engineers,
and others trained to deal with growth, the chance that growth will be
uncontrolled decreases.
This component of social services should be assigned
points on the basis of the current staff.
Present Personnel Points
Mayor, Planner,
and Engineer 25
Mayor and Planner 15
Mayor 0
d. Water and Sewage (Step 4) The ability to provide water
and sewage treatment is critical. If a community grows faster than its
capabilities grow, water rationing could become necessary. If sewage
treatment is inadequate, diseases and other health problems could
result. Both of these services could easily become overextended as a
result of a large population increase in small rural communities.
Because sewage treatment facilities are large and require extended
periods of time for construction, delays in obtaining adequate capacity
could be lengthy.
The impact of a coal mine will depend on such factors as
average daily use of water, total amount of water available daily, type
VI-13
-------
and capacity of available sewage treatment facilities, and amount of
sewage generated per person per day. The availability of water is
critical if more than 10-15% of the supply would have to rationed to
meet the needs of the community. Sewage treatment would be a critical
issue if it were currently being used at capacity or if its capacity
would be exceeded by an influx of people.
Points are assigned according to the amount of service
currently available:
Current Water and Sewage Facilities Points
Adequate (room for growth) 20
Barely adequate (shortage inevitable) 10
Already inadequate 0
e. Total Points (Step 5) Add the points from each step to
obtain a social service ranking for the community (use worksheets to
determine points).
3. Present Economic Structure
The present economic structure, particularly of a small rural
community, would be greatly affected by the opening of a coal mine
nearby. The economic base in many small communities is ranching or
farming. When a community has one major industry, most of the services,
as well as the income levels, are directly related to this industry.
The occupational distribution and the unemployment level are related to
the existing job market, which reflects the dominant industry. The
opening of a coal mine would change the occupational distribution of the
community. There would be some beneficial effects the creation of
new job opportunities, for example. However, these new job
opportunities, usually at higher wages, often draw employees away from
the ranches and farms, leaving them short of labor. This situation can
improve with time as more people are attracted to the area. However,
farmers, who were the main employers before the mine opened can suffer
from an inadequate labor force.
VI-14
-------
To determine the impacts of a coal mine, several aspects of the
present economic structure will be examined in more detail: employment
distribution, occupational distribution, unemployment rates, and income.
The points assigned to each will be determined by their relative
importance.
a. Employment Distribution (Step 1) Many small towns have
a limited job market with little variety in employment opportunities.
Many boomtowns, such as Gillette, Wyoming, were little more than rural
farming communities before the resource development began. The
development not only directly expanded employment opportunities, but
also stimulated new jobs in the service sector.
Recently, mining operations near Gillette, for example,
became the dominant industry and have significantly changed the
employment distribution from one dominated by farming and ranching to
one dominated by mining-related activities and the service industries
that the mines require.
The points assigned to this component will be determined
by comparing current employment with the amount of employment that would
be generated, directly and indirectly, by coal mine development. Major
employment categories and the number of employees in them will have to
be taken into account.
To determine the impact, calculate the total number of
employees by adding the employment under the major categories (wholesale
and retail trade, construction, government, and so on). Then subtract
the mine-related employment (multiply the number of mine employees by 2)
from this total. This multiplier is a "rule of thumb" to be used for
small rural communities. For larger communities which already have a
well-established infrastructure the multiplier would be smaller.
"Expert" judgment should be used here.
VI-15
-------
The mining operation could be one of the largest employers
in the area, which would have a significant impact on employment
distribution. Employment directly and indirectly related to coal mining
is not permanent, it lasts only as long as the mine is open, the
opening and closing of a mine can result in a boom-bust cycle if coal
mining dominates the economy of a community. Therefore, a community
with a large and diverse employment distribution would be best equipped
to cope with the employment impacts related to a coal mine. The points
should be distributed according to the proportion of the workforce that
would be mine-related.
Mine-Related Employment
as a Percentage of the
Total Community Employment Points
0-20% 25
20-40% 15
40% or more 0
b. Occupation Distribution (Step 2) Rural towns tend to
have a limited occupation distribution. A small town generally has one
primary economic activity, such as farming and ranching, and the
occupation distribution reflects this limited economic base. Opening a
coal mine could radically change the occupation distribution,
particularly if the original base population is very small. New jobs
would be created, and people would switch from lower paid jobs, such as
being "ranch hands," to jobs as miners, as they did in Mercer County,
North Dakota. Job switching can have very significant effects in areas
where labor is scarce. Many times the vacant positions are hard to
fill. If the mine were near a large metropolis, there would be a
larger, more diverse distribution of occupations, and job-switching
would cause less serious problems. Job switching will also occur less
frequently if very few people have transferable skills. If this were
the case, it can be assumed that most of the workers would have to be
imported.
VI-16
-------
Assigning points for this component involves determining
how likely workers are to leave their current jobs to work in a coal
mine. This will be related to the existing occupation distribution and
the occupation distribution of direct and support mining employment.
Compare the previous occupation distribution with the occupation
distribution of the mining operation and the secondary employment it
induces.
The impact of the new jobs would be the least in
communities with very little correlation between the current occupation
distribution and that of coal mining because there would be little
diversion of the work force from other employment. The points will be
assigned according to the correlation between the available jobs skills
and those required for the mine operations. In some cases when data is
limited, this would require talking with the local mayor or someone who
is knowledgeable about the economics of the community.
Degree of Correlation Points
No correlation 30
Some correlation 15
Very similar 0
c. Unemployment Rate (Step 3) The rate of unemployment is
an indicator of the number of people who are readily available for new
jobs stimulated by the mining industry. If unemployment is high, more
labor will be available locally.
Points can be assigned for this component according to how
much a coal mine can be expected to reduce the unemployment rate.
First, determine the unemployment rate in the nearby communities. Then
compare the number of unemployed people with the number of jobs that
would be generated.
VI-17
-------
If the ratio of mine-related or induced jobs (as
determined in the employment distribution section) to the number of
unemployed persons is high, there is a good chance that unemployment in
the region can be significantly reduced. This effect constitutes a
socioeconomic benefit. The points will be distributed on the basis of
the ratio of mine-related or induced jobs to the number of unemployed
persons.
Ratio of Mine-Related Jobs
to Number of Unemployed Persons Points
Considerably greater than 1 35
About 1 20
Considerably less than 1 0
d. Income (Payroll) (Step 4) The employment stimulated by
the mining industry will generate income in the form of payroll. This
income affects the area directly by adding new money to the local
economy. The effects will depend on the current total income of the
community and the total income generated by direct mine employment
(average of $2.4 million for 160 workers). Compare these two levels of
income. Take into consideration that a great deal of income will also
be generated by the induced employment.
If the income generated by the mining industry, directly
and indirectly, is a large percentage of the current income or generates
a substantial portion of the community payroll, it is considered
significant. Points should be assigned as follows:
Percentage of Income
Generated by Coal Mines Points
Above 25% 10
10-25% 5
0-10% 0
VI-18
-------
e. Total Points (Step 5) Add the points from each step
together to obtain a ranking for the community (use the worksheets to
determine the points).
4. Bond Capacity
A community's bond capacity is its ability to generate money to
pay for capital improvements such as schools. This ability becomes
especially important if a community must make improvements or expansions
to accommodate new growth. Without an adequate bond capacity, a
community would be unable to make the necessary improvements to maintain
the quality of life. An inability to make these improvements could lead
to crowded schools, poor streets, and delays in providing other capital
improvements. The importance of this effect is discussed in two reports
(FEA, 1977, and Dickson, et al., 1976).
The method of assigning points for this indicator is simple,
but it requires making estimates of capacity and needs. The user must
determine the maximum bond capacity remaining and then estimate the
extent of the requirement for new capital improvements. Compare the
approximate costs of growth with the ability to pay for them. The total
capital requirement should be compared with the unused bond capacity of
the nearby communities, which can be obtained from documents such as
that published by FEA (1977).
The significance can be determined by the shortfall in bond
capacity to pay for needed improvements. The points will be assigned as
shown. Many times the comparison will be obvious if several services
need upgrading and very little bonding capacity remains.
Bond Capacity Points
Adequate bond capacity 100
Marginal capacity
(can meet some but not all needs) 50
Little or no remaining bond capacity 0
VI-19
-------
5. Private Economic Activity
Private economic activity refers to all nongovernmental
services provided to meet the various needs of the community. The major
types of establishments are retail stores, such as hardware, clothing,
and grocery stores; recreational establishments, such as bowling alleys,
movie theaters, golf courses, and private tennis and swimming clubs; and
other commercial establishments, such as cleaners, laundries, beauty
salons, and barber shops. These establishments fulfill various needs or
desires of the residents. Although most are not critical to survival,
they do make life more pleasant. Many small rural towns lack many of
these recreational and commercial establishments and must rely on large
communities nearby or do without these services. As a community grows,
so does the demand for various services, particularly if the newcomers
are accustomed to having them. These needs can often be met if large
communities are nearby.
Points can therefore be assigned on the basis of the size of
nearby towns and how far away they are. The impact will be determined
by the size of the nearest communities within a 50-mile radius. The
extent of available service can generally be correlated to population
size. To provide services for the anticipated influx of people, it is
generally necessary to have a community of at least 25,000 people within
a 50-mile radius of the impacted community.
The significance of the impact is directly correlated with the
size of the nearby towns. Points should be assigned as shown:
Size of One Town Within 50 Miles Points
25,000 or more persons 100
15,000-25,000 persons 40
15,000 persons or less 0
VI-20
-------
6. Housing
In all the communities analyzed by the FEA (1977), a shortage
of housing was one of the most serious problems. The study found that
housing shortages affect individual productivity, worker turnover rates,
and acceptability to workers of the living environment in energy-
impacted communities. The need for additional housing is generally
filled with mobile homes. This solution can cause further problems in
communities that do not have well-designed housing development plans.
Even where mobile home parks have been developed, sheer numbers may be a
problem. A previous study (Dickson et al., 1977) found that mobile
homes to house new residents had created serious difficulties in the
community of Gilette, Wyoming. The mobile homes were scattered randomly
throughout the community, creating a very disorganized living
environment. Also, because mobile home owners were not required to pay
property taxes, they were a financial drain on the community, because
they used services but did not increase city revenues.
Although many characteristics will affect the community's
satisfaction with local housing, effects can be roughly determined by
comparing the available supply of housing with the projected demand.
Determine the current vacancy rte, the number of units available, and
the types of units available (single-family dwellings, apartments, and
so forth. Compare the amount of housing needed for the incoming
population with the amount currently available.
The significance of the impact is directly proportional to the
housing need that can be filled by available housing stock. Points
should be assigned as follows:
Average Ratio of Housing
Supply to the Demand for Housing Points
Considerably greater than 1 100
About 1 50
Considerably less than 1 0
VI-21
-------
7. Summary
Once all of the socioeconomic indicators have been assessed,
record the points scored by each community in the table below. The
community which is closest to the lease tracts is assumed to receive the
impacts. (An example is presented in Appendix A).
VI-22
-------
Socioeconomic Summary Sheet
Indicators
Town A Town B Town C
Population
Social services
Present economic structure
Bond capacity
Private economic activity
Housing
Total divided by 6*
*Divide the total by 6 to equalize the ranking with the other
indicators.
VI-23
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT WORKSHEET
City: . County:
Worksheet for Part 1; Population.
A. Present Population
Community (impacted) population
Any others within 25 mi radius:
Points
B. Growth Rate
Historical Growth Rate
Projected Growth Rate
number of workers
(direct and induced)
present population
(total growth rate) 4- 2 (the number of
years) = % projected rate per year.
Points
Comments:
C. Age Distribution
Compare:
- present (or most currently available) with
national and/or state pyramid (national age distribution is
included in the text)
- age characteristics of mine workers and families (the change in
age distribution in a boom community is included for reference
in the text)
VI-24
-------
Findings:
very similar
similar
not similar
Points
Comments:
D. Sex Ratio
Norm: 51% female, 49% male (for the United States)
County
Miners
Points
Comments:
Total Points for Part 1:
Worksheet for Part 2: Social Services
A. Schools
1. a. Current number of students
b. Current number of teachers
c. Current number of classrooms
used or available
d. Projected enrollment without
additional students (obtain
from local school district)
e. Projected enrollment with
additional students (number
of new students as a result
of the mine = % the number
of new workers, both direct
and induced)
VI-25
-------
2. Determine the capacity of schools (using numbers in part 1)
a. a 4- 25 = number of classrooms presently used =
b. e - a = total number of new students =
c. total number of new students
25 25
(the
, , .. ^ , number of addi-
(average number of students ti
-------
D. Water/Sewage
1. Water
Average daily water use
Total available water
- Remaining capacity
(water used/person)
x (present + additional population)
= (total water needed)
(total water capacity)
= (additional water needed)
- (total water needed)
(positive = adequate;
negative = additional
capacity necessary)
2. Sewage
Average number of gpd (gallons per day) generated per person:
Capacity of treatment facility
gpd/person
x (present and additional population)
= (total capacity needed)
(capacity of the facility)
Total Points for Part 2
- (total capacity needed)
(positive = adequate;
negative = additional
capacity necessary)
VI-27
-------
Worksheet for Part 3: Present Economic Structure
A. Employment Distribution
Major employers Number of employees % of Total
- Agriculture
- Mining
- Retail ZZHZUZZ
- Education
- Government
- Services
Mine Employment
- Direct
- Indirect
Points
B. Occupational Distribution
(Determined by using information in Part A. An area with an even
distribution of employment would be one in which no particular employer
dominates, such as agriculture or construction. The points should be
based on the distribution of employment within the town.
Points
C. Unemployment
Rate Number
Nearest community %
Communities within 25 miles
Number of jobs to be created
(refer to employment distribution)
(number of jobs to be created) _ , . ,
(number of unemployed)
Points
VI-28
-------
D. Income (Payroll)
Total community income $
Total mine income $2,400,000 % of total
(for a 1 mtpy mine)
Points
Comments:
Total Points for Part 3
Worksheet for Part 4; Bonding Capacity
Maximum remaining capacity
Extent of the requirement for new capital;
- New schoolrooms (yes/no)
- Expand water treatment (yes/no)
- Expand sewer system (yes/no)
Total Points for Part 4
Worksheet for Part 5; Private Economic Activity
Size of nearby communities (50-mile radius)
Name Population
Comment s:
Total Points for Part 5
VI-29
-------
Worksheet for Part 6: Housing
1. Vacancy rate
2. Type of housing
- single family
- multifamily
- mobile homes
3. Number of vacant units
4. Direct and induced
employment (1 mine)
Employed (4) - number of vacant units (3) = (indication
housing need)
Comment s:
Total Points for Part 6
VI-30
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC RATING FOR THE COAL LEASE TRACTS
Tract Rating
10
VI-31
-------
VII LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT INDICATOR
A. Introduction
The many diverse political constituencies that are represented in
the laws and that affect coal development and protection of the environ-
ment influence legal and institutional impacts on coal mining. Con-
flicts arise because land that is rich with coal also supports agricul-
ture, ranching, forestry, wildlife, and recreation, and because policies
that require clean air and water to ensure public health and land use
conflict with a policy of maximum development of domestic energy
resources. The resulting compromises, which are necessary to satisfy
constituencies and interests at odds with one another, create complex
problems for those charged with leasing the public's coal resources.
This study has developed legal impact indicators that account for the
variety of land uses for areas overlying federal coal.
The fragmented ownership of surface and mineral rights is a second
important indicator that can be used in choosing which coal tracts to
lease. Large amounts of western coal (i.e., the mineral "estate," or
mineral rights under the ground) are owned by the federal government,
Indian tribes, state governments, and railroads. The rights to the
ground surface that lies over that coal may or may not be owned by the
entity that owns the mineral rights. For example, in Montana and
Wyoming, the federal government owns about three-fourths of the coal,
whereas much of the surface is privately owned. Federal homestead pro-
grams allowed individuals to stake out and settle western lands for
homes, farming, or stock raising. The homesteader obtained title to the
surface land, but the federal government reserved the mineral rights for
itself.
A related indicator results from the "checkerboard" ownership pat-
tern in the West of land alongside grants made to the railroads. One
VII-1
-------
hundred years ago, the federal government granted these railroads every
other section (640 acres) along the projected right of way, with the
swath of land granted to the railroads ranging in width from 12 to 200
miles. As a result, the railroads own an estimated 22 billion "checker-
boarded" tons of coal, or about 11 percent of the demonstrated coal
reserves in the seven western states (Carlson, 1978). Congress also
made land grants to the states in conjunction with early railroad devel-
opment, and gave to the states the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections
of every township for educational purposes. These congressional dis-
bursements resulted in a startling pattern of ownership of land and
resources. These fragmented and confused ownership patterns make the
straightforward, environmentally responsible leasing of a given coal
deposit quite difficult. The difficulty is compounded in attempting to
respect the interests of known surface owners, agricultural renters,
grazing permittees, and "lost" or unknown surface owners.
Appendix A summarizes the legal framework in which leasing of
federal coal takes place, and includes a discussion on state and local
laws. Note that the legal complexities surrounding a tract of land do
not, in and of themselves, indicate whether that tract should be leased
instead of another. Each piece of legislation in the regulatory frame-
work that deals with public land or the mining of federal coal osten-
sibly has a benevolent goal be it planning, environmental protection,
quality of life, occupational safety, preservation of species, memorial-
izing of historical or archeological places of interest, or other worth-
while purposes. Therefore, it is inappropriate to choose to lease a
given tract simply because it has a shorter list of legal requirements.
The tract with the longer list of requirements could prove to be the
better choice because needed considerations are codified.
An illustrative point of policy is raised in the case of differen-
tial state taxation. If, for instance, two equally attractive areas in
the Powder River Basin were being considered for leasing by the federal
government, the only difference between them might be that one tract
lies in Montana and the other in Wyoming. Is it appropriate for the
VII-2
-------
federal leasing officer to consider that Montana's 30% severance tax
(much stricter than the overall 10.5% tax in Wyoming) might impede dili-
gent mining of the Montana tract? Should the leasing officer consider
the state's purposes in having such a tax or how the revenues from that
tax are spent in the state? As can be seen, assigning a positive or
negative value to good faith state legislation is difficult.
Overlaying the legal methodology would be the leasing policy of the
Department of the Interior (DOI). In October 1977, DOI announced that
it would not issue leases for coal mining when the surface is privately
owned unless the surface is already owned by a coal company. This
policy must also be considered in applying the methodology.
To reiterate, two key legal indicators have been selected for analy-
sis: "land use" and "ownership." Other legal impacts that would affect
coal mining are reflected in the sections on the hydrology, water
quality, and biological impact indicators. For the land use indicator
the best score possible, one that represents minimal conflict, would be
50. Similarly, the best score possible for the ownership indicator
would be 50. The scores for a given tract for these two indicators are
added to obtain an overall legal/institutional rating for that tract;
this process should be repeated for each tract. These ratings are then
compared across all tracts considered to judge their relative
attractiveness from a legal/institutional standpoint (see Figure
VII-1). Worksheets are provided at the end of the chapter.
B. Methodology
1. Alternative Land Use Element
The characteristics of a tract of land can give it multiple
uses in addition to being an economic coal resource. Many of these uses
have been given statutory recognition and protection. Thus, in consid-
ering two tracts of land, it must be determined which tract has more
uses or unique uses and characteristics that might have to be foregone
because of coal development. For this indicator, the tract with the
least valuable uses would be the tract favored for leasing. It is
VII-3
-------
DETERMINE
THE ALTERNATIVE
LAND USES
2a (ALL FEDERALLY OWNED COAL)
APPRAISE
THE CONFLICTS
WITH SURFACE OWNERSHIP
AND MINERAL ESTATE
OWNERSHIP
2b (FEDERAL COAL ADJACENT TO
PRIVATE OR STATE-OWNED COAL)
APPRAISE
THE CONFLICTS
BETWEEN THE SURFACE
OWNERSHIP AND THE
VARIOUS MINERAL
ESTATE OWNERSHIP
COMBINE
THE VARIABLES
TO ARRIVE
AT THE
INDICATOR
FIGURE VII-1. APPRAISAL STEPS FOR THE LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
IMPACT INDICATOR
VII-4
-------
important to note whether the tracts are adjacent to or near land use
activities that would be disrupted by coal mining.
The user must first ascertain current land use (e.g., agricul-
ture, ranching, forestry, wilderness protection, or recreation) and then
determine the archaeological or historical value of the land. A deter-
mination of the impact of coal leasing entails finding out what the cur-
rent land use is and what likely future will be.
The methodology now weights various land uses equally because
of the great difficulty in comparing, for example, food raising with
wilderness protection. When the methodology is applied, differential
weighting may prove appropriate. For example, if a world food shortage
should occur, a weighting favoring agricultural use might be justified.
Changing the weights is left to the user of the methodology.
Table VII-1 is the key to assigning a land use score to a given
tract. In each column, a judgment is made about the level and type of
use, and that column's score is multiplied by the assigned weight at the
bottom of the column. For example, if the land is scrub land and has
little potential for agriculture, that column would get 50 points (min-
imum conflict), multiplied by the assigned weight of 0.20, giving a net
column score of 10. Moving on to the ranching column, if the scrub land
is being used for marginal grazing, that column would get 20 points
(moderate conflict) multiplied by the assigned weight of 0.20, giving a
net column score of 4. The remaining three columns should receive sim-
ilar treatment. The net column scores for the five columns are then
added together to obtain a total score for the alternative land use
indicator for a tract.
2. Conflicts Associated with Surface Ownership and Mineral Estate
Ownership
a. Federal Ownership of the Coal (Mineral Estate) (Step 1)
When the federal government owns the coal, analysis should focus on the
nature of the ground (surface estate) above the federal coal;
VII-5
-------
Table VII-1
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
POTENTIAL VALUES AND WEIGHTS TO BE ASSIGNED
Alternative
Use, Value
Minimal
conflict,
50
Moderate
conflict,
20
Major
Conflict,
10
Assigned
Weight
Agriculture Ranching
Land not
Land not
Agricultural Ranching
use marginal use
marginal
Forestry
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
Unforested Land not
attractive attractive land
for agricul- for grazing
tural use or or grazing
agricultural activity
activity merely
merely adjacent
adjacent
Land for-
ested but
not a part
of U.S.
forest
system
designated
as wilder-
ness protec-
tion or rec-
reation area
Land adjacent
to wilderness
protection
area or rec-
reation area
Prime
agricultural
land pro-
ducing crops
0.20
Good grazing Land part Land desig-
land used of U.S. nated as
for raising forest wilderness
livestock system protection or
recreation
Archaeological
Historical
Importance
No archaeolog-
ical or histor-
ical importance
0.20
0.20
0.20
Cultural value
but not offi-
cially desig-
nated by state
or federal
officials
Land official-
ly recognized
as important
archaeolog-
ically or
historically
0.20
VII-6
-------
Table VII-2 is used to develop this indicator. The Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 makes provision for protecting
surface owners of lands over federal coal and the holders of surface
leases on federal lands over federal coal. The Secretary of the
Interior is prohibited from leasing federal coal until surface owners
have given written consent for surface mining to begin. For purposes of
coal lease planning, the Secretary is to consult with surface owners
within a tract that is being considered for leasing; at his discretion,
he can refrain from leasing federal coal for surface mining when "a
significant number of surface owners have stated a preference against
the offering of the deposits for lease. . . ." Written consent must be
obtained from surface lessees or permittees, or a bond must be executed
to secure payment to them if their surface interest is harmed.
It is necessary to ascertain whether a surface lease exists,
and if so whether permission has been obtained to disturb the surface.
Then ascertain whether the surface is privately owned, and if so whether
permission has been obtained. This information will indicate whether a
conflict exists between the surface estate and the federal coal estate.
The impact would be greatest where the ownership or lease is
held by a party whose permission to disturb the surface has not been
obtained. Areas in which a minimum of conflict would occur are those
where permission has been obtained or that are owned and controlled by
the federal government, with no outstanding federal surface leases or
permits.
To use Table VII-2, first look at column one. If the federally
owned surface over the federally owned coal is under lease to a private
party who has given permission for strip mining to take place, a score
of 20 points would result. This score is then multiplied by the weight
at the bottom of the column. For example, 0.6, will give a net score
for the column of 12. In column two, if the corporation that owns the
clt is probable that a price would be negotiated for such permission.
VII-7
-------
Table VII-2
SURFACE AND MINERAL ESTATE OWNERSHIP
Alternative
Use, Value
Minimal
conflict,
50
Moderate
conflict,
20
Major
conflict,
10
Assigned
Weight
Federal Surface Ownership/
Federal Coal Ownership
No outstanding surface leases
or permits
Surface leases or permits in
effect and permission
obtained from lessee/
permittee (or bond executed)
Surface leases or permits in
effect but permission not
obtained (nor bond executed)
Private Surface Ownership/
Federal Coal Ownership
Surface estate owned by
potential coal lessee
Permission obtained by Secre-
tary of the Interior from
owners of surface estates
Permission not obtained from
surface owners
1.0 - F
Assigned weight F = decimal fraction of tract that has federal
surface ownership and federal coal ownership.
VII-8
-------
surface over the federally owned coal has agreed to allow the surface to
be disturbed, the score will be 20 points. This score is multiplied
by the weight at the bottom of the column, in this example 0.4, giving a
net score for the column of 8. The total score for the ownership indi-
cator for this particular tract would be the sum of the two columns, or
20 points.
b. Federal Coal Adjacent to Privately or State-owned Coal
(Step 2) When federal coal and nonfederal coal must be mined together
for an efficient, economic "logical mining unit," the position of the
federal government is uncertain because DOI has no real control or
influence over a private coal owner's decision to lease his mineral
. , *
rights.
For development of an indicator when private or state coal lies
next to federal coal, Table VII-3 is the appropriate reference.
The user must determine whether surface rights to the
private coal are owned by an individual (or corporation) different from
the owner of the mineral rights, whether the federal coal lease appli-
cant owns or has a lease for the adjoining nonfederal coal, and the per-
cent of the proposed lease tract that is privately owned. The extent of
the conflict between the surface estate and the mineral estate for the
privately owned coal must be determined, as must the relationship be-
tween the privately owned coal and the federally owned coal (relative
areas, relationship of the would-be lessee of the federal coal to owner-
ship or leasehold of private coal, and so on).
*In this respect, state ownership of a coal resource or of the surface
estate resembles private ownership. That is, the federal government
has no direct control or influence over a state's decision to lease its
coal. However, states are generally interested in responsible coal
development on a "logical mining unit" basis. This concern would
probably make them more responsive to federal desires for development
than would be private owners, who may be more interested in retaining
their coal resources for speculation.
VII-9
-------
The greatest conflict occurs when surface owners (above
the federal coal and/or above the private coal) have not given
permission to disturb the surface. The least conflict occurs when
permission has been obtained to disturb the federal and private surfaces
and when there are no outstanding federal surface permits. To
distribute the points, consult Table VII-3.
The first two columns, with federal coal ownership, are
treated like those in Table VII-2. Column 3 adds the dimension of
private (or state) coal ownership to the analysis.
As an example of how to use Table VII-3, assume that for
60% of the tract the federal government owns both the surface and the
coal (hence Fj = 0.6), and that no surface leases or permits are out-
standing. The score for column 1 would be 50 (minimum conflict) multi-
plied by the weighting (F]^ = 0.6), for a net column score of 30. If
30% of the tract has private surface ownership combined with federal
coal ownership (F2 = 0.3), and if permission has been obtained from
the owners of the surface estates, the score for the column would be 20
multiplied by the weighting (F = 0.3), for a net column score of 6. The
remainder of the tract would be in the category of private surface
ownership/private coal ownership (F^ =0.1).* If the private coal
and private surface estate are not owned by the same individual or cor-
poration that owns the private surface, but the parties are amenable to
coal development, the column would receive a score of 20 points multi-
plied by the weighting factor (F3 =0.1) for a net column score of 2.
The total score for the ownership indicator for this particular tract
would be the sum of the three columns, or 30 + 6 + 2 = 38.
c. Total Points (Step 3)
Scores for the two key indicators, "alternative land use"
and "ownership," are then added to yield the overall legal/institutional
F2 + F3 = 1.0.
VII-10
-------
rating. The tract with the highest score would be the most attractive
for leasing.
To predict the legal/institutional difficulties that might
accompany the leasing of a tract, an analyst's judgment may be required.
Using a legal analyst would also ensure that the environment and socio-
economic analyses, which are critical parts of the methodology, meet the
federal, state, and local legal requirements.
Note that environmental considerations are the subject of
federal and state law. For this study, environmental indicators for air
and water quality are dealt with generically in the environmental sec-
tion of the report. Similarly, the Endangered Species Act is treated in
the environmental section.
VII-11
-------
Table VII-3
CHECKERBOARD LAND AND MINERAL OWNERSHIP POTENTIAL VALUES AND WEIGHTS TO BE ASSIGNED
Alternative Use, Value
Minimal conflict, 50
Moderate conflict, 20
Major conflict, 10
Federal Surface Ownership/
Federal Coal Ownership
No outstanding surface
leases or permits
Surface leases or permits
in effect and permission
obtained from lessee/
permittee (or bond executed)
Surface leases or permits in
effect but permission not
obtained (nor bond executed)
Private Surface Ownership/
Federal Coal Ownership
Surface estate owned by
potential coal lessee
Permission obtained by
Secretary of the Interior
from owners of surface
estates
Permission not obtained
from surface owners
Assigned Weight a
F2
Private Surface Ownership/
Private Coal Ownership
Coal and surface privately
owned by same individual or
corporation, willing to lease
the coal
Coal and surface not owned by
the same individual, or
corporation, but parties are
amenable to coal development
Adjoining private coal and
adjoining private surface
estate not owned by the same
individual or corporation,
and permission not obtained
to mine the coal
F3
a Decimal fraction F of tract area =
F3
1.0.
-------
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Tract
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture
Ranching
Forestry
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
Archaeological/
Historical
Importance
Alternative Land Use Score
VII-13
-------
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Tract
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract
Area)
Weighted
Value
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private
Coal
Ownership
Ownership Element Score
Includes state-owned land.
Includes state-owned coal.
VII-14
-------
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET
Tract Score
10
VII-15
-------
SURFACE-OWNERSHIP/MINERAL-OWNERSHIP ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET
Tract Score
10
VII-16
-------
SUMMARY OF LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT INDICATOR
Alternative Use Ownership Overall
Tract Element Element Score Ranking
8
9
10
VII-17
-------
VIII FINAL WEIGHTING
The various indicators must be combined to obtain an overall rating
for a particular lease tract. Once that is accomplished, a comparison
of the selected areas can be made. A method that could be called
"comparative value perspectives," has been chosen because it illustrates
differing interpretations and weighting of the same data. The rankings
depend on which group is applying the methodology. In some instances
the proposed coal lease areas could be ranked differently, and in others
they could receive approximately the same ranking, but with emphasis on
different concerns.
The purpose of this method of summation is not only to apply
weightings as the SRI team that developed the methodology would apply
them, but also to provide EPA with insight into the way other potential
stakeholders or interest groups would view the proposed coal lease
areas. By understanding the factors that are considered to be of most
importance to others, EPA can be prepared for controversies that will
arise as a result of the varying viewpoints.
One of the important characteristics of this system is the groups
that are chosen to be represented: environmental activists, mining
companies, local governments, local citizens, and the cognizant federal
agencies. Each can be expected to have a different weighting of the
impact indicators: coal resource economics, hydrology/water quality,
air quality, biology, socioeconomic, impact and legal/institutional
conflict. The weightings reflect the relative priority, or importance,
that the various groups attach to the indicators. All of the weightings
are considered to relfect reasonably the "average" values of members of
the groups represented. Our hypothetical weightings for each group are
described below. To obtain each interest group's preference ranking for
coal tract leasing, one-by-one, each group's set of indicator weightings
VIII-1
-------
is multiplied by the raw indicator scores for the various tracts
obtained in earlier stages of the methodology. Sample worksheets are
included at the end of the chapter.
A. Environmental Groups
Environmental activists tend to focus on preserving the natural
environment. When the natural environment is either being sufficiently
protected or is not considered to be "significant," environmentalists
tend to focus on the "human environment." Very little of their energy
is usually focused on the economic and legal/institutional
considerations included in the indicators unless a national park,
wilderness area, or wild river would be affected. Therefore, the
impacts on the ecological areas are given the greatest weighting,
followed by effects on the air and water quality. The impacts on the
social environment are considered of next importance. Very little
emphasis is given to the legal/institutional and the economic indicators.
B. Mining Companies
The interest of mining companies are assumed to be almost the
reverse of those of the environmental groups. Economics making a
profit is their main driving force. The companies consider two major
factors when determining the economics of mining an area: the economics
of production and the legal/institutional constraints (because various
requirements must be satisfied before production can begin). Mining
companies also have a concern for the local socioeconomic environment
insofar as it affects their employees. If the local social environment
is unsatisfactory for example in the housing, retail, and
entertainment areas it will have a detrimental effect on their
employees and their performance on the job. The physical environment,
including air and water quality, is typically not of paramount concern
to the companies, unless it affects their ability to mine an area
economically and safely.
C. Local Government
The major concern of local government officials is the welfare of
the community both of the people and of the infrastructure. The
VIII-2
-------
officials generally want to ensure that the town benefits from the coal
mining. Their responsibility includes the legal/institutional factors,
seeing that valuable land is not irreparably damaged, or in some cases,
such as parks and reserve areas, that they are not marred by the mining.
Water quality is another major concern, particularly in the West,
because supplies are limited, and, in some areas, very scarce.
D. Local Citizens
The local people are mostly concerned about how the mining is going
to affect them personally. They are worried about the effects of the
newcomer in their community (housing shortages, increase in prices,
increase in crime). Therefore, a great deal of weight is given to the
socioeconomic impacts by the "old timers." Along the same vein, the
local residents are often very concerned about not only their water
supply (aquifer destruction) but also the quality of the water (increase
in sediment). If the socioeconomic climate is such that it can
accommodate the impacts, the people's attention then turns to ecology
and the possible harm to the environment. Finally, the people are
somewhat concerned about the legal/institutional aspects and the
economics of the mining, but again, only as they affect their lives.
E. Cognizant Federal Agencies/SRI Study Team
The SRI study team has developed its own weighting factors based on
past studies of the effects of coal mining on the indicator areas. It
is likely that the cognizant government agencies, possessing a
bureaucratic, expert, technocratic, uninvolved, stake in the leasing
might adopt a a weighting profile similar to that of the SRI study
team. In formalizing our weighted profile, one important assumption
concerned the potential reversal of the impacts. The study team
determined, through analysis of other impacts and reports, that while
socioeconomic impacts are highly significant, a combination of planning
and funds (both from the government and private sources) can lessen, if
not eliminate, many of the detrimental effects. Accordingly, greater
significance was given to the ecological and hydrological impacts that
could cause irreparable damage, such as the destruction of an aquifer or
VIII-3
-------
the loss of a wildlife species, either from the destruction of its
environment or the killing of the species. Legal/institutional issues
are viewed by the study team in much the same manner as the
socioeconomic impacts. They can be resolved through negotiation, and
therefore they are not given as much weight as the impacts on the
ecosystems and the hydrology. The SRI study team weighted the impacts
assuming that all of the tools (e.g., federal funds) and past experience
will be put to use. So even though the team considers all categories of
the impacts as equally significant, indicators are given more weight if
the impacts they measure cannot be controlled or are not repairable at
this time.
Table VHI-1 lists the weighting given by the various interest
groups to the six indicators. These weightings were used in our test
case (see Appendix A).
Table VIII-1
WEIGHTING FACTORS
Area of Concern
Biology
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Air Quality
Socioeconomic
Economic
Legal
Total
Environmental
Groups
0.40
Mining Local
Companies Governments
0.00
0.05
SRI
Local Study
People Team
0.10 0.35
0.25
0.15
0.10
0.03
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.80
0.15
0.20
0.08
0.40
0.07
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.50
0.05
0.05
0.25
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.05
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
VIII-4
-------
FINAL RANKINGS WORKSHEET
Environmentalists Mining Companies Local Government Local Citizens SRI Study Team
Tract Weighted a Tract Weighted a Tract Weighted a Tract Weighted a Tract Weighted a
Number Score Number Score Number Score Number Score Number Score
10
11
12
Scores rounded to two significant figures.
-------
COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVES RANKING WORKSHEET
Unweighted Weighted Score
Indicator Raw Score Environmentalists Mining Companies Local Government Local Citizens SRI Study Team
Tract 1
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality ^^J ^^^ 2ZZ3
Air Quality IZZH !ZZZI
Biology HZH ZZIZ^ ZHH
Socioeconomic
Legal/Institutional ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~
Total
Tract 2
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 3
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 4
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
-------
COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVES RANKING WORKSHEET (Continued)
Unweighted Weighted Score
Indicator Raw Score Environmentalists Mining Companies Local Government Local Citizens SRI Study Team
Tract 5
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 6
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 7
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 8
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
-------
COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVES RANKING WORKSHEET (Concluded)
Unweighted Weighted Score
Indicator Raw Score Environmentalists Mining Companies Local Government Local Citizens SRI Study Team
Tract 9
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality ^ZZZ ^^^ ^HH HHZ HZZT ^ZZI
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 10
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 11
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Ins titutional
Total
Tract 12
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
-------
Appendix A
METHODOLOGY TEST CASE
I. Introduction
Northwest Colorado (specifically Moffet, Rio Blanco, and Routt
Counties) was chosen as the area for testing our methodology (see Figure
A-l). Located within this region are two known recoverable coal
resource areas (KRCRA), Yampa and Danforth Hills. KRCRAs were developed
by the U.S. Geologic Survey and have been designated as areas in which
there is high potential of coal availability. The twelve areas the SRI
team choose as potential "lease tracts" are located within the Danforth
and Yampa KRCRA (See Figures A-2 and A-3).
Each of the indicators was applied to the test site, using the step
by step methodology described in the handbook. The purpose of testing
the methodology was twofold: one, to ensure that there were no gaps or
impossible steps in the original design; and two, to make sure that the
methodology was as simple as possible while still providing a sufficient
amount of information to rank potential coal lease areas.
Once the indicators had been applied to all the sites (See Table
A-l ), a final ranking was obtained by using the comparative value
perspectives technique. The final weighting process resulted in some
very interesting conclusions (see Table A-l and Figure A-4). Many
times, the different groups could be expected to come up with the same
overall ranking, but for different reasons (see Table A-2). The dif-
ferent ranking given by the various groups is graphically illustrated in
Figures A-5 through A-16.
In these tables the calculations are displayed exactly as they were
performed. The number of figures displayed for each entry is more than
are significant.
A-l
-------
The "local citizens" and the "local governments" were in closest
agreement, as would be expected. There was very little difference in
the ranking. Environmentalists and mining companies were in agreement
on the ranking of three tracts, which is surprising since their areas of
concern as depicted in the comparative value perspective are almost
opposite.
It is important to note that there never was full agreement on the
leasing order. Two groups would in some cases agree on the order of a
particular tract. In general, however, rankings of each group were
unique.
This final weighting method provides insight into possible problem
areas which could be avoided with proper planning and foresight. For
example, the environmental groups and the miners could give a potential
coal lease tract a very similar rating, but if you examine the graphs
that illustrate all the components, there are very few similarities in
what went into the final weighting (see Figures A-5 through A-16).
Each of the indicators has been worked out on worksheets, identical
to those provided in the handbook. Also, brief analyses are included to
explain the results from the test case. To understand the results it
may be necessary to go back and read the section in the handbook dealing
with the particular worksheet.
A-2
-------
I
Co
FIGURE A-1. MAP OF NORTHWEST COLORADO INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF YAMPA AND DANFORTH HILLS KRCRA
-------
FIGURE A-2. LEASE TRACTS 1-5 LOCATED IN THE DANFORTH KRCRA
-------
FIGURE A-3. LEASE TRACTS 6-12 LOCATED IN THE YAMPA KRCRA
-------
90
80
70
60
to
CC 50
O
8
I 40
Q.
30
20
10
SRI STUDY
TEAM
\
\
/
/
\
\
A
/ \
/ \
;-4- *
X\
>
V
/
\,<
/
/
\ /
V
\
/
/
K/
/ MINING COMPANY
\ /
V
/ -
6 7
TRACT
10
11
12
FIGURE A-4. RANKING OF THE TWELVE COAL LEASE SITES BY THE VARIOUS GROUPS
-------
Ranking
Environmentalists
Tract Weighted a
Number Score
Mining Companies
Tract Weighted3
Number Score
Table A-l
FINAL RANKINGS
Local Government
Tract Weighted3
Number Score
Local Citizens
Tract Weighted3
Number Score
SRI Study Team
Tract Weighted3
Number Score
11
73
88
56
62
66
73
68
54
57
65
72
12
47
53
54
11
64
71
40
11
53
11
54
64
68
31
12
48
53
61
10
64
10
31
48
48
12
60
12
64
11
28
48
12
48
59
63
28
46
10
47
10
58
59
18
46
47
56
10
59
15
46
46
55
11
56
14
10
44
45
53
12
55
11
37
45
53
3 Scores rounded to two significant figures.
-------
Table A-2
COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVES RANKING
Indicator
00
Tract 1
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 2
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 3
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 4
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Ins titutional
Total
Unweighted
Raw Score
2
70
94
77
45
62
349
5
57
94
77
45
61
339
23
82
94
69
45
60
373
70
61
24
76
33
66
330
Environmentalists
0.06
17.50
14.10
30.80
4.50
4.34
71.30
0.15
14.25
14.10
30.80
4.50
4.27
68.07
0.69
20.50
14.10
27.60
4.50
4.20
71.59
2.10
15.25
3.60
30.90
3.30
4.62
59.77
Mining Companies
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.25
9.30
27.55
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.25
9.15
15.40
22.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.25
6.75
31.40
56.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.65
9.90
67.55
Local Government
0.10
14.00
7.52
3.85
18.00
12.40
55.87
0.25
11.40
7.52
3.85
18.00
12.20
53.22
1.15
16.40
7.52
3.45
18.00
9.00
55.52
3.50
12.20
1.92
3.80
13.20
13.20
47.84
Local Citizens
0.10
14.00
9.40
7.70
22.50
3.10
56.80
0.25
11.40
9.40
7.70
22.50
3.05
54.30
3.45
16.40
9.40
6.90
22.50
3.00
61.60
3.50
12.20
2.40
7.60
16.50
3.30
45.50
SRI Study Team
0.20
17.50
9.40
26.95
6.75
3.10
63.90
0.50
14.25
9.40
26.90
6.75
3.05
60.85
2.30
20.50
9.40
24.15
6.75
3.00
66.10
7.00
15.25
2.40
26.60
4.95
3.30
59.45
-------
Table A-2 Continued
COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVES RANKING
Indicator
>
Tract 5
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 6
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 7
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 8
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Unweighted
Raw Score
5
85
94
76
33
54
347
37
71
39
58
32
57
294
11
67
94
53
33
51
309
100
62
50
53
33
43
341
Weighted Score
Environmentalists
0.15
21.25
14.10
30.40
3.30
3.78
72.98
1.11
17.75
5.85
23.20
3.20
3.99
55.10
0.33
16.75
14.10
21.20
3.30
3.57
59.25
3.00
15.50
7.50
21.20
3.30
3.01
53.51
Mining Companies
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.65
8.10
13.75
29.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.60
8.55
39.75
8.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.65
7.65
18.10
80.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.65
6.45
88.10
Local Government
0.25
17.00
7.52
3.80
13.20
4.30
46.07
1.85
14.20
3.12
2.70
12.80
11.40
46.27
0.55
13.40
7.52
2.65
13.20
10.20
47.52
5.00
12.40
4.00
2.65
13.20
8.60
45.85
Local Citizens
0.25
17.00
9.40
7.60
16.50
2.70
53.45
1.85
14.20
3.90
5.80
16.00
2.85
44.60
0.55
13.40
9.40
5.30
16.50
2.55
47.70
5.00
12.40
5.00
5.50
16.50
2.15
46.55
SRI Study Team
0.50
21.25
9.40
26.60
4.95
2.70
65.40
3.70
17.75
3.90
20.30
4.80
2.85
53.30
1.10
16.75
9.40
18.55
4.95
2.55
53.30
10.00
15.50
5.00
18.55
4.95
2.15
56.15
-------
Table A-2 Concluded
COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVES RANKING
Indicator
I
f>
o
Tract 9
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 10
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 11
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Soc ioeconomic
Legal/Institutional
Total
Tract 12
Coal Resource Economics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Biology
Socioeconomic
Legal/Ins titutional
Total
Unweighted
Raw Score
0
43
100
76
32
60
311
26
45
100
76
32
55
334
23
84
97
76
32
51
363
46
58
67
76
33
60
340
Environmentalists
0.00
10.75
15.00
30.40
3.20
4.20
63.55
0.78
11.25
15.00
30.40
3.20
3.80
64.43
0.69
21.00
14.55
30.40
3.20
3.57
73.41
1.38
14.50
10.50
30.40
3.30
4.20
64.28
Mining Companies
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.60
9.00
10.60
20.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.60
8.25
30.65
18.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.60
7.65
27.65
36.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.65
9.00
47.45
Local Government
0.00
8.60
8.00
3.80
12.80
3.00
36.20
1.30
9.00
8.00
3.80
12.80
11.00
45.90
1.15
16.80
7.76
3.80
12.80
10.20
52.51
2.30
11.60
5.36
3.80
13.20
12.00
48.26
Local Citizens
0.00
8.60
10.00
7.60
16.00
3.00
45.20
1.30
9.00
10.00
7.60
16.00
2.75
46.65
1.15
16.80
9.70
7.60
16.00
2.55
53.80
2.30
11.60
6.70
7.60
16.50
3.00
47.70
SRI Study Team
0.00
10.75
10.00
26.60
4.80
3.00
55.15
2.60
11.25
10.00
26.60
4.80
2.75
58.00
2.30
21.00
9.70
26.60
4.80
2.55
64.95
4.60
14.50
6.70
26.60
4.95
3.00
60.35
-------
80
70
60
50
CO
LU
cc
o
o
O
Q_
40
30
20
10
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY WATER
llli'l'll.l'.iiilir.j QUALITY
ggajjjja BIOLOGY
W///W\ SOCIOECONOMIC
FffffifoVl LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
vffffKvff
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-5. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 1
A-ll
-------
80
70
60
50
CO
HI
tr
to 40
I-
30
20
10
Y///X ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY WATER
QUALITY
AIR
l|»l|i
BIOLOGY
SOCIOECONOMIC
^vllV^ LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-6. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 2
A-12
-------
801
70
60
50
LLJ
DC
o
o
c/3 40
H
5
0.
30
20
10
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY WATER
QUALITY
BIOLOGY
!?PPS
fefesS
:.V-H!-"S>
A.-jr^as.;
*"/..*» i »:" *.
Vi.-v-:s^?
5-::r=5SS
3'iZ.^tf
mM AIR
^^^ SOCIOECONOMIC
[ffii'iffiH LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
If ft flf**f *
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL
COMPANY GOVERNMENT
LOCAL SRI
CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-7. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 3
A-13
-------
80
70
60
50
CO
LU
OC
o
u
co 40
O
o_
30
20
10
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY
WATER QUALITY
AIR
BIOLOGY
SOCIOECONOMICS
LEGAL/
^ INSTITUTIONAL
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING
COMPANY
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
CITIZENS
SRI
STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-8. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 4
A-14
-------
80
70
60
50
UJ
(E
O
u
co 40
I-
O
Q_
30
20
10
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY WATER
QUALITY
AIR
Wm&
y/M
fc
i^ii1
BIOLOGY
SOCIOECONOMICS
LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-9. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 5
A-15
-------
80
70
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY WATER
QUALITY
AIR
$$$$8 BIOLOGY
'/f/ffA SOCIOECONOMICS
jggw] LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
60
50
to
LU
DC
O
u
w
I-
z
40
30
20
10
' ,1
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-10 COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 6
A-16
-------
80
70
ECONOMICS
iTprpl HYDROLOGY WATER
QUALITY
AIR
BIOLOGY
SOCIOECONOMIC
$j£$\ LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
60
50
cc
o
o
o
Q_
40
30
20
10
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-11 COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 7
A-17
-------
90
80
70
60
to 50
UJ
a:
O
u
CO
I-
Q- 40
30
20
10
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY
WATER
QUALITY
AIR
BIOLOGY
SOCIOECONOMIC
LEGAL/
INSTITUTIONAL
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-12. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 8
A-18
-------
80
70
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY WATER
QUALITY
AIR
TOM BIOLOGY
|^%J] SOCIOECONOMIC
;feWSt) LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
to
LU
cc
o
o
60
50
40
30
20
10
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-13. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 9
A-19
-------
80
70
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY WATER
QUALITY
Ma AIR
BIOLOGY
SOCIOECONOMIC
LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
60
50
to
LU
IT
O
o
O
Q.
40
30
10
WA
ilU
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-14. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 10
A-20
-------
70
60
50
CO
LU
CE
o
o
co 40
1-
30
20
10
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY WATER
QUALITY
AIR
BIOLOGY
SOCIOECONOMIC
LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-15. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 11
A-21
-------
80
70
ECONOMICS
HYDROLOGY WATER
QUALITY
AIR
gjffljjjm BIOLOGY
\J/(fJJlj'/^ SOCIOECONOMIC
Igtf^igl LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
60
50
HI
OC
o
o
CO
o
Q_
40
30
20
10
^
ENVIRONMENTALISTS MINING LOCAL LOCAL SRI
COMPANY GOVERNMENT CITIZENS STUDY TEAM
FIGURE A-16. COMPARATIVE VALUE PERSPECTIVE RANKINGS FOR TRACT 12
A-22
-------
II. Worksheets
The worksheets for each impact indicator have been completed to
demonstrate how the methodology works. An explanation of the results as
well as comparative summary sheets are also included to further explain
the process and to more clearly illustrate the results.
A. Coal Resource Economics Indicator
Because the USGS maps of these example lease tracts are not
available, published Bureau of Mines and USGS sources have been used to
obtain estimates. There is wide variation in the published data, and
the accuracy of these estimates is therefore probably poor. USGS map
data are expected to be much more accurate. The data used here should
not be taken too seriously as indicators of the economic value of the
tracts described, but they are adequate to illustrate the methodology.
1. Amount of Surface-Minable Coal
The Bureau of Mines Information Circular applicable to the
surface-minable coal in Colorado is 1C #8713, "Strippable Coal Resources
of Colorado," 1976. These estimates show that only 5 of the 12 tracts
are estimated by the Bureau of Mines to have enough coal to support a 1
mtpy surface mine (i.e., greater than 17 million tons if the median
estimate is used). These tracts do contain many billion tons of coal,
according to USGS estimates, but it is nearly all at depths of greater
than 150 feet. Therefore, according to currently available information
it is not economically feasible to strip mine them, but it is possible
that underground mines would be practicable.
2. Price and Heating Value
Estimates of average seam thickness for each of the 12
tracts were obtained from Bureau of Mines data in 1C #8713 and are shown
in Table A-4. The minimum prices that correspond to these seam thick-
nesses are shown in Table A-3.
The heating value for the Danforth Hills region (lease
tracts 1-5) (obtained from the USGS data base) was not given in the
A-23
-------
Bureau of Mines information circular. However, the heating values shown
for the remaining lease tracts were given. The mean values listed in
the information circular are shown in the table. There is little varia-
tion in either the minimum price or the heating value estimates through-
out the tracts. Therefore, these variables will have little influence
in establishing the ranking of the tracts. If the tracts showed greater
differences in seam thickness or heating value, these variables would
have been more important.
3. Summary
The three economic variables, amount of coal, minimum
price and heating value, are combined in column 5 of Table A-3 in
accordance with the formula shown in Chapter II. When the highest value
indicator is set to 100 and the others are scaled up by the same factor,
the resulting scaled indicators are shown in the next column of the
table. Finally, the ranking in accordance with the economic indicator
is shown in the last column. The ranking is completely determined in
this case by the amount of coal estimated in each tract because of the
similarity between the estimates of minimum price and heating value. In
general, this would not be the case.
B. Hydrology/Water Quality
1. Effects from Mining
The effects of mining on water quality in northwestern
Colorado were generally indicated to be more severe than those on
hydrology. Analysis of information contained in the Environmental
Impact Statement for Northwest Colorado Coal seems to verify these
results. The aquifers in the region have low yields and poor water
quality. In addition, perennial streams are few and intermittent
drainage is common. Therefore, coal mining activities would release the
poor quality water into the environment, causing significant impacts,
but it would have a less significant effect on the hydrology.
A-24
-------
Table A-3
PRICE, HEATING VALUE, AND INDICATOR
Minimum Heating
Quantity Price Value Unsealed Scaled
Tract (106 Tons) ($/ton) (103 Btu/ton) Indicator Indicator Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.1
3.4
16.1
51.5
4.0
25.1
7.1
64.1
0
18.2
15.5
29.1
14
14
14
14
14
13
14
11
12
12
13
11
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.00
.60
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.5
.6
.5
.5
.6
.6
.5
10
33
158
505
39
271
73
753
0
207
169
342
.8
.4
.1
.6
.3
.5
.4
.7
.0
.6
.8
.2
1
4
21
67
5
36
10
100
0
28
23
45
11
10
7
2
9
4
8
1
12
5
6
3
A-25
-------
2. Averaging
Because the indicator for water required averaging the
values for hydrology and water quality for each tract, the differences
between the two were reduced. Most tracts had values between 50 and 60,
indicating moderate effects from development. These results are reason-
able given the characteristics of Northwest Colorado. In addition, the
user can review the results for water quality and hydrology, and has the
option of weighting one more than the other if warranted.
3. Summary
The methodology gave results for hydrology and water
quality that varied by a factor of 2 for the 12 selected lease tracts in
northwestern Colorado (see Table A-4). Sufficient differentiation among
tracts was also obtained for each individual characteristic (i.e., aqui-
fers intercepted, topography, potable supply). Refer to Tables A-5 and
A-6 which contain information used in determining the ranking. For
example, Tract 8 had a value of 35 for water quality (moderate to major
effect) and a value of 67 for hydrology (moderate to minimal effect).
This indicated to the user that development of a coal mine on Tract 8
could result in significant water quality problems, but that hydro-
logical problems might not be as severe. Tract 10, on the other hand,
was rated at 45 for water quality and hydrology, indicating that effects
on both will be moderate to major.
A-26
-------
Table A-4
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR
Tract Water Quality Hydrology Average Value Ranking
1 52 70 61 5
2 60 57 59 7
3 71 82 77 1
4 68 61 65 4
5 66 85 76 2
6 49 71 60 6
7 35 67 51 10
8 35 62 49 11
9 67 43 55 8
10 45 45 45 12
11 51 84 68 3
12 50 58 54 9
A-27
-------
HYDROLOGY ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET
Weighted Value
Tract
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Percent
Recharge
22.5
22.5
23.8
22.5
25.0
22.5
18.8
21.3
6.3
10
22.5
3.8
Alluvial
Aquifer
16
9
11
8
19
12
8
4
7
7
9
15
Drainage
Density
10
11
17
18
16
8
8
17
20
11
19
16
Topography
12.5
6.3
21.3
3.8
16.3
18.8
22.5
13.8
1.3
7.5
23.8
15.0
Potable
Supply
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
9.5
10
6
8
9
9.5
8.5
Total
70
57
82
61
85
71
67
62
43
45
84
58
A-28
-------
Table A-5
WATER-BEARING CHARACTERISTICS OF GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS
Formation
Qa, Qg, Qd
Other Q
Tbb, Tui, TV
Tmi, Taf
Other T
Kl
Kls
Kwl, Ki, Kmv
Km
Kd
All J
All T
All P & P
M
DE
Y & X
Minimum
5
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
Median
50
2
5
5
10
20
2
10
2
10
10
5
5
100
10
5
Maximum
1,500
10
50
50
20
100
20
300
20
100
200
100
100
2,000
50
50
Minimum
20
20
20
20
30
200
600
200
600
100
300
500
500
1,000
200
20
Median
100
300
50
50
1,500
800
4,000
1,000
4,000
1,000
1,000
1,500
2,000
5,000
500
50
Maximum
2,000
2,000
200
200
20,000
3,000
10,000
8,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
2,000
200
Note: Formation designations are keyed to the geologic map in
Appendix A, from the BLM Final Environmental impact statement for
Northwest Colorado coal.
Source: BLM.
A-29
-------
Table A-6
CHARACTERISTICS OF GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS
Formation
Thickness
Lithology
Kw 1,100 ft in east to 2,000 ft
in west
Ki 1,500 ft in east to 1,370
central
Kls 0-1,900 ft; 1,900 ft in
central
Tw 0-6,750 ft
Tf 2,500-1,400 ft; 1,675 west
of Meeker
Two 0-1,000 ft
Km 5,300 ft at Rangely
Tbb Unknown
Twenty Mile sandstone near top
Massive sandstone; interbedded
shale, siltstone, and coal
Marine shale interfingered
with Mesa Verde formation to
east
Conglomeritic sandstone inter-
bedded with clay
Medium to coarse sandstone
Sandstone, quartzite; conglom-
eritic sandstone with clays
Marine shales
Basalt
A-30
-------
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Percent Recharge
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.25)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
about 10% recharge area
about 10% recharge area
5% recharge area
10% recharge area
less than 5% recharge area
about 10% recharge area
15-20% recharge area
10-15% recharge area
60% recharge area
50% recharge area
10% recharge area
70% recharge area
90 22.5
90 22.5
95 23.8
90 22.5
100 25.0
90 22.5
75 18.8
85 21.3
25 6.3
40 10.0
90 22.5
15 3.8
Comments: Based on analysis of USGS 7%-minute quadrangle maps for each
lease tract.
A-31
-------
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Alluvial Aquifers
Tract
10
11
12
Characteristics
Short stretches perennial streams, 2
intermittent streams; no major discharge areas
3 mi perennial streams; 3 large intermittent
streams; several small reservoirs; 2 springs;
2 apparent discharge areas
3 mi perennial streams; 2 intermittent
streams; 1 spring; no reservoirs or
noticeable discharge areas
5 mi perennial streams; 3 intermittent streams;
3 springs and some ponding; no reservoirs or
noticeable discharge areas
No perennial streams; 3 intermittent streams;
some ponding; no springs, reservoirs, or
discharge areas
4 mi perennial streams; 1 large intermittent
stream; some ponding, no springs, reservoirs,
or discharge areas
3 mi perennial streams; 5 intermittent streams;
2 reservoirs, 1 intermittent reservoir; Hayden
Power Plant ponds; small ponds; no springs or
discharge areas
8 mi of the Yampa River; many intermittent
tributaries; 1 spring; no reservoirs or
discharge areas
2 mi perennial streams; more than 6 inter-
mittent streams; several reservoirs and ponds;
7 springs; no other discharge areas
5 mi perennial streams; 5 intermittent streams;
2 reservoirs and a few ponds; no springs or
other discharge areas
4 mi perennial streams; 7 short intermittent
streams; 2 ponds; 2 reservoirs; no springs;
1 small discharge area
No perennial streams; 3 large intermittent
streams; 5 springs; no ponds, reservoirs, or
other discharge areas
Assigned
Value
80
45
55
40
95
60
40
20
35
35
45
75
Weighted
Value
(x 0.20)
16
11
19
12
15
Comments: Based on analysis of USGS 7%-minute quadrangle maps for each
lease tract.
A-32
-------
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Drainage Density
Characteristics
Tract
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Cumulative
Stream
Length ( L)
15.5
59.0
13.5
14.5
9.5
22.0
35.5
27.0
22.5
52.0
9.0
30.0
Area of
Lease Tract (A)
6.0
26.3
8.6
15.7
5.0
7.7
12.8
18.9
10.8
23.3
12.1
16.3
Drainage
Density ( L/A)
2.6
2.2
1.6
0.9
1.9
2.9
2.8
1.4
0.5
2.2
0.7
1.8
Assigned
Value
50
55
83
90
80
40
38
85
100
55
95
82
Weighted
Value
(x 0.20)
10
11
17
18
16
8
8
17
20
11
19
16
Comments: Based on analysis of USGS 7%-minute quadrangle maps for each
lease tract.
A-33
-------
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Topography
Tract
10
11
12
Characteristics
Slopes generally 20%; about 10% of area has
slopes greater than 50%; small alluvial plains
50% of area has slopes of 30% or greater than
40%; 50% has slopes of 20%; fair to extensive
alluvial plains
of area has slopes less than 10%; 20% has
slopes greater than 20-30%; fair alluvial
plains
30% of area has slopes less than 10%; rest
have slopes greater than 30%; fair alluvial
plains
Slopes generally less than 15%; 20% of area
has slopes greater than 20%; small alluvial
plains
Slopes generally 10-15%; entire area 20% or
less; fair alluvial plains along major streams
90% of area has slopes less than 10%; rest of
area has slopes of 20%
80% of area has slopes less than 20%; 20% has
slopes greater than 40%; large alluvial plains
along the Yampa River
90% of area has slopes greater than 40%; 10%
of area has slopes less than 20%; fair
alluvial plains along Waddle Creek
50% of area has slopes less than 20%; 20% has
slopes greater than 40%; 30% has slopes of 30%;
fair alluvial plains along Sage and Dry Creeks
Entire area has slopes less than 10%; fair
alluvial plains along 1 mi of Foidel Creek
Entire area has slopes less than 25%; 70% has
slopes less than 20%; no alluvial plains
Assigned
Value
50
25
85
15
65
75
90
55
30
95
60
Weighted
Value
(x 0.25)
12.5
6.3
21.3
3.8
16.3
18.8
22.5
13.8
1.3
7.5
23.8
15.0
Comments: Based on analysis of USGS 7%-minute quadrangle maps for each
lease tract.
A-34
-------
HYDROLOGY WORKSHEET
Potable Supply
Tract
Characteristics
80% Kw*; 10% Two
synclinal axis
90% Kw;
All Kw;
All Kw;
All Kw;
10% Ki;
; fault in west;
sync lines /antic line
synclinal axis
syncline
syncline
in north
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.10)
85
85
85
85
85
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
6 Tw on western half; Tf on eastern half
95
9.5
7 40% Kw; 60% Kls; syncline
100
10.0
8 80% Kw; 10% Qa; 10% Ki; syncline
60
6.0
9 75% Kw: 20% Ki; 5% Km-Tbb; syncline; fault
80
8.0
10 80% Kw: 10% Ki; 10% Kls; syncline in east
50% Kw; 25% Ki; 15% Kls; 5 faults;
11 syncline at edge ^^
90
95
9.0
9.5
12 All Kw
85
8.5
Comments: Based on an analysis of hydrologic, geologic, and water
quality information contained in the BLM Final Environmental
Statement for Northwest Colorado Coal.
*Refers to symbols on geologic map. See attachment for evaluation of
yield and water quality for each geologic unit
A-35
-------
WATER QUALITY ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET
Weighted Value
10
11
12
Aquifers
Intercepted
12.5
12.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
11.3
10.0
11.3
10.0
10.0
7.5
15.0
Drainage
Basin
Intercepted
10
18
17
17
18
16
7
5
15
8
17
10
Overburden
Storage
9.5
5.0
7.5
4.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
3.5
10.0
10.0
1.0
6.0
Elevation
15
18
13
12
13
7
8
8
17
11
10
13
Present
Uses
5.0
6.3
18.8
20.0
17.5
10.0
5.0
7.5
15.0
6.3
15.0
6.3
Total
52.0
59.8
71.3
68.0
65.5
49.3
35.0
35.3
67.0
45.3
50.5
50.3
A-36
-------
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Aquifers Intercepted
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.25)
80% Kw*; 10% Two; fault in west;
synclinal axis
90% Kw;
All Kw;
All Kw;
All Kw;
10% Ki; synclines/anticline
synclinal axis
sync line in north
syncline
50
50
60
60
60
12.5
12.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
6 Tw on western half; Tf on eastern half
45
11.3
7 40% Kw; 60% Kls; syncline
40
10.0
Kw; 10% Qa; 10% Ki; syncline
45
11.3
9 75% Kw; 20% Ki; 5% Km-Tbb; syncline; fault
40
10.0
10 80% Kw; 10% Ki; 10% Kls; syncline in east
50% Kw; 25% Ki; 15% Kls; 5 faults;
11 syncline at edge
40
30
10.0
7.5
12 All Kw
60
15.0
Comments: Based on an analysis of hydrologic, geologic, and water
quality information contained in the BLM Final Environmental
Statement for Northwest Colorado Coal.
* Refers to symbols on geologic map.
A-37
-------
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Drainage Basin Intercepted
Tract
Characteristics
Located on Sulphur Creek (intermittent)
in the White River Basin
Located on James Creek that flows into Good
Spring Creek and drains north; southern part
has interior drainage; 9-mile Draw is inter-
mittent and drains south into Coal Creek
Located on Wilson Creek; flows north into Milk
Creek; 2 intermittent streams drain north
Located on Morgan Gulch; flows north
toward Axial Basin
Located on an unnamed tributary
of Good Spring Creek
Located on Dry Fork of Little Bear Creek;
drains southwest into Fortification Creek
Located on Sage Creek (1 mi upstream from the
Yampa River) and Scotchman's Gulch (flows
into Grassy Creek and then to Yampa)
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
50
90
85
85
90
80
35
10
18
17
17
18
16
10
Located on Yampa River
Located 4 mi upstream from Williams Fork
on Waddle Creek
Located on Sage and Dry Creeks, 7.5 and
8.5 mi upstream from Yampa
25
75
40
15
11
12
Located on Foidel Creek and Middle Creek
No perennial stream; at headwaters of some
intermittent tributaries of the Yampa (6 mi
away); 3 large intermittent tributaries flow
into Williams Fork (2 mi away)
85
50
17
10
Comments: Based on analysis of USGS 7%-minute quadrangle maps for each
lease tract. Unless otherwise noted, all streams mentioned are
perennial (as indicated on the USGS map). The White River Basin has a
drainage area of 762 mi^; Yampa River has one of about 800 mi^;
Williams Fork is 150 mi^; Fortification Creek is 180 mi^. Estimates
of distances downstream to a major basin were made from a USGS map of
scale 1:350,000.
A-38
-------
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Overburden Storage
Characteristics
Number of
Tract Storage Sites
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
7
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
Storage
Volume (106 yd3
219
132
176
240
79
149
135
184
279
267
47
177
Overburden
) (106 yd3)
93
93
93
186
93
109
93
136
75
75
83
113
WCJ-glll-CU
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.10)
95 9.5
50 5.0
75 7.5
40 4.0
20 2.0
50 5.0
50 5.0
35 3.5
100 10.0
100 10.0
10 1.0
60 6.0
Comments: Based on analysis of USGS 7%-minute quadrangle maps for each
lease tract.
A-39
-------
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Elevation
Weighted
Assigned Value
Tract Elevation Range (ft)General Elevation (ft) Value (x 0.20)
Characteristics
7,000-8,000
7,400
75
15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
7,000-8,600
6,600-7,600
6,500-8,300
6,600-8,100
6,400-6,900
6,500-7,400
6,000-7,400
6,700-8,500
6,500-8,300
6,800-7,700
6,600-7,000
7,600-7,800 90
7,200-7,400 65
7,200 60
7,200-7,400 65
6,600 35
6,600-6,800 40
6,600-6,800 40
7,400-7,600 85
7,000-7,200 55
7,000 50
7,200-7,400 65
18
13
12
13
7
8
8
17
11
10
13
Comments: Based on analysis of USGS 7%-minute quadrangle maps for each
lease tract.
A-40
-------
WATER QUALITY WORKSHEET
Current Uses
Tract
Characteristics
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.25)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4 mi N/NE Meeker
5 mi NE Meeker
15 mi N/NE Meeker
16 mi N Meeker
14 mi NE Meeker
8 mi NE Craig
4 mi SE Hayden
6 mi SW Craig
12 mi S Craig
5 mi S Hayden
12 mi SE Hayden
5 mi S Craig
20 5.0
25 6.3
75 18.8
80 20.0
70 17.5
40 10.0
20 5.0
30 7.5
60 15.0
25 6.3
60 15.0
25 6.3
Source: Based on analysis of USGS topographic maps of scale 1:350,000.
A-41
-------
C. Air Quality
1. Assumptions
To obtain some differentiation among tracts and to test
the methodology fairly, we assumed a 15-year life for all mines and that
available coal resources could be surface mined a recovery factor of 0.9
was assumed. Those tracts possessing more than one mine's 15-year
supply of coal were assumed to have more than one mine working at the
same time. As a result, these tracts had more fugitive dust emissions
and received a lower air quality rating. Better information than we
have at present on the actual coal resources and overburden is necessary
for an adequate assessment of the potential effects of development on
air quality.
2. Rankings
The total points for each lease tract clearly illustrate
the important similarities among them. Only a few differ by more than a
few points.
3. Summary
The results for the Air Quality Indicator show that the
methodology is heavily dependent on the size of the operation and on the
amount of overburden (see Table A-7). Because each tract is ranked
relative to the others, it is essential to have a good understanding of
the coal resources and the amount of overburden to obtain adequate
differentiation among tracts. However, available data indicated that
adequate surface-minable coal is not present and that reserves are not
sufficient for the standard 30-year mine in Northwest Colorado. (See
discussion in the Coal Resource Economics example.)
A-42
-------
Table A-7
AIR QUALITY
Tract Total Ranking
1 94 8
2 94 7
3 94 6
4 24 12
94
39 11
94
50 10
100
10 100
11 97
12 67
A-43
-------
AIR QUALITY IMPACT INDICATOR
Weighted Value
Haul Road
Tract Operation Traffic Erosion Total
94
94
94
24
94
39
94
50
100
1050 35 15 100
97_
12 35 21 10.5 67
Mining
Operation
45
45
45
5
45
15
45
25
50
50
47.5
35
Haul Road
Traffic
35
35
35
17.5
35
19.3
35
17.5
35
35
35
21
Wind
Erosion
13.5
13.5
13.5
1.5
13.5
4.5
13.5
7.5
15
15
14.3
10.5
A-44
-------
AIR QUALITY WORKSHEET
Mining Operations
Tract
Characteristics
f\ ^
Volume of Overburden (10 yd /yr)
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.50)
90
45
90
45
90
45
14
10
90
45
12
30
15
90
45
10
50
25
100
50
10
100
50
11
5.5
95
47.5
12
70
35
Comments: Based on data obtained from coal mining model. A 15-year
life is assumed for each tract.
A-45
-------
AIR QUALITY WORKSHEET
Haul Road Traffic
Tract Coal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Comment s :
10
Characteristics
Estimated
Mined (10 tons/yr) Truckloads (10
1.1 22
1.1 22
1.1 22
2.2 44
1.1 22
2.1 42
1.1 22
2.2 44
1.1 22
1.1 22
1.1 22
1.8 36
Based on data from coal mining model,
6
Ton/Yr Mine
Assigned
/yr) Value
100
100
100
50
100
55
100
50
100
100
100
60
including the
2 x 106 Ton/Yr
Weighted
Value
(x 0.35)
35
35
35
17.5
35
19.3
35
17.5
35
35
35
21
following:
Mine
24-50 ton trucks (overburden) 48-50 ton trucks (overburden)
5-50 ton trucks (coal) 10-50 ton trucks (coal)
Total capacity = 1,450 tons Total capacity = 2,900 tons
A-46
-------
AIR QUALITY WORKSHEET
Wind Erosion
10
11
Characteristics
Tract Surface Area Exposed (acres/two year)
154
154
154
340
154
288
154
246
124
124
136
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.15)
12
202
90
90
90
10
90
30
90
50
100
100
95
70
13.5
13.5
13.5
1.5
13.5
4.5
13.5
7.5
15.0
15.0
14.3
10.5
Comments: A 15-year life is assumed for each tract.
A-47
-------
D. Biological Impact Indicator
Because the data required to perform the preferred method for
Northwestern Colorado were not available to us at the time this test of
the methodology was applied, we took the opportunity to test the more
cumbersome default procedure. Accordingly, all the data and discussions
that follow are for the default procedure.
The overall ratings of potential biological impact clustered
strongly as a consequence of the similarity of the sites, because few
species dominated the assessments of potential for recovery, and the
reliance on a rather small number of index values within each scale.
However, it does seem from a survey of the study area that the clusters
are probably real.
The indices for reclamation potential for soils within the
KRCRA's spanned a broad range and compared well with the local BLM
staff's assessments when allowances were made for the factor of slope
being excluded from our index. Nonetheless, the assessments of
reclamation potential are consistently high and the range of values vary
only slighly for the 12 tracts, reflecting the presence of only two or
three relatively favorable soil types in the lease tracts examined.
Similarly, the absence of reports of rare species other than
those with state or federal protection result in a clustering of the
index values for rare species.
The values for habitat uniqueness are the most diversified even
though they cluster toward the high end of the scale. Interestingly,
the components of these index values are quite diverse (see the
worksheets). However, the high and low values for items such as
scientific value, criticality, and commonness tend to cancel out to give
relatively high values when combined.
It would appear that, unless rare species are present on some
tracts but not on others, very similar tracts are unlikely to be
differentiated by the biological indicator. Perhaps the biological
significance of such tracts should be rated by someone so familiar with
them that the rater need not resort to the formal procedures. Table A-8
illustrates the findings and compares the results for these 12 tracts.
A-48
-------
Table A-8
SUMMARY OF THE BIOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
FOR THE TWELVE TEST TRACTS
Tract Reclamation Important Habitat Overall
Number Potential Species Uniqueness Ranking
1 99 60 70 77
_2 99 60 70 77
J3 98 60 50 69
_4 98 60 70 76
J5 98.5 60 70 76
_6 98 1 55 48
2 98 1 76 58
_8 97.5 1 61 53
_9 99 60 70 76
JLO 99 60 70 76_
_11 99 60 70 76_
12 99 60 70 76
A-49
-------
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 1
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 99 99
Notes; Soil #59
2. Important species (Table V-2) 60^
Notes; None present
a
3. Habitat Uniqueness
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness 25
Criticality 10
Scientific value 10
Combinations 25
Sum of above four items 70 70
Notes; Winter range for deer
4. Total of items 1-3 229
5. Divide total by 3 76.6
6. Adjustments of line 5 77
7. Additional Comments:
a
Use only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
b
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-50
-------
Criticality 10
Scientific value 10
Combinations 25
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 2
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 99 99
Notes; Soil #59
2. Important species (Table V-2) 60
Notes:
«a
3. Habitat Uniqueness
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness 25
Sum of above four items 70 70
Notes:
4. Total of items 1-3 229
5. Divide total by 3 76.6
6. Adjustments of line 5 77
7. Additional Comments:
cL
Use only one of the two methods, for computing the data.
b
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-51
-------
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 3
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l 98-99
b. Alternative Table (see text) 98
Notes; Mostly soil #21, some #59
2. Important species (Table V-2) 60
Notes:
a
3. Habitat Uniqueness
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness 25
Criticality 5
Scientific value 10
Combinations 10
Sum of above four items 50 50
Chukar; grouse (?); deer winter range,
Notes: possible elk calving grounds
4. Total of items 1-3 208
5. Divide total by 3 69.3
6. Adjustments of line 5 69
7. Additional Comments:
Q
Use only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
b
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-52
-------
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 4
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
b. Alternative Table (see text)
Notes: Mostly #21, some #59
Important species (Table V-2)
Notes:
Habitat Uniqueness3
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness
Criticality
Scientific value
Combinations
Sum of above four items
Notes:
Total of items 1-3
Divide total by 3
Adjustments of line 5
Additional Comments:
98-99 98
60
25
10
10
25
70 70
228
76
76
a
Use only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-53
-------
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 5
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 98-99 98.5
Notes; Soil #21 and #59 (about 50/50)
2. Important species (Table V-2) 60
Notes:
a
3. Habitat Uniqueness
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness 25
Criticality 10
Scientific value 10
Combinations 25
Sum of above four items 70 70
Notes: Some elk winter range
4. Total of items 1-3 228.5
5. Divide total by 3 76.2
6. Adjustments of line 5 76
7. Additional Comments:
aUse only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
b
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-54
-------
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 6
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 98 98
Notes; Soil #21
2. Important species (Table V-2) 1^_
Notes; Greater Sand Hill Crane may be present
3. Habitat Uniqueness3
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness 25
Criticality 10
Scientific value 10
Combinations 10
Sum of above four items 55 55
Notes; Low values may be too low
4. Total of items 1-3 144
5. Divide total by 3 48
6. Adjustments of line 5 48
7. Additional Comments: Field check or follow-ups with local wildlife
expert is warranted if this tract is other desireable.
a
Use only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
b
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-55
-------
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 7
3.
1. Reclamation potential
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 98 98
Notes ; Soil #21 and #59 (mostly
2. Important species (Table V-2)
Notes ; Greater Sandhill Crane present
a
3. Habitat Uniqueness
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
C ommonne s s 25
Criticality _ 1
Scientific value 25
Combinations 25
7- Additional Comments:
Sum of above four items 76 76
Sharp-tail strutting ground;
Notes: elk winter range; near airport
4. Total of items 1-3 175
5. Divide total by 3 58.3
6. Adjustments of line 5 58
aUse only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-56
-------
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 8
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 97.5 97.5
Notes; Soils largely #35 and #21 with some #59
2. Important species (Table V-2) 1
Notes; Partially includes sandhill crane nesting areas
3. Habitat Uniqueness3
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness 25
Criticality 1
Scientific value 10
Combinations 25
Sum of above four items 61 61
Notes: elk winter range; sandhill crane nesting
4. Total of items 1-3 159.5
5. Divide total by 3 53.2
6. Adjustments of line 5 53
7. Additional Comments:
o
Use only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
b
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-57
-------
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 9
1. Reclamation potential
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 99 99
Notes; Soil #59
2. Important species (Table V-2 60
Notes; None present
3. Habitat Uniqueness
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonnes s 25
Criticality 10
Scientific value 10
Combinations 25
Sum of above four items 70 70
Notes; Elk wintering grounds; grouse
4. Total of items 1-3 229
5. Divide total by 3 76.3
6. Adjustments of line 5 76
7. Additional Comments:
Use only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
b
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-58
-------
Criticality 10
Scientific value 10
Combinations 25
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 10
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 98-99 99
Notes; Soils #21 and #59
2. Important species (Table V-2 60
Notes;
«a
3. Habitat Uniqueness
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness 25
Sum of above four items 70 70
Notes; Grouse
4. Total of items 1-3 229
5. Divide total by 3 76.3
6. Adjustments of line 5 76
7- Additional Comments:
Use only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-59
-------
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 11
1. Reclamation potential
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 99 99
Notes t Soil #59
2. Important species (Table V-2 60
Notes; Greater Sandhill Crane nearby
a
3. Habitat Uniqueness
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
Commonness 25
Criticality 10
Scientific value 10
Combinations 25
7- Additional Comments:
Sum of above four items 70 70
Notes; Elk winter range
4. Total of items 1-3 229
5. Divide total by 3 76.3
6. Adjustments of line 5 76
a
Use only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-60
-------
Scientific value 10
Combinations 25
Worksheet for Biological Impact Indicators
Tract No. 12
1. Reclamation potential3
a. Table V-l
b. Alternative Table (see text) 99-98 99
Notes; Soil mostly #59, some #21
2. Important species (Table V-2 60
Notes: Greater Sandhill Crane nearby
3. Habitat Uniqueness
a. Expert opinion
b. Table V-4
C ommonne s s 25
Criticality 10
Sum of above four items 70 70
Notes; Elk and mule deer winter range; grouse
4. Total of items 1-3 229
5. Divide total by 3 76.3
6. Adjustments of line 5 76
7. Additional Comments:
a
Use only one of the two methods, for computing this datum.
Justify any adjustments other than rounding to two significant digits.
A-61
-------
E. Socioeconomic Impacts
The overall rating of potential impacts was very similar for the
three communities, even though there were differences in the individual
components.
Population characteristics of the communities varied widely for
readily apparent reasons. The city of Craig has been experiencing a
boom period as a result of existing coal mines and the construction of
electrical generating facilities. The community grew from 4,025 to
9,991 in 7 years. Steamboat has also been growing rapidly but because
of the growth of the ski industry. It is a recreationally oriented town
with a very young population. The town of Meeker, on the other hand, is
a typical small rural community, but it is expected to grow rapidly in
the next few years because of proposed coal and oil shale mining.
Other major differences between the communities are based on
the type of economic activity that predominates in each area. Craig's
economic base is expanding rapidly in both size and variety. The expan-
sion is directly related to mining and construction. A K-mart, a
McDonalds, and a pizza parlor have recently opened in Craig. The city
of Steamboat is also booming economically. Most of the growth in this
community is related to the ski industry. There are many souvenir and
crafts shops as well as restaurants. Meeker, on the other hand, has the
economy of a small rural town. It has not been greatly affected by the
growth of nearby communities. The town has a two block main street on
which most of the stores and restaurants are located.
One of the most critical factors considered was the amount of
available housing. Here again, the communities differ. Meeker is ex-
panding the number of available housing units in anticipation of future
growth that the town considers inevitable. Both Craig and Steamboat
have been growing at such a pace that neither community has been able to
meet the increased demand for housing. Furthermore, many of the current
residents are not satisfied with the type of housing now available. In
A-62
-------
most cases, the dissatisfied people are living in apartments or mobile
homes and would like a single family dwelling.
The final ratings of these communities are fairly low, mainly
because of the situations discussed above. It is important to take into
account the reasons for the ratings as well as the overall rating. A
summary sheet is included as Table A-9 so that the comparisons between
the communities can easily be made. Also, the rating for each tract is
shown in Table A-10.
The proximity of potential coal lease sites to these communi-
ties was determined. It was assumed that the effects would be greatest
in the town closest to the least site.
Table A-9
SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS SUMMARY SHEET
Element
Meeker/Rio Craig/ Steamboat/
Springs
Blanco County Moffet County Routt County
1. Population
2. Social Services
3. Present Economic
Structure
4. Bond Capacity
5. Private Economic
Activity
6. Housing
Total
55
55
60
50
0
50
270
75
45
80
0
0
0
35
55
80
0
20
0
200
Divide total by 6 to equalize emphasis with the indicators.
Overall Rating 45 33
190
32
A-63
-------
Table A-10
SOCIOECONOMIC RATING FOR THE COAL LEASE TRACTS
Tract Rating
1 45
2 45
3 45
4 33
5 33
6 32
7 33
8 33
9 32
10 32
11 33
12 33
A-64
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT WORKSHEET
City; Craig . County: Moffet
Worksheet for Part 1: Population.
A. Present Population
Community (impacted) population 9,991 (1978)
Any others within 25 mi radius:
Steamboat 4,028
Meeker 2,779
Hayden 1,362
Points 30
B. Growth Rate
Historical Growth Rate 0.7%/yr or 57% (1970-1978), 0.5%/yr or 5.5%
(1960-1970)
Projected Growth Rate 0.3%/yr (1978-1988)
5 % (total growth rate) 4- 2 (the number of
number of workers
(direct and induced)
present population
years) = 2.5% projected rate per year.
Points 30
Comments: If there has been a steady growth rate historically, the
impact would not be as great as it would in a community which has had
stagnant or very rapid growth in the near term. Craig has recently gone
through a "boom" period which is very evident in the growth rate
compared to historical and projected rates.
Age Distribution
Compare:
- present (or most currently available) with
national and/or state pyramid (national age distribution is
included in the text)
- age characteristics of mine workers and families (the change in
age distribution in a boom community is included for reference
in the text)
A-65
-------
Findings:
very similar
X similar (when using 1970)
X not similar (when assuming that many more young
people are now there.
Points
Comments: The Moffet County age profile is not accurate for 1978 due to
the more than doubling of the population because of the electrical
generating facility and the mines. Many young people have moved into the
area.
D. Sex Ratio
Norm: 51% female, 49% male (for the United States)
County
Points 15
Comment s: Craig also has had an influx of men into the community because
of the availability of work. Generally there are more men than women in
the community, but how many more is not known.
Total Points for Part 1: 75
Worksheet for Part 2: Social Services
A. Schools
1. a. Current number of students 2,360
b. Current number of teachers 127
c. Current number of classrooms
used or available
Projected enrollment without
additional students (obtain
from local school district) 2,480
Projected enrollment with
additional students (number
of new students as a result
of the mine = % the number
of new workers, both direct
and induced) 2,730
A-66
-------
2. Determine the capacity of schools (using numbers in part 1)
a.
b.
c.
b.
c.
d.
Points
a T- 25 = number of classrooms presently used
e - a = total number of new students
total number of new students _
25
(average number of students
per classroom)
25
(the
number of addi-
tional classrooms
needed)
Add the number of classrooms presently used to the number
of additional classrooms needed. Subtract from this the
current number of classrooms available (l.c). A negative
number implies inadequate space; a positive number means
that space is adequate.
2360
25
= 94
2730 - 2360 = 370
370
25
= 15 more classrooms
94 + 15 = 109 - 74 = 35 more classrooms needed.
B. Hospitals/Doctors
Number of doctors/population
Number of dentists/population
Number of beds in hospital/
population
Points
community/county
1/1,280
1/2,133
188/1,000
state/nation
(Colo) 1/617
1/1,724
233/1,000
10
C. Government Structure
Number of staff
Mayor (yes/no)
Planners (yes/no)
Engineer (yes/no) yes
Points
yes
yes
25
A-67
-------
D. Water/Sewage
1. Water
Average daily water use 450 gpd
Total available water 5,000,000 gpd
- Remaining capacity
(water used/person) 450 gpd x (present + additional population)
10,451 = (total water needed) 4,702,950 .
(total water capacity) 5,000,000 - (total water needed)4,702,950
= (additional water needed) (+)2,970,050 (positive = adequate;
(94% of capacity) negative = additional
capacity necessary)
2. Sewage
Average number of gpd (gallons per day) generated per person:
135 gpd
Capacity of treatment facility 1,200,000
gpd/person 135 x (present and additional population) 10,451
= (total capacity needed) 1,412,933
(capacity of the facility) 1,200,000 - (total capacity needed)
1,912,933 = +212,933 . (positive = adequate;
negative = additional
capacity necessary)
Points 10
Total Points for Part 2 45
A-68
-------
Worksheet for Part 3: Present Economic Structure
A- Employment Distribution (for the whole county)
Major employers Number of employees % of Total
- Agriculture 2,475 14.2
- Mining 1,783 10.2
- Retail 3,599 20.5
- Education
- Government 3,642 20.8
- Services 2,411 13.8
Mine Employment
- Direct 185 1.0
- Indirect (multiply direct by 2)
275 2.0
Points 20
B. Occupational Distribution
(Determined by using information in Part A. An area with an even
distribution of employment would be one in which no particular employer
dominates, such as agriculture or construction. The points should be
based on the distribution of employment within the town.
Points 20
Comment: Moffet County has a fairly rural distribution of employment
which in the past has meant job switching.
C. Unemployment
Rate Number
Nearest community _8 % 335 (12-27-77)
Communities within 25 miles
Routt 8 % 605
Rio Blanco
Number of jobs to be created 1,088
(refer to employment distribution)
(number of jobs to be created) 1,088 , \ , ,. i
7 £ c ; T\ = T /» = (ratio) less than 1
(number of unemployed) 1,260
Points 10
A-69
-------
D. Income (Payroll)
Total community income $ 29,334,000
Total mine income $ 2,400,000 % of total 8 %
(for a 1 mtpy mine)
Points
Comments:
Total Points for Part 3 50
Worksheet for Part 4; Bonding Capacity
Maximum remaining capacity 772,915
Extent of the requirement for new capital:
- New schoolrooms (yes/no) yes
- Expand water treatment (yes/no) possible
- Expand sewer system (yes/no) possible
Total Points for Part 4
Worksheet for Part 5: Private Economic Activity
Size of nearby communities (50-mile radius)
Name Population
Meeker 2,779
Steamboat Springs 4,028
Hayden 1,362
Comment s:
Total Points for Part 5
A-70
-------
Worksheet for Part 6; Housing
1. Vacancy rate
2. Type of housing
- single family
- multifamily
- mobile homes
3. Number of vacant units
4. Direct and induced
employment (1 mine) 1,088
Employed (4) - number of vacant units (3) = (indication
housing need)
Comments: There is currently a housing shortage in Craig due to the
rapid increase in population. Also, the cost of housing has jumped
substantially. The planning commission and city council are
currently working with the coal and electric companies in an attempt to
get them to finance housing construction.
Total Points for Part 6
A-71
-------
City; Steamboat Springs . County; Routt
Worksheet for Part 1; Population.
A. Present Population
Community (impacted) population 4,028
Any others within 25 mi radius:
Craig 6,677
Hayden 1,362
Oak Creek 756
Points 15
B. Growth Rate
Historical Growth Rate 2.1%/yr (1960-1970)
Projected Growth Rate 5.1%/yr (1970-1980
number of workers
(direct and induced)
11 % (total growth rate) -f 2 (the number of
present population
years) = 5.5% projected rate per year.
Points 20
Comments: If there has been a steady growth rate historically, the
impact would not be as great , but in a community which has had stagnant
growth or very rapid growth, the impacts are greater and recently
experienced.
C. Age Distribution
Compare:
- present (or most currently available) with
national and/or state pyramid (national age distribution is
included in the text)
- age characteristics of mine workers and families (the change in
age distribution in a boom community is included for reference
in the text)
Findings:
X very similar community and miners
similar
X not similar to national norm
Points
A-72
-------
Comment s:
D. Sex Ratio
Norm: 51% female, 49% male (for the United States)
County 48% female, 52% male
Miners more males
Points
Comments:
Total Points for Part 1: 35
Worksheet for Part 2; Social Services
A. Schools
1. a. Current number of students 1,308
b. Current number of teachers 70
c. Current number of classrooms
used or available 70
d. Projected enrollment without
additional students (obtain
from local school district)
e. Projected enrollment with
additional students (number
of new students as a result
of the mine = \ the number
of new workers, both direct
and induced) 1,750
2. Determine the capacity of schools (using numbers in part 1)
a. a 4- 25 = number of classrooms presently used
b. e - a = total number of new students
c. total number of new students
25 25
(the
, , .. , number of addi-
(average number of students ^^^ classrooms
per classroom)
A-73
-------
Add the number of classrooms presently used to the number
of additional classrooms needed. Subtract from this the
current number of classrooms available (l.c). A negative
number implies inadequate space; a positive number means
that space is adequate.
a. 1,308/25 = 52 classrooms
b. 1,750 - 1,308 = 442 new students
c. 442/25 = 18
d. 70 - 52 = 18
Points 20
B. Hospitals/Doctors
community/county state/nation
Number of doctors/population 1/611
Number of dentists/population 1/1,500
Number of beds in hospital/
population 20 (total)
Points 10
C. Government Structure
Number of staff 94
Mayor (yes/no) yes
Planners (yes/no) yes
Engineer (yes/no) yes
Points 25
A-74
-------
Water/Sewage
1. Water
Average daily water use
Total available water
- Remaining capacity
(water used/person)
x (present + additional population)
= (total water needed)
(total water capacity)
- (total water needed)
= (additional water needed)
(positive = adequate;
negative = additional
capacity necessary)
Comments: There is no data available on water usage because of the lack
of water meters; however, according to their public officials, there is
very little available water for growth.
2. Sewage
Average number of gpd (gallons per day) generated per person:
Capacity of treatment facility
Remaining Capacity
2.08 mgd (expansion is being
voted on
2.5 (maximum generated)
gpd/person
x (present and additional population)
= (total capacity needed)
(capacity of the facility)
Points
Total Points for Part 2
- (total capacity needed)
(positive = adequate;
negative = additional
capacity necessary)
A-75
-------
Comments: The sewage treatment facility is already far below the size
needed to service the present community.
Worksheet for Part 3; Present Economic Structure
A. Employment Distribution
Major employers Number of employees % of Total
- Agriculture 362 14.0
- Mining 175 7.0
- Retail 515 20.0
- Education 224 9.0
- Construction 232 9.0
- Services 391 15.0
Total 2,473
Mine Employment
- Direct 185 7.0
- Indirect
285 10.0
Total
Points 20
B. Occupational Distribution
(Determined by using information in Part A. An area with an even
distribution of employment would be one in which no particular employer
dominates, such as agriculture or construction. The points should be
based on the distribution of employment within the town.
Points 20
A-76
-------
C. Unemployment
Rate Number
Nearest community %
Communities within 25 miles
(County) 8.0% 605
Rio Blanco6.2% 340
Number of jobs to be created 462
(refer to employment distribution)
(number of jobs to be created) 462 , . N n . ,
-f r "^ ; T\ = JCTE = (ratio) less than 1
(.number of unemployed; 945
Points 40
D. Income (Payroll)
Total community income $30,869
Total mine income $2,400 % of total 7.7%
(for a 1 mtpy mine)
Points
Comments:
Total Points for Part 3 80
Worksheet for Part 4; Bonding Capacity
Maximum remaining capacity 236,631
Extent of the requirement for new capital:
- New schoolrooms (yes/no) yes
- Expand water treatment (yes/no) yes
- Expand sewer system (yes/no) yes
Comments: People have historically not passed bonds of any kind!
Total Points for Part 4
A-77
-------
Worksheet for Part 5; Private Economic Activity
Size of nearby communities (50-mile radius)
Name Population
Craig 9,991
Hayden 1,362
Oak Creek 756
Comments: In the case of Steamboat, which is a very service-oriented
town, points were given even though it did not meet the criteria
Total Points for Part 5 20
Worksheet for Part 6; Housing
1. Vacancy rate 4%
2. Type of housing
- single family 770
- multifamily 507
- mobile homes 237
3. Number of vacant units 1,514
4. Direct and induced
employment (1 mine) 462
Employed (4) - number of vacant units (3) = -387 (indication
housing need)
Comment s: Steamboat already has a housing deficit particularly during
the winter (ski season). Also, a lot of the housing is too expensive
for many of the people who need it. Steamboat is expecting to continue
to grow, which would also mean more housing.
Total Points for Part 6 0
A-78
-------
City; Meeker . County; Rio Blanco
Worksheet for Part 1; Population.
A. Present Population
Community (impacted) population 2,779
Any others within 25 mi radius:
Craig 9,991
Hayden 1,362
Points 15
B. Growth Rate
Historical Growth Rate 15%/7 yr = 2.1%/yr (1970-1977)
Projected Growth Rate (1980) 6,200; 23%/yr (hard to believe)
number of workers
(direct and induced)
present population
years) = 12 % projected rate per year.
Points
24 % (total growth rate) -f 2 (the number of
Comments:
C. Age Distribution
Compare:
- present (or most currently available) with
national and/or state pyramid (national age distribution is
included in the text)
- age characteristics of mine workers and families (the change in
age distribution in a boom community is included for reference
in the text)
Findings:
X very similar (to national)
similar
not similar
Points 25
A-79
-------
Comments: The population is slightly older than the average U.S.
population, which means that an influx of workers would tend to
unbalance the community.
Sex Ratio
Norm: 51% female, 49% male (for the United States)
County (Meeker) 51% female, 49% male
Miners tend to be more males
Points 15
Comments:
Total Points for Part 1: 55
A. Schools
1. a. Current number of students 754
b. Current number of teachers 30
c. Current number of classrooms
used or available 51
d. Projected enrollment without
additional students (obtain
from local school district) 771
e. Projected enrollment with
additional students (number
of new students as a result
of the mine = % the number
of new workers, both direct
and induced) 1,030
2. Determine the capacity of schools (using numbers in part 1)
a. a 25 - number of classrooms presently used
b. e - a = total number of new students
c. total number of new students
25 25
(the
(average number of students number of addi-
per classroom) tional classrooms
needed)
A-80
-------
Add the number of classrooms presently used to the number
of additional classrooms needed. Subtract from this the
current number of classrooms available (l.c). A negative
number implies inadequate space; a positive number means
that space is adequate.
a. 754/25 = 30
b. 1,030 - 754 = 276
c. 274/25 = 11 classrooms
d. 30 + 11 = 41 - 50 = 9 extra classrooms or 225 spaces.
Comments: Space is not evenly distributed; the elementary school is
currently overcrowded and the junior high school is empty. They plan to
move some of the K-6 to this school.
Points 20
B. Hospitals/Doctors
community/county state/nation
Number of doctors/population 1/1,221 (4) 1/617
Number of dentists/population 1/977 (5) 1/1,724
Number of beds in hospital/
population 1/139 (20) 1/233
Points 10
C. Government Structure
Number of staff
Mayor (yes/no) yes
Planners (yes/no) yes
Engineer (yes/no) no
Points 25
Comment: The town of Meeker was given a high rating because it has a
large planning staff (2 persons) for a community of this size.
A-81
-------
D. Water/Sewage
1. Water
Average daily water use 822 gpd/person
Total available water 1,600,000
- Remaining capacity
(water used/person) 822 gpd x (present + additional population)
2,308 = (total water needed) 1,897,176 .
(only workers, not families)
(total water capacity) 1,600,000 - (total water needed)!,897,176
= (additional water needed) -297,179 gpd (positive = adequate;
negative = additional
capacity necessary)
Comments: Even without the families the water supply is inadequate.
2. Sewage
Average number of gpd (gallons per day) generated per person:
97 gpd
Capacity of treatment facility 200,000
gpd/person 97 x (present and additional population) 2,308
= (total capacity needed) 223,876
(capacity of the facility) 200,000 - (total capacity needed)
223,876 = -23,876 (positive = adequate;
negative = additional
capacity necessary)
Points
Total Points for Part 2 55
A-82
-------
Worksheet for Part 3; Present Economic Structure
A. Employment Distribution (Rio Blanco County)
Major employers Number of employees % of Total
- Agriculture 294 15.0
- Mining 280 14.0
- Retail 219 11.0
- Education 217 11.0
- Government
- Services 346 18.0
Mine Employment
- Direct 185 10
- Indirect
275 14
Points 10
Comments: These employment distributions reflect the oil shale activity
near Rangly. Most of this is not directly affecting Meeker.
B. Occupational Distribution
(Determined by using information in Part A. An area with an even
distribution of employment would be one in which no particular employer
dominates, such as agriculture or construction. The points should be
based on the distribution of employment within the town.
Points 20
A-83
-------
C. Unemployment
Rate Number
Nearest community 3.0 % 52
Communities within 25 miles
Routt County 7.9 % 605
Moffet County 6.0 % 335
Number of jobs to be created 460
(refer to employment distribution)
(number of jobs to be created) 460 , ^. x , ., ,
7 £ e ; T\ = ^7T^ = (ratio) less than 1
(number of unemployed) 992
Points 20
D. Income (Payroll)
Total community income $23,653,000 (County)
Total mine income $2.4 million % of total 10 %
(for a 1 mtpy mine)
Points 10
Comments: The income information is for the whole county, so it is safe
to assume that it would be a larger percentage of the income in Meeker
alone.
Total Points for Part 3 60
Worksheet for Part 4; Bonding Capacity
Maximum remaining capacity 425,074
Extent of the requirement for new capital:
- New schoolrooms (yes/no) yes
- Expand water treatment (yes/no) yes
- Expand sewer system (yes/no) yes
Total Points for Part 4 50
Comments: There is now a lot of government funding available to assist
towns such as Meeker.
A-84
-------
Worksheet for Part 5; Private Economic Activity
Size of nearby communities (50-mile radius)
Name Population
Craig 9,991
Rangly 1,785
Hayden 1,362
Steamboat Springs 4,028
Comments: Many of the roads become very difficult to use during the
winter.
Total Points for Part 5
Worksheet for Part 6; Housing
1. Vacancy rate 19.1%
2. Type of housing 1,810 (total)
- single family 1,630
- multifamily 111
- mobile homes 79
3. Number of vacant units 349
4. Direct and induced
employment (1 mine) 462
Employed (4) - number of vacant units (3) = 53 (indication
housing need)
Comment s: A large percentage of Rio Blanco County lacks water, sewer
service, or electricity, which means that houses are below grade. These
houses have been included in the data.
Total Points for Part 6 50
A-85
-------
F. Legal/Institutional Impact Indicator
The overall legal/institutional score was obtained by adding
the alternative land use score for each tract to the surface-ownership/
mineral-ownership indicator for that tract. These scores, shown in
Table A-ll, revealed that Tract 4 is most favored and Tract 8 is least
favored.
Scores for each indicator are developed in the manner described
in the text which follows.
1. Alternative Land Use Element
This element was developed on the basis of land use infor-
mation obtained from the BLM's Regional EIS for Northwest Colorado Coal.
Each category of alternative use was given a value based on the ana-
lyst's judgment. A weighting factor was applied to these values to give
a score for each tract (see the Worksheets). The results are shown in
Table A-12.
A-86
-------
Table A-ll
SUMMARY TABLE FOR LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT INDICATOR
Alternative Use Ownership Overall
Tract Element Element Score Ranking
_1 38 24 62 2_
_2 36 25 61 3_
_3 40 20 60 4_
_4 42 24 66 1_
__5 36 18 54 9_
_6 38 19 57 7_
_7 34 17 51 10_
_8 24 19 43 12_
9 38 22 60 5_
_10 40 15 55 8_
_11 32 19 51 11_
12 38 22 60 6
A-87
-------
Table A-12
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET
Tract Score
1 38
2 36
3 40
4 42
5 36
6 38
7 34
8 24
9 38
10 40
11 32
12 38
A-88
-------
2. Surface-Ownership/Mineral-Ownership Element
BLM Surface Minerals management Quads (Color Quads) were
used for development of this element. The survey Color Quads were cur-
rent as of October 1975. These maps showed land and mineral ownership
status, but they did not show the status of outstanding federal permits
on federally controlled surface areas, or whether permission has been
obtained from privately owned surface estates for the mining of federal
coal beneath them. This information can be obtained from the BLM and
the Department of the Interior, but it not readily available and there-
fore was not used in this test case.
For purposes of testing the methodology, it was assumed that no
surface leases or permits were in effect on federal land; it was also
assumed that permission had been obtained from surface owners in the
case of private surface ownership of federal coal. For privately owned
surface and mineral estates, it was assumed that permission had not been
obtained from the owners.
Scores are developed for each tract, taking into consideration
the fraction of the tract represented by each ownership category (i.e.,
the "weighting factor"). In this manner, an ownership element is devel-
oped for each tract (see the Worksheets). The cumulative results for
this impact indicator are shown in Table A-13.
A-89
-------
Table A-13
SURFACE-OWNERSHIP/MINERAL-OWNERSHIP ELEMENT SUMMARY SHEET
Tract Score
1 24
2 25
3 20
4 24
5 18
6 19
7 17
8 19
9 22
10 15
11 19
12 22
A-90
-------
Tract 1
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture
Irrigated cropland along Sulphur
Creek; non-irrigated cropland
eastern sector
30
Rangeland: cattle and sheep
Ranching (summer)
20
Forestry Five percent forested
40
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
No designation
50 10
Archaeological/
Historical
Importance No designation
50 10
Alternative Land Use Score
38
A-91
-------
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Tract 2
Weighted
Assigned Value
Uses Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture Some irrigated cropland 40 8_
Ranching Rangeland; cattle and sheep (summer) 20 4_
Forestry Fifteen percent woodlands 20
A-92
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation No designation 50 10
Archaeological/
Historical
Importance No designation 50 10
Alternative Land Use Score 36
-------
Tract 3
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Some irrigated agriculture on
Agriculture Wilson Creek
40 8
Rangeland: cattle and sheep
Ranching (summer)
20
Forestry No woodlands
50 10
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
No designation
50 10
Archaeological/ Immediately adjacent to area
Historical
Importance of medium importance
40 8
Alternative Land Use Score 40
A-93
-------
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Tract 4
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Some irrigated agriculture on
Agriculture Collon Creek 40
Rangeland: cattle and sheep
Ranching (summer) 20
Forestry No woodlands 50
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation No designation 50
Archaeological/
Historical
Importance No designation 50
Alternative Land Use Score
8
4
10
10
10
42
A-94
-------
Tract 5
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture No designated cropland
50 10
Rangeland; cattle and sheep
Ranching (summer)
20
Forestry Twenty percent woodlands
20
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
No designation
50 10
Archaeological/ Located between two areas
Historical
Importance of medium importance
40
Alternative Land Use Score
36
A-95
-------
Tract 6
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture Some non-irrigated cropland
40 8
Ranching
Rangeland: cattle (spring/summer/
fall); sheep (spring/fall) ^^
20
Forestry No woodlands
50 10
Wilderness Immediately adjacent to
Protection/
Recreation recreation area
30
Archaeological/
Historical
Importance No designation
50 10
Alternative Land Use Score 38
A-96
-------
Tract 7
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture
Fifteen percent non-irrigated
cropland 30
Rangeland; cattle and sheep
Ranching (summer)
20
Forestry
No woodlands
50 10
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
No designation
50 10
Archaeological/ Medium Importance (one site per
Historical
Importance township)
20
Alternative Land Use Score
34
A-97
-------
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Tract 8
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture
Contains some irrigated cropland
near Yampa River
20
Ranching
Rangeland; cattle (spring/summer/
fall); sheep (spring/fall)
20
Forestry Contains some woodlands
20
Wilderness No designation; primitive natural
Protection/
Recreation features along the Yampa River
50 10
Archaeological/ High importance (approximately
Historical
Importance one site per section)
10
Alternative Land Use Score 24
A-98
-------
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Tract 9
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture No designated cropland
50
10
Ranching
Rangeland; cattle and sheep
(summer)
20
Forestry
Not forested (near White River
National Forest)
50
10
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
No designation
50
10
Medium archaeological importance
Archaeological/ (White River Indian Agency Trail
Historical
Importance of 1868 cuts across the tract)
20
Alternative Land Use Score
38
A-99
-------
Tract 10
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture Some cropland west of Dry Creek
40 8
Rangeland: cattle and sheep
Ranching (summer)
20
Forestry No woodlands
50 10
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
No designation
50 10
Immediately adjacent to area of
Archaeological/ medium archaeological/historical
Historical
Importance importance
40 8
Alternative Land Use Score 40
A-100
-------
Tract 11
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Considerable non-irrigated
agriculture and some
Agriculture irrigated agriculture
20
Rangeland; cattle and sheep
Ranching (summer)
20
Forestry
No woodlands
50 10
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
No designation
50 10
Archaeological/
Historical
Importance Medium importance
20
Alternative Land Use Score
32
A-101
-------
Tract 12
WORKSHEET FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ELEMENT
Uses
Weighted
Assigned Value
Value (x 0.20)
Agriculture No designated cropland
50 10
Ranching
Rangeland; cattle (spring/summer/
fall); sheep (spring/fall)
20
Small woodland in western-most area
Forestry of tract, minimal conflict
50 10
Wilderness
Protection/
Recreation
No designation
50 10
Medium archaeological/historical
Archaeological/ importance (approximately 1 site
Historical
Importance per township
20
Alternative Land Use Score
38
A-102
-------
Tract 1
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract Weighted
Area) Value
0.18
Private3
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
0.66
13
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
Surface owners have not
10
0.16
Ownership Element Score
24
JIncludes state-owned land.
^Includes state-owned coal.
A-103
-------
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Tract 2
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract Weighted
Area) Value
x
0.16
Private3
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
0.78
16
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private Surface owners have not
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
10
0.05
Ownership Element Score
25
a
Includes state-owned land.
Includes state-owned coal.
A-104
-------
Tract 3
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract
Area)
Weighted
Value
x
0.03
Private
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
x
0.79
16
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private
Coal ,
Ownership yet given permission
Surface owners have not
10
0.18
Ownership Element Score
20
Includes state-owned land.
'includes state-owned coal.
A-105
-------
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Tract 4
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract Weighted
Area) Value
0.18
Private3
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
0.67
13
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
Surface owners have not
10
0.15
Ownership Element Score
24
Includes state-owned land.
Includes state-owned coal.
A-106
-------
Tract 5
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract
Area)
Weighted
Value
0.02
Private
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
0.77
15
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
Surface owners have not
10
0.21
Ownership Element Score
18
alncludes state-owned land.
Includes state-owned coal.
A-107
-------
Tract 6
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimal
Fraction
of Tract Weighted
Area) Value
0.01
Private3
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
0.80
16
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private
Coal ,
Ownership yet given permission
Surface owners have not
10
0.19
Ownership Element Score
19
Includes state-owned land.
Includes state-owned coal.
A-108
-------
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Tract 7
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
Assigned of Tract Weighted
Ownership Description of Leases/Permits Value Area) Value
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal No surface leases or
Coal
Ownership permits are in effect
50 x 0.00
Privatea
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20 x 0.77
15
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private Surface owners have not
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
10 x 0.23
Ownership Element Score
17
Includes state-owned land.
'includes state-owned coal.
A-109
-------
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Tract 8
Weighting
Factor
(Decimal
Fraction
Assigned of Tract Weighted
Ownership Description of Leases/Permits Value Area) Value
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal No surface leases or
Coal
Ownership permits are in effect
50
0.25
12
Private
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
0.27
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private Surface owners have not
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
10
0.23
Ownership Element Score
19
Actual Factor is 0.5; however, one-half of land is in "ownership"
reserved" category.
Includes state-owned land.
'Includes state-owned coal.
A-110
-------
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Tract 9
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract
Area)
Weighted
Value
x
0.07
Private3
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
x
0.90
18
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
Surface owners have not
10
0.03
Ownership Element Score
22
alncludes state-owned land.
Includes state-owned coal.
A-lll
-------
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Tract 10
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract Weighted
Area) Value
0.02
Private3
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
0.40
Private3
Surface
Ownership/
Private Surface owners have not
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
10
0.58
Ownership Element Score
15
Includes state-owned land.
b
Includes state-owned coal.
A-112
-------
Tract 11
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract
Area)
Weighted
Value
0.02
Private3
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
' 20
0.78
16
Private
Surface
Ownership/
Private
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
Surface owners have not
10
0.20
Ownership Element Score
19
Includes state-owned land.
'includes state-owned coal.
A-113
-------
Tract 12
WORKSHEET FOR OWNERSHIP ELEMENT
Ownership
Federal
Surface
Ownership/
Federal
Coal
Ownership
Assigned
Description of Leases/Permits Value
No surface leases or
permits are in effect
50
Weighting
Factor
(Decimel
Fraction
of Tract Weighted
Area) Value
x
0.08
Private
Surface Secretary has obtained
Ownership/
Federal permission from owners of
Coal
Ownership surface estates
20
0.90
18
Private3
Surface
Ownership/
Private Surface owners have not
Coal
Ownership yet given permission
10
0.02
Ownership Element Score
22
Includes state-owned land.
Includes state-owned coal.
A-114
-------
Appendix B
LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK*
I. INTRODUCTION
A list of pertinent federal laws and regulations has been included
as reference for users of the methodology. Also, a short discussion of
the role of state and local laws has been included to provide some exam-
ples of the way in which the problems related to coal mining are being
dealt with at these levels of government.
II. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
A. General
The two laws that provide the basic authorities for leasing
and management of federal minerals, including coal, are the Mineral
Leasing Act (41 Stat. 427, as amended; 30 USC 181 et seq.) and the
Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (61 Stat. 913; 30 USC 351-359).
Passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,
P.L. 94-579 (90 Stat. 2743; 43 USC 1701-1771) has given the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) a mandate to retain public lands for multiple-use
management. In addition, P.L. 94-579 has given BLM the authority to
carry out comprehensive land use planning to be used in decision making,
has abolished or consolidated a number of old public land laws, and
authorizes BLM to promulgate regulations and policy governing all
aspects of public land management. Basically, the law consolidates
existing authorities in one document and ensures that the public lands
remain open for location of mining claims, for public hunting, fishing,
camping, and other outdoor recreation, and for the development of
natural resources.
With respect to coal leasing and development, these laws are
implemented by BLM and the USGS under the regulations described below.
*Edited and adapted from Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Statement, Northwest
Colorado Coal.
B-l
-------
Title 43 CFR 3041 sets forth the regulations governing leasing,
permitting, and licensing procedures; reclamations standards; use of
surface; bond requirements; and reports relating to leases, permits, and
licenses issued by the BLM related to federal coal deposits located on
U.S. public and acquired lands and reserved deposits underlying lands
whose surfaces are privately owned. In effect, the regulations allow
BLM to exercise its environmental protection responsibilities while it
ensures orderly development of the federal coal deposits. The regula-
tions seek to ensure that adequate measures are taken during exploration
or mining of the federal coal to avoid, minimize, or correct damages to
the environment (land, water, and air), and to avoid, minimize, or cor-
rect hazards to public health and safety.
Title 43 CFR 3500 provides procedures for leasing and subse-
quent management of deposits of federal coal (and other minerals).
Title 43 CFR 2800 establishes procedures for issuing rights-of-
way to private individuals and companies on public lands. These regula-
tions provide the backing for identifying and protecting environmental
resources that could be affected by right-of-way construction for coal-
related projects.
Title 30 CFR 211 governs operations for discovery, testing,
development, mining, and preparation of federal coal under leases,
licenses, and permits pursuant to 43 CFE 3500. The purposes of the
regulations in Part 211 are to promote orderly and efficient operations
and production practices without waste or avoidable loss of coal or
other mineral-bearing formation; to encourage maximum recovery and use
of coal resources; to promote operating practices that will avoid, mini-
mize, or correct damage to the environment, including land, water, and
air, and avoid, minimize, or correct hazards to public health and
safety; and to obtain a proper record of all coal produced.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (P.L.
95-87) regulates surface mining and surface effects of underground
mining of all coal deposits and is implemented by the newly established
Office of Surface Mining under the regulations in Title 30 CFR 7000.*
The Act and regulations provide for environmental performance standards
for surface coal mining and reclamation operations; inspection and
enforcement procedures, including the assessment of civil penalties;
requirements and approval procedures for state programs; requirements
for surface coal mining and reclamation operations on public lands; pro-
cedures for state and federal designation of areas unsuitable for sur-
face or underground coal mining operations; requirements and procedures
Regulations referred to as being issued under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 are interim regulations. At the
present time, the Office of Surface Mining is drafting and circulating
for comment proposed permanent regulations.
B-2
-------
for approval of state mining permits; and requirements for posting, re-
lease, and forfeiture of performance bonds.
B. Geologic Setting
1. Mining on Slopes Greater Than 20 Percent
Title 30 CFR part 716.2 deals with mining on slopes
greater than 20% and states that spoils shall not be placed or allowed
to remain on the downslope. The highwall shall be completely covered
with spoil, and the affected area shall be graded to the approximate
original contour, as provided in 30 CFR 715.14.
2. Reclamation
a. Restoration to Original Contour. Title 30 CFR part
715.14 states that to achieve the approximate original contour, the per-
mittee shall transport, backfill, compact (where advisable to ensure
stability or to prevent leaching of toxic materials), and grade all
spoil material to eliminate all highwalls, spoil piles, and depressions.
Title 30 CFR part 715.13 (a) states that ". . . all disturbed areas
shall be restored in a timely manner (1) to conditions that are capable
of supporting the uses which they were capable of supporting before any
mining or (2) to higher or better uses . . ."
b. Mountain Top Removal. Mountain top removal is
covered in 30 CFR, Parts 715.14 (c) and 716.3. These regulations state
in part that if an operator removes entire coal seam(s) in the upper
part of a mountain, ridge, or hill, the area need not be restored to
approximate original contour, but that all highwalls, spoil piles, and
major depressions shall be eliminated. The final graded top plateau
slopes shall be less than 20%.
Regulations contained in 30 CFR 211 include those
concerned with maximum resource recovery and minimum damage to remaining
mineral resources (211.4 (b and c)), prevention of damage to significant
scientific values (211.4(d)(9)), subsidence (211.31(a and c)), hazardous
conditions (211.4(d)(7)), returning land to its approximate original
contour (211.40(a)(2)), and stabilization of slopes to avoid landslides
(211.40(a)(3)). Compliance would be the responsibility of the Area
Mining Supervisor, USGS, in consultation with the District Manager, BLM.
C. Water Resources
The rules and regulations shown in Table B-l affect water
resources and are arranged in order of importance.
B-3
-------
Table B-l
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT WATER RESOURCES RULES"AND REGULATIONS
Rules and Regulations
30 CFR 700
(Federal Register,
vol. 42, no. 239,
December 13, 1977)
30 CFR 211
(Federal Register,
vol. 41, no. 96,
May 17, 1976
43 CFR 3041
(Federal Register,
vol. 41, no. 96
May 17, 1976)
Authority
Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement Act
Public law 95-87
August 3, 1977
Pursuant to regulations in
43 CFR Group 3500 and the
Alaska coal Leasing Act of
October 20, 1914, as amended
(38 Stat. 741; 48 U.S.C. 432-
445)
Mineral leasing Act of
February 25, 1920, as
amended (30 U.S.C. 181-287)
and the Mineral Leasing Act
for Acquired Lands (30 U.S.C.
351-359)
Applicability
Federal, state,
and fee coal
Federal coal
Federal coal
leases
In addition to the rules and regulations in Table B-l, all
waters are subject to provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA), as amended in 1972 (P.L. 92-500).
1. General
a. Hydrologic balance. The permittee must plan and con-
duct surface and underground coal mining and reclamation operations to
minimize disturbance of the prevailing hydrologic balance to prevent
long-term adverse changes that could result both on and off site (30 CFR
715.17 and 717.17).
The operator must take such actions as may be needed
to minimize, control, or prevent (1) soil erosion; (2) pollution of sur-
face or ground water; and (3) serious diminution of the normal flow of
water (30 CFR 211.4 (d)).
Applications to BLM for a coal lease, permit, or
license must contain a brief description of the proposed measures to be
taken to control or prevent soil erosion and pollution of surface and
groundwater (43 CFR 3041.1-2 (b)(2)(v)).
B-4
-------
b- Water rights. The permittee must replace the water
supply of an owner of interest in real property who obtains all or part
of his supply of water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or other
legitimate use from an underground or surface source where such supply
hs been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption proxi-
mately resulting from surface or underground coal mine operations by the
permittee (30 CFR 715.17 (i) and 171.17 (i)).
c. Alluvial valley floors. Coal mining operations in
and adjacent to alluvial valley floors must be planned and conducted so
as to preserve the essential hydrologic functions of these valley floors.
Mining must not interrupt, discontinue, or preclude farming on alluvial
valley floors and shall not materially damage the quantity or quality of
surface water or ground water that supplies these areas unless their
premining use was undeveloped rangeland or unless the area of alluvial
valley floor is small and provides negligible support for production
from one or more farms. This exclusion does not apply to mines in
production or having permits to mine on alluvial valley floors before
August 3, 1977 (30 CFR 715.17 (j)).
d. Valley floors. No land within 100 feet of an inter-
mittent or perennial stream shall be disturbed by surface or underground
coal mnining and reclamation operations unless specifically authorized
by the regulatory authority (30 CFR 715.15 (d)(3) and 717.17 (d)).
The quality, quantity, and flow, including depth of
flow, of upstream and downstream surface and ground water resources of
those valley floors that provide water sources that support significant
vegetation or supply significant quantities of water for other purposes
shall be protected (43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f)(7)(iv)).
e. Diversion of water. Surface or ground waters shall
not be discharged or diverted into underground mine workings (30 CFR
715.17 (h)).
f. Inspections. The Mining Supervisor must inspect coal
mining operations to determine compliance with surface and ground water
management and pollution control measures required by applicable leases,
permits, or licenses and approved plans, and promptly notify appropriate
representatives of other federal and state agencies in the event of any
noncompliance (30 CFR 211.3 (11)).
2. Ground Water
a. Protection of the hydrologic system. Surface and
underground coal mining operations must be conducted so as to minimize
adverse effects on ground water flow and quality, both on site and off
B-5
-------
site. The permittee must monitor to ensure that operations conform to
this requirement (30 CFR 715.17 and 717.17).
b. Restoration of recharge capacity. Reclaimed areas
must be restored to approximate premining recharge capacity to support
approved postraining land use and minimize disturbances to the prevailing
hydrologic balance, both on site and off site. The permittee must moni-
tor to ensure conformance with this requirement (30 CFR 715.17 (h)(l)).
c. Leaching of toxic pollutants. Backfilled materials
must be selectively placed and compacted wherever necessary to prevent
leaching to toxic pollutants into surface waters (30 CFR 715.14 (j)(2),
717.14 (a), 211.40 (a)(2), (8); 43 CFR 3041,2-2 (f)(2)).
d. Mixing of groundwaters. Pollution or mixing of
ground waters of significantly different quality shall be prevented by
casing, sealing, or otherwise managing drill holes, wells, auger holes,
shafts, etcl (30 CFR 715.17 (g)(5), 211.3(9), and 43 CFR 3041.2-2
e. Disposal of wastes. Waste materials from conversion
facilities (power plants) and municipal wastes must be buried so as not
to adversely affect water quality (30 CFR 715.14 (j)(3)).
f. Preblasting survey. Personnel approved by the regu-
latory authority shall conduct a preblasting survey to determine the
condition of all wells or other water systems used for human, animal, or
agricultural purposes and the quantity and quality of the water. A
written report shall include recommendations of any special conditions
or proposed adjustments to the blasting procedures to prevent damage to
identified wells or water systems (30 CFR 715.19 (b)(2)).
g. Blasting. Blasting shall be conducted so as to pre-
vent any change in the availability of ground or surface waters outside
the permit area (30 CFR 715.19 (e)(2)(i)).
h. Use of wells by others. Upon receipt of a written
request from the surface owner or the appropriate authorized officer,
the Mining Supervisor may approve the transfer of an exploratory well
for further use as a water well, subject to any applicable state law
requirements. Approval of the well transfer will be accompanied by a
corresponding transfer of responsibility for any liability for damage
and eventual plugging (30 CFR 211.21 (c)).
B-6
-------
i. Monitoring. Groundwater levels, infiltration rates,
subsurface flow and storage characteristics, and the quality of ground-
water shall be monitored in a manner approved by the regulatory author-
ity to determine the effects of surface and underground coal mining and
reclamation operations on the recharge capacity of reclaimed lands and
on the quantity and quality of water in groundwater systems on site and
in associated off-site areas (30 CFR 715.17 (h)(3) and 717.17 (h)(2)).
j. Permanent abandonment. Before permanent abandonment
of coal explorations or mining operations, all openings and excavations,
including water-discharge points, shall be closed or backfilled, or
otherwise permanently dealt with in accordance with sound engineering
practices and according to the approval plan (30 CFR 211.41 (c)).
3. Surface Water
a. Stream channels. Changes in the location of surface
water drainage channels must be minimized so as not to adversely affect
post-mining land use.
b. Stream channel diversions. Diversions of perennial
and intermittent streams must be approved by the regulatory authority
and must be in compliance with all federal and state statutes and regu-
lations. New channels must maintain average stream gradients and remain
stable to the extent possible using the best technology currently avail-
able (30 CFR 715.17 (d)(l)(i) and 717.17 (d)).
Channel and flood-plain configurations must be ade-
quate to safely pass peak runoff from a precipitation event having a
10-year recurrence interval for temporary diversions and a 100-year
recurrence interval (or for larger storms if required by the regulatory
authority) for permanent diversions (30 CFR 715.17 (d)(l)(ii) and 717.17
(e)).
c. Diversion structures. All temporary diversion struc-
tures must be removed and the affected land reclaimed. When such struc-
tures are removed, all downstream water-treatment structures protected
by these temporary diversion structures must be modified or removed to
prevent failure (30 CFR 715.17 (d)(2) and 717.17 (d)).
d. Postraining use of land. The proposed postmining land
use must not present actual or probable threat of water flow diminution
or pollution (30 CFR 715.13 (d)(6)).
Proposals to change premining land uses of range,
fish, and wildlife habitat, forest land, hayland, or pasture to a post-
mining cropland use, where the cropland would require continuous
B-7
-------
maintenance to be practicable or to comply with applicable federal,
state, and local laws, shall be reviewed by the regulatory authority to
assure that sufficient water is available and committed to maintain crop
production (30 CFR 715.13 (d)(9)(ii)).
e. Treatment of runoff. All water discharged from dis-
turbed areas that violates federal or state laws or regulations must be
treated by adequate facilities except for runoff from a 10-year 24-hour
precipitation event or larger storm (30 CFR 715.17 (a)(2)).
f. Noxious substances. The operator must treat or dis-
pose of all rubbish and noxious substances in a manner designed to mini-
mize, control, or prevent water pollution (43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f)(8)).
g. Acid and toxic materials. Drainage emanating from
acid-forming or toxic-forming mine waste materials and spoils placed on
the land surface shall be avoided by burying or otherwise treating all
toxic or harmful materials where necessary and by preventing water from
contacting these materials (30 CFR 715.15 (g), 717.17 (g), and 211.40
(a)(7); 43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f)(7)(i)).
All exposed coal seams and any acid- or toxic-forming
materials shall not be buried or stored near drainage courses or where
they pose a threat of water pollution (30 CFR 715.14 (j)(!)).
h. Pollution control. Backfilled materials must be
selectively placed and compacted wherever necessary to prevent leaching
of toxic forming materials into surface or subsurface waters (30 CFR
715.14 (j)(2)).
Water pollution shall be minimized by using treatment
methods where necessary such as stabilizing disturbed areas through
grading, diverting runoff, achieving quick growing stands of temporary
vegetation, lining drainage channels with rock or vegetations, mulching,
selectively placing waste materials in backfilled areas, and using
water-treatment facilities (30 CFR 715.17).
i. Water quality standards and effluent limitations.
Discharges from areas disturbed by surface and underground coal mining
operations and reclamation activities conducted thereon must meet all
applicable federal and state regulations and at a minimum the numerical
effluent limitations described in Table B-2.
Discharge from a precipitation event larger than 10-
year 24-hour recurrence interval is not subject to the above effluent
limitations (30 CFR 715.17 (1) and 717.17 (a)).
B-8
-------
Table B-2
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (mg/1)
Average of Daily
Values for 30 Con-
Effluent Characteristics Maximum Allowable secutive Discharge Days
Iron, total 7.0 3.5
Manganese, total 4.0 2.0
Total suspended solids 45.0 30.0
j. Dams constructed of or impounding waste material. No
waste material shall be used in or impounded by existing or new dams
without the approval of the regulatory authority. The permitte must
design, locate, construct, operate, maintain, modify, and abandon or
remove all dams constructed of waste materials in accordance with the
requirements set forth in 30 CRF 715.18 (30 CFR 715.18 (a) and 717.18
(a)).
k. Permanent impoundments. The permittee may construct
permanent water impoundments on mining sites as a part of reclamation
activities only when they are authorized by the regulatory authority and
are adequately demonstrated to be in compliance with regulations govern-
ing the postraining use of the land and backfilling and grading in addi-
tion to the following requirements:
o The size of the impoundment is adequate for its intended
purposes.
o Dam construction is designed to achieve necessary stability
with an adequate margin of safety.
o The quality of the impounded water will be suitable on a
permanent basis for its intended use and discharges from the
impoundment will not degrade the quality of receiving waters
below the water quality standards established pursuant to
applicable federal and state laws.
o The level of water will be reasonably stable.
o Final grading will comply with provisions of 30 CFR 715.14 and
will provide adequate safety and access for proposed water
users.
B-9
-------
The impoundments will not result in the diminution of water
used by adjacent landowners for agricultural, industrial,
recreational, or domestic uses (30 CFR 715.17 (k), 211.40
(a)(5), and 43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f)(5)).
1. Discharge permit. If discharge occurs, the operator
must obtain a national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit.
m. Monitoring. The permittee must monitor all discharge
from the disturbed area and from any underground operations. The moni-
toring program must provide adequate data to describe the likely daily
and seasonal variations in discharges in terms of flow, pH, total iron,
total manganese, total suspended solids, and if requested by the regula-
tory agency, any other parameter characteristic of the discharge; and
determine normal and abnormal variations in concentrations. The program
also must provide for analytical quality control including standards
methods of analysis such as those specified in 40 CFR 136 (30 CFR 715.17
(b)(l), 171 (b)(l), and 211.4 (e)).
n. Water quality violations. Should any violations of
permit conditions occur, the regulatory authority must be notified
immediately after receipt of analytical results by the permittee (30 CFR
715.17 (b)(l)(v) and 717.17 (b)(l)(v)).
o. Monitoring discharge from reclaimed areas. The per-
mittee must monitor surface water quality and flow from disturbed areas
that have been regraded and stabilized to demonstrate that the quality
and quantity of runoff without treatment will minimize disturbance to
the prevailing hydrologic balance and permit the approved postmining
land use. These data provide a basis for approval by the regulatory
authority for removal of water quality or flow control systems and for
determining when reclamation requirements are met (30 CFR 715.17 (b)(2)),
p. Monitoring equipment. Equipment, structures, and
other measures used to monitor runoff must be properly installed, main-
tained, and operated and must be removed when no longer required (30 CFR
715.17 (b)(3)).
D. Erosion Control
1. Sediment Control Measures, General
Appropriate sediment control measures must be designed,
constructed, and maintained to prevent additional sediment from entering
streams outside the permit area to the extent possible using the best
B-10
-------
technology currently available (30 CFR 715.17 (e), 717.17 (e), 211.40
(a)(3); 43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f)(7)(ii)).
2. Topsoil Handling
Topsoil must be segregated, and if not used immediately,
must be stockpiled and protected from wind and water erosion (30 CFR
715.16, 717.20 (a), 211.40 (a)(4); 43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f)(4)).
3. Slope Stability
Backfilled materials must be selectively placed and com-
pacted wherever necessary to ensure their postmining stability (30 CFR
715.14 (j)(2) and 717.14 (a)).
Highwalls must be reduced to slopes not exceeding 50% or
to such lesser slopes as the regulatory authority may specify (30 CFR
715.14 (g)(2)).
Highwalls must be eliminated in areas of adequate over-
burden by backfilling with suitable spoil and waste materials (30 CFR
715.14 (h)(5)).
Final graded slopes must not exceed approximate premining
slopes. Lesser slopes may be specified by the regulatory authority (30
CFR 715.14 (b)).
Cut and fill terraces may be used on steep slopes to con-
serve soil moisture, ensure stability, and control erosion on final
graded slopes (30 CFR 715.14 (b)(2)).
4. Stability of Spoils Placed Outside Mined Areas
Such spoils must be placed on the most moderately sloping
and naturally stable areas available. Fill materials must be placed on
or above a natural terrace, bench, or berm, if such placement provides
additional stability and prevents mass movement (30 CFR 715.15 (a)(2)).
Fills on slopes higher than 36% or on lesser slopes desig-
nated by the regulatory authority shall require keyway cuts to stable
bedrock or rock toe buttresses to stabilize the fills (30 CFR 715.15
A system of underdrains must be installed along buried
natural drainage systems to facilitate drainage and prevent saturation
and mass movement (30 CFR 715.15 (b)(6)).
B-ll
-------
Such spoils must be transported and placed in a controlled
manner and concurrently compacted as specified by the regulatory author-
ity to ensure mass stability (30 CFR 7151.5 (b)(7)).
Terraces as specified must be constructed to stabilize the
face of the fill (30 CFR 715.15 (b)(8)).
The tops of the fill and each terrace shall be graded no
steeper than 5% and shall drain surface runoff to the sides of the fill
where stabilized surface channels will carry water away from the fill
(30 CFR 715.15 (b)(9)).
All surface drainage from the undisturbed area above the
fill must be diverted away from the fill by approved structures leading
into water courses (30 CFR 715.15 (b)(10)).
The outslope of the fill shall not exceed 50%. A flatter
slope may be required by the regulatory authority (30 CFR 715.15
5. Mountain Top Removal
An outcrop barrier of sufficient width, consisting of the
toe of the lowest coal seam and its associated overburden, must be re-
tained to prevent slides and erosion (30 CFR 716.3 (b)(l)).
The final surface must be graded to drain inward from the
outslope except at specific locations where water drains over the out-
slope except at specific locations where water drains over the outslope
in protected stable channels. Damage to natural water courses below the
area mined must be prevented (30 CFR 716.3 (b)(3 and 4)).
The terms of a permit for mountain top removal may be mod-
ified by the regulatory authority if it determines that more stringent
measures are necessary to prevent or control sllides and erosion, pre-
vent damage to natural water courses, avoid water pollution, or to
assure successful revegetation (30 CFR 716.2 (c)(2)).
6. Sedimentation Ponds
All surface drainage from disturbed areas (including re-
claimed areas) must be passed through a sedimentation pond or a series
of ponds before leaving the permit area unless the disturbed drainage
area within the total disturbed area is small and the permittee shows
that sedimentation ponds are not necessary to meet effluent limitations.
Not included under this provision are areas with no other disturbances
upstream. Effluent limitations are listed under the previous section on
surface water (see Item 9). Sedimentation ponds must be retained until
all water quality and revegetation requirements are met (30 CFR 715.17
(a) and 717.17 (a)).
B-12
-------
Sediment removed from ponds shall be done so as to mini-
mize adverse effects on surface waters downstream, on infiltration, on
vegetation, and on surface and groundwater quality (30 CFR 715.17 (e)(6)
and 717.17 (e)(6)).
All sedimentation ponds must be removed and the affected
land reclaimed unless the regulatory authority approves permanent reten-
tion (30 CFR 715.17 (e)(10), 717.17 (e)(10); 43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f)(7)
(iii)).
7- Diversion Structures
To minimize erosion and prevent water from contacting
toxic-producing materials, overland flow may be diverted, if required or
approved by the regulatory authority, away from disturbed areas by means
of temporary or permanent diversion structures, provided that such
structures be designed, constructed, and maintained in an approved
manner to prevent additional contributions of suspended solids to stream
flows outside the permit area to the extent possible, using the best
technology currently available. In no event shall such contributions be
in excess of requirements set by applicable state or federal laws (30
CRF 715.17 (c) and 717.17 (c)).
8. Discharge Structures
Discharges from sedimentation ponds and diversion struc-
tures must be controlled, where necessary, using energy dissipators,
surge ponds, and other devices to reduce erosion and prevent deepening
or enlargement of stream channels and to minimize disturbances to the
hydrologic balance (30 CFR 715.17 (F) and 717.17 (f)).
9. Roads
Access and haul roads and associated bridges, culverts,
ditches, and road rights of way must be constructed, maintained, and
reclaimed to prevent additional contributions of suspended solids to
streamflow, or to runoff outside the permit area to the extent possible
using the best technology currently available. In no event shall the
contributions be in excess of requirements set by applicable state or
federal law. All such roads and associated structures must be removed
and the affected area reclaimed unless retention of a road is approved
as part of the postmining land use or is necessary to adequately control
erosion and the necessary maintenance is assured (30 CRF 715.17 (1),
717.17 (j), 211.40 (a)(ll), 211.41 (c); 43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f)(ll)).
All roads insofar as possible must be located on ridges or
on the available flatter and more stable slopes to minimize erosion.
Stream fords are prohibited unless specifically approved by the regula-
tory authority as temporary routes across dry streams. Other stream
B-13
-------
crossings must be made using bridges, culverts, or other appropriately
designed structures. Roads must not be located in active stream chan-
nels nor can they be constructed or maintained in a manner that in-
creases erosion or causes significant sedimentation or flooding (30 CFR
715.17 (l)(2)(i), 717.17 (j)(2)(i), 211.40 (a)(12)(ii); 43 CFR 3041.2-2
To minimize erosion and subsequent disturbances to the
hydrologic balance, roads must be constructed in compliance with estab-
lished grade restrictions or other grades determined by the regulatory
authority to be necessary to control erosion (30 CFR 715.17 (l)(2)(ii)
and 717.17 (u)(2)(ii)).
All access and haul roads must have adequate drainage
using structures such as, but not limited to, ditches, water barriers,
cross drains, and ditch relief drains. Water control structures on
access and haul roads to be maintained for more than one year must be
designed to pass the peak runoff from a 10-year 24-hour precipitation
event (30 CFR 715.17 (l)(2)(iii) and 717.17 (j)(2)(88)).
Access and haul roads must be surfaced with durable non-
toxic or nonac id- forming material. Vegetation may be cleared only for
the essential width necessary (30 CFR 715.17 (l)(2)(iv) and 717.17
(j)(2)(iv); 43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f) (12)).
Access and haul roads must be routinely maintained, and
all structures serving to drain these roads must be kept clean so as not
to impede drainage or adversely affect performance of the structures (30
CFR 715.17 (1)(3) and 717.17 (j)(3)).
10. Other Transport Facilities
Railroad loops, spurs, conveyors, or other transport
facilities must be constructed, maintained and reclaimed to prevent
additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflows or to runoff
outside the permit area to the extent possible, using the best technol-
ogy currently available and to control other diminution or degradation
of water quality and quantity. In no event shall the contributions be
in excess of requirements set by applicable state or federal law. (30
CFR 715.17 (m) and 717.17 (k)).
11. Final Grading
All grading must be done so as to control erosion and sil-
tation of the affected lands to protect areas outside the affected land
from slides and other damage. If not eliminated, all highwalls must be
stabilized (30 CFR 715.14 (g)(2) and 715.14 (h)(3))
All final grading, preparation of overburden before re-
placement of topsoil, and placement of topsoil must be done along the
B-14
-------
contour to minimize subsequent erosion and instability unless such final
grading is hazardous to equipment operators. In all cases, grading,
preparation, or placement must be conducted so as to minimize erosion
and provide a surface for replacement of topsoil, which will minimize
slippage (30 CFR 715.14 (k)).
Small depressions (less than 1 cubic yard) in the final
surface may be approved by the regulatory authority to minimize erosion
(30 CFR 715.14 (d)).
When rills or gullies deeper than 9 inches form in areas
that have been regraded and the topsoil replaced but vegetation has not
yet been established, the permittee must fill, grade, or otherwise sta-
bilize the rills and gullies and reseed or replant the areas (30 CRF
715.14 (i)).
12. Revegetation
The permittee must establish on all land that has been
disturbed a permanent vegetative cover capable of stabilizing the soil
surface with respect to erosion (30 CRF 715.20 (a)(2), 717.20 (b),
211.40 (a)(13), and 43 CFR 3041.2-2 (f)(13)).
Any disturbed areas which have been graded, except water
areas and road surfaces approved as part of the postmining land use,
must be seeded with a temporary cover of small grains, grasses, or
legumes to control erosion until an adequate permanent cover is estab-
lished (30 CFR 715.20 (c)).
Mulch must be used on all regraded and topsoiled areas to
control erosion. Annual grains such as oats, rye, and wheat may be used
instead of mulch when it can be shown to the regulatory authority that
the substituted grains will provide adequate stability until a permanent
vegetative cover is etablished (30 CFR 715.20 (d)).
Areas to be developed for industrial or residential use
less than 2 years after regrading has been completed must have a ground
cover of living plants that is not less than that required to control
erosion (30 CRF 715.20 (F)(2)(ii)).
E. Air Quality
Total suspended particles (TSP) represent the major source of
air quality degradation. Emissions of particulate matter are regulated
by federal and state law. (Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section
1857 £t seq.)
The U.S. Department of the Interior coal mining operating
regulations (43 CFR, Subpart 3041.1-2 (b)(2)(v)) require applicants to
detail strategies for controlling air pollution emissions.
B-15
-------
USGS rules and regulations for coal mining (30 CFR 211) require
that applications for federal lease lands specify in detail controls to
be used in blasting, prevention of fires, and wind erosion. In addi-
tion, air quality monitoring is required to ensure maintenance of ambi-
ent standards.
F. Soils
The Office of Surface Mining (SM) regulations (30 CFR 700),
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Provisions, deal with soil
impacts associated with mining activities. Title 43 CFR 3041 and 30 CFR
211 relative to soil impacts are effectively contained in the more com-
prehensive OSM regulations, so for purposes of the following discussion
those regulations will not be repeated.
1. Topsoil Removal
a. Removal before mining. Title 30 CFR 715.16 (r)(l)
and 717.20 (a) require all topsoil (unless use of alternate materials is
approved under 715.15 (a)(4)) to be removed as a separate operation be-
fore any drilling, blasting, mining, road and support facility construc-
tion, or other surface disturbing activities. Section 715.16 (a)(l)
also limits the size of disturbance at any one time on overburden highly
susceptible to erosion.
b. Horizon segregation. Section 715.16 (a)(l) and (2)
require horizon segregation (soil horizons identified by soil surveys)
and maximum use of horizons to achieve 100% soil productivity consistent
with postmining land use (715.13).
2. Topsoil Redistribution
a. Soil productivity. Section 715.16 (b) requires
immediate replacement of topsoil, scarification of regraded surface
prior to topsoiling, eliminating slippage surfaces and promoting root
penetration, topsoiling in a uniform thickness, prevention of excessive
compaction on spoil or topsoil, and protection of topsoil from wind and
water erosion before seeding and planting.
b. Addition of nutrients and soil amendments. Section
715.16 (d) provides for addition of nutrients and soil amendments as
prescribed by soil tests to be applied to redistributed topsoil.
B-16
-------
3. Stabilization of Stockpiled Soils.
Section 715.16 (c) deals with topsoil stockpiling. Top-
soil must be placed in a stable area not to be disturbed until redistri-
bution, protected from wind and water erosion, and planted with a pro-
tective vegetative cover as defined in 715.20 (g).
4. Determination and Treatment of Prime Farmland
To comply with Part 716.7, Prime Farmland, each applicant
for a mining permit must determine the status of farmlands to be mined,
according to 716.7 (b) and (c), Definition and Identification of Prime
Farmlands and 716.7 (d), Negative Determination of Prime Farmland. If a
positive determination is made, then a restoration plan must be submit-
ted in compliance with 716.7 (e), (f), and (g).
G. Vegetation
1. Terrestrial Flora
Revegetation on all areas of future coal development will
follow the federal surface coal reclamation and enforcement provisions
and the rules and regulations for the state concerned.
The Office of Surface Mining regulations found in 30 CFR
700 differ from previous federal regulations in that they are more
specific in dealing with impacts on vegetation due to surface mining.
a. Species used in revegation. Section 715.20 (a) re-
quires revegetation of the disturbed areas with species native to the
area, and requires that revegetation be carried out in a manner that
encourages prompt vegetative cover.
Section 715.20 (b) states that introduced species may
be used. If introduced species are used, appropriate field trails must
have demonstrated that the species are equal or superior for the
approved postmining land use.
Section 715.20 (e) states that the permittee shall
use publications or laboratory results for varieties, species, seeding
rates, and soil amendment practices. This is to help replace soil
stability and prevent erosion.
Section 715.20 (e)(2) and (3) state that hayland,
pasture, range, and forest shall be revegetated to obtain a diverse,
effective, and permanent vegetative cover with the seasonal variety,
succession distribution, and regenerative capabilities native to the
area, and livestock grazing will not be allowed on reclaimed land until
seedlings are established and can sustain managed grazing.
B-17
-------
b. Time of revegetation. Section 715.20 (c) not only
covers the mine site itself, but also haul roads and all areas that will
require regrading to reduce soil erosion. Seeding and planting of dis-
turbed areas shall be conducted during the first normal period of favor-
able planting conditions after final preparations.
c. Measures to enhance regrowth. Section 715.20 (d)
states that mulch shall be used on all regraded and topsoiled areas to
control erosion, to promote germination of seeds, and to increase the
moisture retention of the soil.
d. Measuring success of revetation. Section 715.20
(f)(l) states that standards for measuring success of revegetation will
be in reference areas that are representative of geology, soils, slope,
aspect, and vegetation in the area.
Section 715.20 (f)(2) states that the ground cover on
the revegetated areas shall be equal to that of the reference areas.
not less than 90% of the ground cover in the reference areas. In previ-
ously mined areas, the ground cover shall not be less than the amount
sufficient to control erosion, and in no case less than that existing
before redisturbance (715.20 (f)(2)(i)). For areas to be returned for
agricultural cropland purposes, success of revegetation shall be deter-
mined on the basis of crop production from the mined area compared to
the reference area as stated in 715.20 (f)(2)(iii).
Section 715.20 (f)(3) states that evaluation of
species diversity, distribution, seasonal variety and vigor shall be
made with regulatory authority.
e. Revegetation during stockpiling. Section 715.20 (g)
states that the topsoil removed shall be stored and seeded with annual
or perennial nonnoxious plants.
Section 717.20 (a)(b) states that the permittee shall
establish on all mined lands a diverse, effective, and permanent vegeta-
tive cover capable of self-regeneration and plant succession before and
after mining operations.
H. Animals
1. Wildlife
a. Postmining restoration of wildlife habitat. Section
715.13 (c)(10) of the OSM Provisions (30 CFR 700) requires that wildlife
habitat that has been disturbed by mining activity be reclaimed unless
certain criteria concerning an alternative postmining use of the area
are met.
B-18
-------
b. Protection of riparian habitat. Section 715.17
(l)(iii) and 715.17 9d)(3) require the protection of riparian habitat
along stream channel diversions and intermittent and perennial streams.
c. Maintenance habitat during mining. Section 715.20
(e)(4) requires that during revegetation the needs of wildlife must be
taken into account. It also requires that appropriate plant species be
selected and grouped and that water resources be spaced to fulfill the
habitat requirements of wildlife.
Part 211.40 (a)(14)(ii) of 30 CFR provides for the
fencing of active mining operations and lands undergoing reclamation to
regulate wildlife grazing.
2. Endangered Species Act of 1973
To comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, any
action that alters existing habitat would require in-depth research to
ensure that no endangered species would be affected in any way. Endan-
gered species would have to be identified and their use of the area
determined.
I. Cultural Components
1. Archeological Resources
Legislation in this area is intended to preserve and,
where possible, to enhance archeological resources. To comply with the
legislation, five processes must be taken into consideration and com-
pleted as necessary: (1) inventory of archeological resources within
BLM control; (2) evaluation of all resources against the four criteria
of significance prescribed for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP); (3) the nomination of resources to NRHP; (4)
determination of effect resulting from a proposed federal action to
resources on or eligible to NRHP; and (5) preservation of resources not
eligible to NRHP. The terms or phrases used for the processes are
identical to the products they yield. The applicable legislation is
discussed in relation to these five processes.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431
et seq.) established the preservation process for archeological re-
liources on public land. The Secretary of the Interior is charged with
carrying out the provisions of the Act for lands under BLM jurisdiction.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat.
915, 16 U.S.C 470 e£ s££.) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
expand the National Register to include resources having state and local
significance and to establish the Advisory Council on Historic Preserva-
tion, which among other duties, reviews and comments on documentation of
B-19
-------
the harmful effects resulting from any proposed federal action on re-
sources on NRHP or eligible for inclusion on NRHP- Agencies are di-
rected under section 106 of the Act to produce documentation of the
degree of effect according to specific procedure and in consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Officer. If NRHP quality resources
will be harmfully affected, alterntives of avoidance of these resources
or mitigation of the effects must be offered. The Act requires the
processes of inventory, evaluation of significance, or resources on or
eligible to NRHP and preservation by avoidance or mitigation.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat.
852, 42 U.S.C., 4321, et seq.) recognizes the need to preserve archeo-
logical resources. The interdisciplinary description of the environ-
mental impacts from major federal action includes these resources.
Executive Order 11593 directs federal agencies to inven-
tory resources under their jurisdiction and to nominate resources eli-
gible to NRHP during a 27-month period. During this interim, the agen-
cies are to exercise caution in activities they either initiate or li-
cense to allow for the processes of inventory and evaluation of eligi-
bility and where necessary to allow the Advisory Council to comment on
the efforts harmful to the resources from such activities. This order
stresses the processes of inventory, evaluation of significance, nomina-
tion, and determination of effect on resources eligible to or on NRHP.
It assumes that the processes of inventory, evaluation of significance,
and nomination would be completed by mid-1973.
Many agencies, including BLM, have not been able to meet
the directives in E.O. 11593 and must continue to exercise caution in
initiating and licensing activities.
BLM is directed by E.O. 11593 to work with the State His-
toric Preservation Officer (SHPO) in developing a program to identify
resources and evaluate their significance both on public and private
lands, to assure that resources of national, state and local signifi-
cance are preserved.
The fifth process, preservation of resources not eligible
to NRHP, is required for resources on federal and state land according
to their respective antiquities acts. Although resources may not meet
the criteri'a of significance, they may contain data useful in defining
the spatial distributions of specific prehistoric groups or of identifi-
able cultural horizons. Preservation is required by a lessee under 43
CFR, Subpart 3041., Sec. 3041.2-2 (d).
The most recent legislation granting protection to cul-
tural resources is contained in the Archeological Conservation Act of
1974 (P.L. 93-291; 88 Stat. 174), which specifically directs the Depart-
ment to conduct, or cause to be conducted, surveys to prevent the loss
of significant historical or archeological data that might be caused as
a result of any federally licensed project.
B-20
-------
2. Aesthetics
a. Planning, location, and construction of facilities.
Title 43 CFR 3041.2-2 (d) requires that applicants take visual resources
into account in the planning, location, and construction of coal mining
facilities.
Cut and fill slopes resulting from all rights-of-way,
exploration, building, and other mine-related facility locations must be
shaped to a rounding grade that would intersect adjacent terrain at a
very low angle; this is to avoid creation of harsh angular forms. All
mine spoils and topsoil stockpile areas must be reshaped to a landform
that would borrow from the adjacent topography. Title 43 CRF 3041.2-2
(f)(2) and 30 CRF 211.40 (a)(2) further require elimination of highwalls
and spoil piles and restoration of the approximate original contour.
This would require reshaping of spoil piles and replacement of over-
burden to conform with or borrow from the adjacent contour; the addition
of overburden to original terrain would avoid an unnatural appearing
line- or form-dominant feature.
In addition, implementation of 43 CFR 3041.2-2
(f)(12)(ii) would reduce visual impacts accruing to road construction;
it requires all roads to be located on flatter slopes to minimize
disturbance; this is also required by 30 CFR 211.40 (a)(12)(ii).
b. Protection of visual or scenic resources in general.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 makes specific refer-
ences to the protection of visual or scenic resources, as follows:
o Sec. 103(a) When public land is affected by development,
important scenic values will be protected from irreparable
damage.
o Sec. 103(c) Scenic values will be given equal consideration
when weighting the use of non-renewable and renewable natural
resources.
o Sec. 202 (c)(3) In the development and revision of land use
plans, the Secretary of the Interior shall give priority to the
designation and protection of areas of critical environmental
concern (for specific values).
o Sec. 302(b) In managing the public lands, the Secretary of
the Interior shall, be regulation or otherwise, take any action
necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the
lands, including the scenic values.
o Sec. 504(a)(4) Right-of-way boundaries shall be limited to
the ground where it has been determined (by BLM) that no
unnecessary damage will occur to the environment.
B-21
-------
3. Transportation Networks
a. Highway improvement and maintenance. Under Section
35 of the Mineral Leasing Act, states are eligible for grant money.
Part of the Section 35 money could be used for public roads in the im-
pacted areas, possibly for use to construct grade separations at rail-
road crossings and improve and maintain impacted roads in the area.
Distribution of Section 35 money is determined by the state legislature.
b. Construction and abandonment of railroad. The Inter-
state Commerce Act (49 Stat. 543, 49 USC 1(18)) requires prior approval
by the Interstate Commerce Commission for extension or new construction
of a line of railroad or for abandonment of a line of railroad. Spur,
industrial team, switching, or side tracks located wholly within one
state are exempted from this authority.
c. Right-of-ways on public land. The Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides laws to be followed for
right-of-ways across public lands. Right-of-ways included are roads,
railroads, transmission lines, and pipelines. These laws will govern
the location and construction of right-of-ways on public land.
4. Social Environment
Under provisions of Section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act,
the Secretary of the Treasury is required to return 37.5% of all
rentals, royalties, and bonuses received from leases issued under the
Act to the states in which leases are located; however, these returns
may only be used for roads and schools.
The same section of the Act commits the Secretary of the
Treasury to return an additional 12.5% of rents, royalties, and bonuses
to the states, where these returns may be used for planning, construc-
tion, and maintenance of public facilities, and provision of public ser-
vices. The state legislature, in its apportionment of the 12.5% return,
is directed by the Act to give priority "to those subdivisions of the
State socially or economically impacted by development of minerals
leased under this Act."
III. STATE AND LOCAL LAWS
State laws are important in many subject areas of coal development
and are generally complementary with those of the federal government.
This is true, for example, in the areas of air quality and water
quality. State standards are allowed to be stricter than those provided
for in federal law, but may be no less strict than the federal standards.
B-22
-------
It is important to understand the constitutional structure within
which the federal government and the states are allowed to legislate for
the conduct of activities on the public domain. When the territories of
the west became states, the public domain lands within them continued to
be owned by the federal government. Because the enabling acts under
which these territories became states did not retain federal jurisdic-
tion over these lands, a certain degree of governmental control effec-
tively was ceded to the states. However, the Property Clause of the
Constitution does provide for a measure of federal power over these
lands:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all need-
ful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims
of the United States, or of any particular State.*
This clause gives Congress authority to pass laws for the protec-
tion, management, and disposition of federal lands and resources within
the states."1" Combined with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
which provides that federal law "shall be the supreme law of the
land," the property clause gives the federal government authority to
legislate its proprietary interests. The states have power to legislate
as to these public lands and resources so long as the state legislation
is not inconsistent with the scheme of the Congress for the property.
The state power to legislate generally is found in the Tenth Amendment
of the Constitution, which grants to the states all powers not delegated
to the federal government or to its citizens. These are the traditional
police powers encompassing the health, peace, morals, education, and
good order of the people. This category includes the power to implement
and enforce land use controls such as zoning and environmental protec-
tion measures. Whether state legislation is permitted by the courts to
stand turns on the question of whether Congress has acted on the matter
so as to effectively preempt any state action or, alternatively, whether
Congress has expressly or implicitly left room for the states to legis-
late.
There is room for accommodation of federal and state interests. As
in the previously mentioned air and water quality areas, and more re-
cently in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (P.L.
95-87, 91 Stat. 445, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 (1977)), states are encouraged
*U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
+Shapiro, Michael E., "Energy Development on the Public Domain:
Federal/State Cooperation and conflict Regarding Environmental Land
use Control," Natural Resources Lawyer, vol. 9, no. 3, 1976, p. 413.
**.
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
B-23
-------
to develop and implement their own programs, so long as those programs
meet federal standards.
Structurally, substate units of government such as counties and
cities act through powers delegated to them by the state government.
They cannot have more power than the state government, and they cannot
exercise powers greater than those delegated to them by the state. An
interesting example of the developing role of county government in the
western energy situation is found in Rio Blanco County in northwestern
Colorado. The county has passed an "Impact Regulation," or ordinance,
for the purpose of regulating the use of land on the basis of
the impact thereof on the county ... in order to protect and
promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, pros-
perity and general welfare of the present and future inhabi-
tants of Rio Blanco County.*
The Ordinance requires that an "impact analysis statement" be filed for
proposed projects that would have significant impact on the "services,
activities, or matters" of the county or its incorporated municipali-
ties. The ordinance is comprehensive, as indicated by its definition of
"services, activities, (and) matters":
o Schools
o Law enforcement
o Fire protection
o Road . . . construction and maintenance
o Public recreation areas and facilities
o Social Services
o Sewerage and sanitation
o Water supply
o Hospitals
o Storm drainge
o Welfare
o Air quality
o Water quality
''Rio Blanco County Ordinance, Section 1003.
B-24
-------
o Soils and geology
o Vegetation
o Noise
o Wildlife
o Housing
o Utility Service
o Parking
o Traffic
o Historical, prehistorical, and archeological resources
o Flooding
o Odor
o Light and glare
o Area property values
o Other matters as provided for in Colorado law.
If the County Planning Commission finds that the project will signifi-
cantly and adversely affect these services, activities, and matters,
"... the county shall not proceed with the required approvals"*
(i.e., the granting of variances, conditional use permits, building
permits, sewage disposal system permits, subdivision approvals, etc.).
Rio Blanco County has exercised its police powers with regard to oil
shale development in the county."1" The oil shale lessees, although
initially reluctant, honored county ordinances and entered into
negotiations with county officials.
The Department of the Interior is sensitive to the issue of state
and local government involvement in the coal leasing process. Its
Energy Mineral Activity Recommendation System (currently being revised)
contains the following language:
*Rio Blanco County Ordinance, Section 1008.3 (2).
+White, M. D. and H. J. Barry III, "Energy Development in the West:
Conflict and Coordination of Governmental Decision-Making," North
Dakota Law Review, Vol. 52, pp. 451-507 (Spring 1976).
B-25
-------
With a growing concern for statewide, county and municipal
impacts resulting from a Federal coal program, and with a need
to integrate all available geologic and environmental data into
the BLM planning system, close coordination with appropriate
Federal, State, county and municipal agencies will be main-
tained. . . . Local government working relationships with the
Bureau concerning proposed coal leasing will be initiated at
the District Office level. . . . The establishment of working
relationships and formal agreements between Federal, state, and
local Governmental units regarding resource data collection,
assimilation, and analysis and environmental safeguards is an
important part of ... (the Energy Mineral Activity Recommen-
dation System).*
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579, 90
Stat. 2743, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701-1771 (1976)) provides that 50% of the
money from sales, bonuses and royalties and rentals (leases) of the
public lands will be paid to the state within which the leased lands or
deposits are located (Section 317 (a)). The money is to be used by the
state and its subdivisions, as the state legislature may direct, giving
priority to those subdivisions socially or economically impacted by min-
eral development for planning, construction, and maintenance of pub-
lic facilities and provision of public services. The same law author-
izes the Secretary of the Interior to make low-interest loans to states
and their political subdivisions in order to relieve social or economic
impacts occasioned by mineral development (Section 317 (c)(D). How-
ever, there may be problems at the state level in entering into such
loan arrangements when a state constitutional provision limits the
amount or purpose of indebtedness. There is also the potential for dis-
harmony between state governments and their political subdivisions when
it comes to disbursing royalty monies or loan monies by the state.
^
Press release of then-Secretary Kleppe, January 26, 1976,
B-26
-------
APPENDIX C
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Medical Association, "Distribution of Physicians in the U.S.,
1971."
American Mining Congress, "Interview with Walter N. Heine, Director,
Office of Surface Minging," Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 64, No. 3
(March 1978).
Bailey, P- G., "Ecoregions of the United States," USDA Forest Service,
Ogden, Utah (1976).
Barry, H. J., "Extent of State Control Over Reclamation on Federal
Land," Western Governors' Regional Energy Policy Office Denver,
Colorado (March 1976).
Battelle Memorial Institute, "Environmental Evaluation system for Water
Resource Planning," Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (31
January 1972).
Bickert, C. Von E., The Residents of Sweetwater County, Wyoming; A
Needs Assessment Survey, Bickert, Browne, Coddington & Associates,
Inc., Denver, Colorado (Octboer 1974).
Brimmer, C. A., Jr., "Wyoming Environmental Quality Act," Natural
Resources Lawyer, Vol. 7, (Winter 1974).
Bronder, L. D., et al., Financial Strategies for Alleviation of
Socioeconomic Impacts in Seven Western States, Western Governor's
Regional Energy Policy Office, Denver, Colorado (May 1977).
, Severance Tax Comparisons Among WGREPO States, Western
Governors' Regional Energy Policy Office, Denver, Colorado (June
1977).
, Taxation of Coal Mining: Review with Recommendations,
Western Governors' regional energy policy office, Denver, Colorado
(January 1976).
Carlson, S., "No Trespassing: Private Surface/Federal Coal," Coal Age,
pp. 166-173 (May 1978).
City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, organization chart (May 1978)
C-l
-------
Comptroller General of the United States, "Role of Federal Coal Resources
in Meeting National Energy Goals Needs to be Determined and the
Leasing Process Improved," Report No. RED-76-79, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C. (1 April 1976).
Dempsey, S., "Mine Planning to Meet Environmental Requirements," Rocky
Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 21, pp. 59-91 (1975).
Dickson, E. M., et al., "Synthetic Liquid Fuel Development: Assessment
of Critical Factors," U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, ERDA 76-129/1, 76-129/2 (1976), and 76-129/3 (1977).
Doran, R. K., M. K. Duff, and J. S. Gilmore, "Socioeconomic Impacts of
the Proposed Burlington Northern and Chicago North Western Rail
Line in Campbell-Converse Counties, Wyoming," University of Denver
Research Institute (May 1974).
Dunlap, L. C., "An Analysis of the Legislative History of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1975," Rocky Mountain Mineral
Law Institute, Vol.21, pp. 11-58 (1975).
"Effects of Coal Development in the Northern Great Plains," prepared by
the Northern Great Plains Resources Program, Denver, Colorado
(April 1975).
Federal Energy Administration, "A Report on the Regional Profile of
Energy Impacted Communities," Socioeconomic Program Data Collection
Office (July 1977).
Socioeconomic Impacts and Federal Assistance in Energy
Development impacted communities Region VIII (May 1976).
Ferguson, F. E., Jr., "Severed Surface and Mineral EstatesRight to Use,
Damage or Destroy the Surface to Recover Minerals," Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 19, pp. 411-435 (1973).
Flour, Utah, Inc., "Economics of Large-Scale Surface Mining Using
Simulation Models," Final Report, Volumes 1 and 2, Energy Research
and Development Administration (1977).
Friedman, F.B. , "The Operational Impact of NEPA and Related Environ-
mental Laws, Regulations, and Orders on Mineral Oprations," Rocky
Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 19, pp. 47-79 (1973).
Gilmore, J. S., "Boomtowns May Hinder Energy Resource Development,"
Science, Vol. 191, pp. 535-450 (February 1976).
Gwynn, T. A., "Mined Land Reclamation in Montana," Natural Resources
Lawyer, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 27-32 (Winter 1974).
Haggard, J. L., "Regulation of Mining Law Activities on Federal Lands,"
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 21, pp. 349-391 (1975).
C-2
-------
Hambleton, J., "Determinants of Geographic Differences in the Supply of
Physician Services," doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin
(1971).
Hansen, R. p., "Mining and Environmental Quality," Land and Water Law
Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 147-159 (1970).
Haughey, J. M. and J. L. Gallinger, "Legislative Protection of the
Surface Owner in the Surface Mining of Coal Reserved by the United
States," Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol 22, pp. 145-202
(1976).
Horton, J. 0., "The Energy Policy Game The Odds on Independence,"
Natural Resources Lawyer, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp 49-58 (1976).
Horton, R. E., "Erosional Development of Streams and Their Drainage
Basins," Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 56, pp.
275-370 (1945).
Hustace, C,, "The New Federal Coal Leasing System," Natural Resources
Lawyer, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 323-365.
Imes, A. C., and M. K. Wali, "An Ecological-Legal Assessment of Mined
Land Reclamation Laws," North Dakota Law Review.
Jobin, Daniel, Program Director, Conservation Department, United States
Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, Personnel Communication.
Just, E., "The United States Mineral Position in 1985," Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 21, pp. 1-9 (1975).
Karell, A., "Montana's Statutory Protection of Surface Owners from Strip
Mining and Resultant Problems of Mineral Deed Construction,"
Montana Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 347-370 (Summer 1976).
Keiner, S. E., "NEPA Requirements for Coal Development," Natural
Resources Lawyer, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 491-494 (1976).
Kidd, D. T., "The Effect of Zoning and Land-Use Control on Mineral Opera-
tions," Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 19, pp. 277-329
(1973).
Knoblock, K. R., "Miners Experience of Year of Uncertainty and Termoil,"
Mining Congress Journal, Vol. 64, No. 2 (February 1978).
Lamm, R. D., "States Rights vs. National Energy Needs," Natural
Resources Lawyer, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 41-47 (1976).
Landstrom, K. S., "State and Local Governmental Regulation of Private
Land Using Activities on Federal Lands," Natural Resources Lawyer,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 77-85 (Winter 1974).
C-3
-------
Leisenring, E. B., Jr., "Western Coal The Sleeping Giant," Rocky Moun-
tain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 19, p. 1 (1973).
Leistritz, F. L. and S. W. Voelker, "Coal Resource Ownership: Patterns,
Problems, and Suggested Solutions," Natural Resources Journal, Vol.
15, pp. 643-662 (October 1975).
Leopold, L. B., et al., "A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental
Impact," U. S. Geological Survey Circular 645 (1971).
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller, "Fluvial Processes in
Geomorphology," W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California,
p. 522 (1968).
Leshy, J. D., "Non-NEPA Legal Aspects of Federal Coal Leasing and
Development Policy: An Environmental Attorney's Analysis," Natural
Resources Lawyer, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 495-502 (1976).
Luken, R. A., "Economic and Social Impacts of Coal Development in the
1970s for Mercer County, North Dakota, Thomas E. Carroll Associates
for the Old West Regional Commission, Washington, D. C. (October
1974).
Mann, P. H. , "Descriptive Comparison of Rural and Urban Communities," in
Gutman and Poponoe (Eds.), An Integrated Reader in Urban Sociology,
pp. 38-53, Random House, New York, New York (1970).
McGinnies, W. G., B. J. Goldman, and P. Paylore (Eds.), Deserts of the
World, The University of Arizona Press, p. 330 (1968).
Miller, T. K. and L. J. Onesti, "Multivariate Empirical Test of the
Leopold and Miller Stream Order Hydraulic Geometry Hypothesis,"
Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 85-88 (January
1977)7
Mining and Reclamation Council of America, Landmarc, Vol. 1, No. 1 (June
1978).
Mink, P-, "Energy and Environment: Which is Undermining Which?" Natural
Resources Lawyer, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 29-34 (1976).
Moffatt County, Colorado, School District, building enrollments over a
six-year period (1971-1977).
, Information Sheet (April 1978).
, Moffatt County School Enrollment (24 May 1978).
Moran, R. L., "Chaning Concepts Relative to Land Use Controls and the
Mineral Extractive Industries," Natural Resources Lawyer, Vol. 7,
No. 1, pp. 1-19 (Winter 1974).
C-4
-------
Mortensen, R. W., "Coal Severance Taxation in the United States," Utah
Economics and Business Review, Vol. 37 (January 1977).
Mountain West Research, In., "Construction Worker Profile: Final
Report," for the Old West Regional Commission (December 1975).
Nehring, R., et al., "Coal Development and Government Regulation in the
Northern Great Plains: A Preliminary Report," Report No.
R-1981-NSF/RC, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, California (August 1976).
Overton, J. A., Jr., "Governmentally Imposed Limitations on Mining in
the United States," Natural Resources Lawyer, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.
541-547 (1976).
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, "Factors Affecting Sediment
Yield and Measures for the Reduction of Erosion and Sediment
Yield," Report of the Water Management Subcommitte, p. 23 (October
1968).
Packer, P. E., "Rehabilitation Potentials and Limitations of Surface-
Mined Land in the Northern Great Plains," NEPA Forest Service
General Tech. Report INT-14, 44 pp. plus 3 maps (1974).
Parcel, R. L., "Federal, State and Local Regulation of Mining
Exploration," Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 22, pp.
405-534 (1976).
Parker, R., and T. Tuxell, "The attitudes of Physicians Toward Small
Community Practice," Journal of Medical Education, Vol. 42, pp.
327-344 (April 1967).
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., "Wyoming Air Quality Maintenance
Area Analysis," Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA
908/1-76-008 (May 1976).
Plummer, J. L., "The Federal Role in Rocky Mountain Energy Development."
Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 241-260 (April 1977),
Recent Supreme Court Decisions Which Undercut State Control Over Land,
Air, and Water Within State Borders, Western Governor's Regional
Energy Policy Office, Denver, Colorado (July 1976).
Rimlinger, G. and H. Steele, "An Economic Interpretation of the Spatial
Distribution of Physicians in the U.S.," Southern Economic Journal,
Vol. 30, pp. 1-12 (July 1963).
Roberts, S. D. and A. W. Stone, "Recent Developments in Montana Natural
Resources Law," Montana Law Review, Vol. 38, pp. 169-180 (1977)
Schneider, R. and J. S. Gilmore, Report of the Denver Workshop on State-
Local-Federal Relationships in Socioeconomic Impact Assessment,
sponsored by U.S. Geological Survey (December 1976).
C-5
-------
Shapiro, Michael E., "Energy Development on the Public Domain: Federal/
State Cooperation and Conflict Regarding Environmental Land Use
Control," Natural Resources Lawyer, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 397-439
(1976).
Sherican, D., "Hard Rock Mining on the Public Land," Council on
Environmental Quality, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C. (1977).
Sloan, F., "Economic Models of Physician Supply," Doctoral dissertation
Howard University (1968).
Sparrow, R. D., and H. W. Wight, "Setting Priorities for the Endangered
Species Program," in Endangered Species Oversight, Hearings Before
the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the
Environment's Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of
Representatives, 94th Congress, Serial No. 94-17, pp. 263-278 (1976).
Stauffer, R. F., et al, "Annual Review of Significant Activities
1976," Natural Resources Lawyer, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 16-21 (1976).
Stewart, R. E., 1978. Land Suitability/Unsuitability Criteria in the
Department of Interior's Coal Leasing Program. Paper presented at
the Symposium on Surface Mining and Fish and Wildlife Needs in the
Eastern United States, December 3-6, 1978, Morgan, West Virginia.
Strauss, P. L., "A Study of Interior Department Procedures," Utah Law
Review, Vol. 1, p. 185 (1974).
Stroud, G. R., "Acquisition of Coal Rights It's Different," Rocky
Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 21, pp. 587-615.
Stocker, J. M., Jr., "Protection for Surface Owners of Federally Reserved
Mineral Lands," UCLA-Alaska Law Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 171-188
(Spring 1973).
Taylor, J., "Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act Should Increase
Production and Public Benefits from Coal Leasing on Federal Land,"
Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 1033-1037 (October 1-76).
"Taxation of Surfce and Underground Coal Mining in Western States,"
Western Governor's Regional Energy Policy Office, Denver, Colorado
(August 1976).
U. S. Department of Commerce, "A Socioeconomic Profile of the Upper
Missouri River Region," Washington, D. C. (February 1972).
, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local Area Personal Income,
1970-1975, Vol. 8; Rocky Mountain Region (July 1977).
, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Local Area Personal Income
Series, Washington, D. C.
C-6
-------
, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, Volume 1,
Characteristics of the Population, Part 7, Table 6, Washington,
D.C., (1970).
, Special Census Official Population County for Delta,
Garfield, Mera, Moffat, Rio Blanco and Routt Counties, Colorado
(1975).
U. S. Department of the Interior, "A Discussion of Problems and Future
Development in Three Communities Affected by Energy Development in
the West: Supporting Documentation," prepared by Office of
Minerals Policy Development, Washington, D. C. (September 1975).
, "Final Environmental Statement: Northwest Colorado Coal,"
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. (1976).
U. S. Department of the Interior, "Ranking of Wildlife on Federal Coal
Lands," Volumes 1-5, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reports
FWS/OB5-78/49, FWS/OB5-78/50, FWS/OB5-78/51, FWS/OB5-78/52, and
FWS/OB5-78/52 (1977).
U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration, "A Socioeconomic
Assessment of Energy Development in a Small Rural County: Coal
Gasification in Mercer County, North Dakota, Vol. 1, Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (August 1976).
U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration, "Factors
Influencing an Area's Ability to Abosrb a Large-Scale Commercial
Coal-Processing Complex A Case Study of the Fort Union Lignite
Region," FE-1526-2 (June 1975).
Vories, K. C. and P. L. Sims, The Plant Information Network, Volumes 1-4,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reports FWS/OB5-77/38,
FWS/OB5-77/39, FWS/OB5-77/40, FWS/OB5-77/41 (1977).
Whitek, M. D. and H. J. Barry, III, "Energy Development in the West:
Conflict and Coordination of Governmental Decision-Making," North
Dakota law Review, Vol. 52, pp. 451-528 (Spring 1976).
Woodruff, W. P., and F. H. Siddoway, "A Wind Erosion Education," Soil
Science of America Proceedings, Vol. 29, pp. 602-608 (1965).
Wright-McLaughn Engineers, "Wastewater Treatment System for the City of
Steamboat Springs."
Wyoming Department of Economic Planning and Development, Coal and Uranium
Development of the Powder River Basin An Impact Analysis,"
Cheyenne, Wyoming (June 1974).
C-7
-------
Yelt, D. and F. Sloan, "Analysis of Migration Patterns of Recent Medical
School Graduates," paper presented at the Health Services Research
Conference on Factors in Health Manpower Performance and the
Delivery of Health Care, Chicago, Illinois (9 December 1971).
Young, M. 0., "Conflicting Governmental Regulations and Policies
Affecting Coal Development," Natural Resources Lawyer, Vol. 9, No.
3., pp. 503-409 (1976).
C-8
------- |