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 Estates—Right 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

-------