This is a text-only version of the document "OSM Leaked Proposed Stream Rule Changes - Ch 3.2-4 - 2011". To see the original version of the document click here.

---

1 2

CHAPTER 3  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT......................................................................... 3-1  Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3-1  3.0  3.1  Mineral Resources and Mining ............................................................................ 3-1  3.2  Geology and Seismicity ....................................................................................... 3-2  3.2.1Appalachian Basin Region ........................................................................... 3-3  3.2.1.1  Depositional Setting ........................................................... 3-3  3.2.1.2  Region Seismicity ............................................................ 3-11  3.3.2Colorado Plateau Region ........................................................................... 3-11  3.2.1.3  Depositional Setting ......................................................... 3-12  Region Seismicity ............................................................ 3-14  3.2.1.4  3.3.3Gulf Coast Region...................................................................................... 3-15  3.2.1.5  Depositional Setting ......................................................... 3-16  3.2.1.6  Region Seismicity ............................................................ 3-20  3.2.2Illinois Basin Region.................................................................................. 3-21  Depositional Setting ......................................................... 3-22  3.2.2.1  3.2.2.2  Region Geology................................................................ 3-22  3.2.2.3  Region Seismicity ............................................................ 3-22  3.2.3Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region................................ 3-23  3.2.3.1  Powder River Basin Geology ........................................... 3-24  Region Seismicity ............................................................ 3-98  3.2.3.2  3.2.4Northwest Region ...................................................................................... 3-99  Alaska Depositional Setting ........................................... 3-101  3.2.4.1  3.2.4.2  Region Seismicity .......................................................... 3-103  3.2.5Other Western Interior Region................................................................. 3-105  3.2.5.1  Region Depositional History .......................................... 3-106  3.2.5.2  Arkoma Basin Geology .................................................. 3-107  3.2.5.3  Cherokee Basin Geology ................................................ 3-107  Forest City Basin Geology ............................................. 3-107  3.2.5.4  3.2.5.5  Region Seismicity .......................................................... 3-108  3.3  Soils.................................................................................................................. 3-109  3.3.0Introduction .............................................................................................. 3-109  3.3.1Appalachian Basin ................................................................................... 3-111  3.3.1.1  Productivity and Reclamation Potential ......................... 3-113  3.3.2Colorado Plateau ...................................................................................... 3-114  3.3.2.1  Productivity and Reclamation Potential ......................... 3-116 
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES i

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

3.4 

3.3.3Gulf Region .............................................................................................. 3-117  3.3.3.1  Productivity and Reclamation Potential ......................... 3-118  3.3.4Illinois Basin ............................................................................................ 3-118  Productivity and Reclamation Potential ......................... 3-120  3.3.4.1  3.3.5Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains .......................................... 3-120  3.3.5.1  Productivity and Reclamation Potential ......................... 3-122  3.3.6Northwest Coal Region ............................................................................ 3-122  3.3.6.1  Productivity and Reclamation Potential ......................... 3-124  3.3.7Other Western Interior ............................................................................. 3-124  3.3.7.1  Productivity and Reclamation Potential ......................... 3-126  Geomorphology and Fluvial Processes............................................................ 3-126  3.4.0Stream Characteristics ............................................................................. 3-126  3.4.0.1  Length (Perennial, Intermittent and Ephemeral) ............ 3-126  Stream Definition ........................................................... 3-129  3.4.0.2  3.4.0.3  Bioassessment Methodologies ....................................... 3-136  3.4.0.4  Stream Restoration ......................................................... 3-138  Regulatory Environment ................................................ 3-153  3.4.0.5  3.4.1Appalachian Basin ................................................................................... 3-158  3.4.1.1  West Virginia ................................................................. 3-158  3.4.1.2  Kentucky ........................................................................ 3-158  3.4.1.3  Southern Appalachia ...................................................... 3-159  Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships ................. 3-162  3.4.1.4  3.4.2Colorado Plateau ...................................................................................... 3-164  3.4.2.1  Colorado ......................................................................... 3-164  3.4.2.2  New Mexico ................................................................... 3-165  3.4.2.3  Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships ................. 3-167  3.4.3Gulf Coast ................................................................................................ 3-168  3.4.3.1  Alabama ......................................................................... 3-168  Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships ................. 3-168  3.4.3.2  3.4.4Illinois Basin ............................................................................................ 3-169  3.4.5Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains .......................................... 3-169  3.4.5.1  Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships ................. 3-169  3.4.6Northwest ................................................................................................. 3-170  Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships ................. 3-170  3.4.6.1  3.4.7Other Western Interior ............................................................................. 3-171  3.4.7.1  Oklahoma ....................................................................... 3-171  3.4.7.2  Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships ................. 3-171 

TABLE OF TABLES 
Table 3.3-1  Dominant Soil Associations of the Appalachian Basin Coal Region .............. 3-112 
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ii

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Table 3.3-2  Table 3.3-3 

Dominant Soil Associations of the Colorado Plateau Coal Region ................ 3-115  Dominant Soil Associations of the Illinois Basin Region ................................ 3-119 

Table 3.3-4  Dominant Soil Associations of the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Coal Region 3-122  Table 3.3-5  Table 3.3-6  Table 3.4-1  (1964). Dominant Soil Associations of the Northwest Coal Region............................. 3-123  Dominant Soil Associations of Other Western Interior Coal Regions ............ 3-125  Number and Length of Streams in the United States. Adapted from Leopold et al. 3-127 

Table 3.4-2  Summary of NHD Intermittent and Perennial Stream Lengths for the Coal Resource Regions. .................................................................................................................... 3-127  Table 3.4-3  Table 3.4-4  Table 3.4-5  Table 3.4-6  Table 3.4-7  Table 3.4-8  Table 3.4-9  Ephemeral Stream Definitions from the Scientific Literature ......................... 3-133  Intermittent Stream Definitions from the Scientific Literature ........................ 3-134  Perennial Stream Definitions from the Scientific Literature ........................... 3-135  Potential Metrics for Stream Consideration .................................................... 3-137  Categorization Approaches to Natural Channel Design. ................................ 3-139  Characteristics of Threshold and Alluvial Streams. ........................................ 3-139  Characteristics of Alluvial Stream Design. ..................................................... 3-141 

Table 3.4-10  General Stream Type Classification Guidelines for the Eastern Coal Field Region of Kentucky. 3-159  Channel Lengths for the Middle Fork Kentucky River Watershed and Table 3.4-11  Select Subwatersheds. Values rounded to the nearest 1,000s. ............................................... 3-160  Channel Percentages for the Middle Fork Kentucky River Watershed and Table 3.4-12  Select Subwatersheds. Values rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. .............................. 3-160  Table 3.4-13  Table 3.4-14  Regional Curves Developed in the Appalachian Basin ....................... 3-162  Characteristics of Ephemeral Dryland Streams. ................................. 3-164 

Table 3.4-15  Relationship between Drainage Area and Stream Order for Ephemeral Streams in a New Mexico Watershed. Created using data from Leopold and Maddock (1956). . 3165 

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

iii

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Table 3.4-16  Relationship between Stream Length and Stream Order for Ephemeral Streams in a New Mexico Watershed. Created using data from Leopold and Maddock (1956). . 3166  Relationship between Number of Streams and Stream Order for Table 3.4-17  Ephemeral Streams in a New Mexico Watershed. Created using data from Leopold and Maddock (1956). 3-167  Table 3.4-18  Table 3.4-19  Regional Curves Developed in the Colorado Plateau ......................... 3-167  Regional Curves Developed in the Gulf Coast .................................... 3-168 

Regional Curves Developed in the Illinois Basin Regional Hydraulic Table 3.4-20  Geometry Relationships ........................................................................................................... 3-169  Table 3.4-21  Plains Table 3.4-22  Table 3.4-23  Regional Curves Developed in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great 3-170  Regional Curves Developed in the Northwest ..................................... 3-170  Regional Curves Developed in the Other Western Interior ................. 3-171 

TABLE OF FIGURES 
Figure 3.2-1  Seven Major Coal Resource Regions of the United States .................................. 3-2  Figure 3.2-2  2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map ......................................................... 3-3  Figure 3.2-3  Appalachian Basin Region ................................................................................... 3-4  Figure 3.2-4  Appalachian Basin Region Seismic Hazard Map .............................................. 3-12  Figure 3.2-5  Colorado Plateau Region .................................................................................. 3-13  Figure 3.2-6  Colorado Plateau Region Seismic Hazard Map ............................................... 3-15  Figure 3.2-7  Gulf Coast Region .............................................................................................. 3-16  Figure 3.2-8  Gulf Coast Region Seismic Hazard Map ........................................................... 3-20  Figure 3.2-9  Illinois Basin Region .......................................................................................... 3-21  Figure 3.2-10  Figure 3.2-11  Figure 3.2-12  Illinois Basin Region Seismic Hazard Map ........................................... 3-23  Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region ........................... 3-24  Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region Seismic Hazard Map 3-99 
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

iv

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 3.2-13  Figure 3.2-14  Figure 3.2-15  Figure 3.2-16  Figure 3.2-17 

Alaskan Coal Bearing Areas ................................................................ 3-100  Washington and Oregon Coal Bearing Areas ..................................... 3-101  Alaska Seismic Hazard Map ................................................................ 3-104  Washington and Oregon Seismic Hazard Map .................................... 3-105  Other Western Interior Region ............................................................ 3-106 

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

v

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Chapter 3 Affected Environment
3.0 3.1 INTRODUCTION MINERAL RESOURCES AND MINING

3

4

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-1

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.2

GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY

These sections include descriptions of the geological and seismic characteristics of each of the coal regions as outlined in this study. For the purpose of discussion, the seven (7) coal regions are subdivided into coal fields, states and/or physiographic provinces. Physiographic provinces are a way of grouping similar landforms. The definition of a physiographic province is a geographic region in which climate and geology have produced land forms that are notably different from the surrounding areas. Some of the coal regions encompass large areas requiring some geological descriptions to be generalized (see Figure 3.2-1). Figure 3.2-1 Seven Major Coal Resource Regions of the United States

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 The United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps are the basis for the region seismicity discussions as found in this section of the study. These hazard maps show levels of horizontal vibration (or “ground acceleration” as it is referred to in the USGS literature) due to earthquakes being expressed as a percentage of “g”. “g” is the acceleration of a falling object due to gravity. The colors on the national map show the levels of horizontal shaking that have a 2-in-100 chance being exceeded in a 50 year period (see Figure 3.3-2). Building codes, insurance rate structures, land-use planning, earthquake loss studies, retrofit priorities, etc. are based on these USGS calculated seismic hazards. More detailed For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-2

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3

individual coal region seismic hazard maps are presented within each regional seismicity narrative. Figure 3.2-2 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

3.2.1 Appalachian Basin Region
The Appalachian Mountains form a wide belt (exposed width between 93 and 373 miles) that trends from northeast to southwest and are divided into four (4) physiographic provinces. They are the Piedmont, the Blue Ridge, the Valley and Ridge, and the Appalachian Plateau. 3.2.1.1 Depositional Setting The Appalachian Basin Region encompasses the coal-bearing areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Georgia, West Virginia, Virginia, eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama (see Figure 3.2-3). The last major orogeny (or mountain building event) of the Appalachian Mountains culminated in the Pennsylvanian age. During this time, thrusting, folding, metamorphism and intrusion from continental plate collisions formed the Appalachian For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-3

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4

Mountains and caused subsidence west of the mountains. This elongated basin to the west subsequently was filled with a large volume of sediments from Pennsylvania southward to Alabama. This study will focus on this area. Figure 3.2-3 Appalachian Basin Region

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 3.2.1.1.1 West Virginia Geology

West Virginia is basically composed of two areas: the western two-thirds of relatively flat-lying rocks containing minable coal, and the eastern one-third comprised of folded and faulted rocks with no minable coal. The former area is the Appalachian Plateau Province, the latter is the Valley and Ridge Province and they are separated by the Allegheny Front. The Valley and Ridge Province in the east is composed of folded and faulted rocks that range in age from late Precambrian to early Mississippian. This relatively flat area is composed of complexly folded and faulted Cambrian and Ordovician limestone and dolomite with one prominent Ordovician shale (the Martinsburg Shale). The Great Valley ends at North Mountain and from here to the Allegheny Front, a distance of about 50 miles, are a series of northeasttrending mountains and valleys. The rocks in this part of the Valley and Ridge range in age from late Ordovician to early Mississippian. The valleys are primarily composed of less-resistant shale and siltstone, while the mountain ridges are mainly resistant sandstone and limestone. The For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-4

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

structural geology of the Valley and Ridge is complex with extensive thrust faults and folds that contribute to the repetition of all the rock formations. In addition, three major thrust sheets have displaced the surface and subsurface rocks westward in the order of 30 to 50 miles. The Appalachian Plateau Province covers the western two-thirds of the State where the rock formations are relatively flat, except for several distinct folds and faults on the eastern side of the Province. The oldest rocks are located in these eastern fold sequences and range in age from late Ordovician up through the Mississippian. The majority of the Appalachian Plateau is comprised of Pennsylvanian and Permian strata and is where all the minable coal is located. The rocks exposed in the northern part of the Plateau are younger than those exposed in the southern part. This is also reflected in the age of the minable coal seams; younger to the north and older in the south. The boundary between the two provinces, the Allegheny Front, is a complex and rather abrupt change in the topography, stratigraphy, and structure. This boundary extends southwestward across the eastern part of the State, passes through Virginia, and reenters southeast West Virginia. Coal-bearing rocks underlay much of central West Virginia, extending into Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. One structural fold known as the Hinge Line separates the Dunkard and Pocahontas geologic subbasins of West Virginia. These subbasins are characterized by differences in the total thickness of their rocks, as well as by the orientation and distribution of their ancient swamps, lacustrine marine environments, and alluvial deposits (Arkle, 1974). The Dunkard and Pocahontas subbasins approximately coincide with the northern and southern coalfields (younger and older mining districts, respectively) of West Virginia. The various formations of sedimentary rocks exhibit local differences in strata north or south of the Hinge Line in response to different depositional environments. For example, the Allegheny and Conemaugh formations in the Dunkard subbasin represent a sequence of marine and coastal environments, including deltaic, offshore, and alluvial depositional conditions. In the Pocahontas subbasin, these formations predominantly include the alluvial facies of non-marine sandstone, shales, and channel deposits that generally include only limited coal seams. Due to steep topographic conditions, contour, area, mountaintop-removal, and multiple-seam mining operations historically have been the most common methods of surface mining in the state. 3.2.1.1.2 Kentucky Geology

Kentucky possesses two major coalfields at the eastern and western ends of the state, separated by a large area of older rocks exposed in a structure known as the Cincinnati Arch. Eastern coalbearing rocks underlay approximately 25 percent of the eastern part of the state and form a broad, shallow trough or synclinal basin (Kiesler, USGS 1983). Bedrock dips at 5° or less along the margins of the trough and is essentially flat-lying in the central portion of the trough (Kiesler, 1983). Upper Mississippian and Pennsylvanian coal-bearing rocks thicken towards the southeast, reaching their maximum thickness at the southeastern margins of the basin along a structure known as the Pine Mountain Thrust Fault zone. Coal units are disrupted and offset along this fault zone. Coal rank is generally medium- and high-volatile bituminous.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-5

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

The Pennsylvanian rocks of the eastern Kentucky coal field consist largely of sandstone, siltstone, and shale. Coal beds and thin marine shale and limestone units are also widespread and occur in most parts of the stratigraphic section. These deposits indicate that in Pennsylvanian time Kentucky was near sea level, alternately covered by lakes, extensive swamps, shallow bays, and estuaries. Eastern Kentucky coal bearing lithologic nomenclature (or rock naming) and correlation is not consistent with other Appalachian Basin states. For example, northwest of the Pine Mountain thrust fault on the Cumberland overthrust sheet, coal beds or coal zones equivalent to the Lower Elkhorn coal zone (within the Pikeville Formation) are identified also as the Eagle coal zone, Pond Creek coal zone, and Blue Gem coal bed. Southeast of the Pine Mountain thrust fault, still in eastern Kentucky, equivalent coals in this same interval are known as the Imboden and Rich Mountain. This same interval of coal is identified as the Blue Gem coal in Tennessee, the Imboden coal bed or Campbell Creek or Pond Creek coal zones in Virginia, and the Eagle coal zone in West Virginia (Ruppert, et al, 2010). It is not in this study’s scope to standardize nomenclature or attempt to correlate stratigraphy across the coal bearing region. For that reason, a generalized discussion of eastern Kentucky Pennsylvanian age stratigraphy and coal beds/zones are presented based from the works of Ruppert, et al, 2010, Krebs, et al., 2005, and Rice, 2001. In eastern Kentucky, coal bearing units are the Lower Pennsylvanian-aged lower Breathitt Group (including the Warren Point, Bottom Creek Formation, Sewanee Sandstone, Alvy Creek Formation, Bee Rock Sandstone, and Grundy Formation); the Middle Pennsylvanian-aged middle and upper parts of the Breathitt Group (including the Pikeville, Hyden, Four Corners, and Princess Formations) and the Upper Pennsylvanian aged Conemaugh Group and Monongahela Groups. In recent years, within the Breathitt Group, the Pikeville and Hyden Formations, (specifically the Upper Elkhorn No.3, the Lower Elkhorn (or Pond Creek), and the Hazard No. 4 (or Fire Clay) coal zones), have been prominent coal producers in eastern Kentucky. The geology of the coal bearing rocks in the western end of the state are associated with the Illinois Basin Region and will be discussed in Section 3.2.4. 3.2.1.1.3 Tennessee Geology

The Tennessee coalfields are in the east central portion of the state and trend northeast to southwest from Kentucky to the Alabama border. As with Kentucky, these coalfields form a broad, shallow trough or synclinal basin that is bounded to the west by a structure known as the Highland Rim escarpment and to the east by the Ridge and Valley Province. These coalfields are generally divided between the northern steep-slope areas of the Cumberland Mountains and the southern, flatter Cumberland Plateau, where area mining historically has dominated. Bedrock units primarily have a shallow southeasterly dip and thicken to the southeast near the basin’s trough adjacent to the Valley and Ridge Province (Gaydos, 1982). For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-6

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

The depositional setting and geology of the coal bearing area of eastern Tennessee similar to that of Kentucky, southeast of the Pine Mountain Thrust Fault. Notable geological differences are: 1) the absence of the Princess Formation, the Conemaugh Group and the Monongahela Group; and 2) differences in coal bed/coal zone nomenclature. In eastern Tennessee, coal bearing units are the Lower Pennsylvanian-aged lower Breathitt Group (including the Warren Point, Bottom Creek Formation, Sewanee Sandstone, Alvy Creek Formation, Bee Rock Sandstone, and Grundy Formation); and the Middle Pennsylvanian-aged Breathitt Group (including the Pikeville, Hyden, and Four Corners Formations). The reader is referred to the eastern Kentucky coal field discussion in Section 3.2.1.1.2 for details on geology and coal beds. 3.2.1.1.4 Virginia Geology

With the exception of a small region in south-central Virginia which is not mined, coal-bearing rocks are present only at the westernmost end of Virginia and are contiguous with the Kentucky and West Virginia coalfields. The Southwest Virginia Coalfield consists of relatively flat-lying rocks bounded on the northwestern and southeastern basin margins by the thrust-faulted and uplifted rock units (Rader, 1993 and Harlow, 1993). Along the northwestern coalfield margin is the Pine Mountain Thrust fault. The southeastern margin is bounded by a series of thrust faults. The Russel Fork fault divides the basin into two regions: (1) the relatively flat-lying rocks northeast of the fault and (2) the gently folded and faulted rocks located southwest of the fault that were moved as part of the Pine Mountain thrust sheet (Harlow, 1993). The rocks of both regions are nearly flat-lying and have an average northwesterly regional dip of 1.4 percent. The primary coal bearing formations in Virginia are, from oldest to youngest, the Pocahontas, Lee, Norton, Wise, and the Harlan Formations (Virginia Division of Geology and Mineral Resources). These geologic formations make up a stratigraphic interval that varies in thickness from 800 feet up to 5,150 feet. The coal beds are Pennsylvanian in age, are low- to high-volatile bituminous in rank, and generally very high quality (less than 1 percent sulfur, less than 10 percent ash, and high energy content). Although quality parameters vary locally, volatile matter generally increases from east to west and up section from older to younger coals beds – where it ranges from about 18 percent in the Pocahontas No. 3 coal bed to nearly 40 percent in coal beds in the upper part of the Wise Formation (Wilkes and others, 1992). Southwest Virginia Coalfield lithologic nomenclature (or rock naming) and correlation is not consistent with other Appalachian Basin states. Some coal beds such as the Splash Dam, Upper Banner and Lower Banner have been correlated very consistently within the Southwest Virginia Coalfield and have few local or secondary names. Conversely, the Imboden coal zone, an important historic and regional producer that extends beyond Virginia into Kentucky and West Virginia has more than 20 local and secondary names, in Virginia alone including Blue Crystal? Blue Gem, Burnwell, Campbell Creek, Freeburn, Lower Bolling, Lower Campbell Creek, Lower Elkhorn, Lower Marrowbone, Mason No. 2?, Mason No. 3?, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3., No. 2 Gas, For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-7

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Path Fork, Pond Creek, Upper Bolling, Upper St. Charles, Upper War Eagle, and Warfield (Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy). 3.2.1.1.5 Pennsylvania Geology

The two Pennsylvanian coal bearing areas can broadly be discussed as the Anthracite Region located in the east-northeastern part of the state, and the Bituminous Coal Region located in the western part of the state (see Figure 3.2-3). Additional discussion of Pennsylvania coal bearing subbasins is found in Section 3.2.1.1.1. Pennsylvania’s Anthracite Region is located in the eastern part of the state in the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Mountains. Common geology in the area is Pennsylvanianaged, consists of more weathered limestones and dolomites in the valleys and more weather resistant sandstones and congolomerates in the surrounding ridges. This has resulted in a series of parallel valleys and ridges from which the province is named. The complex folding and faulting in the province is responsible for the higher temperatures and pressures required to create anthracitic coal. The Anthracite Region consists of four (4) major coal fields that are situated in synclinal basins which are surrounded by sandstone ridges. The coal bearing units in the region are the Pottsville and Llewellyn Formations. The Pottsville Formation ranges in thickness from a maximum of approximately 1600 feet to less than 100 feet. The Pottsville Formation is subdivided into three members, from oldest to youngest, they are the Tumbling Run Member, the Schuylkill Member and the Sharp Mountain Member. The Tumbling Run and Schuylkill Members of the Formation are absent to the north. The formation contains up to fourteen (14) coal beds in some areas, but most are relatively discontinuous. The Lykens Valley Coal Numbers 4 through 7 are within the Tumbling Run Member; the Lykens Valley Coal Numbers 1 through 3 are within the Schuylkill Member; and the Scotty Steel and Little Buck Mountain Coals are within the Sharp Mountain Member of the Pottsville Formation. The Pottsville Formation in eastern Pennsylvania is entirely of a nonmarine depositional environment and is predominantly sandstone and congolomerate (Edmunds et al., 1999). The carbonate content of the rocks has largely not been determined. The Llewellyn Formation is reaches 3,500 feet in thickness. The Llewellyn Formation contains up to 40 mineable coals with the thickest and most persistent coal beds occurring in the lower part of the Llewellyn Formation, particularly the Mammoth Coal zone. The Mammoth Coal zone typically contains twenty (20) feet of coal, and thicknesses of forty (40) feet to sixty (60) feet are not unusual. The thickest coal beds tend to be situated in the trough of the syncline. The nomenclature and stratigraphy of the coal bearing rocks of the Llewellyn Formation not consistent throughout the state.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-8

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

The dominant lithology of the Llewellyn Formation is sandstone, including conglomerate units. The Llewellyn Formation in the north part of the state contains one known marine bed, the Mill Creek Limestone. Combined with the Cannal and Hillman Limestones, (both non-marine in origin) these units constitute an appreciable amount of calcareous material in the top approximately 850 feet of the Llewellyn Formation. The Pennsylvania Bituminous Coal Region is located in the western part of the state in the Appalachian Plateau Province (see Figure 3.2-3). Common geology in the area consists of relatively flat lying strata, largely absent of the complex faulting and intense folding that is found in the Anthracite Region. The absence of complex folding and intense faulting in the province is responsible for the lesser temperatures and pressures required to create bituminous coal. Coal bearing rocks of the Bituminous Coal Region include (from the oldest to youngest) the Pottsville, Allegheny, Conemaugh, Monongahela, and Dunkard Groups. The Pottsville Group is variable in thickness. For the most part, it is dominated by sandstone, and the coal beds are discontinuous. Because of the discontinuous nature of these coals, and the fact that they are often thin and split with numerous partings, mining has not been common historically in the Pottsville Group. The principal coal that is mined is the Mercer. The Pottsville Formation can range from twenty (20) feet to at least 250 feet in thickness. The Allegheny Group is one of two groups that contain the majority of economically mineable coals. The lower Allegheny extends from the base of the Brookville coal to the base of the Johnstown Limestone (or Upper Kittanning Coal where the limestone is absent). The upper Allegheny extends from the base of the Johnstown Limestone to the top of the Upper Freeport Coal. The thickness of the formation is between 270 and 330 feet in western Pennsylvania and is a repeating succession of coal, limestone, and clastic units. It ranges from claystone or underclay to coarse sandstone. The Allegheny Group contains six major coal zones with each zone existing as a single, more-or-less continuous sheet, as a group of closely related individual lenses, or as a multiple-bed complex. The major coal zones are, from oldest to youngest, the Clarion, Lower Kittanning, Middle Kittanning, Upper Kittanning, Lower Freeport and Upper Freeport. The Conemaugh Group contains two formations, the older Glenshaw Formation and the overlying Casselman Formation. The Glenshaw contains several widespread marine units, the most prominent of which include the Brush Creek, Pine Creek, Woods Run, and Ames. The Glenshaw is thickest in Somerset and southern Cambria Counties, where it reaches 400 to 420 feet and is thinnest near the Ohio border where it is about 280 ft thick. The mineable coals of the Glenshaw Formation, from oldest to youngest, typically are the Mahoning, Brush Creek, Lower and Upper Bakerstown. With the exception of the marine shales above the Ames limestone, the Casselman Formation is made up of exclusively fresh water sedimentary rocks. Coal beds are nearly absent or very thin in the west but increase in quantity eastward. The coal beds of the Casselman Formation, typically include from oldest to youngest, the Duquesne (or Federal Hill), the Barton (or Elk Lick), Wellersburg, Little Clarksburg (or Franklin), and the Little Pittsburgh. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-9

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

The Monongahela Group extends from the base of the Pittsburgh Coal to the base of the Waynesburg Coal. It is divided into the Pittsburgh and Uniontown Formations at the base of the Uniontown Coal and is about 270 to 400 feet, generally increasing in thickness from the western edge of the state to western Fayette County. The Monongahela Group is entirely nonmarine and dominated by limestones and dolomitic limestones, calcareous mudstones, shales, and thinbedded siltstones and laminites. The only sandstone of significant thickness within the formation lies directly above the Pittsburgh coal complex. The Pittsburgh Coal is continuous, covering thousands of square miles and is four (4) to ten (10) feet thick. The other major coals are the Redstone and Sewickley. The Dunkard Group is found only in the most southwestern corner of Pennsylvania in Greene and Washington Counties. It is made up of Waynesburg, Washington and Greene Formations (Berryhill et al., 1971). The Dunkard reaches a maximum thickness of about 1120 feet in Greene County and the upper surface is the modern day erosional surface. The lower boundary of the Dunkard Group is defined as the base of the Waynesburg coal, which is the only coal routinely mined in the Dunkard. The Dunkard is generally composed of fine-grained clastics which are frequently calcareous. Thick lacustrine limestones are especially prevalent in the Washington Formation. The only significant interval with sandstone is above the Waynesburg coal. 3.2.1.1.6 Maryland Geology

The coal bearing area of Maryland consists of the western most portion of the state (see Figure 3.2-3). The depositional setting and geology of the coal bearing area of western Maryland identical to that of the western Pennsylvanian Bituminous Coal Region. Not surprisingly the coal bearing rock formations are the same also. They include (from the oldest to youngest) the Pottsville, Allegheny, Conemaugh, Monongahela, and Dunkard Groups. For that reason the reader is referred to the western Pennsylvania Bituminous Coal Region discussion in Section 3.2.1.1.5, for details on geology and coal beds. 3.2.1.1.7 Ohio Geology

The coal bearing area of Ohio consists of approximately the eastern third of the state (see Figure 3.2-3). The depositional setting and geology of the coal bearing area of eastern Ohio is largely similar to that of the western Pennsylvanian Bituminous Coal Region. Not surprisingly the coal bearing rock formations are the same also. They include (from the oldest to youngest) the Pottsville, Allegheny, Conemaugh, Monongahela, and Dunkard Groups. The geology and prominent coal beds are largely the same. For that reason the reader is referred to the western Pennsylvania Bituminous Coal Region discussion in Section 3.2.1.1e, for details on geology and coal beds. Additional discussion of Ohio coal bearing subbasins is found in Section 3.2.1.1.1. Formation thicknesses differ somewhat from those found in western Pennsylvania, however. In eastern Ohio, thicknesses of the Pottsville Group range from 120 feet to approximately 470 feet. The thickness of the Allegheny Group ranges from 190 feet to approximately 260 feet. Thicknesses of the Conemaugh Group range from 350 feet to approximately 500 feet. The For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-10

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Monongahela Group thickness ranges from 200 feet to 500 feet. The Dunkard Group thickness is approximately 520 feet. 3.2.1.2 Region Seismicity As previously stated, the Appalachian Basin Region encompasses the coal-bearing areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Georgia, West Virginia, Virginia, eastern Kentucky, eastern Tennessee, and Alabama (see Figure 3.2-4). As shown in the region seismic hazard map (Figure 3.2-4), ground acceleration (i.e., vibration) is at a low of approximately 4% g in the western Pennsylvania, northern West Virginia and eastern Ohio area. The region high is approximately 20-30% g in eastern Tennessee and the northwestern corner of Georgia. The majority of the Appalachian Basin region lies within the 6-16% g range. For a relative reference, the USGS describes a 4% g vibration event as being “very light” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “moderate” with regard to how people perceive the shaking. The USGS describes a 30% g vibration event as being “moderate” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “very strong” with regard to how people perceive the shaking.

3.3.2 Colorado Plateau Region
The Colorado Plateau Region encompasses the coal bearing areas of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico (see Figure 3.2-5). The Colorado Plateau Region is subdivided into several coal fields including the Unita Region, Tongue Mesa Field, Canon City Field, Henry Mountains Field, Southwestern Utah Region, San Juan River Region, Pagosa Springs Field, Raton Mesa Region, Monero Field, Black Mesa Field,

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-11

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-4

Appalachian Basin Region Seismic Hazard Map

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Pinedale Field, Deer Creek Field, Datil Mountain Field, Rio Puerco Field, Tijeras Field, Una del Gato Field, Cerrillos Field, Jornada del Muerto Field, Carthage Field, Sierra Blanca Field, and the Engle Field. For the purpose of this study, discussion will focus on the Black Mesa Field, the San Juan Basin and the Uinta Region. 3.2.1.3 Depositional Setting Precambrian rocks, exposed only in the deepest canyons, make up the basement of the Colorado Plateau. These were uplifted, eroded, and exposed for eons. By 600 million years ago they had been eroded to a smooth surface. It is on this crystalline rock surface that the younger, layered rocks of the Colorado Plateau were deposited. Throughout the Paleozoic Era, the Colorado Plateau region was periodically inundated by tropical seas. Thick layers of limestone, sandstone, siltstone, and shale were laid down in the shallow marine waters. During times when the seas retreated, stream deposits and dune sands were deposited or older layers were removed by erosion. Over 300 million years passed as layer upon layer of sediment accumulated.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-12

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-5

Colorado Plateau Region

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 During the Mesozoic Era terrestrial sedimentary depositional environments were predominant. Great accumulations of cross-bedded sandstone and eruptions from volcanic mountain ranges to the west buried vast regions beneath ashy debris. Economically produced coals of the Colorado Plateau are entirely Cretaceous (i.e., late Mesozoic) in age. The coal originally accumulated in coastal-plain wetlands located adjacent to ancient shorelines of a seaway that covered middle North America for much of the Cretaceous Period. A record of these ancient shorelines is preserved today as continuous sandstone deposits. One remarkable feature of the Colorado Plateau is its relatively little faulting and folding. 3.2.1.3.1 Black Mesa Coal Field

The general geology of the Black Mesa coal field consists of Cretaceous aged units including the Dakota sandstone, the Mancos shale and the Mesa Verde Group. The Dakota sandstone exhibits coal within its middle shale member. The thicker coal units within the Dakota are found in the southwestern part of Black Mesa, upwards to nine (9) feet (O’Sullivan, R.B., 1958). Within the Mesa Verde Group are the coal-bearing Toreva Formation and the Wepo Formation. 3.2.1.3.2 San Juan Coal Basin

The San Juan Basin is an asymmetrical basin, with a gently dipping southern flank and a steeply dipping northern flank (Stone et al., 1983). It measures roughly 100 miles long in the northFor Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-13

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

south direction and 90 miles wide. The Fruitland Formation is the primary coal-bearing unit of the San Juan River Region. The Fruitland Formation coal beds are thick, with individual beds up to 80 feet thick. The lithology of the formation is composed of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal, with the thickest coalbeds always found in the lower third of the formation. 3.2.1.3.3 Uinta Coal Basin

The Uinta Coal Basin is located mostly within eastern Utah; a very small portion of the basin is in northwestern Colorado. The basin covers approximately 14,450 square miles (Quarterly Review, 1993). Coalbeds are present within Cretaceous strata throughout much of the Uinta Basin. This includes the Ferron Sandstone Member of the Mancos Shale and the Blackhawk Formation of the Mesaverde Group. The Ferron Sandstone Member coalbeds and interbedded sandstone units form a wedge of clastic sediment 150 to 750 feet thick stratigraphically above the Tunuck Shale Member of the Mancos Shale and below the Lower Blue Gate Shale Member of the Mancos Shale. The coal-bearing rocks are thickest to the west and south margins of the basin, nearer to the upland sources of sediment. Depths to coal in the Ferron Sandstone Member range from 1,000 to over 7,000 feet (Garrison et al., 1997). Total coal thickness in this area ranges from 4 to 48 feet (averaging 24 feet) from depths of 1,200 to 3,400 feet (Lamarre and Burns, 1996). The Blackhawk Formation consists of coal interbedded with sandstone and a combination of shale and siltstone. The Blackhawk Formation is underlain by the Star Point Sandstone and overlain by the Castlegate Sandstone. The Castlegate Project in the Book Cliffs coalfield initially targeted coals in the Blackhawk Formation at depths ranging from 4,200 to 4,400 feet (Gloyn and Sommer, 1993). 3.2.1.4 Region Seismicity The Colorado Plateau Region encompasses the coal bearing areas of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico (see Figure 3.2-5). As shown in the region seismic hazard map (Figure 3.2-6), ground acceleration (i.e., vibration) is at a low of approximately 4% g in the Four Corners area and in the northwest corner of New Mexico. The region high is approximately 80-120% g in north central Utah and a small area of north central Colorado. The majority of the Colorado Plateau region lies within the 6-18% g range. For a relative reference, the USGS describes a 4% g vibration event as being “very light” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “moderate” with regard to how people perceive the shaking. The USGS describes a 120% g vibration event as being “heavy” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “violent” with regard to how people perceive the shaking.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-14

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-6

Colorado Plateau Region Seismic Hazard Map

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

3.3.3 Gulf Coast Region
The Gulf Coast Region encompasses the coal bearing areas of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Missouri, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and western Kentucky (see Figure 3.2-7). As of 2008, most coal both lignite and bituminous was produced from Texas subregion. Lesser amounts of lignite occur and/or are being mined in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Georgia.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-15

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3.2.1.5 Depositional Setting The coal-bearing Gulf Coast Region contains a variety of depositional settings and coal types. The coal-bearing region extends westwards from Alabama and Mississippi, across Louisiana to the northern part of the Mississippi Embayment, and then southward to eastern Arkansas, to south Texas. Precambrian rocks are exposed at the surface in the area of the Llano uplift in Central Texas. Paleozoic and Tertiary rock exposed to the west of the Llano Uplift exhibit relatively shallow dips to the west-northwest while those Figure 3.2-7 Gulf Coast Region

9 10 11 12 13 14 Tertiary aged units on the southeast side of the uplift, namely those which include the Jackson Group, the Claiborne Group, and the Wilcox Group, dip steeply under the Gulf of Mexico. Three of the most prominent coal bearing formations in the region are the Jackson Group, the Clairborne Group and the Wilcox Group. As most of the coal currently mined from the Gulf Coast Region is from these three lithological groups in Texas, this will be the discussion focus. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-16

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

3.2.1.5.1

The Jackson Group

The Jackson Group is present across the entire Gulf Coast coal region. In Georgia, the unit is mostly marine in origin and is represented by weathered material at the surface and therefore of minimal interest in coal studies. In Alabama and Mississippi, the upper Jackson Group consists of the Yazoo Clay--green and gray calcareous clay containing some glauconitic sand and fossil rich limestone and coquina beds. At the base of the Jackson Group in Alabama and Mississippi is the Moodys Branch Formation--which is composed of clayey quartz sand with shells embedded in glauconite, sandy limestone beds, and thin lignite beds a few inches thick in the lower part of the unit (USGS, 1997). In Louisiana, the Jackson Group consists of lignitic clays with interbedded limonitic sands or lignite and near the base, calcareous, glauconite, and fossiliferous beds which may weather to black soil (Snead and McColluh, 1984). In Tennessee and Kentucky, the Jackson Group is undivided and consists of sand with layers of gray clay, silt, and lignite, and is mostly exposed only along the banks of the Mississippi River (Miller and others, 1966; Olive, 1980;). In Arkansas, the Jackson Group is composed of sandy clay, silt, glauconitic and fossiliferous sandy clay, and a few lignite beds in the southeastern part of the state (Wilbert, 1953; Guccione and others, 1986). In Texas, the Jackson Group consists of light-colored, fossiliferous, glauconitic sand, sandy clay, green tuffaceous clay, and lignite beds, and is divided into several formal and informal units. The main units from the base of the Jackson Group are: Caddell Formation--clay and fossiliferous, glauconitic sand; "Wellborn Formation"--sand, clay and lignite; Manning Formation--sand, clay, well-developed lignite beds; and Whitsett Formation--tuffaceous, argillaceous sand (Barnes, 1992). Lignite is well-developed in central and south Texas where it is currently being mined from the Manning Formation and the undivided lower Jackson respectively. 3.2.1.5.2 The Claiborne Group

The Claiborne Group is exposed across most of the Gulf Coast coal region. In Georgia, the Claiborne consists of shale, mud, and silt that grade laterally into carbonate deposits. The group has been divided into two formations: the lower part is the Tallahatta Formation and the upper part is the marine Lisbon Formation. In Alabama, the Tallahatta Formation consists of siliceous clay, that is interbedded with layers of fossiliferous clay and sand and becomes coarse and mixed with fine gravel to the southwest. The upper part of the Claiborne Group of Alabama is composed of the Gosport Sand/Lisbon Formation--glauconitic sands with lenses of clay and calcareous, glauconitic, fossiliferous clay, silt, and sand. In Mississippi, the Claiborne is mapped as several formations. The lowermost is the Meridian Sand/Tallahatta Formation--glauconitic clay, with lenses of sand. It becomes predominately sand in the western part of the state. The Meridian Sand/Tallahatta Formation is overlain by the following units: Winona Formation and the Zilfa Shale--highly glauconitic sandy clay with some For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-17

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

glauconitic sand; the Kosciusko Formation--irregularly bedded sand, clay, and some quartzite; the Cook Mountain Formation--marl, limestone, glauconitic sand, and clay to the southeast, becoming mostly clay in the northwest; and the Cockfield Formation--irregularly bedded, lignitic clay, sand, and some lignite beds (Bicker, 1969; Dockery, 1996). In Louisiana and Arkansas, the Claiborne is composed of the following formations, starting from the base: the Carrizo Formation which is mainly composed of sandstone and mudstone; the Cane River Formation--clay with basal glauconitic, fossiliferous silt; the Sparta Formation which is a massive sandstone interbedded with some thin beds of lignite or lignitic sand and shale; the Cook Mountain Formation consisting of clay and fossiliferous marl in the lower part and clay in the upper part; and the Cockfield Formation consisting of lignitic clay, silt, and sand, with some sideritic glauconite (Snead, 1984). In Tennessee and Missouri the Claiborne is found in the subsurface. In this area it contains the basal Memphis Sand which is actually a sandstone, silstone, and minor lignite unit. The Cook Mountain Formation is the middle formation and consists of clay, siltstone and sandstone. The uppermost unit of the Claiborne Group is the Cockfield Formation. The Cockfield Formation consists of sandstone, siltstone, clay, and lignite. In Kentucky, the Claiborne is undivided and consists of interbedded silt, clay, sand and minor lignite beds. In Texas, the Claiborne changes facies across the state and includes a number of different names for the same strata. In northeast, east, and south Texas the basal Claiborne is marked by the Carrizo Formation--sand and mud. In northeast and east Texas, above the Carrizo, the lower part of the Claiborne is equivalent to the Cane River in Arkansas and Lousiana. These units have gradational contacts and are divided into the lower shale-dominated Reklaw Formation, overlain by the sand and silt dominated Queen City, and the shale-dominated Weches Formation. The middle part of the Claiborne Group contains the Sparta Formation, overlain by the shaledominated Cook Mountain/Stone City Formation. The upper part of the Claiborne in northeast and central Texas contains the sand-dominated Yegua Formation which is equivalent to the Cockfield Formation in the eastern part of the Gulf Coast coal region and contains significant but as of yet unmined lignite. In the southern part of Texas, above the Carrizo Formation, is the sand-dominated Bigford Formation, which is overlain by the El Pico Clay. These units contain significant non-banded coal deposits are presently being mined. In south Texas, the upper middle part of the Claiborne consists of the sand-dominated Laredo Formation, and is overlain by the Yegua Formation (Sellards and others, 1966; Barnes, 1992). 3.2.1.5.3 The Wilcox Group

Historically, the Wilcox Group has been the prominent coal bearing unit in the Gulf Coast Region, especially in Texas. The Wilcox Group is exposed across most of the Gulf Coast coal region. In Georgia, the Wilcox is composed of the Nanafalia Formation--shale, lignitic mud, silt and glauconitic sand; the Tuscahoma Formation--glauconitic and lignitic mud and sand; and the For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-18

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Bashi Marl Member of the Hatchetigbee Formation--sandstone interbedded with carbonaceous clay and silt (Murray, 1961; Zapp, 1965; Lawton and Marsalis, 1976). In Alabama, the Wilcox is composed of, in ascending order: the Nanafalia Formation--sandy fossiliferous clay, glauconitic quartzose sand, and gravelly sand with lignite beds; the Tuscahoma Formation--carbonaceous silt and clay with thin lignite beds; and the Hatchetigbee Formation--carbonaceous clay, silt, and glauconitic, calcareous, fossiliferous sand (Osborne and others, 1989). In Mississippi, the lower units in the Wilcox Group are similar to those in Alabama: the Nanafalia--silt, clay, and sand, with lignite beds becoming more numerous upwards; overlying the Tuscahoma Formation--sand, clay, shale, and common lignite beds. The Bashi Formation-glauconitic fossiliferous sand with fossiliferous concretions, separates the lignite-bearing Tuscahoma and the overlying Hatchetigbee Formation--sand, shale, carbonaceous shale, and lignite (Williamson, 1976; Bicker, 1969; Dockery, 1996). In Louisiana, the Wilcox has been divided into numerous stratigraphic formations that are used for surface mapping; they are generally indistinguishable in the subsurface (Pope, 1981). The lowermost Wilcox unit is the Naborton Formation which contains clay, mud, sand, and lignite beds that is currently being mined. This unit is overlain by the Dolet Hills containing variable amounts of sand, mud, glauconite and lignitic clays. In Tennessee and Missouri, the Wilcox Group from the base upward, consists of: Old Breastworks Formation--clay, silt, and lignite; Fort Pillow Sand--sand and minor clay; and the Flour Island Formation--clay, silt, sand, and lignite (Parks and Carmichael, 1990). In Kentucky, the Wilcox is undivided and consist mostly of sand and silty clay with minor lignite (Olive, 1980). The Wilcox is undivided in the subsurface of southernmost Illinois and consists of sand and mudstone (Cushing and others, 1964). In Arkansas, the Wilcox Group is undivided and consists of sand, mudstone, carbonaceous shale, lignite, lenses of bentonitic clay, and lenses of quartzose gravel (Spooner, 1935). In northeastern Texas, the Wilcox Group is undivided and consists of silt, sand and clay with local beds of clay, minable lignite, and quartz sand. In the east-central part of the state, the Wilcox Group is divided into three formations. The lowermost Hooper Formation--mudstone, sandstone locally glauconitic, and local lignite beds; Simsboro Formation--sand, mudstone, clay, and mudstone conglomerate; and the Calvert Bluff Formation--mudstone, with sandstone, minable lignite beds, ironstone, and glauconitic in the uppermost part. In southern Texas, the Wilcox Group is mapped undivided or is called the Indio Formation and consists of sand, shale and lignite beds (Barnes, 1992).

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-19

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

3.2.1.6 Region Seismicity The Gulf Coast Region encompasses the coal bearing areas of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Missouri, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and western Kentucky (see Figure 3.2-8). As shown in the region seismic hazard map (Figure 3.2-8), ground acceleration (i.e., vibration) is at a low of approximately 2% g in Texas. The region high is approximately 160-200% g in the New Madrid area (southeast Missouri, northeast Arkansas, western Tennessee, and western Kentucky. The majority of the Gulf Coast region lies within the 2-12% g range. For a relative reference, the USGS describes a 2% g vibration event as being “none” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “light” with regard to how people perceive the shaking. The USGS describes anything greater than 124% g vibration event as being “very heavy” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “extreme” with regard to how people perceive the shaking. Figure 3.2-8 Gulf Coast Region Seismic Hazard Map

15 For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-20

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3.2.2 Illinois Basin Region
The Illinois Basin Region encompasses the coal bearing areas of Illinois, Indiana, western Kentucky, and Michigan (see Figure 3.2-9). For the purpose of this study discussion is going to focus on the basin area encompassing Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky. The Illinois basin itself is an oval depression covering approximately 60,000 mi2 (155,000 km2) in the U.S. Mid-Continent. The basin contains about 100,000 mi3 (450,000 km3) of Cambrian through Permian sedimentary rocks. These rocks consist primarily of marine carbonates and, to a lesser extent, sandstone, shale, and siltstone. These sedimentary rocks overlie Precambrian granite and rhyolite basement rock which are dated approximately 1.5 billion years old (Kolata, D.R., et al, 1990). Figure 3.2-9 Illinois Basin Region

12 For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-21

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

3.2.2.1 Depositional Setting The basin began as a failed rift (the Reelfoot rift and Rough Creek graben) during the breakup of a supercontinent during Early and Middle Cambrian time. It subsequently evolved into an embayment that subsided from Late Cambrian into Permian time. Through most of this time, the southern end of the proto-Illinois basin was connected to the Arkoma and Black Warrior basins. Uplift of the Pascola arch at the southern end of the Illinois basin during post-Late Carboniferous to pre-Late Cretaceous time resulted in structural closure of the basin. After the rifting episode, the basin began to form with a thick succession of sandstone and carbonate rocks deposited in the center. No lithologic record of post-Paleozoic subsidence is preserved in the Illinois basin proper; however, the area immediately above the Reelfoot rift subsided and filled with Late Cretaceous and early Tertiary sediments of the Mississippi Embayment of the Gulf coastal plain. 3.2.2.2 Region Geology The Illinois Basin coal bearing units located in Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky are primarily the Carbondale Formation, (sometimes designated as the Carbondale Group in Indiana) and the Shelburn Formation. The Carbondale Formation is primarily composed of shale and coal beds with minor amounts of limestone and sandstone in its upper reaches. The Shelburn Formation is primarily composed of limestones, sandstones, and coal beds. The seven (7) major coal beds within these formations are the Danville, the Jamestown (also referred to as the Hymera and the Paradise), the Herrin, the Springfield, the Survant, the Colchester, and the Seelyville (also referred to as the Davis and the Dekovan) (Drobniak, A., et al, year unknown). The Springfield coal has been reported to be greater than seven (7) feet in thickness. 3.2.2.3 Region Seismicity The Illinois Basin Region encompasses the coal bearing areas of Illinois, Indiana, western Kentucky, and Michigan (see Figure 3.2-9). As shown in the region seismic hazard map (Figure 3.2-10), ground acceleration (i.e., vibration) is at a low of approximately 2% g in Michigan. The region high is approximately 80-120% g in southern Illinois (near the New Madrid, Missouri area). The majority of the Illinois Basin region lies within the 10-60% g range. For a relative reference, the USGS describes a 2% g vibration event as being “none” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “light” with regard to how people perceive the shaking. The USGS describes a 120% g vibration event as being “heavy” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “violent” with regard to how people perceive the shaking.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-22

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-10

Illinois Basin Region Seismic Hazard Map

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3.2.3 Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region
The Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region encompasses the coal-bearing areas of the states of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah and are subdivided into many basins, regions or fields (see Figure 3.2-11). The Northern Rocky Mountains are subdivided into the Green River Basin, the Hams Fork Region, the Jackson Hole Field, the Big Horn Basin, and the Wind River Basin. The Northern Great Plains are subdivided into the Blackfeet-Valier Region, the North Central Region, the Fort Union Region, the Bull Mountain Field, the Great Falls Field, and the Powder River Basin. This discussion will focus on the Powder River Basin as most of the coal resources occur in this area.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-23

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-11

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3.2.3.1 Powder River Basin Geology The name Powder River Basin has been used to refer to both a structural basin and a drainage basin which do not completely coincide. In this discussion, Powder River Basin refers to the structural basin. The Powder River Basin is an asymmetrical syncline which trends from southeast to northwest. In Wyoming, the Powder River Basin is bounded by the Black Hills uplift in the northeast, the Hartville uplift in the southeast, the Laramie Mountains in the south, the Casper arch in the southwest, and the Bighorn Mountains in the west. The basin continues northward into Montana where another structural feature, the Cedar Ridge anticline, separates it from the Williston Basin. The shallow geology of the area consists of the Fort Union Formation and the Wasatch Formation which are interpreted to have been deposited primarily in fluvial, lacustrine, and swampy environments (Seeland, 1992; Ellis and others, 1999a). The Wasatch Formation consists of conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, limestones and several coal beds including the Lake DeSmet. At 250 feet, the Lake DeSmet coal beds are the thickest in the western and central parts of the Powder River Basin near Lake De Smet (Glass, 1980, 1997 and For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-24

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

University of Wyoming, 2001). The dip of the Wasatch Formation is shallow, generally less than 4 degrees (Glass, 1997). The Fort Union Formation consists of sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, limestones and coal units including the Wyodak coal zone. Along the eastern margin of the Powder River Basin, including the study area, the Fort Union Formation is nearly flat and dips to the west about 2 to 3 degrees (Glass, 1997). Near the western margin, the Fort Union Formation dips to the east from 10 to 25 degrees (Glass, 1997). The Wyodak-Anderson coal zone and the individual beds comprising the zone is where most of the coal mining in the basin occurs. The Wyodak coal zone is known for its extreme thickness, averaging 100 feet thick. (University of Wyoming, 2001) The coal beds of the WyodakAnderson coal zone outcrop or subcrop along the eastern margin of the Powder River Basin. Several of the coal beds of the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone merge to form a single thick coal bed known as the Wyodak coal bed. The Wyodak coal bed splits into several seams south, east, and north of Gillette, Wyoming. 3.2.3.2 Region Seismicity The Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region encompasses the coal-bearing areas of the states of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah and are subdivided into many basins, regions or fields (see Figure 3.2-11). As shown in the region seismic hazard map (Figure 3.2-l1), ground acceleration (i.e., vibration) is at a low of approximately 2% g in North Dakota. The region high is approximately 80-120% g in small areas of western Wyoming. The majority of the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region lies within the 2-12% g range. For a relative reference, the USGS describes a 2% g vibration event as being “none” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “light” with regard to how people perceive the shaking. The USGS describes a 120% g vibration event as being “heavy” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “violent” with regard to how people perceive the shaking.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-25

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-12

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region Seismic Hazard Map

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

3.2.4 Northwest Region
This region encompasses the coal bearing areas of Alaska, Oregon and Washington (see Figures 3.2-13 and 3.2-14). For the purposes of this study, discussion will only focus on selected coal bearing areas of Alaska. The major coal provinces in Alaska are Northern Alaska-North Slope, the Nenana area, the Cook Inlet-Matanuska Valley, the Alaska Peninsula, and in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering River. Potentially significant identified coal resources are present in other coalfields on the Seward Peninsula, Yukon-Koyukuk, and Upper Yukon provinces. Numerous smaller coal basins and minor coal occurrences are distributed from southeast Alaska to the interior parts of the state. However, the Northern Alaska-North Slope coal field, the Central Alaska-Nenana coal field, and the Southern Alaska-Cook Inlet coal field account for approximately 87 percent of the total known coal resources in the state (Flores, et al, 2003), and therefore will be discussed here.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-26

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-13

Alaskan Coal Bearing Areas

2

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-27

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-14

Washington and Oregon Coal Bearing Areas

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.2.4.1 Alaska Depositional Setting Fifty (50) coal fields have been identified in Alaska (Wood and Bour, 1988). Alaska coal resources formed in widespread deltaic and continental depositional systems during Cretaceous and Tertiary time. The younger Tertiary age coals formed within sedimentary basins are related to fault systems that controlled basin formation and influenced deposition. The Southern Alaska-Cook Inlet is an example of this setting. It is an elongated fault bounded structural basin. It is situated on a north dipping subduction zone of the Pacific tectonic plate and southern Alaska (AKDDGS, 2007). The Cook Inlet coal beds are thought to have been deposited in mires related to a large fluvial drainage system.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-28

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

3.2.4.1.1

Northern Alaska-North Slope Coal Field

The Northern Alaska-North Slope province is subdivided into two regions. One region lies to the south near the north flank of the Brooks Range and another situated further north. The bulk of the coal resources in the Northern Alaska-North Slope are contained in Cretaceous and Tertiary aged units. The most important coal bearing unit in the province is the Nanushuk Group. The Nanushuk Group holds approximately 150 coal beds ranging from a few inches to 20 feet in thickness (Flores, R.M., et al, 2004.) Coal bearing formations include the Tuktu, Kukpowruk, Grandstand, Corwin, Chandler, and Ninuluk. The Corwin Formation consists of gray shale, carbonaceous shale, siltstone, and silty sandstone and coal beds (Roehler, H.W, and Sticker,G. D., 1979). Most coal seams are less than 5 feet thick, although 15 to 40 foot thick beds are not uncommon. These beds are generally flat lying, exhibiting very little dip. 3.2.4.1.2 Central Alaska-Nenana Coal Field

The Tertiary-aged Nenana coal field is situated in the central portion of the state with deposits situated east-west along the north central flank of the Alaskan Range. The Nenana coal field accounts for more than half of the coal mined in Alaska and as of 2005 is the only province that is currently being mined. The Usibelli Group is a non-marine sedimentary which contains as many as 30 coal beds and is thought to be from fluvial and lacustrine depositional environments. The Suntrana Formation is an important coal bearing sedimentary unit of the group. It consists of interbedded sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, carbonaceous shales and coal. Shallow coal seams generally are encountered at 100 feet below ground surface or less in this area and seam thicknesses can range up to 32 feet. The Suntrana Formation lies directly on metamorphic basement rock in this area. 3.2.4.1.3 Southern Alaska-Cook Inlet Coal Field

There are four Tertiary-aged coal fields indentified in the Cook Inlet province including the Susitna-Beluga, the Kenai, the Broad Pass, and the Matanuska. The Matanuska Coal Field contains more than 20 coal beds with thicknesses ranging from three (3) to twenty three (23) feet. These beds primarily occur in the Chickaloon Formation along with sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, and minor conglomerates. The Kenai coal field’s main coal bearing unit is the Kenai Group. Included in the Kenai Group are the Beluga Formation and the Sterling Formations. The Beluga Formation exhibits sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, carbonaceous shale, coal, and some volcanic ash. Coal seams can be 12 feet thick in its upper reaches (Wilson R.H. et al, 2009). The Sterling Formation consists of sandstones, conglomeratic sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, carbonaceous shales, and coal beds. Sterling Formation coal beds have been observed in coastal bluffs at twelve (12) feet in thickness (Flores and Stricker, 1992). The Broad Pass coal field underlies a narrow trough at the north end of the Cook Inltet and is approximately five (5) miles wide. The predominant coal bearing unit of this coal field is correlated to the Sterling Formation of the Kenai Group (see discussion above). For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-29

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

The Susitna-Beluga coal field is also situated north of the Cook Inlet. The predominant coal bearing unit of this field is the Tyonek Formation also in the Kenai Group. The Tyonek Formation consists of sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, carbonaceous shales and coal beds. Sandstones are the most common rock type of the formation. Individual coal beds have been documented to be as much as thirty (30) feet thick. 3.2.4.2 Region Seismicity This region encompasses the coal bearing areas of Alaska, (see Figure 3.2-14). Figure 3.2-15 presents seismic data in Alaska. 3.2.4.2.1 Alaska Seismicity

As shown in the Alaska seismic hazard map (Figure 3.2-15), ground acceleration (i.e., vibration) is at a low of approximately 0% g in the Northern Alaska Fields on the north slope to greater than 125% inland from Anchorage. The majority of the Alaska coal fields lie within the 25-75% g range. For a relative reference, the USGS describes a 0% g vibration event as being “none” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “not felt” with regard to how people perceive the shaking. The USGS describes a greater than 125% g vibration event as being “very heavy” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “extreme” with regard to how people perceive the shaking.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-30

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-15

Alaska Seismic Hazard Map

2

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-31

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-16

Washington and Oregon Seismic Hazard Map

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.2.5 Other Western Interior Region
The Other Western Interior Region encompasses the coal-bearing areas of the states of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri and central Texas. The most important coal fields of the Other Western Interior Region comprise three coal basins, the Arkoma, the Cherokee, and the Forest City Basins. The Arkoma Basin covers about 13,500 square miles in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The Cherokee Basin is part of the Cherokee Platform Province, which covers approximately 26,500 square miles (Charpentier, 1995) in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. The Forest City Basin covers about 47,000 square miles (Quarterly Review, 1993) in For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-32

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska (see Figure 3.2-17). For the purpose of this study, discussion will focus on these basins. Figure 3.2-17 Other Western Interior Region

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 3.2.5.1 Region Depositional History The Arkoma basin was depositionally part of a broad, stable shelf along a passive continental margin during much of its geologic history. The depositional patterns on the shelf varied greatly, with the development of both marine carbonate environments and intermittent terrestrial clastic environments. There is evidence of a limited source of sediments from the Ouachita fold belt in Arkansas during the deposition of the Hartshorne Sandstone, an important coal bearing formation in the basin. However, the western side of the basin in Oklahoma was apparently quiet and presumably standing at or near sea level throughout that time. The Cherokee Basin is the central basin of the Western Interior Coal Region, and is bounded on the east and southeast by the Ozark Dome, on the west by the Nehama Uplift, and on the north by the Bourbon Arch (Quarterly Review, 1993). The Cherokee Basin was formed by the warping of the post-Mississippian peneplain, and was united with the similarly formed Forest City Basin when the low divide separating them was covered by the accumulating deposits of the Cherokee shale, the earliest formation of Pennsylvanian age in Kansas (Kansas Geological Survey, 2005). For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-33

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

The Forest City Basin extends from southwestern Iowa and northeastern Kansas to central Missouri. The basin is approximately 240 miles long (north-south) by 195 miles wide (eastwest). The Forest City is a structural basin of Pennsylvanian age and, based on existing data, appears to be relatively undeformed. A series of northwest-southeast trending folds and faults has been documented in Missouri. In addition, recurrent movement has taken place on the Nemaha Uplift, which forms the western border, and the Thurman-Redfield Structural Zone in Iowa. 3.2.5.2 Arkoma Basin Geology Sedimentary rocks in the Arkoma Basin range in thickness from 3,000 to 20,000 feet and consist primarily of pre-Mississippian carbonate shelf deposits, organic-rich Mississippian marine shales and Pennsylvanian fluvial deposits. The Krebs Group, which contains the Hartshorne, McAlester, Savanna, and Boggy Formations, is a prominent coal bearing unit of the basin. The Lower Hartshorne coal bed is the thickest and the most extensive coal bed in Arkansas and the basin. It has been, and will continue to be, the most economically important coal bed in Arkansas (Arkansas Geological Survey website, 2010). There are approximately 40 named and several unnamed coal beds in the basin. Commercial coal belts in the basin contain coal beds greater than or equal to ten (10) inches thick that are mineable by surface methods at depths less than 100 feet and coal beds greater than or equal to fourteen (14) inches thick that are mineable by underground methods (Oklahoma Geological Survey, Coal and Coal Bed Methane, http://www.ogs.ou.edu/level3-coal.php). 3.2.5.3 Cherokee Basin Geology The primary coal seams in the Cherokee Basin are in Kansas and are the Riverton Coal of the Krebs Formation and the Weir-Pittsburg and Mulky coals of the Cabaniss Formation (Quarterly Review, 1993). These Pennsylvanian-aged formations are primarily shale, some sandstones, with very little limestone. The Riverton and Weir-Pittsburg coal beds are about 3 to 5 feet thick and range from 800 to 1,200 feet deep and are the most widespread and thickest, respectively (Quarterly Review, 1993, Maksoud, ). The Mulky Coal, which ranges up to two (2) feet thick, occurs at depths of 600 to 1,000 feet and (Quarterly Review, 1993). 3.2.5.4 Forest City Basin Geology In the Forest City Basin, coal-bearing strata are present in the Pennsylvanian-aged Riverton Formation and the Cherokee, Marmaton, and Pleasanton Groups. The coal-bearing units are cyclothems made up of shale, sandstone, limestone, and coal. More than 40 individual beds have been identified, and many have been mined for more than 100 years, both underground and on the surface. Some of the important coal beds, in ascending order, which correlate across State boundaries, are Riverton, Weir-Pittsburg, Mineral, Scammon, Fleming, Tebo, Croweburg, Bevier, Summit, Mulky, Mystic, and Mulberry. The coal beds are relatively widespread and commonly deep. As a result, many parts of the basin are underlain by multiple, unmined coal beds. Data indicate that the cumulative coal thickness may be as much as twenty-five (25) feet, For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-34

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

and individual beds may be as thick as ten (10) feet. However, many of the beds are less than two (2) feet thick, and multiple-seam completions may be required for commercial production. Depths to the top of the Cherokee Group coals range from surface exposures in the shallower portion of the basin in southeastern Iowa, to about 1,200 to 1,600 feet in the deeper part of the basin, in southwestern Iowa and northeastern Kansas (Bostic et al., 1993). The rank of Pennsylvanian coals ranges from high-volatile C to A bituminous. Generally, coal rank increases with depth and apparently to the west where greater depths of burial exist. 3.2.5.5 Region Seismicity The Other Western Interior Region encompasses the coal-bearing areas of the states of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri and central Texas (see Figure 3.2-17). As shown in the region seismic hazard map (Figure 3.2-18), ground acceleration (i.e., vibration) is at a low of approximately 2% g in Texas and Iowa. The region high is approximately 10% g in central Missouri. The majority of the Other Western Interior region lies within the 2-8% g range. For a relative reference, the USGS describes a 2% g vibration event as being “none” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “light” with regard to how people perceive the shaking. The USGS describes a 10% g vibration event as being “light” with regard to potential damage to structures, and “strong” with regard to how people perceive the shaking.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-35

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 3.2-18

Other Western Interior Region Seismic Hazard Map

2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

3.3

SOILS

3.3.0 Introduction
Soil is a mixture of minerals, organic matter, liquid, and gas that occurs on the land surface. It has the ability to support rooted plants and is therefore critical to all agricultural and natural ecological systems on land. It is derived from its parent rock material. Areas are not considered to have soil if the surface is permanently covered by water too deep (typically more than 2.5 meters) for the growth of rooted plants. The lower boundary that separates soil from the non-soil underneath that commonly grades to hard rock or to earthy materials devoid of animals, roots, or other biological activity is arbitrarily set at a maximum of 200cm (NRCS 1999). There are five factors that contribute to soil development: parent material, climate, topography, biological factors, and time. Parent material is generally bedrock, collovium (material moving in response to gravity), or alluvium (material deposited by rivers and streams) on which a soil forms (EPA 2005). Climate affects soil composition by freeze/thaw action and by controlling the rate at which physical and chemical weathering take place. Soils take long periods of time to form; from thousands to tens of thousands of years.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-36

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Soils continue to form and change throughout the landscape. Materials are deposited on the surface, and materials are blown or washed away from the surface. Additions, removals, and alterations are slow or rapid, depending on climate, landscape position, and biological activity. Soil is classified based on similar physical and chemical properties that are a result of a combination of the soil formation factors (NRCS 1999). Physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils determine their compactibility, erosiveness, and productivity. The potential for plant growth depends on the ability of the soil to accept, hold, and release nutrients and moisture. Soil provides the environment for root growth and development. Soil serves as the habitat for microorganisms that control processes related to plant nutrition, nutrient cycling, and the biological control of pests. The condition of the soil determines the effectiveness of these functions. In the U.S. soils are classified by a system that groups soils by chemical and physical properties. The highest level consists of 12 soil orders all with distinct characteristics. The soil orders in the coal regions are:            Andisols – dark soils formed from volcanic activity; Alfisols – brown forest soils; Aridosols – arid region soils; Entisols – very young soils that show little weathering; Gelisols – frozen soils of tundra areas; Histosols – organic soils in marshy or montane areas; Inceptitisols – young soils; Mollisols – dark, rich soils of the plains – mostly grasslands; Spodosols – ashy soils of wet, sandy areas; Ultisols – highly weathered soils of mostly temperate areas; and Vertisols – soils with shrink-swell clays.

Soils are further divided by similar characteristics into suborder, great group, subgroup, family, and soil series. There are more than 19,000 soil series in the U.S (NRCS 2010). To describe the soil resources that can potentially be impacted by the promulgation of a SPR, dominant soil orders, suborders, and soil associations of the ecoregions (McNab and Avers 1996) in each coal region are briefly discussed. Soil distribution can be very heterogeneous, creating a mosaic of soil types over small areas. Listed in each coal region section are the soil associations that cover more than two percent of the area. Past coal mining activities have resulted in direct soil removal, erosion of soil into streams, and changes to soils from compaction and mixing. Large amounts of soil are removed at surface mining operations and at underground mining operations. Soil is removed for construction of buildings and operational facilities. Removal of vegetation for mining and mining operations results in loss of soil through erosion. Once the soil is removed, it may move downslope or into streams and rivers where there are further impacts to water quality and aquatic organisms. Care was not always taken in the past to salvage and properly maintain and store topsoil. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-37

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Consequently, especially in the Appalachian Basin Coal Region, removed soil was lost (EPA 2005). Changes to soil from compaction and mixing are the result of soil removal and backfilling. Once removed, soil texture and structure is altered. Soils are compacted during mining and construction of ancillary facilities such as buildings and roads. Traffic on mine roads results in changes to soil. Soil compaction reduces the pore space for air and water and impedes root growth making reclamation more difficult. After mining, soil is further impacted by the reclamation process. Soil is compacted and mixed with other soils or mine spoils by improper storage or when backfilled. Soil productivity is the ability of a soil to produce vegetation, which requires adequate air, water, and nutrients. The physical (texture and structure), chemical (organic matter decomposition and nutrient release), and biological (nutrient cycling and nitrogen fixation) properties of soil supply the required air, water, and nutrients for plant growth. When any of these properties are altered to the point that vegetative growth is reduced, the soil function is impaired and the productivity of the soil is reduced (BLM 2008).

3.3.1 Appalachian Basin
Soils in the Appalachian Basin region are predominantly colluvial in nature. Soils that occur on mountain slopes formed on residuum from acidic sandstone, siltstone, and shale. These soils are very thin, underlain by colluviums, and prone to erosion from slumping and landslides (EPA 2005). The most extensive soils in the Appalachian Basin region are Ultisols. Ultisols are generally deep to moderately deep and are more predominant adjacent to the bases of cliffs. These soils are generally leached, acid soils. Ultisols are highly weathered and have a low nutrient content and their ability to retain minerals is moderate to low. Inceptisols are immature soils that occur on steep slopes and in depressions. They can form from highly resistant parent material or in alluvial floodplains. Inceptisols are predominantly found on slopes and in depressions in mixed moisture, warmer temperature regimes. These soils are generally thin but can deep in places. They are better able to retain minerals than the Ultisols. Alfisols, which are moderately deep are also present. Xeric shallow soils are present along the tops of cliffs and rock outcrops, while rocky soils accumulate in crevices, on ledges, and along rock margins. Thin rocky soils accumulate in crevices, on ledges, and along rock margins (USFS 2003). Ecological areas in the Appalachian Basin are the Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau, Allegheny Mountains, Northern Cumberland Mountains, and Northern Cumberland Plateau. Soil descriptions of the ecological areas are summarized from the Final Environmental Impact Statement Excess Spoil Minimization Stream Buffer Zones (OSM 2008). Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau ecological area soils consist mostly of Ultisols (Udalfs, Udults, and Ochrepts). Soil conditions are moist for most of the growing year and the soils have a mixed or clay mineralogy. Soil textures are fine-loamy or clayey and are frequently in a reducing environment. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-38

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Soils in the Allegheny Mountains ecological area are dominantly Ultisols, Inceptisols, and Alfisols and are moist for most of the growing year. They are derived from heavily weathered shales, siltstones, sandstone residuum and colluvium, and limestone residuum. Spodosols with frigid temperature regimes and reducing environments occur in isolated pockets at the highest elevations. Northern Cumberland Mountains ecological area soils are mainly Ultisols, Inceptisols, and Alfisols. These soils tend to be fine to coarse loamy and mixed mineralogy soils that are moist for most of the growing year. They are derived from heavily weathered shales, siltstones, sandstone residuum and colluvium, and limestone residuum. On plateaus and upper slopes, Ultisols and Inceptisols (Dystrochrepts, Hapludults, and Fragiudults) have fine-loamy to loamy, siliceous and mixed mineralogy soils. Soils are moist or wet for most of the growing year. Ultisols are dominant in the Northern Cumberland Plateau ecological area, with about 20 percent of the area as on side slopes and ridges. Inceptisols are on slopes and Entisols are on flood plains. These soils are moist for most of the growing year, and have mixed or siliceous mineralogy. Soils are medium to fine textured, shallow to deep, and generally have adequate moisture supply to support vegetation during the growing season. Dominant soil associations are shown in Table 3.3-1. Table 3.3-1 Ecoregion and Soil Association Dominant Soil Associations of the Appalachian Basin Coal Region Soil Order Description Percentage of Coal Region

Allegheny Mountains Section Gilpin-Dekalb Wharton-Rayne-GilpinErnest-Cavode Inceptisols Ultisols Ultisols Fine-loamy and skeletal, mixed mineralogy, moderate moisture Fine-loamy or clayey, mixed mineralogy, moderate moisture, some in a reducing environment Fine, loamy, or loamy-skeletal mixed mineralogy, moderate moisture Fine, loamy, or loamy-skeletal mixed mineralogy, moderate moisture Fine-loamy to loamy, siliceous, mixed mineralogy, moderate moisture 2%

2%

Northern Cumberland Mountains Section Pineville-Berks Ultisols Inceptisols Ultisols Inceptisols 3%

Pineville-Guyandotte-Dekalb

2%

Northern Cumberland Plateau Section Ramsey-MuskingumLonewood-Lily Inceptisols Ultisols

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-39

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Ecoregion and Soil Association

Soil Order

Description Fine to coarse, loam, mixed mineralogy, moderate moisture Inceptisols; and Fine-loamy, mixed mineralogy, moderate moisture Ultisols Fine or fine-loamy, mixed, moderate moisture Coarse-loamy and loamy-skeletal, mixed, moderate moisture Fine, mixed, moderate moisture Alfisols; and Fine-loamy, mixed, moderate moisture Ultisols Fine, mixed, moderate moisture Alfisols; and Fine-silty, floodplain, mixed, nonacid, moderate moisture Inceptisols

Percentage of Coal Region

Steinsburg-Shelocta-Gilpin

Inceptisols Ultisols

3%

Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section Guernsey-Dormont-Culleoka Marrowbone-FedscreekDekalb Alfisols Inceptisols 2% 2%

Upshur-Gilpin

Alfisols Ultisols

6%

Vandalia-Upshur-NewarkGuernsey-Elba

Alfisols Inceptisols

2%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

3.3.1.1 Productivity and Reclamation Potential Coal has been mined in the Appalachian Basin for more than a century. While underground mining is the dominant mining technique in the Appalachian Basin Regions, surface mining including mountaintop mining/valley fill (MTM/VF) operations make up approximately 40 percent of coal mining operations (OSM 2003). Surface mining consists of contour mining, area mining, and mountaintop removal mining that create valley fills. Because mountain top removal and other surface mining techniques extract coal seams, large amounts of soil is removed during mining. During MTM/VF, spoils and soils are placed in stream valleys further impacting soil resources. Current mining operations can disturb areas from approximately 350 to more than 1,000 acres. While most of the area is forested, there is little industry or development in the area. Soils in this area are not generally used for agriculture. Because of the high average rainfall revegetation of disturbed soil is rapid. Most initial vegetation is appropriate for livestock forage, but not as crops. Revegetation potential is high because of adequate rainfall.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-40

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

3.3.2 Colorado Plateau
Soils in the Colorado Plateau are predominantly Aridisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, and Molisols. Aridisols are a common soil series in the western U.S and are formed in areas that are dry for long periods. Entisols of the western U.S. are generally Orthents found on recent erosional surfaces. These soils support rangeland, pasture, and wildlife. Inceptisols in this region are mostly in the high mountains and vegetation is mostly conifers or mixed conifers. Molisos are the dominant soils of the plains. They form in grasslands and are used mainly as rangeland or cropland. Colorado Plateau soils are generally cool soils, with dark-colored, organic-rich surface layers in moderately sloping areas and shallow, poorly developed soils and rock outcrops on more steep areas. Badlands are steep, nearly barren, and dissected by ephemeral drainages. Soils on upper slopes have a thin organic-rich surface layer and soils on the lower slopes range from shallow to moderately deep. These soils are generally formed in alluvium, with a few formed in residuum derived from shales and sandstone. Some are formed from eolian (wind-deposited) material. Biological crusts, a complex mosaic of blue-green algae, green algae, lichens, mosses, microfungi, and other bacteria (Belnap et al. 2001) are also present in the Colorado Plateau. These crusts can reduce water and soil erosion although they are very fragile. Ecological areas in the Colorado Plateau region are the Navajo Canyonlands, Tavaputs Plateau, Grand Canyons, Southern Parks and Ranges Section, North-Central Highlands and Rocky Mountain, and the Green River Basin. Soil descriptions of the ecological areas are from the Final Environmental Impact Statement Excess Spoil Minimization Stream Buffer Zones (OSM 2008). Soils in the Navajo Canyonlands ecological area mostly Aridisols with some Inceptisols, Alfisols, and Entisols. Soils are fine to coarse-loamy and generally dry. Soils are shallow especially along slopes. There are many outcrops, and considerable range in slopes. Entisols can be rocky or gravelly. There is considerable range in slope and rock outcrops throughout. The Tavaputs Plateau ecological area soils include Entisols and Aridisols with moderate moisture, cold soil temperature regimes, and arid (dry for at least one half of the year) soil moisture regimes. Entisols are generally fine loamy, but can also be clayey. Most soils contain calcium. Many soils (Entisols, Aridisols, and less common Inceptisols are shallow rocky or loamy-skeletal with cold temperature regimes. There is considerable range in slope and rock outcrops throughout. Soils in the White Mountain-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim ecological area include are very varied, including Entisols, Alfisols and Aridisols, with some Mollisols, Vertisols, and Inceptisols. Soils are cold, but water is available during the growing season. There is a limited amount of permafrost. Soils are fine to fine-loamy and clayey with mixed or calcareous mineralogy. South-Central Highlands soils are Mollisols, Alfisols, Inceptisols, and Entisols on the uplands. Temperatures are cold and dry and permafrost is present in places. Valley bottoms and riparian areas have moist versions of Mollisols and Entisols, and small amounts of Histisols. Soils are fine to fine-loamy and clayey. Rock outcrop are present throughout. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-41

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Soils in the North-Central Highlands and Rocky Mountain ecological area include Mollisols, Alfisols, Inceptisols, and Entisols. Soils are fine to fine-loamy and clayey with mixed or calcareous mineralogy. As with most areas of this coal region, rock outcrop and steep slopes are present. Grand Canyons formed in eolian material and alluvium derived from sedimentary materials on fan terraces, piedmonts, bajadas, and mesas. Soils are Aridisols, Entisols, with some Alfisols and Inceptisols. Soil textures are fine to coarse and generally loamy. Badlands and rock outcrop are prevalent. The NRCS identifies more 580 soil associations in the ecological regions in the Colorado Plateau Coal Resource Area. Because there are so many associations, most are not present in amounts great than two percent. Soil associations are shown in Table 3.3-2. Table 3.3-2 Dominant Soil Associations of the Colorado Plateau Coal Region Soil Order Description Percentage of Coal Region

Ecoregion and Soil Association

Navajo Canyonlands Section Fine-loamy and coarseloamy, mixed mineralogy, superactive, moderate to dry Aridisols; mixed, moderate to dry Entisols; Rocky or gravelly, loamy, mixed, nonacid, moderate moisture, shallow Entisols Lithic, loamy, mixed (calcareous), moderate moisture Entisols; and Fine-loamy, mixed mineralogy, moderate moisture Aridisols Clayey, calcareous, moderate moisture, shallow mixed, moderate moisture; loamyskeletal, mixed mineralogy, superactive, calcareous, moderate to dry

Ustic Torriorthents-PenistajaMido-Begay

Aridisols Entisols

2%

Weska-Travessilla-Rock outcrop-Oelop

Entisols

2%

Zyme-Tonalea-Kydestea

Entisols

3%

Southern Parks and Ranges Section McVickers variantFortwingate variant-Capillo Fine, kaolinitic Alfisols; fine-loamy, mixed mineralogy Alfisols; andfine, For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials Alfisols Mollisols 3-42 2%

FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Ecoregion and Soil Association

Soil Order

Description mixed mineralogy, Mollisols

Percentage of Coal Region

Tavaputs Plateau Section Lithic shallow rocky or loamy-skeletal, mixed (calcareous), frigid Inceptisols; clayey, montmorillonitic (calcareous), frigid, shallow Rock outcrop-RentsacInceptisols Entisols; Moyerson-Mikim familyEntisols Atchee (s1185) fine-loamy, mixed (calcareous), moderate moisture Entisols; and Loamy-skeletal, mixed (calcareous), moderate moisture Entisols There are almost 600 soil associations in the Colorado Plateau Coal Region, and almost none of them are dominant either in an ecoregion or in the Coal Region. While not technically a soil, rock outcrop is part of the soil mapping scheme. In the Colorado Plateau region, rock outcrop is extensive especially in some ecoregions. 3.3.2.1 Productivity and Reclamation Potential Coal mines in the Colorado Plateau Coal Region are mostly underground mines but some surface mines are currently active. In Colorado, there are 21,602 acres that have been disturbed and approximately 13,500 acres that have been reclaimed (OSMRE 2009). Approximately 27,453 acres have been disturbed in New Mexico (OSMRE 2009). Coal mining in Utah, which is primarily underground, has resulted in approximately 3,100 acres of disturbed land and about 370 acres of reclaimed area. Large areas of the Colorado Plateau Coal Region consists of rock outcrop, and both productivity and reclamation potential is low. Soils in this area are not generally used for agriculture however, grazing and wildlife are important uses. Rainfall is generally low and revegetation with native species often takes about 20 years (BLM 2010). In general these soils have low reclamation potential due to steep, stony, and/or shallow topsoils and elevated salinity. Coal has been mined in the Colorado Plateau for a long time. Underground mining is the dominant technique, but surface mines are also present (mostly northwestern Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-43

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

3.3.3 Gulf Region
Soils in the Gulf Region are predominantly Alfisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, Molisols, Utisols, and Vertisols. Alfisols occur on the southern Great Plains, mostly in Texas and Oklahoma. Alfisols in this region are in dry areas and support savanna and grassland vegetation. Most are used as cropland or grazing land. Entisols in the Gulf Region are present along the gulf coasts and on the flood plains of the Mississippi River and on flood plains, fans, and deltas along rivers and small streams. Inceptisols, Mollisols, and Vertisols cover a small area of this region and are formed in temperate subhumid or semiarid regions. Utisols are in wet environments in this region and support cropland and forests. Gulf Region soils range from dry to wet and most soils are on flat to gently rolling plains dissected by streams. Soils in the major coal areas of eastern Texas are generally well developed, clayey or loamy soils. They tend to have high shrink/swell properties. Soils further east in Louisiana and Mississippi are Entisols, Vertisols, and Utisols, with a more humid environment, and rich organic soils. Ecological areas in the Gulf Region are the Rio Grande Plain, Oak Woods and Prairies, Coastal Plains and Flatwoods, Mid Coastal Plains – Western, Coastal Plains – Middle Section, and Coastal Plains and Flatwoods – Lower area. Soil descriptions of the ecological areas are from the Final Environmental Impact Statement Excess Spoil Minimization Stream Buffer Zones (OSM 2008). Rio Grande Plain ecological area soils consist of Usterts, Torrerts, and Ustalfs. Pellusterts, including Calciustolls and Calciorthids are on plains over clayey marine sediments. Torrerts, Haplustolls, Calciustolls, Paleustalfs, and Haplustalfs are on plains. Soils have a hyperthermic temperature regime, a ustic or aridic moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. Soils are mostly deep, fine to coarse textured, well drained, and have limited soil moisture for use by vegetation during the growing season. Oak Woods and Prairies ecological area soils consist predominantly of Ustalfs. Paleustalfs and Albaqualfs are on uplands and other areas with thick sandy surfaces. Pelluderts, Pellusterts, and Hapludolls are on flood plains and clayey terraces along major rivers. These soils have a thermic temperature regime, an ustic moisture regime, and montmorillonitic mineralogy. Soils are deep, medium textured, and generally have a slowly permeable, clayey subsoil. Moisture may be limiting for plant growth during parts of the year. Soils of the Coastal Plains and Flatwoods - Western Gulf ecological area are mostly siliceous fine clays and fine silty clay Alfisols with lesser amounts of coarser siliceous Entisols and Ultisols. Ultisols (Udults. Paleudults, Hapludults) and Alfisols (Hapludalfs, Paleudalfs, and Albaqualfs) are on uplands. Entisols (Fluvaquents, Udifluvents), and less common Incepticols along major streams. Soils are mostly derived from weathered sandstone and shale. Soils are moist with siliceous or mixed mineralogy. Soils are deep, coarsely textured, mostly well drained. Soils of the Coastal Plains and Flatwoods – Lower region are predominantly Ultisols with fine to fine loamy clays and siliceous minerals. Soils have a thermic temperature regime and a moist For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-44

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

moisture regime. There is a wide variety of soil texture and mineralogy with soils range from fine-silty, fine-loamy, to sandy. Mineralogy ranges include quartizic, arkosic, clayey, and micaeous. Soils are deep, moderately permeable, and well drained on the coastal plain and uplands. The Mid Coastal Plains – Western ecological area soils are predominantly Ultisols. Alfisols and some Ultisols are on uplands. Entisols, Inceptisols, and Alfisols are on bottom lands along major streams. Soils are generally fine grained, but some coarser varieties are present. Siliceous mineralogy is prevalent with lesser amounts of clayey and kaolinitic soil series. Coastal Plains – Middle Section soils are mostly Ultisols characterized by fine to fine-loamy siliceous material with lesser amounts of coarser Entisols, Insecptisols and wetter Alfisols. Ultisols are on level to strongly sloping uplands and on less sloping, moderately well drained areas. Small but significant areas of Alfisols and Entisols are present in localized areas and bottom lands. Ultisols are found on low wetlands. Soils are loamy, clayey, or sandy; deep; and well to poorly drained. Soils in the Coastal Plains and Flatwoods – Lower ecological area are mostly Ultisols on uplands and low wetlands. drained. Localized areas of Entisols occur in the southern part of the Section and in bottom lands, along with Alfisols. Soils are fine to moderately fine textured and from well drained to poorly drained. 3.3.3.1 Productivity and Reclamation Potential Productivity and reclamation potential vary throughout the Gulf Coal Region. Soils in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi have high productivity and reclamation potential, especially in the Mississippi flood plain. Climate, water availability, rich organic soils result in increased productivity. Soils in Texas are more variable and generally have lower productivity and reclamation potential because of the drier climate and poorer soils.

3.3.4 Illinois Basin
Soils in the Illinois Basin are Molisols, Alfisols, Inceptisols, and Entisols. Molisols in this region are mostly freely draining. While originally dominated by tall grass prairie they are now used as cropland, pasture, or rangeland. Alfisols are present over much of the area especially near the Mississippi River. Minor amounts of Entisols are also present near rivers. Entisols in the Illinois Basin Coal Region are in the vicinity of rivers and streams. These soils support vegetation that tolerates permanent or periodic wetness and used mostly as pasture, cropland, forest, or as wildlife habitat. Soil description for ecological area (McNab and Avers 1996) are taken from the Final Environmental Impact Statement Excess Spoil Minimization Stream Buffer Zones (OSM 2008). Soils in the Central Loess Plains include dry Mollisols and Entisols and moderate moisture Ustolls and Udolls. Entisols, Mollisols, and Alfisols with moist to wet moisture regimes occur along major drainages and on dissected plains. The Mollisols and Entisols are fine-silty to fine loamy or clayey. Soils are deep to very deep and poorly to well drained soils on outwash plains, stream terraces, or till plains. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-45

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Central Till Plains soils are mostly Ultisols and Alfisols, but Inceptisols and Molisols are also present. Soils tend to have relatively thick surface layers, darkened by decomposed organic matter. They are very productive for agricultural crops. Poorly drained, these soils are on flood plains and till plains. Textures are fine-silty to coarse-silty. Interior Low Plateau - Shawnee Hills soils were formed under deciduous forests from loess, residuum, and alluvium. The area is dominated by Ultisol and Alfisols. However, recent investigations indicate inclusions of Inceptisols. Textures are fine-silty and fine-loamy. Soils are generally well drained to moderately well drained. Table 3.3-3 Ecoregion and Soil Association Dominant Soil Associations of the Illinois Basin Region Soil Order Description Percentage of Coal Regions

Central Loess Plains Section Flanagan-Drummer-Catlin Plano-Elburn-Drummer Rozetta-Hickory-Fayette Rozetta-Keomah-HickoryFayette-Clinton Saybrook-Parr-Drummer-Dana (s2249) Strawn-Miami-Hennepin (s2276) Mollisols Mollisols Alfisols Fine, clayey and fine-silty, mixed, moderate moisture Fine, clayey and fine-silty, mixed, moderate moisture Fine-silty and fine loamy, mixed, moderate moisture Fine-silty, fine clayey, and fine-loamy mixed, moderate moisture fine-silty and fine-loamy, mixed, moderate moisture typic hapludalfs, fineloamy, mixed, moderate moisture Alfisols and Inceptisols Fine-loamy, mixed, moderate moisture Inceptisols and fine-silty and fine clayey, mixed, moderate moisture Mollisols Fine-loamy, mixed, moderate moisture Inceptisols and fine-silty, mixed, moderate moisture Mollisols 6% 2% 3%

Alfisols

6%

Mollisols Alfisols Inceptisols

2%

2%

Tama-Sable-Ipava

Inceptisols Mollisols

8%

Tama-Sable-Muscatine

Inceptisols Mollisols

2%

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-46

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Ecoregion and Soil Association Varna-Elliott-Ashkum (s2250) Virden-Herrick

Soil Order Mollisols Mollisols

Description Fine, and fine- clayey, moderate moisture Fine, clayey, moderate moisture Fine-silty, mixed, acid, moderate moisture Entisols and coarse-silty, mixed, acid, moderate moisture floodplain Inceptisols Fine, clayey, and fine-silty mixed, moderate moisture Fine, clayey, and mixed, moderate moisture Fine-silty, and fine-loamy mixed, moderate moisture Fine-clayey, fine-silty, and and fine-loamy, moderate moisture Fine-silty, mixed, moderate moisture Alfisols and fine-loamy, mixed, moderate moisture Ultisols

Percentage of Coal Regions

2%

Central Till Plains, Oak-Hickory Section

Bonnie-Belknap

Entisols Inceptisols

2%

Hoyleton-Darmstadt-Cisne (s2241) Oconee-Cowden (s2240) Stoy-Hosmer-Hickory (s2268) Wynoose-Hickory-BlufordAva (s2269)

Alfisols Alfisols Alfisols

3% 2% 3%

Alfisols

8%

Interior Low Plateau, Shawnee Hills Section

Zanesville-Wellston-Gilpin (s2371)

Alfisols Ultisols

2%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.3.4.1 Productivity and Reclamation Potential Soils in the Illinois Basin Coal Region are generally productive, supporting range and croplands. Their organic content is generally high and there is sufficient rainfall so reclamation potential is also high. Because this region is on the plains, the lack of steep slopes and good slope stability contribute to reclamation potential.

3.3.5 Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains
Soil in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains have generally developed in residual material and alluvium in a climate of cold winters, warm summers, and low precipitation. The upland soils are derived from both residual material (flat-lying, interbedded sandstone, siltstone, For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-47

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

and shale) and stream alluvium. Valley soils have developed in unconsolidated stream sediments including silt, sand, and gravel (BLM 2003). Exposed bedrock is present on steep slopes. The most extensive soils are Entisols, which are recent soils occurring mainly on sloping topography where geologic erosion outpaces soil profile development or organic matter accumulation. The physical and chemical characteristics of Entisol soils largely depend on the soil parent materials and the bedrock on which they occur. These soils generally are low in plant nutrients and commonly have clay textures. The coal-rich Powder River Basin (PRB) has large areas of gently sloping to nearly flat, more stable, topography. Soils on these surfaces commonly are identified as Aridisols. These soils commonly have low to moderate organic matter content and plant nutrients in the surface layer. They also have moderate to strong structural development within the surface and subsoil layers. This results in a more fertile rooting zone, particularly when soil textures are loamy rather than sandy or clayey. The third and least extensive group of soils is the Mollisols. These soils are the most fertile and have higher levels of organic matter and nutrients, particularly in the surface layer. Fluvial soil types are found on gently sloping to flat drainage bottoms (BLM 1984). Mountain soils, in rolling to steep mountain terrain are generally formed on residum and transported material from bedrock. Soils can be shallow to deep, well drained, and moderately permeable (Lowham, et al. 1985). Runoff potential is moderately low to high and erodibility is low to moderate. The most abundant soils are those found on alpine slopes and meadows and are generally classified as Cryoboalfs (Gaggiani, et al 1987). Reclamation potential is generally poor because of the soil type, depth of soil, slope, and dry conditions except in mountain meadows. Plains soils are derived from transported and residual materials. Soils on the plains generally contain organic material, are fine grained, and more alkaline than mountain soils (Lowrey, et al. 1986). With low to moderate permeability, they have a moderate to high potential for runoff (Lowrey, et al. 1986). Additionally, soils on the Plains are subject to wind erosion. Biological crusts, a complex mosaic of blue-green algae, green algae, lichens, mosses, microfungi, and other bacteria (Belnap et al. 2001) are also present in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. These crusts can reduce water and soil erosion although they are very fragile. Fluvial soil types in the PRB are found on gently sloping to flat drainage bottoms. Fluvial soils vary considerably in fertility, depending on the source of alluvium. Fluvial soils low in salts and sodium tend to be very fertile and are the most productive in the basin (BLM 1984). There are no dominant soil associations in the Powder River ecological area; however this area makes up 21 percent of the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Coal Region and is where the large surface coal mines currently operate. Dominant soil associations in the rest of the region are shown on Table 3.3-4.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-48

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 3.3-4

Dominant Soil Associations of the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Coal Region Soil Order Description Percentage of Coal Regions

Ecoregion and Soil Association

Greater Green River Basin Section Haterton Entisols Loamy, mixed (calcareous), frigid, shallow and on slopes 3%

Northern Glaciated Plains Section Williams-Bowbells Zahl-Williams-Vida-Bowbells 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mollisols Alfisols Mollisols Fine-loamy, mixed Fine-loamy, mixed 2% 2%

3.3.5.1 Productivity and Reclamation Potential Coal mines in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Coal Region consist of surface mines and underground mines. The surface mines are concentrated in the northeastern part of the region in the vicinity of Gillette, Wyoming. These surface mines are extensive. Currently, soil has been removed more than 151,000 acres in Wyoming due to coal mining and approximately 34,800 acres have been reclaimed (OSMRE 2009). Reclamation potential varies depending on soil type, depth, slope, but precipitation is the main factor in determining reclamation success especially for native species. Reclamation potential is generally poor because of the soil type, depth of soil, slope, and dry conditions except in mountain meadows. Successful revegetation with native species can take on the order of 20 years, although many areas revegetate with non-native or weed species in about a year (BLM 2010).

3.3.6 Northwest Coal Region
Gelisols are the dominant soil type in the Northwest Coal Region. Almost all of this region is in Alaska with small areas scattered throughout Washington, Oregon, and California. Soil descriptions for Alaska soils were summarized from the Northwest National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2003). Soils on the Arctic Coastal Plan are shallow and constantly wet because they lie over the area's thick permafrost. The poorly drained soils have developed in deep loamy sediment under a thick cover of sedge tussocks, low shrubs, forbs, mosses, and lichens. Very poorly drained fibrous peat soils occupy broad depressions, shallow drainage ways, and lake borders. These types of soils are cold and wet. Further inland are broad valleys, basins, foot slopes, and low rolling piedmont hills. Most areas are patterned with frost scars. Most of the soils are silty, colluvial, and residual material weathered from fine-grained, nonacid sedimentary rocks. To the southeast, the landscape consists of rolling sand dunes. Most of the soils consist of sandy aeolian, alluvial, and marine deposits, but a few soils were formed in loamy material. Poorly drained soils with a shallow permafrost table occupy most of the nearly level areas and the broad For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-49

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

swales between dunes. The soils on dunes consist of aeolian sand, although they are perennially frozen below a depth of 30 to 40 inches. Soil in the coal mining regions of Washington are Andisols, Entisols, Insepitols and generally are organic matter-rich topsoil. Soils are cool and generally stony at higher elevations. At lower elevations, warmer soils have organic matter-rich topsoil. Dominant soil associations of the Northwest Coal Regions are listed in Table 3.3-5. Soil series have not been well studied in the arctic regions and the names of the soil associations are soil types rather than location names. Table 3.3-5 Ecoregion and Soil Association Dominant Soil Associations of the Northwest Coal Region Soil Order Description Percentage of Coal Regions

Coastal Plains Section Permafrost; poorly-drained organic lowlands, and low-lying, seasonally flooded; shallow partially decomposed organic matter grading into sandy loam; poorly-drained, organic; lowlands. Permafrost; organic lowlands

Typic Histoturbels-Typic Fibristels-Typic Aquiturbels

Gelisols

10%

Typic Psammoturbels-Typic Gelisols Histoturbels-Typic Aquiturbels Typic Haplocryods-Sphagnic Cryofibrists-Andic Haplocryods (s9412) Typic Haplocryods-Sphagnic Cryofibrists-Andic Haplocryods (s9413) Typic Haploturbels-Typic Aquiturbels (s9322) Typic Histoturbels-Typic Aquiturbels (s9256)

8%

Cook Inlet Lowlands Section Spodosols Histosols Spodosols Histosols Sandy, slope wash Poorly drained and peaty Sandy, slope wash Poorly drained and peaty 6%

2%

Foothills Section Gelisols Gelisols Permafrost; poorly-drained organic lowlands Permafrost; poorly-drained organic lowlands 3% 38%

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-50

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Ecoregion and Soil Association

Soil Order

Description Permafrost; poorly-drained organic lowlands, and low-lying, seasonally flooded; shallow partially decomposed organic matter grading into sandy loam; poorly-drained, organic; lowlands Permafrost; poorly-drained organic lowlands, and low-lying, seasonally flooded; shallow partially decomposed organic matter grading into sandy loam; poorly-drained, organic; lowlands

Percentage of Coal Regions

Typic Histoturbels-Typic Fibristels-Typic Aquiturbels (s9277)

Gelisols

5%

Typic Molliturbels-Typic Histoturbels-Typic Aquiturbels-Ruptic histic aquiturbels (s9286)

Gelisols

3%

Upper Yukon Highlands Section Typic Histoturbels-Typic Dystrocryepts-Aquic Cryorthents (s9366) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 There is one active coal mine in Alaska – the Usibelli Coal Mine. Coal has been mined in Washington since 1853. Although current production is from surface mines, most coal produced prior to about 1970 came from underground mines. Most mines are concentrated on the western slope of the Cascade Mountains. There are no active coal mines in Oregon and very little reserve. 3.3.6.1 Productivity and Reclamation Potential Productivity and reclamation potential in arctic regions of Alaska is low because of cold temperatures, permafrost, and soil character. Soils form very slowly and much of the area is continuously wet during the summer months. Productivity and reclamation potential of areas in the Washington State coal region are much higher because of the more temperate climate. Gelisols Inceptisols Entisols Permafrost; poorly-drained organic lowlands 2%

3.3.7 Other Western Interior
Soil in the Western Interior coal region are predominantly Molisols. Alfisols are present, especially in Oklahoma and minor amounts of Entisols are present near rivers. Molisos are the dominant soils of the plains. They form in grasslands and are used mainly as rangeland or cropland. Alfisols in this region are in areas with moderate rainfall and support grassland and forest vegetation. Entisols are generally sandy. They are among the most productive rangeland soils, especially along rivers, and are used as rangeland or pasture. These soils may be subject to soil blowing and drifting.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-51

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 3.3-6

Dominant Soil Associations of Other Western Interior Coal Regions Soil Order Description Percentage of Coal Regions

Ecoregion and Soil Association

Central Dissected Till Plains Section Gara-Armstrong Lagonda-Grundy Marshall Alfisols Mollisols Mollisols Fine-loamy, mixed, moderate moisture Fine, clayey, moderate moisture Fine, clayey, moderate moisture Fine-silty, mixed, moderate moisture Fine-loamy, mixed, moderate moisture and fine, clayey, moderate moisture Fine-loamy and fine-silty, mixed, moderate moisture Fine, clayey, moderate moisture Fine, and fine-clayey mixed, moderate moisture Fine, and fine-loamy mixed, superactive, moderate moisture 4% 2% 2%

Shelby-Lamoni-Grundy

Mollisols

3%

Shelby-Sharpsburg-Colo Snead-Lagonda-GreentonArmster Winnegan-Lindley-KeswickGorin

Mollisols Mollisols Alfisols Alfisols

4%

2% 3%

Cross Timbers and Prairie Section Hector-Endsaw-Bolivar Verdigris-Taloka-DennisBates Inceptisols Alfisols Mollisols Alfisols Alfisols Inceptisols Loamy, siliceous, and clayey and fine-loamy mixed, thermic Fine, fine-silty, and fine-loamy siliceous and mixed, thermic 2% 2%

Flint Hills Section Stephenville-Niotaze-Darnell Fine, fine-loamy, and loamy siliceous, thermic 2%

North-Central Glaciated Plains Section Webster-Nicollet-ClarionCanisteo Summit-Eram-ClaresonCatoosa Mollisols Fine-loamy, mixed and calcareous, moderate moisture Fine,clayey, clayey-skeletal, and fine-silty thermic, mixed, thermic 3%

Osage Plains Section Mollisols 2% 2%

Mollisols Verdigris-Taloka-DennisFine, fine-silty, and fine-loamy For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials 3-52

FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Ecoregion and Soil Association Bates 1 2 3 4 5

Soil Order Alfisols

Description mixed or siliceous thermic

Percentage of Coal Regions

3.3.7.1 Productivity and Reclamation Potential In the Other Western Interior Coal region, soils are generally productive, supporting range and croplands. Their organic content is generally high and there is sufficient rainfall so reclamation potential is also high. Because this region is on the plains, the lack of steep slopes and good slope stability contribute to reclamation potential.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

3.4

GEOMORPHOLOGY AND FLUVIAL PROCESSES

3.4.0 Stream Characteristics
3.4.0.1 Length (Perennial, Intermittent and Ephemeral) Stream reaches are “dynamic zones within stream networks” (Fritz et al., 2006) meaning that the point-of-origins of streams are not static but can vary depending on factors such as precipitation, evapotranspiration, and land use (Paybins, 2003). Methodologies exist for identifying the pointof-origin of stream through field reconnaissance (NCDWQ, 2005; Fritz et al., 2006); however such techniques are not practical for large watersheds due to time and cost constraints. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) permit the user to extrapolate stream type (e.g. ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial) delineation criteria to large watersheds to obtain better estimates of stream type extent (length and percentage). Using USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic maps (7.5 Quadrangle) often results in the under-identification or misclassification of headwater streams. Colson et al. (2008) used NCDWQ (2005) field techniques to identify 171 intermittent and perennial stream origins. The researchers found that these USGS maps underestimated stream length by 56 percent with most first- and several second-order streams excluded from identification. However, using GIS and a more refined elevation model can greatly improve predictive capabilities. Childers et al. (2006) used GIS and the National Elevation Dataset (NED) (1:100,000 scale) to predict intermittent and perennial streams in a West Virginia watershed based upon the median point-of-origin drainage areas for these stream types (Paybins, 2003). The model accurately predicted over 90 percent of the perennial stream using the NED data. When compared to the USGS 1:24,000 map, 70 percent more perennial stream length and 158 percent more intermittent stream length were predicted (ephemeral streams were not examined). Leopold et al. (1964) estimated that there are 3,250,000 miles of stream in the United States (Table 3.4-1). On average, a drainage area of 1 square mile will support 1.4 miles of stream length. This relationship is described by the equation L=1.4DA0.6 where L represents stream length in miles and DA represents drainage area in square miles. The coefficient can vary between 1 and 2.5 depending on geographic region. Likewise, the exponent can vary but generally will be between 0.6 and 0.7 (Leopold et al., 1964). For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-53

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Table 3.4-2 contains a summary of the lengths and percentages of intermittent and perennial streams for each coal resource region. As seen in Table 3.4-2, the values vary markedly across the regions. The Appalachian Basin and the Northwest, which are characterized by higher rainfall amounts, have more perennial stream length as compared to intermittent (1.7 times and 5.2 times more perennial length versus intermittent length, respectively). For more arid regions such as the Colorado Plateau and the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the lengths of intermittent streams are far greater than perennial streams (6.2 times and 6.7 times more intermittent length versus perennial length, respectively). For the Illinois Basin, the lengths of intermittent and perennial streams are similar. For the Other Western Region and Gulf Coast where rainfall amounts can be notably variable across the regions, intermittent stream length are greater than perennial stream lengths (2.4 times and 1.6 times more intermittent length versus perennial length, respectively). Table 3.4-1 Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number and Length of Streams in the United States. Adapted from Leopold et al. (1964). Number 1,570,000 350,000 80,000 18,000 4,200 950 200 41 8 1 Average Stream Length (mi) 1 2.3 5.3 12 28 64 147 338 777 1,800 Total Stream Length (mi) 1,570,000 810,000 420,000 220,000 116,000 61,000 30,000 14,000 6,200 1,800

15 16 17 18 19 Table 3.4-2 Summary of NHD Intermittent and Perennial Stream Lengths for the Coal Resource Regions.

Length values are rounded to the nearest hundreds. Percent of Total Length values are rounded to the nearest tenths.

Region

Stream Type Intermittent

Length (mi) 33,720 57,290 4,170 41,030

Percent of Total Length2 35.4 60.2 4.4 80.4

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau

Perennial Other1 Intermittent

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-54

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Perennial Other Gulf Coast
1

6,650 3,320 132,560 83,870 29,590 36,270 30,320 6,040 146,670 21,660 11,380 290 1,500 240 86,310 35,380 6,240

13.0 6.5 53.9 34.1 12.0 49.9 41.7 8.3 81.6 12.1 6.3 14.2 74.0 11.8 67.5 27.7 4.9

Intermittent Perennial Other Illinois Basin
1

Intermittent Perennial Other1 Intermittent Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Perennial Other Northwest
1

Intermittent Perennial Other Other Western Interior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1 2

1

Intermittent Perennial Other
1

Other includes artificial channels and other Fcodes that make up the NHD flowlines. Total length includes intermittent, perennial and other channels. Ephemeral channels are not included

3.4.0.1.1

Geomorphic Relationships

Streams are shaped by their discharge and sediment loads (FISRWG, 1998). Equilibrium in a stream involves the interaction of sediment discharge, sediment particle size, stream flow, and stream slope (Lane, 1955). For stable alluvial streams, channel geometry can be determined from a representative channel-forming discharge. An alluvial stream is one that can adjust its shape (i.e. dimension, pattern, and profile) in response to changes in water and sediment inputs. A stable stream is one that is in dynamic equilibrium meaning that aggradation or filling in and degradation or erosion is not occurring (NRCS, 2007). The channel-forming discharge is the stream flow that if held constant would produce a channel morphology close to that of the existing stream (Copeland et al., 2000). Copeland et al. (2000) note that the concept of channelforming discharge is generally not valid in arid environments as infrequent high intensity rainfalls coupled with lack of riparian vegetation means the stream will adjust to each major event. While channel-forming discharge cannot be calculated directly, it can be indirectly estimated using effective discharge. Effective discharge is the flow that transports the largest amount of the bed-material load, and it is computed using long-term discharge and sediment data (Bledenharn and Copeland, 2000). As such data are typically not available, bankfull discharge is frequently used. Bankfull discharge represents the maximum flow that a stream can convey without overflowing its banks (Leopold et al., 1964). This discharge is considered significant as it represents the separation between stream formation processes and floodplain processes (Copeland et al., 2000). For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-55

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Leopold and Maddock(1953) recognized that the physical characteristics of streams such as stream cross-sectional area, width, depth, and discharge are interconnected. They described these relationships using hydraulic geometry curves. Dunne and Leopold (1978) later recognized that these relationships differed across regions. Hence, the physiographic characteristics (i.e. hydrology, soils, vegetation, and development) of a region’s watersheds influenced these hydraulic geometry relationships (Rosgen, 1996; Keaton et al., 2005). Recognizing the strong relationship between bankfull discharge and drainage area (Leopold et al., 1964), drainage area is substituted as the independent variable in place of bankfull discharge. Using drainage area as the independent variable is a more practical way to utilize regional curves as drainage area is an easier variable to obtain than bankfull discharge (Johnson and Fecko, 2008). Regional curves have the general form Pbkf = aDAb where Pbkf is the bankfull parameter (area, width, depth, or discharge), DA is the watershed drainage area, and a and b are the fitting parameters of the exponential equation. Regional curves are helpful in the identification of bankfull identification, particularly in impacted systems where lack of good bankfull indicators is a common and problematic occurrence. Additionally, regional curves can be used in restoration or creation designs to help determine appropriate channel geometries for design streams. To obtain the necessary information to develop regional curves, data must be acquired from several reference regional reaches representing a wide range of drainage areas. Reference reaches are segments of a stream that represent a stable morphology; however, these reaches do not have to be pristine (Rosgen, 1998). As the range of watersheds over which the data for the regional curves is collected may differ from the size of the project watershed, or there may be a size gap in the data, it is recommended that the designer develop a mini-regional curve. Mini-regional curves characterize the same relationships as regional curves; however, they typically do so at a smaller geographical scale (e.g. project-scale), thereby allowing for greater focus at the portion of the curves more closely related to project reaches. Regional curves are often developed by federal government agencies such as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) or United States Fish and Wildlife Services. State agencies focusing on water resource related issues (e.g. Kentucky Division of Water) also play a role in developing curves. Mini-regional curves are often developed by private consulting or engineering firms as part of the design process. 3.4.0.2 Stream Definition 3.4.0.2.1 Federal Agencies A key aspect in federal regulations is how ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams are defined. States and agencies offer varying definitions as to what constitutes each stream type. Some definitions use thresholds related to drainage area size while others are based upon hydrologic characteristics. In regards to definitions provided by federal agencies, geomorphic and/or biologic indices are not incorporated into the stream demarcation process. Stream type definitions were examined for the following federal agencies: United States Office of Surface Mining (USOSM), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and United States Geological Survey (USGS). For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-56

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

3.4.0.2.1.1

United States Office of Surface Mining

From the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30: Mineral Resources, Part 701 – Permanent Regulatory Program, §701.5 Definitions which is available at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=759f6054bdeefa052f3b8444f00d2cc5;idno=30;region=DIV 1;q1=ephemeral;rgn=div8;view=text;node=30%3A3.0.1.1.2.0.1.5 Ephemeral stream means a stream which flows only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate watershed or in response to the melting of a cover of snow and ice, and which has a channel bottom that is always above the local water table. Intermittent stream means – (a) A stream or reach of a stream that drains a watershed of at least one square mile, or (b) A stream or reach of stream that is below the local water table for at least some part of the year, and obtains its flow from both surface runoff and ground water discharge. Perennial stream means a stream or part of a stream that flows continuously during all of the calendar year as a result of ground-water discharge or surface runoff. The term does not include intermittent stream or ephemeral stream. 3.4.0.2.1.2 United States Environmental Protection Agency

The USEPA does not have official definitions for ephemeral, intermittent and perennial stream type. Instead, the USEPA uses the definitions established by the USACE. 3.4.0.2.1.3 United States Army Corps of Engineers

According to the document “2007 Nationwide Permits, Conditions, Further Information, and Definitions (with corrections)”, which is available at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/nwp/nwp2007_gen_conditions_def.pd f located on the United States Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits Information webpage, the following definitions are offered for ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams. Ephemeral stream: An ephemeral stream has flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream. Runoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow. Intermittent stream: An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. Perennial stream: A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-57

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. The USACE relies on the 40 CFR 230.3(s) definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) in the regulation of coal mining permits. 40 CFR 230.3(s) provides the following definition for WOTUS: 1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairiepotholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; 4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition; 5. Tributaries of waters identified inparagraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section; 6. The territorial sea; 7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA. 3.4.0.2.1.4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Specific definitions regarding ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams were not available. Instead, USFWS uses the USACE’s definitions (personal communication with Nick Ozburn at Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources). Work by Cowardin et al. (1979) for the USFW states that intermittent streams have “… flowing water for only part of the year. When the water is not flowing, it may remain in isolated pools or surface water may be absent.” With For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-58

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

regards to perennial streams, these systems were subdivided into lower perennial and upper perennial. Lower perennial streams have low gradients, slow moving water, well developed floodplains, and substrate dominated by sand and mud. Upper perennial streams have higher gradients, faster moving water, and substrates dominated by rock, gravel, and cobble. For both perennial stream types, flow is present throughout the year. 3.4.0.2.1.5 United States Geological Survey

According to the webpage “Science in Your Watershed: General Introduction and Hydrologic Definitions,” which is available at http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html#S, the USGS uses the following definitions for streams. Stream. A general term for a body of flowing water. In hydrology the term is generally applies to the water flowing in a natural channel as distinct from a canal. More generally as in the term stream gaging, it is applied to the water flowing in any channel, natural or artificial. Streams in natural channels may be classified as follows (after Meinzer, 1923, p. 5658):  Relation to time. o Perennial. One which flows continuously. o Intermittent or seasonal. One which flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface source such as melting snow in mountainous areas. o Ephemeral. One that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and whose channel is at all times above the water table.  Relation to space. o Continuous. One that does not have interruptions in space. o Interrupted. One which contains alternating reaches, that are either perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral.  Relation to ground water. o Gaining. A stream or reach of a stream that receives water from the zone of saturation. o Losing. A stream or reach of a stream that contributes water to the zone of saturation. o Insulated. A stream or reach of a stream that neither contributes water to the zone of saturation nor received water from it. It is separated from the zones of saturation by an impermeable bed. o Perched. A perched stream is either a losing stream or an insulated stream that is separated from the underlying ground water by a zone of aeration. 3.4.0.2.2 Scientific Literature

The scientific literature was examined with regards to definitions of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams. Stream type definitions were largely provided in general terms meaning that specific temporal periods were not defined. Ephemeral streams were typically defined as those that flow in response to precipitation events and have streambed above the water table at all For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-59

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6

times. Intermittent streams were defined as those that flow for part of the year, though the length of this flow requirement was not always specified. Additionally, streambeds for these channels are located at or near the water table. With regards to perennial streams, these systems were defined to have flow for most to all of the year with a streambed above the water table. The results of this search are presented in Tables 3.4-3 to 3.4-5. Table 3.4-3 Location  Western U.S.    All    Southern Appalachia Idaho Indiana, Kentucky, South-central Ohio, Southeastern Ohio, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia All   Ephemeral Stream Definitions from the Scientific Literature Definition Flows only in direct response to precipitation Discharge generally occurs less than 10 percent of the time Streambed above the water table at all times Flows only in direct response to precipitation No discharge is supplied by springs or surface sources (e.g. melting snow) Streambed above water table at all times Continuous flow less than one month Flow during, but not normally for extended periods, following storm events Contains water only during high runoff (e.g. spring snow melt or following severe rainstorms) Source

Hedman and Osterkamp (1982)

Meinzer (1923)

Hansen (2001) Savage and Rabe (1979)



No flow during spring and summer site visits

Fritz et al. (2008) 1

 

Flow periodically in response to precipitation Flow for short durations and only after rain or snow melt Streambed surface is always above the groundwater table

Dowing et al. (2007) Fritz et al. (2010)

Eastern Kentucky 7 8
1



Spring visit during April/May period; summer visit during August/September period.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-60

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 3.4-4

Intermittent Stream Definitions from the Scientific Literature Definition     Flows in response to discharge from springs, groundwater seepage, and precipitation Discharge generally occurs between 10 and 80 percent of the time At or near the water table At least 1 month of continuous streamflow during seasonal period required Source

Location

Western U.S.

Hedman and Osterkamp (1982)

All

Spring-fed intermittent stream  Flows only at certain times when it receives discharge from springs  Intermittent nature due to fluctuations in water table  Considered ordinary type of intermittent stream Surface-fed intermittent stream  Flow for protracted periods when it receives flow from surface source (e.g. snow melt)  Continuous flow for at least one month  Cease to flow for a portion of the year

Meinzer (1923)

Southern Appalachia

Hansen (2001) Savage and Rabe (1979)

Idaho Indiana, Kentucky, South-central Ohio, Southeastern Ohio, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia All Eastern Kentucky

Permanent stream  Considerable seasonal variation in flow (authors that state permanent streams can also be intermittent, despite name)



Flow during spring site visit but dry or with surface water limited to isolated pools during summer visit

Fritz et al. (2008) 1



Flows several months during the year in part to groundwater and precipitation contributions Flow seasonally when groundwater table elevation is above streambed surface

Dowing et al. (2007) Fritz et al. (2010)



For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-61

1 2

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 1 Spring visit during April/May period; summer visit during August/September period.

Table 3.4-5 Location

Perennial Stream Definitions from the Scientific Literature Definition        Flow is partially or totally in response to discharge from springs or groundwater seepage Streambed is lower than surrounding groundwater levels Discharge generally occurs more than 80 percent of the time Flows continuously Generally fed in part by springs Streambed lower than local water table Typically flow all year Source

Western U.S.

Hedman and Osterkamp (1982)

All

Meinzer (1923) Hansen (2001)

Southern Appalachia

Idaho

Spring stream  Flow from groundwater aquifer discharge as surface springs  Little seasonal variation in flow Permanent stream  Considerable seasonal variation in flow (authors state that permanent streams can also be intermittent, despite name)

Savage and Rabe (1979)

Indiana, Kentucky, South-central Ohio, Southeastern Ohio, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia All Eastern Kentucky 3 4
1



Flow (surface or visibly interstitial) during both spring and summer visits

Fritz et al. (2008)1

 

Flows year-round Flow throughout most years

Dowing et al. (2007) Fritz et al. (2010)

Spring visit during April/May period; summer visit during August/September period.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-62

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

3.4.0.3 Bioassessment Methodologies 3.4.0.3.1 Stream Bioassessment Protocols and Biological Indices Streams have long been used as a measuring stick to determine ecological health. Reasons behind this choice are obvious due to the intimate connection streams have with the landscape and their connectivity to surface and ground water systems. Throughout the United States streams have been given varying degrees of protection from direct and indirect impacts. The mining of coal can impact streams both directly and indirectly. Impacts can be temporal such as in access road building or sediment pond construction; or these impacts can be permanent as would be the case when streams are mined through or hollow-fills are constructed and streams are buried. The Clean Water Act was the cornerstone for the protection of the nation’s waters. From that act, many programs were developed both on a national and state level. These programs include Section 305-Water Quality Assessment, Section 319 Nonpoint Source Assessment, Section 303(d) The TMDL Process, Section 402-NPDES Permits and Individual Control Strategies, and more. All of these programs were charged with the task of evaluating waters of the U.S. to determine their use, level of impairment, if they were degraded and what was the probable cause, etc. To begin such a task, it was clear that there needed to be a way to determine a streams baseline or reference condition; and to present those findings in terms that could be shared throughout the scientific community. In 1989 EPA took the lead and developed technical guidance for biological assessments of lotic waters as well as development of protocols which are both cost effective and scientifically based (Barbour et al. EPA 440/4-89/-001). States within the coal field regions of the U.S. have adopted the EPA protocols along with the addition of state specific evaluation methods. Since its original inception and the opportunity to apply the techniques developed, the procedures have been improved and refined while maintaining the basic concept of the RBP. As such, a second edition was published by the EPA in 1999 (Barbour et al. EPA 841-B-99-002). It added Periphyton as an added assessment tool. The premise behind the development of the protocol was to have something quick, affordable, and understandable. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocols have several levels of intensity which are used based on the type of data that needs to be obtained. The RBP I is the basic screening protocol. This is most often accomplished by visiting the stream and from visual inspection address habitat characteristics as they are presented on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet. The header information asked for on this sheet will require some basic water quality analysis as well as basic site location information. The next level (RPB II) adds aquatic organisms and family level identification. RBP III is the most rigorous assessment. Un-impacted streams have a complex set of variables and these are used as a baseline from which impacts from stream disturbances can be measured. Since streams across the U.S. flow through differing eco-regions, the exact set of variables in one place cannot be exactly the same set in another, however, the EPA protocol provided options that states could adopt and develop for implementation. Levels of bioassessments can provide basic information or be more For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-63

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

rigorous. The original protocol was field tested across the U.S. and performed well to give recognizable results. Every state that lies within a coal region has either adopted the EPA protocol or modified it and developed alternative criteria for what constitutes a healthy stream for their particular eco-region, and how to measure impacted streams against a baseline. These measurements are typically based on what is referred to as metrics. Metric allows the investigator to use indicator attributes to assess the status of assemblages or communities in response to impacts. Each metric is a characteristic of the organism(s) that changes in a predictable way to disturbance. Table 3.4-6 lists typical metrics for stream assessment. These relate to the abundance and types of aquatic organisms found in the streams, and the connections between certain groups. The sampling and reporting of the habitat data, the Periphyton analysis, the Macroinvertebrate sampling and data analysis and the Fish sampling and data analysis all have set protocols and can be reviewed in the above reference documents. Results of the aquatic component of the Biosurvey are presented as a list or in a table of several benthic metrics representing each sampling location. Metrics can be reviewed either independently or as indices; which are groupings and further developed into indices to further reiterate results of single metrics. A few examples of these are; the Invertebrate Community Index, the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity, and the mHBI (modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index). The following table identifies what metrics can be used to validate what situation may exist for a certain biotic group. Potential metrics for periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish that could be considered for streams are shown in Table 3.4-6. Redundancy can be evaluated during the calibration phase to eliminate overlapping metrics. Table 3.4-6 Richness Measures  Total no. of taxa  No. of common nondiatom taxa  No. of diatom taxa Potential Metrics for Stream Consideration Composition Measures  % community similarity  % live diatoms  Diatom (Shannon) diversity index Tolerance Measures  % tolerant diatoms  % sensitive taxa  % aberrant diatoms  % acidobiontic  % alkalibiontic  % halobiontic Trophic/Habit Measures  % motile taxa  Chlorophyll a % saprobiontic  % eutrophic

Periphyton

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-64

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Richness Measures  No. total taxa  No. EPT taxa  No. Ephemeroptera taxa  No. Plecoptera  Total No. of native fish species  No. and identity of darter species  No. and identity of sunfish species  No. and identity of sucker species Benthic Macroinverteb rate

Composition Measures  % EPT % Ephemeroptera % Chironomidae  % pioneering species  Number of fish per unit of sampling effort related to drainage area

Tolerance Measures  No. Intolerant Taxa  % Tolerant Organisms  Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)  No. and identity of intolerant species  % of individuals as tolerant species  % of individuals as hybrids  % of individuals with disease, tumors, fin damage and skeletal anomalies

Trophic/Habit Measures  No. Clinger taxa  % clingers  % Filterers  % Scrapers  % omnivores % insectivores  % top carnivores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

In either format the numerical outcome provides information about the biological component of the stream habitat from which it was taken. This information combined with the results of the habitat data sheets and some basic water quality data can provide an accurate analysis of the health of the aquatic ecosystem. The reader of an aquatic bioassessment must be familiar enough to understand the numerical relationship to impairment or population size for the data to make sense. To increase validity from the findings the biological monitoring should combine biological insight as well statistical power. 3.4.0.4 Stream Restoration 3.4.0.4.1 Reconstruction/Restoration Techniques Restoration involves returning natural and/or historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource (unless otherwise noted, adopted from Federal, 2008). Establishment or creation refers to the creating of an aquatic resource that did not previously exist at the location ever or for some period of time. Enhancement involves increasing or improving the functioning of an aquatic resource (one that already has some level of functioning). While a number of design techniques are available to restore, establish (create), or enhance streams, the most commonly employed ones incorporate a geomorphic approach (e.g. natural channel design). These approaches may incorporate a combination of analog, empirical, and/or analytical methods into the design process (Rosgen, 2006) (Table 3.4-7). In the design process, the focus is often on the physical components (e.g. cross-sectional dimension, pattern, profile, and in-stream structures) to ensure stability. Techniques related to threshold and alluvial streams will be briefly discussed in the following sections. This list is not all-inclusive. The inclusion of a specific design technique does not imply a recommendation or endorsement. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Fish

3-65

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 3.4-7 Approach Analog

Categorization Approaches to Natural Channel Design. Description

Uses templates (“blue-prints) developed from measurements of historic or stable nearby channel characteristics (e.g. dimension, pattern, and profile). Equilibrium is assumed between channel form, hydrology, and sediment transport as stable channels are measured. Uses equations (e.g. regional curves) to relate channel characteristics, typically on a regional basis. Equilibrium conditions assumed as stable channels are used to develop equations.

Empirical

Analytical 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Utilizes hydraulic modes and sediment transport functions to determine equilibrium conditions. Source: Skidmore et al. (2001) 3.4.0.4.1.1 Threshold Stream Design

Threshold streams or incipient motion streams are those with boundary materials that do not experience significant movement during the design flow (unless otherwise noted, adopted from NRCS, 2007). Examples of threshold streams include those where the streambed is composed of very coarse material, bedrock, clay soils, or grass lining. Since their boundaries are comprised of materials that do not readily erode, threshold streams do not have the ability to adjust their geometry. The sediments transported by threshold streams tend to be wash loads. Designs consider the minimum velocity needed to transport these fine materials through the project reach to prevent the stream from evolving into an alluvial one. Provided that stream flows are below the design discharge and the particles comprising the bed and banks are stable, the geometry of threshold streams will remain static. Table 3.4-8 summarizes the characteristics of threshold streams. Table 3.4-8 Characteristics of Threshold and Alluvial Streams. Threshold Stream Boundary Sediment Inflow Dependent Design Variables Independent Design Variables Immobile at design discharge Small to negligible Width, depth, slope, and roughness (if there is a choice of boundary materials) Design discharge and channel roughness Mobile Significant Width, depth, slope, planform, bank roughness, and roughness due to obstructions or structures Design hydrograph, channel-forming discharge, bed-material sediment inflow, bed material, and streambank characteristics Alluvial Stream

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-66

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Threshold Stream Design Equations Stream Stability Design Goal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Source: NRCS (2007)

Alluvial Stream Energy, momentum, resistance, sediment transport, and geomorphic relationship Pass the incoming sediment load without significant aggradation or degradation or planform change

Energy, momentum, and resistance Pass the design discharge below the top of bank without mobilizing the boundary

In designing threshold streams, four general approaches are permissible velocity, allowable shear stress, allowable tractive power, and the special case of grass-lined streams. The permissible velocity approach is typically used for streams lined with grass, sand or earth. The allowable shear stress (tractive stress) approach is typically used with streams lined with rock, gravel or cobble. The tractive power approach was developed in the western United States. This approach is typically used when the boundary material does not act as discrete particles. For grass-lined streams, a modified allowable velocity approach or a modified allowable shear stress approach can be used. For situations where there is uncertainty regarding the appropriate technique to use, the NRCS (2007) recommends that a comparison of results from multiple methods be performed. 3.4.0.4.1.2 Alluvial Stream Design

Unlike threshold streams, the bed and banks of alluvial streams are formed by materials transported by the stream’s flow (unless otherwise noted, adopted from NRCS, 2007). Sediment is continually exchanged between the load carried by the stream’s flow and its bed and banks. These sediments are coarser and of a large volume than those transported by threshold streams. Alluvial streams are designed with the goal of building a stream that will be in dynamic equilibrium (e.g. can transport incoming sediment such that it is neither aggrading nor degrading) meaning it is geomorphically stable. Table 3.4-9 summarizes the characteristics of alluvial streams. In designing alluvial streams, five general approaches are regime, analogy, hydraulic geometry, extremal, and analytical methods (NRCS, 2007; Bass et al., 2007). The regime method is applicable for low-energy and low sediment transport streams (unless otherwise noted, adopted from NRCS, 2007). It was developed to design and operate large irrigation systems in India. The analogy method uses a reference reach (e.g. stable reach that is able to transport its incoming water and sediment without aggrading or degrading) or multiple reference reaches to determine design dimensions. Hydraulic geometry theory is an extension of regime theory; however, it was developed for use in natural streams. This method typically relates dependent variables to a single, driving independent variable such as discharge or drainage area. These relationships can be stratified according to bed-material size, bank vegetation, bank material type, or stream classification. Detailed information on hydraulic geometry theory is available in Leopold and Maddock (1953). The extremal approach is typically used when hydraulic geometry relationships cannot determined from field data or when there is significant sediment transport. The extremal approach is an analytical method that hypothesizes minimum energy dissipation (minimum stream power) and maximum sediment transport (NRCS, 2007; Griffiths, 1984). For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-67

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

With the extremal approach, a single unique solution (width, depth and slope) is obtained; however field conditions for stable streams can differ from the extremal condition. With the analytical approach, also known as the USACE approach, one of the design variables (typically width) is determined using geomorphic principles or project constraints. A unique solution for depth and slope are then determined by simultaneously solving resistance and sediment transport equations. The analytical methods allow for the development of a family of curves for width, depth and slope for a range of potential stable configurations. Detailed guidance on the analytical approach is available in Soar and Thorne (2001) and Copeland et al. (2001). Table 3.4-9 summarizes the characteristics of alluvial stream design methods. For situations where there is uncertainty regarding the appropriate technique to use, the NRCS (2007) recommends that a comparison of results from the most appropriate methods be performed. Table 3.4-9 Design Method   Characteristics of Alluvial Stream Design. Requirements   Channelforming discharge (estimated) Sedimentinflow concentration (estimated) Bed and bank characteristics (field evaluations) Limitations Applicable to streams similar to those used to develop regression equations Most data from irrigation canals Froude number <0.03 Low sediment transport Relatively uniform discharge

Theory and Assumptions Dependent variables: width, depth, and slope Independent variables: channel-forming discharge, bed gradation, and sediment-inflow concentration Regression equations used Assumption: alluvial streams will evolve to the same stable dimensions given the same independent variables



   

Regime

 



For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-68

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Design Method 

Theory and Assumptions  Dimensions from a reference reach transferred to another stream Assumption: alluvial streams will evolve into the same stable dimensions given the same independent variables 

Requirements Stable and alluvial reference reach Reference reach and design reach have same channel-forming discharge, valley slope, and bed and bank characteristics; similar watershed conditions 

Limitations Can be difficult to locate appropriate reference reach Dependent design variables (slope, depth, and width) from reference reach must be used as a combined set Applicable to streams similar to those used to develop regression equations (assumed to be power functions) Assumption that channelforming discharge can be determined from single independent variable (e.g. discharge or drainage area) Determination of channelforming discharge Sediment transport is typically low Divided

Analogy







 

Hydraulic Geometry

 

Dependent variables: width, depth and slope Independent variables: channel-forming discharge, drainage area, bed gradation, bank conditions, and/or sediment-inflow concentration Regression equations used Assumption: alluvial streams will evolve to the same stable dimensions given the same independent variables







Regression equations developed from stable alluvial reaches in physiographicall y similar watersheds Channelforming discharge (estimated) Bed and bank characteristics (field evaluations)







Extremal



Assumption: alluvial



Channel-



For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-69

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Design Method

Theory and Assumptions streams will adjust dimensions to minimize energy expenditure Depth and sediment transport calculated from physically-based equations (e.g. continuity, hydraulic resistance, and sediment transport) Physically-based equations typically assume fully turbulent, hydraulically rough, and gradually varied flow

Requirements forming discharge (estimated) Sedimentinflow concentration (estimated) Bed-material gradation (estimated) Resistance coefficients (estimated) Simultaneous solution of appropriate hydraulic resistance and sediment transport equations (computer program or detailed spreadsheet analysis required) Channelforming discharge (estimated) Sedimentinflow concentration (estimated) Bank characteristics (field evaluations) Bed-material gradation

Limitations practitioner support Many stable alluvial streams exist at conditions differing from those computed using extremal methodologies







  





Analytical 

Depth and sediment transport calculated from physically-based equations (e.g. continuity, hydraulic resistance, and sediment transport) Physically-based equations typically assume fully turbulent, hydraulically rough, and gradually varied flow













Family of solutions obtained from hydraulic resistance and sediment transport equations Another method (e.g. geomorphic approach) required to obtain third independent

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-70

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Design Method

Theory and Assumptions  

Requirements Resistance coefficients Simultaneous solution of appropriate hydraulic resistance and sediment transport equations (computer program or detailed spreadsheet analysis required

Limitations variable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3.4.0.4.1.2 Natural Channel Design (Rosgen Geomorphic Design)

Natural channel design, also known as the Rosgen method, uses a combination of analog, hydraulic geometry, and analytical approaches in the design process (Bass et al., 2007; NRCS, 2007; Rosgen, 1997). The method is based upon stable reference reaches and has largely been used to restore or enhance incised streams. It is based upon morphological relationships associated with the bankfull flow, valley type, and stream type (NRCS, 2007; Rosgen, 1994). While the approach can appear straightforward in application, it requires training and experience to implement properly. The natural channel design or Rosgen geomorphic approach is presently the stream restoration methodology of choice among many state and local governments (NRCS, 2007). 3.4.0.4.1.2.1 Natural Channel Design for Steep, Small Headwater Streams

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1999) developed a design procedure for streams with slopes of 2 to 30 percent based upon the natural channel design approach. The focus of the approach was on eastern Ohio. The design process estimates flows for the 1.5-year, 6-hour event (Q1.5, 6hr) from TR-55. Input parameters include bankfull flow (Q1.5, 6hr in the design) and stream slope. The channel is then sized using Manning’s equation and a chosen width-to-depth ratio. Channel lining (e.g. bed material rock size) is determined using the NRCS (1996) method for determining rock size for waterways. 3.4.0.4.1.2.2 Guy Cove Project

The Guy Cove project utilized natural channel design methodologies with the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) to create intermittent and ephemeral streams on a retrofitted valley fill in eastern Kentucky (Agouridis et al., 2009). The FRA approach encourages the use of a For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-71

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

non-compacted spoil medium to promote tree growth (Burger et al., 2005) and has been shown to address concerns related to water quantity (Taylor et al., 2009) and water quality (Angel, 2008). The design included 1) modifications to the crown geometry, 2) compaction of the crown to control infiltration, 3) utilization of natural channel design techniques for the intermittent stream, 4) use of FRA to promote tree growth, and 5) creation of ephemeral streams and vernal ponds. Approximately one-mile of streams and nearly one acre of vernal ponds were created. Over 30,000 trees were planted on 40 acres to re-establish the hardwood forest. 3.4.0.4.1.3 Step-Pool Structures

In high gradient areas, many natural headwater streams are characterized as having numerous steps or drops that occur on bedrock, boulders and logs. Thomas et al. (2000) presented a design methodology for sizing step-pool structures. This design procedure was developed using data from coarse-grained mountain streams in Colorado. Step height is the independent variable. It is chosen based on the elevation drop needed across the reach to stabilize the channel and to provide habitat in the downstream pool. Regression equations were provided to compute pool length, scour depth, contraction at the downstream tailwater, and maximum pool width. Boulder sizes are computed using the USACE design method for riprap in steep slopes. Chin et al. (2009) present four case studies of stream restoration using step-pools. Example projects are located in California and Oregon. Information is also provided on stream adjustments following restoration. 3.4.0.4.1.4 Two-Stage (Nested) Channel Design

Two-stage channel design is an alternative design approach to conventional trapezoidal drainage channels, which are typically designed using threshold design approaches (unless otherwise noted, adopted from NRCS, 2007). With two-stage (nested) channel design, benches are incorporated to function as small floodplains. The first-stage of the channel accommodates the bankfull discharge while the larger second-stage accommodates greater flows (e.g. 5 to 100 year events, depending on design needs). The first-stage channel is design is based largely on the hydraulic geometry approach while the second-stage channel uses threshold design approaches. The second-stage channel needs to be of adequate size to convey its design flow without overtopping the banks and flooding the surrounding land. The two-stage (nested) channel technique may also be appropriate for project sites with boundary constraints. 3.4.0.4.1.5 Treatment Technique Design

Treatment techniques incorporate more traditional or civil engineering approaches though these techniques may be modified to enhance habitat benefits (unless otherwise noted, adopted from NRCS, 2007). Many times, these techniques are implemented in small areas to address localized problems. The use of some techniques is sequential meaning their installation is appropriate after an unstable stream has been stabilized. Treatment techniques are frequently used to provide bank protection, grade stabilization, and habitat enhancement. Example techniques include soil bioengineering, in-stream structures (e.g. vanes, deflectors and barbs), lard woody material structures, riprap structures, vegetated rock walls, fish passages, and lunkers.

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-72

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

3.4.0.4.1.6

Ecological Functions

The ecological functioning of streams is related in part to riparian buffer zones. Riparian buffer zones provide a number of functions including sediment control from upland areas, streambank stabilization, nutrient removal, nutrient supply, wildlife habitat, temperature moderation, and flood control. 3.4.0.4.1.6.1 Sediment Control from Upland Areas

Natural and man-induced erosion from upland areas contributes to sediment in the surface water (runoff). As this runoff passes through the riparian buffer zone, increased friction with riparian vegetation and organic litter slows the velocity of surface water. Coarse sediment particles settle, and finer clay-like particles adhere to the vegetation. Because of the slower speed, water infiltration increases thus trapping of more sediment. The effectiveness to trap sediment is dependent upon many factors including, but not limited to the following: size distribution of incoming sediments, water depth relative to vegetation height, vegetation type, slope, width, and flow characteristics.  How does the size distribution of incoming sediments affect the riparian zone’s trapping efficiency?

As the velocity of runoff entering a riparian buffer zone slows, coarse particles falling from suspension are deposited in the first few feet of the riparian zone so long as sheet flow is maintained. Finer particles are carried further into the riparian zone for a greater distance (Lowrance et al. 1995, p. 16). While rapid deposition is beneficial in the short term, it may ultimately render the riparian buffer zone ineffective if the sediment buries the riparian vegetation or if a natural barrier forms at the upland area-riparian zone interface. In these situations, channelized flow, opposed to sheet wash flow, would likely occur and would considerably reduce the efficiency to trap sediment. On the other hand, if sediment from the upland is extremely fine, a riparian buffer zone of a sufficient width is necessary before deposition indeed occurs.  How does water depth relative to vegetation height effect sedimentation within the riparian buffer zone?

Karr and Schlosser in summarizing a finding of the Black Creek Study in Indiana stated that when water depths are much less than grass height as much as 54 percent reduction in sediment loads were recorded, but when vegetation is clipped filtering efficiency ultimately declines to zero (Karr and Schlosser 1978, p. 229-230).  How do natural forest buffers compare to grass vegetated strips?

Natural forest buffers are also effective in removing sediments, but it is generally conceded that when riparian buffer zones are the same width, grass filters are more effective in sediment removal (Gilliam, J.W. et al. 1997, p. 55). Grass and dense herbaceous vegetation are more effective at trapping particulates from overland storm flows than woody vegetation (Osborne and Kovacic 1993; Parsons et al. 1994). Yet, the efficiency of forested buffers to control sediment is For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-73

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

high. Cooper et al., found a forested buffer in the Coastal Plain to remove 84 to 90 percent of the sediment from cropland runoff (Cooper et al. 1987). Lowrance et al. also reported similar trapping efficiencies (80 to 90 percent) in forested buffer zones in the Coastal Plain (Lowrance et al.1995, pp 28-29). Several studies have found grass to be an even more effective filter of overland flow. For example, Neibling and Alberts using a rainfall simulator on long grass plots ranging in width from 2 to 16 feet and a 7 percent slope reduced sediment by over 90 percent (Neibling and Alberts 1979). Young et al. measure efficiencies of 66 to 82 percent on a 4 percent slope for a 90-foot grass filter (Young, R.A. et al., 1980).  How does slope affect the efficiency of the riparian buffer zone in controlling sediment?

Efficiency in trapping sediments is greater on gentle slopes than steeper slopes (Dillaha and Inamdar 1997; Peterjohn and Correll 1984; Jordan et al. 1993; and Karr and Schlosser 1978, p. 229). Steeper topography promotes greater velocities of overland flow. This higher velocity increases the ability of the flow to transport higher concentrations of sediment. Exceedingly high volumes of sediment may bury the vegetation and overwhelm the capacity of the riparian buffer zone to trap sediment. Higher velocity also reduces infiltration time resulting in more overland flow. Gentle slopes are generally more uniform than hill slopes. Consequently, overland flow on steeper slopes tends to concentrate (channelized). All these factors may contribute to less sediment trapping efficiency. Some researchers believe that certain slopes are too steep to be effective sediment traps. However, there is no consensus on this critical angle (McNaught et al. 2003, p. 22) which is thought to generally range from 10 to 40%. After an extensive review of current research, Wegner suggested that the critical angle for an effective buffer was 25% (Wenger, S. 1999, p.44). Swift suggested that vegetative buffers are effective in trapping sediment (>0.05 mm) on 80 % slopes (Swift 1986, p. 34).  How wide must the riparian buffer zone be to efficiently trap most of the sediment from the upland area?

Early research by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on environmental protection in surface coal mining (Grim and Hill 1974, p.102) suggested a minimum width of 100 feet although conceding that the required filter zone width varies with steepness and length of the outslope between the toe and the drainage channel. More recently, researchers for the Chesapeake Bay Program suggested that as long as sheet wash flow is maintained, a buffer width of 50 to 100 feet is adequate for the removal of sediment (Palone and Todd 1998, p. 6-9). Peterjohn and Correll studied the effectiveness of a 164-foot riparian zone with a 5% slope in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain and found that 94% efficiency in sediment removal, but also found 90% of the sediment was removed in the first 62 feet (Peterjohn and Correll 1984). Based on research in the 1950’s by the U.S. Forest Service in the White Mountains in New Hampshire, a simple formula, which included adjustment for slope, was adopted as a means to establish a sediment buffer between forest roads and streams: 25 feet + (2.0 feet)(% slope) (Trimble and Sartz 1957). Trimble and Sartz suggested a more stringent formula to prevent sedimentation of municipal watersheds. More recent work by Swift in Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina suggested that this formula should be adjusted: For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-74

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

43 feet + (1.39 feet)(% slope) (Swift 1986, p.32). He also suggested that if a brush barrier was used that this formula should be further adjusted: 43 feet + (0.40 feet)(% slope) (Id). After a review of numerous studies and recognizing that vegetated buffer zones as narrow as 15 feet were found to efficiently trap sediment, Wegner recommended that 100-feet is generally adequate for the removal of sediment (Wegner S. 1999, p. 20).  How does the way surface-water flows through the stream buffer zone affect the zone’s ability to trap sediment?

Buffers are most effective when uniform sheet flow through the buffer zone is maintained. Dillaha et al. (1988) studied efficiency of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) plots for controlling sediment and nutrients from feedlots on slopes of 11 to 16 percent. He found in plots with uniform flow 81 to 91 percent of sediment and soluble solids were effectively trapped, but the efficiency was much less where concentrated flow occurred. (Dillaha et al. 1988) Channelization of surface runoff is a natural process. It has a heightened tendency to occur with increased precipitation, reduced infiltration, lack of or reduced ground cover, increased slope and distance. Once flow becomes channelized, the ability to trap sediment is significantly reduced. (Karr and Schlosser 1977; Dillaha et al.1989; Osborne and Kovacic 1993; Daniels and Gilliam 1996) Channelized flow reduces the efficiency of vegetation and litter to slow the runoff velocity to promote suspended particles to settle. It also reduces the time needed for surface flow to infiltrate into the buffer zone, which would cause further filtering of very fine particles. Daniels and Gilliamreported that ephemeral channels are ineffective sediment traps during high-flow. (Daniels and Gilliam 1996) Lowrance et al. concluded that buffer zones are most effective in trapping sediment in ephemeral and headwater streams because there is a greater proportion of surface runoff that enters the buffer zone as shallow sheet wash (Lowrance 1995). 3.4.0.4.1.6.2 Stream Bank Stabilization

Another potential source of sediment is from the stream bank. Wenger reported that a 1990 study by Grissinger et al. (1991) found that “better than 80% of the total sediment yield for a stream in northern Mississippi originates as channel and gully erosion.” Likewise, Rabeni and Smale (1995), Cooper et al. (1993) and Lowrance et al. (1985) found that the channel can be a significant source of sediment. (Wenger 1999, p. 18) One of the most important roles of riparian buffer zones is to stabilize banks. A study by Beeson and Doyle (1995) found that non-vegetated banks were more than 30 times as likely to suffer exceptionally severe erosion as fully vegetated banks. Barling and Moore (1994) note that buffers can prevent the formation of rills and gullies in riparian areas that are otherwise highly susceptible to erosion. Vegetation (Palone and Todd 1998) in the riparian area exerts a strong control over the condition and stability of the stream and its banks. In the eastern United States, trees often define the physical characteristics of stream channels. Trees anchor stream bank soils through dense root masses, and large roots provide physical resistance to flow energy. Woody debris anchors channel substrate and determines bar formation, stores large amounts of For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-75

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

streambed sediment and gravel, helps control sinuosity, and provides channel structure through pool/riffle or step formation. Until recently, the value of large woody debris was misunderstood and much was removed throughout the country. It is likely that the direct effect of buffer width on this function is limited. Only vegetation within 25 feet of the stream channel would provide a powerful role in stabilization. However, increasing buffer width would continue to indirectly enhance stream stability by providing additional protection and stability during extreme flood events, allowing stability during channel migration, and as a physical barrier to human impact (Palone and Todd 1998, p. 6-10). To be effective, bank vegetation (Wegner 1999, p. 19) should have a good, deep root structure which holds soil. Shields et al. (1995) tested different configurations of vegetation and structural controls in stabilizing banks. They found that native woody species, especially willow, are best adapted to re-colonizing and stabilizing banks. Wegner noted that the persistent exotic vine kudzu are likely the most serious barrier to vegetation restoration because it can out-compete native vegetation (Wegner 1999, p.19). Other restoration ecologists still believe that kudzu and certain other exotics may still have a role in stream bank restoration because they can provide good root structure. Artificial methods of stream bank stabilization, such as applying riprap or encasing the channel in cement, are effective in reducing bank erosion on site but would increase erosion downstream and have negative impacts on other stream functions. Artificially stabilized banks lack the habitat benefits of forested banks and are expensive to build and maintain. Overall, the negative consequences of artificial bank stabilization generally outweigh the benefits. Few studies have attempted to correlate stream bank stability with riparian buffer zone width (Wegner 1999, p.19). Common sense suggests that relatively narrow vegetative buffers are effective in the short term (USACE 1991). As long as banks are stabilized and damaging activities are kept away from the channel, width of the riparian buffer zone would not appear as a major factor in preventing bank erosion. However, it is important to recognize that some erosion is inevitable and stream channels would migrate laterally, which could eventually move the stream outside the protected area. Therefore, a buffer zone wide enough to permit channel migration is recommended. 3.4.0.4.1.6.3 Nutrient Removal

Riparian buffer zones may also perform the function of removing nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates that would otherwise enter stream, rivers, and lakes. Excessive nutrient loads imbalance natural aquatic systems and can lead to algae blooms, conditions with little or no oxygen dissolved in the water, and fish kills. This function is especially important in agricultural and urban settings to maintain the quality of the surface water but is considered important if fertilizer is used to reclaim a mine site or in consideration of the post-mining land use. In addition, the process involved may also help reduce sulfate (Correll and Weller 1989; Jordan et al. 1993), which is often associated as pollutant when coal or overburden contains pyrite. Basically, nutrients may be solid or dissolved. As solids, these nutrients are often affixed to sediment. As previously discussed, riparian zones are effective in reducing the amount of particulate matter that enters a stream; so, those same processes would apply. In a dissolved form, these nutrients enter the buffer zone as surface- or ground water. Riparian buffer zones For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-76

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

effectively remove nutrients in the dissolved form, but there is no consensus on which processes are most responsible. Few studies have accurately measured the amount of nitrate removed by any one of these mechanisms at a given site and no study has measured the removal rate by all three mechanisms (Correll 1997, p.11). Candidate mechanisms include denitrification (microbial reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas), assimilation and retention by the vegetation, and transformation to ammonium and organic nitrogen followed by retention in the soils of the riparian buffer zones. Denitrification is most often invoked as the primary mechanism of nitrate removal; however, the extreme spatial and temporal variability of denitrification rates in riparian buffer zones make it very difficult to determine accurate fluxes (Correll 1991; Weller et al., 1994). Phosphates are not effectively removed by this process because of the lack of an analogous microbial activity (Lowrance 1997, p. 128). Some scientists conclude that assimilation by the vegetation is the primary mechanism of nitrate removal (e.g. Fail et al. 1986). This mechanism would account for the uptake of phosphorus as well. Studies have shown that amount of nitrogen in the biomass only accounts for 30% of the nitrate removal (Peterjohn and Correll 1984; Correll and Weller 1989). Correll suggests that the assimilation by the vegetation and recycling to the forest floor as litter is important in unraveling the overall primary mechanism (Correll, 1997, p. 13). This flux of organic nitrogen delivered to the forest floor as litter could be gradually mineralized and denitrified at the soil surface (Id). While vegetation may be very important in explaining nutrient removal within the riparian buffer zone, nutrients removal continue in the winter at sites where hardwood deciduous forests are dormant (Id). Some scientists believe that nitrate removal is accomplished by chemical rather than biological denitrification (Mariotti et al., 1988). The below ground conditions in riparian buffer zone are often anaerobic or of low oxidation/reduction potential (Eh) at least for parts of the year. The vegetation within the riparian zone is important in maintaining this low Eh. The below-ground processes that result in this low Eh are composed of a series of biogeochemical reactions that occur in a defined order (Billen, 1976). These reactions transfer electrons from organic matter, released from the plants, to various terminal electron acceptors. The availability of terminal electron acceptors determines which level in the series would dominate below-ground processes at any one time and place in the riparian zone. Some of the more commonly important reactions are manganate ion reduction, denitrification, ferric iron reduction, sulfate reduction, and methanogenesis. None of these reactions can take place in the presence of molecular oxygen. Despite the relative ease of measuring soil Eh, few studies have reported this critical parameter (Correll, 1997, p. 10).  What characteristics of the riparian buffer zone affect its ability to retain nutrients?

Nutrients, especially phosphorus, are likely in solid form and are subjected to the same processes and limitation as other suspended solids. However, the long-term effectiveness of riparian buffer zones to trap phosphorus is highly questionable. Whereas nitrate can be denitrified and released to the atmosphere, phosphorus is either taken up by vegetation, adsorbed into the soil or organic matter, precipitated with metals, or released into the stream- or ground water (Lowrance 1998). For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-77

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

The effectiveness of the riparian buffer zone to trap dissolved nutrients is highly dependent on the hydrology, soils, and vegetation. To illustrate, the volume and pathway of the ground water passing through the riparian buffer zone would influence its ability to effectively retain nutrients. If the local ground water passes beneath the riparian buffer zone or the whole system is at too great a depth, the riparian zone cannot interact (Correll 1997, p.8). In diverse topography, in gentle slope areas and broad alluvial floodplains, the depth of ground water is near the surface, but in steep terrain the water table in the riparian zone typically is much deeper. In the latter case, the interaction between the saturated zone and the root zone is quite small (USEPA 1995, p.31). Along with hydrology, soil characteristics are important in determining the potential for removal of nitrogen and pollutants carried by sediment such as phosphorus and some pesticides. Primary considerations are soil texture, depth to water table, microbial activity and organic matter content. Moderate- to well-drained soils have the greatest permeability and intercept large amounts of water that may enter the buffer as surface flow, thus promoting deposition of sediment and related pollutants. Conversely, moderate- to fine-textured soils have superior potential to create conditions favorable for extensive denitrification (Palone and Todd 1998, p. 66). Soil microorganisms have the capacity to process nitrate at high concentrations. Riparian buffer zones support a variety of microbial degradation mechanisms, though the specific conditions that promote them are not yet well understood (Palone and Todd 1998, p. 6-8). Dissolved organic carbon promotes denitrification. Many soils are carbon limited or become carbon limited at high nitrate levels (Wenger 1999, p. 28). Both grass and forested riparian buffer zones are effective at reducing nutrients but there is very little agreement among researchers regarding which is more effective. In situations, where ground-water flow is relatively deep, trees would appear to be more effective in that the roots would be more likely to penetrate into the zone of lateral ground-water flow. Regardless of whether the riparian buffer zone consists of grass or trees, harvesting of the vegetation appears necessary to maintain the sustainability of the buffer zones’ trapping ability. 3.4.0.4.1.6.4 Nutrient Supply

Leaf litter is the base food source in most stream ecosystems and streamside trees are critical in establishing this aquatic food web. Leaf litter and other organic matter from riparian forests, including terrestrial invertebrates that drop into the water, are an important source of food and energy to stream systems (Wenger 1999, p.34). Small fish, some amphibians, and most aquatic insects rely primarily on leaf detritus (dead leaf material) from trees as food. Studies have shown that when streamside trees are removed, many aquatic insects decline or even disappear, and with them, native fish, birds, and other species that may depend on them. Some insects are adapted to specific tree species and are unable to reproduce or even survive when fed the leaves of grasses that are non-native or exotic species (Palone and Todd 1998, p. 6-10). 3.4.0.4.1.6.5 Habitat

Large woody debris from the trees in the riparian buffer zone also creates cover and habitat structure for fish and other aquatic species. Although the portion of the buffer nearest the water body exerts the greatest influence over this function, increasing buffer width provides support and sustainability. This is especially true when considering the need to provide long-term woody For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-78

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

debris recruitment, diversity of vegetation for leaf detritus, and refuge for species during high water. The presence of trees is directly related to greater biodiversity in the stream ecosystem. (Palone and Todd 1998, p.6-11) Forested stream corridors are necessary to provide regular inputs of larger woody debris and removal of riparian forest can have long-term negative effects (Wenger 1999, p.34). Collier et al. recommended a buffer zone width of at least one tree height to maintain the purposes of larger woody debris and suggested for stability purposes that a width of equal to three tree heights. (Collier, K.J. et al. 1995) Riparian buffer zones are important terrestrial habitats in themselves. These zones have the potential to provide rich habitats for a wide variety of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Most habitat research on riparian areas has focused on animals, but some studies have documented the important role of riparian corridors for plant diversity and dispersal. Native plant communities support healthy populations of native animals and help maintain stream hydrology. Very wide buffers of 300 feet or more are needed to protect diverse terrestrial communities; but even buffers of 50 feet, which contribute substantially to water quality and aquatic habitat goals, can offer good habitat to terrestrial species. (McNaught 2003, p. 8) A 100-foot riparian buffer zone may not provide adequate habitat for neotropical songbirds but would provide a corridor for movement along patches of remaining forest. (Palone and Todd 1998, p. 6-11) The width and character of the riparian buffer zone would vary to meet the needs of a particular species. A mixture of grasses and forbs, especially tall species will provide suitable habitat for some game birds. In all cases, maintaining forests as a component of the riparian buffer zone greatly enhances diversity and abundance of birds and other wildlife (Id). Narrow riparian buffer zones also can act as wildlife corridors, connecting larger tracts of upland forests. 3.4.0.4.1.6.6 Temperature Modification

Forested riparian buffers provide shade cover, thereby helping to lower water temperatures during summer and lessen temperature decreases in winter. Lack of shade has a direct effect on water quality and aquatic life. Elevated temperatures are a catalyst for water quality problems by accelerating or increasing the impacts of non-point source pollution and robbing oxygen from the system. Small streams flowing through exposed reaches can increase as much as 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit for every 100 feet of exposure to summer sun. Maximum temperature fluctuations for daily peaks can be as much as 12 to15 degrees higher, and ambient temperatures of 6 to 8 degrees higher are not uncommon. The evapotranspiration process of forests also contributes to lower water temperatures. The removal of streamside trees is one of the most significant causes of degradation for streams in the United States. The ability of a buffer to provide shade is directly proportional to height of the vegetation and bank full width of the stream. Even 15- to 25-foot buffers can provide adequate shade for small streams. Fifty- to 75-foot forest buffers are sufficient to ensure favorable conditions for trout, and buffer widths along slopes can decrease with increasing tree height with no loss of shading. Aspect is also an important consideration. Grass filter strips along streams are generally unable to provide cover sufficient to moderate water temperature. (Palone and Todd 1999, p. 6-9) 3.4.0.4.1.7.7 Flood Control Stream corridors and natural forest vegetation help to reduce the downstream effects of floods by dissipating stream energy, temporarily storing flood waters, and helping to remove sediment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-79

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

loads through incorporation in the flood plain. On a given site, a vegetated buffer that resists channelization is effective in decreasing the rate of flow, and in turn, increasing infiltration. Forests provide as much as 40 times the water storage of a cropped field and 15 times that of grass turf. These increases in storage are largely due to the forest’s ability to capture rainfall on the vast surface area of the leaves, stems, and branches; the porosity and water holding capacity of organic material stored on the forest floor and in the soil; and the greater transpiration rates common to the community of forest vegetation. Increasing width to incorporate the flood plain also increases the potential efficiency of water storage from upstream flow during storm events. Providing flood storage buffers where possible along smaller streams in a watershed may provide a valuable approach to downstream flood reduction. However, once the entire flood plain is included within the buffer area, the effect of buffer width on flood peak reductions is negligible (Palone and Todd 1999, p. 6-10). 3.4.0.5 Regulatory Environment 3.4.0.5.1 Compensatory Mitigation The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule (Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources hence referred to as “Compensatory Mitigation Rule” or “CMR”) to clarify regulations regarding the provision of compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, streams and other waters of the United States (Federal, 2008; Wigmore and Wainwrigth, 2008). Compensatory mitigation refers to actions taken to offset unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States. The impacts, which have been authorized by the USACE in accordance with the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved. As part of these 404 permits, compensatory mitigation is required to help meet the “no net loss” goal with regards to aquatic resources extent and function. 3.4.0.5.1.1 Compensatory Mitigation Methods

Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished by restoration, establishment, enhancement, or preservation (unless otherwise noted, adopted from USACE, 2008a). Restoration involves returning natural and/or historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. The return of a former aquatic resource to a functioning state, termed re-establishment, results in a gain in extent. The return of a degraded (non-functioning) aquatic resource to a more functioning state, termed rehabilitation, does not result in a gain in extent. Establishment refers to the creating of an aquatic resource that did not previously exist at the location ever or for some period of time. Establishment is also referred to as creation. Establishment or creation results in a gain in extent of aquatic resources. Enhancement involves increasing or improving the functioning of an aquatic resource (one that already has some level of functioning). Preservation refers to the protection of aquatic resources from destruction, degradation, or other such changes. Neither enhancement nor preservation results in a gain in the extent of aquatic resources. 3.4.0.5.1.2 Compensatory Mitigation Mechanisms

The CMR specifies three mechanisms in which compensatory mitigation may be accomplished: mitigation banks, in-lieu fee mitigation, and permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-80

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Primary preference is given to mitigation banks; secondary to in-lieu fee mitigation; third to permittee-responsible mitigation. For permittee-responsible mitigation, primary preference is for mitigation developed using a watershed approach; second for on-site/in-kind; third for offsite/out-of-kind. A mitigation bank is a wetland, stream or other aquatic resource area or suite of areas that have been restored, established, enhanced, or preserved for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for future impacts to aquatic resources as a result of permitted activities (unless otherwise noted, adopted from USACE, 2008b). Mitigation banks are typically private with mitigation credits being sold to permittees (e.g. commercial mitigation banks) although a single entity may develop a mitigation bank exclusively for its own use (e.g. single user mitigation banks). The operation and use of a mitigation bank are governed by a mitigation banking instrument (e.g. legal document). In-lieu fee mitigation involves the permittee making a payment to an in-lieu fee program, which will then conduct the aquatic resources restoration, establishment, enhancement, or preservation activities. In-lieu fee programs are typically administered by government agencies or non-profit organizations. Both mitigation banks and inlieu fee mitigation involve off-site compensatory mitigation conducted by a third party. Mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs are responsible for the success of the compensatory mitigation. With permittee-responsible mitigation, the permit applicant is responsible for implementation and success of the required compensatory mitigation. This type of mitigation may be located at or adjacent to the impact site (i.e. on-site mitigation) or at another location typically in the same watershed as the permitted activity (i.e. off-site mitigation) (Federal, 2008; USACE, 2008b; Wigmore and Wainwrigth, 2008). 3.4.0.5.1.3 Watershed Approach to Compensatory Mitigation

The goal of a watershed approach is to maintain and improve the quality and quantity of aquatic resources in a watershed through strategic selection of mitigation sites (unless otherwise noted, adopted from Federal, 2008 and/or USACE, 2008d). In cases where a watershed plan is available, that plan shall be evaluated by the District Engineer to determine its appropriateness for use in the watershed approach. If a watershed plan is not available, the watershed approach shall be based on information provided by the permittee or other available sources. The following information on the watershed approach was obtained from Federal (2008) and USACE (2008d). A watershed approach to compensatory mitigation considers the importance of landscape position and resource type of mitigation projects for the sustainability of aquatic resource functions within the watershed. It also considers the habitat requirements of important species, habitat loss or conversion trends, sources of watershed impairment, current development trends, and the requirements of other regulatory and non-regulatory programs that affect the watershed (e.g. storm water management or habitat conservation). The watershed approach includes the protection and maintenance of terrestrial resources, such as riparian areas and uplands, when those resources contribute to the overall ecological functioning of aquatic resources in the watershed. Mitigation requirements determined through the watershed approach should not focus exclusively on specific functions (e.g. water quality or habitat for certain species), but should provide, where practicable, the suite of functions typically provided by the affected aquatic resource. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-81

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Locational factors (e.g. hydrology, surrounding land use) are important to the success of mitigation for impacted habitat functions and may lead to siting mitigation projects away from the impact. Consideration should be given to functions and services (e.g. water quality, flood control, shoreline protection) that will likely need to be addressed at or near the permitted impacts. A watershed approach may include on-site mitigation, off-site mitigation (including mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs), or a combination of on-site and off-site mitigation. A watershed approach should include to the extent practicable inventories of historic and existing aquatic resources, including identification of degraded aquatic resources, and identification of immediate and long-term aquatic resource needs within watersheds that can be met through permittee-responsible mitigation, mitigation banks, or in-lieu fee programs. Planning efforts should identify aquatic resources that are important for maintaining or improving ecological functions of the watershed. The identification and prioritization of resource needs should be as specific as possible to facilitate determination of mitigation requirements. In the absence of a watershed plan, the District Engineer will use a watershed approach based on analysis of information regarding watershed conditions and needs including potential sites for aquatic resource restoration activities and priorities for aquatic resource conservation. Such information includes: current trends in habitat loss or conversion; cumulative impacts of past development activities; current development trends; presence and needs of sensitive species; site conditions that favor of hinder the success of mitigation projects; and chronic environment problems such as flooding or poor water quality. 3.4.0.5.1.4 Detailed Mitigation Plans

Under all three compensatory mitigation mechanisms (mitigation banks, in-lieu mitigation, and permittee-responsible mitigation) must have an approved (by USACE) mitigation plans. Mitigation plans include 12 fundamental components (Table 3.4-10). Table 3.4-10: Compensatory Mitigation Plan Fundamental Components Component   1. Objectives  Description Description of resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided Method of compensation (e.g. restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation) Manner resource functions of compensatory mitigation will address needs of watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest Description of factors considered during the site selection process (e.g. watershed needs, onsite alternatives where applicable, and practicability of accomplishing ecologically self-sustaining aquatic resource mitigation) Legal instrument to ensure long-term protection of mitigation site

 2. Site Selection Criteria 3. Site Protection Instrument(s) 

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-82

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Component   4. Baseline Information1  5. Credit Determination Methodology  

Description Description of ecological characteristics of proposed mitigation site; also impact site in case of application for permit Description of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a map of the impact (if applicable) and mitigation site(s) or geographic coordinates of these sites, and other characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensation Delineation of waters of the United States on proposed mitigation site Description of number of credits to be provided/secured and a brief rationale for this determination Detailed written specifications and work descriptions of mitigation project including, but not limited to: geographic boundaries or mitigation project, construction methods, timing, sequence, source of water (included connections to existing waters and uplands), methods for establishing the desired plant community, plans to control invasive species, proposed grading plan (including elevations and slopes), soil management, and erosion control measures For stream mitigation projects, additional relevant information may include: planform geometry, channel form (e.g. typical cross-sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings Description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued viability of the resource once initial construction is completed Ecologically-based standards, based on best available science, will be used to determine if mitigation project is achieving its objectives Description of parameters to be monitored to determine if mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is needed Schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results Description of how mitigation project will be managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the longterm stability of the resource, including long-term financing mechanisms and party responsible for long-term management

6. Mitigation Work Plan 

7. Maintenance Plan 8. Performance Standards





 9. Monitoring Requirements  10. Long-term Management Plan 

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-83

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Component 11. Adaptive Management Plan 

Description Description of management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of the mitigation project, including parties responsible for implementing adaptive management measures Description of financial assurances that will be provided; how they are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the mitigation project will be successfully completed in accordance to performance standards

 12. Financial Assurances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
1

For a permit applicant planning to secure credits from an approved mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program, only baseline data about the impact site is needed. Source: Federal (2008)

3.4.0.5.1.5

Ecological Performance Standards

The ecological performance standards detailed in the permit applicants approved mitigation plan will be used by the USACE to determine if the mitigation project is developing into the desire resource type, providing expected functions, and attaining any other applicable metrics such as extent (unless otherwise noted, adopted from USACE, 2008c). Performance standards must be based on objective and verifiable attributes. Further, these standards must be based on the best available science and can be measured or assessed in a practicable manner. Performance standards may be based on variables or measures of functional capacity (i.e. functional assessment methodologies), hydrologic measurements, other aquatic resource characteristics, and/or comparisons to reference aquatic resources of similar type and landscape. Where practicable, performance standards should take into account the expected stages of the aquatic resource development process, to allow for early identification of potential problems and appropriate adaptive management (Federal, 2008). Special conditions of USACE permits will state performance standards specific to the type and function of the ecosystem in relation to the objectives of the mitigation project. 3.4.0.5.1.6 Monitoring

Monitoring is necessary to determine if the mitigation project is meeting its performance standards and to determine if measures are needed to ensure the mitigation project is accomplishing its objectives (unless otherwise noted, adopted from Federal, 2008). The monitoring period must be sufficient to demonstrate that the mitigation project has met performance standards, but not less than five years. For slow developing aquatic resources (e.g. forested wetland), a longer monitoring period may be required. If the mitigation project has achieved its performance standards is less than five years, the monitoring period may be reduced. Conversely, if the mitigation project has not met its performance standards or is not on track to meet them, the monitoring period may be extended. Monitoring requirements may be revised when remediation and/or adaptive management is required. Monitoring reports must contain sufficient information for the district engineer to determine how the mitigation project is progressing towards meeting its performance standards. The district engineer must determine the information to be included in the monitoring reports. Required information may include as-built plans, maps, photographs to illustrate site conditions, and For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-84

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

supporting data from functional, condition, or other assessments used to provide quantitative or qualitative measures of the functions provided by the mitigation project. Failure to submit monitoring reports in a timely manner may result in compliance action.

3.4.1 Appalachian Basin
The Appalachian Basin is comprised of northern, central and southern regions. This coal resource region includes the Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau, Allegheny Mountains, Northern Cumberland Mountains, and Northern Cumberland Plateau. In the Appalachian Basin point-of-origin characteristics of ephemeral, intermittent, and/or perennial channels have been studied in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Southern Appalachia. 3.4.1.1 West Virginia Paybins (2003) examined 36 streams in southern West Virginia to determine the hydrologic characteristics associated with the point-of-origin of intermittent and perennial streams. The author defined a perennial stream to be one receiving baseflow year-round; an intermittent stream to be one experiencing a seasonal lowering of the water table during the summer and early autumn to the point that baseflow contributions cease during this period; and an ephemeral stream to be one that does not intersect the water table at anytime during the year. A multiagency group from the West Virginia Department for Environmental Protection, United States Geological Survey, and Office of Surface Mining identified the streams’ point-of-origins. Results of the study indicated that drainage area, basin slope, and areal percentage of dominate rock type were important predictors of point-of-origin. For intermittent streams, the median drainage area was 14.5 acres and the median basin slope was 388 ft/mile. For perennial channels, the median drainage area was 40.8 acres and the median basin slope was 515 ft/mile. Percent of exposed bedrock was an important parameter as perennial baseflow was noted only where 80 percent of the exposed bedrock was sandstone. 3.4.1.2 Kentucky Svec et al. (2005) hypothesized that flow duration would be significantly related to a stream’s morphological characteristics. As such, the researchers examined channel geometry (bankfull width, mean bankfull depth, bankfull cross-sectional area, width-to-depth ratio, sinuosity, slope, floodprone width, and entrenchment ratio) and watershed characteristics (drainage area, upland hillslope, and depth to bedrock) as predictors of flow duration for streams in the Eastern Coal Field region of Kentucky. The authors monitored flow durations at 23 stream sites (13-month or 24-month periods). Flow duration was correctly predicted for 78 percent of the 13-month monitored sites and 91 percent of the 24-month monitored sites using the parameters watershed area, bankfull width, width-to-depth ratio, slope, and entrenchment ratio. Svec et al. (2005) developed guidelines for stream classification (Table 3.4-11) with the caveat that recommendations for ephemeral channels are untested. Ephemeral streams can be expected to be found in watersheds between 2.5 and 25 acres; intermittent between 2.5 and 250 acres; and perennial at 12.5 acres or more. For ephemeral channels, slopes greater than 30 percent are expected; 2 to 30 percent for intermittent; generally less than 3 percent for perennial. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-85

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 3.4-10 Area (acres) 2.5-12.5 12.5-25

General Stream Type Classification Guidelines for the Eastern Coal Field Region of Kentucky. Width-to-Depth 1-25 >25 1-3 3-50 >50 Slope (%) <30 >30 1-2 2-30 >30 1-3 3-30+ 1-10 10-30+ Any value Entrenchment Ratio <2 >2 <1.5 1.5-4 >4 <1.5 1.5-5+ <3 >3 Any value Stream Type Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial

25-62 62-250 250+ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

1-6 6-50+ 1-30 >30 Any value

Source: Svec et al. (2005)

3.4.1.3 Southern Appalachia Two studies have examined basin characteristics as related to stream types in the Southern Appalachian region. Rivenbark and Jackson (2004) examined perennial flow origin in 16 streams in the Southern Appalachians (northeast Georgia, southwest North Carolina, and southeast Tennessee). It was found that perennial flow occurred when the average drainage area was 19 acres (ranged from 11 to 32 acres). Hansen (2001) studied 190 streams in the Chattooga River watershed which encompasses parts of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The author found that the 28 percent of the stream network was comprised of perennial streams, 17 percent intermittent, and 55 percent ephemeral. Ephemeral streams were predominately firstorder (80 percent) with some classified as second order (20 percent). Drainage areas for ephemeral streams ranged from 0.6 to 15 acres. Intermittent streams were mostly classified as second-order (71 percent) but with a notable number of first-order streams (24 percent). Drainage areas for intermittent streams ranged from 2.5 to 44.5 acres. The majority of perennial streams were third-order or greater (90 percent); 10 percent were second-order; and none were first-order. The minimum recorded drainage area for perennial streams was 10 acres. Cumulative Impacts Assessment: Middle Fork Kentucky River Watershed The extent (percentage and length) of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams within the Middle Fork Kentucky River watershed and the subwatersheds of Upper, Middle, and Lower portions of the Middle Fork Kentucky River; Cutschin Creek; Greasy Creek; Stinnett Creek; and Lower Bad Creek were determined (Agouridis et al., 2008) (Tables 3.4-12 and 3.4-13). Ephemeral and intermittent point-of-origin drainage area data from Knoblick Mine located in Leslie County, Kentucky were used to develop a GIS model. The median drainage area for ephemeral and intermittent streams derived from the Knoblick Mine data and the median drainage area for perennial streams from Paybins (2003) were used. For intermittent channels, For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-86

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

the median drainage area was 11.2 acres, which agrees with the results from Paybins (2003). A grid size of 500 (each cell is 10m by 10 m), which is equivalent to 12.4 acres, was used to delineate intermittent streams. For ephemeral streams, the median drainage area was 0.7 acres. However, the processing limits of ArcGIS had to be considered. The smallest grid size that the ArcGIS model could process was 100, which is equivalent to 2.5 acres. Thus, a grid size of 100 was used to delineate ephemeral streams. For perennial streams, a grid size of 1500 was used to delineate perennial streams, which equates to 37.1 acres. Based on the percentages of each stream type, predicted values were similar to those by Hansen (2001) where the author noted a percentage ratio 55:17:28 for ephemeral: intermittent: perennial streams. While it was not intended for this modeling effort to replace field reconnaissance needs for examining individual small watersheds, it does provide estimates of stream type extents at the macro-scale. Table 3.4-11 Channel Lengths for the Middle Fork Kentucky River Watershed and Select Subwatersheds. Values rounded to the nearest 1,000s. Channel Length (%) Ephemeral 12,104,000 5,443,000 1,599,000 3,077,000 1,985,000 1,708,000 806,000 89,000 Intermittent 4,171,000 1,707,000 591,000 1,275,000 599,000 495,000 295,000 38,000 Perennial 8,531,000 3,473,000 1,185,000 2,484,000 1,388,000 1,017,000 586,000 77,000 NHD1 6,405,000 2,382,000 982,000 2,023,000 1,018,000 691,000 412,000 47,000

Watershed Middle Fork Kentucky River (HUC 8) Upper-Middle Fork Kentucky River (HUC 10) Middle-Middle Fork Kentucky River (HUC 10) Lower-Middle Fork Kentucky River (HUC 10) Cutshin Creek (HUC 10) Greasy Creek (HUC 12) Stinnett Creek (HUC 12) Lower Bad Creek (HUC 14) 14 15 16 17 18
1NHD represents National Hydrography Dataset Source: Agouridis et al. (2008)

Table 3.4-12 Channel Percentages for the Middle Fork Kentucky River Watershed and Select Subwatersheds. Values rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. Watershed Middle Fork Kentucky River (HUC 8) Upper-Middle Fork Kentucky River (HUC 10) Middle-Middle Fork Kentucky River (HUC 10) Lower-Middle Fork Kentucky River (HUC 10) Cutshin Creek (HUC 10) Channel Length (ft) Ephemeral 48.8 51.2 47.4 45.0 50.0 Intermittent 16.8 16.1 17.5 18.6 15.1 Perennial 34.4 32.7 35.1 36.3 35.0

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-87

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Greasy Creek (HUC 12) Stinnett Creek (HUC 12) Lower Bad Creek (HUC 14) 1 2
Source: Agouridis et al. (2008)

53.0 47.8 43.7

15.4 17.5 18.5

31.6 34.7 37.8

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-88

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 States 3.4.1.4 Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships Table 3.4-14 lists regional hydraulic geometry relationship curves for the Appalachian Basin Region. Table 3.4-13 Regional Curves Developed in the Appalachian Basin Regional Curves2 Abkf=12.04DA0.7 97 R2=0.92 Qbkf=43.21DA0.8 67 R2=0.92 Abkf=13.17DA0.7 5 R2=0.93 Qbkf=34.02DA0.9 4 R2=0.99 Abkf=11.62DA0.6 72 2 R =0.88 Qbkf=24.64DA0.9 49 2 R =0.99 Abkf=18.2DA R2=0.93 --0.797

Physiographic DA (mi2) Province1

Return Interval (yrs)

Source

PA, MD

AP/VR/P/NE

< 220

Wbkf=14.65DA0.4 49 R2=0.81 Dbkf=0.875DA0.3 30 R2=0.72 Wbkf=13.87DA0.4 4 R2=0.92 Dbkf=0.95DA0.31 R2=0.91 Wbkf=9.61DA0.419 R2=0.88 Dbkf=1.21DA 0.253 R2=0.76 Wbkf=16.0DA0.423 R2=0.84 Dbkf=1.32DA 0.351 R2=0.71 Wbkf=20.99DA0.3 73 2 R =0.95 Dbkf=1.07DA 0.313 R2=0.88 Wbkf=12.45DA0.4 36 2 R =0.89 Dbkf=1.00DA0.288 R2=0.87 Wbkf=12.96DA0.4 29 2 R =0.91 Dbkf=0.89DA0.372 R2=0.92

1.0-1.8

Chaplin (2005)

MD

AP/VR

0.2-102.0

1.05-1.8

McCandless (2003a)

PA

AP/VR

0.13 355

--

Brush (1961)3

WV

AP

2.781,354

--

Messinger and Wiley (2004)

WV

AP

0.76-205

Abkf=20.79DA0.7 13 2 R =0.98 Qbkf=59.81DA0.8 54 2 R =0.96 Abkf=12.60DA0.7 21 2 R =0.94 Qbkf=43.25DA0.7 94 2 R =0.91 Abkf=11.64DA0.7 98 2 R =0.95 Qbkf=43.90DA0.9 5 2 R =0.95

1.1-3.0

Messinger (2009)

MD, VA, WV

VR

0.1 - 24

<1.1-1.9

Keaton et al. (2005)

VA

P

0.29-111

1.0-4.3

Lotspeich (2009)

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-89

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

States

Physiographic DA (mi2) 1 Province

Regional Curves Abkf=9.45DA0.82 R2=0.96 Qbkf=32.7DA0.85 R2=0.92

2

Return Interval (yrs) <1.011.5

Source

KY

EKCF

0.31-242

Wbkf=10.88DA0.4 5 R2=0.93 Dbkf=0.88DA0.36 R2=0.88

Vesely et al. (2008)

OH

Region A

0.29-685

Abkf=27.1DA0.621 Wbkf=18.0DA0.356 Sherwood R2=0.95 R2=0.91 0.637 0.265 1.01-9.65 and Huitger Qbkf=93.3DA Dbkf=1.52DA (2005) R2=0.82 R2=0.88 Abkf=64.5DA0.621 Wbkf=32.0DA0.356 Sherwood R2=0.95 R2=0.91 1.26-5.55 and Huitger Qbkf=230DA0.637 Dbkf=2.02DA0.265 (2005) R2=0.82 R2=0.88 Abkf=33.4DA0.70 R2=0.97 -Abkf=21.43DA0.6 8 R2=0.95 Qbkf=66.57DA0.8 9 R2=0.97 Wbkf=21.6DA0.32 R2=0.91 Dbkf=1.55DA0.38 R2=0.90 Wbkf=11.89DA0.4 3 R2=0.81 Dbkf=1.50DA0.32 R2=0.88 Chang et al. (2004)

OH

Region B

0.55-387

OH

Southeast

0.03-166

--

NC

P

0.2-128

1.1-1.8

Harman et al. (1999)

1 - AP = Allegheny Plateau; VR = Valley Ridge; P = Piedmont; NE = New England; EKCF = Eastern Kentucky Coal Field (part of Cumberland Plateau) 2 - Abkf is the bankfull area measured in ft2; Wbkf is the bankfull width measured in ft; Dbkf is the bankfull depth measured in ft; Qbkf is the bankfull discharge measured in ft3/s 3 - Regional curves developed using data from source; curves not published by source.

1 2

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-90

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

3.4.2 Colorado Plateau
The Colorado Plateau is comprised of the Navajo Canyonlands, Tavaputs Plateau, White Mountain-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim, South-Central Highlands, North-Central Highlands and Rocky Mountains, and Green River Basin. 3.4.2.1 Colorado Shaw and Cooper (2008) collected data on watershed characteristics as well as hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics of 14 dryland ephemeral streams in the semi-arid southern Colorado Plateau (Table 3.4-15). The researcher noted that most first-order and zero-order streams were found in watersheds less than 2,500 acres with watershed gradients greater than 2 percent. For these streams (Type I), groundwater was present below streambeds on average 40 percent of the time. Second-order streams typically drained basins between 2,500 and 25,000 acres, had watershed gradients between 1 and 2 percent, and had perennial saturated zones below the streambed an average of 95 percent of the time (Type II). The higher order streams drained watersheds greater than 25,000 acres, had watershed gradients of 1 percent or less, and had perennial saturated zones below the stream bed 100 percent of the time (Type III). Table 3.4-14 Drainage Area (acres) 1,705,030 61,780 7,410 5,440 4,450 2,970 2,170 910 720 720 720 640 520 130 Characteristics of Ephemeral Dryland Streams. WidthtoDepth 190 340 100 120 110 110 34 37 54 30 23 19 24 16 Below Maximum Streambed streambed groundwater Slope saturation conductivity frequency (ft/ft) (µS/cm) (%) 0.0015 0.0037 0.0052 0.0046 0.0053 0.0056 0.0052 0.0080 0.0093 0.0063 0.0078 0.0074 0.0091 0.012 100 100 100 81 100 100 41 62 55 13 16 65 16 38 2,600 2,200 1,300 1,200 2,000 2,000 1,300 810 1,800 ------

Stream Order 7 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

Watershed Slope (ft/ft) 0.0074 0.011 0.014 0.018 0.015 0.018 0.028 0.031 0.054 0.045 0.038 0.021 0.021 0.024

17

Source: Shaw and Cooper (2008)

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-91

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.4.2.2 New Mexico Leopold and Miller (1956) examined hydraulic factors (width, depth, velocity, and suspended sediment load) of ephemeral streams in New Mexico. A relationship was noted between drainage area and stream order (Figure 3.4-1), stream length and stream order (Figure 3.4-2), and stream order and number of streams of a given order (Figure 3.4-3). For the smallest first-order streams (approximately 8 inches wide and 1-4 inches deep), the contributing drainage area was 0.04 acres. It was estimated that for a 670 square-mile basin in the study reach, there were 190,000 such first-order ephemeral streams. Table 3.4-15 Relationship between Drainage Area and Stream Order for Ephemeral Streams in a New Mexico Watershed. Created using data from Leopold and Maddock (1956).

1000

100

Drainage Area (mi )

2

10

1

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

11

Stream Order

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-92

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 3.4-16 Relationship between Stream Length and Stream Order for Ephemeral Streams in a New Mexico Watershed. Created using data from Leopold and Maddock (1956).

100

10

Stream Length (mi)

1

0.1

0.01 2 4 6 8 10

3 4

Stream Order

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-93

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 3.4-17 Relationship between Number of Streams and Stream Order for Ephemeral Streams in a New Mexico Watershed. Created using data from Leopold and Maddock (1956).

1000000

100000

Number of Streams

10000

1000

100

10

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

3 4 5 6 7 States

Stream Order

3.4.2.3 Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships Table 3.4-16 lists regional hydraulic geometry relationship curves for the Colorado Plateau Region. Table 3.4-18 Physiographic Province1 Regional Curves Developed in the Colorado Plateau DA (mi2) Regional Curves2 Abkf=0.40DA0.847 R2=0.85 Qbkf=0.62DA0.867 R2=0.76 Wbkf=4.66DA0.233 R2=0.44 Dbkf=0.09DA0.523 R2=0.73 Return Interval (yrs) Source Elliot and Cartier (1986)3

CO

RM

3.6630

--

1 – RM = Rocky Mountain 2 - Abkf is the bankfull area measured in ft2; Wbkf is the bankfull width measured in ft; Dbkf is the bankfull depth measured in ft; Qbkf is the bankfull discharge measured in ft3/s 3 - Regional curves developed using data from source; curves not published by source.

8

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-94

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3.4.3 Gulf Coast
The Gulf Coast is comprised of six ecological areas: the Rio Grande Plain, the Oakwood and Prairies, the Coastal Plains and Flatwoods – Western Gulf Section, Mid Coastal Plains – Western Section, Coastal Plains – Middle Section, and the Coastal Plains and Flatwoods – Lower Section. 3.4.3.1 Alabama Harkins et al. (1981) developed a map of average headwater stream flow per square mile for the Gulf Coast area of Alabama. This map also included portions of the surrounding states (Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana). Headwater limits were determined as the minimum drainage area required to produce 5 ft3/s of flow. This minimum drainage area was 1.4 to 5.6 square miles. 3.4.3.2 Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships Table 3.4-17 lists regional hydraulic geometry relationship curves for the Gulf Coast Region. Table 3.4-19 States Physiographic Province1 DA (mi2) Regional Curves Developed in the Gulf Coast Regional Curves
2

Return Interval (yrs)

Source

KY

ME (gravel-bed streams)

1-40

Abkf=12.1DA0.64 R2=0.93 ---3 Abkf=16.7DA0.57 R2=0.91 ---3 Abkf=13.1DA0.63 R2=0.93 ---3 Abkf=16.4DA0.57 R2=0.89 --Abkf=17.1DA0.64 R2=0.99 Qbkf=27.7DA0.71 R2=0.95

Wbkf=12.1DA0. 41 R2=0.81 Dbkf=1.00DA 0.23 R2=0.48 Wbkf=10.5DA0. 34 R2=0.90 Dbkf=1.60DA 0.22 R2=0.79 Wbkf=9.47DA0. 35 R2=0.92 Dbkf=1.38DA 0.28 R2=0.83 Wbkf=9.6DA0.3 6 R2=0.90 Dbkf=1.7DA 0.22 R2=0.68 Wbkf=10.4DA0. 39 R2=0.96 Dbkf=1.64DA0. 25 R2=0.86

--

Parola et al. (2005)

KY

ME (sand-bed streams) ME

32,00 0

--

Parola et al. (2005)

KY

(silt-bed streams)

0.9900

--

Parola et al. (2005) Smith and TurriniSmith (1999) Metcalf et al. (2009)

TN

CPMS

62,30 9

--

FL

CPFLS

1.5474

1.0-1.2

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-95

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

States

Physiographic Province1

DA (mi2)

Regional Curves Abkf=4.35DA0.99 R2=0.98 Qbkf=10.94DA0.84R2=0. 93

2

Return Interval (yrs)

Source Metcalf and Shaneyfelt (2005)

AL

CPFLS

3.4125

Wbkf=5.67DA0. 52 R2=0.94 Dbkf=0.78DA0. 47 R2=0.96

1.0-1.1

1 – ME = Mississippi Embayment; CPMS = Coastal Plains – Middle Section; CPFLS = Coastal Plains and Flatwoods – Lower Section 2 - Abkf is the bankfull area measured in ft2; Wbkf is the bankfull width measured in ft; Dbkf is the bankfull depth measured in ft; Qbkf is the bankfull discharge measured in ft3/s 3 – Only Q1.01 and Q1.5 for all stream types (e.g. gravel, sand, and silt) provided. Q1.01=76.7DA0687 R2=0.89; Q1.5=265DA0.62 R2=0.97

3.4.4 Illinois Basin
The Illinois Basin is comprised of the Central Loess Plains, Central Till Plains Oak-Hickory, and Interior Low Plateau. Table 3.4-18 lists regional hydraulic geometry relationship curves for the Illinois Basin Region. Table 3.4-20 Regional Curves Developed in the Illinois Basin Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships DA (mi2) Regional Curves2 Return Interval (yrs) Source

States

Physiographic Province1

MI

SLME

20.9385

Abkf=4.38DA0.74 R2=0.59 Qbkf=4.05DA0.95 R2=0.60

Wbkf=8.19DA0.44 R2=0.69 Dbkf=0.67DA0.27 R2=0.28

Rachol and <1.01-10 BoleyMorse (2009)

1 – SLME = Southern Lower Michigan Ecoregion 2 - Abkf is the bankfull area measured in ft2; Wbkf is the bankfull width measured in ft; Dbkf is the bankfull depth measured in ft; Qbkf is the bankfull discharge measured in ft3/s

3.4.5 Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains
The Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains are comprised of 24 distinct ecological areas including the Powder River Basin. 3.4.5.1 Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships Table 3.4-19 lists the regional hydraulic geometry relationship curve for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region. For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-96

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Table 3.4-21

Regional Curves Developed in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains DA (mi2) Regional Curves2 Wbkf=6.26DA0.327 R2=0.83 Dbkf=0.76DA0.057 R2=0.14 Wbkf=2.75DA0.493 R2=0.86 Dbkf=0.19DA0.316 R2=0.76 Wbkf=4.06DA0.422 R2=0.83 Dbkf=0.39DA0.197 R2=0.49 Return Interval (yrs) Source Leopold and Maddock (1953)3 Leopold and Maddock (1953)3 Leopold and Maddock (1953)3

States

Physiographic Province1

WY, MT

PRB

2512,900

Abkf=4.94DA R2=0.73 --

0.381

--

WY, MT

BRB

58.220,700

Abkf=0.51DA0.815 R2=0.85 -Abkf=1.61DA0.618 R2=0.75 --

--

WY, MY

YRB

2520,700

--

1 – PRB = Powder River Basin; BRB = Big Horn River Basin; YRB = Yellowstone River Basin 2 - Abkf is the bankfull area measured in ft2; Wbkf is the bankfull width measured in ft; Dbkf is the bankfull depth measured in ft; Qbkf is the bankfull discharge measured in ft3/s 3 - Regional curves developed using data from source; curves not published by source.

3.4.6 Northwest
The Northwest coal fields are currently inactive except for one mining operation in Alaska. 3.4.6.1 Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships Table 3.4-20 lists the regional hydraulic geometry relationship curves for the Northwest Region. Table 3.4-22 States Physiographic Province1 DA (mi2) Regional Curves Developed in the Northwest Regional Curves2 Abkf=10.89DA0.643 R2=0.49 Qbkf=50.93DA0.67 R2=0.44 Abkf=14.26DA0.739 R2=0.64 Qbkf=91.05DA0.67 Wbkf=11.80DA0.38 R2=0.49 Dbkf=1.13DA0.24 R2=0.29 Wbkf=12.39DA0.43 R2=0.59 Dbkf=0.66DA0.39 Return Interval (yrs) Avg. 1.43 Avg. 1.23 Source Castro and Jackson (2001) Castro and Jackson

WA, OR, ID WA, OR

PNW

17.78,080

PMM

--

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-97

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Physiographic States Province1

DA (mi2)

Regional Curves R2=0.46

2

Return Interval (yrs)

Source (2001)

R2=0.49 Wbkf=9.40DA0.42 R2=0.54 Dbkf=0.61DA0.33 R2=0.44 Wbkf=3.27DA0.51 R2=0.83 Dbkf=0.79DA0.24 R2=0.58 Wbkf=11.5DA0.42 R2=0.94 Dbkf=0.9DA0.39 R2=0.97 Avg. 1.53

WA, OR, ID WA, OR, ID

WC

--

Abkf=2.94DA0.857 R2=0.77 Qbkf=17.28DA0.86 R2=0.51 Abkf=1.90DA0.784 R2=0.79 Qbkf=13.05DA0.77 R2=0.79 Abkf=10.8DA0.81 R2=0.98 Qbkf=44.8DA0.92 R2=0.85

Castro and Jackson (2001) Castro and Jackson (2001) Kuck (2000)

WIBR

--

Avg. 1.43

OR

CR

0.42456

--

1 – PNW = Pacific Northwest; PMM = Pacific Maritime Mountains (subregion of PNW); WC = Western Cordillera (subregion of PNW); WIBR = Western Interior Basin Region (subregion of PNW); CR = Coast Range 2 - Abkf is the bankfull area measured in ft2; Wbkf is the bankfull width measured in ft; Dbkf is the bankfull depth measured in ft; Qbkf is the bankfull discharge measured in ft3/s 3 – Avg. = average

3.4.7 Other Western Interior
3.4.7.1 Oklahoma Masoner and March (2006) developed a GIS model of portions of the Neosho and Spring Rivers basins in northeastern Oklahoma. Total drainage area of this basins combined was about 230,000 acres. The model used a 5,000 30-meter grid cell threshold (approximately 1110 acres). A total of 100 miles of first-order stream; 96 miles of combined second, third, and fourth-order streams; and 57 miles of fifth order streams were modeled. 3.4.7.2 Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships Table 3.4-21 lists the regional hydraulic geometry relationship curves for the Other Western Interior Region. Table 3.4-23 Physiographic DA States Province1 (mi2) OK, CGP --3 Regional Curves Developed in the Other Western Interior Regional Curves Abkf=27.86DA0.44
2

Wbkf=13.08DA0.35

Return Interval Source (yrs) --3 Duntell

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-98

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Physiographic DA States Province1 (mi2) TX

Regional Curves R2=0.87 Qbkf=117.4DA0.47 R2=0.87 Abkf=71.47DA0.41 R2=0.89 Qbkf=237.8DA0.45 R2=0.81 Abkf=93.14DA0.34 R2=0.79 Qbkf=303.81DA0.39 R2=0.76 Abkf=1.08DA0.60 R2=0.94 Qbkf=0.88DA0.70 R2=0.99 Abkf=0.76DA0.77 R2=0.61 Qbkf=1.56DA0.79 R2=0.93 Abkf=8.25DA0.67 R2=0.82 Qbkf=3.25DA0.97 R2=0.87 Abkf=4.00DA0.79 R2=0.88 Qbkf=5.28DA0.92 R2=0.95 Abkf=28.22DA0.68 R2=0.96 Qbkf=99.99DA0.74 R2=0.90 Abkf=6.53DA0.83 R2=0.83 Qbkf=33.75DA0.41 R2=0.93

2

Return Interval (yrs)

Source (2000)

OK, KS, MO

CIP

--3

OK

COTP

--3

KS

WK

--

KS

WCK

--

KS

NCK

--

KS

SCK

--

KS

FH

--

KS

ST

--

R2=0.85 Dbkf=2.13DA0.09 R2=0.24 Wbkf=23.02DA0.29 R2=0.89 Dbkf=3.10DA0.12 R2=0.45 Wbkf=18.24DA0.30 R2=0.84 Dbkf=4.70DA0.05 R2=0.14 Wbkf=1.45DA0.51 R2=0.76 Dbkf=0.72DA0.01 R2=0.00 Wbkf=2.57DA0.41 R2=0.52 Dbkf=0.31DA0.36 R2=0.06 Wbkf=1.36DA0.65 R2=0.84 Dbkf=3.97DA0.08 R2=0.02 Wbkf=10.56DA0.39 R2=0.46 Dbkf=0.37DA0.41 R2=0.35 Wbkf=25.10DA0.35 R2=0.65 Dbkf=1.12DA0.33 R2=0.86 Wbkf=10.93DA0.31 R2=0.58 Dbkf=0.60DA0.17 R2=0.85

--3

Duntell (2000)

--3

Duntell (2000)

--

Emmert (2004)

--

Emmert (2004)

--

Emmert (2004)

--

Emmert (2004)

--

Emmert (2004)

--

Emmert (2004)

1 – CGP = Central Great Plains; CIP = Central Irregular Plains; COTP – Central Oklahoma-Texas Plains; WK = Western Kansas; WCK = Western-central Kansas; NCK = North-central Kansas; SCK = South-central Kansas; FH = Flint Hills; ST = Southwestern Tablelands 2 - Abkf is the bankfull area measured in ft2; Wbkf is the bankfull width measured in ft; Dbkf is the bankfull depth measured in ft; Qbkf is the bankfull discharge measured in ft3/s 3 - Drainage area (mi2) range for all data (not separated into ecoregions) = 5.45-23,151; Return interval (yrs) range for all data (not separated into ecoregions) = 1.01-3.65

For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

3-99