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

---

This document is a preliminary draft document furnished by OSM's contractor. Analyses, data, estimates, statistics, and other information contained within this document may change pending further review and verification by OSM. 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

CHAPTER 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................... 4-1  4.0  Introduction and Analytical Approach
4.0.1  4.0.2  4.0.3  4.0.4  4.0.5 

4-1 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1  Approach to Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................. 4-1  Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Coal Production Levels and Environmental Parameters .......... 4-2  Resource Areas Eliminated from Detailed Impact Analysis .................................................................. 4-3  Resource Areas Included in Detailed Impact Analysis........................................................................... 4-4 

4.1  Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative)

4-5 

4.1.1  Coal Resources and Mining .................................................................................................................... 4-5  4.1.2  Geomorphology and Topography ........................................................................................................... 4-6  4.1.2.1  Water Elements ............................................................................................................................. 4-6  4.1.2.2  Land Elements .............................................................................................................................. 4-7  4.1.2.3  Other Elements.............................................................................................................................. 4-9  4.1.3  Water Resource Areas .......................................................................................................................... 4-10  4.1.3.1  Water Elements ........................................................................................................................... 4-10  4.1.3.2  Land Elements ............................................................................................................................ 4-23  4.1.3.3  Other Elements............................................................................................................................ 4-26  4.1.4  Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 4-27  4.1.4.1  Water Elements ........................................................................................................................... 4-28  4.1.4.2  Land Elements ............................................................................................................................ 4-38  4.1.4.3  Other Elements............................................................................................................................ 4-45  4.1.5  Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation.............................................................................................. 4-47  4.1.5.1  Water Elements ........................................................................................................................... 4-52  4.1.5.2  Land Elements ............................................................................................................................ 4-52  4.1.5.3  Other Elements............................................................................................................................ 4-53  4.1.6  Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure .................................................. 4-54  4.1.6.1  Economics ................................................................................................................................... 4-55  4.1.6.2  Demographics ............................................................................................................................. 4-65  4.1.6.3  Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................. 4-65  4.1.6.4  Utilities and Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 4-66  4.1.7  Occupational and Public Health and Safety ......................................................................................... 4-70  4.1.7.1  Occupational and Public Safety Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-70  4.1.7.2  Occupational and Public Health Impacts .................................................................................... 4-72 

4.2  Alternative 2

4-75 

4.2.1  Coal Resources and Mining .................................................................................................................. 4-75  4.2.1.1  Water Elements ........................................................................................................................... 4-78  4.2.1.2  Land Elements ............................................................................................................................ 4-78  4.2.1.3  Other Elements............................................................................................................................ 4-79  4.2.2  Geomorphology and Topography ......................................................................................................... 4-80  For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/27/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES i

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 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 4.2.2.1  Water Elements ........................................................................................................................... 4-80  4.2.2.2  Land Elements ............................................................................................................................ 4-81  4.2.3  Water Resource Areas .......................................................................................................................... 4-82  4.2.3.1  Water Elements ........................................................................................................................... 4-82  4.2.3.2  Land Elements ............................................................................................................................ 4-88  4.2.3.3  Other Elements............................................................................................................................ 4-90  4.2.4  Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 4-91  4.2.4.1  Water Elements ........................................................................................................................... 4-91  4.2.4.2  Land Elements ............................................................................................................................ 4-93  4.2.4.3  Other Elements............................................................................................................................ 4-94  4.2.5  Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation.............................................................................................. 4-95  4.2.5.1  Water Elements ........................................................................................................................... 4-96  4.2.5.2  Land Elements ............................................................................................................................ 4-96  4.2.5.3  Other Elements............................................................................................................................ 4-96  4.2.6  Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure .................................................. 4-97  4.2.6.1  Economics ................................................................................................................................... 4-97  4.2.6.2  Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 4-104  4.2.6.3  Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 4-104  4.2.6.4  Utilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 4-105  4.2.7  Occupational and Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 4-114  4.2.7.1  Safety Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 4-114  4.2.7.2  Health Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 4-116 

4.3  Alternative 3

4-119 

4.3.1  Coal Resources and Mining ................................................................................................................ 4-119  4.3.1.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-120  4.3.1.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-120  4.3.1.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-121  4.3.2  Geomorphology and Topography ....................................................................................................... 4-122  4.3.2.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-122  4.3.2.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-122  4.3.3  Water Resource Areas ........................................................................................................................ 4-126  4.3.3.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-126  4.3.3.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-131  4.3.3.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-132  4.3.4  Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 4-134  4.3.4.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-134  4.3.4.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-136  4.3.4.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-137  4.3.5  Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation............................................................................................ 4-137  4.3.5.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-138  4.3.5.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-139  4.3.5.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-140  4.3.6  Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure ................................................ 4-141  4.3.6.1  Economics ................................................................................................................................. 4-141  4.3.6.2  Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 4-148  4.3.6.3  Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 4-148  4.3.6.4  Utilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 4-148  4.3.7  Occupational and Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 4-156  4.3.7.1  Safety Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 4-156  4.3.7.2  Health Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 4-158 

4.4  Alternative 4
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material

4-160 

FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ii

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 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 4.4.1  Coal Resources and Mining ................................................................................................................ 4-160  4.4.1.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-161  4.4.1.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-162  4.4.1.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-162  4.4.2  Geomorphology and Topography ....................................................................................................... 4-163  4.4.2.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-163  4.4.2.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-164  4.4.3  Water Resource Areas ........................................................................................................................ 4-164  4.4.3.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-164  4.4.3.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-168  4.4.3.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-170  4.4.4  Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 4-171  4.4.4.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-171  4.4.4.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-173  4.4.4.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-174  4.4.5  Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation............................................................................................ 4-174  4.4.5.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-175  4.4.5.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-175  4.4.5.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-176  4.4.6  Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure ................................................ 4-177  4.4.6.1  Economics ................................................................................................................................. 4-177  4.4.6.2  Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 4-183  4.4.6.3  Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 4-183  4.4.6.4  Utilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 4-184  4.4.7  Occupational and Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 4-191  4.4.7.1  Safety Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 4-191  4.4.7.2  Health Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 4-192 

4.5  Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative)

4-195 

4.5.1  Coal Resources and Mining ................................................................................................................ 4-195  4.5.1.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-196  4.5.1.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-197  4.5.1.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-197  4.5.2  Geomorphology and Topography ....................................................................................................... 4-198  4.5.2.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-198  4.5.2.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-198  4.5.3  Water Resource Areas ........................................................................................................................ 4-199  4.5.3.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-199  4.5.3.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-203  4.5.3.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-205  4.5.4  Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 4-207  4.5.4.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-207  4.5.4.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-209  4.5.4.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-210  4.5.5  Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation............................................................................................ 4-210  4.5.5.1  Water Elements ......................................................................................................................... 4-211  4.5.5.2  Land Elements .......................................................................................................................... 4-212  4.5.5.3  Other Elements.......................................................................................................................... 4-212  4.5.6  Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure ................................................ 4-213  4.5.6.1  Economics ................................................................................................................................. 4-213  4.5.6.2  Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 4-219  4.5.6.3  Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 4-220  4.5.6.4  Utilities and Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 4-220 

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

iii

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

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 4.5.7  Occupational and Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 4-226  4.5.7.1  Safety Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 4-226  4.5.7.2  Health Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 4-228  4.5.8  Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 4-231  4.5.8.0  Context and Need for Cumulative Impact Analysis .................................................................. 4-232  4.5.8.1  Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................ 4-232  4.5.8.2  Other Actions with Potential Cumulative Effects ..................................................................... 4-233  4.5.8.3  Cumulative Impacts on Selected Resource Areas ..................................................................... 4-235  4.5.8.4  Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 4-247 

4.6  Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4.7  Methodology

4-247  4-249 

4.7.1  Coal Resources and Mining ................................................................................................................ 4-249  4.7.1.1  Major Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 4-250  4.7.1.2  Impact Estimation ..................................................................................................................... 4-250  4.7.1.3  Expert Elicitation Process ......................................................................................................... 4-251  4.7.1.4  Expert Panel Requirements and Qualifications ......................................................................... 4-251  4.7.1.5  Industry Consultation not Included in Elicitation ..................................................................... 4-252  4.7.1.6  Deterministic versus Stochastic Impact Approaches ................................................................ 4-253  4.7.1.7  Baseline Data ............................................................................................................................ 4-254  4.7.1.8  Estimation of Production Losses (Tons) ................................................................................... 4-254  4.7.1.9  Conversion of Coal Losses to Energy Losses (BTU)................................................................ 4-256  4.7.1.10  Apportioning of Make-up Energy ............................................................................................. 4-257  4.7.1.11  Required Additional Coal Production ....................................................................................... 4-259  4.7.1.12  Required Production Increases .................................................................................................. 4-259  4.7.1.13  Final Production Change Projections ........................................................................................ 4-260  4.7.1.14  Projection of Changes to Acreage Affected .............................................................................. 4-261  4.7.1.15  Acreage Affected by Surface Mining........................................................................................ 4-261  4.7.1.16  Acreage Affected by Underground Mining .............................................................................. 4-262  4.7.1.17  Affected Stream Lengths .......................................................................................................... 4-263  4.7.2  Geomorphology and Topography ....................................................................................................... 4-264  4.7.3  Water Resources ................................................................................................................................. 4-265  4.7.4  Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 4-266  4.7.5  Land Use, Visual Resources, and Recreation ..................................................................................... 4-267  4.7.6  Socioeconomic Resources .................................................................................................................. 4-268  4.7.7  Occupational and Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 4-269 

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

iv

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/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
Table 4.1.1-1  Table 4.1.1-2  Table 4.1.3-1  Table 4.1.3-2  Table 4.1.3-3 

TABLE OF TABLES
Regional Coal Production (2008) ................................................................................................. 4-5  Projected Acreage Impacts by Region .......................................................................................... 4-6  Summary of Water Use (2005) .................................................................................................... 4-10  Predicted Regional Stream Impacts (mi/yr) by Alternative ........................................................ 4-14  General Description of Regional Impacts of Mining on Groundwater ....................................... 4-18 

Table 4.1.4-1.  Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region Under the No Action Alternative........................................................................... 4-28  Table 4.1.4-2  Chemicals Associated With Coal Mining Operations, the USEPA- Recommended Freshwater AWQC, and Concentrations Found Downstream of Mine Sites .............................................................................. 4-34  Table 4.1.5-1  Table 4.1.5-2  Table 4.1.6-1  Table 4.1.6-2  Table 4.1.6-3  Table 4.1.6-4  Table 4.1.6-5  Table 4.1.6-6.  Table 4.1.6-7.  Table 4.1.6-8.  Table 4.1.6-9.  Table 4.2.1-1  Table 4.2.1-2  Table 4.2.1-3  Table 4.2.3-1  Table 4.2.3-2  Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 1 ............................................................. 4-47  Land Use Changes (1973–2000) ................................................................................................. 4-53  Alternative 1 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type by Region ......................... 4-57  Alternative 1 Estimated Personal Earnings by Production Type by Region ............................... 4-58  Poverty Rates in the Combined Counties by Region, 2000 and 2009 ......................................... 4-59  Alternative 1 Estimated AML Fund Contributions by Region ..................................................... 4-61  2009 AML Fund Distribution to States ....................................................................................... 4-61  Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Costs, All Surface Mining and Reclamation Priorities ...... ................................................................................................................................................ 4-62  Alternative 1 Estimated State Coal-Related Severance Taxes by Region............................... 4-64  Alternative 1 Estimated State Coal-Related Income Taxes by Region ................................... 4-64  Alternative 1 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement ......... 4-65  Stream Densities ......................................................................................................................... 4-77  Projected Coal Production Under Alternative 2......................................................................... 4-79  Estimated Annual Acreage Impacts Under Alternative 2............................................................ 4-80  Anticipated Regional Stream Impacts for Alternative 2 .............................................................. 4-85  Coal Production Change by Region and Nationally for ............................................................. 4-87 

Table 4.2.4-1.  Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region under Alternative 2 Compared to the No Action Alternative ................................ 4-93  Table 4.2.5-1  Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 2 ............................................................. 4-95 

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

v

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

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES Table 4.2.6-1.  Alternative 2 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type by Region .................... 4-98  Table 4.2.6-2.  Region Table 4.2.6-3.  Table 4.2.6-4.  Table 4.2.6-5.  Table 4.2.6-6.  Table 4.2.6-7.  Table 4.2.6-8.  Table 4.3.1-1  Table 4.3.3-1  Alternative 2 Estimated Change in Number of Unemployed and the Unemployment Rate by ................................................................................................................................................ 4-99  Alternative 2 Estimated Change in Earnings from Coal Mining.......................................... 4-100  Alternative 2 Estimated Change in Poverty Levels from Loss of Employment Positions ..... 4-101  Alternative 2 Estimated Change in AML Funds Collected ................................................... 4-102  Alternative 2 Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes .................................................. 4-102  Alternative 2 Estimated Change in State Income Taxes ....................................................... 4-103  Alternative 2 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement ....... 4-103  Final Production Impacts, Alternate 3 ...................................................................................... 4-122  Anticipated Regional Stream Impacts for Alternative 3 ............................................................ 4-129 

Table 4.3.4-1.  Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region under Alternative 3 and the No Action Alternative ............................................. 4-135  Table 4.3.5-1  Table 4.3.6-1.  Table 4.3.6-2.  Region Table 4.3.6-3.  Table 4.3.6-4.  Table 4.3.6-5.  Table 4.3.6-6.  Table 4.3.6-7.  Table 4.3.6-8.  Table 4.4.1-1  Table 4.4.3-1  Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 3 ........................................................... 4-138  Alternative 3 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type and Region ................ 4-142  Alternative 3 Estimated Change in Number of Unemployed and the Unemployment Rate by .............................................................................................................................................. 4-143  Alternative 3 Estimated Change in Earnings from Coal Mining.......................................... 4-143  Alternative 3 Estimated Change in Poverty Levels from Changes in Employment .............. 4-145  Alternative 3 Estimated Change in AML Funds Collected ................................................... 4-146  Alternative 3 Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes .................................................. 4-146  Alternative 3 Estimated Change in State Income Taxes ....................................................... 4-147  Alternative 3 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement ....... 4-147  Final Production Impacts, Alternate 4 ...................................................................................... 4-163  Anticipated Regional Stream Impacts for Alternative 4 ............................................................ 4-167 

Table 4.4.4-1.  Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region Under Alternative 4 and the No Action Alternative ............................................ 4-172  Table 4.4.5-1  Table 4.4.6-1.  Table 4.4.6-2.  Region Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 4 ........................................................... 4-175  Alternative 4 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type and Region ................ 4-177  Alternative 4 Estimated Change in Number of Unemployed and the Unemployment Rate by .............................................................................................................................................. 4-179 

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

vi

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

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES Table 4.4.6-3.  Alternative 4 Estimated Change in Earnings from Coal Mining.......................................... 4-179  Table 4.4.6-4.  Table 4.4.6-5.  Table 4.4.6-6.  Table 4.4.6-7.  Table 4.4.6-8.  Table 4.5.1-1  Table 4.5.3-1  Alternative 4 Estimated Change in Poverty Levels from Changes in Employment .............. 4-180  Alternative 4 Estimated Change in AML Funds Collected ................................................... 4-181  Alternative 4 Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes .................................................. 4-181  Alternative 4 Estimated Change in State Income Taxes ....................................................... 4-182  Alternative 4 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement ....... 4-183  Final Production Impacts, Alternative 5 ................................................................................... 4-198  Anticipated Regional Stream Impacts for Alternative 5 ............................................................ 4-202 

Table 4.5.4-1  Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region Under Alternative 5 and the No Action Alternative ............................................ 4-208  Table 4.5.5-1  Table 4.5.6-1.  Table 4.5.6-2.  Region Table 4.5.6-3.  Table 4.5.6-4.  Table 4.5.6-5.  Table 4.5.6-6.  Table 4.5.6-7.  Table 4.5.6-8.  Table 4.5.8-1  Table 4.5.8-2  Table 4.5.8-3  Table 4.5.8-4  Table 4.5.8-5  Table 4.5.8-6  Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 5 ........................................................... 4-211  Alternative 5 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type and Region ................ 4-214  Alternative 5 Estimated Change in Number of Unemployed and the Unemployment Rate by .............................................................................................................................................. 4-215  Alternative 5 Estimated Change in Earnings from Coal Mining.......................................... 4-215  Alternative 5 Estimated Changes to Poverty Levels from Changes in Employment ............ 4-216  Alternative 5 Estimated Change in AML Funds Collected ................................................... 4-217  Alternative 5 Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes .................................................. 4-218  Alternative 5 Estimated Change in State Income Taxes ....................................................... 4-218  Alternative 5 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement ....... 4-219  Summary of Cumulative Effects on Surface Water Quality....................................................... 4-236  Summary of Cumulate Effects on Surface Water Flow ............................................................. 4-238  Summary of Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Fauna................................................................... 4-240  Summary of Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Fauna .............................................................. 4-242  Summary of Cumulative Effects on Special Status Species ....................................................... 4-244  Summary of Cumulative Effects on Socioeconomics ................................................................. 4-246 

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

vii

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/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
Figure 4.1.7-1.  Figure 4.1.7-2.  Figure 4.1.7-3.  2006–2008 Figure 4.1.7-4.  Figure 4.1.7-5.  Figure 4.2.7-1.  Figure 4.2.7-2.  Alternative 1 Figure 4.2.7-3.  Figure 4.2.7-4.  Figure 4.2.7-5.  Figure 4.3.7-1.  Figure 4.3.7-2.  Alternative 1 Figure 4.3.7-3.  Figure 4.3.7-4.  Figure 4.3.7-5.  Figure 4.4.7-1.  Figure 4.4.7-2.  Alternative 1 Figure 4.4.7-3.  Figure 4.4.7-4.  Figure 4.4.7-5.  Figure 4.5.7-1.  Figure 4.5.7-2.  Alternative 1 Figure 4.5.7-3.  Figure 4.5.7-4.  Figure 4.5.7-5. 

TABLE OF FIGURES
Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 1 ......................................................... 4-71  Average Number of Non-Fatal Days Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 1 ......................... 4-72  Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 1 (Based on Average Rates for ................................................................................................................................................ 4-73  Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 1 ............................................................................... 4-74  Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 1 ............................................... 4-75  Projected Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1 ............ 4-115  Projected Average Number of Non-Fatal Days of Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 2 vs. .............................................................................................................................................. 4-116  Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1 ............. 4-117  Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1 ................... 4-118  Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1 .................................................. 4-119  Projected Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 1 ............ 4-157  Projected Average Number of Non-Fatal Days Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 3 vs. .............................................................................................................................................. 4-157  Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 1 ............. 4-158  Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 1 .................................................. 4-159  Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 1 ................... 4-160  Projected Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 1 ............ 4-191  Projected Average Number of Non-Fatal Days Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 4 vs. .............................................................................................................................................. 4-192  Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 1 ............. 4-193  Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 1 .................................................. 4-194  Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 1 ................... 4-195  Projected Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 5 vs. Alternative 1 ............ 4-227  Projected Average Number of Non-Fatal Days Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 5 vs. .............................................................................................................................................. 4-228  Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 5 vs. Alternative 1 ............. 4-229  Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 5 vs. Alternative 1 .................................................. 4-230  Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 5 vs. Alternative 1 ................... 4-231 

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

viii

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.0
4.0.1

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

INTRODUCTION AND ANALYTICAL APPROACH
Introduction

This chapter of the DEIS discusses the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives considered in the DEIS through a systematic impact analysis process. Section 1502.16 of the CEQ regulations states that the environmental consequences portion of an EIS forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons required under Section 1502.14 (“Alternatives including the proposed action”)( 40 CFR Part 1500, et seq.). Therefore, this chapter describes the potential effects of the No Action, Proposed Action, and other action alternatives (as described in Chapter 2) on the existing environment (Chapter 3). The potential effects of each alternative can be compared and contrasted by decision-makers and members of the public to understand the differences between alternatives being considered. As noted in Chapter 1, this DEIS is being conducted at the programmatic level. A programmatic EIS is used to evaluate actions that encompass a large geographic scale or that constitute complex programs that cannot be evaluated at the specific project-level scale. Therefore, potential effects of the alternatives cannot be projected at specific locations or to specific mining operations. Because this federal rulemaking initiative would have national implications, the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives are described on a regional basis to identify regional differences. The regional framework for analysis is described in Section 3.0. The impact analysis presented in this chapter must consider the rulemaking alternatives and elements representing those alternatives (see Chapter 2 for detailed descriptions of alternatives), resource areas, regions, and types of mining (surface versus underground). The highest organizational level in this chapter is at the alternative level, followed by resource area.

4.0.2

Approach to Impact Analysis

As discussed in Chapter 2 of this DEIS, OSM is considering regulatory changes to 15 principal elements within the SMCRA regulatory framework. OSM has determined that changes to four of these principal elements would not result in any identifiable environmental impact (the rationale is discussed further in Section 4.04), so the impact analysis considers the potential effects of 11 principal elements that represent the proposed rulemaking alternatives. For purposes of collective analysis, OSM has identified five provisions or approaches for each principal element and assigned each to an alternative. Because the decision-makers will focus on evaluating and comparing alternatives, or elements within those alternatives, Chapter 4 has been

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-1

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

organized primarily by alternative. Brief summaries of the alternatives under consideration in this DEIS are provided below:  Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, represents the current state of the SMCRA regulations pertaining to each of the 11 principal elements. As such, if adopted, no changes would be made in the regulations, and the existing regulatory provisions would continue to apply. Alternative 1 represents the baseline for comparison with other alternatives. Alternative 2 is comprised of provisions or approaches that are considered the most protective of natural resources among the alternatives. These provisions impose a substantially increased administrative and economic burden on the mining industry. Alternative 3is comprised of provisions or approaches that are protective of natural resources but to a lesser degree when compared with those under Alternative 2. Alternative 3’s provisions place less of an administrative and economic burden on the mining industry as compared with Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is comprised of provisions or approaches that are protective of natural resources but to a lesser degree when compared with those under Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4’s provisions place less of an administrative and economic burden on the mining industry as compared to Alternative 2 and 3. Alternative 5 represents OSM’s Proposed Action. The Proposed Action adopts provisions of Alternatives 2 and 3, including some with modifications that are unique to the Proposed Action. Alternative 5 attempts to balance the protection of natural resources with imposing a reasonable administrative and economic burden on the coal mining industry.









In keeping with the requirements of NEPA and the CEQ regulations, the alternatives under consideration in this DEIS represent a full range of reasonable alternatives to assess for potential impacts.

4.0.3

Potential Effects of the Alternatives on Coal Production Levels and Environmental Parameters

The initial effect that is projected to result from revised SMCRA rules is expressed in terms of effects on coal mining operations and associated coal production. To assess potential effects on the coal mining industry, the DEIS team judged the following three elements to be the primary determinants of how (surface versus underground) and where (coal region) future coal mining would likely occur, given the potential regulatory changes within each alternative:   Stream definition Activities in or near streams
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-2

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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



Mining through streams

Using these three elements as a primary basis, we assessed future coal mining production opportunities to estimate future coal production by type, region, and alternative. Baseline coal production data are represented in Alternative 1 and are based on U.S. Energy Information Administration data for 2008. Estimated coal production shifts for Alternatives 2 through 5 have been compared with Alternative 1 to determine the coal production effects by mining type and region. The assessment is based on the EIS team’s collective knowledge of and experience with coal mining in the United States. More information on the coal production assessment methodology and results is provided Section 4.7 of this DEIS. Basic environmental parameters associated with coal mining were also assessed on a regional basis as part of the impact analysis methodology. For example, data on stream lengths and acreages affected by coal mining in each region were used in coordination with regional production changes to estimate environmental impacts by mining types and regions. The stream miles and acreages affected would generally be consistent with increases or decreases in regional coal production. Impacts are presented in both quantitative and qualitative terms, based on the information available. Impacts are also characterized in terms of magnitude, duration, and frequency to the extent possible. The coal mining industry would adapt to any regulatory changes over time – it is assumed for this analysis that full implementation of any potential regulatory changes would occur over a 12- to 15-year period once those regulatory changes have been approved. The projected timeframe for environmental impacts would be up to 15 years from the approval date, with the specific rate and location of any environmental impacts not known at this time.

4.0.4

Resource Areas Eliminated from Detailed Impact Analysis

Following a preliminary impact analysis, OSM determined that potential impacts to some resource areas would be negligible or would be essentially the same among all action alternatives. The focus of this analysis is on those environmental consequences that are potentially significant. This approach is consistent with the spirit and intent of NEPA and Section 1502.2(b) of the CEQ regulations: Impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance. There shall be only brief discussion of other than significant issues. As in a finding of no significant impact, there should be only enough discussion to show why more study is not warranted. Based on this guidance, the following resource areas have been eliminated from detailed impact analysis, with a summary of the rationale for each decision provided below: Geology and Seismology – Coal resources lie within and are a part of the local and regional geological structure; therefore, effects to the geological and other physical aspects of coal resources and mining are discussed within the Coal Resources and Mining sections of the impact
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-3

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

analysis. No other geological issues are associated with the four action alternatives within the scope of this DEIS analysis. Soils – Because coal mining results in surface disturbance of land (e.g., clearing, digging, blasting, compaction), soils are directly affected by coal mining activities. Additionally, indirect effects from erosion are of concern for coal mining. Effects on soil resources are generally localized, but soil resources are a very important part of regional ecosystems and need protection from coal mining activities. SMCRA requires that soil erosion and sedimentation be minimized and otherwise controlled to mitigate these effects to the maximum extent technologically feasible. None of the action alternatives considered in this DEIS change the extensive soil protection objectives and required procedures within SMCRA, and the incremental effects on soil resources are considered negligible among the action alternatives on a programmatic scale. Air Quality, Meteorology, and Noise – Air quality (such as particulates) and noise effects associated with coal mining are primarily localized; that is, they occur in close proximity to the coal mining activity. From a programmatic and national perspective, any localized air quality and noise effects from mining would parallel the potential regional coal production changes identified the Coal Resources and Mining sections of this DEIS. For example, if coal production were to increase in one region, localized effects such as particulate emissions and noise would also increase as a whole within that region. The locations of specific localized impact changes cannot be projected within the scope of this DEIS analysis. The scope of the DEIS does not include assessment of potential effects from coal transportation or electricity generation, such as pollutants that contribute to acid rain or climate change issues. Although methane is the major greenhouse gas concern associated with coal mining, there would be a negligible effect on current levels of methane emissions from any coal mining activities associated with any of the action alternatives at a programmatic level. Paleontological and Cultural Resources – Because coal mining activities result in surface disturbance of land, resources of paleontological and cultural origin are sometimes vulnerable to the mining activity. An extensive legal and regulatory framework protects paleontological and cultural resources, and this DEIS assumes that the framework would continue to manage and control any adverse effects from coal mining on those resources. Any localized effects on paleontological and cultural resources cannot be projected within the scope of this programmatic and national analysis.

4.0.5

Resource Areas Included in Detailed Impact Analysis

To facilitate discussion and to focus on potential effects from an interdisciplinary perspective, some resource topics have been grouped together within Chapter 4. The remainder of Chapter 4 includes impact analysis of the following resource area groups for each alternative:   Coal resources and mining Geomorphology and topography
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-4

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    

Water resources Biological resources Land use, visual resources, and recreation Socioeconomics, environmental justice, and utilities/infrastructure Occupational and public health and safety

The chapter also includes discussions of cumulative impacts and irreversible or irretrievable impacts on resources associated with the proposed action and alternatives.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

4.1
4.1.1

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE)
Coal Resources and Mining

Alternative 1 is the baseline case and is represented by 2008 coal production data. As discussed in the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone EIS, implementation of Alternative 1 is expected to have only slight economic impacts and is therefore unlikely to shift coal production among regions. Based on information from the EIA, coal production totaled 1,170 million short tons in 2008. Regional productivity from both surface and underground mines under the baseline case for 2008 is shown in the Table 4.1.1-1. Table 4.1.1-1
Region

Regional Coal Production (2008)
Current Production (MMton/yr)
Underground Surface Total

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total

232.51 55.78 0.00 64.61 3.67 0.44 357.01

157.71 34.28 45.77 34.27 538.39 1.48 1.50 813.39

390.22 90.06 45.77 98.88 542.06 1.48 1.94 1,170.40

17 18 19 Based on data from the EIA and permit data from 2008-2010, associated acreage impacts in each coal producing region are projected as follows in acres per year (see Table 4.1.1-2).

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-5

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.1.1-2
Region

Projected Acreage Impacts by Region
Associated Acreage (ac/yr)
Underground Surface

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total

11,319.40 1,264.30 12.30 2,245.80 427.33 125.00 9.40 15,403.53

21,801.16 2,954.82 3,108.20 5,344.69 5,435.24 38.44 401.76 39,084.32

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thus, under Alternative 1, production and associated acreage impacts are assumed to remain consistent with 2008 numbers and current trends in coal production. In addition, the in situ coal resources across all coal producing regions will not change under any of the Alternatives 2 through 5. While these alternatives will not change the geological location of existing coal resources that have not yet been recovered, as described in subsequent sections, some alternatives could change whether or not those resources could be legally or economically recovered.

4.1.2

Geomorphology and Topography
4.1.2.1 Water Elements

The water elements related to material damage and corrective action thresholds would not impact geomorphology and topography under Alternative #1 since “material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area would remain undefined and no corrective action thresholds would exist. Therefore, these elements would not affect topography or geomorphology. The remaining water elements under Alternative 1 (stream definition, mining through streams, and activities in or near streams) would generally not affect geomorphology or topography in any region. Because production is not expected to shift significantly, either regionally or from surface to underground mining, under this Alternative, and since fill placement will continue to be permitted in all streams, current practices related to the restoration of AOC following mining are not expected to change under Alternative 1. Because placement of excess spoil and coal mine waste in perennial and intermittent streams must be avoided to the extent possible, it is expected that, in combination with the fill minimization requirements described below, that less fill material will be placed in streams and that valley fills will be minimized. However, because the states where most valley fills occur already have policies in place requiring fill minimization
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-6

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

for all steep slope operations, the Water Elements under Alternative 1 would not likely change current practices in these areas, since continued use of these policies is expected to occur. In other areas, fill placement in streams would continue. In conclusion, the water elements for Alternative 1 are not expected to have an impact on topography or geomorphology. 4.1.2.2 Land Elements The land elements under Alternative 1 would change requirements related to surface configuration and fills by requiring the operator to demonstrate to the regulatory authority that the operation is designed to minimize, to the extent possible, the volume of excess spoil that the operation will generate, thus ensuring that the amount of spoil returned to the mined out area is maximized. In addition, excess spoil footprints must be minimized, with no excess design capacity allowed. Finally, placement of excess spoil and coal mine waste in perennial or intermittent streams must be avoided to the extent possible. If avoidance is not possible, the applicant must identify and analyze a range of reasonable alternative designs and locations for the fill or waste structure and select the one with the least overall adverse impact on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values. These requirements are expected to benefit the environment by decreasing the size of valley fills and increasing the amount of spoil placed back on the mined out area or on old mine benches. By placing more material on the mined out area or on old mine benches, topography is expected to more closely resemble its original surface configuration. In addition, a reduction in the size of valley fills would lead to preservation of the topography in the portion of the valley that would have formerly been filled by excess spoil that would, under Alternative 1, be backfilled. Although states in the Appalachian Basin, where the majority of excess spoil fills occur, currently have fill minimization policies, on the ground impacts of Alternative 1 are still expected to occur. The fill minimization requirements in Alternative 1 are broader than some state policies. For example, the Kentucky and West Virginia policies only apply to steep slope operations, and the West Virginia policy does not apply to contour mines. In contrast, the fill minimization requirements in Alternative 1 would apply to all types of mining, thus having a broader impact in the Appalachian Basin than current policies. Alternative 1 would also minimize excess spoil in states in and outside of the Appalachian Basin that do not have fill minimization policies. The fill minimization requirements under Alternative 1 are also expected to impact the geomorphic and topographic areas of slope stability, surface configuration, and drainage. Since over 99 percent of valley fills occur in the Appalachian Basin region, the analysis below and associated studies are focused on that region. Although there is currently no strong empirical evidence indicating that excess spoil minimization will result in less stable excess spoil fills or backfill, Peter Michael and Michael Superfesky, both with OSM, identified several issues related to fill stability that may become more significant due to minimization requirements. Michael and Superfesky, Excess Spoil Minimization and Fill Stability (Paper was presented at the 2007 National Meeting of the American
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-7

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Society of Mining and Reclamation, Gillette, WY, 30 Years of SMCRA and Beyond June 2-7, 2007. R.I. Barnhisel (Ed.) Published by ASMR, 3134 Montavesta Rd., Lexington, KY 40502).

Minimizing the size of fills in order to reduce environmental impacts can result in smaller fills placed in higher elevations where the slope of the valley bottom is steep, resulting in an increase in foundation slope. Two recent studies have shown that fill stability can be reduced where an increase in foundation slope occurs. A stability study conducted as part of the 2003 MTM/VF EIS studied a valley fill in West Virginia to determine the significance of steeper foundation slopes. The study found that by increasing the foundation slope by moving the toe of the fill to exceedingly higher elevations up-valley while maintaining the profile of the fill face at 50-ft. vertical distances and 2:1 slopes between terraces, the SF dipped below 1.5 where the toefoundation slope reached 25 and 27 percent (14 and 15 degrees). (U.S. DOI, OSM, “Long Term Stability of Valley Fills Final Report (March 2002)) In addition, Michael and Superfesky analyzed empirical data from mining permits and determined that while the average foundation slope of all fills in the studied database was about 10 percent, the average foundation slope of the 20 failed fills was approximately 16 percent. Furthermore, six of the 20 failed fills had slopes greater than 20 percent, while 12 had toe slopes above the database average. Thus, absent mitigating factors, an increase in foundation slope can potentially impact long term slope stability. Michael and Superfesky, Excess Spoil Minimization and Fill Stability. Mitigating factors can compensate for instability that could result from an increase in foundation slope. Excess spoil minimization can serve to increase stability by increasing foundation shear strength. As elevations increase in hollows in steep-slope Appalachia, soil depth tends to decrease, meaning that minimized excess spoil fills will be constructed on soils that are shallower than those of un-minimized fills. While the limited amount of data on valley fill stability indicates that smaller fills founded on thinner soil layers does not completely compensate for the effect of steeper foundation slopes, shallower soils should generally add stability to minimized excess spoil fills.1 (Michael and Superfesky) Excess spoil minimization may also affect seepage rates in valley fills. First, because minimized fills will be constructed in higher elevations, smaller drainage areas will occur, resulting in lower amounts of runoff and seepage and less pore-water discharge through the fill mass when compared with un-minimized fills. Michael and Superfesky, Excess Spoil Minimization and Fill Stability. However, data from the OSM stability study (OSM 2002) indicates that a reduction of drainage in minimized valley fills does not completely remedy the effects of relatively steep foundation slopes. Secondly, in cases where excess spoil minimization results in contiguity between backfills and valley fills, drainage beginning upslope cannot always be prevented from entering the fill mass, as it can be where the fill is located downslope from the mined bench or mountaintop pavement. Thus, in these cases, subsurface flows in backfills can enter valley fills unnoticed, and without
1 Michael and Superfesky note that deep soils can occur at higher elevations where weak rock types such as shale and claystone are exposed. In addition, in cases of major fill instability caused by weak foundations, soil thickness may not be an important factor. Excess Spoil Minimization and Fill Stability

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-8

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

successful subsurface conveyance arrangements that are continuous with valley fill underdrains, can raise pore pressures and jeopardize stability in excess spoil fills if left unchecked. (Michael and Superfesky) Excess spoil minimization and the resulting increase in foundation slope may also increase the importance of existing regulations designed to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flooding, especially as applied to durable rock fills. Because fill minimization can increase the risk of slope instability, as described above, surface drainage control and contemporaneous reclamation will become more critical. Federal regulations currently require effective drainage control of surface water runoff from areas adjacent to and above the fill and that reclamation activities occur as contemporaneously as practicable with mining operations. (30 CFR 816.71, 816.100) However, in the case of durable rock fills, which are constructed by end dumping of the excess spoil, fill placement is completed before final surface drains are constructed. In some cases, such as several recent occurrences in West Virginia described by Michael and Superfesky, temporary surface drainage structures have been inadequate in terms of handling high intensity rainfall, resulting in erosion, wash-out sedimentation, and localized flooding. In addition, prolonged surface exposure can result in weathering of “durable” fill material, which can cause zones of weakness in the fill. In conclusion, existing regulations contain provisions designed to ensure fill stability. Enforcement of these regulations and appropriate foundation preparation, underdrain construction, surface drainage control, and contemporaneous reclamation will be essential in order to ensure fill stability as fills and excess spoil are minimized. However, as described above, since the states where the majority of valley fills occur already have policies in place that provide for fill minimization in steep slope areas, Alternative 1 would not likely have any additional effects on stability in the steep slope areas of Central Appalachia because these policies are expected to continue. Alternative 1 does not propose changes the previous regulations related to AOC variances. Therefore, regulations allowing for AOC variances under Alternative 1 would not change from current practices and would therefore, have no effect on topography or geomorphology. 4.1.2.3 Other Elements The Other Elements (baseline data collection, monitoring, fish and wildlife protection and enhancement, and revegetation and topsoil management) will not have an effect on geomorphology or topography under any alternative and are thus not discussed in detail in any section related to these resource areas. It is recognized that revegetation would affect topography in terms of the fact that vegetation patterns are based on topography and runoff patterns and revegetation in contradiction to these patterns can change geomorphology over time and impact erosion, soil stability, and soil moisture. These effects and other impacts related to revegetation will be discussed in other sections of this document related to soil and water resources, since they are more relevant to those sections.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-9

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.1.3

Water Resource Areas
4.1.3.1 Water Elements 4.1.3.1.1 Physical Impacts 4.1.3.1.1.1 Water Resource Planning

Water supply resources may be affected a very small amount by change in coal production. Coal production may require 10–100 gallons of water per ton of coal mined for coal cutting and dust suppression, and tailings and drainage may affect surface and ground water (DOE, 2006). Under Alternative 1 (No Action), water use related to coal production would remain largely the same or increase slightly in each region, if coal production increases. As of 2005, mining-related water use constituted less than 1% of total water use in each region (USGS, 2005). Mining-related surface water withdrawals constitute less than 0.001% of total surface water withdrawals within each region, and mining-related groundwater withdrawals constitute between <0.001% and 2.3% of total groundwater withdrawals within each region. Because coal-related water use constitutes a small proportion of total regional water use, it is likely that any water use impacts associated with coal production under Alternative 1 would be limited to local impacts. Local impacts will be dependent on local water supply use, availability, and resources. Under this alternative, water availability may be adversely affected by allowing in-stream mining, which could adversely affect flows and surface water availability, particularly in regions dependent on surface water as a water supply source. Table 4.1.3-1
Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior
Total Withdrawals (MGD)1

Summary of Water Use (2005)
SW Withdrawals (%) Mining Proportion of Total (%) Mining Proportion of GW (%) Mining Proportion of SW (%)

GW Withdrawals (%)

27,512 9,949 34,504 17,530 18,128 14,956 5,264

9 17 41 6 6 31 8

91 83 59 94 94 69 92

0.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4

<0.001 1.1 0.3 2.0 <0.001 0.7 2.3

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Source: USGS Estimated Water Use in the United States, 2005. 1 Represents average daily withdrawals.

21
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-10

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Drinking water quality impacts under Alternative 1 may remain the same or increase, if coal production increases in areas critical to water supply. The quality of the local water supply may be affected if the surface or ground water resources affected are used for water supply purposes. The regional quality of the water supply is measured by Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit violations. Under Alternative 1, regional water quality, as a measure of NPDES permit violations and SDWA violations, will likely remain the same or even degrade. 4.1.3.1.1.2 Surface Water Hydrology

Nationally, over 70% of all coal mining is conducted through surface operations with the predominate regions being the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Appalachian Basin each of which accounts for approximately 66% and 19% of all U.S. surface mining, respectively. Surface Water, Land and Other Elements impacts are directly attributable to the percentage of surface mining and are highly correlated to region. The Water Elements of Stream Definition, Material Damage Definition, Activities In or Near Streams, Mining through Streams and Corrective Action Thresholds are all directly influenced by shifts in regional coal production and regional attributes. For example, normalizing for approximate coal BTU levels, approximately 15 acres are affected by surface mining operations in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains per 1 million tons (MMton) of coal produced, whereas approximately 140 acres are affected by such operations in the Appalachian Basin per 1 MMton of coal produced. Thus, the potential for adverse hydrologic impacts is possibly reflected in disturbed acres per MMton of coal produced. For the Illinois Basin and Colorado Plateau, which each represent approximately 8% of the total surface mining, the disturbance of 170 acres and 90 acres per 1 MMtons is required, respectively. Thus, surface mining coal production redistribution between and among regions will affect substantially more or less acreage and associated hydrologic impacts, depending on the region to the production shifts. The regional hydrologic impacts cannot be directly related just to acreage changes because of the effects of differences in mining and reclamation methods; overburden-to-coal ratios; regional landscape, precipitation, and evapotranspiration; etc. Such acreage changes, however, are indicative of potential hydrologic impacts. Hydrologic Impacts Hydrologic and associated water quality impacts should be considered during active mining and during the bonding and postbonding timeframes. Consideration should also be given to potential impacts associated with the watershed scale, be it highly localized in a small watershed near the mining operation or further down-gradient at HUC-14, HUC-12, HUC-10, and HUC-8 levels. It is expected that as the size of the watershed of focus increases, hydrologic impacts will be dampened out or attenuated, thereby reducing the influence of mining operations. The size (area) of the mining operation and the total amount of mining that has occurred or is expected to occur in a watershed are also important considerations in evaluating hydrologic impacts. The percentage of active mining compared to area extent of reclamation and the accomplishment of contemporaneous reclamation all influence potential hydrologic impacts. Additionally, the type
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-11

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

or method of reclamation will significantly influence such hydrologic parameters as peak flow, runoff volume, and seasonal water balance; all of which in turn affect stream function and water quality. Assuming continuation of current trends in regional coal production, under Alternative 1 (No Action) hydrologic impacts are expected to decrease in the Appalachian Basin and increase in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Illinois Basin. For every MMton of coal production that is shifted to the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains from the Appalachian Basin, there is an expected increase in land disturbance of 15 acres in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and a decrease in disturbance of 140 acres in the Appalachian Basin. Regional hydrologic impacts may correspond somewhat proportionally to such land use adjustments. A transfer in coal production of 1 MMton from surface mining in the Appalachian Basin to surface mining in the Illinois Basin would result in a decrease in land disturbance of 140 acres in the Appalachian Basin and an increase in disturbance of 170 acres in the Illinois Basin. Hydrologic impacts are expected to remain nearly the same under Alternative 1, except for the changes in coal production anticipated and delineated above. Impacts are expected to be highly localized and dampened out as watershed size increases. For the Appalachian Basin, with further adoption of the Forest Reclamation Approach (FRA) (see Sections 4.2.3.3.1.1, 4.3.3.3.1.1 and 4.5.3.3.1.1) higher peak flows that were previously associated with traditional compaction and revegetation during the reclamation timeframe, compared to pre-mining conditions, are expected to decrease relatively quickly after the FRA has been completed. Further reductions in peak flow and runoff volume are expected post-bonding due to growth of forest and corresponding establishment of soil structure, with increases in infiltration and higher evapotranspiration rates. Additionally, with the adoption of the recently established Fill Placement Optimization Process (FPOP), in portions of the Appalachian Basin, the area that is affected by fill placement in a stream is expected to be decreased compared to traditional fill establishment procedures. Obviously, having no fill in a stream and adjacent watershed decreases hydrologic impacts. Initial assessment of the FPOP showed approximately a 30% reduction in valley fills. In the Colorado Plateau, especially the southern sections of New Mexico and Arizona, implementation of reclamation procedures that use geomorphic landscape and stream design and establishment of native plants within a rough, rocky surface configuration may reduce peak flow and runoff volume while enhancing seasonal flows compared to long uniform slopes, terraces, and rock riprap drainages. The use of near-source best management practices (BMPs) in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Colorado Plateau, in lieu of traditional sediment pond designs, prior to coal extraction and concurrent with reclamation may increase peak flow and establishment of a hydrograph similar to pre-mining land use conditions. In many regions, regulations of active mining require that the peak flow estimated for pre-mining land use conditions not be exceeded or not be exceeded by more than 10% for the 10-year, 24hour design storm. Such state and/or regional regulations reduce hydrologic impacts associated with peak flow from disturbed areas. Other mining operations, predominantly in the Colorado
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-12

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Plateau, design sediment ponds to contain the entire 10-year, 24-hour design storm, whereupon the stored water is infiltrated, evaporated, or used for fugitive dust control and associated water uses. In these situations, the hydrologic balance for localized areas may be changed. Underground mining accounts for approximately 30% of all coal mining. The majority of underground mining, approximately 65%, occurs in the Appalachian Basin, with approximately 18% and 15% occurring in the Illinois Basin and Colorado Plateau, respectively. To the extent that the shift in mining from the Appalachian Basin to either the Illinois Basin or the Colorado Plateau is a transition from surface mining to underground mining, there may be an expected decrease in hydrologic impacts in the Appalachian Basin associated with an approximate reduction of 15 acres per MMton. The associated increase in potential impacts to either the Illinois Basin or the Colorado Plateau may result in hydrologic impacts related to an increase of 35 acres and 23 acres of underground mining, respectively. If the shift is related strictly to a transfer of underground mining between regions, then for each MMton of coal production shifted, there would be a decrease of about 50 acres in the Appalachian Basin and an increase of 35 acres or 23 acres in either the Illinois Basin or the Colorado Plateau, respectively. A shift in Appalachian Basin surface mining to surface mining in the Illinois Basin region would be expected to increase surface-related hydrology impacts from 140 acres per MMton to 170 acres per MMton. For a shift from Appalachian Basin surface production to the Colorado Plateau, a decrease in surface disturbance of approximately 50 acres per MMton would be expected. The hydrologic impact with a regional shift from an Appalachian Basin surface mining operation to an Illinois Basin underground mining operation may reduce peak flow and runoff volume in the Appalachian Basin and may have a groundwater impact in the transitional region that increases in underground mining. Impacts would be expected to be highly localized. Stream Length Impacts Similar to hydrologic impacts, regional stream impacts will follow the shift in the coal production trend line from the Appalachian Basin to the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Illinois Basin. Nationwide, the length of affected stream may decrease due to the current shift in coal production within these coal regions. Again, similar to the analysis previously discussed, length of stream affected is related to regional coal resources and mining operations. For example, normalizing for approximate coal BTU levels, approximately 0.03 miles of stream are affected by surface mining operations in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains per 1 MMton of coal, whereas approximately 0.18 miles of streams are affected by such operations in the Appalachian Basin per 1 MMton of coal. Thus, a six-fold decrease in affected stream length may be associated with a shift of 1 MMton of coal production from the Appalachian Basin to the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. To further place such potential stream impacts into perspective for the Illinois Basin and Colorado Plateau, 0.16 and 0.09 miles of stream are affected per 1 MMton of regional coal production, respectively. If coal production increases at an annual rate of 1%, then, depending upon regional coal demands,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-13

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

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

stream impact under current Alternative 1 stream and material damage regulations may be expected to increase. With the adoption of the recently established FPOP, in portions of the Appalachian Basin, stream impacts may be reduced. For example, a review of five permits that used FPOP resulted in a decrease of approximately 45±% in the length of stream, compared to traditional fill establishment procedures that would have otherwise inundated streams with excess spoil. Depending on the size of the valley fill, stream length is expected to range in the 1,000s of feet. It should be stated that the FPOP is a very recent protocol (see Alternative 4, Section 4.4.3.2.1.2). A shift in Appalachian surface mining to underground mining in either the Illinois Basin or Colorado Plateau may decrease stream impacts in the Appalachian Basin by approximately 0.18 miles per MMton. Table 4.1.3-2 presents the predicted stream loss by region for each of the alternatives studied under this DEIS. Table 4.1.3-2 Appalachian Basin Predicted Regional Stream Impacts (mi/yr) by Alternative Colorado Plateau Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Other Western Interior 0.62 0.25 0.04 0.91 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.04 Illinois Basin Gulf Coast

Northwest

Alternative 1

Intermittent Perennial Other Total

25.14 42.64 3.10 70.89 11.57 19.62 1.43 32.62 18.63

6.41 1.04 0.52 7.97 2.63 0.43 0.21 3.27 6.53

3.61 1.72 0.68 6.01 0.18 0.09 0.03 0.30 0.47

7.33 6.14 0.97 14.44 2.97 2.49 0.39 5.85 6.41

8.72 1.23 0.65 10.59 1.20 0.17 0.09 1.46 10.01

0.16 -

51.83 53.03 5.97 110.99 18.57 22.80 2.16 43.53 42.04

Alternative 2

Intermittent Perennial Other Total

Alte rnat i 3

Intermittent

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-14

Total

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Appalachian Basin

Colorado Plateau

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains

Other Western Interior – – 0.61 0.25 0.04 0.90 – – – –

Illinois Basin

Gulf Coast

Northwest

Perennial Other Total Alternative 4 Intermittent Perennial Other Total Alternative 5 Intermittent Perennial Other Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

31.59 2.30 52.52 23.49 39.84 2.90 66.22 20.10 34.10 2.48 56.68

1.06 0.53 8.12 6.16 1.00 0.50 7.66 6.23 1.01 0.51 7.75

0.23 0.09 0.79 3.56 1.70 0.67 5.94 2.64 1.26 0.50 4.41

5.37 0.84 12.62 7.19 6.02 0.95 14.16 6.56 5.50 0.86 12.93

1.41 0.75 12.16 9.15 1.29 0.68 11.12 10.03 1.43 0.75 12.19

– 0.03 – – – 0.04 – – – 0.03

39.65 4.51 86.23 50.15 50.10 5.74 106.04 45.57 43.28 5.10 93.98

4.1.3.1.1.3

Groundwater Hydrology

Groundwater aquifers can be affected by both surface and underground mining methods. Coal seams serve as aquifers in many coal resource regions. Surface mining affects groundwater levels by removing these coal seam aquifers and any other aquifers located in the overburden above the coal seams. Overburden aquifers adjacent to coal seams can also be dewatered by the process of drainage from the aquifer into the open mine pit or seepage into the unconsolidated spoil backfills. Coal mining by itself is not a major user of surface or ground water in its operations; however, the depletion of available water supplies for other uses as a result of the mining activities can be significant. Underground mining affects groundwater levels primarily through blasting activity and subsidence. Blasting breaks up the impermeable layers of rock material above the coal seam, thus providing additional flow paths and resulting in dewatering of the aquifer located above the
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-15

Total

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

coal seam into the underground mine voids. Likewise, subsidence can create similar fracturing of the impermeable rock layers above the mining cavity and result in dewatering of the aquifer. Theoretically, over a period of time and after the completion of mining and the proper sealing of the mine openings has occurred, groundwater levels often return to a state of equilibrium. Longwall mining techniques can have more pronounced effects on groundwater hydraulics than the older room-and-pillar method of underground mining. Booth (1985) provides the following conclusion: Much of the ground-water impact of deep underground coal mining is dependent on and explicable by the hydraulic property changes resulting from mine-induced stresses. The impact of a single supported heading is local but intense. It comprises a large pressure drop and rapid dewatering in the increased permeability zone in the seam and immediate roof within the pressure arch, but a minor effect on main-roof strata above this. An uncollapsed network of such headings forms an underdrain which may locally affect lower aquifers considerably but whose effects on the shallow system are slight and diffuse. In contrast, the strata deformation and hydraulic impact of longwall mining are widespread and considerable. Lower aquifers connected to the working areas through fracturing are intensely affected and provide much of the inflow to the mine. Any hydraulic connections between the mine and shallow aquifers probably lie in tensile zones above the working areas and at the leading edge of the subsidence profile, but such connection is not a prerequisite to mine-related impacts. Whereas the hydrological impact of supported headings is due to the drainage to the mine, that of longwall mines is also due to independent aquifer response. Subsidence-induced permeability increases in shallow aquifers can cause increased throughput and (accentuated by storativity increases) lowered water levels in recharge zones regardless of mine drainage. Later compression and settlement cause partial reductions in permeability and storativity and partial recoveries in water levels. Water supply wells that are dug or drilled into the fracture zone created by blasting or subsidence are subject to dewatering, a drop in water level, or a significant change in recharge capacity. Mining impacts on groundwater resources are usually focused on the negative aspects; however, reclaimed mined sites can also provide some positive benefits. Mine spoils are more permeable than the ground from which they were excavated, even after reclamation. This increased permeability results in higher rates of infiltration and groundwater recharge, thus reducing surface runoff and flooding potential. The mine spoils, particularly valley fills, tend to act like a large sponge, holding the water for longer durations and slowly releasing discharge to springs and providing a higher base flow to receiving streams. Additionally, underground mines that over a period of time have filled with groundwater are used as a primary public water supply source for many communities.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-16

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Aquifer recharge varies region by region according to geologic and hydrologic conditions particular to an area. Recharge principals are discussed extensively throughout the 1990 National Academy Press document titled “Surface Coal Mining Effects on Ground Water Recharge”. Some applicable information extracted from that document follows: The common features of the three surface mining methods (contour, mountaintop, and area mining) that can influence recharge of ground water in the reclaimed landscape are: 1. Initial vegetation removal (eliminates transpiration); 2. Blasting (increases volume of overburden, fracturing of adjacent and underlying bed rock); 3. Mine floor compaction (reduces recharge to lower aquifers); 4. Disruption of aquifer(s) (dewatering, destruction of storage zone); 5. Water storage in spoil (greater porosity, extra fill areas); 6. Surface compaction (greater surface runoff); 7. Unfavorable reclaimed soil (poor water storage in root zone); and 8. Change in vegetation type (change in rooting depth and growing season).” Recharge depends on the availability of water for recharge, the physical characteristics of the soil and rock material the water must pass through, and the ability of the ground water reservoir to accept the recharge water. Any of these three major factors may be limiting and thus define the actual recharge. Fracture zones and solution channels through rock material may increase recharge if they reach the surface or are otherwise located so that they come in contact with water at atmospheric pressure or greater. In such cases they may act as localized sinks and rapidly transmit water to the ground water reservoir. Most fractures tend to terminate at depths of about 30 meters (Bouwer, 1978). Thus the lower parts of the fractures often are filled with water, and the rock becomes, in a sense, an aquifer.” Flow systems in fracture zones are very difficult to quantify. The controlling factors are the extent, size, distribution and degree of interconnection of the fractures. A highly fractured material may allow rapid transmission of water and thus promote recharge of ground water. If fractures are not interconnected, they cannot serve as conduits for water movement. Slightly fractured systems are thus not likely to allow significant movement of water, whereas highly fractured systems may serve as major conduits.” Most coal regions are coincident with regions containing fractured carboniferous formations and associated consolidated rock aquifers. Mining of coal affects the hydrogeology of a site and to varying degrees the surrounding area. The
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-17

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

magnitude of change depends on the initial geologic and hydrologic conditions, including the natural recharge areas, recharge mechanisms and rates, and the methods of mining and reclamation. Most recharge in eastern coal basins occurs during the winter and the spring into a natural fracture system within the outer rock zones of mountains. These recharge zones have formed as a result of stress-relief fracturing during landscape erosion (Wyrick and Borchers, 1981). Mining operations destroy some of the natural fracture system, and during the winter period mining can significantly reduce recharge through surface compaction effects caused by mining equipment. In western coal basins, “Recharge to the upper aquifers in the landscape takes place largely during the snowmelt period. Rainfall during winter and early spring can also be effective in recharging the upper aquifers in the landscape. Mine site operations may have little effect on the recharge of deep aquifers since in many cases the recharge occurs in permeable upland areas remote from the mine site. These permeable areas are formed in the approximate location of an outcrop of a former coal seam. Table 4.1.3-3 outlines regional differences in mining impacts on groundwater. This information was extracted mostly from the 1981 National Academy Press document “Coal Mining and Ground Water Resources in the United States” and was used as a basis for the evaluation and level of impacts that the proposed alternatives would have on groundwater in each of the coal resource regions. Table 4.1.3-3 also lists the fresh groundwater usage for the coal-producing counties that fall within the respective coal-producing region of each coal-producing state. Table 4.1.3-3
Coal Resource Region

General Description of Regional Impacts of Mining on Groundwater
Fresh Groundwater Usage (MGD) in Coal-Producing Counties Regional Impacts of Mining on Groundwater (information in column below taken from “Coal Mining and Ground Water Resources in the United States”, National Academy Press, 1981), unless noted otherwise.

State

AL Appalachian Basin KY MD OH PA

50.78 12.05 4.74 143.67 169.31

Northern Appalachia – Dewatering of near-surface aquifers overlying underground mines can be significant. As the depth of aquifers increases, the likelihood of adverse effects on water wells decreases. Where mining has resulted in wells being dewatered, water often returns to the wells in a greater quantity after a period of 1 to 6 months, although the water is often of poorer quality. The abandonment of some underground mines and the reestablishment of the groundwater regime have sometimes improved water quality to the

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-18

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Coal Resource Region

State

Fresh Groundwater Usage (MGD) in Coal-Producing Counties

Regional Impacts of Mining on Groundwater (information in column below taken from “Coal Mining and Ground Water Resources in the United States”, National Academy Press, 1981), unless noted otherwise.

TN VA

3.39 6.72

WV

64.62

Colorado Plateau

AZ CO NM UT

58.57 17.77 15.92 28.37

extent that ground water can be withdrawn from the mine for municipal water supplies. Owing to the low permeability of many of the rocks in the region, surface mining has increased infiltration and decreased runoff, resulting in an increase quantity of ground water in storage for future use. Central Appalachia – Air shafts and underground mines can serve as large ground water drains. A study in West Virginia indicated that wells become dry when less than 250 ft of overburden exists between the bottom of a well and an underground mine. Air shafts constructed without pre-grouting drain large quantities of ground water, and studies have found that in many cases, wells less than 75 ft deep within a mile of such a shaft have dried up within a few months. Southern Appalachia – Plateau and Warrior coal fields – In general, the combination of an alkaline groundwater regime and the physical retention capacity of the clays ensures, to some extent, the protection of the groundwater resources from heavy metal contamination. In the Cahaba and Coosa coal fields, the steeply dipping coal-bearing strata plan an important role in the effect of a coal mine on the groundwater regime. A short-term effect of the mining operations on the water resources in the coal fields results from mine drainages that are pumped to surface water supplies. Because many of the mines are located in steeply dipping strata, they must be dewatered during the active mining phase. In these areas, the long-term effect of mining on water resources should decrease with time. For planned surface mining in Utah, it was concluded that the effect of mining on the near-surface groundwater system and Navajo sandstone aquifer would be localized and would not have a significant impact on the Colorado River system. Colorado and Utah underground mining- Basin-wide effects of underground mining on ground or surface water quality is generally negligible despite localized

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-19

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Coal Resource Region

State

Fresh Groundwater Usage (MGD) in Coal-Producing Counties

Regional Impacts of Mining on Groundwater (information in column below taken from “Coal Mining and Ground Water Resources in the United States”, National Academy Press, 1981), unless noted otherwise.

LA Gulf Coast

5.28

MS

5.36

TX

93.59

IL Illinois Basin IN

54.15 63.77

KY

27.56

problems. In most areas, where underground mining occurs beneath thick overburden, groundwater in affected aquifers is not used. So long as major aquifers are not substantially influenced by mining operations, impacts should be localized and major impacts beyond the immediate vicinity of the mine are unlikely. New Mexico and Arizona – Coal is surface mined from cretaceous formations that contain zones of perched groundwater. Alluvial material forms a near-surface aquifer that, when saturated, is usually the sole source of domestic water supply in the area. Sandstones underlying the coal are utilized for municipal and industrial water supplies. Post mining, where water has resaturated portions of the spoil, the water is a sodiumsulfate type with a total dissolved-solids content of well over 1,000 mg/L. Owing to existing physical and environmental conditions, surface mining of lignite in the region will have only limited and short-term effects on the hydrologic balance and groundwater quality at most mine sites. However, in areas where the overburden is predominantly sand and where rainfall exceeds evaporation, the risk of groundwater contamination is greater. Because most commercial lignite deposits occur in fine-grained geologic sequences, the movement of groundwater through most reclaimed mine spoils will be minimal. The migration of groundwater with elevated total dissolved solid concentrations will also be limited. There are two major sources of poor quality recharge to ground water systems resulting from coal mining operations: (1) surface mine spoil, and (2) coalprocessing wastes, primarily slurry and gob. Water quality degradation related to waste disposal results from downward movement of precipitation infiltrating gob piles. At a gob pile, most of the accumulated water in the recharge mound will dissipate by seepage around the edges of the pile at its contact with the low-

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-20

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Coal Resource Region

State

Fresh Groundwater Usage (MGD) in Coal-Producing Counties

Regional Impacts of Mining on Groundwater (information in column below taken from “Coal Mining and Ground Water Resources in the United States”, National Academy Press, 1981), unless noted otherwise.

Northern Rocky Mountains & Great Plains

CO MT ND

32.87 20.79 4.99

WY

71.13

permeability sediments. Some leakage to the water table will occur, primarily at slurry lagoon sites, but also at gob piles. It should be noted, however, that ground water too mineralized for most uses occurs naturally at depths of 100 to 300 ft throughout the region. The occurrence of poor-quality groundwater at shallow depths limits the potential impact of mining operations on groundwater resources outside the major river valleys. Underground mining has a limited potential to dewater aquifers and lower potentiometric surfaces in the region. In the Illinois Basin, most Pennsylvanian-age rocks have a low hydraulic conductivity. As a result, hydraulic gradients toward underground mine openings will occur over a short distance. With little or no potential for widespread changes in the potentiometric surface and the low topographic relief characteristic, major changes in the location of groundwater divides and in the direction of groundwater flow are unlikely. Because even the most permeable bedrock units have a low hydraulic conductivity, overburden broken by blasting, removed by a shovel or dragline, and placed on the spoil side of a pit considerably increases in porosity. The increase in porosity greatly increases the amount of groundwater in storage. As a result of dragline emplacement of the spoils and contouring by bulldozers, most mines in the Northern Great Plains have a zone of coarse, blocky rubble that accumulates in the base of the mine pit. The rubble zone is overlain by fine-grained spoil materials. Studies made throughout the Northern Great Plains suggest that the greater permeability of the basal rubble zone makes it an aquifer that is similar in most respects to the coal aquifer being replaced. In most mined areas, water reenters the cast overburden rapidly with as much as 5 to 10 meters of saturated thickness developing within 1 to 5 years.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-21

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Coal Resource Region

State

Fresh Groundwater Usage (MGD) in Coal-Producing Counties

Regional Impacts of Mining on Groundwater (information in column below taken from “Coal Mining and Ground Water Resources in the United States”, National Academy Press, 1981), unless noted otherwise.

Northwest

AK

0.21

Information not available in document for Alaska.

Other Western Interior

AR KS MO

0.94 0.03 0.45

OK

4.34

The water table normally lies in bedrock above the coal or in alluvium where it is present in the river valleys. The effects of mining include the dewatering of overburden materials and the possible formation of acidic water. Normally, only a few small domestic supplies will be affected by mining. In areas mined by underground methods, roof collapse and fracturing of the overburden increases hydraulic conductivity and enhance dewatering of overlying strata. Seals are needed after mining to limit the gravity drainage of potentially acidic water.

General Conclusions: 1. Lowering of water tables commonly occurs locally as a result of coal mining. The cone of depression is confined to the vicinity of the mine, but is highly variable, depending on hydrogeologic conditions. Lowering of the water table in turn often causes adverse impacts on groundwater users within the area affected. Some wells may be dried up and others may require increased pumping costs to raise the water from greater depths. Springs and seeps fed by groundwater may cease to flow, causing adverse impacts on ecosystems. 2. As coal mining expands in the arid and semi-arid West, the possibility of substantial adverse effects from water table lowering caused by mining will increase, so that this may become a major problem in the future. Groundwater resources in the West are far more limited than in the East. Recharge rates are generally lower as well. Also, the scale of mining for some western areas could produce water-table lowering throughout extensive areas, so that what currently is a local problem conceivably could become a regional one in the future. 3. Water quality degradation can be and has been caused by coal mining. Acid mining drainage continues to be a problem in the East. In the West, owing to different hydrogeologic and soil conditions, the problem is one of salinity and alkalinity, rather than acidity. 1

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-22

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to groundwater hydrology would be expected to be similar to those observed currently in all regions, or to react to existing trends resulting from current production shifts. 4.1.3.1.2 Chemical Impacts 4.1.3.1.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 1 (No Action) from the five water elements included in the DEIS analysis: (1) Stream Definition, (2) Activities In or Near Streams, (3) Definition of Material Damage to the Hydrologic Balance, (4) Mining Through Streams, and (5) Corrective Action Thresholds. Two of these elements—activities in or near streams and mining through streams—can greatly affect surface water quality at mine sites because they directly affect the degree to which runoff from mines can enter streams. Surface water parameters typically affected by drainage from coal mine sites include total dissolved solids, pH, alkalinity, acidity, sulfate, iron, manganese, aluminum, and total suspended solids. Recent studies describing surface water impacts from current mining practices in the Appalachian Basin, Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, and other coal mining regions are described in Section 3.6. Under the No Action Alternative, future impacts to surface water quality from the water elements would be expected to be similar to those observed currently in all regions. 4.1.3.1.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Under this alternative, impacts to groundwater quality in coal mining areas are expected to be similar to the impacts observed for surface water in all regions. 4.1.3.2 Land Elements 4.1.3.2.1 Physical Impacts 4.1.3.2.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology Under Alternative 1 (No Action) the only changes in impacts to hydrology associated with the two land elements included in this DEIS analysis—Surface Configuration and Fills and AOC Exceptions—will be related to trends in coal production shifts from the Appalachian Basin to the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and Illinois Basin and to an expected increase in overall annual coal production. High peak flows and rapid hydrologic responses to storm events are expected from the crown of fills in the Appalachian Basin due to traditionally highly compacted spoil on lands that are transitioned from forest to grasslands. The traditional use of surface water conveyance to a rock French drain may continue to generate nearly year-round flow from the underdrain, with associated water quality constituents that may have an adverse impact on selected aquatic species. The continuing placement of excess spoil into streams and associated watersheds will result in stream loss except to the extent that stream mitigation can be successful. A typical head-of-

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-23

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

hollow fill may be expected to inundate several thousand feet of intermittent stream and associated up-gradient ephemeral streams. 4.1.3.2.1.2 Fluvial Processes

Surface water flow in stream channels is fed by several sources. These include direct precipitation into the channel, inflow from the discharges of impoundments, inflow from overland runoff, base flow from groundwater, and inflow from bank-storage discharge. Surface coal mining activities that result in alterations of channel geometry or gradient, filling in of the stream channel with spoil, changes in the composition of the channel banks, or changes in the amount of water contributed by impoundments can result in changes in the stream’s flow characteristics, especially during critical periods, such as peak flow. Streams that are affected can become more flood-prone and are more likely to alter their channels and carry more suspended solids during periods of high flow. Surface-water flow is likely to be affected by changes in the water-retaining characteristics of the reclaimed spoil as a result of changes in infiltration rate and runoff. Headwater streams serve a number of important ecological functions, including attenuating floods, maintaining water supplies, and improving water quality. These streams also provide a rich diversity of habitats that provide shelter, food, protection from predators, spawning sites, nursery areas, and travel corridors for both aquatic and terrestrial animals. There are two principal coal mining-related activities that affect streams directly: the temporary impacts of mining through and diverting streams, and the permanent impacts of placing spoil or other materials in the channels of those streams. While mining through streams occurs throughout the nation’s coal fields, this impact most often occurs primarily in areas with ample precipitation, steep terrain, relatively thick overburden, and large-scale surface mining. This latter condition is primarily found in the Appalachian region. The consequences of indirect stream loss and energy transport reductions also indirectly affect downstream reaches. Mountaintop mining and valley fills have the potential to alter the chemistry, water temperature, flow regime, and geomorphologic features downstream. Stream chemistry shows increased mineralization and a shift in macroinvertebrate assemblages from pollution-intolerant to pollution-tolerant species. Water temperatures from valley fill sites exhibited lower daily fluctuations and less seasonal variation than water temperatures from reference sites. Daily stream flows from studied valley fill sites exhibited greater base flow than reference sites. Smaller sediment particle sizes were found in downstream substrate. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), changes in fluvial processes are expected to be closely associated with changes in hydrology, erosion, and stream lengths across all regions, which are related to shifts in coal production between the regions.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-24

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Stream Morphology Changes As streams are shaped by their discharge and sediment loads, changes to hydrology and/or erosion in a watershed may alter the morphology of down-gradient streams. If discharges are increased, streams may experience degradation by which they may become wider and deeper. If discharges are decreased, stream may experience aggradation whereby sediments may accumulation in the stream. Changes in stream slopes as well as in stream bed features (extent and location) may also occur. The extent of this impact is expected to be localized and dampen out as watershed size increases. Under Alterative 1 (No Action), changes in stream morphology are expected to be closely related to changes in fluvial processes across all regions. If stream flows are increased without a balanced increase in sediment loads from the watershed, streams may experience degradation. Likewise, if sediment loads from a watershed are increased without a balanced increase in stream flows, streams may undergo aggradation. Two independent mitigating factors would lessen the adverse effects of the direct stream impacts associated with practices such as mining though or diverting streams or placing spoil or other materials into streams. First, for temporary impacts of stream diversion, the regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.43 require that a permanent stream diversion or a stream channel restored after the completion of mining be designed and constructed to approximate pre-mining characteristics of the original channel, including natural riparian vegetation. Second, the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 program requires that all temporary and permanent impacts to waters of the United States be fully mitigated. The amount and type of compensatory mitigation are determined by a stream functional assessment of waters affected by a specific project. The compensatory mitigation required by the CWA Section 404 program will further provide incentive for reducing the number of streams affected. Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion is expected to decrease slightly in the Appalachian Basin, and fewer fills will be needed, as surface mining land disturbance increases in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and Illinois Basin due to the trend of regional coal mining shifts. 4.1.3.2.2 Chemical Impacts 4.1.3.2.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 1 (No Action) from the two land elements included in the DEIS analysis: Surface Configuration and Fills, and AOC Exceptions. The first element—Surface Configuration and Fills—is highly relevant to contaminant transport in streams because it specifies the extent to which excess spoils may be placed in or near the channels of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams. As described in Section 3.5.6.1, the placement of excess spoils in or near stream channels leads to the eventual discharge of contaminated drainage to headwater streams. Under the No Action Alternative,

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-25

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

future impacts to surface water quality from the land elements would be expected to be similar to those observed currently in all regions. 4.1.3.2.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Under this alternative, impacts to groundwater quality in coal mining areas are expected to be similar to the impacts observed for surface water in all regions. 4.1.3.3 Other Elements 4.1.3.3.1 Physical Impacts 4.1.3.3.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology The hydrologic impacts will be associated predominantly with the continuing conversion of land from pre-mining land uses to reclaimed mined lands that may increase peak flow and possibly runoff volume and may change seasonal water balance, depending on mining and reclamation practices that are used in various coal mining regions. Traditional compaction of spoil may increase peak flow and flooding potential due to transition from higher to lower infiltration rates. This change may be especially evident after active mining and Phase II bond release when the sediment pond is removed. The hydrologic response may be expected to be faster than during pre-mining conditions due to land use reconfigurations and postmining land uses that are substantially different from pre-mining conditions. 4.1.3.3.1.2 Fluvial Processes

Fluvial impacts will be largely associated with the hydrologic and sedimentologic impacts associated with land use conversion. In the Appalachian Basin, the replacement of forested lands with grasslands may alter stream base flow conditions through changes in hydrology and evapotranspiration rates. Changes in riparian vegetation from forests to grasslands may affect stream bank stabilization, temperature moderation, and nutrient cycling. For the Appalachian Basin, traditional reclamation consists of compacted spoil with grasses and legumes for erosion control. If vegetation is well established, erosion rates are expected to be low. With further adoption of the Forest Reclamation Approach (see Sections 4.2.3.3.1.1, 4.3.3.3.1.1, and 4.5.3.3.1.1), erosion rates and sediment loads that were previously associated with traditional compaction and revegetation during the reclamation timeframe are expected to decrease after the FRA has been completed. Even further reductions in erosion rates are expected postbonding due to growth of forest and corresponding establishment of a forest canopy, development of a detritus groundcover, and an increase in infiltration associated with soil formation. In the Colorado Plateau, implementation of reclamation procedures that use geomorphic landscape design that reduces slope length and gradient, enhances establishment of native plants, and uses a rough surface configuration may reduce erosion rates compared to long uniform slopes, terraces, and rock riprap drainages. The use of near-source BMPs in lieu of sediment ponds in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Colorado Plateau prior to coal
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-26

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

extraction and concurrent with reclamation may more closely mimic pre-mining erosion rate and effluent sediment concentration. During mining, the peak effluent discharge from a sediment pond is allowed to be 0.5 ml/L settleable solids for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event, according to surface mining regulations. NPDES permits often require average and peak TSS concentrations of 35 mg/L and 70 mg/L, respectively, a given period of time after a rainfall event. For the Appalachian Basin, where premining land use was a well-established forest, the erosion rate in tons per acre is quite low and stream water quality quite clear. Hence, effluent from sediment ponds receiving sediment-laden runoff from active mining operations may exceed pre-mining sediment concentrations without impairment of stream functions. 4.1.3.3.2 Chemical Impacts 4.1.3.3.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 1 (No Action) from the four other elements included in the EIS analysis: revegetation and Topsoil Management, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Baseline Data Collection and Analysis, and Monitoring During Mining and Reclamation. The first two elements—Revegetation and Topsoil Management and Fish and Wildlife Enhancement—pertain to reclamation after mining. These elements would not be expected to have an impact on water quality during mining but may result in beneficial impacts to surface water quality during and after reclamation. The last two elements—baseline data collection and analysis and monitoring during mining and reclamation—do not affect contaminant transport or surface water quality per se but do affect researchers’ ability to evaluate these processes. In summary, these four elements would not be expected to have a notable impact on water quality during mining. 4.1.3.3.2.2 Groundwater Quality

As for surface water, the four elements discussed in this section would not be expected to have a notable impact on groundwater quality during mining.

4.1.4

Biological Resources

Adverse impacts to aquatic resources have been demonstrated at coal mining sites in the U.S.; specific impacts are discussed in greater detail in this section. Some of the impacts that have been studied and documented occurred in association with pre-SMCRA mining. Current coal mines are permitted under different regulatory requirements, and therefore different pollution prevention and impact mitigation requirements are in place at the different mining sites. Thus the published literature that has documented impacts to biological resources associated with coal mining, some of which is cited in this discussion, does not necessarily represent practices under newer regulatory requirements. New impacts that would be expected to occur as a result of continuing to issue permits for new coal mines under the current SMCRA rules are described below. These new impacts would occur as a result of clearing additional land for coal mines (new land expected to be cleared annually is summarized in Table 4.1.4-1).
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-27

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.1.4-1. Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region Under the No Action Alternative Affected Acreage (ac/yr) 5,863 33,121 7,590 4,219 3,120 411 163 54,488 Affected Stream Length (mi/yr) 10.6 70.9 14.4 8.0 6.0 0.9 0.2 111.0

Region Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Appalachian Basin Illinois Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Region Other Western Interior Northwest Total 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 4.1.4.1 Water Elements

For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect aquatic ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 1:      Coal production will not change from current conditions. Mining and mining-related activities can and sometimes do occur in all stream types. Excess spoils can be, and sometimes are, placed in all stream types; ephemeral streams are not protected. Approximately 111 additional miles of perennial and/or intermittent streams are affected each year by coal mining operations. The number of miles of ephemeral streams that are affected by current coal mining practices is not known.

Under Alternative 1, it is assumed that these conditions will not change. Issues associated with water elements that are discussed below in relation to their documented association with coal mining include the following:     In-stream habitat change In-stream habitat loss Community composition Impacts on species, including protected species
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-28

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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



Water quality-related impacts to species and habitats

Coal mining activities have been associated with direct and indirect long-term adverse impacts resulting from the loss of and changes in aquatic habitats. Direct stream fragmentation occurs when roads, culverts, fill, and dams impede organisms from moving up- and downstream and cause an interruption in the natural connections within a stream network; barriers to movement create fragmented sections, resulting in what is often called reduced stream connectivity (TU, 2010). These types of built features are usually necessary for construction and operation of mining sites and/or their associated infrastructure. Stream channels can become fragmented as a result of coal mining practices (USEPA, 2003). Stream fragmentation may cause distinct patch formation within a stream and may produce negative effects on both the abiotic and biotic factors of the stream (Kirkham and Fischer, 2004). Fragmentation can strongly influence population dynamics and species survival in spatially structured populations (Smucker and Vis, 2009; Letcher et al., 2007). For example, barriers to upstream migration of brook trout in a study done in Massachusetts resulted in rapid (2 to 6 generations) local extinction, and these local extinctions in turn increased the likelihood of systemwide extinction, as tributaries could no longer function as population sources (Letcher et al., 2007). Current permitted mining practices have had various, well-documented adverse impacts on ecological communities in aquatic systems found in coal mining regions (e.g., USEPA, 2003; Verb and Vis, 2000; Wangsness, 1982; Pond et al., 2008; Palmer, 2009; Woody et al., 2010). Impacts of surface mining on the species composition of aquatic systems include shifts in community composition, changes in demographics and dynamics of aquatic populations, and loss of taxa. For example, Pond et al. (2008) characterized macroinvertebrate communities from riffles in 37 streams in West Virginia (10 unmined sites and 27 coal mined sites) and found that coal mining impaired the biological condition of streams at four levels: shift in species assemblages, loss of Ephemeroptera (mayfly) taxa, changes in individual metrics and indices, and changes in water chemistry. Land transformation resulting in habitat loss is a leading cause of decline of numerous organisms (Vitousek et al., 1997), and mining activities present acute changes to the landscape that often create unsuitable conditions for a variety of species. Generally, when streams are mined through, a majority of the biota is lost (OSM, 2008; Pond et al., 2008). In many cases where streams are buried by the overburden, the streams are eliminated with the biota that once inhabited them (USEPA, 2003; Pond et al., 2008; Palmer, 2009). Changes in the water table associated with mine development can adversely affect springs and seeps, particularly in the arid Western coal regions. Degradation of aquatic ecosystems caused by mining activities promotes colonization by pioneer species and/or generalists that are less sensitive to ecological change. Thus, loss of biodiversity occurs, and the species composition of aquatic systems in surrounding areas becomes more homogenized (Weed and Rutschky, 1971; Pond et al., 2008; Walters et al., 2003). Biotic homogenization, or the replacement of regionally distinct faunas with species that are tolerant of disturbance, reduces biodiversity in areas where it occurs because communities comprise fewer, similar species (Chapin et al., 1997; Walters et al., 2003). These community-level impacts can adversely affect protected species that may be distributed at or near new mine sites. The federally protected aquatic species that are known to

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-29

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

be distributed in the coal counties in the United States are described more fully in Section 3.12 and its associated appendices. The construction of coal mines often begins with the construction of roads for public road access for equipment, employees, and supplies. Other internal haul roads are developed as further access is needed, and these allow movement of equipment and the haulage of coal and overburden within working areas in a mine site. When roads are created, removal of vegetation, runoff, recontouring, and soil compaction all result in adverse ecological impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Thus, land clearing for the creation of roads and construction of the mine itself can adversely affect streams, springs, and seeps both on- and off-site. Heavy equipment used during mine construction can introduce a variety of contaminants into the environment. Chemicals associated with heavy equipment include hydraulic fluids, motor oil, and gasoline. Hydraulic fluid releases associated with mining activities have caused known fish kills (BMI, 1990). Mine operation varies from mine to mine; for example, surface mining including contour, area, dragline, open pit, block area, and mountaintop removal methods involve the removal of overlying overburden material, while underground mining operations do not remove overlying overburden other than the primary seam access. Therefore, impacts associated with contaminant exposure vary among mining methods. One common water quality impact commonly associated with road and industrial site construction and coal mining activities is sedimentation (Castro and Reckendorf, 1995). Sedimentation can drastically change the aquatic habitats in streams. The diversity and population size of fish species, mussels, and benthic macroinvertebrates associated with coarse substrates can be greatly reduced if the substrates are covered with sand and silt (Appendix C of Berry et al., 2003). Amphibians are reported to avoid areas in streams that have a lot of silt (Humphries and Pauley, 2005). Other ways in which suspended sediments can interfere with ecosystem processes include reducing water clarity, which makes it difficult for sight-feeding fish and invertebrate species to catch food; absorbing the sunlight’s energy, which inhibits plant photosynthesis and warms the water in the stream; and filling interstitial spaces that provide shelter and foraging habitat for aquatic invertebrates. Impacts of sediment release are not always limited to near-field habitats. Sediments can be transported downstream, and large influxes of sediment can impair many miles of a stream system. Excess fine sediment runoff can increase in the downstream reaches of streams below valley fills and decrease habitat quality for species that are sensitive to higher levels of turbidity (Wiley and Brogan, 2003; Pond et al., 2008). Following the creation of roads at new mine sites, erosion control methods such as sedimentation ponds are usually constructed to prevent sediment from running off into nearby streams. At present, SMCRA requires that permanent stream-channel diversions and restored stream channels use natural channel design techniques to restore or approximate pre-mining streamchannel characteristics; however, exceptions are allowed. It can be difficult to restore biological characteristics in an engineered stream channel. For example, Rohasliney and Jackson (2008) found that relative abundance of macroinvertebrate taxa in channelized streams in a Gulf Region coal mining site were approximately half those of the unchannelized streams, and species richness was higher in unchannelized streams than in the channelized streams. When on-site
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-30

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

water management includes retention ponds and diversion ditches, these engineered features can alter the amount of water that reaches streams, which can in turn lead to adverse impacts on downstream habitats (Woody et al., 2010, USEPA, 2003). The creation of the artificial water bodies alters flow dynamics and flood regimes, promotes the biotic homogenization of inchannel environments, and can alter the influx of allochthonous organic materials that are essential to the energy flow and biological productivity in stream ecosystems (Jackson, 2005; Rohasliney and Jackson, 2008; Palmer et al., 2010). The removal of riparian vegetation surrounding aquatic systems and the alteration of valley contours on mined sites can result in adverse impacts to aquatic ecosystems because of the alteration in the patterns by which water flows through the affected valleys and further changes to how water is delivered to streams below the valley fills (Palmer, 2009). In addition, water quality can be adversely affected with the removal of riparian vegetation and/or shrinking of the width of the riparian buffer (e.g., Klapproth and Johnson, 2000). The removal of soil, rock, vegetation, and organic matter in the stream buffers can result in adverse impacts to the streams. Impacts to wetlands from surface coal mines and aboveground facilities used for underground coal mines would remain the same under the No Action Alternative. SMCRA currently does not directly protect wetlands. Under current SMCRA rules, fish and wildlife habitat is to be avoided and minimized to the extent practical. Wetlands provide habitat for a diversity of species and would continue to be considered under this provision. Wetlands that meet the definition under the Clean Water Act (CWA) of “waters of the U.S.” would continue to be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, including lost functions, would be offset with compensatory mitigation projects under the Section 404 regulatory program. Isolated wetlands, meaning those wetlands that are not hydrologically connected to waters of the U.S., would not be afforded protection under SMCRA or the CWA. Non-jurisdictional wetlands would be indirectly protected under NEPA, since a NEPA review considers general impacts to habitats. The potential for off-site indirect impacts would remain, as there would be no regulations in place to ensure that no changes in the hydrologic balance could occur off-site. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) monitoring would continue on a quarterly basis for a suite of contaminants. Subsidence rates associated with underground mining would also remain unchanged. Subsidence, depending on site conditions, can lower the water table or can cause poor drainage at the surface. Both situations have an effect on wetlands, as one can drain wetlands and the other can create wetlands. Valley fills that are currently permitted as part of different mining methods (notably area mines and mountaintop removal mines) in several coal regions permanently bury ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams next to the mining operations (USEPA, 2003; Pond et al., 2008). Organisms that cannot escape may experience immediate mortality or longer-term mortality or stress as they are subjected to unsuitable habitat conditions. The outcome of valley
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-31

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

fills on the underlying aquatic systems is a reduction in species abundance and richness. Precipitation and groundwater percolate through unconsolidated overburden on mined sites and dissolve minerals until they discharge from the bottom of the fills as surface water (Pond et al., 2008). The dissolved minerals are then transported into the on-site and downstream surface waters and can alter the water quality. The water quality changes associated with the TDS originating at coal mining sites have been demonstrated to have adverse impacts on downstream streams and rivers at coal mining sites in the United States (e.g., Locke et al., 2006; USEPA, 2003; Hartman et al., 2005; Pond et al., 2008; Palmer et al., 2010). During all phases of mining operations (construction, mine operations, and reclamation and abandonment), a variety of chemicals have the potential to enter the environment, resulting in adverse impacts to aquatic organisms. When mines are constructed, overlying overburden material is removed and is usually stockpiled in an adjacent area. The overburden material contains naturally occurring chemicals, which can be present at levels that are toxic to some organisms. When the exposed overburden is weathered, there is potential for these chemicals to be transported to streams and rivers downstream of the mine site. Acidification of streams from acid mine drainage (AMD) is one of the most well-known adverse impacts to water quality associated with coal mining (Palmer et al., 2010; USEPA, 2003). As the pH level in a system decreases, it can cause death due to respiratory or osmoregulatory failure in aquatic organisms (Kimmel, 1983; Morris et al., 1989). AMD from underground and surface coal mines and coal refuse piles leaches minerals (including metals) from soil and rock, and on entering the stream these minerals can be toxic to aquatic species (Woodward et al., 1997; Earle and Callaghan, 1998; Goldstein et al., 1999; Pond et al., 2008; Rohasliney and Jackson, 2008). AMD can also cause secondary impacts such as decreased dissolved oxygen levels via oxidation of metals and increased osmotic pressure from increased concentrations of mineral salts (Earle and Callaghan, 1998). Contamination caused by inputs from valley fills can affect aquatic organisms as toxic substances in the water or as a toxicant in the food chain (Sorensen, 1991; Rainbow, 1996; Woodward et al., 1997; Goldstein et al., 1999; Maret and MacCoy, 2002). Hoehn and Sizemore (1977) found that trace metals from AMD suppress algal growth and affect fish and benthos. Several studies found significant negative correlations between benthic macroinvertebrate metrics and specific conductance (Soucek et al., 2000; Kennedy et al., 2003, Hartman et al., 2005, Merricks et al., 2007, Pond et al., 2008; Chambers and Messinger, 2001; Green and Childers, 2000). High conductivity can be directly toxic to freshwater aquatic organisms by disrupting osmoregulation (Pond et al., 2008). Most mining methods use blasting agents to free coal for loading and hauling. The most common blasting agent is ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO). ANFO has the potential to enter the downstream waterbodies in runoff. There is little information about the environmental fate of ANFO; however, the concentration of ammonium nitrate that is lethal to 50% of test organisms (LC50) ranges from 52.9 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for Xenopus laevis, African
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-32

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

clawed frog tadpoles (freshwater, 10-day static-renewal test; Schuytema and Nebeker, 1999) to 6,000 mg/L for Oncorhynchus mykiss, Rainbow trout (conditions of test not specified) (European Chemical Bureau, 2007). There are subtle differences in geochemistry from mine to mine; however, common chemicals are associated with coal mine sites throughout the United States that have the potential to affect downstream aquatic ecosystems. Table 4.1.4-2lists the common chemicals associated with mining activities, the USEPA-recommended ambient water quality criteria (if applicable), and the range of concentrations downstream of mine sites based on Pond et al. (2008) in the Central Appalachians of West Virginia and on Hartman et al. (2005) in southern West Virginia. The USEPA-recommended ambient water quality criteria are based on the following estimates:  The estimated highest concentration of material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed briefly without resulting in an unacceptable effect, the criteria maximum concentration (CMC)

The estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed indefinitely without resulting in an unacceptable effect, the criteria continuous concentration (CCC) The following is a discussion of the common changes in water quality and contaminants associated with mine operations.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-33

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.1.4-2 Chemicals Associated With Coal Mining Operations, the USEPARecommended Freshwater AWQC, and Concentrations Found Downstream of Mine Sites
USEPA-Recommended Freshwater Ambient Water Quality Criteria Criteria Criterion Maximum Continuous Concentration Concentration (acute) (chronic) NA 750 NA 86 NA Toxicity based on BLM* NA 65 NA NA 470 NA NA NA NA 120 2 87 NA 23 NA Toxicity based on BLM * 1000 2.5 NA NA 52 6.5-9 NA 5 NA 120 Range of Concentrations From Downstream of Mine Sites** 16.2-319.3 <50-272 5.9-269 <2.5-11 159-2540 0.5-3.4 <0.5-650 <1-4 4.9-248 2.0-904 <0.3-59 6.3-8.9 1.8-19 <1.5-36.8 155-1520 0.9-29

Chemical

Alkalinity (Bicarbonate) (mg/L) Aluminum (µg/L) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Specific Conductivity (µS/cm) Copper* (µg/L) Iron (µg/L) Lead (µg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Manganese (µg/L) Nickel (µg/L) pH (standard units) Potassium (mg/L) Selenium (µg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Zinc (µg/L) * Biotic Ligand Model (BLM)
** mg/L µg/L

Based on Harding et al. (2005) and/or Pond et al. (2008) milligrams per liter micrograms per liter

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

pH The pH of downstream waterbodies can be altered by mine drainage. Waterbody pH has been shown to play a role in influencing the composition and abundance of macroinvertebrate taxa in streams. For example, Feldman and Connor (1992) found invertebrate abundance and richness were significantly lower at pH 5.8 than at pH 7.1. Pond et al. (2008) found the mean pH in Appalachian streams downstream of mountaintop coal mining sites was significantly higher than the pH in unmined sites; however, Hartman et al. (2005) did not find a significant difference in pH between streams downstream of mine-filled watershed and reference streams.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-34

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Calcium Pond et al. (2008) and Hartman et al. (2005) found that the mean concentration of calcium in streams downstream of coal mining sites was significantly higher than in unmined sites. Ketola (1988) found that eggs of Atlantic salmon, brook trout, and rainbow trout experienced significantly reduced survival in water containing high concentrations of calcium (522 mg/L). However, calcium and magnesium ions that contribute to water hardness generally lower the toxicity of metals by competing with metal ions for binding sites on gills (Wisnieski and Jarvis, 2006). Magnesium The maximum concentrations of dissolved magnesium downstream of Appalachian coal mining sites reported in Pond et al. (2008) were 0.853 mg/L. The mean concentration of magnesium from mined sites was not significantly different from unmined sites. Hartman et al. (2005), however, found magnesium concentrations to be significantly greater in streams downstream of mine-filled watersheds (86 mg/L) compared with reference streams (23 mg/L). Aluminum Pond et al. (2008) and Hartman et al. (2005) found that the mean concentration of aluminum in streams downstream of coal mining sites in Appalachia was not significantly different from unmined sites. Aluminum bioavailability and toxicity are related to pH and other water quality parameters. Aluminum is found primarily associated with clay material in soils and is not soluble unless pH is less than 4.9 (Nordstrom and Ball, 1986). At moderate acidity (pH 5.5 to 7.0), fish and invertebrates may be stressed due to aluminum adsorption onto gill surfaces and resulting asphyxiation. At pH 4.5 to 5.5, aluminum can impair ion regulation. At lower pH, aluminum is less soluble and less bioavailable (Sparling et al., 1997). Freund and Petty (2007) found that biological indices (West Virginia stream condition index and the mid-Atlantic index of biotic integrity) responded strongly to increased concentrations of aluminum at coal mining sites in Appalachia. However, Merrick et al. (2007) found no obvious relationship between toxicity in Ceriodaphnia dubia and aluminum concentration in the water column from sites downstream of valley fill mine sites. Copper Pond et al. (2008) found that the mean concentration of copper in streams downstream of mountaintop coal mining sites in Appalachia (2.6 µg/L) was not significantly different from unmined sites (2.9 µg/L). However, Hartman et al. (2005) found mean concentration of copper in streams downstream of mine-filled watersheds was significantly higher than in reference streams (12 versus 8 µg/L, respectively) and that Ephemeroptera richness was negatively related to copper. Clements and Cairns (1988) exposed natural assemblages of macroinvertebrates to low levels of copper and zinc (12 µg/L). Taxa richness, total abundance, and the abundance of dominant taxa were all reduced within 4 days. After 10 days, control streams were dominated by

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-35

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

sensitive taxa (Ephemeroptera and Tanytarsini), while the test streams were dominated by pollutant-tolerant taxa (Hydropsychidae and Orthocladiini). Iron Pond et al. (2008) reported maximum concentrations of total and dissolved iron downstream of coal mining sites in Appalachia at 650 μg/L and 281 μg/L, respectively, and there was no significant difference in total or dissolved iron in mined sites compared to unmined sites. Hartman et al. (2005) reported mean iron concentrations of 470 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 820 μg/L in streams downstream of coal mine valley-filled watersheds in Appalachia, and the iron concentrations were significantly greater than those in reference streams in their study. Hartman et al. (2005) found that Ephemeroptera richness was negatively related to iron; however, Merrick et al. (2007) found no obvious relationship between toxicity in Ceriodaphnia dubia and iron concentrations in the water column from sites downstream of valley-fill mine sites. Manganese Pond et al. (2008) found that the mean concentration of manganese in streams downstream of mountaintop coal mining sites in Appalachia (141.4 µg/L) was not significantly different from unmined sites (34.1 µg/L). Hartman et al. (2005), however, found significantly greater manganese concentrations in streams downstream from coal mine valley-filled watersheds in Appalachia (620 µg/L) compared to reference sites (190 µg/L); the maximum manganese value measured in mined sites was 904 µg/L. Hartman et al. (2005) found that Ephemeroptera richness and EPT taxa richness were negatively related to manganese in Appalachian streams. Similarly, Freund and Petty (2007) found that biological indices (the West Virginia stream condition index and the Mid-Atlantic index of biotic integrity) responded strongly to increased concentrations of manganese in streams elsewhere in Appalachia. On the contrary, Merrick et al. (2007) found no obvious relationship between toxicity in Ceriodaphnia dubia and manganese concentration in the water column from sites downstream of valley fill mine sites. The maximum manganese concentrations reported downstream of mined sites in these studies are substantially lower than the concentrations used to derive water quality criteria. Nickel Pond et al. (2008) found that the mean concentration of nickel in streams downstream of mountaintop coal mining sites in Appalachia (14.2 µg/L) was not significantly different from unmined sites (<10 µg/L). However, Hartman et al. (2005) found nickel concentrations in streams downstream from mine-filled watersheds (250 µg/L) were significantly greater than in reference streams (76 µg/L) and that Ephemeroptera richness and EPT taxa richness were negatively related to nickel concentrations. Freund and Petty (2007) found that biological impairment (as described by the West Virginia stream condition index and the Mid-Atlantic index of biotic integrity) was significantly correlated to increasing concentrations of nickel in AMD stream sites in Appalachia.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-36

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Potassium Pond et al. (2008) and Hartman et al. (2005) found that the mean concentration of potassium in streams downstream of coal mining sites in Appalachia (10 mg/L) was significantly greater than at unmined sites (3.3 mg/L). Little is known about the potential toxicity of potassium ions in natural streams, and potassium is not generally associated with impairment of aquatic systems in coal mining regions. Selenium Pond et al. (2008) found the mean concentration of selenium in streams downstream of mountaintop coal mining sites (10.6 μg/L) was significantly greater than unmined sites (<1.5 μg/L), which exceeds the USEPA’s ambient water quality criteria for selenium (Table 4.1.4-2). The estimated range of thresholds for sublethal toxicity of selenium to aquatic invertebrates was 1–30 μg/L (DeBruyn and Chapman, 2007). Numerous studies have shown severe effects of selenium on fish reproduction, and effects on fish are the basis for the national criterion (USEPA, 2004). Selenium has been identified as bioaccumulating in the food chain and having adverse impacts on both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (reviewed in Palmer, 2010). Dietary exposure of vertebrate consumers is the high-risk pathway for selenium toxicity. Selenium is reported to have caused reproductive failure and gross deformities in birds that forage in selenium-contaminated waters, but sensitivity was highly variable between species (Ohlendorf 2003; Ohlendorf et al., 1986). Reproductive impairment was documented for spotted sandpipers foraging in streams receiving coal-mine overburden leachate with high levels of selenium in British Columbia compared to birds that foraged in reference streams (Harding et al., 2005). Zinc In separate studies, Pond et al. (2008) and Hartman et al. (2005) found that the mean concentration of zinc in streams downstream of coal mining sites in Appalachia was not significantly different from unmined sites, and observed concentrations are typically lower than expected effects levels (Table 4.1.4-2). Merricks et al. (2007) found no obvious relationship between toxicity in Ceriodaphnia dubia and zinc concentration in the water column from sites downstream of valley-fill mine sites elsewhere in Appalachia. On the contrary, Clements et al. (1988) exposed natural assemblages of Appalachian stream macroinvertebrates to low levels of copper and zinc (12 µg/L) in experimental systems. Clements et al. found that taxa richness, abundance, and abundance of most dominant taxa were reduced within 4 days. After 10 days, their control streams were dominated by sensitive taxa (Ephemeroptera and Tanytarsini), while the test streams were dominated by pollutant-tolerant taxa (Hydropsychidae and Orthocladiini). This indicates that zinc may affect species distributions. Sulfates Sulfates are known to be persistently elevated downstream of coal mining operations (USEPA, 2003). Pond et al. (2008) found that the mean concentration of sulfates in streams downstream of mountaintop coal mining sites in Appalachia (695.5 mg/L) were significantly greater than in
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-37

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

unmined sites (16 mg/L). Taken in context, these concentrations are generally lower than sulfate levels that have been demonstrated to cause adverse effects in laboratory tests (Soucek and Kennedy, 2005). Freund and Petty (2007) found that biological impairment (as described by the West Virginia stream condition index and the Mid-Atlantic index of biotic integrity) was significantly correlated to increasing concentrations of sulfate in AMD stream sites in Appalachia. Similarly, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study of benthic invertebrate communities in the Appalachian region found that sediment particle size, specific conductance, and sulfate concentrations were most strongly correlated with adverse effects on invertebrate communities (Chambers and Messinger, 2001). More specifically, that study documented a replacement of pollution-sensitive taxa with pollution-tolerant taxa over a gradient of increasing coal production, specific conductance, and sulfate concentrations. In summary, current and past coal mining practices have resulted in major adverse impacts to aquatic resources at some sites. The adverse impacts that have been documented to occur in association with coal mining in the United States have included impairment of macroinvertebrate and fish communities on- and off-site, degraded water quality including but not limited to sedimentation of in-stream habitats and selenium toxicity, and permanent loss of stream habitats through burial. These adverse impacts can and do occur with all mining methods and in all coal regions. While adverse impacts can occur at any individual mine site, the disproportionate distribution of more coal mines in the Appalachian Basin (Table 4.5.4-1) has resulted in more adverse impacts to stream resources in that region. 4.1.4.2 Land Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect terrestrial ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 1. The approximate original contour does not necessarily have to be reestablished at all mining sites, and approximately 54,000 new acres of land are expected to be developed for new coal mining operations each year under this alternative (Table 4.5.4-1). Issues associated with land elements that are discussed below in relation to their documented association with coal mining include the following:      Habitat change (e.g., fragmentation, edge effect, microclimate changes, invasive species) Habitat loss Community composition Impacts on species, including protected species Wildlife exposure to contaminants

Mining activities have the potential to fragment existing terrestrial habitats. Habitats that were once continuous become divided into separate fragments, reducing the available habitat for organisms from the divided ecological system. If organisms are unable to move among fragments, they must survive on the resources that remain in the habitat fragment. Area is the primary determinant of the number of species in a fragment (Rosenzweig, 1995). Thus, habitat
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-38

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

fragmentation is often a cause of species becoming threatened or endangered, and an important cause of species extinction (Rosenzweig, 1995). The ecological impacts associated with habitat fragmentation can be generally described in two categories: limitations to species mobility and edge effects. The potential for dispersal and colonization is often reduced when habitat becomes fragmented, as bird, mammal, and insect species of forest interiors are sometimes found not to cross even very short distances of open areas (Laurance and Bierregaard, 1997; Primack, 2002). Caribou, native to Alaska, have a tendency to keep 5 kilometers (km) from human settlements and structures, such as roads and power lines, which indicates that fragmentation caused by even seemingly low-density sprawl can substantially reduce habitat used by the caribou (Nelleman et al., 2001). Crooks et al. (2001) examined the impact of habitat fragmentation on eight bird species in chaparral and sagebrush communities of the United States and found that smaller habitat fragments had higher rates of extinction and lower rates of colonization by the birds. Many threatened species of songbirds in the United States are woodland species, adapted to the deep woods, and they need an area of approximately 10 hectares (24.7 acres) per breeding pair (Cunningham et al., 2003); forest fragmentation can adversely affect songbirds. Some of the more important habitat changes associated with edge effects include microclimate changes in light, temperature, humidity, and wind, and increases in the incidence of fire (Stevens and Husband, 1998). Each effect can significantly affect the vitality and composition of species within the fragment (Primack, 2002). For example, microclimatic changes along forest edges were found to result in increased mortality of trees (Laurance et al., 1998). As species of plants and animals are often precisely adapted to temperature, humidity, and light levels, changes in those conditions may eliminate the species from the habitat fragment or fragment edge. Shadetolerant plant species and humidity-sensitive animals, such as amphibians, often are eliminated rapidly (Primack, 2002). Over time, the species of plants and animals that occur along edges differ from those found in the interior. New edge habitat also increases the habitat fragment’s vulnerability to invasive species (Cunningham et al., 2003). Invasive plants along the habitat edge can disperse seeds into the habitat interior where the invasive species may become established in open areas where trees or shrubs have recently died, either due to natural causes or because of the newly altered growing conditions (Primack, 2002). Invasive plant species have the potential to disrupt natural communities. Some invasive plant species also alter ecosystem processes and habitat functions and suitability, and can interfere with crop production. For these reasons, invasive plant species are of national and global concern (NISC, 2008). The ecological effects of invasive vegetation could include competition with or displacement of native plants, the reduction in suitable foraging areas for wildlife, and competition with or displacement of species of special concern. As land areas are cleared for different mine operations, the cleared habitats and the surrounding areas become vulnerable to an increase in invasive species. The degree of impact of land clearing on invasive plant species would vary based on the amount of access road construction that is undertaken and the coal extraction method used by a mine. Underground mining techniques, such as room-and-pillar mining, are expected to have relatively minor adverse impacts associated with the spread of
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-39

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

invasive vegetation, as the only land clearing required would be centered around the mine support facilities (access roads and staging areas) and shaft openings. Transport of equipment to and from mining sites has the potential to spread invasive plants to the area. In contrast, land clearing for surface mining techniques such as area mining is assumed to have greater adverse impacts based on the larger land area that is cleared and the greater volume of mine waste that must be stockpiled. The adverse impacts created by land clearing would continue through the operation and reclamation stages of the mine, as invasive plant species that colonize the area would become established and may potentially spread. Adverse impacts associated with invasive species that are established during road construction would be a one-time, long-term impact that would continue through the operation and reclamation stages of the mining operation. The disposal of spoil and overburden could create additional cleared areas that could be colonized by invasive plant species in the excess spoil disposal areas and along adjacent habitat edges. Because many invasive species are aggressive early colonizers of disturbed areas, even temporary spoil/overburden piles can offer invasive plants a foothold for establishment. The magnitude of the adverse impacts would differ among coal extraction methods, depending on their methods of disposal. Most underground mining methods dispose of the spoils within the mine and do not require an excess spoil area; such operations would have negligible impacts associated with the spread of invasive plant species. Methods such as the area mining dragline would have minor to moderate adverse impacts, as the excess spoil is placed in the cut or strip, reducing the area required for disposal, which in turn reduces the area available for invasive species to become established. Other mining methods, such as open-pit mining and mountaintop removal mining may have moderate to high adverse impacts related to the spread of invasive species, as they often require larger areas for spoil disposal compared to other coal extraction methods. The impacts of spoil disposal, like land clearing, would continue through the operation and reclamation stages of the mine, as invasive plant species that colonize the area would remain and potentially spread to adjacent areas. Land clearing associated with mining also results in the loss of natural forest, shrubland, and grassland communities. These impacts can include the loss of populations of locally important medicinal plants, as well as other culturally sensitive plants. The cryptobiotic crusts that are important biological communities at the soil surface in the western United States, particularly in the Colorado Plateau, are destroyed by activities associated with coal mining. Mining activities have the potential to release chemicals into the terrestrial environment. These contaminants have the ability to alter on-site and off-site habitats. Chemicals associated with mining activities can be toxic to terrestrial wildlife at varying concentrations. During all phases of mining operations (construction, mine operations, and reclamation/abandonment), a variety of chemicals have the potential to enter the environment, resulting in exposure of terrestrial wildlife. Mine construction begins with the clearing of land, which often requires the use of herbicides and heavy equipment. Herbicides and chemicals associated with heavy equipment can be toxic
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-40

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

at varying concentrations. Unintended targets of herbicide applications, such as wildlife and protected species, can be exposed via drift, runoff, leaching, wind transport, accidental spills, and direct spraying. The potential effects as a result of herbicide treatment vary by the extent, method of treatment, herbicide used, timing of application, and concentration of herbicide. Potential impacts may include reduced reproduction, reduced fecundity, damage to organs, changes in growth, changes in behavior, and death (McCain et al., 2000; USDA, 2005). Recent research has highlighted the potential for certain herbicides to act as endocrine disrupters. These chemicals affect endocrine glands, hormones, and hormone receptors. Endocrine disruption can result in abnormal growth, decreased fertility and hatching success, and gender variance (USEPA, 2009). Larger animals and birds likely would avoid the construction area during treatment because of noise and activity. Animals that temporarily leave the treatment area have reduced risk of direct contact with the herbicides. Other animals that cannot disperse as readily (like salamanders, small mammals, insects, etc.) could be adversely affected by broad-scale treatments using herbicides with moderate to high toxicity. In association with land clearing, exposed sediment can result in erosion and increased runoff to downstream waterbodies. Suspended solids in the runoff can have adverse impacts on the water quality of receiving streams, resulting in water that is unpalatable and/or toxic to wildlife. There is relatively little research on the pathways for exposure of contaminants from coal mining activities to terrestrial wildlife. The majority of terrestrial contaminant exposure is attributed to the oral exposure pathway. This pathway refers to exposure through dietary consumption of the contaminants. Potential for exposure to contaminants could occur through the ingestion of contaminated soil, vegetation, prey, or water. Contaminants can enter the food chain in plants through assimilation of contaminants in roots and leaves. Contaminants that enter the waterbodies downstream of mines, as discussed above, can have adverse impacts on terrestrial wildlife. Wildlife that feed on fish and other aquatic organisms may be indirectly affected through reduced prey or directly affected through foodchain bioaccumulation of contaminants with potential to produce adverse impacts (Harding et al., 2005). The major contaminant associated with coal mining that is known to bioaccumulate is selenium (Palmer et al., 2010), which is known to be toxic to wildlife and livestock (Merck Veterinary Manual, 2008). Fire is an ongoing problem at active and abandoned coal mines. From 1990 to 2007, 1,601 reportable fires (an average of 89 fires per year) occurred in the U.S. mining industry (Trevits et al., n.d.) Most were caused by operational processes. Mine fires produce a variety of adverse environmental effects. The most immediate and obvious are the destruction of surrounding habitat and of once-thriving human communities. Coal-fire gas typically contains between 40 and 50 compounds, many of which are toxic and some of which are carcinogenic (Stracher, 2010). In addition to carbon dioxide, methane, and mercury, other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-containing particulates may be emitted, including creosote. In addition, numerous other solid phases nucleate from the gas, some of which may contain potentially harmful

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-41

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

concentrations of mercury, lead, fluorine, selenium, arsenic, bismuth, and tin. These compounds can pollute the local water system and the soil (Stracher, 2010). Several direct and indirect adverse impacts on the environment that are caused by coal fires (Chakrabarty, 2010) may include the following:         Emission of noxious gases and the particulate matter that pollute the local atmosphere Emission of greenhouse gases, further aggravating the global warming problem Loss of flora and fauna Subsidence, causing damage to life and properties and changes in the local drainage pattern Air pollution Land degradation Temperature increase of surrounding areas Increase in production costs for fire extinguishing

Examples of coal fires currently burning in abandoned mines throughout the United States include the Mulga gob fire in Alabama; the Ruth Mullins, Truman Shepherd, and Tiptop coal fires near the town of Hazard in eastern Kentucky; several fires in abandoned mines in Colorado; the Welch Ranch fire, near Sheridan in the Powder River basin (plus other select localities in Wyoming); and the fire in Centralia, Pennsylvania, which has been burning since 1962 (Stracher, 2010). The Tiptop underground coal fire in Breathitt County, Kentucky, typifies these results. No one seems to know how long it has burned, how much coal it has consumed, how it started, or the dangers associated with it. The origin of this fire possibly occurred before mining ended at Tiptop some 80 years ago (Stracher, 2010). Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, unpleasant, or undesired sound, which can be an annoyance when it is loud enough to be sensed above the usual background sounds of a particular area. The bulk of studies on the effects of noise on wildlife emphasize the behavioral effects of noise, because such effects are more readily observable. Very little work has been done on the nonauditory physiological effects of noise on wildlife (USEPA, 1980). Noise is most often considered an aversive stimulus, although some types of sounds actually attract animals. The presence of humans and/or machines can exaggerate or otherwise affect an animal’s reaction to noise. It may be difficult to determine what affects wildlife more acutely— human presence or noise (USEPA, 1980). It is generally accepted that the effects of noise on most wildlife species are poorly understood (Larkin et al., 1996; Brown, 2001). As noted in the report The Effects of Noise on Wildlife:

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-42

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Mackenzie Gas Project prepared by AMEC America Limited (AMEC) in 2005, there are numerous reasons for this:       Extrapolation from one species to the next Measurement problems (e.g., lack of species-specific frequency weighting) Filters and failure to accurately report measurement parameters Inadequate attention to the role of ambient noise Failure to separate the visual and auditory components of reported disturbances The applicability of experimental research to a natural setting

Response to noise disturbance cannot be generalized across species or among genera (Larkin et al., 1996). There might even be differences in responses among individuals or groups of individuals of the same species. An animal’s response to noise can depend on a variety of factors, including the following (AMEC, 2005; Larkin et al., 1996):              Noise level Frequency distribution Duration Number of events Variation over time Rate of onset Noise type (e.g., white noise versus harmonic or pure tones) Existence and level of ambient (background) noise Time of year Time of day Animal activity and location Age and sex class Experience

The potential adverse impacts of noise on wildlife are numerous and may include acute or chronic physiological damage to the auditory system, increased energy expenditure, physical injury incurred during panicked responses, interference with normal activities such as feeding, and impaired communication among individuals and groups (AMEC, 2005; Larkin et al., 1996). However, how the noise-producing activities associated with coal mining may affect wildlife in future mining operations cannot be predicted. Noise thresholds for individual species are unknown, evidence for habituation is limited, long-term effects are generally unknown, and how observed behavioral and physiological responses might be manifested ecologically and demographically are poorly understood and seldom addressed (Brown, 2001).

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-43

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

The main sources of noise in the mining industry are blasting, operation of earth-moving equipment, construction of haul roads, drilling, and operation of coal-handling plants. Mining and associated activities can produce noise far above normal ambient levels. Mining methods and primary sources of noise from mining and mine reclamation activities in each of the coal regions are summarized below. Appalachian Basin Mining methods include underground, contour, mountaintop removal, and highwall mining. Sources of noise that could adversely affect wildlife in the project vicinity would include blasting, drilling, clearing and grubbing, cutting, loading and hauling, construction of haul roads, and machine noise from mechanical equipment. Colorado Plateau Mining methods include underground and surface mining. Sources of noise that could adversely affect wildlife in the project vicinity would include blasting, drilling, cutting, loading and hauling, construction of haul roads and sediment- and erosion-control features, backfilling and grading, and machine noise from mechanical equipment. Gulf Coast Mining methods include strip mining using a dragline or the scraper/dozer method. Sources of noise that could adversely affect wildlife in the project vicinity would include machine noise from the mechanical equipment, construction of haul roads and sediment- and erosion-control features, backfilling and grading, and machine and vehicular noise. Illinois Basin Mining methods include underground surface mining and the dragline method. Sources or noise that could adversely affect wildlife in the project vicinity would include machine noise from the mechanical equipment, construction of haul roads and sediment- and erosion-control features, backfilling and grading, and machine and vehicular noise. Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains Mining methods include underground and surface mining. Mines are primarily medium or large box-cut area mines or open-pit mines. Sources of noise that could adversely affect wildlife in the project vicinity are blasting, drilling, digging, construction of haul roads and erosion–control features, clearing and grubbing, excavation, mechanical equipment, and vehicular noise. Northwest The one active coal mine in the Northwest region is the Usibelli mine in Alaska, which uses the dragline method of coal extraction. Sources of noise that could adversely affect wildlife in the project vicinity of dragline mines include machine noise from mechanical equipment,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-44

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

construction of haul roads and sediment- and erosion-control features, backfilling and grading, and machine and vehicular noise. The community-level disturbances that occur in association with coal mining described in this section (e.g., invasive species, fire, noise, habitat fragment, etc.) can adversely affect protected species at or near new mine sites. The federally protected terrestrial species that are known to be distributed in the coal-producing counties in the United States are described more fully in Section 3.13 and its associated appendices. In summary, current and past coal mining practices have resulted in major adverse impacts to terrestrial resources at some sites. These adverse impacts have included fragmentation of habitats; degradation of habitat quality through fire, noise, introduction of non-native and/or invasive species, and abrupt changes in topography; exposure of wildlife to toxic chemicals; and permanent loss of terrestrial habitat. These adverse impacts can and do occur with all mining methods and in all coal regions. While adverse impacts can occur at any mine site, the disproportionate distribution of more coal mines in the Appalachian Basin (Table 4.5.4-1) has resulted in more adverse impacts to biological resources in that region. 4.1.4.3 Other Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the practices that are most likely to affect restoration outcomes for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative):     Topsoil does not necessarily have to be reused on-site. Cleared forest does not necessarily have to be restored to forest. There is no requirement that native species be used in revegetation activities. Habitat enhancement projects do not necessarily have to occur within the same watershed.

Generally, activities associated with coal mining operations in the United States affect large areas of upland communities, including forests. Development of individual mine sites can result in the disturbance or removal of hundreds to thousands of acres of upland habitat. The degree of adverse impacts to terrestrial species composition can vary depending on previous land use, surrounding land use, mining methods, and mitigation measures undertaken during all phases of mining, from construction to reclamation. The natural regeneration within a mine site depends on the reclamation practices and postmining land use chosen (Scott and Zimmerman, 1984). Reforestation practices on former coal mine lands are reported to have mixed success. For example, Harrington and Loveall (2006) report ponderosa pine growth rates on mine overburden sites in New Mexico to be no different from trees at reference sites. Burger and Fannon (2009) evaluated hardwood reestablishment at mine sites in Appalachia and found that some species were difficult to establish, which was attributed to the gradient of mine soil fertility (of which soil compaction was thought to be an important factor). Ecosystem processes in these reforested
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-45

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

sites are generally found to be adversely affected with decreased yield potential (Burger and Fannon, 2009) and decreased carbon storage potential (Palmer et al., 2010). Terrestrial wildlife are displaced from their environments during the mining process and may not return without the necessary resources for their survival. Disturbances to wildlife during the mining process are widespread and affect a greater area than just the mine site. Disturbances associated with new coal mines include new roads and the associated traffic, noise, changes in topography and landforms, removal of vegetation, alteration of streams, and off-site transport of chemicals. Habitat complexity can be reduced following mining, which may result in changes in plant and wildlife species composition (Wray et al., 1982). Despite a shift in species composition, a reclaimed mine site can provide valuable wildlife habitat if planned properly. Abandoned mines provide critical habitat for many species of bats, and it is now standard practice for mine closures to incorporate bat conservation practices at sites nationwide (Watkins, 2002) via implementation of fairly straightforward and “low tech” methods (USFWS et al., 2009). Substantial coal mine site reclamation projects have demonstrated that suitable habitat for species of special concern and/or breeding birds at sites across the different coal regions of the United States can be established at these sites. Restoration projects targeted to create or improve habitat for listed bird species at coal mine sites have reported numerous successes, including successful breeding by Henslow’s sparrows at reclaimed grasslands established on coal mine sites in Pennsylvania (Mattice et al., 2005); successful breeding by raptors at relocated nests at a variety of mine sites in the Powder River Basin (reviewed by McKee, 2007); successful breeding by interior least terns at habitat created on a mine site in Texas (Kasner and Slack, 2002); and creation of breeding habitat for mountain plovers at a coal mine site in the Powder River Basin (reviewed in Appendix C). Scott et al. (2002) found that despite lack of native vegetation, grassland reclaimed mine sites in Indiana supported a typical array of Midwestern grassland bird species. Similar findings have been observed for grasslands created at reclaimed mine sites in Appalachia (Mattice et al., 2005; Carrozzino, 2009; Brenner and Kelly, 1981; and others) and for restored woodland habitats at coal mining sites in North Dakota (Kirby et al., 2003) and Appalachia (Carrozzino, 2009; and others). Several studies on reclaimed mine lands found that the presence of rock outcroppings was correlated with positive terrestrial species composition as described by richness and abundance of small mammals and bird species (Ireland et al., 1994; Chamblin and Wood, 2004; Rumble, 1989). Conversely, other studies have demonstrated that some groups of species are not readily reestablished on reclaimed coal mine lands. For example, salamanders were not found on reclaimed mine sites of varying ages and cover types in Appalachia (Carrozzino, 2009), and prairie dog relocations at mine sites in the Powder River Basin have not all been successful (reviewed by McKee, 2007). Revegetation programs associated with the site abandonment process are intended to reduce the adverse impacts to on-site and off-site biological resources from cleared, unvegetated areas. Under the No Action Alternative, there is no requirement for the use of native species in site
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-46

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

reclamation, which diminishes the potential beneficial impacts of the process. The beneficial impacts associated with revegetation projects at the mine sites vary from low to moderate, depending on the nature and success of the revegetation efforts. Mine reclamation is the process of backfilling, regrading, and planting vegetation on a disturbed mine site to meet postmining land use requirements. It may include removal of infrastructure such as structures, conveyors, and rail lines; earth moving to fill in the mined areas or shaft, thus recontouring the surface; and revegetation. Primary sources of noise for decommissioning and mine reclamation activities would include mechanical equipment (rollers, bulldozers, and diesel engines), blasting, and vehicular traffic. Generation of noise during the reclamation process likely has some degree of adverse impact on wildlife. The conversion of mine lands to reclaimed land often poses major changes, not only in topography, but also in vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, and soil structure and properties, all of which result in major changes to biogeochemical cycles, hydrology, stream physiochemical characteristics, and aquatic species composition (Simmons et al., 2008). However, the most common use of reclaimed mine lands is hay and grass pastureland, because the constructed soil is often a poor medium for plant growth (Simmons et al., 2008). Thus, streams are often eliminated by burial, and the species that once inhabited them are lost, which results in long-term adverse impacts to aquatic habitats and species as a result of site reclamation. In summary, current and past coal mining practices have resulted in major adverse impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources at some sites, and mining reclamation programs have not adequately mitigated the impacts. Reclamation and revegetation programs have often failed to restore ecological functions in the affected streams and uplands.

4.1.5

Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, current mining practices would continue under currently enforced rules. Likewise, recreation, land use, and visual resource impacts, whether positive or negative, would be expected to continue to occur at current levels, or relative to current trends. Table 4.1.5-1 provides data on anticipated land acreage and stream mile impacts for Alternative 1. The No Action Alternative will be used as the baseline condition against which the other alternatives are compared. Table 4.1.5-1 Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 1 Impacted Affected Area (acre/yr) 33,121 4,219 Impacted Affected Streams (mile/yr) 70.89 7.97 Percent Change from Baseline (No Action Alternative) n.a. n.a.

Coal Resource Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-47

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Coal Resource Region

Impacted Affected Area (acre/yr) 3,121 7,590 5,863 163 411

Impacted Affected Streams (mile/yr) 6.01 14.44 10.59 0.16 0.91

Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest 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 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Percent Change from Baseline (No Action Alternative) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Surface mining, by its very nature, modifies land use during the life of the operation and beyond, often permanently. During the mining operation, vegetation is removed, wildlife is displaced, watercourses may be altered, and the topography of the land may be drastically changed. Some argue that mining enhances land use, especially in the Appalachian Basin, where mining creates level plateaus suitable for residential, industrial, or recreational development, where land for such development may not otherwise be available. Others argue that these changes to the landscape and land use do nothing to promote development, as most reclaimed mine sites with such postmining land uses remain undeveloped or are not suited for such purposes due to unstable topsoil materials. This section of the DEIS describes environmental impacts to recreation, land use, and visual resources under each alternative. The impact analysis assumes that impacts are driven by the predicted shifts in coal production and associated mining methods. Recreation is generally recognized as providing significant physical, mental, and social health benefits, in addition to providing economic benefits to individuals and local communities. The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Performance and Accountability Report for FY2007 states: “Recreational uses contribute to our quality of life by reducing depression, relieving stress, and improving self-esteem and personal growth, along with helping to control obesity, boost the immune system, diminish the risk of disease, and increase life expectancy. Economically, expenditures by the public for recreation on public land support tens of thousands of jobs and contribute significantly to the viability of thousands of small businesses, especially outfitting, guiding, and tourism related companies and community service providers.” Land ownership is different in the western states versus the eastern states. Much of the land and mineral rights in the West are owned by the federal government and leased for mining through the BLM, whereas the land in the Eastern states is largely under private land ownership. This variation in land ownership affects recreational opportunities by virtue of access rights on public versus private land. While mining occurs primarily on private lands in the East, one must consider that there are corporate landowners and noncorporate, or family, forest landowners on whose lands mining occurs. The corporate-owned lands that are subject to surface mining are owned by companies
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-48

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

whose primary revenue comes from coal and gas royalties and timber sales. Some corporate landowners generate comparatively small revenue streams through hunting access lease agreements with local hunt clubs. However, much of the corporate-owned lands subject to surface mining are either open to free public access through agreements with state wildlife agencies or treated as “no man’s land” and trespassed upon by the public. Many corporate-owned lands encompass thousands or even tens of thousands of acres in contiguous tracts. The only other lands of similar ownership scale are state and national forests in the East. This ownership of very large tracts of land provides opportunities for large-scale public outdoor recreation. This ownership pattern has kept huge expanses of lands “wild” even when subjected to mining activities. This land ownership pattern is the primary reason that Kentucky has been able to restore wild elk. Not only did it provide large, unbroken wildlands, the state wildlife agency only had to work with a few landowners to make it happen. One can reasonably predict that if new regulations were to greatly reduce the ability of these corporate landowners to surface mine for coal, the logical reaction of the corporate landowners would be to liquidate their ownership in the land surface rights. Over time, it could be expected that ownership would become more and more fragmented. This fragmentation of ownership would be expected to reduce significantly opportunities for outdoor recreation. Recreation encompasses many different activities that vary from region to region. These recreational opportunities both serve local residents and attract tourists from other regions, which in turn brings an influx of outside spending into the local economies. This influx of outside spending supports local employment in travel and tourism industries, such as tour guides, hotels, motels, campgrounds, restaurants, gift shops, service stations, among other businesses. In addition to attracting tourists from outside the region, ample recreational facilities often keep local residents from traveling to other locations for recreational opportunities. Chapter 3.15 provides baseline data on the number of visits to national parks and the economic contributions of tourism for each of the coal-producing states in each of the coal resource regions. Although those data represent statewide values and are not broken out for the individual coal-producing counties, the contributions of recreation and tourism to local coal communities should be relatively proportional. Chapter 3.15 also provides baseline information on state parks and forests located within each of the coal resource regions. National parks, national forests, state parks, and state forests are protected by law from surface mining activities; however, these areas are still subject to underground mining. Since these publically owned park and forest areas are off-limits to surface mining, they would remain available for recreational use during and after mining activities for any of the proposed alternatives. Potential negative impacts to recreational resources from mining can include the following:    Impacts from surface disturbance during mining (truck traffic, noise, dust, blasting, reduced public access) Fragmentation of forest habitat Changes in surface waters used for recreation (both quality and quantity)
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-49

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Changes in future recreation development potential Changes in perception of recreation areas Potential for subsidence impacts to surface resources (roads, forests, streams, and other water bodies)  Potential for subsidence impacts to activities (fishing, swimming, boating, and hunting) Impacts to recreational resources from mining can also be considered positive impacts, as certain postmining land use developments provide additional recreational facilities and opportunities. Some positive impacts to recreation include the development of designated use facilities such as athletic fields, golf courses, ATV trails, multipurpose recreation centers, and equestrian trails and trailheads on reclaimed surface mines. Other, more indirect positive recreational impacts result from postmining land use changes that restore or provide enhanced wildlife habitat to the reclaimed surface mine lands. For example, deer, wild turkey, cottontail rabbits, bobwhite quail, and elk prefer a forest-glade fringe habitat resulting from postmining reclamation that creates a mosaic of forests and grasslands. Many neotropical migrant songbird species thrive in grassland and shrub habitats. These habitat types are in short supply in the Appalachians, thus mining can create habitat for these bird species, offering wildlife viewing opportunities that might not otherwise be available. Another example of positive impacts is Kentucky’s very successful restoration of elk on reclaimed mine lands. Kentucky’s once-native elk has returned from zero to a population in excess of 10,000, providing new recreational opportunities, including wildlife viewing and hunting. Access and haul roads associated with mining tend to divide and interrupt the continuity of forest habitat, at least on a temporary basis during active mining. However, these same roads can result in additional future recreational opportunities by providing access routes that open up remote areas that are otherwise inaccessible to the general public. Dispersed recreational opportunities, such as hiking, sightseeing, hunting, and primitive camping can be negatively affected by the mining process and the construction of access roads. Surface water quality impacts from mining indirectly affect recreational activities such as fishing, swimming, and boating. Various studies have correlated mining with increased levels of salinity, sulfates, total suspended solids, and certain metals in runoff waters. These increased levels are most prevalent in the headwater streams and become more diluted while moving further downstream. Therefore, any mining-related effects on boating would likely be minimal, since by the time the stream flow is sufficient to support boating, the contaminant levels would be diluted. This same reasoning is also applicable to swimming, but to a lesser degree. Water quality impacts are more of a concern with regard to fishing because of the potential degradation of the aquatic habitat, resulting in reduced numbers and species diversification. Determination of the impacts to recreation from either an increase or a decrease in mining for a specific region are very difficult to quantify because of the combination of positive and negative effects on recreation from mining and postmining land uses. It is also difficult to predict impacts because there has been little research performed and very limited data are available on recreational impacts. Additionally, some impacts are relatively temporary and would return to
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

  

4-50

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

near pre-mined conditions over a period of time, while other impacts can be considered permanent. Loss of one type of recreational opportunity often leads to an increase in a different type of recreational opportunity. This shift of available recreational opportunity is most evident where the type of recreation is transformed from a passive activity (i.e., hiking or wildlife viewing) to an active activity (i.e., golf course or athletic field). Also, mining activity and the ensuing reclamation can lead to a shift in the suite of wildlife species using the landscape, thus changing the potential recreational experience. If one has an interest in bird watching and viewing species that can be found in a mature eastern hardwood forest, mining activity can have a negative impact. If one wants to view birds and other wildlife species that thrive in grassland, shrub, and edge habitats, mining and the ensuing reclamation can benefit that activity. Thus, the determination of whether such recreational activity shifts are positive or negative often depends largely on the primary interests of the affected community, specific recreational needs of a community, and whether similar displaced activities can be found nearby. There are no changes to SMCRA under the No Action Alternative that would directly affect visual resources. Under Alternative 1, the existing practices and documentation for review and assessment of visual impacts would continue. However, implementation of practices under each of the 11 elements could affect visual quality and assessment indirectly. Decisions related to the uses of the landscape could result in impacts to visual resources. In addition, the various systems for public review of documentation and required materials for federal agencies lead to a variety of visual resources impact assessments. Some of the elements, such as corrective action thresholds, baseline data collection and analysis, monitoring during mining and reclamation, and fish and wildlife protection and enhancement do not provide specific limitations that affect the visual quality of an area. Independent of the changes that result from this action, the potential for visual resource impacts varies by region, usually as a function of the quality and population density of the existing landscape, the method of extraction, and the requirements for reclamation. As discussed in Chapter 3, the review and assessment of visual impacts in each region vary depending on the regulatory authority and the current policies and practices for visual assessment. The actual assessment of impacts to visual resources at a site is determined on a case-by-case basis according to the requirements established within the state or federal program authority, which would not change as a result of this action. Section 522 of SMCRA requires states to “establish a planning process where upon petition, a surface area may be designated unsuitable for certain types of surface coal mining, if such operations would affect fragile or historic lands [and] result in significant damage to important historic, cultural, scientific, and aesthetic values and natural systems” (30 U.S.C. 1272; SMCRA, Section 522, (a)(3)(B)). Any person having interest that is or may be adversely affected can petition the regulatory authority to have an area designated as unsuitable, or to have such a designation terminated, and a hearing and written decision is required to address petitions. Federal operations are subject to additional restrictions and requirements under Section 522 as well. Section 522 requirements provide the means for preventing significant visual impacts

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-51

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

resulting from surface mining activities. This section of SMCRA would not change as a result of this alternative. In most regions, the BLM is responsible for managing public lands, including the task of ensuring that the scenic values of those public lands are considered before allowing uses that may have negative visual impacts. Depending on the region, this responsibility may fall on other regulating authorities, and visual assessment of surface mining projects are often not considered or documented. 4.1.5.1 Water Elements Current regulations specify that mining operations must meet state water quality standards and effluent limitations as specified in the permit during the active mining period. In addition, current regulations specify that streams that are mined through must be restored using natural stream design techniques. While fishing and swimming in streams downstream of mining may be affected to some degree, the considerations grouped within this DEIS as water elements have little effect on recreation within any of the coal resource regions. The current definitions of streams and material damage, as well as limitations on activities near streams or on mining through streams, and corrective action thresholds do not provide specific limitations that affect the visual quality of an area. Where mining and other activities are allowed through or near streams, visual quality can be affected. 4.1.5.2 Land Elements Current regulations require that disturbed mine areas be returned to AOC, with certain exceptions. Where excess spoil must be disposed of (Appalachian Basin primarily), placement of excess materials in hollow fills is permitted, subject to certain state-regulated spoilminimization requirements. Under the No Action Alternative, these fills would continue to be constructed, resulting in the loss of more ephemeral and some intermittent stream lengths. However, with regard to recreation impacts, some postmining land use designations for these fills results in the development of active recreational facilities such as athletic fields, golf courses, and multipurpose recreational centers. Within the Appalachian Basin, level or nearlevel land for development of these types of facilities is often not available other than on reclaimed mine land. AOC requirements do not have as much of a pronounced effect in the other coal resource regions as they do in the Appalachian Basin, and therefore would not be expected to have as great an impact on recreation. Current requirements for surface configurations and fills and AOC exceptions allow changes to the preexisting physical conditions, and therefore potentially affect visual quality. Current restrictions require return to existing grade where possible and practical. The exceptions for mountaintop mining without specific visual impact assessment requirements can lead to visual impacts. In the Colorado Plateau and the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region, many mining operations are on federal lands managed by the BLM, where activities require an
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-52

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

environmental review to include visual resource assessment under the Visual Resource Management (VRM) program. Frequently, visual resource impact analysis is documented in the EISs that are completed for specific projects, in addition to EIS documentation of Resource Management Plan (RMP) revisions that provide VRM classification and establish areas unsuitable for surface mining. The scoping, public presentation, and comment process provides public discussion and review of this analysis of coal mining activities in those regions. In the Appalachian, Gulf Coast, and Illinois Basin regions, projects are usually under the jurisdiction of the USACE or state authorities, and visual assessments of surface mining projects in these regions have often not been considered or documented. Under Alternative 1, the existing practices and documentation for review and assessment of visual impacts would continue. 4.1.5.3 Other Elements Other elements include revegetation, topsoil management, fish and wildlife enhancement, baseline data collection, and monitoring of surface and groundwater during mining. Baseline data collection and monitoring have no direct effect on recreation under any of the proposed alternatives, other than adding cost to the overall mining operation. Current regulations require revegetation in accordance with pre-mining land use, unless an approved postmining land use has been granted by the regulatory agency. Current practice often results in pre-mining forested lands being converted to postmining land use designations as agriculture (i.e., pasture or hay land), fish and wildlife habitat (combined with another use), and commercial or industrial development, thus decreasing the percentage of forest lands while increasing the percentage of agricultural, grassland, or developed land. According to findings from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Land Cover Trends project (http://landcovertrends.usgs.gov), forested lands have decreased over the timeframe of 1973 through 2000. The results vary by ecoregion, and the ecoregions do not exactly overlay the coal resource regions; however, the data support the hypothesis that forested land has been slowly converted to other designated land uses. Mining is not the sole reason for this trend, since urban expansion and clearing for agricultural uses also contribute to the reduction in forested lands. The following table presents a summary of the changes experienced for ecoregions within or adjacent to some of the coal resource regions (data are not available for all regions). Table 4.1.5-2 Coal Resource Region Land Use Changes (1973–2000) Change in Mining (%) Change in GrasslandShrubland (%) 0.0 0.0 Change in Agricultural Lands (%) −0.3 −0.7

Ecoregion North Central Appalachians Ridge and Valley

Change in Forest (%)

Appalachian Basin

−0.9 −1.5

0.4 0.1

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-53

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Coal Resource Region

Ecoregion Southwestern Appalachians Central Appalachians Western Allegheny Plateau East Central Texas Plains Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Interior River Lowland Northwestern Great Plains

Change in Forest (%) −2.7 −3.3 −0.9 −1.9 0.9 −2.27

Change in Mining (%) −0.9 1.5 −0.4 0.1 0.0 −0.02

Change in GrasslandShrubland (%) 0.9 1.3 1.1 17.8 0.2 −0.06

Change in Agricultural Lands (%) −0.2 −0.2 −0.5 −4.8 −6.8 0.66

Gulf Coast

Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

−0.5

4.5

2.9

10.5

Current requirements for baseline data collection and analysis, monitoring during mining and reclamations, and fish and wildlife protection and enhancement do not consider or affect visual quality or visual impact assessment of surface mining projects. Current requirements for revegetation and topsoil management in accordance with pre-mining land use or an approved PMLU can result in the potential for visual impacts in all regions when non-native vegetation is allowed or areas are not restored to a forested state.

4.1.6

Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure

Socioeconomic analyses generally include detailed investigations of the prevailing population, income, employment, and housing conditions of a community or area of interest. The socioeconomic conditions of a coal-producing region could be affected by changes in the rate of population growth, changes in the demographic characteristics of a region, or changes in employment in the region caused by the implementation of the proposed action. In addition to these characteristics, populations of special concern, as addressed by Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations, February 1994) and other specific statutes and agency rules, are identified and analyzed for environmental justice impacts.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-54

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

This analysis of potential socioeconomic effects is based on the estimated coal production value shifts in each region associated with each alternative for both underground coal mining and surface coal mining. Production values were used in association with current employment numbers and productivity per employee as reported by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for 2008 and 2009 to estimate the predicted changes associated with the alternatives for implementing the proposed action. Selecting Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would not result in substantial socioeconomic effects on the populations in the coal-producing regions, since coal mining activities would be similar to current conditions. 4.1.6.1 Economics Selecting Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would not change the economic conditions that currently prevail in the coal mining industry, since this alternative would maintain the status quo. Therefore, the current economic conditions and the prevailing trends for these conditions would continue. 4.1.6.1.1 Employment and Unemployment As mentioned in numerous reports and histories of the coal mining industry, employment in coal mining tends toward a “boom-and-bust” cycle triggered by changes in coal prices and, more recently, by regulatory changes that have adhered to stricter environmental standards associated with coal production and end use of the product. Black, McKinnish, and Sanders (2004) performed an economic analysis of the boom-and-bust cycle in the Appalachian region from the 1970s to 1980s. They found that, during that period, increased coal production contributed approximately 2 additional jobs for every 10 jobs created in the coal industry in the counties analyzed. Conversely, the loss of 10 jobs during a decline in the coal industry caused the loss of approximately 3.5 jobs in the counties analyzed. They also found that poverty rates were substantially affected during the up- and downswings of the industry, indicating that the poor benefited from the expansion of the coal industry during this period. Analysis of historical employee productivity from the period referenced in Black, McKinnish, and Sanders (2004), when compared to 2009 average employee productivity by method (i.e., underground or surface), indicates that during the peak period from 1978 to 1982, the national average underground mining productivity was 1.21 short tons per employee hour and 3.22 short tons per employee hour for surface coal mining, while in 2009 the productivity for underground mining averaged 3.01 short tons per employee hour and surface mining averaged 9.15 short tons per employee hour (EIA, 2010c). The EIA (2006) indicates that the average number of mining employees in 1973 was 152,204, and that number increased to 175,642 by 1983 just after the end of the peak period (Black, McKinnish, and Sanders, 2004). More recent employment data indicate that in 2009, the coal industry employed 87,755 (EIA, 2010b). Comparatively, coal production in 1973 was over 602.5 million tons; in 1983, 783.1 million tons; and in 2009, 1,072.8 million tons (EIA, 2010c). Technological advances increased production while

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-55

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

generally decreasing employment in the industry, as fewer employees are required for production (Bell and York, 2010). The NMA provides information on the total number of direct employment positions supported by coal mining throughout the United States. Employment numbers in the 2010 NMA report were derived from 2008 employment figures from the MSHA, whereas data for the analysis of the alternatives were derived from the EIA Annual Coal Report and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) industry data at the lowest level possible for the geographic areas analyzed. The NMA indicates that total mine workers in 2008 consisted of 85,040 positions, with an additional 7,570 in support positions, and 61,410 employment positions related to coal transportation activities. The number of mine workers was similar to the EIA employment data for 2008, indicating 86,859 mine employees. Variations in methodology account for differences in employment numbers. The MSHA data includes contractors that work on mine sites, in addition to mine employees. For the purpose of this DEIS, the analysis did not account for the transportation-related workforce as direct employment positions (i.e., employees working directly for coal mining); transportation-related jobs were included in the indirect and induced workforce. In addition to the NMA report, states also provide estimates of the economic contributions of the coal mining industry to the state economies in terms of employment positions, tax revenues, and economic output. In 2009, U.S. coal production exceeded 1.0 billion short tons from over 1,400 mines in 27 states. This coal was produced by over 87,000 employees, which was a 1% increase in total employment in coal mining from 2008 (EIA, 2010a, b). On average, 5.6 short tons of coal were produced per employee per hour, which was a decline of less than 6.0%. In 2009, over 140 million persons were employed in the United States, indicating that coal mining accounts for 0.06% of total U.S. employment. In the combined coal mining regions, over 64 million persons were employed in 2009, indicating that coal mining accounted for 0.1% of total employment in the study area. Coal mining industry employment represents a minor portion of the total U.S. employment; however, the coal mining industry is a significant employer in certain local areas. 4.1.6.1.1.1 Employment Changes in Coal Mining

While the coal mining industry recorded a 1.5% average annual employment growth rate during the last decade, employment fluctuated substantially from year to year. For example, coal mining employment declined 5.9% between 2002 and 2003, increased 4.7% between 2004 and 2005, increased 5.5% between 2005 and 2006, and increased 5.2% between 2007 and 2008 (BLS, 2010a). The coal mining industry recorded a 13.9% increase in employment between 2000 and 2009, an increase of approximately 10,000 workers (BLS, 2010b). Table 4.1.6-1 lists the estimated number of employment positions generated by the estimated production, by mining type, for Alternative 1.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-56

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.1.6-1

Alternative 1 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type by Region Estimated Number of Employment Positions Underground Surface Total 38,612 22,769 61,381 4,818 2,055 6,873 2,851 5,001 7,851 7,546 2,792 10,338 338 9,581 9,920 0 94 94 60 325 385

Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior 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
Source: Calculations derived from EIA 2010a, 2010b

4.1.6.1.1.2

Estimated Employment Changes in Remainder of Economy

When compared with employees of all industries nationwide, coal mining was a growing industry, on average, during the decade. Between 2000 and 2009, the total number of private employees had an average yearly decline of 0.2%, with the largest decline (5.2%) between 2008 and 2009, while employment in the coal mining industry increased by 1.2% between 2008 and 2009 (BLS, 2010a, b). Various coal mining states and coal-related industry associations have determined the overall impact of the coal mining industry to the state economies. The state of Illinois (Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Office of Coal Development, 2008) found that every coal mining job contributed six additional jobs in rural Illinois. Other states (Kentucky, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wyoming) found that coal mining generated additional employment in a range between two to just under four positions (Kentucky Office of Energy Policy, Division of Fossil Fuels & Utility Services and the Kentucky Coal Association, 2008; Peach, 2010; Allegheny Conference on Community Development, 2010; Perlich, Hogue, and Downen, 2010; and Wyoming Mining Association, 2010). The NMA (2010) indicated that nationally, coal mining generated an additional 401,250 indirect and induced employment positions from 154,020 direct employment positions in the industry, equating to approximately 2.6 additional employment positions for every 1 direct position in the coal mining industry. As detailed in the Appendix I of the Draft RIA, the coal mining industry has a varied–magnitude impact on employment in ancillary industries and throughout the remainder of the economy based on the state. For example, in the Appalachian states, every employment position created in the coal mining industry could generate up to 2.13 additional positions in Virginia or as few as 1.07 positions in West Virginia. In the interior states, each new coal mining employment position in Missouri could generate 2.29 positions in Missouri or 1.14 positions in Arkansas. In the Western states, each new coal mining position could produce 1.91 positions in Colorado or as few as 0.98 positions in Wyoming. On average, 1.46 employment positions are generated in the

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-57

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

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

Appalachian states, 1.73 positions are generated in the interior states, and 1.40 positions are generated in the Western states by the coal mining industry. 4.1.6.1.2 Earnings and Personal Income 4.1.6.1.2.1 Earnings and Personal Income Changes from Coal Mining The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indicated that the mining industry (except oil and gas) generated more than $19.5 billion in personal earnings in 2008, which was a 42.9% increase from the personal earnings received in 2001 (BEA, 2010a). Table 4.1.6-2 lists the total estimated personal earnings associated with Alternative 1 and total coal mining personal earnings compared to the overall total personal earnings derived from each region. Overall, coal mining earnings contribute a small percentage to total regional personal earnings, though the earnings may be locally substantial. Overall, in the Gulf Region and the Northwest, personal earnings from coal mining employment contribute almost twice as much to the regional earnings when compared to all other regions. Table 4.1.6-2 Alternative 1 Estimated Personal Earnings by Production Type by Region Estimated Personal Earnings ($1,000) Coal-Producing Regions Total Personal Earnings ($1,000) 318,821,701 17,232,940 10,838,632 40,674,605 29,161,383 178,139 11,757,863 Coal Personal Earnings as a Percentage of Total Personal Earnings 1.0 1.9 3.7 1.4 1.6 2.9 0.1

Underground

Surface

Total

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior
Source:

1,966,201 229,366 153,623 421,017 18,385 0 3,678

1,122,251 98,871 249,744 154,653 453,109 5,223 12,864

3,088,452 328,237 403,367 575,670 471,494 5,223 16,542

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Calculations derived from BLS, 2009; EIA, 2010a, 2010b.

4.1.6.1.2.2

Estimated Earnings and Personal Income Effects in Remainder of Economy

The coal mining industry generates indirect and induced employee compensation in other industries. In Virginia, the coal mining industry provides $1.17 in compensation outside coal mining for every $1.00 of compensation from coal mining. Pennsylvania follows closely with $1.08 per every $1.00 of compensation, and Texas with $1.02. Wyoming generates the least
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-58

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

additional compensation; only $0.37 of compensation outside coal mining is generated for every $1.00 of compensation from coal mining. The Appalachian states average $0.81 in indirect and induced compensation, interior states $0.76, and Western states $0.61. The coal mining industry generates indirect and induced economic output throughout the economy in direct relation to the value of its economic output. On average, Appalachian states generate $0.56 in additional output from every $1.00 of coal mining economic output; Interior states average $0.51; and Western states average $0.50. 4.1.6.1.3 Poverty Levels Section 3.19 provided the low-income population statistics by county for the states in each coalproducing region. The states of Mississippi (81.7%), New Mexico (63.6%), Arkansas (58.7%), Alabama (56.7%), Kentucky (55.8%), and Louisiana have greater than 50% of the counties with 2009 poverty rates exceeding 19%. Table 4.1.6-3 presents the calculated poverty rates for the combined counties in each coal-producing region. Overall, the Northwest and the Appalachian Basin contain the highest percentage of counties considered to be concentrated poverty areas (greater than 20% of the population falls below the poverty threshold), as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Northwest and Colorado Plateau had the greatest percentage of the population below the poverty threshold at the individual level, indicating regions that could be considered concentrated poverty areas. The counties that make up the coal-producing region in the Northwest, the Colorado Plateau, and the Gulf Region have the highest childhood poverty rates. Table 4.1.6-3 Poverty Rates in the Combined Counties by Region, 2000 and 2009
2000 Coal-Producing Region Percent of Total Counties - Poverty Areas 38.6% 11.1% 15.8% 7.4% Individual Poverty Rate 13.7% 20.1% 17.1% 12.4% Childho od Poverty Rate 16.4% 25.3% 23.4% 16.6% Percent of Total Counties - Poverty Areas 46.5% 33.3% 21.1% 25.9% 2009 Individual Poverty Rate 16.2% 18.3% 17.1% 16.4% Childhood Poverty Rate 23.1% 25.2% 25.2% 23.3% Percentage Point Change from 2000 to 2009 Percent of Total Counties Poverty Areas 7.9% 22.2% 5.3% 18.5% Individual Poverty Rate 2.5% -1.8% 0.0% 4.1% Childhood Poverty Rate 6.7% -0.1% 1.9% 6.8%

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

18.8%

10.2%

13.3%

12.5%

12.6%

17.8%

-6.3%

2.4%

4.5%

100.0% 23.1%

23.7% 13.8%

27.8% 18.6%

100.0% 30.8%

22.7% 16.3%

28.3% 23.2%

0.0% 7.7%

-1.0% 2.5%

0.5% 4.6%

22

Source:

Calculations derived from U.S. Census Bureau, 2002, 2010b.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-59

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

All coal-producing counties in Alaska (1 county), Arizona (1 county), Louisiana (2 counties), Mississippi (1 county), and New Mexico (2 counties) had greater than 19.0% of the population below the poverty threshold in 2009. Kentucky had 24 of 29 counties with a poverty rate exceeding 19.0% (82.8% of total coal-producing counties). Overall, the coal-producing counties in Kentucky accounted for 36.3% of the total counties in the state with a poverty rate above 19.0%. Based on the 2009 poverty data, Kentucky had 67 counties (55.8% of all counties) with a poverty rate exceeding 19.0% and 72 counties (60.0% of all counties) with a poverty rate equal to or greater than 18.4%, which is the statewide poverty rate. In West Virginia, 15 of the 26 coal-producing counties (57.7%) had a poverty rate greater than 19.0%. Of the total counties in the state that were at or above a 19.0% poverty rate, coal-producing counties accounted for 55.6%. Overall, the coal-producing counties in all states constitute only a small to moderate percentage (less than 15%) of the total number of counties in each state that have a poverty rate at or above 19.0%. 4.1.6.1.4 Income and Severance Taxes The primary sources of tax revenues expected to be affected by changes in coal mining activity are state income taxes associated with coal mining employment, state severance taxes levied on active coal mines, and coal industry contributions to the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) fund, which are dispersed to the states. Other state and local tax revenue sources, such as corporate income taxes and property taxes, may be affected by coal industry changes in certain locations; however, impacts on these tax revenue sources are not as directly attributable to coal mining industry changes. In addition, for coal deposits located on and extracted from federal lands and federal lands held in trust for tribes, these revenue resources distributed back to states assist in funding regional and local priorities significant for citizens’ quality of life. The AML fund receives substantially different levels of contributions from the seven coalproducing regions. As shown in Table 4.1.6-4 the AML contributions are derived from surface mining at a much higher rate than from underground mining. The greatest contributor by far is the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where the estimated AML fund contributions from surface mining activities alone exceed the combined total contributions from all other regions.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-60

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.1.6-4

Alternative 1 Estimated AML Fund Contributions by Region Estimated Abandoned Mine Lands Fund Contributions ($1,000) Underground Surface Total 29,731 47,053 76,785 7,530 10,799 18,330 1,658 17,041 18,699 8,722 10,794 19,516 495 0 60 169,592 465 472 170,087 465 532

Coal-Producing Regions Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior
Source:

2 3 4 5 6 7

Calculations derived from DOI, 2008, EIA, 2010a.

An analysis of the distribution of AML funds back to coal-producing states (Table 4.1.6-5) shows that, in 2009 and 2010, OSM distributed more than $328.9 million to coal-producing states. In addition, OSM distributed more than $61.5 million in administration and enforcement grants. Table 4.1.6-5 State Alabama Alaska Arizona1 Arkansas Colorado Illinois Indiana Kansas1 Kentucky1 Louisiana Maryland Mississippi Missouri Montana New Mexico1 North Dakota 2009 AML Fund Distribution to States AML Funds Distribution ($) 5,871,464 2,389,351 2,322,179 7,383,764 12,356,792 13,358,446 2,720,188 31,184,323 334,774 2,630,409 242,357 1,857,121 10,705,147 5,668,717 3,498,697 Administration and Enforcement Grants ($) 1,313,950 0 156,703 2,301,561 2,895,394 1,964,389 111,699 10,960,193 168,095 713,664 159,863 234,318 1,440,101 865,000 798,743

Coal Production (1,000 short tons) 18,796 1,860 7,474 5 28,267 33,748 35,655 185 107,338 3,657 2,305 3,440 452 39,486 25,124 29,945

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-61

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

State Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Tennessee1 Texas Utah Virginia West Virginia Wyoming
Sources:

Coal Production (1,000 short tons) 27,501 956 57,979 1,996 35,093 21,718 21,175 136,971 431,107

AML Funds Distribution ($) 8,675,639 3,592,207 43,807,638 1,896,843 4,147,548 3,970,533 9,257,897 52,204,675 98,845,000

Administration and Enforcement Grants ($) 2,969,654 1,082,511 11,469,117 1,977,402 2,037,196 3,911,857 11,711,912 2,289,321

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

2010 Annual Evaluation Reports by States and Tribes, OSM. 1 2009 Annual Evaluation Reports by States and Tribes, OSM, due to lack of available 2010 data.

Further analysis of the need for AML funds becomes apparent when reclamation costs, both funded and unfunded, are reviewed (Table 4.1.6-6). Throughout the United States, all abandoned mine lands have created more than $12.6 billion in costs for reclamation. Approximately $3.0 billion in reclamation projects have been completed; however, as of December 2010, only $344.8 million of additional reclamation projects had been funded. This leaves approximately $9.3 billion in unfunded reclamation projects. These ongoing costs to states and ongoing infrastructure maintenance have led to fiscal analysis reports on the impact of the coal mining industry on state budgets. In the Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget, Konty and Bailey (2009) indicate that the net impact of the coal mining industry on the state budget is essentially a subsidy to the coal industry of almost $115 million. In West Virginia, Boettner and McIlmoil (2010) concluded that the net impact was a cost to the state budget exceeding $42 million. The Boettner and McIlmoil estimate was recalculated from McIlmoil et al. (2010) and Kent and Sowards (2010). Table 4.1.6-6.
State Alabama Alaska Arkansas Arizona Colorado Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky

Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Costs, All Surface Mining and Reclamation Priorities
Funded Costs 14,538,382 2,202,000 3,350,999 0 6,870,268 11,708,760 19,552,837 42,497 64,710,925 Completed Costs 70,284,497 17,948,921 32,988,615 334,520 45,739,006 170,084,482 115,905,988 30,341,457 452,006,226 Total Costs 508,077,647 80,007,530 58,239,673 334,520 131,060,276 303,827,890 240,690,246 279,254,691 977,122,177

Unfunded Costs 423,254,768 59,856,609 21,900,059 0 78,451,002 122,034,648 105,231,421 248,870,737 460,405,026

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-62

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

State Louisiana Maryland Missouri Montana North Dakota New Mexico Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia West Virginia Wyoming

Unfunded Costs 14,078,338 63,367,736 113,076,482 96,047,527 38,596,433 13,439,520 204,605,624 143,833,075 5,020,558,962 43,403,495 22,796,152 6,710,319 436,801,606 1,466,961,321 54,426,746

Funded Costs 0 780,801 440,002 29,324,711 2,072,625 3,952,733 3,259,974 1,082,000 116,529,962 173,000 7,819,045 1,211,600 10,319,581 15,482,559 29,330,947

Completed Costs 0 32,346,883 51,281,746 64,095,281 35,248,268 19,388,160 140,920,052 33,122,293 539,091,667 35,769,668 31,755,516 20,062,617 100,813,558 461,595,149 483,296,610

Total Costs 14,078,338 96,495,420 164,798,230 189,467,519 75,917,326 36,780,413 348,785,650 178,037,368 5,676,180,591 79,346,163 62,370,713 27,984,536 547,934,745 1,944,039,029 567,054,303

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Source: Abandoned Mine Lands Inventory System 13, December 2010

State severance tax estimates by coal region are shown in Table 4.1.6-7. Because severance taxes are a factor of both the quantities of coal extracted and the tax rates set by each state, the level of severance tax associated with underground and surface mining varies. The Appalachian Basin and Colorado Plateau realize greater revenues from underground mining than from surface mining. Considered overall, however, by far the greatest level of severance tax revenue is associated with surface mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where estimated surface mining severance tax revenues equal three times the total revenues from surface and underground mining in all other regions. As a share of total state tax revenue, severance taxes contribute 12.9% in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, which compares with 0.7% in the Appalachian Basin region.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-63

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.1.6-7.

Alternative 1 Estimated State Coal-Related Severance Taxes by Region Estimated State Severance Taxes ($1,000) Underground 61,389 12,690 491 3,773 1,429 0 121 Surface 42,049 7,971 2,164 17,133 482,081 0 412 Total 103,439 20,661 2,655 20,906 483,509 0 534

Coal-Producing Regions Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior
Source:

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Calculations derived from state severance tax rates, EIA 2010a,b

Estimated state income taxes associated with coal mining industry employment in each region is shown in Table 4.1.6-8. In contrast with the relative level of revenues from severance taxes, income taxes from coal mining in the Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains region are at a low level and are only approximately one-tenth the net amount estimated for the Appalachian Basin region. At 0.1% of the USCB 2008 estimate of total income tax in the Appalachian Basin region, direct state income taxes from coal mine employees make up a small portion of all income tax revenues. This is consistent with the Gulf Region (0.1%) and the Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains (0.1%), while all other regions have lower percentages. Table 4.1.6-8. Alternative 1 Estimated State Coal-Related Income Taxes by Region Estimated State Income Taxes ($1,000) Underground Surface Total 62,351 35,524 97,876 8,664 3,738 12,403 3,630 5,842 9,472 13,714 5,035 18,750 404 0 137 9,811 0 463 10,216 0 599

Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior
Source:

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Calculations derived from BLS, 2010; EIA, 2010a, 2010b; Tax Foundation, 2010.

Royalties are collected and distributed to the state at a rate of approximately 50% of collected royalties, bonuses, and rents, and at a rate of 100% back to tribes for deposits located on tribal lands. Table 4.1.6-9 lists the federal and tribal royalties attributable to Alternative 1 and the estimated state disbursement from the federal royalties. Tribes in Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico receive substantial royalties from coal, especially in Arizona. Wyoming is the largest

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-64

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4

recipient of coal royalties, with an estimated disbursement of $300.5 million from fiscal year 2008 sales volumes. Table 4.1.6-9. Alternative 1 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement
Estimated State Disbursements ($1,000) 1,225 37,567 7,876 0 17,492 707 300,487 22,148 2,370

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

Tribal Federal Royalties Royalties ($1,000) ($1,000) Appalachian Basin/Illinois Basin Kentucky 0 2,449 Colorado Plateau Colorado 0 75,134 New Mexico 43,169 15,752 Arizona 33,824 0 Utah 0 34,985 Gulf Region Alabama 0 1,415 Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Wyoming 0 600,974 Montana 11,282 44,296 Other Western Interior Oklahoma 0 4,740 State

Source: Calculated from Office of Natural Resources Revenue ONRR, 2010.

4.1.6.2 Demographics Implementing Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would not change the demographic conditions of the coal-producing counties and the adjacent areas, since this alternative would maintain the status quo. 4.1.6.3 Environmental Justice Selecting Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would not result in disproportionate effects to minority or low-income populations, since under this alternative OSM would continue stream protection and buffering under current regulatory guidance and rules. The current guidance, which was previously analyzed for environmental justice concerns, was found not to create disproportionate effects under the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Excess Spoil Minimization — Stream Buffer Zone (September 2008). The OSM offers equal opportunity for all affected populations to join the public participation process associated with the proposed rule. The OSM held extensive public scoping meetings beginning in November 2009 with the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. Additional notifications of the NEPA process in the Federal Register included the Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS and a Notice of Extension of Public Comments for the public
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-65

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

scoping process, which included the intent to have geographically diverse public scoping meetings. The OSM held nine public scoping meetings across the United States from July 19 to July 29, 2010. All meetings were advertised with at least 2 weeks’ notice via the OSM Web site and through local ads in regional and local papers. The OSM public scoping process included a geographic analysis to determine the most beneficial locations to hold the public scoping meetings. They were held in areas with large populations of potential stakeholders directly affected by the proposed rule and at locations large enough to accommodate those stakeholders. All public scoping meetings began in the early afternoon and lasted until late evening to accommodate a wide range of schedules from the stakeholders. Information was provided in large displays through an “open house” style with a court reporter to record any verbal comments for the record. If necessary, a translator was provided for any stakeholders that had limited English proficiency. Comments were accepted at all meetings, either as written comments or verbal comments provided for the record. Overall, OSM received more than 20,000 comments through the public scoping process. 4.1.6.4 Utilities and Infrastructure For Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the following sections include information about current utility and transportation infrastructure conditions. The discussion is focused on each of the seven coal-producing regions. 4.1.6.4.1 Utilities As shown on Tables 3.17-3, 3.17-6, 3.17-9, 3.17-12, 3.17-15, and 3.17-21 in Section 3.17, on the whole, each state in the seven coal-producing regions currently has excess capacity for water and wastewater treatment. However, counties in individual states are at capacity, or the demand exceeds capacity for either water or wastewater treatment, or both. Alternative 1 would not affect the ability of treatment facilities to process the current demand for water and wastewater treatment; therefore, current shortcomings in treatment capacity are not discussed here. 4.1.6.4.2 Transportation Infrastructure 4.1.6.4.2.1 Appalachian Basin Mines in the eight states in the Appalachian Basin shipped approximately 23% of the total short tons of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). As described in Section 3.17, even under the No Action Alternative, capital improvements would be required to keep areas of westcentral Pennsylvania, south-central Kentucky, and south-central Tennessee/Northern Alabama operating at LOS (level of service) categories A, B, or C. Colorado Plateau Mines in the four states in the Colorado Plateau shipped approximately 8% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). In the Colorado Plateau, rail is the
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Rail

4-66

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

predominant mode of coal transport; nearly twice as much coal is shipped by rail than by all other modes of transport. As described in Section 3.17, even under the No Action Alternative, capital improvements would be required to keep most of the rail lines in all four states in this basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Gulf Coast Mines in the three states in the Gulf Coast shipped approximately 0.3% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). In the Gulf Coast, rail is only used in Texas, and then is only used to ship approximately 5% of the coal produced in Texas. As described in Section 3.17, rail lines in this region are already at or near capacity. Even under the No Action Alternative, capital improvements would be required to keep most of the rail lines in all three states in this basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Illinois Basin Mines in the three states in the Illinois Basin shipped approximately 6% of the total short tons of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Rail is the predominant mode of coal hauling from Indiana. As described in Section 3.17, even under the No Action Alternative, capital improvements would be required to keep railroads throughout Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky operating at LOS categories A, B, or C, especially at notable river crossings where LOS categories are already at capacity and in northeastern Illinois where the LOS is already over capacity. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Mines in the four states in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains shipped approximately 63% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). This basin is the predominant user of rail in the United States. Wyoming alone shipped over 58% of the total amount of coal shipped by rail nationwide. As described in Section 3.17, even under the No Action Alternative, capital improvements would be required to keep most of the rail lines in all four states in this basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Northwest Mines in Yukon-Koyukuk County, Alaska, shipped less than 0.1% of the total short tons of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is in place for the continued use of rail transportation in the Northwest Basin. Other Western Interior Mines in the three states in the Other Western Interior shipped approximately 0.5% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). As described in Section 3.17,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-67

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

even under the No Action Alternative, capital improvements would be required to keep most of the rail lines in all four states in this basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Even with capital improvements, some central sections would be at or near capacity. 4.1.6.4.2.2 Barge

Mines in the eight states in the Appalachian Basin shipped approximately 66% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008, making the Appalachian Basin the predominant user of river transportation (EIA, 2010). Infrastructure is in place to support the continued use of barge as a primary transportation mode in the Appalachian Basin under the No Action Alternative. Colorado Plateau Basin Mines in the four states in the Colorado Plateau Basin shipped approximately 2% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is in place for the continued use of barge as a primary transportation mode in the Colorado Basin. Gulf Coast Mines in the three states in the Gulf Coast Basin did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is not in place for barge transportation in the Gulf Coast Basin. Illinois Basin Mines in the three states in the Illinois Basin shipped approximately 32% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010), making it second only to the Appalachian Basin in terms of barge use. Barge is the predominant mode of coal haul from Illinois. Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is in place for the continued use of barge as a primary transportation mode in the Illinois Basin. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Mines in the four states in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin shipped less than 0.1% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Only Montana ships coal by barge (34,000 short tons). Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is in place for the continued use of minimal barge transportation in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-68

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Northwest Mines in Yukon-Koyukuk County, Alaska, did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is not in place for barge transportation from mines in the Northwest Basin. Other Western Interior Basin Mines in the four states in the Other Western Interior Basin did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is not in place for barge transportation from mines in the Other Western Interior Basin. 4.1.6.4.2.3 Appalachian Basin Mines in the eight states in the Appalachian Basin shipped approximately 43% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Infrastructure is in place to support the continued use of trucks as a primary transportation mode in the Appalachian Basin region under the No Action Alternative; however, congestion in northern West Virginia and difficult road conditions (such as switchbacks and turns) near Morgantown and Clarksburg limit the use of road transportation in West Virginia. Colorado Plateau Mines in the four states in the Colorado Plateau shipped approximately 14% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is in place to support the continued use of trucks as a primary transportation mode in the Colorado Plateau; however, moderate to severe congestion near Gallup, New Mexico, in McKinley County limits the use of truck transportation in New Mexico. Gulf Coast Mines in the Gulf Coast shipped approximately 20% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Trucking is the primary mode of transportation used for coal shipments in Mississippi and Texas, shipping 85% and 100% of the coal output of these states, respectively. Louisiana relies on truck transit for about 15% of its coal output. Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is in place to support the continued use of trucks as a primary transportation mode in Mississippi and Texas. Illinois Basin Mines in the three states in the Illinois Basin shipped approximately 48% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Trucking is the predominant mode of coal hauling from western Kentucky. Infrastructure is in place to support the continued use of trucks as a primary transportation mode in the Illinois Basin.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Road

4-69

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Mines in the four states in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains shipped approximately 8% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is in place to support the continued use of trucks as a primary transportation mode in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. Northwest Mines in Yukon-Koyukuk County, Alaska, shipped approximately 0.16% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). The only road connecting to the remainder of the state is State Route 11, with 40.6 miles of interstate and arterial road in the census area connecting south to Fairbanks and the Dalton Highway. Roads are gradually being built throughout Alaska, and coal extraction and interstate shipment would be expected to be more viable as road resources increase. Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is adequate to support the current level of truck use in the Northwest. Other Western Interior Mines in the three states in the Other Western Interior Basin shipped less than 1% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Truck transport was the predominant mode of coal hauling in the basin. Under the No Action Alternative, infrastructure is in place to support the continued use of trucks as a primary transportation mode in the basin. In Missouri, Bates County is the only coal-producing county that ships out of state. Located on the western border with Kansas, U.S. Route 71 is the primary road access to Bates County and is currently four lanes. U.S. Route 71 is proposed for upgrading to interstate standards to accommodate the expected future I-49.

4.1.7

Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.1.7.1 Occupational and Public Safety Impacts 4.1.7.1.1 Occupational Safety

As seen in Figures 4.1.7-1 and 4.1.7-2, underground mining has the most adverse impacts on miner safety. Differentiations between surface and underground safety incidents would be due to mining methods such as fall of material in place versus material falls resulting from active equipment or machinery (more typical of surface mining). Fatalities and non-fatal days lost are greatest in the Appalachian Basin and Illinois Basin, which correspondingly have the greatest number of underground mines.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-70

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.1.7-1.

Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 1

(Based on Average Fatality Rates for 2006–2009)

3

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-71

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.1.7-2.

Average Number of Non-Fatal Days Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4.1.7.1.2 Public Safety As noted in the methodology section, public safety incidents would be expected to be associated not only with coal production rates but also with the overall population density of the coal mining region. No definitive studies are available nationwide; however, studies in Appalachia suggest that increased public safety incidents would be associated with areas with a higher concentration of surface mine blasting. 4.1.7.2 Occupational and Public Health Impacts 4.1.7.2.1 Occupational Health Figure 4.1.7-3 shows the average number of illnesses annually from working in surface and underground mines. Rates of disorders of the lungs, trauma, and other disorders are greater for underground miners than workers at surface mines.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-72

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.1.7-3.

Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 1 (Based on Average Rates for 2006–2008

3 4 5 6 Figure 4.1.7-4 shows the breakdown of lung disease occurrence by coal mining region. The greatest occurrence is recorded in Appalachia, which also has the greatest percentage of underground mining.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-73

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.1.7-4.

Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 4.1.7-5 shows the breakdown of repeated trauma disorder occurrence by coal mining region. As with lung diseases associated with dust, the highest number of illnesses occurs in the Appalachian Basin. However, repeated trauma disorder occurrence in the Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau are similar, even though the surface mining is overwhelmingly the greatest method of coal mining in the Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-74

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.1.7-5.

Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.1.7.2.2 Public Health As noted in the methodology section, public health incidents have been associated with coal production rates in Appalachia, but as with public safety, incidents may also be associated with the overall population density of the coal mining region. No definitive studies are available nationwide; however, studies in Appalachia suggest that increased public health concerns would be associated with areas with higher coal production rates.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

4.2
4.2.1

ALTERNATIVE 2
Coal Resources and Mining

Alternative 2’s complete prohibition on mining activities in, near, or through streams within the 100-foot stream buffer zone is expected to sterilize surface mineable coal resources throughout the majority of the nation’s coal mining regions. Mining would be uneconomical in most coalproducing areas where operators were unable to mine, place fill material, or conduct mining activities in or within 100 feet of any stream, including ephemeral streams. Based on the stream densities in each coal producing region in this study, it appears that very few surface mining operations could be located in areas large enough to operate a profitable mine, yet not come within 100 feet of any stream. While there may be instances of mineable reserves between streams, it would likely be uneconomical to recover those reserves with current mining

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-75

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

technology and spoil disposal practices. Potential mining permit areas could be significantly reduced based on stream densities shown in the table below:

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-76

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1
Region State Alabama Kentucky Maryland Ohio Pennsylvania Tennessee Virginia West Virginia Totals Arizona Colorado New Mexico Utah Totals Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi Texas Totals Indiana Illinois Kentucky Totals Montana North Dakota Wyoming Totals Alaska ** Totals Kansas Missouri Oklahoma Totals Area 2 (km ) 24,328 24,888 1,089 31,288 38,427 11,577 4,584 43,180 179,360 7,745 29,898 35,361 36,242 109,246 65,313 62,779 86,915 186,806 401,813 19,708 95,677 12,163 127,548 139,036 88,464 106,418 333,918 1,477,262 1,477,262 51,473 62,665 36,809 150,947 Acres 6,011,476 6,149,935 269,208 7,731,331 9,495,502 2,860,757 1,132,748 10,669,905 44,320,862 1,913,791 7,387,937 8,737,972 8,955,613 26,995,313 16,139,119 15,513,085 21,477,147 46,160,855 99,290,206 4,870,015 23,642,300 3,005,452 31,517,767 34,356,464 21,859,914 26,296,454 82,512,831 365,039,400 365,039,389 12,719,356 15,484,827 9,095,660 37,299,842

Table 4.2.1-1
Perennial Length (ft) 40,721,900 39,815,406 2,355,921 45,233,949 57,964,519 31,738,265 7,840,843 75,621,365 301,292,168 26,777 17,965,683 1,335,743 15,787,611 35,115,814 55,257,895 63,402,555 80,262,330 90,716,922 289,639,703 19,985,570 94,954,531 19,776,251 134,716,353 35,471,555 22,271,571 33,330,124 91,073,249 0 45,991,436 50,519,158 24,818,627 121,329,221 Intermittent Length (ft) 27,738,750 27,533,228 192,716 39,949,662 37,418,320 1,072,422 5,345,858 38,371,302 177,622,258 17,026,660 48,932,191 74,361,377 76,296,100 216,616,328 138,869,894 61,011,393 202,272,174 204,201,035 606,354,496 9,053,105 144,220,817 7,507,002 160,780,924 262,319,335 174,861,993 210,569,599 647,750,926 0 116,285,552 115,284,444 64,201,954 295,771,949

Stream Densities
Other Length (ft) 4,003,164 1,753,829 571 4,600,160 5,374,239 457,458 163,286 5,583,841 21,936,548 39,844 5,262,890 4,651,185 7,651,540 17,605,460 40,857,316 17,784,617 25,121,025 30,351,965 114,114,923 6,152,446 10,695,781 4,310,018 21,158,246 16,889,140 9,391,540 22,196,800 48,477,480 0 6,193,219 5,069,218 9,370,053 20,632,490 Total Length (ft) 72,463,813 69,102,463 2,549,208 89,783,771 100,757,078 33,268,145 13,349,987 119,576,508 500,850,974 17,093,281 72,160,764 80,348,305 99,735,251 269,337,602 234,985,106 142,198,565 307,655,529 325,269,922 1,010,109,122 35,191,122 249,871,130 31,593,272 316,655,523 314,680,030 206,525,103 266,096,522 787,301,655 1,927,200,000 1,927,200,000 168,470,206 170,872,820 98,390,634 437,733,660 Perennial Density (ft/ac) 6.77 6.47 8.75 5.85 6.10 11.09 6.92 7.09 6.80 0.01 2.43 0.15 1.76 1.30 3.42 4.09 3.74 1.97 2.92 4.10 4.02 6.58 4.27 1.03 1.02 1.27 1.10 0.00 0.00 3.62 3.26 2.73 3.25 Intermittent Density (ft/ac) 4.61 4.48 0.72 5.17 3.94 0.37 4.72 3.60 4.01 8.90 6.62 8.51 8.52 8.02 8.60 3.93 9.42 4.42 6.11 1.86 6.10 2.50 5.10 7.64 8.00 8.01 7.85 0.00 0.00 9.14 7.44 7.06 7.93 Other Density Total Density (ft/ac) (ft/ac) 0.67 0.29 0.00 0.60 0.57 0.16 0.14 0.52 0.49 0.02 0.71 0.53 0.85 0.65 2.53 1.15 1.17 0.66 1.15 1.26 0.45 1.43 0.67 0.49 0.43 0.84 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.33 1.03 0.55 12.05 11.24 9.47 11.61 10.61 11.63 11.79 11.21 11.30 8.93 9.77 9.20 11.14 9.98 14.56 9.17 14.32 7.05 10.17 7.23 10.57 10.51 10.05 9.16 9.45 10.12 9.54 5.28 5.28 13.25 11.03 10.82 11.74

Appalachian Basin

Colorado Plateau

Gulf Coast

Illinois Basin

Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

2

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-77

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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 4.2.1.1 Water Elements The definition of material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area under this alternative could potentially affect resource recovery. Longwall mining and room-andpillarretreat mining in areas where overburden is not sufficient to prevent subsidence would be eliminated due to material damage that would be caused if a stream were mined under and subsided, as the form and function of the stream would be significantly and possibly irreparably affected. Since the area above an underground mine (sometimes referred to as the “shadow area”) is typically not a part of the SMCRA permit area, this may be considered off permit material damage. 4.2.1.2 Land Elements Although the above provisions are expected to, by themselves, sterilize the majority of surface mineable coal resources throughout the nation, other elements in Alternative 2 could also sterilize surface mineable reserves. Changing the requirements relating to AOC to require a return of the pre-mining topography to both aspect and elevation while prohibiting AOC variances, would affect recovery of surface reserves, particularly in the steep slope areas of the Appalachian Basin and the thin overburden areas in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. Underground mining using the room-and-pillarmethod would also be affected under Alternative 2 AOC requirements, unless excess spoil can be placed back in the mined out areas. In areas with thick overburden and thin coal seams, excess spoil would be created that could not be disposed of in fills because of the prohibition of filling streams. Under Alternative 2, surface mining in thick overburden areas could only occur where excess spoil could be disposed of on old mine benches, since storing spoil on site would alter pre-mining topography and placing spoil in streams would be prohibited. Assuming that excess spoil could be stored on old mine benches, in steep slope areas in the Appalachian Basin, backfilling the material to the original elevation could create slopes with a higher potential for instability. In areas with extremely steep slopes, such a requirement could prevent mining altogether, since those areas are so steep that restoration of the original elevation and slope could not be accomplished safely. In areas with thick coal seams and thin overburden, such as in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, mining a thick coal seam with thin overburden would create a situation where not enough spoil would exist to restore the land to its pre-mining elevation. Therefore, unless the operator could acquire excess fill material from outside the permit area, the seam could only be mined to the depth consistent with the swell factor of the overburden so that the amount of overburden would be equal to the amount of coal mined. In areas where coal seams are thick, this would require leaving the remainder of the coal seam in place in order to restore the land to its original elevation. Underground mining production could also be affected by Alternative 2. The prohibition on placing fill material in streams would eliminate the possibility of placing coal refuse in any
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-78

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

stream, which is currently the most relied upon and most economical way to dispose of coal refuse from underground mining in the Appalachian region. Thus, Alternative 2 would necessitate a change in underground mining practices where coal refuse would be either disposed of on old mine benches, open pits, or stored on the permit area during mining and placed permanently within underground mine workings during reclamation. Refuse piles could also be constructed on the permit area as long as they met applicable regulations, including the requirement that the refuse pile be compatible with the natural surroundings and the approved postmining land use. (30 CFR 817.81) This requirement would add additional cost to underground mine operators and could sterilize resources, if safe and efficient storage of coal refuse could not be accomplished without placing the material within the stream buffer zone, or on the permit area in a way that is incompatible with the natural surroundings and approved postmining land use. 4.2.1.3 Other Elements As a result, under the methodology described in Section 4.7.1, it is estimated that surface coal production in all regions would decrease from the baseline case by 95% under Alternative 2. It is projected that underground production in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Appalachian Basin, the Illinois Basin, and the Colorado Plateau may increase by 25% to compensate for surface production losses, although this 25% increase will not make up for all caloric values lost due to the reduction predicted for surface mining. Estimated production at the time of full implementation of this alternative is projected in Table4.2.1-2. Table 4.2.1-2
Region

Projected Coal Production Under Alternative 2 22
Final Production (MMton/yr)
Underground Surface Total

23

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total

290.64 69.73 80.76 4.59

7.89 1.71 2.29 1.71 26.92 0.07 0.07 40.67

298.5324 71.44 25 2.29 82.4726 31.5027 0.07 28 0.07 486.3829

445.71

30 31 32

As a result of the above production shifts, the number of acres affected by mining on a yearly basis is expected to change in proportion to the shifts in production. The estimated yearly acreage impacts for each region under Alternative 2 are shown in Table 4.2.1-3.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-79

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.2.1-3 Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin

Estimated Annual Acreage Impacts Under Alternative 2 Impacted Acres (acres/year) Underground 14,149.25 1,580.38 0 2,807.25 534.17 0 0 19,071.04 Surface 1,090.06 147.74 155.41 267.23 271.76 1.92 20.09 1,954.22

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

4.2.2

Geomorphology and Topography
4.2.2.1 Water Elements

Alternative 2’s complete prohibition on mining activities or the placement of fill material in or within 100 feet of any stream, including ephemeral streams, would effectively eliminate 95 percent of surface mining production nationwide because the majority of stream densities nationwide would limit the ability to mine technically and/or economically within 100 feet of streams. In addition, Alternative 2 would eliminate all additional valley fills and coal refuse placement in streams. As a result, existing topographic characteristics, including slopes, elevations, ridges, valleys, and other surface characteristics, as described in Section 3.5, would remain in place throughout the majority of areas where surface mining occurs in all regions. Since streams would not be disturbed by mining practices and topography would remain largely unchanged, drainage patterns are expected to remain the same in most areas since slopes, elevations, and water flow would not be disturbed. The definition of material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area would also eliminate changes in topography resulting from underground mining subsidence in areas in or

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-80

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

near 100 feet of a stream, since the subsidence of an area within 100 feet of a stream would constitute material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area and be prohibited.2 In total, the Water Elements under Alternative 2 are expected to greatly improve current impacts on topography and geomorphology related to mining activities. Current topographic and geomorphic characteristics are expected to remain in their natural state throughout the majority of the coal producing regions. 4.2.2.2 Land Elements Since the Water Elements would eliminate the majority of surface impacts to topography and geomorphology resulting from mining throughout the nation, the Land Elements would only improve topography and geomorphology in the limited areas where surface mining could be conducted or where surface facilities for underground mines are located. Because mining could not occur within 100 feet of any stream, it is expected that areas where surface mining operations are conducted would be much smaller in scale than current operations. The Land Elements under Alternative 2 would eliminate all AOC variances, including mountaintop removal mining, thin and thick overburden, and steep slope variances, and define AOC to require the restoration of the original topography, including slope, elevation, and aspect. Approximate original contour would be achieved by a determination by the regulatory authority that pre-mining configuration had been achieved using landforming principles. This would be done by comparing the post-mining configuration to a digital terrain model of the pre-mining landforms in the permit application. As a result, in areas where surface production could occur without impacting the stream buffer zone and for surface areas associated with underground mines, topography following mining would be characterized by more approximate elevations, slopes, and configurations compared to current practices. Requiring comparison of the premining configuration with the post-mining configuration to achieve AOC would aid in enforcement and ensure that the land was reclaimed as described in the permit application to closely resemble the pre-mining configuration. Although the area of surface impacts would be greatly reduced due to the Water Elements, the remaining area where surface impacts could occur nationwide would benefit from landforming principles. Requiring landforming would ensure that the post-mining terrain blends with the surrounding topography and geomorphic characteristics of the land, ensuring more natural topography, stream densities, and drainage patterns post-mining. Benefits of landforming practices include aesthetically pleasing post-mining landscapes and the construction of landforms that are stable and integrated into the natural environment, ensuring long-term stability. (Schor and Gray, “Landforming: An Environmental Approach to Hillside Development, Mine Reclamation and Watershed Restoration” (2007)).
2

Although some states, including Kentucky, Colorado, and Utah, seem to include the surface area above the underground workings as part of the permit area, meaning that material damage would not occur if a stream above an underground mine was damaged by subsidence, OSM does not approve permitting the “shadow area” above underground mine workings.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-81

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Because valley fills would be eliminated across the nation, eliminating excess spoil, coal refuse, and fill placement in streams, the perceived challenges of applying landforming principles in the Appalachian Region as discussed in Section 4.3.2.2 would likely not apply under Alternative 2 since surface mining in Appalachia would be limited to non-steep slope areas with more gently rolling terrain. However, requiring landforming in order to achieve AOC and prohibiting AOC variances would eliminate the use of fine refuse coal impoundments to store coal preparation waste, since these embankment type structures cannot be safely landformed. Coarse refuse disposal could continue to occur on site while still achieving AOC through landforming.

4.2.3

Water Resource Areas
4.2.3.1 Water Elements 4.2.3.1.1 Physical Impacts 4.2.3.1.1.1 Water Resource Planning

This section details the impacts to regional water supplies, in terms of quality and quantity, associated with Alternative 2 (the most protective alternative). Under this alternative, most of the coal production from surface mines within each region is predicted to stop, resulting in a nationwide net production decrease of 58%. On a national scale, this significant production decrease may result in beneficial water availability impacts, should coal-related water withdrawals decrease proportionally. Water that would have been used for coal production could be used for other beneficial uses. Regional water availability and usage impacts will vary. Under this alternative, net coal production would decrease in all regions. Net production decreases range from 17% in the Illinois Basin to 96% in the Other Western Interior. Water availability impacts will likely be beneficial, in that water that would have been used for coal production could be used for other beneficial purposes. Beneficial impacts will likely be highly localized. Significant regionwide impacts would not likely occur, since coal-related water withdrawals constitute less than 1% of total withdrawals within each region (USGS, 2005, and Section 3.X). Under this alternative, surface mining would be essentially eliminated (95% reduction) and, to make up for energy demand needs that are met by coal, underground coal mining would increase by 25% in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau regions. This may adversely affect groundwater availability in these regions should the increase in underground coal production significantly alter underlying aquifers. However, water availability impacts would likely be highly localized since existing coal-related groundwater withdrawals in each of these regions constitutes a small proportion of total withdrawals (0.3–2.0%)(USGS, 2005, and Section 3.X). Adverse water availability impacts will likely be confined to areas dependent on groundwater for water supply. The elimination of surface mining may also increase surface water availability, since stream-related impacts related to surface mining would be virtually eliminated. In summary, this alternative may, in general,

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-82

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

result in beneficial impacts on surface water availability but adverse impacts on groundwater availability, particularly in the regions where underground coal mining would increase. Under Alternative 2, several regulatory elements would be protective of water availability. Activities within 100 feet of streams would be prohibited, avoiding or minimizing potential adverse stream flow impacts related to mining activities. Baseline monitoring would include a requirement of continuous flow measurements in affected streams. Material damage to streams outside of the permit area would also be prohibited. And corrective action thresholds would be established to trigger restoration actions based on a comparison of baseline data and data collection during mining and restoration activities. All of these requirements may minimize or avoid water availability impacts by protecting existing stream flows. Under this alternative, drinking water quality may be adversely affected in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau regions, in which underground coal mining production would increase by 25%, particularly in areas that are dependent on groundwater as a water supply source. Additionally, a net increase of coal production may adversely affect drinking water quality, should it cause an increase in NPDES or SDWA violations. Drinking water quality may improve in regions dependent on surface water for water supply, since surface water impacts would likely be reduced. It is likely, however, that water quality impacts would be highly localized. Though NPDES permit violations may decrease, SDWA violations may increase, particularly in regions dependent on groundwater as a water supply source. In regions where net coal production decreases, water quality may improve, as it is less likely that there will be coal mining-related NPDES and SDWA violations. In either case, it is likely that water quality impacts will be highly localized and dependent on existing local water quality, water availability, and local drinking water resources. In summary, this alternative may result in more adverse groundwater quality impacts and fewer adverse surface water quality impacts than under Alternative 1. Under this alternative, drinking water quality may be improved by the prohibition of activities within 100 feet of streams. Additionally, the collection of 24 months of baseline water quality data, along with data on water quality during mining activities and the establishment of corrective action thresholds, will help to minimize or avoid adverse water quality impacts. Surface water quality impacts to downstream water supply sources would be avoided or minimized under this alternative, which is more protective than Alternative 1 (no action). 4.2.3.1.1.2 Surface Water Hydrology

This section details the hydrologic and stream impacts associated with Alternative 2 (most protective). Under this alternative, surface coal mining in all regions would essentially cease, with a 95% reduction in surface coal production anticipated. Underground coal production may be expanded by 25% to help make up for production lost through changes in surface mining. Nationwide coal production may decrease by approximately 60%.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-83

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

A 95% reduction in surface mining may be expected to reduce hydrologic impacts associated with surface mining, compared to Alternative 1, by approximately 5,200 acre/yr, 21,700 acre/yr, 5,100 acre/yr, 2,800 acre/yr, and 3,000 acre/yr for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Appalachian Basin, the Illinois Basin, and the Colorado Plateau regions, respectively. Underground mining may increase from 15,400 acre/yr to 19,100 acre/yr nationwide. Underground coal production in the Appalachian Basin, which is projected to account for 65% of underground mining and approximately 60% of all mining, may be sustained for less than a decade. With the filling of previously permitted waste rock dumps with coal processing byproducts and the ban on excess fill placement in all streams, current permitted capacity will be relatively quickly filled, and underground mining consequently stopped or substantially reduced. An alternative of placing waste rock into underground mines may extend underground mining but may increase processing costs. Underground mining will be challenged to treat discharges such that no material damage will be allowed in ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams. Mine seeps will need to be eliminated or discharges treated to the level of no material damage. No underground mining may be expected in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains due to geologic constraints. Hydrologic Impacts Hydrologic impacts may shift from those associated with surface mining to those associated with underground mining. There may be a greater propensity to have mine seeps, with associated water quality constituents, in the Appalachian Basin, and higher groundwater-surface water interactions may be expected to occur in the Illinois Basin and the Colorado Plateau. Overall, hydrology associated with the large reduction in or essential elimination of surface mining may slowly transition toward pre-mining responses as vegetation transitions to natural states and soil formation is achieved in all coal mining regions. For traditionally compacted mine spoil in the Appalachian Basin that has been stabilized by non-native vegetation, the transition to forested lands may require a substantial amount of time (decades) and may not occur until soil formation processes are slowly achieved. As lands transitions to a pre-mining state, the hydrologic balance is expected to follow. Stream Length Impacts With the essential elimination of surface mining and the requirement for material damage to eliminate any impairments to the physical, chemical, or biological function of any streams, the affected Basin, the Illinois Basin, and the Colorado Plateau regions, respectively, compared to Alternative 1. Streams that have previously been affected by surface mining activities may recover as the hydrologic balance and land uses become reestablished stream length may be expected to be reduced by 86%, 54%, 60%, and 60% for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Appalachian to pre-mining land uses. The expectation is that stream recovery will begin at locations furthest down-gradient of previous surface mining activities and proceed toward up-gradient areas. Streams located down-gradient of traditionally constructed fills are
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-84

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

expected to be the last to recover. Also, streams that have been affected by extensive mining operations within a watershed may recover significantly more slowly than those streams in watersheds that experience lesser levels of surface mining. 4.2.3.1.1.3 Groundwater Hydrology

Table 4.2.3-4 presents the predicted stream impacts calculated by the production shift mathematical model described in further detail under Coal Resources and Mining consequences. Table 4.2.3-1 Anticipated Regional Stream Impacts for Alternative 2 Stream Impacts (mi/yr) 32.62 3.27 0.3 5.85 1.46 0 0.04 Percentage Change from Alt 1 −53.99 −59.04 −95.02 −59.53 −86.25 −98.83 −95.11 % Public Supply GW Use* 13.24 13.54 6.45 7.75 20.69 0.00 1.22 % Domestic Supply GW* 16.53 18.51 30.94 14.99 6.89 18.21 6.85

Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Alternative 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

*Values for the percentage of public supply from groundwater and of domestic self-supplied groundwater were calculated from population data extracted from 2005 USGS water use data, http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005, downloaded Sept 16, 2010.

Under Alternative 2, mining in the Appalachian Basin region is predicted to be reduced in such a manner that approximately 54% less streams and surface acres would be affected per year. This reduction would be expected to result in improved groundwater quality for the 13% of population in the coal-producing counties in the Appalachian region that obtain their water supply from public groundwater sources, and for the 16.5% that obtain their water supply from self-supplied groundwater sources. However, groundwater recharge would likely decrease from the existing condition since mine spoils are more permeable that the in situ condition, thus promoting more groundwater storage. Mining in the Colorado Plateau is predicted to result in 59% less stream miles and surface area impacts; however, overall groundwater improvements would not be that significant, since most groundwater impacts in the Colorado Plateau region are typically localized to the mine area.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-85

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Water quality improvements would be expected for those residents living near the mining that depend on groundwater sources for their water supply. That number could be expected to be significant, since approximately 34% of the population within the region's coal-producing counties depend on either public or domestically self-supplied groundwater sources. Under this alternative, stream impacts and acres disturbed in the Gulf Coast region are predicted to be reduced by approximately 95%. Groundwater improvements in the Gulf Coast region would not be that significant overall, since impacts on the hydrologic balance and groundwater quality are typically considered limited and short-lived. The anticipated reduction of mining in the Illinois Basin under this alternative would not be expected to result in measureable improvements in groundwater quality since the existing groundwater is considered too mineralized for most uses. Recharge of aquifers would be less under this alternative than the No Action Alternative, since there would be fewer permeable mine spoil sites. Surface mining is predicted to be significantly reduced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region under this alternative, resulting in approximately 86% fewer acres disturbed and stream lengths affected. Mine overburden material used in backfilling mine pits is similar in many aspects to the coal aquifer that it replaces, and it typically becomes saturated with groundwater within 1 to 5 years. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supply could be considered relatively temporary for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region. Under Alternative 2, mining production in the Northwest region is anticipated to be reduced by 99%. Thus, groundwater impacts under this alternative would be less than for Alternative 1; however, they are already relatively insignificant when compared to some of the other regions, due to the low production values in the Northwest region. Production levels for the Other Western Interior region are predicted to decrease by approximately 95% for Alternative 2; however, the magnitude of current production is already relatively small. Current groundwater usage within the coal-producing counties of the region is also relatively minimal, with only about 8% of the population depending on public or selfsupplied groundwater as their water source. Therefore, improvements in groundwater supplies for this alternative when compared to the No Action Alternative could be considered insignificant. 4.2.3.1.2 Chemical Impacts 4.2.3.1.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 2 from the water elements included in the EIS analysis (1) Stream Definition, (2) Activities In or Near Streams, (3) Definition of Material Damage to the Hydrologic Balance, (4) Mining Through Streams, and (5) Corrective Action Thresholds). For Alternative 2, potential water quality impacts will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Coal production under Alternative 2 is greatly reduced
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-86

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

compared with Alternative 1, largely as a result of the elimination of all surface coal mining in all regions under this alternative. As a result, coal mining activities in or near streams and mining through streams would largely be eliminated. Hence, under Alternative 2, notable improvements in surface water quality near mine sites would be expected in all coal mining regions. 4.2.3.1.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality impacts under Alternative 2 are likely to vary among regions. An increase in impacts compared with Alternative 1may occur in four regions—Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau—because underground coal production is predicted to increase by 25% in these regions to compensate for the elimination of surface coal mining. Impacts in the remaining regions would likely be reduced or remain the same compared with Alternative 1 because underground coal production is predicted to be unchanged (Gulf Coast and Northwest regions) or decrease (Other Western Interior region). Table 4.2.3-2 Coal Production Change by Region and Nationally for Appalachian Basin

Alternatives 2 to 5 Compared with Alternative 1 Colorado Plateau Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Other Western Interior Illinois Basin Gulf Coast

Northwest

Alternative 2 Alternative 1

Underground Surface Total Underground Surface Total

n.a. n.a. n.a. 25 −95 −94

n.a. n.a. n.a. 25 −95 −23

n.a. n.a. n.a. 25 −95 −17

n.a. n.a. n.a. 25 −95 −21

n.a. n.a. n.a. −100 −95 −95

n.a. n.a. n.a. −100 −95 −96

n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 −95 −95

n.a. n.a. n.a. 25 −95 −58

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-87

Total

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Appalachian Basin

Colorado Plateau

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains

Other Western Interior

Illinois Basin

Gulf Coast

Northwest

Alternative 5 Alternative 4 Alternative 3

Underground Surface Total Underground Surface Total Underground Surface Total

15 15 15 5 5 5 15 15 15

15 −47 −10 0 −10 −4 0 −30 −12

15 −24 1 5 −5 2 15 −21 2

15 −4 8 −4 −4 −4 −1 −4 −2

−100 −87 −87 −100 −1 −1 −100 −26 −26

−100 −100 −100 5 −2 0 −100 −100 −100

0 −32 −32 0 5 5 0 −32 −32

15 −6 1 0 1 1 3 1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4.2.3.2 Land Elements 4.2.3.2.1 Physical Impacts 4.2.3.2.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology Alternative 2 will ban all excess fill placements in all streams, including ephemeral streams. Hence, any additional hydrologic impacts that may have been associated with fills will not exist. Current fills may continue to discharge flow year-round with associated water quality constituents that may adversely affect streams. Additionally, the increase peak flow and runoff volume associated with traditionally compacted and vegetated fills will persist. Over time, as geologic materials are leached by the flow through the fill, water quality may improve. 4.2.3.2.1.2 Fluvial Processes

Under Alternative 2, excess fill placement in streams, including ephemeral streams, will be banned. Additionally, AOC variances will be eliminated. Additional fluvial impacts are expected to be minimal; however, impacts from past mining activities will remain, though these impacts are expected to decrease over time.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-88

Total

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Stream Morphology Change The ban on fill placement in any stream along with the prohibition of activities within 100 feet of all streams is expected to result in minimal impact to stream morphology across all regions. Maintaining a 100-foot buffer around streams will minimize impacts to stream bank stability, temperature modification, nutrient cycling, and so forth. Streams that have previously been affected by surface mining activities may recover as the hydrologic balance and land uses become reestablished to pre-mining land uses. The expectation is that stream recovery will begin at locations furthest down-gradient of previous surface mining activities and proceed toward up-gradient areas. Streams located down-gradient of traditionally constructed fills are expected to be the last to recover. Also, streams that have been affected by extensive mining operations within a watershed may recover significantly more slowly than those streams in watersheds that experience lesser levels of surface mining. Erosion and Sediment Control The need for surface mining erosion and sediment controls will be substantially lessened in Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 due to the 95% decrease in surface mining. Thus, sediment discharges will be less, since areas will not be disturbed at the same rate as in Alternative 1. 4.2.3.2.2 Chemical Impacts 4.2.3.2.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 2 from the land elements included in the DEIS analysis (Surface Configuration and Fills, and AOC Exceptions ). For Alternative 2, surface water quality impacts from changes in the land elements will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Coal production under Alternative 2 is greatly reduced compared with Alternative 1, largely as a result of the elimination of surface coal mining in all regions under this alternative. As a result, land surface reconfiguration and/or creation of fills in or near streams are expected to be greatly reduced. Hence, under Alternative 2, notable improvements in surface water quality near mine sites would be expected in all coal mining regions. 4.2.3.2.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality impacts under Alternative 2 from the land elements included in the DEIS analysis are likely to vary among regions. An increase in impacts compared with Alternative 1 may occur in four regions—Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau—because underground coal production is predicted to increase by 25% in these regions to compensate for the elimination of surface coal mining. Impacts in the remaining regions would likely be reduced or remain the same compared with

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-89

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Alternative 1 because underground coal production is predicted to be unchanged (Gulf Coast and Northwest regions) or decrease (Other Western Interior region). 4.2.3.3 Other Elements 4.2.3.3.1 Physical Impacts 4.2.3.3.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology Since surface mining will essentially be nonexistent, the requirement of reforestation of forest communities to the level of mature trees is a moot point except for small surface effects of underground mining and in reclamation of rock waste ponds that contain materials from coal preparation plants. The requirement for reforestation compared to compaction and revegetation using grasses will result in a reduction in peak flow and a more seasonal water balance as well as provide a more intermittent flow to streams. 4.2.3.3.1.2 Fluvial Processes

Stream Morphology Change Reforestation of postmining land uses will result in minimal impacts to fluvial processes, particularly in areas where the pre-mining land use was forestry. For pre-mining land uses that were grasses and will support reforestation, improvements in fluvial processes in the form of woody debris input and temperature modification are possible. The success of reforestation may be region specific and closely linked to annual precipitation levels. Consideration should be given to avoiding the planting of high water consuming tree species in areas where annual precipitation is minimal. Erosion and Sediment Control With the requirement for forest reclamation, erosion rates will approach that of pre-mining conditions. 4.2.3.3.2 Chemical Impacts 4.2.3.3.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 2 from the other elements included in the DEIS analysis (Revegetation and Topsoil Management, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Baseline Data Collection and Analysis, and Monitoring During Mining and Reclamation). For Alternative 2, surface water quality impacts from changes in the other elements will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Coal production under Alternative 2 is greatly reduced compared with Alternative 1, largely as a result of the elimination of surface coal mining in all regions under this alternative. However, changes to the other elements considered in this DEIS are expected to have little effect on surface water quality for reasons given in Section 4.1.3.3.2.1. Surface water quality would be expected to generally improve in all coal-producing

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-90

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

regions under Alternative 2, but the improvement is the result of changes in water elements (see Section 4.2.3.1.2.1) and land elements (see Section 4.2.3.2.2.1). 4.2.3.3.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality impacts under Alternative 2 are likely to vary among regions, as noted above. However, these changes are the result of changes in water elements (see Section 4.2.3.1.2) and land elements (see Section 4.2.3.2.2), not the other elements.

4.2.4

Biological Resources
4.2.4.1 Water Elements

For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect aquatic ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 2:      Mining and mining activities would not be allowed in any stream types. Excess spoils could not be placed in any stream type. Ephemeral streams would receive full protections. Approximately 44 additional miles of perennial and/or intermittent streams would be affected each year by coal mining operations (Table 4.2.4-1). The miles of ephemeral streams that might be affected by coal mining practices under this alternative are not known, although in theory they would be protected under SMCRA.

It is, therefore, expected that adverse impacts to aquatic communities associated with coal mining would occur in 60% fewer miles of stream under this alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. It is also expected that the types of adverse impacts would not be as extensive as those described above for the No Action Alternative, because fewer mining-related activities would be allowed to occur near streams. For example, the adverse impacts associated with stream burial or mining through streams would not occur under this alternative because those activities would be prohibited. By providing complete protection to ephemeral streams, mining-related impacts would be substantially reduced throughout all coal regions, especially in the arid ecoregions where intermittent and ephemeral streams are critical habitat features (discussed in Section 3.13; also reviewed in Levick et al., 2008). Impacts to wetlands under this alternative would be the least amount compared to other alternatives, as surface coal mining would be greatly reduced nationally. Underground mining would increase; therefore the potential for impacts to wetlands due to the construction of aboveground facilities to support underground mining would increase. There is some flexibility in the location of these facilities; therefore sites with no or minimal impacts to wetlands would likely be used, as required under the alternative and the CWA. Regulations would prevent impacts to hydrology due to subsidence. However, as discussed in the previous section,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-91

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

subsidence can lead to changes in the hydrology off-site that may not be reported or quantified, so there is some potential for the increase in deep mining under this alternative to lead to more drainage of wetlands off-site. Isolated or non-jurisdictional wetlands would not be as vulnerable to impacts due to the decrease in land area used for coal mining. Under this alternative, AOC requirements would result in the restoration of pre-mining conditions. Isolated wetlands are often found in depressional areas, and these areas would likely be restored, allowing for wetland development after reclamation. The potential exists for an increase in fish and wildlife habitat in wetlands within the same watershed as the mine sites. Applicants would be required to enhance fish and wildlife habitat to compensate for the lost habitat on the mine site. Some wetlands function as habitat for fish and wildlife; therefore these wetlands could be enhanced to increase the value of the habitat to satisfy this requirement under this alternative. Off-site wetlands would be protected, as no changes to the hydrologic balance would be permitted under this alternative. Similarly, the hydrology of receiving streams would remain unchanged. In turn, this alternative would have a positive effect on riparian and floodplain wetlands. It would also protect wetlands that are heavily influenced by groundwater. Wetlands in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and Colorado Plateau regions would benefit the most from this level of protection. Riparian wetlands in the Western United States provide valuable wildlife habitat and are highly sensitive to changes in hydrology due to the arid and semi-arid climate. The reasonable, foreseeable development scenario for coal production in the United States under Alternative 2 is for surface mining to be curtailed and new coal to be produced using underground mining methods. Therefore, it is assumed that coal mining will be phased out in both the Other Western Interior and Northwest coal regions, and that total production will gradually decrease in the other coal regions, thereby eliminating new adverse impacts to water elements in those regions. The shift to underground mining methods would result in the majority of adverse impacts to streams being caused by AMD-related impacts and adverse impacts caused by habitat fragmentation and habitat destruction would significantly decrease.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-92

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3

Table 4.2.4-1. Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region under Alternative 2 Compared to the No Action Alternative No Action Alternative Region Affected Acreage (yr) 33,121 4,219 3,120 7,590 5,863 163 411 54,488 Affected Stream Length (mi/yr) 70.9 8.0 6.0 14.4 10.6 0.2 0.9 111 Alternative 2 Affected Acreage (yr) 15,239 1,728 155 3,074 806 2 20 21,025 Affected Stream Length (mi/yr) 32.6 3.3 0.3 5.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 44

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Region Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Under this alternative, all streams (including ephemeral streams) will receive expanded benefits from full protection of wider buffers that will, in turn, leave increased portions of riparian zones intact. Furthermore, there will be increased protection to biological resources due to the enhanced definition of “material damage.” Establishment of a clear definition of material damage and permit-specific corrective action thresholds will improve protection of streams outside the permit areas. The proposed strict approach to defining material damage will also facilitate the identification of water quality trends approaching material damage and require intervention before adverse impacts occur. In summary, under Alternative 2, future coal mining practices would be expected to result in adverse impacts to aquatic resources at some sites, but the annual rate of impacts to streams would be substantially lower than under the No Action Alternative. These adverse impacts would be expected to include degraded water quality related to AMD and associated impairment of macroinvertebrate and fish communities. These adverse impacts would be expected to occur in the five coal regions where new underground mines would be developed, but the majority of the impacts would occur in the Appalachian Basin. 4.2.4.2 Land Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect terrestrial ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 2:

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-93

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

 

The AOC will have to be reestablished at all mining sites. Approximately 21,000 new acres of land are expected to be developed for new coal mining operations each year under this alternative (Table 4.2.4-1). In other words, there would be an approximately 60% reduction in impacts to new acres of terrestrial habitat under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1.

One likely outcome of the requirement that AOC be reestablished is that mining in fragile habitats on steep slopes will no longer occur. Therefore, fewer adverse impacts will be associated with habitat change in mountainous areas. Compared to Alternative 1, fewer adverse impacts to diversity and abundance of terrestrial plants and animals on-site and off-site are expected under Alternative 2 due to increased stream buffer width, resulting in more unmined acres within some permits. Stricter requirements and guidance for fish and wildlife enhancement will be required and will benefit multiple species by promoting the use of native plants and plant communities in reclamation and by prohibiting the use of invasive plant species, fish, and wildlife in postmining land use (PMLU). This should result in fewer adverse impacts to terrestrial and aquatic species compared to Alternative 1. In summary, under Alternative 2, adverse impacts to terrestrial resources are expected at some sites. These adverse impacts would likely include fragmentation of upland habitats; degradation of habitat quality through fire, noise, and introduction of non-native and/or invasive species; and exposure of wildlife to toxic chemicals. These adverse impacts would be expected to occur in the five coal regions where new underground mines would be developed, and the majority of the adverse impacts would be expected to occur in the Appalachian Basin (Error! Reference source not found.Table 4.2.4-1). 4.2.4.3 Other Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the practices that are most likely to affect restoration outcomes for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 2:    Topsoil has to be reused on site; cleared forest has to be restored to forest. There is no requirement that native species be used in revegetation activities. Habitat enhancement projects must occur within the same watershed.

Under this alternative, original organic material must be salvaged and redistributed on the site, and forest communities must be replaced with mature native trees. These provisions are likely to ensure greater success of revegetation programs, which will result in fewer adverse impacts to terrestrial communities under Alternative 2 as compared to the No Action Alternative. OSM and the other regulatory agencies that oversee mine permitting programs have developed guidelines for improving reforestation success in the Appalachian coal region (Appalachian Region Reforestation Initiative, or ARRI), and lessons learned in Appalachia could be applied in other coal regions. Under this alternative, a net increase is expected in reforestation rates in the
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-94

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

affected coal regions compared to the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, there will be a decrease in creation of additional, non-native, cool-season-dominated grasslands as the cover type for postmining land uses. As a result, forest species, including many area-sensitive forest interior passerines, will benefit from the increase in reforestation and a reduction in the regional surface mine footprint. However, grassland species (e.g., Henslow’s sparrows, elk, and some game birds) that have been reported to use the non-native grasslands created on mine sites would have decreased benefit from these landcover conversions. In summary, under Alternative 2, reclamation and restoration programs are expected to mitigate most of the adverse impacts associated with development of new underground mines. The rule change would close current loopholes and require that restoration activities continue until ecological functions have been restored.

4.2.5

Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation

Alternative 2 would result in major changes to the requirements for obtaining a permit and for mining operations under SMCRA. This alternative would include major changes to the reporting and water monitoring requirements before and during operations and during reclamation. In addition, this alternative would ban mining operations through or in all streams (including ephemeral streams) and would prohibit all variances from AOC, significantly limiting all surface mining in the country. Alternative 2 is predicted to result in a severe reduction of surface mining in all of the coal resource regions. Specific values for these anticipated decreases are listed in Table 4.2.5-1. Table 4.2.5-1 Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 2 Affected Streams (mi/yr) 32.62 3.27 0.30 5.85 1.46 0 0.04 Percent Change from Baseline (No Action Alternative) −53.99 −58.97 −95.01 −59.49 −86.21 −100.00 −95.60

Coal Resource Region

Affected Area (acre/yr) 15,239 1,728 155 3,074 806 2 20

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains & Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior 22 23 24

As described in Section 4.1.5, there are no changes to SMCRA under this alternative that would directly affect visual resources.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-95

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.2.5.1 Water Elements More restrictive definitions of streams and material damage, as well as limitations on activities near streams or on mining through streams, would reduce the potential for visual impacts in an area because it would significantly reduce the surface acreage affected by mining activities in all regions. Changes to streams would not be allowed, and the visual quality of streams would be preserved. Where mining activities are allowed, the definition of material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area would include the impairment of the physical ecological function of any stream or the impairment of designated uses. These restrictions would reduce effects on the public’s ability to use the streams and changes to the visual quality of streams. Changes to corrective action thresholds do not provide specific limitations that affect the visual quality of an area. 4.2.5.2 Land Elements Current requirements for surface configurations and fills and AOC exceptions allow changes to the preexisting physical conditions and therefore potentially affect visual quality. The banning of excess fill placement in all streams and the requirement that all areas of the mine site be returned to pre-mining configuration would reduce the potential for land use and visual resource impacts in all regions. Implementation of this alternative could lead to a reduction in recreational and development opportunities that may require flat or gently rolling reclaimed mining lands in areas where such lands are generally not available for such uses. Conversely, this alternative could preserve the existing forests, streams, and mountains within the study area, which may offer additional recreation and tourism opportunities. Mining areas that were forested prior to disturbance would have to be reforested with native tree and plant species. This alternative would require reforestation of those previously forested areas regardless of the approved postmining land use. This requirement could prevent establishment of postmining land uses such as croplands and industrial development. The expansion of documentation requirements would provide additional documentation and review for the assessment of visual impacts in the Appalachian, Gulf Coast, and Illinois Regions, where visual impact assessment historically has not been well documented. In the Colorado Plateau and Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region, where most of the land within the coal fields is managed by the BLM, increased permitting and reporting requirements under Alternative 2 are not likely to increase documentation available for visual assessment, because visual resource assessment is often well documented and included in environmental assessments. The existing practices and documentation for review and assessment of visual impacts would continue in all regions. 4.2.5.3 Other Elements Changes to the requirements for baseline data collection and analysis, monitoring during mining and reclamation; and fish and wildlife protection and enhancement do not consider or affect visual quality or visual impact assessment of surface mining projects. Current requirements for revegetation and topsoil management in accordance with pre-mining land use or an approved
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-96

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

PMLU can result in the potential for visual impacts when non-native vegetation is allowed or areas are not restored to a forested state. The requirements under Alternative 2 for native tree and plant species to reestablish the native forest ecosystem and the bonding requirements to ensure compliance would restore the visual quality of the site after project completion in all regions.

4.2.6

Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure

Selecting Alternative 2 would result in substantial adverse effects to socioeconomic conditions at the local level in certain coal-producing regions. These conditions would be directly related to loss of employment in certain regions and would affect personal earnings, state income taxes, and other local taxes, which have not been calculated here due to a lack of consistent data across the region. In addition, there would be a loss of tax revenue associated with severance taxes and corporate business taxes if an entire sector of the economy were eliminated. Alternative 2, through the proposed restrictions associated with surface coal mining activities and streams, would preclude new and existing surface coal mining, which would create a loss of employment positions associated with surface coal mining. This loss of employment positions would filter throughout the remainder of the economy to varying degrees. 4.2.6.1 Economics 4.2.6.1.1 Employment and Unemployment 4.2.6.1.1.1 Employment Changes in Coal Mining Selecting Alternative 2 would result in the estimated loss of over 29,000 employment positions (30.8% of total coal mining employment positions estimated from Alternative 1). The coalproducing regions with the greatest loss would include the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Gulf Region, the Other Western Interior, and the Northwest. Table 4.2.6-1 lists the estimated number of employment positions as determined by the total estimated coal production by region for Alternative 2. Underground coal production is estimated to increase by approximately 25% in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Appalachian Basin, the Illinois Basin, and the Colorado Plateau; however, the increase in underground mining employment in these regions would not offset the losses in the surface coal mining industry. A total net loss in employment positions is estimated for all regions, with a complete elimination of coal mining employment in Other Western Interior and Northwest regions, and a near complete loss in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-97

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.2.6-1.

Alternative 2 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type by Region
Estimated Number of Employment Positions UnderSurface Total ground 48,26 48,265 0 5 6,023 2,850 9,433 423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,023 2,850 9,433 423 0 0 Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (21.4) (12.4) (63.7) (8.8) (95.7) (100.0) (100.0)

Coal-Producing Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains  Northwest Other Western Interior

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

4.2.6.1.1.2

Estimated Employment Changes in Remainder of Economy

The loss of an entire segment of the industry would create substantial employment effects throughout the local economies in the coal-producing regions, depending on the interconnectedness of other industries to surface coal mining. In the Appalachian Basin region, the average indirect and induced employment creation from one employment position in the coal mining industry is 1.46. In the worst-case scenario, this would equate to an approximate additional loss of 19,149 employment positions throughout the entire Appalachian Basin, which is 0.06% of the total employment positions of the combined states in the Appalachian Basin. The Western coal-producing regions include the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Colorado Plateau, and the Northwest. The interior coal-producing regions include the Illinois Basin, the Gulf Region, and Other Western Interior. In the Western states, the average employment multiplier was 1.40, equating to a worst-case scenario of 14,617 lost ancillary employment positions, which would be a 1% loss of employment positions. The interior states had an average employment multiplier of 1.73, which equates to a worst-case scenario of 10,885 lost employment positions, statistically 0.02% of all employment positions in the combined states. 4.2.6.1.1.3 Estimated Effects on the Number and Percentage of Unemployed

It is expected that increased underground mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region would generate 85 additional employment positions, compared with a corresponding loss of over 9,500 employment positions from the elimination of surface mining. Table 4.2.6-2 lists the net effect resulting in a change in the unemployed population in the region and the corresponding effect on the unemployment rate in the region. Overall, the loss of surface mining would generate the greatest effect in the Northwest region, due primarily to the small size
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-98

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

of the labor force in the region. In addition, the Gulf Region would show a substantial loss of employment positions associated with surface coal mining. As indicated in Table 4.2.6-2, implementation of Alternative 2, holding all employment relocations constant, would raise the unemployment rate to a level exceeding 10% in all regions except the Other Western Interior region. The resulting regional unemployment rates would be substantially higher than the national 9.3% unemployment rate in November 2010. As of October 2010, the unemployment rate across the states averaged 8.8% in the Appalachian Basin region averaged 8.8%, 8.5% in the interior region, and 7.6% in the Western states. Table 4.2.6-2. Alternative 2 Estimated Change in Number of Unemployed and the Unemployment Rate by Region Current Net Change in Unemployment Unemployed Rate (%) (%) 10.0 11.1 9.7 10.2 9.6 20.2 8.9 13,116 850 5,001 906 9,497 94 385 Change in the Unemployment Rate (%) 0.3 0.4 3.6 0.2 2.8 4.2 0.3

Coal-Producing Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

4.2.6.1.2 Earnings and Personal Income 4.2.6.1.2.1 Earnings and Personal Income Changes from Coal Mining Selecting Alternative 2 would result in a substantial loss of earnings and personal income in local areas in some of the coal-producing regions. The most significant losses would occur in the Northwest, Other Western Interior, Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, and Gulf regions. Table 4.2.6-3 lists the estimated change in earnings and percentage change in earnings compared to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. When compared to total regional personal earnings, the estimated loss of earnings in the coal industry associated with implementation of Alternative 2 is relatively small, with the largest loss on a percentage basis occurring in the Northwest region.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-99

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.2.6-3.

Alternative 2 Estimated Change in Earnings from Coal Mining
Estimated Change in Earnings ($1,000) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 Underground 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 (100.0) Surface (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Total (20.4) (12.7) (61.9) (8.6) (95.1) (100.0) (100.0) Percent Change of Total Regional Personal Earnings (0.2) (0.2) (2.3) (0.1) (1.5) (2.9) (0.1)

Coal-Producing Regions

Underground 491,550 57,342 (25) 105,254 4,596 0 (3,678)

Surface (1,122,251) (98,871) (249,744) (154,653) (453,109) (5,223) (12,864)

Total (630,701) (41,529) (249,769) (49,398) (448,512) (5,223) (16,542)

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4.2.6.1.2.2 Estimated Earnings and Personal Income Effects in Remainder of Economy

As mentioned previously, earnings multipliers vary greatly by state, with the overall range falling from 1.17 in Virginia to 0.37 in Wyoming. The loss of approximately $630.7 million in earnings in the Appalachian Basin could result in the loss of an additional approximately $737.9 million, equivalent to another 0.2% of the total regional personal earnings, yielding a combined loss of approximately 0.4%. In the Western states, the loss of surface mining would result in an additional worst-case scenario loss of approximately $305.2 million in earnings (0.7% of the total compensation in the combined regions). In the interior states, the loss of approximately $315.7 million in additional earnings would equate to an additional loss of 0.5% of the total compensation in the combined regions. 4.2.6.1.3 Poverty Levels Selecting Alternative 2 would increase local poverty levels, if persons displaced by the loss of employment associated with the surface coal mining industry do not readily find other employment. Table 4.2.6-4 lists, as a worst-case scenario, the potential effects from the loss of employment positions from surface mining. It is assumed that average family size per region is supported by each individual employment position lost, and that none of the populations relocate to find jobs in other areas. As the table indicates, the areas that would experience the greatest impacts would be in the Gulf Region and the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where the percentage of the population below the poverty threshold would substantially increase.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-100

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.2.6-4.

Alternative 2 Estimated Change in Poverty Levels from Loss of Employment Positions
Estimated Change in Employment (13,116) (850) (5,001) (906) (9,497) (94) (385) Estimated Population Affected 52,267 3,579 21,061 3,708 36,469 384 1,508 Estimated Total Population Below Poverty 1,466,545 111,048 80,669 201,021 126,589 1,658 59,945 Estimated Percent Below Poverty 16.8 18.9 23.1 16.8 17.7 29.5 16.7 Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rate 0.6 0.6 6.0 0.3 5.1 6.8 0.4

Coal-Producing Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains  Northwest Other Western Interior

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

4.2.6.1.4 Income and Severance Taxes Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in high levels of reduction of tax revenues directly associated with coal mining activities. In comparison with Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the impact on some coal regions would be the complete elimination of coal miningrelated tax revenues, while other regions would experience revenue reductions between 20% and 99%, with few exceptions. The estimated impacts of Alternative 2 implementation on the AML fund by region are shown in Table 4.2.6-5. This analysis shows that there would be a 100% reduction in the Other Western Interior and Northwest regions, and near complete elimination of AML contributions in the Northern Rocky Mountains/Great Plains and Gulf regions. Nationwide, the level of contributions to the AML fund would be reduced by nearly 80% in comparison with Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-101

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.2.6-5.

Alternative 2 Estimated Change in AML Funds Collected
Estimated Change in AML Fees Collected ($1,000) Underground Surface (47,053) (10,799) (17,041) (10,794) (169,592) (465) (472) Total (39,621) (8,917) (17,041) (8,613) (169,468) (465) (532) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 Underground 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 (100.0) Surface (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Total (51.6) (48.6) (91.1) (44.1) (99.6) (100.0) (100.0)

Coal-Producing Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

7,433 1,883 (0) 2,181 124 0 (60)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Estimated changes in the levels of severance tax revenues collected in each region are shown in Table 4.2.6-6. Severance tax revenues would be eliminated in the Other Western Interior region, and nearly eliminated in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region. In that region, the estimated net reduction in severance tax revenues totals nearly $0.5 billion, which equates to nearly 3% of total state tax revenues in the region (USCB, 2010). The Gulf Region and Illinois Basin also would experience high levels of severance tax revenue reductions of 81.5% and 77.4%, respectively. Table 4.2.6-6.
Coal-Producing Region

Alternative 2 Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes
Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground
15,347 3,173 (0) 943 357 Not Applicable (121) (412) (534) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (42,049) (7,971) (2,164) (17,133) (482,081) (26,702) (4,798) (2,164) (16,190) (481,724)

Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground
25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (25.8) (23.2) (81.5) (77.4) (99.6)

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains
Northwest Other Western Interior

11

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-102

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The estimated changes in state income taxes attributable to coal industry employment in each region are shown in Table 4.2.6-7. Income tax revenues from coal mining would be eliminated in the Other Western Interior region and would be reduced by over 95% in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region. As a percentage of total regional income taxes, however, the estimated loss of state income tax revenues in the Other Western Interior region would equate to less than 0.01% of the region total revenues from income taxes. In the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the loss would equate to approximately 0.1% of the region’s total revenue from income taxes. Table 4.2.6-7.
Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

Alternative 2 Estimated Change in State Income Taxes
Estimated Change in State Income Taxes Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground
15,588 2,166 (1) 3,429 101 (35,524) (3,738) (5,842) (5,035) (9,811) (19,936) (1,572) (5,842) (1,607) (9,710)

Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground
25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (20.4) (12.7) (61.7) (8.6) (95.1)

Not Applicable
(137) (463) (599) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Under Alternative 2, royalties would substantially decline with the removal of surface mining as a method of production across the nation. Table 4.2.6-8 lists the estimated royalties, distributions, and estimated change from Alternative 1. In the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Other Western Interior, Alternative 2 would result in an almost complete loss of royalty revenues. In the Colorado Plateau, the loss of royalties would be substantial, but would be somewhat offset by the increase in underground coal mining. Table 4.2.6-8. Alternative 2 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement
Change from Alternative 1 Tribal Federal Estimated State Royalties Royalties Disbursements $1,000 0 (1,049) (524)

Alternative 2 Federal Estimated State State Royalties Disbursements $1,000 Appalachian Basin/Illinois Basin Kentucky 0 1,400 700 Tribal Royalties

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-103

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

State

Tribal Royalties

Alternative 2 Federal Estimated State Royalties Disbursements $1,000 36,477 2,225 0 25,326 342 1,804 67 0

Change from Alternative 1 Tribal Federal Estimated State Royalties Royalties Disbursements $1,000 0 (30,972) (33,824) 0 0 0 (11,249) 0 (2,179) (11,301) 0 15,667 (732) (597,366) (44,163) (4,740) (1,089) (5,651) 0 7,834 (366) (298,683) (22,081) (2,370)

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

Colorado Plateau Colorado 0 72,955 New Mexico 12,197 4,450 Arizona 0 0 Utah 0 50,652 Gulf Coast Alabama 0 683 Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Wyoming   0 3,608 Montana 34 133 Other Western Interior Oklahoma 0 0
Source: Calculated from ONRR, 2010.

4.2.6.2 Demographics 4.2.6.2.1 Population Changes As illustrated in Table 4.2.6-4, the net number of persons potentially affected by Alternative 2 includes the dependents of those employed in the coal mining industry. Estimates of the potential net populations adversely affected by implementation of Alternative 2 range from over 52,000 persons in the Appalachian Basin to just under 400 persons in the Northwest. The population adversely affected equates to 1.8% of the total population of the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, as of the 2000 Decennial Census. In all other coal-producing regions, it is estimated that 0.1% or less of the net population would be adversely affected. 4.2.6.2.2 Minority Population Effects Implementation of Alternative 2 could affect minority populations in the Northwest region, given the high percentage of minority population in the region and the effects from the lost employment positions associated with surface mining. The loss of surface mining would essentially eliminate coal mining from the Northwest region and would create a loss of 94 employment positions, which could affect up 384 persons. In addition, due to the concentrated minority areas in the Gulf Region, there could be effects to minority populations associated with the loss of surface mining in those counties with current mining activity. 4.2.6.3 Environmental Justice OSM has made great efforts to ensure that all interested stakeholders have ample opportunities to learn about and provide comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, by selecting Alternative 2, OSM would not anticipate any disproportionate effects to minority or low-income communities, as all communities would be provided the same opportunities to engage in the decision-making processes. Under Alternative 2, surface coal mining would no longer be a viable coal extraction
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-104

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

method. The regions most affected by this alternative would include the Northwest, the Gulf Region, and the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, which would experience substantial declines in the coal mining industry. The Appalachian Basin would experience the greatest loss in employment positions but would maintain a viable underground coal mining industry, which would employ over 48,000 positions. Coal mining is an extractive natural resources-based industry, which is primarily in rural areas where coal seams have been found and recovered. These rural areas, in some regions, have a higher percentage of low-income population than the national average; however, it would be comparable to adjacent counties and sometimes states as a whole. Likewise, concentrated minority populations are in certain areas of the coal mining regions, with the primary minority population communities being Native American or Hispanic in the Southwest. These communities may represent a higher percentage population than the national average but would be comparable at the local or regional level. Given that this is a national rulemaking with estimated regional effects, local effects to low-income and minority populations cannot be determined until a site-specific permit is issued. OSM, USEPA, USACE, and state mining departments are required to initiate public outreach for all interested parties when a coal mining permit action is being considered. Those public outreach activities could include a public notice of a permit action, a public meeting or hearing about the action, and provision of environmental documentation, such as a NEPA-compliant environmental assessment or EIS. All stakeholders are provided this information and outreach opportunities, and OSM, by following the DOI Environmental Justice Action Plan in practice, ensures that low-income and minority communities have the same access to information as other communities. 4.2.6.4 Utilities and Infrastructure For Alternative 2, the most protective alternative, potential impacts to utilities and infrastructure would be greatest compared to the other alternatives. Effects on utilities and transportation infrastructure are discussed in terms of estimated production losses. The discussion is focused on each of the seven coal-producing basins (Mining Impact Model – Current Coal Production and Estimate of Tonnage and Energy Losses (All Alternatives)). 4.2.6.4.1 Utilities Alternative 2 would directly (by reducing the water and wastewater treatment demand from closing surface mines) or indirectly (by reducing residential demand through out-of-work people leaving the area) reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states. Utilities such as water and wastewater treatment plants may be positively affected because reducing the amount of water to be treated could improve the performance of wastewater systems, extending the life of on-site systems, improving performance of treatment plants that have flows near design capacity, and reducing operating costs of treatment plants. Communities that may have faced costs of building new wastewater facilities may no longer face such costs. Reduced need for treatment capacity could also have consequences such as the reduction in employees at treatment facilities or the reduced need for potentially costly system retrofits. More specific effects at the basin level are discussed below.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-105

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Appalachian Basin Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Appalachian Basin by 40% and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. All eight coal-producing states in the Appalachian Basin would be affected by eliminating surface mining. Most affected would be Maryland, where 74% of the current production would be eliminated. Least affected would be Pennsylvania, where 18% of the current production would be eliminated. Colorado Plateau Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Colorado Plateau Basin by 38% and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Most affected would be Arizona, where 100% of the mining would be eliminated. Least affected would be Utah, where underground mining is the sole mining method used. Utah’s coal production would not be affected by implementation of Alternative 2. In Colorado, 24% of current production would be eliminated. In New Mexico, 73% of the current production would be eliminated. Gulf Coast Alternative 2 would eliminate coal production in the Gulf Region and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Illinois Basin Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Illinois Basin by 35% and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Most affected would be Indiana, where 66% of the current production would be eliminated. Less affected would be Illinois and the western part of Kentucky, where 18% and 16%, respectively, of the current production would be eliminated. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin by 99% and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. In Montana and North Dakota, 100% of the mining would be eliminated, while in Wyoming 99% of the current production would be eliminated. Northwest Alternative 2 would eliminate 100% of the coal produced in Alaska and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-106

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Other Western Interior Alternative 2 would eliminate 100% of the coal produced in each of the three states in this basin and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity. 4.2.6.4.2 Transportation Infrastructure Alternative 2 would result in a 53% decrease in coal production in terms of tonnage throughout the United States. All current modes of transportation would be affected by this decline. Impacts to each primary mode of coal transportation (rail, barge, and road) are presented below by basin. Rail and road transportation of coal would be disproportionately affected by implementation of Alternative 2, resulting in a cumulative reduction of 85% of all U.S. rail shipments and 67% of all U.S. road shipments of coal. Barge shipments of coal would have a cumulative reduction of 38%. 4.2.6.4.2.1 Appalachian Basin Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Appalachian Basin by 40% and would directly reduce the demand for rail transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the eight states in the Appalachian Basin shipped approximately 23% of the total short tons of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin under Alternative 2 would affect more than 9% of all rail shipments of coal nationwide. Affected rail lines would include CSX and Norfolk Southern. In terms of tonnage, 85% of these production losses would be in West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, which stand to lose approximately 70 MMtons, 46 MMtons, and 12 MMtons, respectively. Rail in eastern Kentucky accounts for 78% of this area’s coal transportation. Rail is the predominant shipping method in West Virginia and Pennsylvania and in all states in the Appalachian Basin except Maryland and Ohio, which rely primarily on road transportation. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep areas of west-central Pennsylvania, south-central Kentucky, and south-central Tennessee and northern Alabama operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. Colorado Plateau Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Colorado Plateau Basin by 38% and would directly reduce the demand for rail transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the Colorado Plateau Basin shipped over 58 million short tons of coal by rail in 2008, which represents approximately 8% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Colorado Plateau Basin
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Rail

4-107

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

under Alternative 2 would affect approximately 3% of all U.S. rail shipments of coal. In the Colorado Plateau Basin, rail is the predominant mode of coal transport; nearly twice as much coal is shipped by rail (58 million short tons) than by all other modes of transport in this basin (31 million short tons). Under Alternative 2, 100% of the mining in Arizona would be eliminated, all of which currently relies on rail transportation. In Colorado, 24% of the current production would be eliminated, 13% of which relies of rail. In New Mexico, 73% of the current production would be eliminated, 55% of which relies on rail. Affected rail lines would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep rail corridors bisecting New Mexico and Arizona, and in northeastern Colorado and southwestern Utah, operating at LOS A, B, and C. As noted in the discussion of the Appalachian Basin, improvement projects may still be required, but the costs may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. Gulf Coast Implementation of Alternative 2 would eliminate coal production in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Rail is the least predominant mode of coal transit in the Gulf Coast Basin and is only used in Texas. Mines in Texas shipped over 2 million short tons of coal by rail in 2008, which represents approximately 0.3% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIS, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Gulf Region by 100% would affect only 0.3% of all U.S. rail shipments of coal. In Texas, rail lines affected by implementation of Alternative 2 would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep rail corridors in Texas operating at LOS A, B, and C. As noted in discussion of the Appalachian Basin, improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. Illinois Basin Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Illinois Basin by 35% and would directly reduce the demand for rail transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the three states in the Illinois Basin shipped approximately 6% of the total short tons of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Rail is the predominant mode of coal hauling from Indiana. Reducing coal production from the Illinois Basin under Alternative 2 would affect more than 2% of all U.S. rail shipments of coal. Affected rail lines in this basin would include CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, and Union Pacific. In terms of tonnage, nearly

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-108

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

70% of the production losses in this basin will come from Indiana, which relies on rail transportation for 62% of its coal shipments. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads throughout Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky operating at LOS categories A, B, or C, especially at notable river crossings, where LOS categories are already at capacity. As noted in discussion of the Appalachian Basin, improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Implementation of Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin by 99% and would directly reduce the demand for rail transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. In Montana and North Dakota, 100% of mining would be eliminated, while in Wyoming, 99% of current production would be eliminated. Mines in the four states in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin shipped approximately 63% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). This basin is the predominant user of rail in the United States. Wyoming alone shipped over 58% of the coal shipped by rail in the United States. Reducing coal production from the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin by 99% would affect more than 62% of all U.S. rail shipments of coal. Affected rail lines would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. Northwest Implementation of Alternative 2 would eliminate 100% of the coal produced in this basin, and would eliminate the demand for rail transportation this region. Based on the small amount of coal shipped by rail in this region (less than 0.1%), this reduction would not be expected to significantly affect rail transportation of coal on a national level (EIA, 2008). Other Western Interior Implementation of Alternative 2 would eliminate 100% of the coal produced in the four states in this basin and would directly reduce the demand for rail transportation in the entire basin. Mines
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-109

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

in the four states in the Other Western Interior Basin shipped approximately 0.5% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Affected rail lines would include BNSF and Union Pacific. A reduction of less than 0.05% of all U.S. rail shipments of coal would not be expected to significantly affect the rail industry. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads in the Other Western Interior Basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. 4.2.6.4.2.2 Appalachian Basin Mines in the eight states in the Appalachian Basin shipped approximately 66% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008, making the Appalachian Basin the predominant user of river transportation (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin under Alternative 2 would correspond to a reduction of more than 26% of all U.S. barge shipments of coal. West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Pennsylvania depend on barge shipments for approximately 23%, 11%, and 21% of their coal shipments, respectively. In Ohio and Alabama combined, barge shipments of coal account for nearly 30% of coal transportation. In the Appalachian Basin, only Maryland does not use barge transportation as a shipment method for coal. Under Alternative 2, a reduction of barge shipments of coal in the Appalachian Basin would significantly affect the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways. Colorado Plateau Mines in the four states in the Colorado Plateau Basin shipped nearly 2 million short tons of coal by river in 2008. This number represents approximately 2% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008. The vast majority of coal shipped by river originated in Colorado (1.7 million short tons), with a minor amount shipped by river from Utah (3,000 short tons; EIA, 2010). The largest impact would be in Colorado, where river transit of up to 650,000 short tons of coal produced in Colorado could be affected by implementation of Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, a reduction of barge shipments of coal would have a limited impact on the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at the national level. Barge

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-110

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Gulf Coast Mines in the three states in the Gulf Coast Basin did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under Alternative 2, reductions in production in the Gulf Coast Basin would not affect barge transit on a basin or national level. Illinois Basin Mines in the three states in the Illinois Basin shipped approximately 32% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008 (USDOE-EIA, 2010), making it second only to the Appalachian Basin in terms of barge use. Under Alternative 2, Indiana would be most affected, where 66% of the current production would be eliminated. In Illinois and the western part of Kentucky, 18% and 16% of the current production tonnages, respectively, would be eliminated. Reducing coal production from the Illinois Basin under Alternative 2 would correspond to a reduction of more than 11% of all U.S. barge shipments of coal. Barge is the predominant mode of coal hauling from Illinois, comprising approximately 48% of coal shipments from this state (EIA, 2008). Indiana and western Kentucky depend on barge shipments for approximately 7% and 13% of their coal shipments, respectively. A reduction of more than 11% of all U.S. barge shipments of coal would significantly affect the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at the national level. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin by 99% and would directly reduce the demand for barge transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the four states in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains shipped only a nominal amount (<1%) of the total tonnage of coal shipped by barge nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Only Montana ships coal by barge (34,000 short tons), and under Alternative 2, coal mining from Montana would be eliminated, reducing the amount of barge transit from this basin by 34,000 short tons. Under Alternative 2, barge transit in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plans Basin would be eliminated; however, based on the small amount of coal shipped by barge in this region, this reduction would not be expected to significantly affect barge transportation of coal on a national level. Northwest Mines in the Northwest Basin did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under Alternative 2, reductions in production in the Northwest Basin would not affect barge transit on a basin or national level.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-111

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Other Western Interior Mines in the four states in the Other Western Interior Basin did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under Alternative 2, reductions in production in the Other Western Interior Basin would not affect barge transit on a basin or national level. 4.2.6.4.2.3 Appalachian Basin Implementation of Alternative 2 would directly reduce the demand for road transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the eight states in the Appalachian Basin shipped approximately 43% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin under Alternative 2 would correspond to a reduction of more than 17% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal and would significantly affect the trucking industry. Tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks would decrease, and the need for maintaining roadways would be reduced. In terms of tonnage, 85% of the production losses associated with implementing Alternative 2 would be in West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, which stand to lose approximately 70 MM tons, 46 MM tons, and 12 MM tons, respectively. West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Pennsylvania depend on truck shipments for approximately 22%, 11%, and 25% of their coal shipments, respectively. In Maryland and Ohio, truck shipments of coal account for nearly 96% and 66% of coal transportation, respectively. Colorado Plateau Mines in the four states in the basin shipped approximately 14% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Colorado Plateau Basin under Alternative 2 would correspond to a reduction of more than 5% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. No impacts to truck shipping in Arizona and Utah would occur under Alternative 2, as rail transit accounts for all of Arizona’s and Utah’s coal shipments. Truck transit would be affected in New Mexico, where 55% of this state’s production is shipped by truck, and Colorado, where 13% of production is shipped by truck. A reduction of 5% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal under Alternative 2 would significantly affect the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Reduction in truck traffic would not necessarily negate the need for road infrastructure improvements near Gallup, New Mexico, in McKinley County (discussed in Section 3.17), where truck transit is limited due to moderate to severe congestion. Gulf Coast Mines in the Gulf Coast Basin shipped approximately 20% of the total volume of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Therefore, under Alternative 2, eliminating coal production from the Gulf Region would correspond to a reduction of more than 20% of all U.S.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Road

4-112

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

truck shipments of coal. Truck hauling is the predominant mode of coal transit in the Gulf Coast Basin, comprising 100%, 83%, and 15% of the coal shipments originating in Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana, respectively. Under Alternative 2, demand for road transportation in the Gulf Region would be substantially decreased. A reduction of 20% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal would have a substantial impact on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Illinois Basin Mines in the three states in the Illinois Basin shipped approximately 48% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Illinois Basin by 35% would affect nearly 16% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. In terms of tonnage, truck transit is the predominant mode of coal hauling from western Kentucky, comprising approximately 73% of the transportation of coal produced in this area. In Indiana and Illinois, truck transit accounts for 19% and 31% of the total coal transportation, respectively. Under Alternative 2, demand for road transportation in the Illinois Basin would markedly decrease. A reduction of 16% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal would have a substantial impact on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 2 would directly reduce the demand for truck transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the four states in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin shipped approximately 8% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin under Alternative 2 would affect nearly 8% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. Under Alternative 2, demand for road transportation in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin would markedly decrease. A reduction of nearly 8% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal would significantly affect the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Northwest Mines in the Northwest Basin shipped 283,000 short tons of coal by truck in 2008. This represents approximately 0.16% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2008). Based on the small amount of coal shipped by truck in this region, this

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-113

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

reduction would not be expected to significantly affect truck transportation of coal on a national level. Under Alternative 2, road transportation of coal in the Northwest Basin would be eliminated. A reduction of less than 0.2% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal would not be expected to significantly affect the truck transit industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, or the need for maintaining roadways; however, local (state) impacts would occur. Other Western Interior Mines in the four states in the Other Western Interior Basin shipped less than 1% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (USDOE-EIA, 2010). Based on this small amount of truck transit, under Alternative 2 reductions in production in the Other Western Interior Basin would not be expected to significantly affect the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, or the need for maintaining roadways. Summary Across all basins, Alternative 2 would result in a cumulative reduction of approximately 67% of all U.S. road shipments of coal. Impacts on the trucking industry would be significant, as would impacts on the tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways.

4.2.7

Occupational and Public Health and Safety

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in elimination of all surface mining and all coal production shifting to underground mining 4.2.7.1 Safety Impacts Occupational Safety Figure 4.2.7-1 shows the projected number of fatalities based on the projected production shifts. Implementation of Alternative 2 would likely increase fatalities associated with increased underground mining in the Illinois Basin, Colorado Plateau, and Gulf Region, while fatalities associated with underground mining in the Appalachian Basin would be expected to remain about the same.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-114

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 Figure 4.2.7-1. Projected Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1

4 5 6 7 Figure 4.2.7-2 shows the projected number of non-fatal days of lost injuries based on the projected production shifts. Implementation of Alternative 2 would not likely increase non-fatal days of lost injuries associated with increased underground mining.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-115

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.2.7-2.

Projected Average Number of Non-Fatal Days of Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Public Safety Implementation of Alternative 2 would likely have beneficial effects on public safety incidents nationwide based on the projected production shifts. The Other Western Interior Basin and the Northwest Basin would be expected to receive the greatest beneficial effects due to the projected elimination of coal mining in these basins. 4.2.7.2 Health Impacts Occupational Health Figure 4.2.7-3 shows the projected average number of illnesses per year based on projected production shifts under Alternative 2. Implementation of Alternative 2 still would likely result in lung and trauma illness associated with increased underground mining methods as the greatest adverse impact on coal miner health.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-116

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.2.7-3.

Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 4.2.7-4 shows the projected disorders associated with repeated trauma based on projected production shifts under Alternative 2. Implementation of Alternative 2 would likely cause increased repeated trauma disorders nationwide where underground mining is projected to increase. Figure 4.2.7-5 shows projected lung disease occurrence by coal basin. As with repeated trauma disorders, implementation of Alternative 2 would likely cause increased lung disease occurrences nationwide where underground mining is projected to increase. The most significant changes are projected in the Illinois Basin.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-117

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.2.7-4.

Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1

2

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-118

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.2.7-5.

Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Health Implementation of Alternative 2 would likely have beneficial effects on public health incidents nationwide based on the projected production shifts. The Other Western Interior Basin and the Northwest Basin would be expected to receive the greatest beneficial effects because of the projected elimination of coal mining in these basins.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

4.3
4.3.1

ALTERNATIVE 3
Coal Resources and Mining

While less restrictive than Alternative 2, coal production and mining methods are still anticipated to be affected under Alternative 3. There are three significant differences between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, which may allow for additional production under Alternative 3. First, Alternative 3 would allow mining activities in or near streams, including placement of fill material, if the mine operator provides mitigation. Second, material damage to the hydrologic
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-119

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

balance (including damage caused by subsidence) could be allowed as long as those impacts can be mitigated or otherwise repaired prior to bond release. Third, AOC variances would be allowed in certain circumstances, as long as the applicant can show that mining impacts under an AOC variance would be no greater than if the mined area was returned to AOC. These three factors increase production figures significantly over those production figures predicted under Alternative 2. 4.3.1.1 Water Elements Surface mining in the Appalachian Basin and Illinois Basin may experience a significant decrease if operators are unable to provide adequate mitigation or show the RA that restoration of form and function of an affected stream is possible. Some argue that it is impossible to restore a stream to its pre-mining condition (form and function) after disturbance. Mine operators may be hesitant to accept a permit with this condition due to the possibility that form and function cannot be restored, which would prevent the operator from receiving a complete bond release. Surface mining in the Gulf Region may be completely eliminated due to the large-scale surface area methods used, which may completely destroy the stream segment that is mined through. Underground mining may also experience a shift, but this shift would be an increase in production and likely an increase in the use of the room-and-pillar method. Using room-andpillar (without conducting retreat operations), will minimize the possibility of subsidence under intermittent and perennial streams, which may cause material damage. Longwall mining, which, due to the depth of the mined seam, is not predicted to cause subsidence, may also be acceptable and much more economical than the room-and-pillar method. Increases in underground mining production would be needed to make up for lost caloric values due to the predicted reduction in surface mining methods. Corrective action thresholds under this alternative would attempt to identify trends in water quality and quantity through quarterly sampling prior to material damage occurring. Upon reaching the corrective action threshold, the operator would be required to develop a corrective action plan to prevent material damage. This could have a positive impact on the environment by identifying potential problems beforehand, rather than trying to correct them after the fact. Operators may also benefit by knowing what impacts are occurring during the operation, which may eventually lead to material damage, and by avoiding the significant costs involved with remediating that damage. 4.3.1.2 Land Elements To make up for caloric (BTU) values lost in the Appalachian Basin and Illinois Basin regions under this alternative, it is possible that surface mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Colorado Plateau will experience increases in surface mining production, primarily using the area method. Because this alternative would retain the current thin overburden AOC variance, it is not anticipated that surface mining in these regions would be negatively affected from a production standpoint. Contour mining operations in the steep slope areas may also experience a decrease under Alternative 3, unless the applicant can safely backfill
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-120

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

the highwall to approximate pre-mining slope, aspect and elevation. Mountaintop removal mining (MTR) would likely be curtailed under this alternative due to stream frequencies where MTR operations occur, and because upper stream reaches would be completely eliminated, leaving the operator unable to restore form and function. Surface mining may also decrease in those regions where AOC restoration is an issue due to increased costs associated with the various surface configuration and fill requirements under Alternative 3. Implementation of the construction techniques and landforming requirements under this alternative carry increased mining costs. Operators may find it uneconomical to conduct surface operations in some regions when coal can be mined cheaper, at a higher profit margin, and with less risk in regions where these surface configuration requirements are less of an issue. 4.3.1.3 Other Elements The other elements described in this alternative (including revegetation, topsoil management, fish and wildlife enhancement, baseline data collection, and monitoring) are likely to have little impact on mining methods across the regions. These elements will likely enhance the environment compared to the No Action Alternative, as native species will be reestablished, topsoil material will be composed and placed in accordance with a detailed site plan, and fish and wildlife habitat will be enhanced inside and outside the permit area. Additional baseline data and monitoring requirements would provide environmental protection by identifying high value resources and ensuring those resources are protected throughout the life of the operation through reclamation. Enhanced monitoring requirements would also alert operators and RAs to material damage potential before it occurs. Mining operators will experience increased costs due to these additional requirements, but these costs are not likely to cause a change in mining method or shift in production. Estimated production impacts and associated acreages impacted yearly by mining operations at the time of full implementation of Alternative 3 is therefore projected to be consistent with Table 4.3.1-1.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-121

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.3.1-1
Region

Final Production Impacts, Alternate 3
Final Production (MMton/yr) Underground Surface 83.5 33 6 26 618 1 0 768 Total 350 97 6 100 622 1 0 1,177

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

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total

267 64 0 74 4.2 0 0 409

4.3.2

Geomorphology and Topography
4.3.2.1 Water Elements

Water Elements under Alternative 3 require restoration of form and function or mitigation to prevent material damage and to mine in or near or fill a stream. As described in Section 4.2.1, these requirements are expected to shift almost one half of surface production away from the Appalachian Basin, about three-fourths of surface production away from the Gulf Region, and increase surface production in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains by 15%. Underground production is expected to increase by 9-15% in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Appalachian Basin, the Illinois Basin, and the Colorado Plateau to compensate for the lost surface production in the regions mentioned above. As a result, acreages impacted by mining will increase and decrease according to the projected shifts in production in each region and topographic impacts based on the act of mining by surface or underground methods in those regions will be impacted accordingly. 4.3.2.2 Land Elements The Land Elements under Alternative 3 would require a host of new practices designed to minimize excess spoil, improve stability of fills, and achieve more natural post-mining topography. The Land Elements would also place more strict requirements on obtaining AOC variances for mountaintop removal mining and steep slope mining. The effects of these elements are described below. Like Alternative 1, Alternative 3 requires that excess spoil fills and fill footprints be minimized and the amount of spoil returned to the mined out area be maximized. As described in the Land Elements section under Alternative 1, fill minimization requirements are expected to reduce the number and size of valley fills by reducing the amount of excess spoil generated by the mining
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-122

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

operation and encouraging excess spoil disposal on old mine benches. Although fill minimization policies currently exist in some states, because the fill minimization requirements in Alternative 3 would apply to all mining operations they would have a broader impact than the policies currently in place, which only apply to certain types of operations. In addition, Alternative 3’s fill minimization requirements would be enforceable by the regulatory authority, whereas state policies are only guidance documents. As described under Alternative 1, fill minimization requirements also raise additional concerns related to fill stability, particularly in relation to durable rock fills, which are formed by end dumping or wing dumping excess spoil and relying on gravity to segregate large-sized durable rock to create a drainage system in the lower third of the fill. Because Alternative 3 would prohibit uncontrolled placement of spoil material, including end dumping and wing dumping, the stability concerns raised in Alternative 1 in relation to durable rock fills would be inapplicable. Because durable rock fills are the predominant fill construction method in steep slope Central Appalachia, it is expected that fill construction would change significantly in this region. Alternative 3 would also require the use of landforming principles in mine reclamation and would define “landforming” to mean “a design and grading technique that attempts to replicate the appearance and ecological function of the natural terrain by constructing slopes, drainage ways, and other landforms that blend in with the natural surroundings in an environmentally compatible fashion while meeting any relevant stability requirements.” The goals of landforming as part of mine reclamation, according to Schor and Gray (2007), are to replace artificial embankments, ridges, and depressions with “stable landforms that are visually compatible with the surrounding natural landscape and in harmony with regional vegetation patterns and surface hydrology.” Federal regulations currently require the mine operator to return the land to AOC post-mining, meaning the reclaimed area “closely resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining and blends into and compliments the drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain . . . .” (30 CFR 701.5) As noted by Michael, et al. (2010), other regulations take into account natural pre-mining site conditions and the natural characteristics of the area surrounding the mine site. These include: 30 CFR 816.43(a)(3), which requires that permanent drainage and diversion channels be designed and constructed to restore or approximate the original stream channel; 30 CFR 816.71(a)(3), requiring that excess spoil fills are “suitable for reclamation and revegetation compatible with the natural surroundings and approved postmining land use.”; and 30 CFR 816.71(e)(4) and 816.102(h), which, respectively, allow small depression on excess spoil fills and backfills to be constructed in order to retain moisture, minimize erosion, assist vegetation, or create or enhance wildlife habitat. However, the restoration of AOC and the construction of valley fills, especially in steep slope areas, has generally focused on immediate stabilization based upon sound engineering principles and the control of drainage. Traditional reclamation is characterized by grading techniques that contain linear drainage patterns, while fills are often constructed in a dam or embankment type design with uniform slope ratios. There is generally not an attempt during reclamation to mimic
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-123

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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 natural topographic and geomorphic characteristics of the land that existed prior to mining or to recreate preexisting natural hydrology. Landforming principles would require reclamation to replicate natural terrain patterns and geomorphic processes, which would allow natural processes post-mining to proceed at rates that would be typical of undisturbed landscapes of similar topography. Additional benefits of landforming include long-term drainage stabilization and minimization of erosion potential, enhancement and diversity of vegetation, reduction in long-term maintenance, and topographic diversity. (Schor and Gray, 2007) Landforming and geomorphic reclamation practices are currently included in policy and guidance documents in at least two states. New Mexico has implemented guidance that specifically identifies principles of geomorphic reclamation in approving post-mining terrain that is reclaimed to AOC. Specifically, “The MMD [New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division] considers that a geomorphic approach to backfilling and grading is the best technology currently available (BTCA) for stabilizing coal mine reclamation.” (New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, “A Method for the Evaluation of Compliance with the Approximate Original Contour Requirements of CSMC Rule 19.8 NMAC” (January 2010)). Successful geomorphic reclamation projects, such as the La Plata Mine in 2006, have been conducted in the state. In addition, Virginia’s guidance on restoring AOC includes landform grading as an option for restoring AOC, as long as Virginia’s excess spoil minimization requirements are met. (Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of Mined Land Reclamation, Guidance Memorandum 4-02 (2002)). It is recognized that reclamation using landforming principles may be more costly, particularly in up-front costs as engineers and other professionals become familiar with the new requirements. Schor and Gray (2007) estimate that costs could temporarily increase by 10 to 15 percent, but would be reduced to 1 to 5 percent over time, as familiarity increased and training was initiated. Grading costs, as noted by Schor and Gray (2007), while dependent on a variety of factors including the experience of the contractor and cooperation and understanding of the regulating agency, have typically experienced a cost increase of approximately 0.5 percent per volume of 1 million cubic yards of earth movement. Special concerns with landforming and geomorphic reclamation have been identified in the Appalachian Basin by Michael, et al (2010). First, excess spoil minimization requirements, as contained within Alternative 3 and currently issued guidance documents in Central Appalachian states, may run counter to landforming principles. Fill minimization seeks to minimize stream impacts, which results in the toes of valley fills begin placed as high as possible within hollows. However, natural geomorphic processes tend to concentrate colluviums (sediment transported downslope by gravity) near the bottoms of slopes, meaning that replicating nature should result in valley fills being built further downstream. However, landforming principles would not necessarily necessitate stream burial, since streams affected by the placement of excess spoil could be restored.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-124

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Michael, et al (2010) also note that while landforming tends to impart greater stability than uniform, planar slopes that are typical of the fills in Appalachia, the region is characterized by mountains and hills that are naturally unstable and subject to mass movement. They emphasize that ensuring stability of excess spoil fills and backfill will be imperitive to successful landforming in Appalachia. However, Alternative 3’s prohibition on end dumping and wing dumping would eliminate the types of fills that are most prone to instability. Landforming requirements would also place limitations on the disposal of coal refuse. Coal slurry impoundments would not be able to meet the requirements relating to landforming since they are embankment structures that could not be landformed. Coarse refuse fills could continue to be constructed, but would be subject to the landforming requirements. Alternative 3 would also require digital terrain models of pre-mining landforms in the permit application. Digital terrain models allow for the evaluation of landscape stability and evolution over various periods of time, unlike more traditional slope stability analyses. Digital terrain modeling can be used to assess erosion losses, drainage patterns, and long-term stability of landforms and landform designs over time, thus providing the regulatory authority with a more detailed perspective of the pre-mining topography and geomorphology. However, the benefits of requiring digital terrain models in the permit application would depend on the regulatory authority’s ability to use this information. State budgetary, time, and staff constraints could prohibit the effectiveness of this requirement.3 Possibly more beneficial is the requirement in Alternative 3 to use documentation of topographic measurements to compare pre-mining and post-mining land configuration in determining AOC. This requirement would provide a level of enforcement that does not currently exist in the regulatory framework and would allow for a more accurate and reproducible way to conclude that AOC has been achieved. Alternative 3 would also define AOC to include slope, aspect, and elevation, and allow original elevations to be exceeded when necessary to restore premining topography and/or reduce the volume of excess spoil. Although some states already allow premining elevations to be exceeded when necessary, these requirements would allow operators nationwide more flexibility in returning land to AOC while minimizing excess spoil, but could place limitations on or contradict principles of landforming principles, as described above. The additional requirements placed on AOC variances for mountaintop removal mining and step slope operations would not affect topography, since they are focused on protection of water quality. However, where the more stringent requirements would prohibit AOC variance that would have been granted under the current regulations, more land would be returned to AOC under the more environmentally beneficial landforming requirements. Thus, mountainous land
3 See OSM Lexington Field Office, “Evaluation Year 2010 Regional Study Approximate Original Contour and Post-Mining Land Use in Kentucky” (December 2010) (Noting that the technologies of aerial and digital mapping were currently prohibitive for use in determining AOC in the field since the requirements of highly technical staff, timeliness, and costs limit their usefulness).

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-125

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

in the Appalachian Basin that would have been reclaimed to flat or gently rolling plateaus could be reclaimed using landforming and fill minimization practices if they could not meet the more stringent requirements for obtaining a variance.

4.3.3

Water Resource Areas
4.3.3.1 Water Elements 4.3.3.1.1 Physical Impacts 4.3.3.1.1.1 Water Resource Planning

Under Alternative 3, the national net coal production would increase by 0.6% from the baseline (Alternative 1). On a national scale, water availability and usage impacts would likely be negligible based on this modest increase in coal production and on the fact that coal-related water withdrawals constitute less than 1% of total withdrawals within each region (USGS, 2005). Water availability and usage impacts may vary by region, depending on net coal production changes and specific regulatory elements related to water. Under Alternative 3, net coal production increases from the baseline in three regions—the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains (14.8%), the Illinois Basin (1.3%), and the Colorado Plateau (7.7%)—and decreases in four regions—the Appalachian Basin (−10.2%), the Gulf region (−86.9%), Western Interior (−100%), and Northwest (−32.3%). In regions where coal production increases, coal-related water withdrawals may increase, adversely affecting water availability. However, the production increases from the baseline (Alternative 1) are relatively modest (1.3%–14.8%). Water usage and availability impacts may be beneficial in regions where coal production decreases, particularly in the Western Interior and Gulf regions, with decreases of 100% and 86.9%, respectively. This decline in production could result in a decrease of coal mining-related water withdrawals and usage, allowing water that would have been used for coal production to be used for other beneficial uses. However, it is likely that both adverse and beneficial impacts to water availability and usage under this alternative will be limited and not regionwide, since coal mining-related water withdrawals constitute less than 1% of total withdrawals within each region (USGS, 2005). However, regulatory elements may affect water availability under this alternative. Activities may be allowed within 100 feet of streams as long as the operator provides mitigation by restoring ecological form and function. This alternative may be more protective of water availability than Alternative 1, since impacts to streams, if allowed, would be mitigated. Baseline flow measurements would be required to be collected for 12 months under this alternative, unlike Alternative 1. However, this requirement is not as protective as Alternative 2, which requires 24 months of baseline data collection as well as continuous stream monitoring. Unlike Alternative 1, off-site hydrological damage would be prohibited unless it could be mitigated or repaired. Monitoring requirements would be more advanced than in Alternative 1. Lastly, corrective action thresholds would be established based on baseline and monitoring data. Under this alternative, trends indicating that the threshold may be met may trigger corrective actions. In
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-126

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

summary, Alternative 3’s regulatory elements would generally be more protective of water availability than those of Alternative 1. Drinking water quality impacts will vary by region under this alternative based on coal production changes. Water quality, as a measure of NPDES and SDWA violations, may improve in regions where net coal production is reduced from the baseline, since there is less likelihood of adverse impacts. Likewise, water quality may be adversely affected in regions where coal production increases. It is likely that any significant beneficial or adverse impacts will be limited to local impacts. Impacts to drinking water quality would depend on local water supply resources and quality. Water quality may be affected by applicable regulatory elements under this alternative. The collection of 12 months of water quality baseline data, as well as the use of monitoring data and the establishment of corrective action thresholds, would ensure that water quality threshold impacts are avoided. The regulatory requirements under this alternative are likely more protective than Alternative 1 (No Action). 4.3.3.1.1.2 Surface Water Hydrology

Under Alternative 3, there is a predicted decrease in surface coal production, with the majority of percentage loss in the Gulf and Appalachian Basin regions, at 87% and 47%, respectively, compared to Alternative 1. Surface mining in the Illinois Basin is predicted to decrease by approximately 24% compared to Alternative 1. A 15% increase in underground mining is expected to replace surface mining production losses, thereby increasing overall coal production by 0.5% above Alternative 1 estimates. Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 may have more of a hydrologic impact due to the lesser overall reduction in both surface and underground mining. Hydrologic Impacts An increase in surface mining for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains in response to a nearly 50% decrease in surface mining in the Appalachian Basin may reduce hydrologic impacts through a reduction of disturbed acres from 140 acres per MMtons to only 15 acres per MMtons for a total reduction in surface-mined acreage of approximately 9,300 acres year. Likewise, to a lesser extent, a shift in surface mining in the Gulf Coast to the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains may decrease hydrologic impacts associated with 70 acres per MMtons compared to 15 acres per MMtons for a total reduction in surface-mined acreage of approximately 2,200 acres per year. Hence, disregarding the minor surface mining changes in the Colorado Plateau, the total reduction, with expected associated hydrologic reductions, for Alternative 3, is 11,500 acres per year, compared with Alternative 1. An overall increase of 15% in underground mining in Alternative 3, compared with Alternative 1, in all regions capable of underground mining, may decrease surface hydrologic impacts. The major decreases in surface hydrologic impacts would be realized in the Appalachian Basin and the Gulf Region. In the Gulf Region, mining would essentially be nonexistent. In the
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-127

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Appalachian Basin, hydrologic impacts may be reduced overall, but certainly there would be a shift from surface hydrologic impacts to those associated with underground mining, such as reduced surface effects associated with underground mining and mine seeps. In the Illinois Basin, there would be a nearly proportional shift in coal production from surface mining to underground mining, thereby decreasing direct hydrologic surface effects and increasing the potential for groundwater-surface water interactions. Stream Length Impacts Similar to hydrologic surface impacts, there may be a decrease in stream lengths affected in Alternative 3, compared to Alternative 1. The major shifts would be a decrease in stream lengths affected in the Appalachian Basin, from approximately 28 miles per year to 15 miles per year. A corresponding increase in potential stream impacts in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains of only 2.4 miles per year is expected based on an increase in surface mining coal production. For the Gulf Region, annual stream loss is expected to decrease by approximately 5 miles per year under Alternative 2 compared with Alternative 1. 4.3.3.1.1.3 Groundwater Hydrology

Table 4.3.3-6 presents the predicted stream impacts calculated by the production shift mathematical model described in further detail under Coal Resources and Mining consequences. Values for percentage of public supply from groundwater and percentage of domestic selfsupplied groundwater were calculated from population data extracted from 2005 U.S. Geological Survey water-use data, http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005, downloaded September 16, 2010.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-128

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.3.3-1

Anticipated Regional Stream Impacts for Alternative 3 Stream (mi/yr) Impacts 52.52 8.12 0.79 12.62 12.16 0.03 0 % Change from Alt 1 −25.91 1.82 −86.94 −12.62 14.79 −84.07 −100.00 % Public Supply GW Use 13.24 13.54 6.45 7.75 20.69 0.00 1.22 % Domestic Supply GW 16.53 18.51 30.94 14.99 6.89 18.21 6.85

Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Alternative 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

Under Alternative 3, coal production would decrease compared with the No Action Alternative and the area disturbed and stream lengths affected would be expected to decrease by approximately 26%. Similar to the groundwater hydrology discussion under Alternative 2, groundwater quality improvements would be expected when compared with the No Action Alternative, although not as much as under Alternative 2. Likewise, water recharge rates would decrease under this alternative compared with the No Action Alternative, but not as much as under Alternative 2. Under this alternative, acres of land disturbed and stream length impacts in the Colorado Plateau Region would be relatively the same as under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, no appreciable impact changes in the Colorado Plateau would be anticipated when compared with the No Action Alternative. Similar to the groundwater hydrology discussion under Alternative 2 for the Gulf Coast region, acres disturbed and stream lengths affected would be significantly less than under the No Action Alternative; however, groundwater improvements would not be expected to improve significantly. Groundwater quality in the Illinois Basin would not be anticipated to improve significantly under this alternative, since most of the groundwater in the area is already degraded. Groundwater quantity could be slightly decreased when compared with the No Action Alternative due to the projected 13% decrease in mining and thus fewer permeable spoil sites available for infiltration.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-129

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Coal production in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region for Alternative 3 is predicted to increase compared with the No Action Alternative, and acres disturbed and stream lengths affected would increase by approximately 15%. This predicted increase would result in increased impacts to groundwater; however, similar to the discussion under Alternative 2, these impacts could be considered temporary. Under Alternative 3, coal production in the Northwest region is anticipated to be reduced by approximately 84%. Thus groundwater impacts under this alternative would be less than for the No Action Alternative; however, they are already relatively insignificant. Under this alternative, coal production in the Other Western Interior is anticipated to be reduced to zero. Thus groundwater impacts under this alternative would be less than for the No Action Alternative; however, they are already relatively insignificant. 4.3.3.1.2 Chemical Impacts 4.3.3.1.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 3 from the water elements included in the DEIS analysis (1) Stream Definition, (2) activities In or Near Streams, (3) Definition OF Material Damage to the Hydrologic Balance, (4) Mining Through Streams, and (5) Corrective Action Thresholds). For Alternative 3, potential water quality impacts will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Under Alternative 3, surface coal production is predicted to be reduced in all regions by 4% to 100%, except in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where a 15% increase in surface coal production is predicted. As a result, coal mining activities in or near streams and mining through streams would be expected to be reduced under Alternative 3. Hence, under this alternative, some level of improvement in surface water quality near mine sites would be expected in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where a decrease in surface water quality would be expected. 4.3.3.1.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality impacts under Alternative 3 are likely to vary among regions. An increase in impacts compared with Alternative 1 (No Action) may occur in four regions—Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau— because underground coal production is predicted to increase by 15% in these regions to compensate for reduced surface coal production. Impacts in the remaining regions would likely be reduced or remain the same compared with Alternative 1 because underground coal production is predicted to be unchanged (Gulf Coast and Northwest regions) or decrease (Other Western Interior region).

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-130

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.3.3.2 Land Elements 4.3.3.2.1 Physical Impacts 4.3.3.2.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology With a major decrease in surface coal mining production in the Appalachian Basin, there may be a substantial decrease in hydrologic impacts associated with valley fills in that nearly half the number of fills are expected to be constructed under Alternative 3 compared with Alternative 1. Runoff volume and peak flow associated with traditionally constructed fills are expected to be proportionally reduced. Likewise, the increased water flow during the summer and fall would be reduced, with the elimination of a portion of these traditionally built fills. With the provision for elimination of end dumping and wing dumping, there would be an expectation for implementation of new fill construction techniques that incorporate identification and isolation of both acid-producing and high conductivity-producing spoils, as well as compaction of the crown such that a low permeability layer is achieved. If new fill designs would be incorporated in the Appalachian Basin, then the hydrologic impacts associated with traditionally constructed fills would be a moot point once the fill was completed. The provision for postmining elevation increases to restore topographic landforms would lessen the footprint of fills and thereby somewhat reducing hydrologic impacts. Since fills are not used in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, there would be no corresponding increase in surface water hydrologic impacts in that region. 4.3.3.2.1.2 Fluvial Processes

Under Alternative 3, changes in fluvial processes are expected to be closely associated with changes in hydrology, erosion, and stream lengths. Decreases in surface coal mining in the Appalachian Basin will decrease fluvial impacts, particularly those associated with valley fills. Reductions in impacts are expected to be achieved through new fill design techniques that will lessen the length of stream impacts as well as reduce hydrologic impacts. For regions that do not use valley fills, such as the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, increases in fluvial process impacts are not expected. Stream Morphology Change Under Alternative 3, changes in stream morphology are expected to be closely related to hydrology and sedimentology. Reduced impacts to hydrology and sediment inputs from the watershed, as well as reductions in streamside or riparian vegetation, will minimize impacts to stream morphology. Increased runoff and sediment loads can result in stream instability as morphological parameters such as width, depth, and slope adjust to the new water and sediment input levels. Maintaining streamside vegetation, particularly deep-rooted vegetation such as trees, will aid in stream bank stabilization and may allow streams to better handle changes in their watershed, meaning that lesser morphological changes such as enlargement would be expected.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-131

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Erosion and Sediment Control With the transition from surface mining in the Appalachian Basin and Gulf Region to either surface mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains or underground mining, there is an expected decrease in the quantity of spoil eroded and thus the need for sediment control. Likewise, with provisions that eliminate end and wing dumping and associated long steep slope lengths, there should be a reduction in the quantity of material eroded compared to trucking and placement of spoil. The steep slope AOC provision that requires a lesser impact to aquatic ecology is expected to further reduce erosion rates or perhaps develop enhanced sediment control techniques, especially those associated with sediment ponds. 4.3.3.2.2 Chemical Impacts 4.3.3.2.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 3 from the land elements included in the DEIS analysis (Surface Configuration and Fills, and AOC Exceptions). For Alternative 3, surface water quality impacts from changes in the land elements will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Surface coal production under Alternative 3 is predicted to be less than under Alternative 1 in all regions except in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. As a result, land surface reconfiguration and/or creation of fills in or near streams would be expected to be lower under Alternative 3 in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. Hence, under Alternative 3, improvements in surface water quality near mine sites would be expected in all coal mining regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. 4.3.3.2.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality impacts under Alternative 3 from the land elements included in the DEIS analysis are likely to vary among regions. An increase in impacts compared with Alternative 1 (No Action) may occur in four regions—Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau—because underground coal production is predicted to increase by 15% in these regions to compensate for reduced surface coal production. Impacts in the remaining regions would likely be reduced or remain the same compared with Alternative 1 because underground coal production is predicted to be unchanged (Gulf and Northwest regions) or decrease (Other Western Interior region). 4.3.3.3 Other Elements 4.3.3.3.1 Physical Impacts 4.3.3.3.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology With the Alternative 3 provisions that require revegetation with native species, reforestation of excess spoil fills, and salvage of organic material, there would be an expectation that the reduced surface mining acreage in the Appalachian Basin would generate a much lesser hydrologic
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-132

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

impact. Certainly use of the Forest Reclamation Approach is conducive to reduced runoff volume, a lower peak flow, and a hydrologic balance that is more reflective of pre-mining hydrology for the Appalachian Basin than traditional compaction and revegetation using grasses and legumes. Use of native species in other mining regions has also shown that hydrologic impacts are reduced with respect to surface runoff and peak flow reduction. Thus, shifts of surface mining from the Appalachian Basin to the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains with the requirement to incorporate native species may further reduce hydrologic impacts. 4.3.3.3.1.2 Fluvial Processes

Stream Morphology Change Mined lands are typically characterized by low levels of organic carbon such as woody debris, which is an important ecological component of streams. By salvaging organic material during the clearing and grubbing phase for later use in the reclamation phase, organic carbon can be quickly input into the system. This woody debris is ideal for use in stream mitigation practices. Reforestation using the FRA is also a critical component, as this practice enhances long-term stream sustainability through form and function components. Deep-rooted vegetation, such as trees, will enhance stream bank stability. Plus establishment of a forest will provide a sustainable supply of woody debris and provide other important functions such as nutrient cycling and temperature modification. Erosion and Sediment Control Incorporation of Alternative 3 provisions regarding use of native vegetation, reforestation of fills, and salvaging of organic materials is expected to significantly reduce erosion during active mining and especially postmining compared to Alternative 1. This will be especially true as greater amounts of salvaged organic material are used in reclamation to reduce erosion in the short term and in soil development in the long term. Use of native species, with corresponding micro-landforming methods, is expected to further reduce erosion in all regions that use surface mining operations. 4.3.3.3.2 Chemical Impacts 4.3.3.3.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 3 from the other elements included in the DEIS analysis (Revegetation and Topsoil Management, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Baseline Data Collection and Analysis, and monitoring During Mining AND Reclamation). For Alternative 3, surface water quality impacts from changes in the other elements will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Surface coal production under Alternative 3 is predicted to be lower compared with Alternative 1 in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. However, changes to the other elements considered in this section are expected to have little or no effect on surface water quality (see Section 4.1.3.3.2.1 for rationale). Under Alternative 3, surface water quality is expected to generally improve in all
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-133

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

coal-producing regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, but the improvement is expected to result from changes in water elements (see Section 4.3.3.1.2) and land elements (see Section 4.3.3.2.2), not the other elements. 4.3.3.3.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality impacts under Alternative 3 are likely to vary among regions, as noted above. However, these changes are the result of changes in water elements (see Section 4.3.3.1.2) and land elements (see Section 4.3.3.2.2), not the other elements.

4.3.4

Biological Resources
4.3.4.1 Water Elements

For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect aquatic ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 3:      Mining and mining activities could occur in all stream types. Excess spoils could be placed in all stream types. Ephemeral streams would not be protected. Approximately 86 additional miles of perennial and/or intermittent streams would be affected each year by coal mining operations (Table 4.3.4-1). The miles of ephemeral streams that could be affected by coal mining practices under Alternative 3 are unknown.

Therefore, it is expected that adverse impacts on aquatic communities associated with new coal mining activities would occur in approximately 23% fewer miles of streams under Alternative 3 than under the No Action Alternative. The types of adverse impacts expected under this alternative would be similar to those described above for Alternative 1 at some new mining sites, because mining in, near, and through streams would still be allowed under certain circumstances. The reasonable foreseeable development scenario for coal production in the United States under Alternative 3 is for a decrease in surface mining in the Colorado Plateau, Northwest region, Gulf Coast, Appalachian Basin, and Illinois Basin, and an increase in surface mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region. Therefore, stream impacts related to new mine development would be expected to change in proportion to areas of new mining development and to decrease proportionally (compared to the No Action Alternative) in the coal regions where new mining development will decline. In addition, an increase in production from underground mining methods in the Colorado Plateau, Appalachian Basin, and Illinois Basin would be expected. Coal mining would be expected to phase out in the Other Western Interior region, so there would be no new impacts on aquatic resources. Under this alternative, the coal-producing region that would be expected to have the

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-134

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5

greatest amount of negative impacts to stream resources would be the Appalachian Basin (Table 4.3.4-1) Table 4.3.4-1. Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region under Alternative 3 and the No Action Alternative No Action Alternative Region Affected Acreage (yr) 33,121 4,219 3,120 7,590 5,863 163 411 54,488 Affected Stream Length (mi/yr) 70.9 8.0 6.0 14.4 10.6 0.2 0.9 111 Alternative 3 Affected Acreage (yr) 24,538 4,296 407 6,634 6,730 26 0 42,632 Affected Stream Length (mi/yr) 52.5 8.1 0.8 12.6 12.2 0.0 — 86

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Under this alternative, the water quality protection goals for sites where mine-throughs are allowed would be more stringent than under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, it is likely that problems will be identified earlier and corrective actions taken to reduce downstream impacts related to AMD and stormwater quality problems. The enhanced definition of “material damage” should provide increased protection to biological resources both on-site and off-site. The impacts to wetlands under Alternative 3 would be similar to under Alternative 2. The difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 is that changes to the hydrologic balance would be accepted if the changes are mitigated. The changes to the hydrology around the mine site would have the potential to affect wetlands in a local area; however, these impacts would have to be mitigated. As a result of the mitigation, wetlands acreage and functions would not be decreased within the watershed of the mine site. AOC requirements under this alternative would restore the topography as closely as possible to the original contours. As a result, isolated wetlands located in small depressional areas would be restored in their original location postmining. The hydrology of these wetlands is mainly driven by overland flow; therefore, if the topography is restored wetland development, would follow over time.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-135

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Fish and wildlife habitat enhancement would also be required under this alternative. The enhancement project would not be required to be performed within the same watershed. The overall benefit of wetland functions would be most beneficial within watersheds with affected wetlands. Due to the fish and wildlife enhancement projects not being required within the same watershed under this alternative, the potential exists for watersheds with mine sites to experience a negative effect on wetlands and wetland functions and for other watersheds to experience a positive effect on wetlands and wetland functions. In summary, under Alternative 3, future coal mining practices would be expected to result in adverse impacts to aquatic resources at some sites. These adverse impacts would be expected to include impairment of macroinvertebrate and fish communities both on-site and off-site, degraded water quality, permanent loss of ephemeral streams, and permanent loss of perennial and intermittent stream habitats through burial, and the majority of the adverse impacts would be expected to occur in the Appalachian Basin (Table 4.3.4-1). 4.3.4.2 Land Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect terrestrial ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 3:   The approximate original contour does not necessarily have to be reestablished at all mining sites. Approximately 43,000 new acres of currently undeveloped land are expected to be developed for new coal mining operations each year under this alternative (Table 4.3.4-1).

Essentially, there would be a 22% reduction in the amount of land that would be affected by development of new mines each year under this alternative compared to the No Action Alternative. It is expected that the differences in mining practices that may affect upland resources under this alternative compared to the No Action Alternative would be minor, because under this alternative the rule would continue to allow AOC exceptions. In summary, under Alternative 3, future coal mining practices may result in major adverse impacts to terrestrial resources at some sites. These adverse impacts may include fragmentation of habitats; degradation of habitat quality through fire, noise, introduction of non-native and/or invasive species, and abrupt changes in topography; exposure of wildlife to toxic chemicals; and permanent loss of terrestrial habitat. These adverse impacts would be expected to occur with all mining methods and in all coal regions, with the greatest impacts expected in the Appalachian Basin. The Other Western Interior region is an exception, because it is anticipated that no new mining activities would be pursued in the region under Alternative 3.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-136

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.3.4.3 Other Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the practices that are most likely to affect restoration outcomes for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 3:     Topsoil must be reused on site. Cleared forest must be restored to forest. Native species must be used in revegetation activities. Habitat enhancement projects do not necessarily have to occur within the same watershed.

These provisions are likely to ensure greater success of site reclamation programs that will result in fewer long-term adverse impacts to terrestrial communities under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 1. Revegetation programs associated with the site abandonment process are intended to reduce the adverse impacts to on-site and off-site biological resources from cleared, unvegetated areas. Revegetation with native species would encourage reestablishment of native communities. OSM and the other regulatory agencies that oversee mine permitting programs have developed guidelines for improving reforestation success in the Appalachian coal region ARRI, and lessons learned in Appalachia could be applied in other coal regions as part of the reclamation process for new mines. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that there will be a net increase in reforestation rates in the affected coal regions compared to the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, creation of additional non-native cool-season-dominated grasslands as the cover type for postmining land uses would decrease. As a result, forest species, including many area sensitive forest interior passerines, would benefit from the increase in reforestation and a reduction in the regional surface mine footprint. However, grassland species that have been reported to use the non-native grasslands created on mine sites would have decreased benefit from these land-cover conversions (e.g., Henslow’s sparrows, elk, and some game birds). In summary, under Alternative 3, mine reclamations are expected to mitigate more of the impacts associated with development of new coal mines compared to Alternative 1. The rule change would require use of native species and emphasize reforestation, requirements that should ultimately result in restoration of ecological functions at the sites.

4.3.5

Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation

Alternative 3 would result in changes to the requirements for obtaining a permit and for mining operations under SMCRA. Most of these changes are more restrictive than Alternative 1 but not as restrictive as Alternative 2. Alternative 3 is predicted to result in a reduction of surface mining in the Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, Colorado Plateau, Gulf Coast, and Northwest regions. The reduced production in these regions would be replaced with increased surface
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-137

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5

mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region and with increased underground mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau regions. Specific values for these anticipated increases and decreases are listed in Table 4.3.5-1 below. Table 4.3.5-1 Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 3 Affected Streams (mi/yr) 52.52 8.12 0.79 12.62 12.16 0.03 0 Percent (%) Change from Baseline (No Action Alternative) −25.91 1.88 −86.86 −12.60 14.83 −81.25 −100.00

Coal Resource Region

Affected Area (acre/yr) 24,538 4,296 407 6,634 6,370 26 0

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

As previously described in Section 4.1.5, there are no changes to SMCRA under this alternative that would directly affect visual resources. 4.3.5.1 Water Elements Similar to Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 3 considerations of water elements are anticipated to have relatively little impact on recreation within any of the coal resource regions. Those regions with reduced surface mining might be expected to have improvements in water quality, thus improving fishing conditions in those streams that are not already degraded. Those regions with increased surface mining might be expected to have slightly worse water quality and associated worse fishing conditions. However, most of the areas with decreased surface mining (Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau) are anticipated to have increased levels of underground mining, which will require slurry ponds and could offset any water quality improvement gains from reduced surface mining. Water quality would be expected to be negatively affected in these regions by drainage from increased underground mining. However, any water quality degradation from surface or underground mining would be expected to be minimal because of the requirements to meet Clean Water Act standards and the implementation of corrective action thresholds. More restrictive definitions of streams and material damage, as well as limitations on activities near streams or on mining through streams, would reduce the potential for visual impacts in an area because it would reduce and limit the surface impacts along streams from mining activities in all regions. Changes to streams would be reduced but not prohibited. Where mining activities
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-138

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

through or near streams are allowed, the definition of material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area states that impacts would not be allowed to cause damage unless these impacts can be mitigated or repaired prior to bond release. These restrictions would prevent permanent impacts to the visual quality of streams, although temporary impacts may occur. Changes to corrective action thresholds do not provide specific limitations that affect the visual quality of an area. 4.3.5.2 Land Elements Landforming and AOC requirements would be strengthened compared to the No Action Alternative, thus possibly resulting in less land area being devoted to PMLU designations that are not likely to be implemented. This change in PMLU designation might be expected to have a positive impact on dispersed recreational activities, but alternatively would likely decrease the use of reclaimed mine lands being dedicated for active recreational uses (athletic fields, golf courses, etc.). Current requirements for surface fill configurations and AOC exceptions allow changes to the preexisting physical conditions, and therefore potentially affect visual quality. Stricter requirements on the minimization of excess fill placement in all streams and the use of landforming would likely reduce the potential for visual resource impacts in all regions. The expansion of documentation requirements, including digital terrain modeling of pre-mining landforms and final elevations and configurations for AOC exceptions, would provide additional documentation and review for the assessment of visual impacts. This documentation would be most useful in the Appalachian, Gulf Coast, and Illinois Regions, where visual impact assessment is usually not well documented. In the Colorado Plateau and Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains regions, where most of the land within the coal fields is managed by the BLM, increased permitting and reporting requirements under Alternative 3 would also provide additional documentation for visual assessment, which would augment existing visual resource assessment that is often well documented and included in environmental assessments. The existing practices and documentation for review and assessment of visual impacts would continue. Adoption of this alternative may result in additional surface disturbance within federally owned lands in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, making those lands temporarily unavailable for public use throughout the life of the mining operation. Additionally, with the reduction of surface mining in the other regions, impacts could be similar to those outlined under Alternative 2, where preservation of the existing environment may lead to additional recreation and possible tourism opportunities. Land use may experience a proportionate shift commensurate with the shift of regional coal production and corresponding mining methods. Regions experiencing a decrease in surface mining activities under this alternative may experience decreased opportunities for development of postmining land for fish and wildlife habitats, recreational facilities, cropland, and industrial and residential development. Increased underground mining production in these regions may have a negligible effect on land use due to substantially decreased areas of disturbance.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-139

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Alternative 3 requires all excess spoil fills to be reforested and also requires a plan to minimize forest fragmentation. Additionally, the forested nature of the area during the 5 years preceding mining would need to be documented by the applicant, and the operator would be required to reforest those areas to meet reclamation requirements. Minimizing forest fragmentation may help prevent the loss of wildlife habitat. Establishment of forest on excess spoil fills may prevent erosion, and also assist in reestablishing wildlife habitat after mining is completed. Ensuring that areas that were previously forested are replenished with a native community may also lead to future timber harvesting opportunities for the landowner. However, requiring such reforestation may also prevent certain postmining land uses, such as cropland and industrial, and may be against the wishes of the landowner. 4.3.5.3 Other Elements Revegetation using native species, reforestation of excess spoil fills, and minimization of forest fragmentation would all be requirements of this alternative. Combined with increased fish and wildlife enhancement requirements, this alternative might lead to slight improvements in dispersed recreational activities while decreasing the opportunity for active recreational uses. However, game species, other charismatic megafauna, grassland birds, and shrubland habitat species that lend themselves well to wildlife viewing tend to thrive in landscapes characterized by forests fragmented with grasslands, forming a mosaic of habitat types. Therefore, this alternative might reduce opportunities to restore and create habitat for those species. Concurrently, forest interior birds that are popular with many bird watchers would benefit from this alternative. Whether this alternative is desirable or not should be based on the desire of the constituency using the land. When predicting impacts to recreation, consideration must be given to the unintended consequences of this alternative. It is reasonable to predict that corporate landowners might liquidate their ownership in the surface rights of these lands if surface mining is curtailed significantly. Over time, reductions in surface mining are likely to result in an increase in ownership fragmentation, which will subsequently lead to less public access and fewer recreational opportunities. If corporate landowners cannot reap a financial benefit from owning the surface, they are highly unlikely to continue ownership just for the sake of offering public recreation opportunities. Changes to the requirements for baseline data collection and analysis, monitoring during mining and reclamations, and fish and wildlife protection and enhancement do not consider or affect visual quality or visual impact assessment of surface mining projects. Current requirements for revegetation and topsoil management in accordance with pre-mining land use or an approved PMLU can result in the potential for visual impacts when non-native vegetation is allowed or areas are not restored to a forested state. The requirements under Alternative 3 call for native tree and plant species to reestablish the native forest ecosystem, including requirements to minimize forest fragmentation if the area was forested before mining or was forested within the five years prior to mining. These requirements would restore the visual quality of the site after project completion in all regions.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-140

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.3.6

Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure

Selecting Alternative 3 would result in some adverse socioeconomic effects in local areas in certain coal-producing regions. It is estimated that adverse effects associated with Alternative 3 would be less in comparison with Alternatives 2 and 5 and greater in comparison with Alternative 4. These conditions would be directly related to loss of employment in certain regions, which would affect personal earnings, state income taxes, and other local taxes, which have not been calculated here because of a lack of consistent data across the region. In addition, there would be a loss of tax revenue associated with severance taxes and corporate business taxes through a decline in production in certain regions. Overall, Alternative 3 has an expected production increase of 0.5% over Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative; however, production changes vary by region, with the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau increasing production and the other regions losing production. The Other Interior West region, due to the loss of surface mining, would no longer have a viable coal industry, resulting in a loss of 385 employment positions, as estimated under Alternative 1. 4.3.6.1 Economics 4.3.6.1.1 Employment and Unemployment 4.3.6.1.1.1 Employment Changes in Coal Mining Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in an estimated net loss in total coal mining employment of over 6,900 employment positions. Table 4.3.6-1 lists the estimated number of employment positions by production type and the percentage change in employment when compared to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. All coal-producing regions show a decline in employment positions in the surface coal mining industry, except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, which has an expected gain of 15% across all coal mining employment. The Illinois Basin and the Colorado Plateau are estimated to gain enough new positions through expansion of underground coal mining to offset the loss of positions in surface coal mining. The Other Western Interior and the Northwest regions, because a viable underground coal mining industry is not expected, and the Gulf Region, which is not expected to experience an increase in underground coal mining, would experience substantial losses in employment in the coal mining industry from Alternative 3.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-141

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.3.6-1.

Alternative 3 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type and Region
Estimated Number of Employment Positions UnderSurface Total ground 44,394 5,540 2,850 8,676 389 0 0 11,661 1,978 1,202 2,119 11,016 64 0 56,054 7,518 4,052 10,795 11,405 64 0 Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground 15.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 (100.0) (48.8) (3.7) (76.0) (24.1) 15.0 (32.3) (100.0) (8.7) 9.4 (48.4) 4.4 15.0 (32.3) (100.0)

Coal-Producing Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

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

4.3.6.1.1.2

Estimated Employment Changes in Remainder of Economy

As described previously, in the Appalachian Basin region, the average indirect and induced employment creation associated with one new employment position in the coal mining industry is 1.46. In Alternative 3, the worst-case scenario is the approximate additional loss of 7,776 employment positions throughout the entire Appalachian Basin, which is 0.02% of the total employment positions in the basin. In the Western states, the average employment multiplier was 1.40, yielding approximately new 2,939 ancillary employment positions, a 0.02% increase in the region’s total employment. The interior states had an average employment multiplier of 1.73, which in the worst-case scenario would equate to 6,451 additional lost employment positions (0.02% of employment positions). 4.3.6.1.1.3 Estimated Effects to the Number and Percentage of Unemployed

Table 4.3.6-2 lists the estimated Alternative 3 impacts on the unemployment rate in each region. In the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, there would be an expected increase in employment in underground and surface coal mining, which could reduce the number of unemployed if all persons came from the active labor force in the coal-producing region. This increased number of positions could lower the regional unemployment rate by approximately 0.4%. Similar effects would be expected in both the Illinois Basin and the Colorado Plateau regions, where the increases in underground coal mining could more than offset the losses of employment positions from declines in surface coal mining, thereby slightly reducing the number of unemployed. Overall, the Gulf Region would be expected to have the greatest increase in the unemployment rate, with the estimated loss of approximately 3,800 employment positions in surface coal mining potentially increasing the unemployment rate by 2.7%. The Northwest region would be expected to have an increase in the unemployment rate of just over 1%, with lesser increases expected in the Other Western Interior and Appalachian Basin regions.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-142

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.3.6-2.

Alternative 3 Estimated Change in Number of Unemployed and the Unemployment Rate by Region
Current Unemployment Rate (%) 10.0 11.1 9.7 10.2 9.6 20.2 8.9

Coal-Producing Region

Change in Unemployed
(%)

Change in the Unemployment Rate
(%)

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

5,326 (645) 3,800 (456) (1,485) 31 385

0.1 (0.3) 2.7 (0.1) (0.4) 1.3 0.3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

4.3.6.1.2 Earnings and Personal Income 4.3.6.1.2.1 Earnings and Personal Income Changes from Coal Mining Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in a substantial loss of earnings and personal income in the local areas in some of the coal-producing regions. The most significant losses would occur in the Other Western Interior region, the Gulf Region, and the Northwest region. Table 4.3.6-3 lists the estimated change in earnings and percentage change in earnings as compared to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. When compared to the total regional personal earnings, the loss of earnings in the coal industry is relatively small, with the largest loss occurring in the Gulf Region. Table 4.3.6-3. Alternative 3 Estimated Change in Earnings from Coal Mining
Percentage Change from Alternative 1 Underground 15.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 (100.0) Surface (48.8) (3.7) (76.0) (24.1) 15.0 (32.3) (100.0) Total (8.2) 9.3 (47.0) 4.5 15.0 (32.3) (100.0) Percent Change of Total Regional Personal Earnings (0.1) 0.2 (1.8) 0.1 0.2 (0.9) (0.1)

Estimated Change in Earnings ($1,000) Coal-Producing Region Underground 294,428 34,346 (25) 63,045 2,753 0 (3,678)

Surface (547,512) (3,700) (189,730) (37,307) 67,851 (1,687) (12,864)

Total (253,084) 30,646 (189,755) 25,738 70,604 (1,687) (16,542)

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-143

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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 4.3.6.1.2.2 Estimated Earnings and Personal Income Effects in Remainder of Economy

As mentioned previously, earnings multipliers varied greatly by state, ranging from 1.17 in Virginia to 0.37 in Wyoming. The loss of approximately $253.1 million in earnings in the Appalachian Basin could result in the loss of an additional $205.0 million, equivalent to 0.1% of the total regional personal earnings, for a combined loss of approximately 0.2%. In the Western states, the net change in earnings would be an increase of approximately $99.5 million, which would result in an additional increase in earnings of approximately $60.7 million (0.1% of the total compensation in the combined regions). In the Interior states, the loss of approximately $137.2 million in additional compensation would result in an additional loss of 0.2% of the total compensation in the combined regions. In the Western states, conversely, the net change in earnings would be an increase of approximately $99.5 million, which would result in an additional increase in earnings of approximately $60.7 million (0.1% of the total compensation in the combined regions). 4.3.6.1.3 Poverty Levels Implementation of Alternative 3 would create an increase in local poverty levels in some regions, if those persons displaced by the loss of employment associated with the surface coal mining industry do not readily find other employment. Table 4.3.6-4 lists, as a worst-case scenario, the potential effects from the loss of employment positions from surface mining. This analysis assumes an average family size per region supported by each individual employment position lost. It also assumes that none of the populations would relocate to find jobs in other areas. The table indicates that the areas that would experience the greatest impacts would be the Gulf Region and the Northwest region, where the percentage of the population that falls below the poverty threshold would substantially increase. Conversely, the poverty rate could decline in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Illinois Basin, and the Colorado Plateau if the employment positions generated from underground mining and surface mining could employ persons, either unemployed or from the working poor, with a household income below the poverty threshold.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-144

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.3.6-4.

Alternative 3 Estimated Change in Poverty Levels from Changes in Employment
Estimated Change in Employment (5,326) 645 (3,800) 456 1,485 (31) (385) Estimated Population Affected 21,225 2,714 16,001 1,868 5,704 124 1,508 Estimated Total Population Below Poverty 1,435,503 104,755 75,609 195,445 84,416 1,398 59,945 Estimated Percent Below Poverty 16.4 17.8 21.7 16.3 11.8 24.9 16.7 Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rate 0.2 (0.5) 4.6 (0.2) (0.8) 2.2 0.4

Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains/Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

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

4.3.6.1.4 Income and Severance Taxes Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in either small levels of increase or reduction of tax revenues by coal region directly associated with coal mining activities. In comparison with Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the impact on most coal regions would be in the range of 25% revenue losses and 15% revenue gains, except for two regions that would experience greater revenue losses. The estimated impacts of Alternative 3 implementation on the AML fund by region are shown in Table 4.3.6-5. This analysis shows that there would be a 100% reduction of AML contributions in the Other Western Interior region and a 69% reduction in the Gulf Region. The greatest net loss of AML contributions would occur in the Appalachian Basin, at just over 24%; however, the estimated 15% increase in AML fund contributions from the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region would total over $25 million and offset Appalachian Basin reductions. Nationwide, the level of contributions to the AML fund would be reduced by less than 2.5% in comparison with Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-145

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.3.6-5.

Alternative 3 Estimated Change in AML Funds Collected
Estimated Change in AML Fees Collected ($1,000) Underground Surface (22,956) (404) (12,946) (2,604) 25,395 (150) (472) Total (18,504) 723 (12,946) (1,298) 25,470 (150) (532) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 Underground 15.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 (100.0) Surface (48.8) (3.7) (76.0) (24.1) 15.0 (32.3) (100.0) Total (24.1) 3.9 (69.2) (6.6) 15.0 (32.3) (100.0)

Coal-producing Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

4,452 1,128 (0) 1,306 74 0 (60)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Estimated changes in the levels of severance tax revenues collected in each region are shown in Table 4.3.6-6. Severance tax revenues would be eliminated in the Other Western Interior region and reduced by nearly 62% in the Gulf Region. In the Gulf Region, the estimated net reduction in severance tax revenues totals over $ 1.6 million, which equates to less than 0.01% of total tax revenues. The Illinois Basin and Appalachian Basin would experience higher net levels of severance tax revenue reduction than the Gulf Region, but at lower percentages in comparison with Alternative 1 (17.1% and 10.9%, respectively). Table 4.3.6-6.
Coal-Producing Region

Alternative 3 Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes
Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground 9,193 1,900 (0) 565 214 Not Applicable (121) (20,515) (298) (1,644) (4,133) 72,189 (412) (11,322) 1,602 (1,644) (3,568) 72,403 (534) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 Underground 15.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 (100.0) Surface (48.8) (3.7) (76.0) (24.1) 15.0 (100.0) Total (10.9) 7.8 (61.9) (17.1) 15.0 (100.0)

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

11 12 13 14 15 16

The estimated change in state income taxes attributable to coal industry employment in each region are shown in Table 4.3.6-7. Income tax revenues from coal mining would be eliminated in the Other Western Interior region and would be reduced by nearly 47% in the Gulf Region. As a percentage of total regional income taxes, however, the estimated loss of state income tax revenue in the Other Western Interior region would equate to less than 0.01% of the region’s
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-146

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3

total revenue from income taxes. In the Gulf Region, the loss would equate to less than 0.1% of the region’s total revenue from income taxes. Table 4.3.6-7.
Coal-Producing Region

Alternative 3 Estimated Change in State Income Taxes
Estimated Change in State Income Taxes Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground 9,337 1,297 (1) 2,054 61 Not Applicable (137) (17,331) (140) (4,438) (1,215) 1,469 (7,994) 1,157 (4,439) 839 1,530 Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground 15.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 (48.8) (3.7) (76.0) (24.1) 15.0 (8.2) 9.3 (46.9) 4.5 15.0

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

(463)

(599)

(100.0)

(100.0)

(100.0)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Under Alternative 3, royalties would decline in the Appalachian Basin and in parts of the Colorado Plateau. There would be a substantial reduction in the Gulf Region and the Other Western Interior region compared to Alternative 1. Table 4.3.6-8 lists the estimated royalties, distributions, and estimated change from Alternative 1. Royalties would increase in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and in parts of the Colorado Plateau. Tribes would be estimated to lose approximately $1.3 million in Arizona and New Mexico, but tribes in Montana would be anticipated to receive an additional $1.7 million in royalties from coal mining. Table 4.3.6-8. Alternative 3 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement
Change from Alternative 1 Tribal Federal Estimated State Royalties Royalties Disbursements $1,000 0 0 (39) (1,266) 0 (454) 6,619 (14) 0 5,239 (227) 3,310 (7) 0 2,619

Alternative 3 Federal Estimated State State Royalties Disbursements $1,000 Appalachian Basin/Illinois Basin Kentucky 0 1,995 998 Colorado Plateau Colorado 0 81,753 40,877 New Mexico 43,130 15,737 7,869 Arizona 32,558 0 0 Utah 0 40,224 20,112 Tribal Royalties

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-147

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

State

Tribal Royalties

Alternative 3 Federal Estimated State Royalties Disbursements $1,000 373 345,483 25,464 0

Change from Alternative 1 Tribal Federal Estimated State Royalties Royalties Disbursements $1,000 0 0 1,689 0 (668) 89,992 6,633 (4,740) (334) 44,996 3,317 (2,370)

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

Gulf Coast Alabama 0 747 Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Wyoming 0 690,966 Montana 12,972 50,929 Other Western Interior Oklahoma 0 0
Source: Calculated from ONRR, 2010.

4.3.6.2 Demographics 4.3.6.2.1 Population Changes s shown in Table 4.3.6-4, the net number of persons potentially affected by Alternative 3 includes the dependents of those employed in the coal mining industry. The estimates of the net populations adversely affected range from over 21,000 persons in the Appalachian Basin to just over 100 persons in the Northwest. For Alternative 3, only the Gulf Region would have a population percentage of as much as 0.1% that would be adversely affected by this alternative, as of the 2000 Decennial Census. All other coal-producing regions would have 0.1% or less of the net population affected, either positively (Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau) or adversely (all other regions). 4.3.6.2.2 Minority Population Effects Alternative 3 could affect minority populations in the Northwest region, given the high minority population in the region and the effects from the lost employment positions associated with surface mining. In addition, due to the concentrated minority areas in the Gulf Region, there could be effects to minority populations associated with the loss of surface mining in those counties. 4.3.6.3 Environmental Justice Similar to Alternative 2, selecting Alternative 3 is not expected to result in disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income communities, since all communities would be provided equal access to the decision-making processes involved with the proposed rulemaking. 4.3.6.4 Utilities and Infrastructure Under Alternative 3, the net tonnage of coal produced in the United States would be nearly identical to current levels. Impacts to utilities and infrastructure from Alternative 3 are discussed below in terms of estimated production losses and gains. The discussion is focused on each of the seven coal-producing basins (Source: Production Scenarios in Thousands of Tons – Summary Tab–).
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-148

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.3.6.4.1 Utilities Implementation of Alternative 3 is not expected to affect the net demand for water and wastewater treatment on a national level. Because certain areas of the country would produce more coal and other areas would produce less, effects of Alternative 3 on utilities are discussed by basin below. Appalachian Basin Implementation of Alternative 3 would directly (by reducing the water and wastewater treatment demand from closing surface mines) or indirectly (by reducing residential demand through outof-work people leaving the area) reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Production tonnages and expected capacity for water and wastewater treatment would decrease in West Virginia, the eastern portion of Kentucky, Maryland, and Tennessee. Most affected would be Tennessee, where approximately 35% of the current production would be eliminated. Colorado Plateau Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Colorado Plateau Basin and would directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Demand in Arizona would be expected to stay at approximately existing levels. Most affected would be Utah, where production tonnages and expected capacity for water and wastewater treatment would increase. Water treatment capacity for Utah is already less than the current demand for treatment, so additional treatment capacity would likely be needed under implementation of Alternative 3. Gulf Coast Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Gulf Coast and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Most affected would be Texas, where 92% of the current mining (all of which is surface mining) would be eliminated. Illinois Basin Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Illinois Basin and would directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Most affected would be Illinois, where production tonnages would increase by 48%. As shown on Table 3.17-12, Illinois has ample water and wastewater capacities in coal-producing counties, and little to no additional treatment capacity would be expected.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-149

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and would directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in Wyoming and Montana. Demand in North Dakota would be expected to stay at approximately the same level. Most affected would be Wyoming, where production tonnages would increase by approximately 12%. As shown on Table 3.17-15, Wyoming has ample water and wastewater capacities in coal-producing counties, and little to no additional treatment capacity would be expected. Northwest Basin Alaska currently has excess capacity for water treatment. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Northwest by approximately 32% and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in this county. Other Western Interior Implementation of Alternative 3 would eliminate 100% of the coal produced in each of the four states in this basin and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity. 4.3.6.4.2 Transportation Infrastruture Under Alternative 3, the net tonnage of coal produced in the United States would be nearly identical to current levels; however, tonnages produced would increase in three basins (Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Illinois Basin, and the Colorado Plateau), decrease in three basins (Appalachian Basin, Gulf Coast, and Northwest), and be eliminated from the Other Western Interior. All current modes of transportation would be affected by the regional shifts in production caused by implementing Alternative 3. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in shifts in the methods of transportation; rail transportation would likely increase cumulatively by 5%, while barge and road transportation would decrease cumulatively across all basins by 3% and 12%, respectively. Estimated impacts to each primary mode of coal transportation (rail, barge, and road) are presented below by basin. 4.3.6.4.2.1 Appalachian Basin Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Appalachian Basin and would directly reduce the demand for rail transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the eight states in the Appalachian Basin shipped approximately 23% of the total short tons of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin by 16% would affect nearly 4% of all U.S. rail shipments of coal. Affected rail lines would include CSX and Norfolk Southern. Production tonnages in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia would stay at or near current levels,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Rail

4-150

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

while production tonnages would decrease significantly in West Virginia, the eastern portion of Kentucky, Maryland, and Tennessee. Most affected would be Tennessee, where approximately 35% of the current production would be eliminated. Rail transportation would be mostly affected in eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep areas of west-central Pennsylvania, south-central Kentucky, and south-central Tennessee and northern Alabama operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. Colorado Plateau Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Colorado Plateau Basin and would directly increase the need for rail transportation in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Demand in Arizona would be expected to stay at approximately the same level. Increasing coal production from the Colorado Plateau under Alternative 3 would increase the Colorado Plateau’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by rail to over 9%. Most affected would be Utah, where production tonnages would increase by 23%. Affected rail lines would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of increased demand for rail transportation would likely correspond to an increased need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep rail corridors in New Mexico, Arizona, northeastern Colorado, and southwestern Utah operating at LOS A, B, and C. Gulf Coast Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Gulf Coast and would be expected to reduce the demand for rail transportation only in Texas. Rail is not used to ship coal produced in Louisiana or Mississippi. Reducing coal production from the Gulf Coast by 87% would only decrease all U.S. rail shipments of coal by 0.26%. In Texas, rail lines affected by implementation of Alternative 3 would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep rail corridors in Texas operating at LOS A, B, and C. Improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. Illinois Basin Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Illinois Basin and would be expected to increase the need for rail transportation in Indiana, Illinois, and western Kentucky. Increasing coal production from the Illinois Basin under Alternative 3 would increase the Illinois
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-151

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by rail to over 7%. Most affected would be Illinois, where production tonnages would increase by 48%. Affected rail lines in this basin would include CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, and Union Pacific. The effects of increased demand for rail transportation would likely correspond to an increased need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads throughout Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky operating at LOS categories A, B, or C, especially at notable river crossings, where LOS categories are already at capacity, and in northeastern Illinois, where the LOS is already over capacity. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin and would be expected to increase the demand for rail transportation in Wyoming and Montana. Demand in North Dakota would be expected to stay at approximately the same level. As presented in Section 3.17, the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains is the predominant user of rail in the United States. Most affected would be Wyoming, where production tonnages would increase by approximately 58 MM tons (or 12%). Increasing coal production from the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains under Alternative 3 would increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by rail to nearly 70%. Affected rail lines in this basin would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of increased demand for rail transportation would likely correspond to an increased need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads throughout the four states in this basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Northwest Basin Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Northwest and would be expected to reduce the demand for rail transportation in this basin. Reducing coal production from the Northwest under Alternative 3 would not significantly decrease the total U.S. rail shipments of coal. In Alaska, the rail line affected by implementation of Alternative 3 would include the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Other Western Interior Basin Alternative 3 would eliminate 100% of the coal produced in each of the four states in the Other Western Interior and would directly reduce the demand for rail transportation in this region. Eliminating coal production from the Other Western Interior would not significantly decrease the total U.S. rail shipments of coal. Affected rail lines would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads in the Other Western Interior operating at LOS categories A, B, or C.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-152

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. 4.3.6.4.2.2 Appalachian Basin Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Appalachian Basin and would be expected to reduce the demand for barge transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin under Alternative 3 would reduce U.S. barge shipments of coal by nearly 11%. West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Pennsylvania depend on barge shipments for approximately 23%, 11%, and 21% of their coal shipments, respectively. In Ohio and Alabama, barge shipments of coal account for nearly 30% of coal transportation. Implementation of Alternative 3 would have a substantial impact on the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways in the Ohio and Mississippi River systems. Colorado Plateau Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Colorado Plateau and would likely result in an increased need for barge transportation in Colorado and Utah. Coal produced in New Mexico and Arizona is not shipped by barge. Increasing coal production from the Colorado Plateau under Alternative 3 would increase the Colorado Plateau’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by barge to only 2.2%. The most affected state is expected to be Utah, where production tonnages would increase by 23%. Barge shipments of coal would have a limited impact on the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways nationwide, although localized economic impacts would be realized in Colorado and Utah. Gulf Coast Under Alternative 3, reductions in production in the Gulf Coast would not affect barge transit on a basin or national level. Illinois Basin Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Illinois Basin and would increase the need for barge transportation in Indiana, Illinois, and western Kentucky. Based on the projected increase in production under Alternative 3, the largest increase in barge traffic is expected from Illinois. Increasing coal production from the Illinois Basin would correspond to a 39% share of all U.S. barge shipments of coal in this region. Such an increase would significantly affect the barge Barge

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-153

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

industry, including barge traffic, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and would increase the demand for barge transportation in Montana. Under Alternative 3, coal mining production from Montana would increase by approximately 7%, increasing the amount of barge transit from this basin by 3,200 short tons. Northwest Mines in the Yukon-Koyukuk County, Alaska, did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under Alternative 3, infrastructure is not in place for barge transportation from mines in the Northwest, and no impacts would occur. Other Western Interior Basin Mines in the four states in the Other Western Interior did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under Alternative 3, reductions in production in the Other Western Interior would not affect barge transit on a basin or national level. 4.3.6.4.2.3 Appalachian Basin Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Appalachian Basin by 16% and would reduce the demand for truck transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin by 16% would correspond to a reduction of nearly 7% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. Implementation of Alternative 3 would have a large impact on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways in the Appalachian Basin. Colorado Plateau Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Colorado Plateau and would increase the need for truck transportation in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Demand in Arizona would stay at approximately the same level. Increasing coal production from the Colorado Plateau Basin under Alternative 3 would increase the Colorado Plateau’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by truck by 2%, to nearly 16%. Utah would likely have the greatest increase in truck transportation, where production tonnages would increase by 23%. An increase of 2% in all U.S. truck shipments of coal would affect the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Road

4-154

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Gulf Coast Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Gulf Coast and would likely reduce the demand for truck transportation in all three states in the region. Louisiana relies on truck transit for about 15% of its coal output and would be the least affected. However, reducing coal production from the Gulf Coast under Alternative 3 would correspond to a reduction of more than 17% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. Under Alternative 3, the Gulf Coast and the nation as a whole would have a significant decrease in demand for road transportation of coal. Implementation of Alternative 3 would significantly affect the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Illinois Basin Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Illinois Basin and would increase the need for truck transportation in Indiana, Illinois, and western Kentucky. Trucking is the predominant mode of coal hauling from western Kentucky. Increasing coal production from the Illinois Basin by 22% would increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by truck from current levels to over 58%. Truck traffic would be expected to increase the greatest in Illinois, where production tonnages would increase by 48%. Under Alternative 3, the Illinois Basin would have a significant increase in demand for road transportation of coal, which would have a substantial impact on the trucking industry in the basin, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 3 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and would increase the demand for truck transportation in Montana. Truck transportation in North Dakota would be expected to stay at approximately the same level. Increasing coal production from the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin under Alternative 3 would increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by truck by 1% to nearly 9%. Under Alternative 3, demand for road transportation in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin would slightly increase. This would have a limited and localized impact on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Northwest Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Northwest by approximately 32% and would directly reduce the demand for truck transportation in this basin. Based on the small
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-155

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

amount of coal shipped by truck in this basin (less than 0.2%), this reduction would not be expected to significantly affect truck transportation of coal on a national level (EIA, 2008) or significantly decrease the total U.S. road shipments of coal. Under Alternative 3, the reduction in coal shipped by truck in this basin would not significantly affect the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, or the need for maintaining roadways. Other Western Interior Alternative 3 would eliminate 100% of the coal produced in each of the four states in the Other Western Interior and would directly reduce the demand for truck transportation in this basin. Based on this small amount of truck transit, eliminating coal production from the Other Western Interior would not significantly decrease the total U.S. road shipments of coal. Under Alternative 3, the decrease in coal shipped by truck in this region (less than 1%) would not significantly affect truck transportation of coal on a national level or have significant impacts on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, or the need for maintaining roadways.

4.3.7

Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.3.7.1 Safety Impacts

Occupational Safety Estimated production for underground mining for Alternative 3 is approximately the same as Alternative 1. Fatalities (Figure 4.3.7-1) would be projected to be about the same as in Alternative 1. Projected changes in surface mining production would result in an overall decrease in fatalities and non-fatal days lost injuries (Figure 4.3.7-2) associated with surface mining.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-156

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.3.7-1.

Projected Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 1

3 4 5 Figure 4.3.7-2. Projected Average Number of Non-Fatal Days Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 1

6

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-157

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

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

Public Safety Implementation of Alternative 3 would likely have negligible effects on public safety incidents nationwide based on the projected production shifts. The Other Western Interior Basin would be expected to receive the greatest beneficial effects due to the projected elimination of coal mining in this basin. 4.3.7.2 Health Impacts Occupational Health Figure 4.3.7-3 shows that projected production shifts under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in impacts to all health areas reviewed for underground mining relative to Alternative 1. There would be beneficial impacts in all health areas reviewed for surfacing mining relative to Alternative 1. Figure 4.3.7-3. Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 1

14 15 16 17 18 19 Figure 4.3.7-4 shows projected lung disease occurrence by coal basin. Implementation of Alternative 3 would likely cause increased lung disease occurrences nationwide where underground mining is projected to increase. According to MSHA, surface mining has on average a higher number of repeated trauma impacts relative to overall numbers of reported health (Table 3.20-2) than underground mining. However,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-158

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3

the changes in coal production for Alternative 3 results in a beneficial impact to surface mining, as can be seen from Figure 4.3.7-5. Figure 4.3.7-4. Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 1

4

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-159

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.3.7-5.

Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 3 vs. Alternative 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Health Implementation of Alternative 3 would likely have negligible effects on public health incidents nationwide based on the projected production shifts. The Other Western Interior would be expected to receive the greatest beneficial effects due to the projected elimination of coal mining in this basin.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

4.4
4.4.1

ALTERNATIVE 4
Coal Resources and Mining

Alternative 4 may be the least protective of all the alternatives (aside from No Action), but that level of protection would primarily be left for the RAs to decide. Alternative 4 gives deference to RAs in setting standards for corrective action, surface configuration and fills and AOC exceptions. Due to the uncertainty of what individual RAs may establish, it is difficult to predict impacts on production and mining methods.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-160

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.4.1.1 Water Elements Alternative 4 would apply the CWA definition of “Waters of the United States” to streams. Under this definition, found at 40 CFR 230.0(s), a stream may include any of the following: 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, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, 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 in paragraphs (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. This stream definition would provide protection not only to what the layman would imagine a stream to be, but would also extend protection to wetlands and all other areas identified in (s)(3) above. Mining through streams would be permissible under this alternative, so long as premining form and function can be established. This alternative would also implement the 1983 SBZ Rule (as interpreted by OSM) which would allow excess spoil fills, and allow mining activities so long as those activities will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. The definition of material damage under this alternative would presume that material damage occurs after a defined percentage of stream miles within a particular watershed are affected by mining activities. Depending on what percentage of stream miles may be disturbed within a
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-161

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

watershed, surface mining methods could be reduced in regions where there are high stream populations. The impact could also depend on whether the length of affected stream miles allowed would be cumulative or miles disturbed at the time of permit issuance. If there has been a significant amount of mining in a particular watershed that disturbed many miles of streams, this Alternative could prevent further mining operations within that watershed. Corrective action thresholds under this alternative would be based on physical, chemical and biological criteria in each state, and would not establish those thresholds for ephemeral streams. This may be less protective to perennial and intermittent streams than the watershed and sitespecific thresholds proposed under Alternatives 2, 3 and 5, but would depend on the parameters set by the RAs. 4.4.1.2 Land Elements It is not possible to predict what standards individual RAs may impose based on this alternative. Since AOC, surface configuration and fill requirements would be left up to the RAs, it is assumed that the impact this alternative would have on coal production and mining methods would be the same or similar to those impacts under the No Action Alternative. 4.4.1.3 Other Elements The other elements described in this alternative (including revegetation, topsoil management, fish and wildlife enhancement, baseline data collection, and monitoring) are likely to have little impact on mining methods across the regions. These elements will likely have no positive effect above what the No Action Alternative provides. Alternative 4 may be less protective than the No Action Alternative for the enhancement of fish and wildlife, as only threatened or endangered species would trigger enhancement requirements. Baseline data and monitoring requirements would also be set by the RAs, but would include parameters related to chemical and biological characteristics, flow, and form and function. Variations among regions could occur with respect to data collection frequency and chemical elements analyzed. Mining operators will experience increased costs due to these additional requirements, but these costs are not likely to cause a change in mining method or shift in production. Estimated production impacts and associated acreages impacted yearly by mining operations at the time of full implementation of Alternative 4 is therefore projected to be consistent with Table 4.4.1-1.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-162

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.4.1-1
Region

Final Production Impacts, Alternate 4
Final Production (MMton/yr) Underground Surface 142 33 46 33 565 2 1 821 Total 373 86 46 100 569 2 2 1,178

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

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total

231 53 0 68 3.8 0 0.46 357

4.4.2

Geomorphology and Topography
4.4.2.1 Water Elements

The Water Elements related to fills under Alternative #4 would not significantly affect topography or geomorphology in any region. Reinstatement of the 1983 Stream Buffer Zone rule would continue to allow fill placement in streams in much the same way as currently practiced. The only difference would be that instead of prohibiting fill placement in or within 100 feet of intermittent or perennial streams unless authorized by the regulatory authority, intermittent or perennial streams would be replaced with “waters of the United States” as defined by the Clean Water Act. Although the definition of “waters of the United States” would include perennial and intermittent streams, it would also include additional water bodies, such as wetlands, that are not included under current regulations, but would not include ephemeral streams. While the Water Elements related to fills would apply to a broader array of water bodies, fill placement would still be permitted in these water bodies with regulatory authority approval under a slightly lesser standard than required by current regulations. Thus, these elements would likely have a slightly negative impact or no impact on topography by continuing to allow fill placement in streams, but eliminating the requirement that the operator demonstrate that avoidance is not reasonably possible. The definition of material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area is expected to reduce surface mining slightly in the Appalachian Basin, resulting in a reduction of over 100,000 permitted acres in this region. Thus, it is expected that impacts to topography and geomorphology will be reduced in proportion to the number of permitted acres affected in the Appalachian Basin. Affected acreages are not expected to shift significantly in other regions.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-163

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.4.2.2 Land Elements Under Alternative #4, surface configuration and fill optimization policies and any changes to AOC exceptions would be left to the regulatory authority to set based on the unique situations in each state or region. Because fill minimization and optimization policies already exist in the states where the majority of excess spoil is produced and valley fills are constructed, it is not expected that Alternative #4 would affect topography or geomorphology in any region since these policies are expected to remain in use. Because there are so few excess spoil disposal sites outside the Central Appalachian Basin, it seems unlikely that additional states would develop fill minimization policies that would only apply to a handful of valley fills. Currently, a regulatory authority could develop a surface configuration policy or geomorphic reclamation policy, like New Mexico, even if excess spoil disposal was not an issue in that area. Thus, Alternative #4 would not change a regulatory authority’s ability to develop any additional policies regarding topographic and geomorphic restoration practices. Although this regulation might encourage other states to develop such policies, it is unknown if that would occur. Additionally, since regulatory policies do not have the force of law that regulations have, these policies could not be enforced if an operator was not in compliance. Finally, the fill minimization requirements in Alternative 1 would apply to a much broader range of mining operations than current policies, and thus this element would not be as beneficial as Alternative 1 in respect to fill minimization. Similarly, regulatory authorities already provide for limits on variances and exceptions from AOC requirements. For example, Kansas, due to its relatively flat topography, does not allow for any variances from AOC in its regulations. Thus, this element would not have an effect on current practices related to AOC variances. As such, the Land Elements under Alternative #4 would not have any effect on current practices related to topography or geomorphology.

4.4.3

Water Resource Areas
4.4.3.1 Water Elements 4.4.3.1.1 Physical Impacts 4.4.3.1.1.1 Water Resource Planning

Under Alternative 4, there would be a net national increase in coal production of 0.6%. Therefore, on a national scale, water availability and usage impacts may be only slightly greater than Alternative 1 (No Action). However, water availability and usage impacts may vary by region. Under this alternative, net coal production increases in three regions—the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains (4.9%), the Illinois Basin (1.5%), and the Northwest (4.9%)—and decreases in four regions—the Appalachian Basin (−4.2%), the Colorado Plateau (−4.1%), the Gulf Region (−0.9%), and the Other Western Interior (−0.1%). An increase in coal production may result in an increase in coal mining-related water withdrawals and usage, adversely affecting water availability. For the most part, the increases are modest and would likely have little to no impact on water availability. Any resulting water availability impacts
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-164

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

would likely be highly localized and dependent on local water availability and demand. The relatively modest decreases in coal production in some regions may result in modest beneficial impacts to water availability, in that water that would have been used for coal production could be used for other beneficial uses. Like adverse impacts, these beneficial impacts would likely be highly localized. Coal mining-related water withdrawals constitute less than 1% of total regional water withdrawals (USGS, 2005). Under Alternative 4, various regulatory elements, including stream definition, baseline data collection and analysis, definition of material damage to the hydrological balance, activities in or near streams, and mining through streams may have regionwide impacts on water availability and usage. Streams would be defined using Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 criteria rather than SMCRA or hydrological classification criteria. This would likely result in increased stream protection compared with in Alternative 1. Activities in or near streams would be regulated similarly to the 1983 Stream Buffer Zone (SBZ) rule: activities in perennial or intermittent streams or on the surface of land within 100 feet of said streams would be prohibited, unless the applicable regulatory authority concludes that the SBZ incursion will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality regulations. This requirement may be more protective of water availability than Alternative 1, since it may minimize impacts to stream flow and therefore downstream water availability. Mining would only be allowed through streams that are previously impaired, potentially reducing the number of streams that could be possibly affected by coal mining activities, which would likely be more protective of water availability than Alternative 1 but less so than Alternative 2. Lastly, corrective action thresholds would be established using numerical criteria by the applicable regulatory agency. The establishment of specific numerical criteria, such as for base stream flow requirements, may have a beneficial impact on downstream water availability. On a national scale, water quality impacts, based solely on coal production, would be nearly the same as those under Alternative 1. Water quality impacts may vary by region, depending on net coal production changes. In regions where coal production increases, water quality may be adversely affected if the number of NPDES and SDWA violations increase proportionally. In regions where coal production decreases, water quality may improve, should NPDES and SDWA violations decrease proportionally. It is likely that water quality impacts related directly to coal production changes will be highly localized and dependent on local water quality and water supply resources. Regulatory elements under this alternative may affect drinking water quality. The collection of 12 months of baseline water quality data and the requirement to monitor water quality data during mining operations, along with the establishment of numerical water quality corrective action thresholds, may have a beneficial impact on water quality. The incremental adverse impacts in impaired streams may be significant. However, prohibiting activities in or near streams that are unimpaired will preserve existing water quality and beneficial use designations, if applicable. In summary, this alternative is likely more protective of water quality than Alternative 1 but less so than Alternative 2.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-165

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.4.3.1.1.2

Surface Water Hydrology

Alternative 4 has only a 0.6% increase in overall coal production compared to Alternative 1 and is nearly the same as Alternative 3. The 0.6% increase in overall coal production in Alternative 4 is generated by a 1% increase in surface mining, while underground mining is basically held constant compared to Alternative 1. The increase in surface coal mining is entirely due to a 5% increase in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. The Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau are expected to experience decreases of approximately 10%, 5% ,and 4%, respectively, compared to Alternative 1. Thus, as in other scenarios, the acreage of surface mining affected, and presumably associated hydrologic impacts, will be decreased by shifting production to the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. Compared to Alternative 1, there will be an approximate decrease of 2,150 acre/yr in the Appalachian Basin and an approximate increase of 400 acre/yr in surface mining for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. Underground mining is essentially unchanged in a comparison of Alternatives 1 and 4. The most significant provision in the water elements of Alternative 4 is the allowance of mining through streams if the stream, defined by the Clean Water Act, had been impaired or affected prior to mining activities. The potential impact of this provision in the Appalachian Basin is that mining may be directed toward areas that have had some level of residential development, particularly in rural areas, due to the predominance of straight pipes for sewage treatment in such areas. Additionally, stream impairments are highly associated with sedimentation that may be associated with timber harvesting activities, thus enabling surface mining in many areas where it would normally exist. Watersheds without previously impaired streams would remain in a more pristine state, in that mining would be precluded. It may be difficult to link previous stream impairment, especially associated with sediment, only to forestry operations and not to forest harvesting operations that preceded surface mining activities. The 5% projected increase in surface mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains indicates the belief that streams in this region have been previously impaired, most likely by gas extraction activities. It may be difficult to meet the material damage definition of rebuttable presumption based on a percentage of stream miles that are or may be adversely affected when considering the current database of impaired streams in the Appalachian Basin. A means to reduce material damage would be to aggressively implement a systems approach to alternative mining practices and use of BMPs to reduce potential hydrologic impacts. Stream Length Impacts The shift in surface mining from the Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau to the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains would be an overall reduction in length of stream affected. A 5% increase in Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains surface coal production would increase affected stream length by approximately 0.8 miles annually. Annual decreases of stream miles affected in the Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau would be 2.8, 0.3, and 0.1, respectively. These represent decreases of approximately

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-166

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6.6%, 2.0%, and 3.9% for the Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau, respectively, of impacted stream miles under Alternative 4, compared with Alternative 1. 4.4.3.1.1.3 Groundwater Hydrology

Table 4.4.3-7 presents the predicted stream impacts calculated by the production shift mathematical model described in further detail under Coal Resources and Mining consequences. Values for% public supply from groundwater and% domestic self-supplied groundwater were calculated from population data extracted from 2005 U.S. Geological Survey water-use data, http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005, downloaded September 16, 2010. Table 4.4.3-1 Anticipated Regional Stream Impacts for Alternative 4 Stream (mi/yr) Impacts 66.22 7.66 5.94 14.16 11.12 0.04 0.9 % Change from Alt 1 -6.58% -3.92% -1.26% -1.98% 4.94% -75.32% -1.41% % Public Supply GW Use 13.24% 13.54% 6.45% 7.75% 20.69% 0.00% 1.22% % Domestic Supply GW 16.53% 18.51% 30.94% 14.99% 6.89% 18.21% 6.85%

Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Under Alternative 4, acres disturbed and stream length impacts in the Appalachian Basin are predicted to be decreased by approximately 6.5%. This reduction would result in some groundwater quality improvements and groundwater recharge reductions when compared with the No Action Alternative, similar to but less than under Alternatives 2 and 3. Within the Colorado Plateau, Alternative 4 is predicted to result in only minor changes compared with the Alternative 1. Groundwater impacts in the Colorado Plateau region are typically localized; therefore, the minor improvements with regard to groundwater expected under this alternative would be relatively insignificant when compared with the No Action Alternative. Mining in the Gulf Coast and Illinois Basin regions under this alternative would only change very slightly when compared with the No Action Alternative; therefore, no significant changes in groundwater quality or supply would be anticipated to occur. Mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region would be expected to increase by approximately 5% under this alternative when compared with the No Action Alternative.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Alternative 4

4-167

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Similar to the discussion under Alternative 2, groundwater impacts would be expected to increase under this alternative but could be considered to be relatively temporary. Under this alternative, mining production in the Northwest region is anticipated to be reduced by approximately 75%. Thus, groundwater impacts under this alternative would be less than for the No Action Alternative; however, they are already relatively insignificant. Mining in the Other Western Interior region under this alternative would change only very slightly when compared with the No Action Alternative; therefore, no significant changes in groundwater quality or supply would be anticipated to occur. 4.4.3.1.2 Chemical Impacts 4.4.3.1.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 4 from the water elements included in the DEIS analysis (1) Stream Definition, (2) Activities In or Near Streams, (3) Definition of Material Damage to the Hydrologic Balance, (4) Mining Through Streams, and (5) Corrective Action Thresholds). For Alternative 4, potential water quality impacts will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Under Alternative 4, small net national increases in surface (1%) and total (0.7%) coal production are predicted, with no change predicted for underground coal production. On a regional scale, predicted changes to underground, surface, and total coal production also are predicted to be small (generally less than 5%). As a result, coal mining activities in or near streams and mining through streams would be expected to be similar to current conditions under Alternative 4. Therefore, on both a national and a regional scale, impacts to surface water quality are expected to be similar to those under Alternative 1. 4.4.3.1.2.2 Groundwater Quality

As for surface water, impacts to groundwater quality under Alternative 4 are likely to be similar to those occurring under Alternative 1 (No Action) because coal production under Alternative 4 is predicted to be similar to current production levels. 4.4.3.2 Land Elements 4.4.3.2.1 Physical Impacts 4.4.3.2.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology The setting of fill optimization policies based on topography and other site-specific issues may be expected to reduce hydrologic impacts of increased runoff volume and flooding potential when comparing Alternatives 1 and 4. Such policies would decrease the number and size of fills, thereby reducing the watershed area affected. The fill optimization policies in addition to the predicted decrease of nearly 10% in the amount of surface mining would be expected to decrease hydrologic impacts in watersheds that would have otherwise had valley fills. Since fills are predominantly used in Kentucky and West Virginia, such fill reduction would primarily affect hydrology in these areas of the Appalachian Basin.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-168

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.4.3.2.1.2

Fluvial Processes

Stream Morphology Change Under Alternative 4, changes in fluvial processes are expected to be closely associated with changes in hydrology, erosion, and stream lengths. Fill optimization policies would decrease the number and size of fills placed over streams, and as such, should decrease the impact on fluvial processes. For regions that do not use valley fills, such as the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, increases in fluvial process impacts are not expected. The allowance of mining through streams, if affected prior to mining activities and if done in such as way as to improve water quality above pre-mining conditions, may benefit downstream reaches. The compensatory mitigation required by the CWA Section 404 program will provide incentive for reducing the amount of streams affected. Alternative 4 is expected to reduce the amount of mining in areas of high stream quality by shifting mining to areas where impaired or impacted streams are located. Erosion and Sediment Control Similar to Alternative 3, there would be an expectation of lesser quantities of erosion and need for fewer sediment ponds with the implementation of reduced fills due to fill optimization policies. 4.4.3.2.2 Chemical Impacts 4.4.3.2.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 4 from the land elements included in the DEIS analysis (Surface Configuration and Fills, and AOC Exceptions). For Alternative 4, surface water quality impacts from changes in the land elements will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Under Alternative 4, small net national increases in surface (1%) and total (0.7%) coal production are predicted, with no change predicted for underground coal production. On a regional scale, changes to underground, surface, and total coal production also are predicted to be small (generally less than 5%). Consequently, under Alternative 4, land surface reconfiguration and/or creation of fills in or near streams are expected to be similar to current levels. Therefore, both nationally and regionally, impacts to surface water quality from land element modifications are expected to be similar to those under Alternative 1. 4.4.3.2.2.2 Groundwater Quality

As for surface water, impacts to groundwater quality from land element modifications under Alternative 4 are expected to be similar to those occurring under Alternative 1 (No Action) because coal production under Alternative 4 is predicted to be similar to current production levels (generally within 5%).

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-169

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.4.3.3 Other Elements 4.4.3.3.1 Physical Impacts 4.4.3.3.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology The adoption of the Reclaimed Desired Plant Species (RDPC) provision specified in the element on Revegetation and Topsoil Management of Alternative 4 may decrease hydrology impacts compared to Alternative 1 in that all coal regions would be required to adopt reclamation procedures to establish plants that would require microsurface changes. Such changes may be expected to reduce surface runoff and reduce peak flow. 4.4.3.3.1.2 Fluvial Processes

Stream Morphology Change The effect of the adoption of the RDPC on fluvial processes will depend in part on the plant communities selected. If grasses and legumes are selected for areas that were previously forested, increases in runoff and sedimentation over pre-mining conditions may occur. These increases could result in streams undergoing degradation or aggradation. If forested species are selected instead, hydrologic and sedimentologic impacts may not increase. Erosion and Sediment Control The adoption of the RDPC provision would be expected to reduce erosion rates compared to Alternative 1 due to microsurface changes and an expectation of more successful establishment of native plants. In the Appalachian Basin, adoption of the FRA, in conjunction with an approximate reduction of nearly 10% in surface mining, would further reduce the quantity of sediment produced. 4.4.3.3.2 Chemical Impacts 4.4.3.3.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 4 from the other elements included in the DEIS analysis (Revegetation and Topsoil Management, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Baseline Data Collection and Analysis, and Monitoring During Mining and Reclamation). For Alternative 4, surface water quality impacts from changes in the other elements will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). As noted above, coal production under Alternative 4 is predicted to be similar to current production levels (generally within 5% nationally and by region). However, modifications to the other elements considered in this DEIS are expected to have little effect on surface water quality (see Section 4.1.3.3.2.2 for rationale). Under Alternative 4, surface water quality is expected to change little in all coal-producing regions, but this conclusion is based on an evaluation of water elements (see Section 4.4.3.1.2) and land elements (see Section 4.4.3.2.2), not the other elements.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-170

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.4.3.3.2.2

Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality impacts under Alternative 4 are likely to be similar to current impacts in all regions, as noted above. However, these changes are the result of changes in water elements (see Section 4.3.3.1.2) and land elements (see Section 4.3.3.2.2), not the other elements.

4.4.4

Biological Resources
4.4.4.1 Water Elements

For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect aquatic ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 4:      Mining and mining activities could occur in all stream types. Excess spoils could be placed in all stream types. Ephemeral streams would not be protected. Approximately 106 additional miles of perennial and/or intermittent streams would be affected each year by new coal mining operations (Table 4.4.5-1). The miles of ephemeral streams that might be affected by coal mining practices under Alternative 4 are not known.

Therefore, adverse impacts to aquatic communities associated with coal mining would be expected to occur in only 5% fewer miles of streams under Alternative 4 compared to the No Action Alternative. The types of adverse impacts expected under this alternative would be similar to those described above for the No Action Alternative at some new mining sites, because mining in, near, and through streams would still be allowed under certain circumstances. The reasonable, foreseeable development scenario for coal production in the United States under Alternative 4 is for a decrease in mining activity (both surface and underground) in the Appalachian Basin, Colorado Plateau, and Gulf Region; an increase in mining (both surface and underground) in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region; an increase in surface mining in the Northwest region (with no underground mining expected to occur); and an increase in underground mining with a concurrent decrease in surface mining in the Illinois Basin and the Other Western Interior region. Therefore, stream impacts related to new mine development would be expected to change proportionally where new mining development occurs, with the greatest impacts expected in the Appalachian Basin region.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-171

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3

Table 4.4.4-1. Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region Under Alternative 4 and the No Action Alternative
Alternative 1 Region Affected Acreage (yr) 33,121 4,219 3,120 7,590 5,863 163 411 54,488 Affected Stream Length (mi/yr) 70.9 8.0 6.0 14.4 10.6 0.2 0.9 111 Alternative 4 Affected Acreage (yr) 30,941 4,054 3,081 7,441 6,152 40 405 52,115 Affected Stream Length (mi/yr) 66.2 7.7 5.9 14.2 11.1 0.0 0.9 106

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Under this alternative, the water quality protection goals for sites where mine-throughs are allowed would be more stringent than under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, it is likely that problems will be identified earlier and corrective actions taken to reduce downstream impacts related to AMD and stormwater quality problems. Under this alternative, perennial and intermitted streams will receive expanded benefit from better protection of stream buffers, which will, in turn, leave increased portions of riparian zones intact. This should result in better protection of stream water quality. Alternative 4 adopts the CWA’s definition for “waters of the U.S.,” which includes wetlands that have clear hydrologic connections to navigable waterways and tributaries. As a result, wetlands that are jurisdictional under the CWA would be protected under SMCRA as well. Isolated wetlands would not be afforded direct protection but would still be considered wildlife habitat under NEPA; therefore impacts to these would need to be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practical. Under Alternative 4, surface configuration and fill optimization policies, and AOC requirements, would be left to the various regulatory authorities to set based on varying topography and other site-specific issues. This situation would not necessarily encourage wetlands establishment in small depressional areas on the reclaimed mine site, as restoring the small topographic differences would not consistently be a requirement. Riparian wetlands adjacent to headwater streams mainly in the eastern U.S. regions would also remain at risk from impacts from mining.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-172

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Alternative 4 would result in the adoption of the Desirable Plant Community (DPC) concept. The DPC concept would allow applicants to revegetate sites with species that are reasonable communities for the sites. This could result in a temporal change in wetland functions on sites that contained forested wetlands prior to mining and that are revegetated with herbaceous species. The change in wetland functions would be mitigated under Section 404 of the CWA if the on-site forested wetlands are considered waters of the United States. Fish and wildlife habitat protection and enhancement measures would apply only to affected habitats that are valuable to federally listed threatened and endangered species. Wetlands would be enhanced only if they currently provide or have the potential to serve as habitat for threatened or endangered species. Material damage to the hydrologic balance would be defined by stream miles affected within watersheds. The potential exists for the hydrology of some stream systems to change, and therefore to have an effect on adjacent riparian wetlands and wetlands found on floodplains. Groundwater levels nearby the mine sites could change and have an impact on wetlands locally around the mine sites. In summary, under Alternative 4, future coal mining practices would be expected to result in adverse impacts to aquatic resources at some sites. These adverse impacts would be expected to include impairment of macroinvertebrate and fish communities both on- and off-site, degraded water quality, permanent loss of ephemeral streams, and permanent loss of perennial and intermittent stream habitats through burial. 4.4.4.2 Land Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect terrestrial ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 4:  It is not known whether the AOC will have to be reestablished at all mining sites, because those decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis by regulatory authorities. Approximately 52,000 new acres of land are expected to be developed for new coal mining operations each year under this alternative (Table 4.4.5-1). Essentially, there would be a 4% reduction in the amount of land that would be affected by development of new mines each year under this alternative compared to the No Action Alternative.



Substantial unknowns are associated with potential impacts to terrestrial resources under this alternative because requirements related to surface configurations, fills, and AOC exceptions are not spelled out, but instead would be decided case by case. It is possible that new mine sites developed in the future under this alternative would have fewer adverse impacts to upland resources compared to the No Action Alternative because the regulatory authorities may not allow AOC exceptions.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-173

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

In summary, under Alternative 4, future coal mining practices may result in major adverse impacts to terrestrial resources at some sites. These adverse impacts may include fragmentation of habitats; degradation of habitat quality through fire, noise, introduction of non-native and/or invasive species, and abrupt changes in topography; exposure of wildlife to toxic chemicals; and permanent loss of terrestrial habitat. These adverse impacts would be expected to occur with all mining methods and in all coal regions, but the majority of the adverse impacts are expected to occur in the Appalachian Basin. 4.4.4.3 Other Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the practices that are most likely to affect restoration outcomes for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 4:     Topsoil does not necessarily have to be reused on-site. Cleared forest does not necessarily have to be restored to forest. There is no requirement that native species be used in revegetation activities. Habitat enhancement projects do not necessarily have to occur within the same watershed.

Invasive species tend to be successful in colonizing disturbed areas and can become a serious impediment to successful outcomes in reclamation and restoration projects. The environmental monitoring requirements associated with this alternative do not extend to determining whether invasive species would adversely affect habitat quality in the reclamation areas. Therefore, it is possible that habitat quality may be diminished by invasive species that become established during the restoration activities. Under this alternative, the mining company would select existing vegetation types around the mine site to represent the reclaimed desired plant community (RDPC). The net effect of this provision is that site restoration would require neither reforestation nor the use of native species. This would result in reclaimed mine sites with lower-quality habitat and potentially lower diversity of native species than pre-mining conditions. This is similar to what occurs at some sites under the No Action Alternative and would result in long-term adverse impacts to biological resources.

4.4.5

Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation

Alternative 4 would result in changes to the requirements for obtaining a permit and for mining operations under SMCRA. Most of these changes are more restrictive than Alternative 1, but not as restrictive at Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is predicted to result in a reduction of surface mining in the Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, Colorado Plateau, and Gulf Coast coal resource regions. The reduction of production in these regions would be replaced with increased surface mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains coal resource region and with increased
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-174

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3

underground mining in the Illinois Basin coal resource regions. Specific values for these anticipated increases and decreases are listed in Table 4.4.5-1 below. Table 4.4.5-1 Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 4 Affected Streams (mile/yr) 66.22 7.66 5.94 14.16 11.12 0.04 0.90 Percent (%) Change from Baseline (No Action Alternative) −6.59 −3.89 −1.16 −1.94 5.00 −75.00 −1.10

Coal Resource Region

Affected Area (acre/yr) 30,941 4,054 3,081 7,441 6,152 40 405

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

As previously described in Section 4.1.5, there are no changes to SMCRA under this alternative that would directly affect visual resources. 4.4.5.1 Water Elements Alternative 4 is the least restrictive alternative considered. Stream definition and current water quality considerations would permit mining to occur in, near, or through more streams than under the other alternatives, with the exception of the No Action Alternative. This alternative would be expected to have more of a negative impact on dispersed recreational activities than Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. More restrictive definitions of streams and material damage, as well as limitations on activities near streams or on mining through streams, would reduce the potential for visual impacts in an area because it would reduce and limit the surface impacts along streams or other waterbodies from mining activities in all regions. Changes to streams would be reduced but not prohibited, but may include restrictions in some wetlands and other waterbodies not traditionally characterized as streams. Where mining activities are allowed, material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area is defined by a percentage of miles that would permanently damage the watershed. These restrictions would allow some permanent impacts to the visual quality of streams. Changes to corrective action thresholds do not provide specific limitations that affect the visual quality of an area. 4.4.5.2 Land Elements Fill optimization policies and exceptions from AOC requirements would be implemented by regulatory authorities. Since fills mainly apply to the Appalachian Basin, the land element
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-175

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

considerations under this alternative would primarily affect the Appalachian Basin and have very little or no effect on the other coal resource regions. Recreational and land use impacts in the Appalachian Basin would minimally vary from those under the No Action Alternative because fills would still be permitted but would require optimization techniques. Many states are already requiring demonstration of fill optimization in the permitting process; thus, this alternative would be expected to result in only minor changes from existing requirements. Current requirements for surface configurations and fills and AOC exceptions allow changes to the pre-existing physical conditions, and therefore potentially affect visual quality. Under Alternative 4, these requirements would remain under the authority of the various regulating agencies in the regions. The existing practices and documentation for review and assessment of visual impacts would continue. In the Appalachian Basin, Gulf Coast, and Illinois Basin regions, where visual impact assessment is not usually well documented, the continuation of the existing practices can result in visual impacts. In the Colorado Plateau and Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains regions, where most of the land within the coal fields is managed by the BLM, existing visual resource assessment and mitigation are often well documented and included in environmental assessments, which prevents or minimizes visual impacts. This alternative will also require reforestation, similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. As such, it can be expected that required reforestation of previously mined areas would have similar impacts, such as preclusion of postmining land uses such as cropland and industrial. 4.4.5.3 Other Elements This alternative is less stringent on the type of revegetation required and does not require fish and wildlife enhancement unless federally listed species are affected. These relaxed requirements would likely result in less reclaimed land being returned to forested conditions and thus might be expected to affect some forms of dispersed recreational opportunities in those regions where pre-mined lands are predominantly forest. However, with regard to wildlife abundance and associated hunting opportunities, the largest diversity of species can be found in landscapes with the largest diversity of habitat types. Most game species thrive in fragmented, edge-dominated habitats. Currently, the best hunting opportunities and game species populations in the central and southern Appalachian coal fields are on reclaimed mined landscapes. The state wildlife agencies in Kentucky and West Virginia prefer PMLUs that restore forest cover to about 30% of the mined area and use non-native herbaceous plantings such as white clover, red clover, sweet clover, kobe lespedeza, and orchard grass, in conjunction with native grasses, shrubs, and trees. Changes to the requirements for baseline data collection and analysis, monitoring during mining and reclamation, and fish and wildlife protection and enhancement do not consider or affect visual quality or visual impact assessment of surface mining projects. Current requirements for revegetation and topsoil management in accordance with pre-mining land use or an approved PMLU can result in the potential for visual impacts when non-native vegetation is allowed or areas are not restored to forested state. The requirements under Alternative 4 call for “reclaimed desired plant community” applications. These requirements may change the visual quality of the
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-176

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

site after project completion in all regions, although this change would be an improvement or acceptable replacement for postmining use.

4.4.6

Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure

Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in some adverse socioeconomic effects in local areas in certain coal-producing regions, though less than all other alternatives, excluding Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. These conditions would directly relate to loss of employment in certain regions, which would affect personal earnings, and state income taxes and other local taxes, which have not been calculated here because of a lack of consistent data across the region. In addition, there would be a loss of tax revenue associated with severance taxes and corporate business taxes through a decline in production in certain regions. Overall, there is an expected production increase of 0.6% over Alternative 1; however, production changes vary by region, with the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, Illinois Basin, and Northwest regions increasing production and the other regions losing production. 4.4.6.1 Economics 4.4.6.1.1 Employment and Unemployment 4.4.6.1.1.1 Employment Changes in Coal Mining Selecting Alternative 4 would result in a net loss in total coal mining employment of over 2,100 positions nationally. Table 4.4.7-1 lists the estimated number of positions by production type and the percentage change in employment when compared to Alternative 1. The two coalproducing regions that would not show a decline in employment positions in the surface coal mining industry are the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Northwest regions, which have an expected gain of 4.9% each in surface coal mining employment. The Illinois Basin is estimated to gain enough positions through underground coal mining to offset and expand from the loss of positions in surface coal mining. The Appalachian Basin and the Colorado Plateau would be expected to experience the greatest losses in employment in the coal mining industry, with the greatest percentage losses from the surface mining reductions associated with the proposed regulations for Alternative 4. The Gulf Region and Other Western Interior region would also lose employment positions, though the losses would be less than 1% of the estimated employment from Alternative 1. Table 4.4.6-1. Alternative 4 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type and Region
Estimated Number of Employment Positions UnderSurface Total ground 38,418 4,610 20,425 1,978 58,843 6,588 Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground (0.5) (4.3) (10.3) (3.7) (4.1) (4.1)

Coal-Producing Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-177

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Coal-Producing Region Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

Estimated Number of Employment Positions UnderSurface Total ground 2,850 4,964 7,814 7,916 2,656 10,573 355 0 63 10,051 99 320 10,406 99 383

Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground 0.0 (0.7) (0.5) 4.9 (4.9) 2.3 4.9 0.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 (1.5) 4.9 4.9 (0.5)

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

4.4.6.1.1.2

Estimated Employment Changes in Remainder of Economy

As described previously, the average indirect and induced employment creation in the Appalachian Basin region from one new employment position in the coal mining industry is 1.46. The worst-case scenario is the approximate additional loss of 3,705 employment positions throughout the entire Appalachian Basin, which equates to 0.01% of the total employment positions of the combined states in the basin. In the Western states, applying the average employment multiplier of 1.40 yields a loss of approximately 290 ancillary employment positions, a 0.002% decline in employment positions. Applying the Interior states’ average employment multiplier of 1.73 equates to a worst-case scenario of 337 lost employment positions (0.001% of employment positions). 4.4.6.1.1.3 Estimated Effects to the Number and Percentage of Unemployed

In the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, there would be an anticipated increase in employment both in underground and surface coal mining. The increase could reduce the number of unemployed if all persons came from the active labor force in the coalproducing region. This increased number of positions could lower the unemployment rate by approximately 0.1%. Table 4.4.7-2 lists the potential effects associated with the change in employment and the potential unemployment rate changes. Similar activity would be expected in both the Illinois Basin and the Northwest regions. In the Illinois Basin, the increase in the number of employment positions in underground mining could compensate for the loss of positions in the surface coal mining industry. In the Northwest, where there is not a viable underground mining industry, the increase in employment would be directly related to an increase in surface coal mining. Employment changes in the remaining regions would produce only negligible changes to unemployment rates. The Appalachian Basin would be expected to experience the greatest net losses of employment positions; however, that number would not substantially affect the regional unemployment rate.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-178

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.4.6-2.

Alternative 4 Estimated Change in Number of Unemployed and the Unemployment Rate by Region
Current Unemployment Rate 10.0 11.1 9.7 10.2 9.6 20.2 8.9 Change in Unemployed 2,538 285 37 (234) (487) (5) 2 Change in the Unemployment Rate 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 (0.1) (0.2) 0.0

Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4.4.6.1.2 Earnings and Personal Income 4.4.6.1.2.1 Earnings and Personal Income Changes from Coal Mining Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in a substantial loss of earnings and personal income in local areas of some coal-producing regions. The most substantial losses would occur in the Appalachian Basin and the Colorado Plateau, though these estimated losses would be minor in comparison with total regional personal earnings. Table 4.4.7-3 lists the estimated change in earnings and percentage change in earnings as compared to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. When compared to total regional personal earnings, the loss of earnings in the coal industry is relatively small, with the largest loss occurring in the Colorado Plateau. An estimated increase in personal earnings would be expected in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Northwest, and the Illinois Basin regions. Table 4.4.6-3. Alternative 4 Estimated Change in Earnings from Coal Mining
Estimated Change in Earnings ($1,000) Coal-Producing Region Underground (9,883) (9,914) (25) 20,653 902 0 180 Surface (115,519) (3,700) (1,833) (7,537) 22,227 256 (197) Total (125,402) (13,614) (1,858) 13,116 23,129 256 (17) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 Underground (0.5) (4.3) 0.0 4.9 4.9 0.0 4.9 Surface (10.3) (3.7) (0.7) (4.9) 4.9 4.9 (1.5) Total (4.1) (4.1) (0.5) 2.3 4.9 4.9 (0.1) Percent Change of Total Regional Personal Earnings 0.0 (0.1) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

16

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-179

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.4.6.1.2.2

Estimated Earnings and Personal Income Effects in Remainder of Economy

The loss of approximately $125.4 million in earnings in the Appalachian Basin could result in the additional loss of approximately $101.6 million, equivalent to 0.03% of the total regional personal earnings, yielding a combined regional loss in earnings of approximately 0.07%. In the Western states, the net change in earnings would be an increase of approximately $9.8 million, which would result in an additional increase in earnings of approximately $6.0 million (0.01% of the total compensation in the combined regions). In the Interior states, the net changes in earnings would be an increase of approximately $11.2 million in additional earnings, which would result in an additional increase of 0.01% of the total earnings in the combined regions. 4.4.6.1.3 Poverty Levels Implementation of Alternative 4 would increase local poverty levels in some regions, if persons displaced by the loss of employment associated with reductions in the surface coal mining industry do not readily find other employment. Table 4.4.7-4 lists, as a worst-case scenario, the potential effects from the loss of employment positions from surface mining. This analysis assumes an average family size per region supported by each employment position lost. It also assumes that none of the populations relocate to find jobs in other areas. The table indicates that the areas that would experience the greatest impacts would be in the Colorado Plateau and the Appalachian Basin, though the effects would be minor. Conversely, the poverty rate could decline in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the Illinois Basin, and the Northwest regions if the employment positions generated from underground mining and surface mining could employ persons, either unemployed or from the working poor, with a household income below the poverty threshold. Table 4.4.6-4. Alternative 4 Estimated Change in Poverty Levels from Changes in Employment
Estimated Change in Employment (2,538) (285) (37) 234 487 5 (2) Estimated Population Affected 10,113 1,201 156 958 1,869 19 8 Estimated Total Population Below Poverty 1,424,391 108,670 59,764 196,355 88,251 1,255 58,445 Estimated Percent Below Poverty 16.3 18.5 17.1 16.4 12.3 22.4 16.3 Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rate 0.1 0.2 0.0 (0.1) (0.3) (0.3) 0.0

Coal-Producing Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

26

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-180

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

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

4.4.6.1.4 Income and Severance Taxes Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in either small increases or reductions of tax revenues by coal region directly associated with coal mining. In comparison with Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the impact on most coal regions would range between a 5% revenue loss and 6.5% revenue gain. The estimated impacts of Alternative 4 implementation on the AML fund by region are shown in Table 4.4.7-5. This analysis shows that there would be modest increases of nearly 5% in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and Northwest regions. The Appalachian and Colorado Plateau regions would experience revenue reductions of 6.5% and 4%, respectively, and all other regions would have reductions of less than 1%. Nationwide, the level of contributions to the AML fund would remain essentially even in comparison with the No Action Alternative. Table 4.4.6-5. Alternative 4 Estimated Change in AML Funds Collected
Estimated Change in Abandoned Mine Lands Fees Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground (149) (325) (0) 428 24 0 3 (4,843) (404) (125) (526) 8,319 23 (7) (4,993) (730) (125) (98) 8,344 23 (4) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 Underground (0.5) (4.3) 0.0 4.9 4.9 0.0 4.9 Surface (10.3) (3.7) (0.7) (4.9) 4.9 4.9 (1.5) Total (6.5) (4.0) (0.7) (0.5) 4.9 4.9 (0.8)

Coal-Producing Region

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Estimated changes in the levels of severance tax revenues collected in each region are shown in Table 4.4.7-6. Severance tax revenues would increase nearly 5% in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region. All other regions would experience reduced severance tax revenues, at rates ranging from 4.5% in the Appalachian Basin to 0.1% in the Other Western Interior. Table 4.4.6-6.
Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast

Alternative 4 Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes
Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground (309) (4,328) (4,637) (549) (0) (298) (16) (847) (16) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground (0.5) (10.3) (4.5) (4.3) 0.0 (3.7) (0.7) (4.1) (0.6)

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-181

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground 185 (835) (650) 70 Not Applicable 6 23,649 (6) 23,719 (0) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground 4.9 (4.9) (3.1) 4.9 4.9 4.9 (1.5) 4.9 (0.1)

Coal-Producing Region Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The estimated changes in state income taxes attributable to coal industry employment in each region are shown in Table 4.4.7-7. Income tax revenues from coal mining nationwide would remain essentially even, with increases in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and Illinois Basin regions of 4.9% and 2.3%, respectively. Other regions would experience income tax revenue reductions ranging from 4.1% in the Appalachian Basin and Colorado Plateau to less than 1% in the Gulf Region and Other Western Interior. Table 4.4.6-7.
Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

Alternative 4 Estimated Change in State Income Taxes
Estimated Change in State Income Taxes Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground (313) (3,657) (3,970) (374) (140) (514) (1) (43) (43) 673 (245) 427 20 Not Applicable 7 481 (7) 501 (0) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground (0.5) (10.3) (4.1) (4.3) (3.7) (4.1) 0.0 (0.7) (0.5) 4.9 (4.9) 2.3 4.9 4.9 4.9 (1.5) 4.9 (0.1)

9 10 11 12 13 14

Under Alternative 4, royalties would decline in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains compared to Alternative 1. Table 4.4.7-8 lists the estimated royalties, distributions, and change from Alternative 1. Tribes in New Mexico and Arizona would be expected to lose approximately $2.9 million in coal royalties, while tribes in Montana would receive an additional $0.6 million in coal royalties.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-182

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.4.6-8.

Alternative 4 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement
Change from Alternative 1 Tribal Federal Estimated State Royalties Royalties Disbursements $1,000 0 0 (1,664) (1,266) 0 0 0 553 0 (116) (3,104) (607) 0 (1,512) (470) 29,480 2,173 (7) (58) (1,552) (304) 0 (756) (235) 14,740 1,086 (3)

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

Alternative 4 Federal Estimated State State Royalties Disbursements $1,000 Appalachian Basin/Illinois Basin Kentucky 0 2,333 1,166 Colorado Plateau Colorado 0 72,030 36,015 New Mexico 41,505 15,144 7,572 Arizona 32,558 0 0 Utah 0 33,473 16,736 Gulf Coast Alabama 0 945 472 Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Wyoming 0 630,455 315,227 Montana 11,836 46,469 23,234 Other Western Interior Oklahoma 0 4,734 2,367 Tribal Royalties
Source: Calculated from ONRR, 2010.

4.4.6.2 Demographics 4.4.6.2.1 Populations Changes As shown in Table 4.4.7-1 the net number of persons potentially affected by implementation of Alternative 4 includes the dependents of those employed in the coal mining industry. The estimates of net populations adversely affected range from over 10,000 persons in the Appalachian Basin to as few as 8 persons in the Other Western Interior. For Alternative 4, no regions would have more than 0.1% of the population adversely affected, based on total population counts from the 2000 Decennial Census. 4.4.6.2.2 Minority Population Effects Alternative 4 would not be expected to create adverse effects for minority populations in any of the regions because of the minor loss of employment positions overall. Regions with high minority populations, such as the Northwest region, would be expected to realize a slight increase in employment from this alternative. 4.4.6.3 Environmental Justice Similar to Alternative 2, selecting Alternative 4 would not be expected to result in disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income communities, because all communities

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-183

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

would be provided equal access to the decision-making processes involved with the proposed rulemaking. 4.4.6.4 Utilities and Infrastructure Under Alternative 4, the net tonnage of coal produced in the United States would be nearly identical to current levels; however, production shifts would be expected to affect utilities. 4.4.6.4.1 Utilities Because overall production is estimated to remain at nearly the same level as Alternative 1, it is assumed that Alternative 4 would not affect the net demand for water and wastewater treatment nationwide. Because certain areas of the country would produce more coal and other areas would produce less, effects of Alternative 4 on utilities are discussed by basin below. Appalachian Basin Alternative 4 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Appalachian Basin by approximately 4% and would reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Treatment capacity would be reduced directly because of less water and wastewater treatment demand from closing surface mines, or indirectly because of lower residential demand from out-of-work people leaving the area. Production tonnages in all states in this basin would decrease slightly. Most affected would be the states of Tennessee and Pennsylvania, where the tonnage produced from surface mining would decrease by 35% and 17%, respectively. In other states in this basin, the tonnage produced by surface mining would decrease by between 2% and 10%. Colorado Plateau Alternative 4 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Colorado Plateau by approximately 3% and would directly or indirectly reduce the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in Utah. Overall, production tonnages in Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona would stay at current levels, though Colorado and New Mexico would have decreases in the tonnages produced at surface mines and increases in tonnages produced at underground mines. In general, increased treatment capacity would not be expected in this basin. Gulf Coast Alternative 4 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Gulf Coast by approximately 2% and would directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Most affected would be Mississippi, where production tonnages produced by surface mines would increase by approximately 5%. Mississippi has only marginal remaining capacity for water and wastewater treatment, so effects would require evaluation at a local level.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-184

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Illinois Basin Alternative 4 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Illinois Basin by approximately 3% and would directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Most affected would be Indiana, where underground production tonnages would increase by approximately 14%, while surface tonnages would decrease by approximately 9%. Indiana generally has ample water and wastewater capacities in coal-producing counties. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 4 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains by surface and underground methods by approximately 3% overall, increasing underground production by 77% and surface production by 2%. This alternative would also directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in Wyoming and Montana. Demand in North Dakota would stay at approximately the same level. Wyoming and Montana generally have ample water and wastewater capacities in coal-producing counties. Northwest Basin As shown on Table 3.17-15 in Section 3.17, the coal-producing county in Alaska has excess capacity for water treatment; however, wastewater treatment capacity is not known. Alternative 4 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Northwest by approximately 2% and would directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity. More detailed estimates of increased treatment capacity requirements would be needed to determine whether treatment capacity is sufficient to accommodate the increased production associated with Alternative 4. Other Western Interior As shown on Table 3.17-21 in Section 3.17, each state in the Other Western Interior currently has excess capacity for water and wastewater treatment. However, counties in individual states are at capacity, or demand exceeds capacity for water treatment. Alternative 4 would keep production tonnages in the four states in this basin relatively unchanged and would not likely affect water or wastewater treatment capacity. 4.4.6.4.2 Transportation Infrastructure Under Alternative 4, current modes of transportation would be affected by regional shifts in production. Impacts to each primary mode of coal transportation (rail, barge, and road) are presented below by basin. Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in shifts in the methods of transportation; rail transportation would likely increase cumulatively by 1%, while barge and road transportation would decrease cumulatively across all basins by 2% and 0.5%, respectively, on the national level. Localized effects would be expected in states where production changes are greater.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-185

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.4.6.4.2.1 Appalachian Basin

Rail

Alternative 4 would directly reduce the demand for rail transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the eight states in the Appalachian Basin shipped approximately 23% of the total short tons of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin by 4% would result in a net decrease of 1% of all U.S. rail shipments of coal. Affected rail lines would include CSX and Norfolk Southern. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep areas of west-central Pennsylvania, south-central Kentucky, and south-central Tennessee and northern Alabama operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. Colorado Plateau Alternative 4 would directly reduce the demand for rail transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the four states in the Colorado Plateau shipped approximately 8% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). In this basin, rail is the predominant mode of coal transport; nearly twice as much coal is shipped by rail than by all other modes of transport. Reducing coal production from the Colorado Plateau Basin by 3% would result in a net decrease of 0.25% of all U.S. rail shipments of coal. Affected rail lines would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would not necessarily correspond to a reduced need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep rail corridors bisecting New Mexico and Arizona, and in northeastern Colorado and southwestern Utah, operating at LOS A, B, and C. Improvement projects may still be required, but the costs of improvements may be spread across fewer rail shipments, potentially increasing the cost of rail shipping in this basin. Gulf Coast Alternative 4 would directly increase the need for rail transportation of coal only in Texas. Rail is not used to ship coal produced in Louisiana or Mississippi. Mines in the Gulf Coast shipped approximately 0.3% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Increasing coal production from Texas by 2.5% would not result in a measurable increase in all U.S. rail shipments of coal. Rail lines affected by implementation of Alternative 4 would include BNSF and Union Pacific.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-186

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Capital improvements will be required to keep most of the rail lines in all three states in this basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C and to meet the additional rail demand of Alternative 4. Illinois Basin Alternative 4 would directly increase the need for rail transportation in Indiana, Illinois, and western Kentucky. Mines in these three states shipped approximately 6% of the total short tons of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Increasing coal production from the basin by 3% would increase the Illinois Basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by rail by approximately 0.2%. Affected rail lines in this basin would include the four major rail lines (CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, and Union Pacific). The effects of increased demand for rail transportation would likely correspond to an increased need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads throughout Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky operating at LOS categories A, B, or C, especially at notable river crossings where LOS categories are already at capacity, and in northeastern Illinois where the LOS exceeds capacity. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 4 would directly increase the need for rail transportation in Wyoming and Montana. Demand in North Dakota would stay at approximately the same level. Mines in the four states in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains shipped approximately 63% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Increasing coal production from the basin by 3% would increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by rail by 2%, to over 65%. Affected rail lines in this basin would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of increased demand for rail transportation would likely correspond to an increased need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads throughout all four states in this basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Northwest Basin Alternative 4 would directly increase demand for rail transportation in Yukon-Koyukuk County, Alaska. Mines in this county shipped less than 0.1% of the total short tons of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Increasing coal production from the Northwest by 2% would not significantly increase the demand for rail transportation of coal in Alaska or the United States. The rail line affected by implementation of Alternative 4 would be the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Other Western Interior Alternative 4 would keep production tonnages in the three states in this basin relatively unchanged and would not likely affect rail capacity.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-187

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.4.6.4.2.2 Appalachian Basin

Barge

Alternative 4 would directly reduce the demand for barge transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the eight states in the Appalachian Basin shipped approximately 66% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008, making the Appalachian Basin the predominant user of river transportation (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin by 4% would result in a net decrease of 2.5% in all U.S. rail shipments of coal (to approximately 63.5%). A 4% decrease in demand for barge transportation of coal from this basin would have a relatively small impact on the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at the national level, although more significant localized economic impacts could be realized in the basin. Colorado Plateau Basin Coal production in Colorado would stay at current levels under Alternative 4, as would demand for barge transportation. Alternative 4 would decrease coal production in Utah by an estimated 10% and directly reduce the demand for barge transportation in Utah. Utah currently ships only 3,000 short tons of coal by river (EIA, 2010); a 10% decrease would only amount to 300 short tons. Therefore, reduced production in the Colorado Plateau would be expected to have a minimal impact on the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at the national level. Gulf Coast Mines in the five states in the Gulf Coast Basin did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under Alternative 4, reductions in production would not affect barge transit in this basin or on national level. Illinois Basin Mines in the three states in the Illinois Basin shipped approximately 32% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010), making it second only to the Appalachian Basin in terms of barge use. Barge is the predominant mode of coal hauling from Illinois. Under Alternative 4, tonnage of coal production would be most affected in Illinois, where current production would increase by over 6%. Increasing coal production from Illinois by 6% would increase the Illinois Basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by approximately 0.33%. This production increase would be expected to have a minimal impact on the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at local and national level.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-188

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Mines in the three states in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains shipped only a nominal amount (<1%) of the total tonnage of coal shipped by barge nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Alternative 4 would directly increase the demand for barge transportation in Montana. Increasing coal production from Montana under Alternative 4 would not be expected to increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage. This production increase would be expected to have a minimal impact on the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at the local or national level. Northwest Under Alternative 4, increases in production in the Northwest would not affect barge transit on a basin or national level. Other Western Interior Implementation of Alternative 4 would not affect barge transit in the Other Western Interior. 4.4.6.4.2.3 Appalachian Basin Alternative 4 would directly reduce the demand for truck transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Mines in the eight states in the basin shipped approximately 43% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin by 4% would correspond to a reduction of nearly 2% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. A 2% reduction in all U.S. truck shipments of coal would be expected to have a small impact on the truck industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways on the national level, although more significant economic impacts could be realized at the local level. Colorado Plateau Alternative 4 would reduce the demand for truck transportation in Utah. Production tonnages in Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona would remain at current levels, while production tonnages would be reduced by nearly 10% in Utah. Mines in the four states in the Colorado Plateau Basin shipped approximately 14% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010), with Utah representing approximately 27% of that amount. Reducing coal production in Utah by 10% would result in a net decrease of 0.1% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. A decrease of only 0.1 percentage points of U.S. truck shipments of coal would be expected to have a localized impact on the truck industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

Road

4-189

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Gulf Coast Alternative 4 would increase the need for truck transportation of coal in all five states in the Gulf Coast. Mines in the Gulf Coast shipped approximately 20% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Truck transport is the primary mode of transportation used for coal shipments in Mississippi and Texas, whereas Louisiana relies on truck transit for about 15% of its coal output. Increasing coal production from this region by 3% would correspond to a net increase of 0.6% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. Such an increase would be expected to have a localized impact on the truck industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Illinois Basin Alternative 4 would increase the need for truck transportation in Indiana, Illinois, and western Kentucky. Mines in the three states in the Illinois Basin shipped approximately 48% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Truck transport is the predominant mode of coal hauling from western Kentucky. Increasing coal production from the basin under Alternative 4 would increase the Illinois Basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by truck by 1.5%, to nearly 50%. Such an increase would be expected to have a localized impact on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 4 would increase the demand for truck transportation in Montana. Demand in North Dakota would stay at approximately the same level. Wyoming relies almost exclusively on truck transit of coal. Mines in the three states in the basin shipped approximately 8% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Increasing coal production from the basin under Alternative 4 would not significantly increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by truck. Such an increase would be expected to have a localized impact in Montana on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Northwest Alternative 4 would increase demand for truck transportation in Alaska. Mines in the Northwest shipped 283,000 short tons of coal by truck in 2008. This represents approximately 0.16% of the total short tons of coal shipped by truck nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2008). Based on the small amount of coal shipped by truck in this region (less than 0.2%), a 2% increase would not be expected to significantly affect truck transportation of coal on a national level (EIA, 2008). However, a localized impact in Alaska would be expected on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-190

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

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

Other Western Interior Alternative 4 would keep production tonnages in the four states in this basin relatively unchanged and would not be expected to affect demand for truck transportation on a basin or national level.

4.4.7

Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.4.7.1 Safety Impacts

Occupational Safety Estimated production for underground mining for Alternative 4 is approximately the same as for Alternative 1. Fatalities (Figure 4.4.8-1) would be expected to be about the same as in Alternative 1. Projected changes in surface mining production would result in an estimated decrease in non-fatal days lost injuries (Figure 4.4.8-2) associated with surface mining. The greatest reduction is projected for the Appalachian Basin due to reduced surface mining. Figure 4.4.7-1. Projected Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 1

15

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-191

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.4.7-2.

Projected Average Number of Non-Fatal Days Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Public Safety Implementation of Alternative 4 would likely have negligible effects on public safety incidents nationwide based on the projected production shifts. Blasting activities in the Appalachian Basin would be expected to decrease, which may have an overall beneficial effect. Blasting would likely increase the most in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains; however, based on a lower population density in this part of the country, negligible effects would be expected. 4.4.7.2 Health Impacts Occupational Health Figure 4.4.8-3shows that projected production shifts under Alternative 4 would result in negligible impacts to all health areas reviewed for underground and surface mining relative to Alternative 1. Figure 4.4.8-4 shows that projected production shifts under Alternative 4 would also result in overall negligible impacts to dust lung diseases for underground and surface mining relative to Alternative 1.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-192

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.4.7-3.

Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 1

3 4 5 6 7 Figure 4.4.7-4shows projected lung disease occurrence by coal basin, and Figure 4.4.8-5 shows projected repeated trauma occurrence by coal basin. Implementation of Alternative 4 would likely have a negligible effect in occurrences of lung disease and repeated trauma occurrences in coal regions compared to Alternative 1.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-193

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.4.7-4.

Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 1

2

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-194

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.4.7-5.

Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 4 vs. Alternative 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Health Implementation of Alternative 4 would likely have negligible effects on public health incidents nationwide based on the projected production shifts. There may a negligible decrease in occurrences in the Appalachian Basin and a negligible increase in occurrences in the Northern Rock Mountains and Great Plains based on overall projected coal production shifts.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

4.5
4.5.1

ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
Coal Resources and Mining

Alternative 5 is less restrictive on coal mining operations than Alternatives 2 and 3, yet offers more environmental protection than Alternative 4. Alternative 5 sets forth water quality parameters, surface configuration and AOC requirements rather than leaving those parameters for individual RAs to establish. In addition, Alternative 5 would not allow material damage to the hydrologic balance (the definition would be based on adverse impact on quality or quantity that would preclude the designated use of that waterbody) at any time during the operation, and mitigation or remediation would not be allowed if the potential for material damage was demonstrated in the permit application.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-195

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.5.1.1 Water Elements Material damage under this alternative would be defined as a measurable adverse impact on water quality and quantity resulting in degraded physical or biological conditions that would preclude the designated use or reasonably foreseeable use of that waterbody. Impacts from underground mining, such as subsidence, would not be allowed to cause material damage at any time during the operation, and if material damage is a reasonably foreseeable consequence due to mining operations, a permit might not be issued by the RA. This could curtail surface mining methods that use excess spoil disposal fills and underground mining methods that cause subsidence. Fill areas, by their very nature, would alter any designated use of the stream segment that is covered by the fill footprint. Subsidence caused by underground longwall mining or room-and-pillar retreat mining could dewater a stream segment, which would also alter the designated pre-mining use of that stream. Therefore it is predicted that surface mining practices using fill areas and longwall operations could be negatively impacted in those regions that contain high populations of intermittent and perennial streams. Mining activities would be restricted within 100 feet of intermittent and perennial streams under Alternative 5, but excess spoil disposal fills would be allowed under certain circumstances. If the applicant can demonstrate that the mining activity would not preclude any pre-mining or designated use of the affected stream segment, then those activities may be allowed. In addition, the applicant would have to show that stream form and function could be restored, and that the operations would not have more than a de minimis effect on the ecological function of the stream after reclamation, and would not cause material damage or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Again, this alternative relies on the applicant’s ability to restore form and function to a stream segment, which may or may not be possible depending on the specific stream conditions and mining method utilized. For example, if it is predicted that a longwall operation under a stream would cause that stream to experience a decrease in elevation, it would be reasonable to assume that returning the stream to pre-mining elevation would be difficult if not impossible. Therefore, the RA would not issue a permit for the longwall operation. It is anticipated that those regions with high perennial and intermittent stream frequencies, such as the Illinois Basin and Appalachian Basin, would experience a decrease in surface area, mountaintop removal and longwall method operations. Regions with low stream frequency values or extremely deep coal seams that would avoid subsidence, such as the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains and the Colorado Plateau respectively, would remain relatively unaffected by the water elements of this alternative, except for longwall mines in areas of relatively shallow overburden. As under Alternative 3, corrective action thresholds under Alternative 5 would attempt to identify trends in water quality and quantity through quarterly sampling prior to material damage occurring. Upon reaching the corrective action threshold, the operator would be required to develop a corrective action plan to prevent material damage. This could have a positive impact on the environment by identifying potential problems beforehand, rather than trying to correct them after-the-fact. Operators may also benefit by knowing what impacts are occurring during

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-196

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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 operation that may eventually lead to material damage and by avoiding the significant costs involved with remediating that damage. 4.5.1.2 Land Elements Alternative 5 land elements emphasize on fill minimization and restoration of pre-mining topography. Alternative 5 would allow excess spoil disposal within streams under specific circumstances. The requirements that would allow placement of spoil in streams are identical to those outlined in Alternative 3, thus similar land element impacts can be expected. To make up for caloric (BTU) values lost in the Appalachian Basin and the Gulf Coast under this alternative, it is possible that surface mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains will experience increases in surface mining production, primarily using the area method. Contour mining operations in the steep slope areas may also experience a decrease under Alternative 5, unless the applicant can safely backfill the highwall to approximate pre-mining slope, aspect and elevation. Mountaintop removal mining would likely be curtailed under this alternative due to stream frequencies where MTR operations occur, and the fact that upper stream reaches would be completely eliminated, leaving the operator unable to restore form and function. Surface mining may also decrease in those regions where AOC restoration is an issue due to increased costs associated with the various surface configuration and fill requirements under Alternative 3. Implementation of the construction techniques and landforming requirements under this alternative carry increased mining costs. Operators may find it uneconomical to conduct surface operations in some regions when coal can be mined cheaper, at a higher profit margin, and with less risk in regions where these surface configuration requirements are less of an issue. 4.5.1.3 Other Elements The other elements described in this alternative (including revegetation, topsoil management, fish and wildlife enhancement, baseline data collection, and monitoring) are likely to have little impact on mining methods across the regions. These elements will likely enhance the environment compared to the No Action Alternative, as native species would be reestablished, topsoil material would be composed and placed in accordance with a detailed site plan, and fish and wildlife habitat would be enhanced inside and outside the permit area. Additional baseline data and monitoring requirements would provide environmental protection by identifying high value resources and ensuring those resources are protected throughout the life of the operation through reclamation. Enhanced monitoring requirements would also alert operators and RAs to material damage potential before it occurs. Mining operators will experience increased costs due to these additional requirements, but these costs are not likely to cause a change in mining method or a shift in production. Estimated production impacts and associated acreages impacted yearly by mining operations at the time of full implementation of Alternative 5 is therefore projected to be consistent with Table 4.5.1-1.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-197

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.5.1-1
Region

Final Production Impacts, Alternative 5
Final Production (MMton/yr) Underground Surface 109 33 35 27 619 1 0 824 Total 341 88 35 101 623 1 0 1,190

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

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total

232 55 0 74 4.2 0 0 366

4.5.2

Geomorphology and Topography
4.5.2.1 Water Elements

The Water Elements under Alternative 5 are expected to cause a decrease in surface production by about one third in the Appalachian Basin and to a lesser extent in all other regions other than the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. Surface production is expected to increase by about 15 percent in that region to account for losses in surface production throughout the rest of the nation. While underground production is expected to remain approximately the same in the Appalachian Basin, the Gulf Region, and the Colorado Plateau, it is expected to increase slightly in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Illinois Basin. As a result, acreages impacted by mining will increase and decrease according to the projected shifts in production in each region and topographic impacts based on the act of mining in those regions will be impacted accordingly. 4.5.2.2 Land Elements The Land Elements under Alternative 5 would have approximately the same effects as under Alternative 3. The Surface Configuration and Fills element provides for the same requirements as Alternative 3. Although it also requires states to develop fill optimization policies, it is assumed that these policies would be consistent with the fill minimization requirements contained within Alternative 5’s regulatory scheme and thus would not cause any additional impacts. While Alternative 5 would develop additional requirements related to AOC exceptions, these requirements would be designed to protect streams, aquatic ecology, and biologic communities and thus would not likely impact topography unless these requirements would result in the denial of an AOC variance that would have been granted under current regulations. In that case, a site
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-198

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

that would not have been required to meet AOC under current regulations, would, if it could not obtain an AOC variance under more strict Alternative 5 requirements, reclaim the land using more environmentally beneficial practices such as fill minimization and landforming.

4.5.3

Water Resource Areas
4.5.3.1 Water Elements 4.5.3.1.1 Physical Impacts 4.5.3.1.1.1 Water Resource Planning

Under Alternative 5, there would be a net national coal production increase of 1.7%. On a national scale, this may result in a modest increase in water withdrawals and usage related to coal production, potentially adversely affecting water availability. Impacts will likely be limited to local impacts, depending on local water availability and demand. Regional water usage and availability impacts may vary under this alternative, based on various changes in regional net coal production. Net coal production increases in two regions—the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains (15%) and the Illinois Basin (2.5%)—and decreases in five regions—the Appalachian Basin (−12.4%), the Colorado Plateau (−1.9%), the Gulf Region (−26.4%), the Other Western Interior (−100%), and the Northwest (−32.3%). Net regional coal production increases may result in increased water use and withdrawals related to coal mining, which may adversely affect water availability, should the additional withdrawals occur in an area where existing water availability is low and demand is high. Likewise, a decrease in net coal production may result in beneficial water availability impacts; water that would have been used for coal mining production could be used for other beneficial uses. However, it is unlikely that changes in coal production will result in adverse or beneficial regionwide impacts; instead, impacts will be limited to local impacts, dependent on local water availability and demand. Various regulatory elements within Alternative 5 may affect water availability and usage. Under this alternative, baseline stream flow data are required to be collected from potentially affected streams, which will support flow restoration criteria should streams be affected. This requirement will support avoidance of long-term stream flow impacts that could adversely affect downstream water availability. The definition of material damage to the hydrological balance (which may include quantity impacts) is expanded, in comparison to Alternative 1, to include adverse impacts related to coal mining that are outside of the permitted area. This definition may be more protective of stream flows and therefore downstream water availability. Activities in or near streams would be restricted, only allowing for the placement of excess spoils and not resulting in adverse impacts to preexisting designated uses of streams. Additionally, activities in or near streams would be prohibited from impacting base stream flow, protecting downstream water availability. Mining through intermittent and ephemeral streams would be prohibited unless restoration of stream form and ecological function could be demonstrated. Restoration of ecological function may be protective of stream flow and result in the avoidance of long-term
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-199

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

water availability impacts related to a reduction in stream flow. Lastly, water availability would be protected by the establishment of corrective action thresholds based on baseline monitoring data. Environmental impacts exceeding these thresholds would trigger corrective actions, protecting stream flow and therefore downstream water availability. Drinking water quality on a national scale may be affected under this alternative due to the slight increase in coal production, but it is likely that impacts may be mitigated by regulatory elements related to protecting water quality. Regional water quality impacts may vary by region. Drinking water quality may be adversely affected in regions where coal production increases, particularly the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, where production may increase 15%. This increase in coal production may result in an increase in water quality impacts, as measured by a conceivable increase in mining-related NPDES and SDWA violations. Likewise, it is conceivable that a reduction in coal production in certain regions may result in a beneficial impact to water quality, since future NPDES and SDWA violations related to mining may be reduced from the baseline. In either case, beneficial and adverse drinking water quality impacts will likely be highly localized and dependent on local drinking water quality and water resources. Regulatory elements associated with this alternative may be protective of water quality. Baseline water quality data are required to be collected, and water quality and quantity data are required to be collected during mining and reclamation. Additionally, more chemical and biological factors would be required to be collected than in Alternative 1 (No Action). Lastly, unlike Alternative 1, corrective action thresholds are established under this alternative. These thresholds, based on baseline monitoring data, would indicate the degree of environmental impacts that would trigger corrective actions to avoid causing material damage to the hydrological balance outside the permit area. This would be more protective of drinking water quality than Alternative 1. 4.5.3.1.1.2 Surface Water Hydrology

The predicted overall coal production is higher in Alternative 5 than in any other alternative. Overall coal production in Alternative 5 is 1.6% higher than Alternative 1 and slightly higher than Alternatives 3 and 4. Projected surface mining for Alternative 5 is approximately equal to that of Alternative 4, slightly higher than Alternative 1, and 7.3% above Alternative 3 and, as expected, substantially higher than Alternative 2. Underground mining for Alternative 5 is approximately equal to Alternatives 1 and 4 and approximately 10.6% less than Alternative 3. Hydrology Impacts Despite an overall small increase in projected surface mining, surface hydrologic impacts may be less than under all alternatives except Alternative 2. The potential reduced hydrologic impacts are linked to the Water, Land and Other Elements of Alternative 5. Specifically, for the Water Elements, an integrative approach for the definition of a stream that is associated with all three key stream factors of hydrology, biologic and physical characteristics may more correctly define streams that are perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral. Linkage of stream definition to the material damage definition, based on both water quantity and quality, and establishment of
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-200

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

corrective action thresholds based on monitoring data prior to reaching material damage, may encourage watershed-based mining and reclamation procedures that enhance hydrology compared to other alternatives except Alternative 2. To meet corrective action thresholds based on both water quantity and quality levels that provide for successful stream form and function, mining and reclamation activities will need to incorporate alternative mining methods and BMPs that have a high probability of achieving minimal hydrologic changes from pre-mining watershed conditions. The linkage of creating down-gradient stream form and function with corrective action thresholds based on monitoring data provides a strong driving force for excellent watershed hydrology mining and reclamation programs. The allowance for fills in streams under certain circumstances enables both surface and underground mining to proceed, unlike under Alternative 2, which simply prohibits fills in streams, thereby ending most surface mining in the Appalachian Basin. An increase in surface mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains may increase hydrologic impacts in that area, depending on the successful adoption and implementation of watershed strategies that provide for the form and function of streams. Stream Length Impacts Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 5 increases surface mining by 15% for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and decreases surface mining in the Appalachian Basin (30%), Illinois Basin (21%), Colorado Plateau (4%), and Gulf Region (26%). Such a shift in surface mining from areas that disturb more stream miles per MMT to the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, which is estimated to disturb only 0.03 miles per MMT, will have a positive result in reducing projected stream impacts. The region with the largest mile per MMT stream impact is the Appalachian Basin, which is projected to have a 30% decrease, the largest decrease in surface mining compared to all other regions. Thus, along with the requirement to establish both stream form and function, which should enhance streams compared to Alternative 1, this alternative could result in less surface mining in the Appalachian Basin, which would further reduce potential stream impacts. 4.5.3.1.1.3 Groundwater Hydrology

Table 4.5.3-1 presents the predicted stream impacts calculated by the production shift mathematical model described in further detail under Coal Resources and Mining consequences. Values for percentage of public supply from groundwater and percentage of domestic selfsupplied groundwater were calculated from population data extracted from 2005 U.S. Geological Survey water-use data, http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005, downloaded September 16, 2010.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-201

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.5.3-1

Anticipated Regional Stream Impacts for Alternative 5 Stream (mi/yr) Impacts 56.68 7.75 4.41 12.93 12.19 0.03 0 % Change from Alt 1 −20.04 −2.84 −26.73 −10.50 15.02 −84.07 −100.00 % Public Supply GW Use 13.24 13.54 6.45 7.75 20.69 0.00 1.22 % Domestic Supply GW 16.53 18.51 30.94 14.99 6.89 18.21 6.85

Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Alternative 5 is predicted to result in a decrease of approximately 20%, of acres disturbed and stream impacts in the Appalachian Basin, when compared with the No-Action Alternative. This would likely result in a similar magnitude of improved groundwater quality in the region. Groundwater recharge rates could decrease from the No Action Alternative. Projected mining in the Colorado Plateau region is anticipated to change little from the No Action Alternative levels; therefore, groundwater impacts would be expected to be relatively unchanged. Projected levels of mining in the Gulf Coast region is predicted to be approximately 26% less for Alternative 5 than under the No Action Alternative; therefore, groundwater impacts could be considered reduced by a similar amount. However, due to the typical temporary nature of the impacts, the overall effect to groundwater would not be expected to be that significant. Disturbed acres and stream impacts in the Illinois Basin are predicted to be approximately 10.5% less for Alternative 5 when compared with the No Action Alternative. However, this reduction is predicted to have little effect on the groundwater within the region, since most of the groundwater resource is too mineralized for most uses. Mining in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region would be expected to increase by approximately 15% under this alternative when compared with the No Action Alternative. Similar to the discussion under Alternative 2, groundwater impacts would be expected to increase under this alternative but could be considered relatively temporary.

Alternative 5

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-202

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Under this alternative, mining production in the Northwest region is anticipated to be reduced by approximately 84%. Thus groundwater impacts under this alternative would be less than for the No Action Alternative; however, they are already relatively insignificant. Under this alternative, mining production in the Other Western Interior is anticipated to be reduced to zero. Thus, groundwater impacts under this alternative would be less than for the No Action Alternative; however, they are already relatively insignificant. 4.5.3.1.2 Chemical Impacts 4.5.3.1.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 5 from the water elements included in the DEIS analysis (1) Stream Definition, (2) Activities In or Near Streams, (3) Definition of Material Damage to the Hydrologic Balance, (4) mining Through Streams, and (5) Corrective Action Thresholds). For Alternative 5, potential water quality impacts will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Under Alternative 5, small net national increases in underground (2.5%), surface (1.3%), and total (1.7%) coal production are predicted, but the variability among regions is great. Underground and surface coal production are predicted to decrease (4% to 100%) or remain the same in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where a 15% increase in production is predicted. As a result, coal mining activities in or near streams and mining through streams would be expected to decrease in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where a modest increase may be realized. Therefore, impacts to surface water quality are expected to be less than under Alternative 1 in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where the level of impacts might increase above current levels. 4.5.3.1.2.2 Groundwater Quality

As for surface water, impacts to groundwater quality under Alternative 5 are expected to be less than under Alternative 1 in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where the level of impacts might increase above current levels. 4.5.3.2 Land Elements 4.5.3.2.1 Physical Impacts 4.5.3.2.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology Since Alternative 5 allows for AOC configurations that exceed AOC elevations under certain circumstances, there may be the opportunity to lessen the need for valley fills. Additionally, the opportunity for regulatory authorities to set fill optimization policies based on topography and other site-specific issues may enable a lesser amount of fills by increasing the storage capacity of constructed fills. Besides watershed hydrologic considerations, there should be a lower number of fills that directly corresponds with lesser impacts on streams. Additionally, with the provision that stream form and function need to be returned to acceptable water quantity and quality levels,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-203

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

the most practical way of achieving stream form and function is to establish watershed attributes that mimic pre-mining land use and geomorphic conditions. 4.5.3.2.1.2 Fluvial Processes

Under Alternative 5, mining through intermittent and perennial streams will be permitted provided stream form and function can be restored. There are no prohibitions on mining through ephemeral streams. Reducing mining activities around and through intermittent and perennial streams is expected to reduce impacts to down-gradient reaches. However, the loss of ephemeral reaches may affect some headwater stream ecological functions, such as habitat provision and nutrient and organic matter transport. On the other hand, impaired or affected stream reaches may be improved by the compensatory mitigation requirement to restore form and function. The allowance of AOC configurations to exceed current elevations is expected to reduce the number and size of valley fills, primarily in the Appalachian Basin, thus decreasing the length of streams affected. Stream Morphology Changes Stream morphological changes are expected to be closely linked to changes in hydrology and sedimentology across all regions. As the CWA Section 404 program requires the full mitigation of temporary and permanent impacts to waters of the United States, restoration efforts will likely need to be focused at the watershed scale rather than just the stream scale. Reestablishment of pre-mining land use conditions, particularly if such conditions were forest, will be an important part of restoring stream form and function. Erosion and Sediment Control The requirement to restore stream form and function implies that active mining and reclaimed mined land watershed hydrology will generate seasonal, intermittent, and peak flows similar to pre-mining hydrologic conditions. To achieve such requirements implies that watershed conditions should relatively closely mimic pre-mining conditions. Thus, salvaging and using organic material for erosion protection and as woody debris in and nearby streams should decrease erosion rates. Establishment of forests using the Forest Reclamation Approach should assist in the establishment of forest hydrology and very low sediment concentrations and sediment loads, again similar to pre-mining forest watersheds. To achieve the low sediment concentrations that are measured during baseline data acquisition, more efficient sediment ponds will be needed in conjunction with fills constructed with shorter slope lengths, such as achieved through spoil placement without end dumping and implementation of incremental fill construction that does not disturb the entire fill watershed area but instead incrementally disturbs only the needed area for each vertical lift.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-204

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.5.3.2.2 Chemical Impacts 4.5.3.2.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 5 from the land elements included in the DEIS analysis (Surface Configuration and Fills, and AOC Exceptions). For Alternative 5, surface water quality impacts from modifications to the land elements will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Under Alternative 5, small net national increases in underground (2.5%), surface (1.3%), and total (1.7%) coal production are predicted, but the variability among regions is grea(. Underground and surface coal production are predicted to decrease (4% to 100%) or remain the same in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, where a 15% increase in production is predicted. As a result, under Alternative 5, land surface reconfiguration and/or creation of fills in or near streams would be expected to generally decrease in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, where a modest increase may be realized. Therefore, under Alternative 5, impacts to surface water quality are expected to be less than under Alternative in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, where the level of impacts might increase above current levels. 4.5.3.2.2.2 Groundwater Quality

As for surface water, impacts to groundwater quality under Alternative 5 are expected to be less than under Alternative 1 in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where the level of impacts might increase above current levels. 4.5.3.3 Other Elements 4.5.3.3.1 Physical Impacts 4.5.3.3.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology There are many other elements that may contribute to reduced hydrologic impacts. Specifically these are the DEIS analysis elements revegetation and top soil management, baseline data and analysis, and monitoring during mining and reclamation. The requirement for reforestation except for areas that have previously been timbered 5 years prior to mining may not be a significant exemption due to the requirement to achieve stream form and function that entails chemical, flow, and physical parameters. The baseline monitoring of a full suite of chemicals, continuous flow measurements, and stream aquatic attributes will help to ensure that either the reconstructed stream or down-gradient streams will again achieve similar levels of performance. To achieve such flows and water chemistry, watersheds will need to be reestablished to a level that mimics pre-mining conditions. The monitoring period lasts only through the bonding period and does not continue until restoration of the stream community has been demonstrated, so perhaps is not a large exclusion. The stream form and function will have to be established within the bonding period, and to achieve this, watersheds will need to be established that contribute the flow regime, chemical constituents, and sediment quantity and characteristics that are similar to pre-mining watersheds.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-205

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.5.3.3.1.2

Fluvial Processes

Stream Morphology Change Reforestation will be an important component of reestablishing stream form and function. Trees help stabilize stream banks, regulate temperatures, and supply organic matter to stream ecosystems. The lack of requirement to enhance for ephemeral stream loss would have some impact on down-gradient reaches, but the extent of that impact is not readily known. Erosion and Sediment Control With the reforestation requirement, except for timbered lands 5 years prior to mining, there is an expectation that erosion rates may be low. Additionally, to meet baseline values of stream form and function, sediment levels will need to be low, mimicking pre-mining forested conditions. Monitoring through bond release should ensure that lands have been reclaimed to a level that is satisfactory for stream function, thereby ensuring long-term stability. 4.5.3.3.2 Chemical Impacts 4.5.3.3.2.1 Surface Water Quality This section describes potential impacts to surface water quality under Alternative 5 from the other elements included in the DEIS analysis (Revegetation and Topsoil Management, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Baseline Data Collection and Analysis, and Monitoring During Mining and Reclamation). For Alternative 5, surface water quality impacts from changes in the other elements will be evaluated based on the predicted percentage change in coal production compared with Alternative 1 (see Table 4.2.3-5). Under Alternative 5, small net national increases in underground (2.5%), surface (1.3%), and total (1.7%) coal production are predicted, but the variability among regions is great. Underground and surface coal production are predicted to decrease (4% to 100%) or remain the same in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where a 15% increase in production is predicted. However, modifications to the other elements considered in this DEIS are expected to have little effect on surface water quality (see Section 4.1.3.3.2.2 for rationale). Under Alternative 5, impacts to surface water quality are expected to be less than under Alternative 1 in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, where the level of impacts might increase above current levels, but this conclusion is based on an evaluation of water elements (see Section 4.5.3.1.2) and land elements (see Section 4.5.3.2.2), not the other elements. 4.5.3.3.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality impacts under Alternative 5 are expected to be less than under Alternative 1 in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, where the level of impacts might increase above current levels.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-206

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.5.4

Biological Resources
4.5.4.1 Water Elements

For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect aquatic ecosystems as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 5:      Mining and mining activities could occur in all stream types. Excess spoils could be placed in all stream types. Ephemeral streams would not be protected. Approximately 94 additional miles of perennial and/or intermittent streams would be affected each year by coal mining operations (Table 4.5.4-1. The miles of ephemeral streams that could be affected by coal mining practices under Alternative 5 are not known.

Therefore, it is expected that adverse impacts to aquatic communities associated with coal mining would occur in approximately 15% fewer miles of streams under Alternative 5 compared to the No Action Alternative. The types of adverse impacts expected under this alternative would be similar to those for Alternative 1 at some new mining sites. Mining in, near, and through streams would still be allowed under certain circumstances, although it could be more difficult to get permits for such activities. The reasonable, foreseeable development scenario for coal production in the United States under Alternative 5 is for no new mining activity in the Other Western Interior region, an increase in both surface and underground mining in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains region, an increase in underground mining in the Illinois Basin, and a decrease in surface mining in the Appalachian Basin, Northwest, Gulf Coast, Illinois Basin, and Colorado Plateau. Therefore, stream impacts related to new mine development would be expected to change proportionally where new mining development occurs, with the majority of new adverse impacts expected to occur in the Appalachian Basin.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-207

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3

Table 4.5.4-1 Expected Annual Increase in Land Clearing and Stream Impacts (Exclusive of Ephemeral Streams) for Each Coal Region Under Alternative 5 and the No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Region Affected Acreage (yr) 33,121 4,219 3,120 7,590 5,863 163 411 54,488 Alternative 5 Affected Affected Affected Stream Stream Acreage Length Length (yr) (mi/yr) (mi/yr) 70.9 8.0 6.0 14.4 10.6 0.2 0.9 111 26,484 4,099 2,287 6,795 6,743 26 0 46,434 56.7 7.7 4.4 12.9 12.2 0.0 — 94

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior Total 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

The main influences on aquatic habitat change and fragmentation during construction and operation of new mines under Alternative 5 would result from water quality impacts and instream mining activities (including fill). The coal extraction method to be used at a site, size of the project area, and effectiveness of stormwater management BMPs will all influence the potential for adverse impacts to occur at new mine sites. Under this alternative, the restriction of some mining activities in perennial and intermittent streams and their buffers would result in fewer adverse impacts compared to the No Action Alternative. However, some mining activities would be allowed to occur both in streams and in the 100-foot buffers, as long as ecological function could eventually be restored. This could lead to adverse impacts to aquatic habitats in the affected areas. In cases where mining through streams would occur, expanded measures (over those currently in place) would be required to protect fish and wildlife. Stream relocation, which would be allowed in certain circumstances under this alternative, would cause aquatic habitat change and fragmentation. Species dispersal would also be affected by providing a physical barrier that some organisms would not be able to cross. Stream relocation could also negatively affect species that occupy or move only within riparian corridors. Under this alternative, aquatic habitat quality could also change as a result of water quality impacts and direct fill of streams. Water quality impacts associated with mine operation can provide a barrier to species movement. These impacts vary based on the coal extraction method, the amount of exposed materials, the extent of valley fill, and the width of the vegetated stream buffer.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-208

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Under Alternative 5, the water quality protection goals for sites where mine-throughs are allowed would be more stringent than under the No Action Alternative. Perennial and intermittent streams will receive increased benefit, compared to the No Action Alternative, from strong protection of stream buffers. Furthermore, there will be increased protection of biological resources due to the enhanced definition of “material damage.” Establishment of a clear definition of material damage and permit-specific corrective action thresholds will improve protection of streams outside the permit areas. Therefore, it is likely that problems will be identified earlier and corrective actions taken to reduce downstream impacts. In addition, the enhanced definition of material damage should provide increased protection to biological resources both on-site and off-site. In summary, under Alternative 5, future coal mining practices would be expected to result in adverse impacts to aquatic resources at some sites. These adverse impacts would be expected to include impairment of macroinvertebrate and fish communities both on- and off-site, degraded habitat and water quality, permanent loss of ephemeral streams, and permanent loss of perennial and intermittent stream habitats through burial. These adverse impacts would be expected to occur in the six coal regions where new mine development would be expected, with the majority of the impacts expected to occur in the Appalachian Basin. 4.5.4.2 Land Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the mining practices that are most likely to affect terrestrial ecosystems, as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 5:   The AOC does not necessarily have to be reestablished at all mining sites. Approximately 46,000 new acres of currently undeveloped land are expected to be developed for new coal mining operations each year under this alternative (Table 4.5.4-1). Essentially, there would be a 15% reduction in the amount of land that would be affected by development of new mines each year under this alternative compared to the No Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 5, mine sites would ideally be returned to AOC. Reestablishing the AOC will require the use of heavy equipment. Adverse impacts to localized habitats and wildlife associated with operation of this equipment are expected to be minor and short-term. In some cases, the requirement that AOC be reestablished may be waived under this alternative. At mines where recontouring will not be conducted, no adverse impacts associated with heavy equipment would be expected. Forest species, including many area-sensitive forest interior passerines, will benefit from the increase in reforestation and a reduction in the regional surface mine footprint. Increased reforestation in heavily forested areas is expected to reduce adverse impacts of long-term landcover conversions (forest to grass) to wildlife, characteristic of a permit area before mining. It is expected that animal diversity and abundance will increase at sites with stream buffers

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-209

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

because of increased buffer protections that will result in more unmined acres within some permits. In summary, under Alternative 5, future coal mining practices may result in major adverse impacts to terrestrial resources at some sites. These adverse impacts may include fragmentation of habitats; degradation of habitat quality through fire, noise, introduction of non-native and/or invasive species, and abrupt changes in topography; exposure of wildlife to toxic chemicals; and permanent loss of terrestrial habitat. These adverse impacts would be expected to occur with all mining methods and in all coal regions except the Other Western Interior region. The majority of the adverse impacts would be expected to occur in the Appalachian Basin. 4.5.4.3 Other Elements For this analysis, the following assumptions were made to describe the practices that are most likely to affect restoration outcomes for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as allowed by SMCRA for Alternative 5:     Topsoil must be reused on-site. Cleared forest must be restored to forest. Native species must be used in revegetation activities. Habitat enhancement projects must occur within the same watershed.

Revegetation would reduce the long-term adverse impacts of cleared areas. Revegetation could reduce barriers to species’ mobility, decrease edge habitat, and increase interior habitat over time through ecological succession and native community reestablishment. Under this alternative, lands that had been forested at the time of the permit application would have to be reforested as part of the reclamation process. Salvage of on-site organic material and use of native species would be required, which would likely improve the chances for high-quality habitat to become established. Revegetation would have negligible impacts on forest habitat quality in the short term, but habitat quality on the reclamation area would improve over the long term as the longerlived species mature and a sustainable community becomes established. In summary, under Alternative 5, mine reclamations are expected to mitigate more of the impacts associated with development of new coal mines compared to Alternative 1. The rule change would require use of native species and emphasize reforestation, requirements that should ultimately result in restoration of ecological functions at the sites.

4.5.5

Land Use; Visual Resources; Recreation

Alternative 5 is the proposed action, which would result in changes to the requirements for obtaining a permit and for mining operations under SMCRA. Changes under the Proposed Action would provide more restrictive requirements than Alternative 1 but not as restrictive as Alternative 2. Alternative 5 is predicted to result in a shift of production from surface mining in the Appalachian, Colorado Plateau, Gulf Coast, and Illinois Basins to an increase in surface

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-210

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3

mining in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains coal resource region. Some additional underground mining in the Illinois Basin also is predicted. See Table 4.5.5-1. Table 4.5.5-1 Anticipated Land and Stream Impacts for Alternative 5 Affected Streams (mi/yr) 56.68 7.75 4.41 12.93 12.19 0.03 0 Percent (%) Change from Baseline (No Action Alternative) −20.05 −2.76 −26.62 −10.46 15.11 −81.25 −100.00

Coal Resource Region

Affected Area (acre/yr) 26,484 4,099 2,287 6,795 6,743 26 0

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

As previously described in Section 4.1.5, there are no changes to SMCRA under this alternative that would directly affect visual resources. 4.5.5.1 Water Elements Anticipated surface mining activity for Alternative 5 is very similar to predicted levels of surface mining in all of the coal resource regions, except that surface mining in the Appalachian Basin is predicted to be greater for Alternative 5 than for Alternative 3. Thus, the predicted recreation impacts for those similar regions would be similar to those already discussed under Alternative 3. Within the Appalachian Basin, the water quality improvements would be expected to be improved over the current No Action Alternative, but not to the levels of Alternatives 2 or 3. Likewise, the improvement in dispersed recreation opportunities would not be as favorable as for Alternative 3. More restrictive definitions of streams and material damage, as well as limitations on activities near streams or on mining through streams, would reduce the potential for visual impacts in an area because it would reduce and limit the surface impacts along streams or other waterbodies from mining activities in all regions. Changes to streams would be reduced but not prohibited, as long as stream form and ecological function would be restored. This may result in temporary impacts to visual resources along affected streams. Where mining activities are allowed, the definition of material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area would include the impairment of physical ecological function of any stream. These restrictions reduce impacts to the visual quality of streams outside the permit area. Changes to corrective action thresholds do not provide specific limitations that affect the visual quality of an area.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-211

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.5.5.2 Land Elements The proposed considerations listed under land elements are very similar to, but slightly less restrictive than under Alternative 3. Postmining land use designations would not need to be proved to be achievable and feasible; therefore, less land would probably be restored to forested conditions than under Alternative 3. Although some forms of dispersed recreation opportunities might be expected to decrease slightly, the active recreation opportunities would likely increase when compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, since more reclaimed lands would likely be designated for athletic fields and golf course construction. See Section 4.4.5.3 for discussion on how hunting opportunities can increase in reclaimed mine landscapes. Current requirements for surface configurations and fills and AOC exceptions allow changes to the preexisting physical conditions, and therefore potentially affect visual quality. Stricter requirements on the minimization of excess fill placement in all streams and the use of land forming would likely reduce the potential for visual resource impacts in all regions. The expansion of documentation requirements, including digital terrain modeling of pre-mining landforms and final elevations and configurations for AOC exceptions, would provide additional documentation and review for the assessment of visual impacts. This documentation would be most useful in the Appalachian, Gulf Coast, and Illinois Basin regions, where visual impact assessment is usually not well documented. In the Colorado Plateau and Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, where most of the land within the coal fields is managed by the BLM, increased permitting and reporting requirements under Alternative 5 would also provide additional documentation for visual assessment, which would augment existing visual resource assessment that is often well documented and included in environmental assessments. The existing practices and documentation for review and assessment of visual impacts would continue. Reforestation under this alternative is similar to Alternative 3, with similar environmental impacts, except that Alternative 5 would not require that the applicant inventory forested areas on the proposed site for the 5 years preceding mining operations. Again, this alternative may prevent postmining land uses such as cropland and industrial. 4.5.5.3 Other Elements Reforestation and fish and wildlife enhancement requirements for Alternative 5 are very similar to Alternative 3, but reforestation would not be required for areas that had been previously forested within the 5-year period preceding mining. Fish and wildlife enhancement would be required to occur within the same watershed. This alternative would be expected to result in more land being reforested than under the No Action Alternative, but not as much as under Alternatives 2 or 3. Changes to the requirements for baseline data collection and analysis, monitoring during mining and reclamation, and fish and wildlife protection and enhancement do not consider or affect visual quality or visual impact assessment of surface mining projects. Current requirements for
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-212

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

revegetation and topsoil management in accordance with pre-mining land use or an approved PMLU can result in the potential for visual impacts when non-native vegetation is allowed or when areas are not restored to a forested state. The requirements under Alternative 5 include the use of native tree and plant species to reestablish areas that are forested at the time of permit application. These requirements would result in reestablishment of the existing visual quality of the site after project completion in all regions.

4.5.6

Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Utilities and Infrastructure

Implementation of Alternative 5, the Preferred Alternative, would result in some comparatively adverse socioeconomic effects in local areas in certain coal-producing regions; adverse effects would be less than those associated with Alternative 2 and more than those associated with Alternatives 3 and 4. These conditions would be directly related to loss of employment in certain regions, which would affect personal earnings, state income taxes, and other local taxes, which have not been calculated here because of a lack of consistent data across the region. In addition, a loss of tax revenue would be associated with severance taxes and corporate business taxes through a decline in production in certain regions. Overall, there would be an estimated production increase of 1.6% over Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. However, production changes vary by region, with the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and Illinois Basin regions increasing production while the remaining regions lose production. 4.5.6.1 Economics 4.5.6.1.1 Employment and Unemployment 4.5.6.1.1.1 Employment Changes in Coal Mining Selecting Alternative 5 would result in a net loss in total coal mining employment of over 7,000 employment positions nationwide. Table 4.5.6-1 lists the estimated number of employment positions by production type and the percentage change in employment when compared to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. All coal-producing regions show a decline in employment positions in the surface coal mining industry, except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, which has an expected gain of 14.9% for all coal mining employment. It is estimated that the Illinois Basin would gain enough positions through underground coal mining to offset and expand from the loss of positions in surface coal mining. The Other Western Interior region would not be expected to have a viable coal mining industry under Alternative 5. The Northwest region would be expected to lose approximately one-third of surface coal mining employment positions, with the Appalachian Basin and Gulf Region losses in surface mining employment positions sufficient to create a net adverse effect on employment in the region.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-213

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.5.6-1.

Alternative 5 Employment Positions Estimated by Production Type and Region
Estimated Number of Employment Positions UnderSurface Total ground 38,547 15,471 54,018 4,783 2,850 8,669 389 0 0 1,978 3,882 2,200 11,007 64 0 6,761 6,733 10,869 11,396 64 0 Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground (0.2) (32.1) (12.0) (0.7) 0.0 14.9 14.9 0 (100.0) (3.7) (22.4) (21.2) 14.9 (32.3) (100.0) (1.6) (14.3) 5.1 14.9 (32.3) (100.0)

Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

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

4.5.6.1.1.2

Estimated Employment Changes in Remainder of Economy

As described previously, in the Appalachian Basin region, the average indirect and induced employment creation from one new employment position in the coal mining industry is 1.46. The worst-case scenario is the approximate additional loss of 10,749 employment positions throughout the entire Appalachian Basin, which is equivalent to 0.03% of the total employment positions throughout the basin. In the Western states, applying the average employment multiplier of 1.40 equates to approximately 1,866 ancillary new employment positions, a 0.01% increase. For the Interior states, the average employment multiplier of 1.73 equates to a worstcase scenario of 1,683 lost employment positions (0.004% of employment positions). 4.5.6.1.1.3 Estimated Effects to the Number and Percentage of Unemployed

In the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region, there would be an expected increase in employment in underground and surface coal mining, which could reduce the number of unemployed if all persons came from the active labor force in the coal-producing region. This increased number of positions could lower the unemployment rate by approximately 0.4%. Table 4.5.6-2 lists the potential effects associated with the change in employment and the potential unemployment rate changes. Similar activity would be expected in the Illinois Basin, with the increase in the number of employment positions in underground mining compensating for the loss of positions in surface coal mining. Because of the small size of the region, the loss of employment positions could increase the unemployment rate by 1.3%. Employment changes in the remaining regions would produce only minor changes to unemployment rates. The Appalachian Basin would be expected to experience the greatest number of employment positions lost; however, that number is minor in comparison to the region and would not substantially affect the regional unemployment picture.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-214

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.5.6-2.

Alternative 5 Estimated Change in Number of Unemployed and the Unemployment Rate by Region
Current Unemployment Rate 10.0 11.1 9.7 10.2 9.6 20.2 8.9 Change in Unemployed 7,362 112 1,119 (531) (1,476) 31 385 Change in the Unemployment Rate 0.2 0.1 0.8 (0.1) (0.4) 1.3 0.3

Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains  Northwest Other Western Interior

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

4.5.6.1.2 Earnings and Personal Income 4.5.6.1.2.1 Earnings and Personal Income Changes from Coal Mining Selecting Alternative 5 would result in a substantial loss of earnings and personal income in local areas in some coal-producing regions. The most substantial losses would occur in the Other Western Interior, the Northwest, and the Appalachian Basin, though these losses would be minor compared to the total regional personal earnings. Table 4.5.6-3 lists the estimated change and percentage change in earnings compared to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. When compared to total regional personal earnings, the estimated loss of earnings in the coal industry is relatively small, with the largest loss occurring in the Northwest. An estimated increase in personal earnings would be expected in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Illinois Basin, with only negligible effects expected in the Colorado Plateau. Table 4.5.6-3. Alternative 5 Estimated Change in Earnings from Coal Mining
Percentage Change from Alternative 1 Underground (0.2) (0.7) 0.0 14.9 14.9 0.0 (100.0) Surface (32.1) (3.7) (22.4) (21.2) 14.9 (32.3) (100.0) Total (11.8) (1.6) (13.9) 5.2 14.9 (32.3) (100.0) Percent Change of Total Regional Personal Earnings (0.1) 0.0 (0.5) 0.1 0.2 (0.9) (0.1)

Estimated Change in Earnings ($1,000) Coal-Producing Region Underground (3,294) (1,690) (25) 62,647 2,736 0 (3,678)

Surface (359,689) (3,700) (55,854) (32,794) 67,423 (1,687) (12,864)

Total (362,983) (5,390) (55,879) 29,854 70,158 (1,687) (16,542)

Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

16
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-215

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.5.6.1.2.2

Estimated Earnings and Personal Income Effects in Remainder of Economy

The loss of approximately $363.0 million in earnings in the Appalachian Basin could result in the additional loss of approximately $294.0 million, another 0.1% of the total regional personal earnings for a combined loss of approximately 0.2%. In the Western states, the net change in earnings would be an increase of approximately $63.1 million, which would result in an additional increase in earnings of approximately $38.5 million (0.08% of the total compensation in the combined regions). In the Interior states, the net changes in earnings would be a decline of approximately $32.4 million in additional compensation, which would result in an additional decline of 0.05% of the total compensation in the combined regions. 4.5.6.1.3 Poverty Levels Alternative 5 would increase local poverty levels in some regions, if persons displaced by the loss of employment associated with the surface coal mining industry do not readily find other employment. Table 4.5.6-4 lists, as a worst-case scenario, the potential effects from the loss of employment positions from reductions in surface mining. This analysis assumes an average family size per region supported by each individual employment position lost. It also assumes that none of the populations would relocate to find jobs in other areas. The table indicates that the Northwest and the Gulf Region would experience the greatest impacts; both regions would potentially have a greater than 1% increase in the unemployment rate. Conversely, the poverty rate could decline in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains and the Illinois Basin if employment positions generated from underground mining and surface mining could employ persons, either unemployed or from the working poor, with a household income below the poverty threshold. Minor increases in the unemployment rate would be expected in the Other Western Interior, the Appalachian Basin, and the Colorado Plateau regions. Table 4.5.6-4. Alternative 5 Estimated Changes to Poverty Levels from Changes in Employment
Estimated Change in Employment (7,362) (112) (1,119) 531 1,476 (31) (385) Estimated Population Affected 29,339 473 4,712 2,172 5,668 124 1,508 Estimated Total Population Below Poverty 1,443,617 107,942 64,320 195,141 84,452 1,398 59,945 Estimated Percent Below Poverty 16.5 18.4 18.4 16.3 11.8 24.9 16.7 Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rate 0.3 0.1 1.4 (0.2) (0.8) 2.2 0.4

Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

27
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-216

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

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

4.5.6.1.4 Income and Severance Taxes Implementation of Alternative 5 would increase coal mining-related tax revenue in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains region but reduce tax revenues in all other coal regions. In comparison with Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the reduction in revenues in most coal regions would be less than 20%, except for one region that would experience the complete elimination of coal industry-related tax revenues. The estimated impacts of Alternative 5 implementation on the AML fund by region are shown in Table 4.5.6-5. This analysis shows that there would be a 100% reduction in the Other Western Interior region. Lesser reductions would be experienced in the Northwest, Gulf Region, and Appalachian Basin, while an increase of nearly 15% would occur in the Northern Rocky Mountains/Great Plains. The greatest net loss of AML contributions would occur in the Appalachian Basin; however, the estimated increase in AML fund contributions from the Northern Rocky Mountains/Great Plains region would total over $25 million and exceed the total estimated reductions in all other regions combined. Table 4.5.6-5. Alternative 5 Estimated Change in AML Funds Collected
Estimated Change in AML Fees Collected ($1,000) Underground Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior (50) (55) (0) 1,298 74 0 (60) Surface (15,081) (404) (3,811) (2,289) 25,235 (150) (472) Total (15,131) (460) (3,811) (991) 25,309 (150) (532) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 Underground (0.2) (0.7) 0.0 14.9 14.9 0.0 (100.0) Surface (32.1) (3.7) (22.4) (21.2) 14.9 (32.3) (100.0) Total (19.7) (2.5) (20.4) (5.1) 14.9 (32.3) (100.0)

Coal-Producing Region

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Estimated changes in severance tax revenues collected in each region are shown in Table 4.5.6-6. Severance tax revenues would be eliminated in the Other Western Interior region and would be reduced between approximately 2% and 18% in all other coal regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. There, the estimated increase of nearly 15% in severance tax revenues would yield an additional $72 million, more than three times the losses from all other coal regions.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-217

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Table 4.5.6-6.
Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin

Alternative 5 Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes
Estimated Change in State Severance Taxes Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground (103) (13,477) (13,580) (94) (0) 561 213 (298) (484) (3,633) 71,734 (392) (484) (3,072) 71,946 (534) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground (0.2) (32.1) (13.1) (0.7) 0.0 14.9 14.9 (100.0) (3.7) (22.4) (21.2) 14.9 (100.0) (1.9) (18.2) (14.7) 14.9 (100.0)

Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Northwest Other Western Interior

Not Applicable (121) (412)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

The estimated changes in state income taxes attributable to coal industry employment in each region are shown in Table 4.5.6-7. Income tax revenues from coal mining would be eliminated in the Other Western Interior region and would be reduced in the Appalachian Basin and Gulf Region by nearly 11.7% and 13.7%, respectively. As a percentage of total regional income taxes, however, the estimated loss of state income tax revenues in the Other Western Interior region would equate to less than 0.01% of the region’s total revenues from income taxes. In the Appalachian Basin and Gulf Region, the losses would equate to approximately 0.01% and 0.02%, respectively, of those regions’ total revenues from income taxes. Table 4.5.6-7.
Coal-Producing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains  Northwest Other Western Interior

Alternative 5 Estimated Change in State Income Taxes
Estimated Change in State Income Taxes Collected ($1,000) UnderSurface Total ground (104) (11,386) (11,490) (64) (140) (204) (1) (1,307) (1,307) 2,041 (1,068) 973 60 Not Applicable (137) 1,460 (463) 1,520 (599) Percentage Change from Alternative 1 UnderSurface Total ground (0.2) (32.1) (11.7) (0.7) (3.7) (1.6) 0.0 (22.4) (13.8) 14.9 (21.2) 5.2 14.9 (100.0) 14.9 (100.0) 14.9 (100.0)

12 13 14 15 16 17

Under Alternative 5, royalties would decline in all regions except the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. Table 4.5.6-8 lists the estimated royalties, distributions, and estimated change from Alternative 1. Tribes in New Mexico and Arizona would be anticipated to lose approximately $2.6 million in coal royalties, while tribes in Montana would receive an additional $1.7 million in coal royalties.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-218

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Table 4.5.6-8.

Alternative 5 Coal Royalties for FY 2008 by State and Estimated State Disbursement
Change from Alternative 1 Tribal Federal Estimated State Royalties Royalties Disbursements $1,000 0 1,679 0 0 (1,362) (1,266) 0 0 0 89,424 6,591 (360) (1,297) (497) 0 (258) (527) (4,740) 44,712 3,296 (180) (649) (249) 0 (129) (264) (2,370)

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

Alternative 5 Federal Estimated State State Royalties Disbursements $1,000 Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Wyoming   0 690,398 345,199 Montana 12,961 50,887 25,444 Appalachian Basin/Illinois Basin Kentucky 0 2,089 1,045 Colorado Plateau Colorado 0 73,836 36,918 New Mexico 41,807 15,254 7,627 Arizona 32,558 0 0 Utah 0 34,727 17,364 Gulf Region Alabama 0 888 444 Other Western Interior Oklahoma 0 0 0 Tribal Royalties

Source: Calculated from ONRR 2010. Statistical Information Reported Royalty Revenues by State for FY 2008. http://www.onrr.gov/ONRRWebStats/Home.aspx. Accessed January 7, 2011.

4.5.6.2 Demographics 4.5.6.2.1 Populations Changes As shown in Table 4.5.6-4, the net number of persons potentially affected by Alternative 5 includes the dependents of those employed in the coal mining industry. The potential net populations adversely affected range from over 29,000 persons in the Appalachian Basin to just over 100 persons in the Northwest. In the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, approximately 0.3% of the population could benefit from Alternative 5. Conversely, no other regions would have more than 0.1% of the population adversely affected by this alternative, as of the 2000 Decennial Census. 4.5.6.2.2 Minority Population Effects Implementation of Alternative 5 could affect minority populations in the Northwest region, given the high percentage of minority population in the region and the effects from lost employment positions associated with surface mining. In addition, because of the concentrated minority areas in the Gulf Region, there could be effects to minority populations associated with the loss of surface mining in specific counties.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-219

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.5.6.3 Environmental Justice Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 5 would not be expected to result in disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income communities, since all communities would be provided equal access to the decision-making processes involved with the proposed rulemaking. 4.5.6.4 Utilities and Infrastructure Under Alternative 5, the net tonnage of coal produced in the United States would be nearly identical to current levels; however, production shifts would be expected to affect utilities. 4.5.6.4.1 Utilities Alternative 5 would not reduce the net tonnage of coal produced in the United States. Data reviewed did not identify whether surface or underground mining would require more treated water or produce more wastewater. Because overall production is estimated to remain at nearly the same levels as Alternative 1, it is assumed that Alternative 5 would not affect the net demand for water and wastewater treatment on a national level. Because certain areas of the country would produce more coal and other areas would produce less coal, effects of Alternative 5 on utilities are discussed by basin below. Appalachian Basin Alternative 5 would reduce the amount of coal produced in the Appalachian Basin as well as the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Treatment demand would be reduced directly by closing surface mines, or indirectly because of less residential demand from out-of-work people leaving the area). Expected production increases in Pennsylvania would likely require additional utility capacity; however, extra water and wastewater treatment. Colorado Plateau Alternative 5 likely would directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in Colorado, while decreasing the need for treatment in New Mexico. Most affected would be Colorado, which has additional capacity for water and wastewater treatment. Gulf Coast Alternative 5 would decrease the amount of coal produced in the Gulf Coast states and would directly or indirectly decrease the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the majority of counties and states in this region. Most affected would be Texas, where production tonnages from surface mines would decrease by approximately 23%. Illinois Basin Alternative 5 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Illinois Basin and would directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in the
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-220

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

majority of counties and states in this region. Only Indiana would have a net decrease in tonnage produced, approximately 2%. Most affected would be Illinois, where total production tonnages would increase by approximately 33%. Illinois has ample water and wastewater capacities in coal-producing counties. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 5 would increase the amount of coal produced in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains by both surface and underground methods, and would directly or indirectly increase the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in Wyoming and Montana. Wyoming and Montana have ample water and wastewater capacities in coal-producing counties. Demand in North Dakota would stay at approximately the same level. Northwest As shown on Table 3.17-15 in Section 3.17, the single coal-producing county in Alaska currently has excess capacity for water treatment; however, wastewater treatment capacity is unknown. Alternative 5 would be expected to directly and indirectly decrease the need for water and wastewater treatment capacity in Alaska. Other Western Interior Alternative 5 would eliminate coal mining from this region. Additional capacity for water or wastewater treatment would not be required under this alternative. 4.5.6.4.2 Transportation Infrastructure Implementation of Alternative 5 would result in shifts in the methods of transportation; rail transportation would likely increase cumulatively by over 3%, while barge and road transportation would decrease cumulatively across all basins by 1% and 2%, respectively, on the national level. Localized effects would be expected in states where production changes are greater. 4.5.6.4.2.1 Appalachian Basin Alternative 5 would reduce the demand for rail transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Affected rail lines would include CSX and Norfolk Southern. The effects of decreased demand for rail transportation would likely correspond to a decrease in the need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep areas of west-central Pennsylvania, south-central Kentucky, and south-central Tennessee and northern Alabama operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Rail

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-221

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Colorado Plateau Alternative 5 would increase the demand for rail transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Within the Colorado Plateau Basin nearly twice as much coal is shipped by rail than by all other modes of transportation. Increasing coal production from the Colorado Plateau Basin under Alternative 5 would result in a net increase of nearly 0.33% of all U.S. rail shipments of coal. Affected rail lines would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of increased demand for rail transportation would likely correspond to a need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep rail corridors operating at LOS A, B, and C. Gulf Coast Alternative 5 would decrease the rail transportation of coal in Texas. Mines in Texas shipped approximately 0.3% of the total tonnage of coal shipped by rail nationwide in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Decreasing coal production from Texas by 23% would not significantly decrease all U.S. rail shipments of coal, but would be expected to have a significant impact locally in Texas. Affected rail lines would include BNSF and Union Pacific. Under Alternative 5, capital improvements would likely still be required to keep most of the rail lines in this basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Illinois Basin Alternative 5 would increase the need for rail transportation in Indiana, Illinois, and western Kentucky. Increasing coal production from the Illinois Basin under Alternative 5 would increase the Illinois Basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by rail by approximately 1%. Since the Illinois Basin straddles the Mississippi River, affected rail lines in this basin would include all four of the major rail lines (CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, and Union Pacific). The effects of increased demand for rail transportation would likely correspond to an increased need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads throughout Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky operating at LOS categories A, B, or C, especially at notable river crossings, where LOS categories are already at capacity, and in northeastern Illinois, where the LOS is already over capacity. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 5 would increase the need for rail transportation of coal in Wyoming and Montana. Demand in North Dakota would stay at approximately the same level. This basin is the predominant user of rail in the United States. Increasing coal production from the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains under Alternative 5 would increase the basin’s share of the
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-222

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by rail by between 4.5% and 67.5%. Affected rail lines in this basin would include BNSF and Union Pacific. The effects of increased demand for rail transportation would likely significantly increase the need for capital improvement projects discussed in Section 3.17. These projects will be required to keep railroads throughout all four states in this basin operating at LOS categories A, B, or C. Northwest Alternative 5 would decrease demand for rail transportation in this basin. Decreasing coal production from the Northwest under Alternative 5 would not significantly increase the demand for rail transportation of coal in Alaska or the United States as a whole. The rail line affected by implementation of Alternative 5 would include the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Other Western Interior Alternative 5 would eliminate underground and surface mining from this region. Additional capacity for water or wastewater treatment would not be required under this alternative. Eliminating coal production from the Other Western Interior by 32% would reduce rail transportation of coal in United States by 0.5% and would be expected to have a localized affect. The rail lines affected by implementation of Alternative 5 would include BNSF and Union Pacific. 4.5.6.4.2.2 Appalachian Basin Alternative 5 would reduce the demand for barge transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin by 8% would result in a net decrease of more than 5% in all U.S. barge shipments of coal (to approximately 61%). Under Alternative 5, the Appalachian Basin would have a significant decrease in demand for barge transportation, which would certainly affect the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at the national level. Colorado Plateau Alternative 5 would increase the demand for barge transportation in Colorado. This represents approximately 2% of the total short tons of coal shipped by river nationwide in 2008 (EIS, 2010). Increasing coal production from the Colorado Plateau under Alternative 5 would increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by barge by less than 0.1%. Barge

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-223

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

An increase of less than 0.1% of all U.S. barge shipments of coal would have a limited impact on the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at the national level, although significant localized economic impacts would be expected in Colorado. Gulf Coast Mines in the three states in the Gulf Coast did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010). Under Alternative 5, reductions in production in the basin would not affect barge transit on a basin or national level. Illinois Basin Alternative 5 would increase the need for barge transportation in Indiana, Illinois, and western Kentucky. Increasing coal production from the Illinois Basin under Alternative 5 would increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by rail by over 4%, to over 36%. Under Alternative 5, the Illinois Basin would expect a significant increase in demand for barge transportation, which would certainly affect the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at the national level. More significant localized economic impacts would be expected in the basin. Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 5 would increase the need for barge transportation of coal in Montana. Increasing coal production from Montana under Alternative 5 would not be expected to increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage. The increase would be expected to have a minimal impact on the barge industry, river loading facilities, and the need for maintaining locks and dams along waterways at the national level. Localized economic impacts would be expected in Montana. Northwest Basin Alternative 5 would not be expected to affect Yukon-Koyukuk County, Alaska, because infrastructure is not in place for barge transportation from mines in the Northwest Basin. Other Western Interior Basin Alternative 5 would eliminate underground and surface mining from this region. However, mines in the four states in the Other Western Interior did not record shipments of coal by river in 2008 (EIA, 2010).

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-224

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

4.5.6.4.2.3 Appalachian Basin

Road

Alternative 5 would reduce the demand for truck transportation in the majority of counties and states in this region. Reducing coal production from the Appalachian Basin under Alternative 5 would be expected to reduce nearly 3.5% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. Under Alternative 5, the Appalachian Basin would expect a significant decrease in demand for truck transportation, primarily from West Virginia and the eastern part of Kentucky. A projected reduction under Alternative 5 of all U.S. truck shipments of coal would be expected to affect the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways on the national level. More significant economic impacts would be at the local level in the basin. Colorado Plateau Alternative 5 would increase the demand for truck transportation in Colorado. Increasing coal production in the Colorado Plateau under Alternative 5 would result in a net increase of 0.2% of all U.S. truck shipments of coal. Under Alternative 5, U.S. truck shipments of coal would have a localized impact on the truck transport industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Gulf Coast Alternative 5 would decrease the truck transportation of coal in the Gulf Coast. Decreasing coal production from the region under Alternative 5 would correspond to a net decrease of 4.5% in all U.S. truck shipments of coal. Such a decrease would be expected to have significant localized and national impact on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways. Illinois Basin Alternative 5 would increase the need for truck transportation of coal in Illinois and western Kentucky and likely decrease slightly in Indiana. Increasing coal production from the Illinois Basin under Alternative 5 corresponds to a net increase of over 6% in all U.S. truck shipments of coal. Such an increase would be expected to have significant local and national impacts on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-225

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Alternative 5 would increase the need for truck transportation of coal in Montana. Demand in North Dakota is expected to stay at approximately the same level. Increasing coal production from the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains under Alternative 5 would increase the basin’s share of the total U.S. coal tonnage shipped by truck by less than 0.5%. A local impact on the trucking industry, tariffs paid to state highway systems by coal trucks, and the need for maintaining roadways would be expected for Montana. Northwest Alternative 5 would decrease demand for truck transportation in Alaska. Based on the small amount of coal shipped by truck in this region (less than 0.2%), the estimated decrease in production would not be expected to significantly affect truck transportation of coal on a national level (EIA, 2008) but would be expected to significantly decrease truck transportation locally. Other Western Interior Alternative 5 would eliminate 100% of the coal produced in the Other Western Interior and would directly reduce the demand for truck transportation in this region. Based on this small amount of truck transit, eliminating coal production from the basin would not significantly decrease the total U.S. road shipments of coal, but would be expected to significantly decrease truck transportation locally.

4.5.7

Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.5.7.1 Safety Impacts

Occupational Safety Figure 4.5.7-1 shows the projected number of fatalities based on the projected production shifts. Implementation of Alternative 5 would likely cause a potential decrease in fatalities associated with decreased surface mining in the Appalachian Basin, Illinois Basin, and Gulf Region. The Appalachian Basin would likely realize the greatest benefits from the projected reduction of surface mining production.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-226

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.5.7-1.

Projected Average Number of Fatalities per Year – Alternative 5 vs. Alternative 1

3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 4.5.7-2 shows the projected average number of non-fatal days lost injuries based on the projected production shifts. Implementation of Alternative 5 would likely cause a potential decrease in the average number of non-fatal days lost injuries associated with decreased surface mining nationwide. The Appalachian Basin would likely realize the greatest benefits from the projected reduction of surface mining production.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-227

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.5.7-2.

Projected Average Number of Non-Fatal Days Lost Injuries per Year – Alternative 5 vs. Alternative 1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Public Safety Implementation of Alternative 5 would likely have negligible effects on public safety incidents nationwide based on the projected production shifts. Blasting activities in the Appalachian Basin would be expected to decrease, which may have an overall beneficial effect. Blasting would likely increase the greatest in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains; however, based on a lower population density in this part of the United States, negligible effects would be expected. 4.5.7.2 Health Impacts Occupational Health Figure 4.5.7-3 shows that implementation of Alternative 5 would likely cause an adverse increase in the number of coal mining-related illnesses due to a projected increase in underground mining production. The largest increases would be expected in lung and repetitive trauma disorders. There would be a projected negligible decrease in illnesses at surface mines; however, the overall number of illnesses would be expected to increase over Alternative 1.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-228

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2

Figure 4.5.7-3.

Projected Average Number of Illnesses per Year – Alternative 5 vs. Alternative 1

3 4 5 6 7 8 Figures 4.5.7-4 and 4.5.7-5 show the projected estimated changes in lung diseases and repetitive trauma disorders by coal basin if Alternative 5 were implemented. The greatest adverse increases would be expected in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Basin because of increased surface mining production and in the Appalachian and Illinois Basins because of increased underground coal production.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-229

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.5.7-4.

Dust Disease of the Lung – Alternative 5 vs. Alternative 1

2

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-230

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1

Figure 4.5.7-5.

Disorders Associated with Repeated Trauma – Alternative 5 vs. Alternative 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Public Health Implementation of Alternative 5 would likely have negligible effects on public health incidents nationwide based on the projected production shifts. There may a negligible decrease in occurrences in the Appalachian Basin and an increase in occurrences in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains based on overall projected coal production shifts. However, based on the lower population density in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, the overall impacts may be lessened.

4.5.8

Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA define cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). The term actions, as used in CEQ regulations, may include a broad range of activities—from activities as specific as individual construction projects to those as general as implementation of regulatory programs. Adverse effects from an individual action may be minor, but similar effects may accumulate over time from one or more origins and collectively result in high adverse effects that degrade important natural resources.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-231

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

The cumulative impact analysis builds on the analyses of the direct and indirect impacts described previously in Chapter 4. 4.5.8.0 Context and Need for Cumulative Impact Analysis This DEIS is programmatic, addressing direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences that are correspondingly broad in scope. Although potential direct and indirect effects of regulatory changes associated with the action alternatives have been previously identified in Chapter 4, a cumulative impact analysis is important because the proposed action and alternatives would not be implemented in a vacuum. That is, the potential effects associated with the implementation of any selected actions would be interwoven with many other actions, events, and trends taking place at local, regional, national, and international levels. As summarized previously within this chapter, the proposed action and alternatives result in two categories of projected effects:   Effects on the locations and types of coal production Effects on environmental, social, and economic resources

The projected production shifts, and associated changes in where and how coal is produced, would lead to potential direct and indirect environmental, social, and economic effects. However, coal mining is but one factor playing a role in effects on natural resources such as streams and on communities in and around mining areas. With or without changes to the SMCRA regulatory program as considered in this DEIS, the human environment within the coal mining regions would continue to change. None of the alternatives evaluated in this DEIS would reduce the effectiveness of the current regulatory framework for coal mining. 4.5.8.1 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis The cumulative impact analysis conducted for this DEIS follows the approach and methodology used in the 2008 OSM Final DEIS for Excess Spoil Minimization and Stream Buffer Zones (OSM, 2008).Information and results have been modified as appropriate for this DEIS. This approach and methodology are consistent with the guidelines found in the CEQ report Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997). As discussed in Chapter 3, the study area for this DEIS analysis consists of the 25 states in which coal mining occurred in 2008 or is likely to occur in the foreseeable future. This proposed federal action considered in this DEIS would affect the human environment in the 25-state study area. For an action involving federal rules that would have nationwide applicability, it is not feasible to evaluate all specific past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities and associated cumulative effects in each state, ecoregion, or watershed in which mining occurs. For most of those other activities, OSM has no information, and developing and analyzing information on those actions and their impacts would have exorbitant costs. Furthermore, analysis of those actions and their effects is not central to an informed evaluation of the impacts of this federal action. Therefore, we provide general information on the affected environment
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-232

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

based on programs and actions that could occur in and around coal mining areas and summarizing potential cumulative effects primarily at the national level. Because the cumulative perspective for this DEIS is broad, the impact analysis is generally qualitative rather than quantitative. 4.5.8.2 Other Actions with Potential Cumulative Effects This cumulative impact analysis addresses impacts and trends from the following actions and programs that may be cumulative to the impacts of this proposed federal action or an alternative to that action as considered in this DEIS:         SMCRA Title V requirements not considered under this DEIS—(Unaffected Title V SMCRA program requirements) SMCRA Title IV, Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) reclamation program Clean Water Act Section 303, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program Clean Water Act Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program Clean Water Act Section 404 program Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program Forestry Agriculture

Summary descriptions of these actions, programs, and economic sectors are provided below. The effects from any past actions are reflected in Chapter 3 as part of the baseline analysis describing existing conditions, characteristics, and trends of the various resource areas. SMCRA Title V Requirements Not Considered Under This DEIS: Title V of SMCRA establishes comprehensive and detailed requirements with respect to the regulation of surface coal mining operations. These statutory provisions and regulations set forth permitting and performance requirements to minimize the adverse effects stemming from coal mining activities. The proposed action and alternatives considered in this DEIS involve potential changes to 15 elements of this regulatory program, as summarized in Chapter 2. These 15 elements constitute only a portion of the overall SMCRA regulatory program; other elements of the regulatory program would not be affected by the proposed action or alternatives. Any regulatory changes considered herein would not affect State or Tribal programs, and the relationships between State or Tribal programs with OSM. Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Program: The purpose of the SMCRA Title IV program is to promote the reclamation of mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to the passage of SMCRA (August 3, 1977) and that continue to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, prevent or damage the beneficial use of land or water resources, or endanger the health or safety of the public (30 U.S.C. 1202(h)). The program is supported by a fee levied on each ton of coal produced. Twenty-five states and three tribes administer approved AML programs.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-233

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program: The 1972 Clean Water Act, Section 303, establishes water quality standards and TMDL programs. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters that are not meeting water quality standards established by states, territories, and authorized tribes, even after treatment systems have been installed to address point sources of pollution. Section 303(d) requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop total maximum daily loads for these waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. The TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a margin of safety to ensure that the waterbody can be used for the purposes the state has designated. The calculation must also account for seasonal variation in water quality. Before a new mining operation can occur in a 303(d) listed stream, it must demonstrate that it can operate without exceeding the TMDL limits for the affected watershed. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program: Water pollution degrades surface waters, making them unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. USEPA is charged with administering the NPDES permit program but can authorize states to assume many of the permitting, administrative, and enforcement responsibilities of the NPDES permit program. Authorized states are prohibited from adopting standards that are less stringent than those established under the federal NPDES permit program but may adopt or enforce standards that are more stringent than the federal standards if allowed under state law. At the time of publication, 45 states and the Virgin Islands have assumed NPDES authority. Since its introduction in 1972, the NPDES permit program has been responsible for great improvements in U.S. water quality. Any existing or new coal mine must receive an NPDES authorization and comply with applicable discharge limits. Clean Water Act Section 404 Program: The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to protect and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. CWA Section 404 helps to achieve this goal by establishing a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Responsibility for administering and enforcing Section 404 is shared by the USACE and the USEPA. USACE administers the day-to-day program, including individual permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations; develops policy and guidance; and enforces Section 404 provisions. USEPA develops and interprets environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications, identifies activities that are exempt from permitting, reviews and comments on individual permit applications, enforces Section 404 provisions, and has authority to veto USACE permit decisions. With USEPA approval and oversight, states and tribes can assume administration of the Section 404 permit program in certain “nonnavigable” waters within their jurisdiction. At the time of publication, only Michigan and New Jersey have done this. In those two states, the USACE retains jurisdiction in tidal and navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. Fills in U.S. waters can be authorized by the USACE through either the general permit or individual
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-234

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

permit process. If a mining permit would result in no more than minimal adverse effects on aquatic systems, including mitigation, they may be authorized by a nationwide permit. The USACE does a functional analysis of all streams that will be affected and requires some form of compensatory mitigation to address all unavoidable impacts. The Emergency Watershed Protection Program: The purpose of the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program is to undertake emergency measures, including the purchase of floodplain easements for runoff retardation and soil erosion prevention to safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire, flood, or any other natural occurrence is causing or has caused a sudden impairment of the watershed. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the program, which is authorized under Section 216 of P.L. 81-516. The NRCS may bear up to 75% of the construction cost of emergency measures or up to 90% in limited resource areas. The remaining cost-share must come from local sources and can be in the form of cash or in-kind services. Forestry: Among the strongest drivers of forestry land use status and condition in the United States are population and income. The U.S. population has increased from about 120 million people in 1929 to over 300 million in 2010. Especially after World War II, gross domestic product (GDP) and disposable income increased in the United States. This increased income, coupled with the growing population, increased demand for all outputs of the forest, including water, timber and non-timber products, scenic beauty, fish and wildlife, and a place to recreate. After World War II, growing population and income increased demand for and greatly enhanced transportation infrastructure, which led to the growth of suburbs and other changes in land use around existing cities. Better roads also enabled people to travel to what had formerly been remote forests. In addition, growing populations and incomes around the world increased the demand for U.S. agricultural products, such as soybeans, which led to large-scale clearing of forest land for growing crops. In the evolution of the current U.S. forest resource situation, forestry and agriculture have a history of competing land use, but the competition has in a sense been benign in that the use of land for either purpose has not foreclosed its later use for the other purpose. Growth has exceeded removals on U.S. timber lands for several decades, while the area of timber land has remained relatively stable. Agriculture: Agriculture is extremely important and is prevalent throughout all regions of the United States. It is a major influence on water quality, riparian habitat, and forest cover. In coal mining states, use of land for agricultural purposes declined by about 19% from 1950 to 2007. 4.5.8.3 Cumulative Impacts on Selected Resource Areas This cumulative impact analysis focuses on the following topics:     Surface water quality Surface water flow Aquatic fauna Terrestrial fauna
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-235

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

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

 

Threatened and endangered species Socioeconomics

These resource groups have been identified as the most likely to be cumulatively affected by the proposed action and alternatives and the other sources of cumulative impacts identified above. The potential cumulative impacts on these resources are summarized below. 4.5.8.3.1 Cumulative Effects on Surface Water Quality The effects of coal mining on surface water quality are well documented in terms of reduction in stream quality caused by acid mine drainage, the release of toxic materials into surface water, dissolved solids in mine drainage water, and sediment loads released into surface waters. The cumulative effects of the proposed federal action, alternatives, and other relevant programs on surface water quality are summarized in Table 4.5-1. As noted above, the specific locations and rate of any impacts cannot be determined for this DEIS, so the table presents potential cumulative effects in qualitative terms only. Table 4.5.8-1 ACTION Summary of Cumulative Effects on Surface Water Quality PAST PRESENT FUTURE If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, moderate positive;reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths

Alternative 2

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 3

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 4

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 5

Not applicable

Not applicable

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-236

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ACTION

PAST

PRESENT High positive; requirements providing framework for control and management of adverse effects Moderate positive; AML reclamation and grants to watershed projects Moderate positive; establishment of load limits on impaired streams High positive; control of water quality from point discharges

FUTURE High positive; requirements providing framework for control and management of adverse effects High positive; increased spending on AML water-related projects High positive; increased number of TMDL calculations prepared and implemented High positive; control of water quality from point discharges High positive; independent reviews and compensatory mitigation to ensure environmental effects are no more than minimal High positive; improvement in water quality due to riparian easements and application of “green” measures Moderate adverse; short-term turbidity

High positive; Unaffected requirements providing SMCRA Title V framework for control Requirements and management of adverse effects SMCRA Title IV AML Program Moderate positive; AML reclamation and grants to watershed projects Minor positive; delay in implementing TMDL program High positive; control of water quality from point discharges

CWA TMDL Program

NPDES Program

CWA Section 404 Program

High positive; independent reviews Minor positive; due to and compensatory relying on the SMCRA mitigation to ensure permit review environmental effects are no more than minimal Minor positive; minor short-term increases in turbidity, long-term reduction in nonpoint source runoff Moderate adverse; short-term turbidity High positive; improvement in water quality due to riparian easements and application of “green” measures Moderate adverse; short-term turbidity

EWP Program

Forestry Trends

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-237

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ACTION

PAST High adverse; nutrient and sediment contributions with immature technology to control

PRESENT Moderate adverse; decrease in acreage and maturity of technology to control nutrient and sediment contributions

FUTURE Moderate adverse; decrease in acreage and maturity of technology to control nutrient and sediment contributions

Agriculture Trends

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.5.8.3.2 Cumulative Effects on Surface Water Flow Coal mining can cause changes to surface water flow in terms of locations of flow and flow rates. The cumulative effects of this proposed federal action, alternatives, and other relevant programs on surface water flow are summarized in Table 4.5-2. As noted above, the specific locations and rate of any impacts cannot be determined at this time, so the table presents potential cumulative effects in qualitative terms only. Table 4.5.8-2 ACTION Summary of Cumulate Effects on Surface Water Flow PAST PRESENT FUTURE If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, moderate positive; reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths

Alternative 2

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 3

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 4

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 5

Not applicable

Not applicable

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-238

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ACTION

PAST

PRESENT

FUTURE

High positive; probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) Unaffected and cumulative SMCRA Title V hydrologic impact Requirements assessment (CHIA) requirements addressing potential flow effects SMCRA Title IV AML Program CWA TMDL Program NPDES Program CWA Section 404 Program Moderate positive; AML reclamation and grants to watershed projects Negligible Negligible

High positive; PHC and CHIA requirements addressing potential flow effects

High positive; PHC and CHIA requirements addressing potential flow effects

Moderate positive; AML reclamation and grants to watershed projects Negligible Negligible

High positive; increased spending on AML water-related projects Negligible Negligible High positive; independent cumulative review to ensure no increased risk of flooding High positive; increased use of riparian easements and application of “green” measures that restore natural function to attenuate flow Minor adverse; shortterm removal of trees, but lessened with consideration of cumulative effects

High positive; Minor positive; independent reliance on the cumulative review to SMCRA permit review ensure no increased risk of flooding Moderate positive; local benefits from use of traditional flood control measures; moderate adverse downstream of EWP measures Moderate adverse; short-term removal of trees without consideration of cumulative effects High positive; increased use of riparian easements and application of “green” measures that restore natural function to attenuate flow Minor adverse; shortterm removal of trees, but lessened with consideration of cumulative effects

EWP Program

Forestry Trends

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-239

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ACTION

PAST High adverse; removal of natural vegetation coupled with widespread farmland acreage

PRESENT Moderate adverse; decreased acreage and increased voluntary decision to keep natural riparian zones intact

FUTURE Moderate adverse; decreased acreage and increased voluntary decision to keep natural riparian zones intact

Agriculture Trends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ACTION

4.5.8.3.3 Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Fauna Aquatic fauna depend on adequate surface water quality and flow to survive and function within each ecosystem. When surface water quality and flow are affected by activities such as coal mining, adverse effects to aquatic fauna are likely to occur. The cumulative effects of this proposed federal action, alternatives, and other relevant programs on aquatic fauna are summarized in Table 4.5-3. As noted above, the specific locations and rate of any impacts cannot be determined at this time, so the table presents potential cumulative effects in qualitative terms only. Table 4.5.8-3 Summary of Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Fauna PRESENT FUTURE If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, moderate positive; reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths

PAST

Alternative 2

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 3

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 4

Not applicable

Not applicable

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-240

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ACTION

PAST

PRESENT

FUTURE If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths High positive; requirements providing framework for control and management of adverse effects High positive; increased spending on AML water-related projects High positive; increased number of TMDLs prepared and implemented

Alternative 5

Not applicable

Not applicable

High positive; Unaffected requirements providing SMCRA Title V framework for control Requirements and management of adverse effects SMCRA Title IV AML Program CWA TMDL Program NPDES Program Moderate positive; AML reclamation and grants to watershed projects Minor positive; delay of implementing TMDL program High positive; control of water quality from point discharges

High positive; requirements providing framework for control and management of adverse effects Moderate positive; AML reclamation and grants to watershed projects Moderate positive; establishment of load limits on impaired streams

High positive; control of High positive; control water quality from point of water quality from discharges point discharges High positive; independent reviews and compensatory mitigation to ensure environmental effects are no more than minimal High positive; improvement in water quality due to riparian easements and application of “green” measures Moderate adverse; short-term sediment

CWA Section 404 Program

High positive; independent reviews Minor positive; due to and compensatory reliance on the mitigation to ensure SMCRA permit review environmental effects are no more than minimal Minor positive; shortterm increases in turbidity, but longterm reduction in nonpoint source runoff Moderate adverse; short-term sediment High positive; improvement in water quality due to riparian easements and application of “green” measures Moderate adverse; short-term sediment

EWP Program

Forestry Trends

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-241

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ACTION

PAST High adverse; nutrient and sediment contributions with immature technology to control

PRESENT Moderate adverse; decreased acreage and maturity of technology to control nutrient and sediment contributions

FUTURE Moderate adverse; decreased acreage and maturity of technology to control nutrient and sediment contributions

Agriculture Trends

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.5.8.3.4 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Fauna Terrestrial fauna can be affected by coal mining directly and indirectly from causes such as direct mortality, habitat loss, and habitat fragmentation. The cumulative effects of the proposed federal action, alternatives, and other relevant programs on terrestrial fauna are summarized in Table 4.5-4. As noted above, the specific locations and rate of any impacts cannot be determined at this time, so the table presents potential cumulative effects in qualitative terms only. Table 4.5.8-4 ACTION Summary of Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Fauna PAST PRESENT FUTURE If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, moderate positive; reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths

Alternative 2

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 3

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 4

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 5

Not applicable

Not applicable

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-242

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ACTION

PAST

PRESENT High positive; requirements providing framework for control and management of adverse effects Minor adverse; shortterm increased construction; moderate positive; long-term increased reclamation of adverse conditions Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate positive; riparian zone easements High adverse; shortterm removal of trees; moderate adverse; long-term forest recovery

FUTURE High positive; requirements providing framework for control and management of adverse effects Moderate adverse; short-term increased construction; high positive; long-term increased reclamation of adverse conditions Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate positive; riparian zone easements High adverse; shortterm removal of trees; moderate adverse; long-term forest recovery Moderate adverse; decreased acreage affected and increased use of riparian zone easements, allowing corridor for terrestrial species

High positive; Unaffected requirements providing SMCRA Title V framework for control Requirements and management of adverse effects Minor adverse; shortterm increased construction; moderate positive; long-term increased reclamation of adverse conditions Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible High adverse; shortterm removal of trees; moderate adverse; long-term forest recovery

SMCRA Title IV AML Program CWA TMDL Program NPDES Program CWA Section 404 Program EWP Program

Forestry Trends

Agriculture Trends

Moderate adverse; decreased acreage High adverse; longaffected and increased term change in natural use of riparian zone vegetation and habitat easements, allowing corridor for terrestrial species

1

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-243

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

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

4.5.8.3.5 Cumulative Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species Threatened and endangered species are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and other statutory and regulatory requirements to ensure that the potential for impacts to special status species are avoided or mitigated. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated in the 1996 Biological Opinion and Conference Report that SMCRA and its implementing regulations set forth the programmatic standards and procedures designed to minimize mining-related impacts on fish and wildlife in general and threatened and endangered species in particular (USFWS, 1996). The cumulative effects of this proposed federal action, alternatives, along with associated programs on special status species are summarized in Table 4.5.8-5. As noted above, the specific locations and rate of any impacts cannot be determined at this time, so the table presents potential cumulative effects in qualitative terms only. Table 4.5.8-5 ACTION Summary of Cumulative Effects on Special Status Species PAST PRESENT FUTURE If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, moderate positive; reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths If implemented, high positive; substantial reductions in acres disturbed and affected stream lengths

Alternative 2

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 3

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 4

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 5

Not applicable

Not applicable

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-244

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

ACTION

PAST

PRESENT High positive; requirements providing framework for control and management of adverse effects Minor adverse; shortterm construction; moderate positive; long-term reclamation of adverse conditions Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor positive; riparian zone easements High adverse; shortterm removal of trees; moderate adverse; long-term forest recovery

FUTURE High positive; requirements providing framework for control and management of adverse effects Minor adverse; shortterm construction; high positive; longterm increased reclamation of adverse conditions Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor positive; riparian zone easements High adverse; short term removal of trees; moderate adverse; long-term forest recovery Moderate adverse; decreased acreage and increased use of riparian zone easements, allowing corridor for terrestrial species

High positive; Unaffected requirements providing SMCRA Title V framework for control Requirements and management of adverse effects Minor adverse; shortterm construction; moderate positive; long-term reclamation of adverse conditions Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible High adverse; shortterm removal of trees; moderate adverse; long-term forest recovery

SMCRA Title IV AML Program CWA TMDL Program NPDES Program CWA Section 404 Program EWP Program

Forestry Trends

Agriculture Trends

Moderate adverse; decreased acreage and High adverse; long-increased use of term change in natural riparian zone vegetation and habitat easements, allowing corridor for terrestrial species

1

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-245

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ACTION

4.5.8.3.6 Cumulative Effects on Socioeconomics Any cumulative effects to socioeconomic resources would generally be primarily driven by losses or gains in employment and income. These changes would occur on a regional basis, with some regions experiencing job losses and others job gains. Other categories of socioeconomic effects (e.g., housing, infrastructure and services, and quality of life) would occur parallel to the employment and income shifts. The cumulative effects of this proposed federal action, alternatives, along with associated programs on socioeconomics are summarized in Table 4.5-6. As noted above, the specific locations and rate of any impacts cannot be determined at this time, so the table presents potential cumulative effects in qualitative terms only. Table 4.5.8-6 PAST Not applicable Summary of Cumulative Effects on Socioeconomics PRESENT Not applicable FUTURE If implemented, high adverse; substantial lost of jobs and income If implemented, moderate positive and adverse; regional production shifts If implemented, moderate positive and adverse; regional production shifts If implemented, moderate positive and adverse; regional production shifts Negligible Minor positive; provision of some jobs and economic opportunities Negligible

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 4

Not applicable

Not applicable

Alternative 5

Not applicable

Not applicable

Unaffected SMCRA Title V Negligible Requirements SMCRA Title IV AML Program CWA TMDL Program Minor positive; provision of some jobs and economic opportunities Negligible

Negligible Minor positive; provision of some jobs and economic opportunities Negligible

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-246

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

NPDES Program CWA Section 404 Program EWP Program Forestry Trends

Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate positive; a traditional source of jobs and income Moderate positive; a traditional source of jobs and income

Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate positive; a traditional source of jobs and income Moderate positive; a traditional source of jobs and income

Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate positive; forestry jobs and income continuing into the future Moderate positive; agriculture jobs and income continuing into the future

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

4.5.8.4 Conclusions Coal mining, forestry, and agriculture often cumulatively interact in coal mining regions and result in adverse effects to environmental resources such as surface water and biological resources. These same economic activities have also traditionally provided a major source of employment and income within the coal regions, which is generally considered a positive effect. The appropriate balance between the positive and adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from coal mining, forestry, and agriculture is subjective and depends on individual and group beliefs, values, and goals. The regulatory and other programs considered in this cumulative impact analysis generally provide environmental protection support to affected environmental resources. These programs serve to lessen adverse effects under most circumstances. All of the rule-making alternatives under consideration in this DEIS would directly, indirectly, and cumulatively reduce environmental effects from coal mining in terms of less surface acreage disturbed and stream-miles affected by coal mining. The magnitude of those environmental impact reductions would vary by region and by alternative, and would follow the patterns of the projected coal production shifts.

18 19 20 21

4.6

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Consideration of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources is required by NEPA and the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA. The definitions and perspectives on irreversible
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-247

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

and irretrievable commitment of resources relevant to the proposed Federal action and alternatives herein are based on the content of OSM (2008). A resource is irreversibly committed when an action alters the resource so that it cannot be restored or returned to its original or pre-disturbance condition. A resource is irretrievably committed when it is removed or consumed. For example, in the surface mining of coal, the removal of coal would ultimately be both an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. While the coal would be irreversibly committed from the geologic formations, it is also irretrievably committed when burned for electrical generation. Another example of irreversible loss involves native soil loss or erosion. Soil losses from handling, erosion losses from topsoil stockpiles, and other unavoidable erosion losses of native soils would be irreversible. SMCRA requires that soil erosion and sedimentation be minimized and otherwise controlled to mitigate these effects to the maximum extent technologically feasible. Also, studies of reclaimed sites have shown that non-native mine soils, with time, become more like stable developed native soils. The direct burial of stream segments by excess spoil or coal preparation waste is a long-term irretrievable commitment of resources for the buried stream segment. However, the CWA and SMCRA provisions are designed to assure that adverse impacts to aquatic resources are minimized and that significant degradation of the downstream watershed does not occur. Consequently, the effects of surface coal mining on aquatic resources would be irreversible for a buried stream segment, but may produce varying levels of impact to the overall hydrologic regime depending on the watershed considered. Impacts on terrestrial resources, such as forests and wildlife, may be either permanent or temporary depending on the time frame considered. For instance, a mine site without reforestation as the post-mining land use may still result in a reversion to forestry through natural succession–despite the problems of excess compaction, lack of native seed sources across the reclaimed area, and other conditions hostile to reforestation. With sufficient time, although it may take hundreds of years, natural processes for mine soil improvement and succession can overcome conditions limiting reforestation, and the resource loss is not irreversible. Conversely, intensively managed reclaimed mine sites may never regain trees due to long-term use as industrial, residential, agricultural, or other non-forest uses. Reclamation techniques may exist to equal or exceed natural forest regeneration and productivity. In the cases where these techniques are applied, the loss of forest resource may be no less reversible than such losses are from timbering; and in some cases productivity gains may surpass forestation on native soils. Reclamation of mine sites to forest conditions (commercial or otherwise) may not reestablish wildlife habitat to pre-mining conditions. Actions that promote the tangible benefits for return of mined land to forest or other natural conditions are encouraged so as to minimize and mitigate adverse ecological effects. While loss of individuals of certain species within the mined areas may be irreversible, individuals of other species may be mobile enough to relocate to adjacent interior forest tracts or
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-248

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

other land uses. Adjacent tracts may or may not be able to support the additional populations due to competition for habitat. Again, the reclamation methods employed and post-mining land uses selected will determine whether or not the loss of wildlife resources is irreversible. Researchers have debated the benefits and detriments of forest edge habitat versus forest interior habitat, centered on the concept of biodiversity. Studies have shown that a post mining change in habitat can provide transitional habitat for declining grassland species uncommon to forested ecosystems. Accordingly, a shift in wildlife resource species may be temporary in nature, as with the vegetative cover, and provide arguments both for and against irreversible change–depending on the viewpoint of the observer. Environmental controls on surface coal mining and reclamation may render some coal resources irretrievable. Avoiding and minimizing valley fill stream impacts could make portions of coal seams recoverable only by inefficient methods or not feasible to recover at all. However, these effects may be temporary for some coal resource blocks if different mining methods become feasible or the coal market makes it economical to mine the reserves in compliance with environmental controls. That is, rising energy prices or new technology might allow mining and reclamation techniques that currently cannot be performed within profit margins. The loss of these reserves would not have an immediate, irreversible effect on energy production, because sufficient coal reserves exist elsewhere to meet current energy demands. However, long-term effects on energy production could occur, since rendering some surface mining coal reserves unminable could ultimately hasten reserve depletion when other coal sources dwindle.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

4.7

METHODOLOGY

This section provides a summary of the approach to and methods used to identify and assess the impacts potentially resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives considered within this DEIS. Where possible, the principal elements that represent the five Alternatives (see Chapter 2) are grouped into subsections for water, land, and other elements describing the potential impacts. Impacts are generally assessed by identifying and evaluating a cause-effect relationship – that is, the elements (if implemented) represent the “cause”, and the “effects” are the potential impacts to the baseline conditions and characteristics resulting from implementation of the elements. The impact analysis methodology includes both the effects to coal mining and associated production shifts, and effects to environmental resources.

4.7.1

Coal Resources and Mining

To represent the Proposed Action and alternatives, OSM developed a matrix linking the 11 principal elements with five alternatives (see Chapter 2). From the coal resources and mining perspective, analysis led to the conclusion that implementation of the any alternative would have two distinct types of impacts: an operational/cost impact and an environmental impact. Upon assessment of how the elements may affect individual mines and regional mining, it was determined that some of the elements would only have an impact on where (region) and how
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-249

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

(surface/underground) coal would be mined, while other elements would only impact mining costs. Some elements will have a dual impact. 4.7.1.1 Major Assumptions At the present stage of the analysis, the underlying assumptions that have guided the coal resources and mining impact process include:  Nationwide coal production for electricity generation and other uses would remain constant in the immediate future (generally fifty years before realistic alternatives to coal for energy generation are viable). The thermal value for coal production for energy generation must also remain constant; thus, any decline in higher BTU eastern coal would require an equivalent amount of production to generate the same energy content (i.e. more tons of western coal would be necessary to replace eastern coal). Full implementation of any changes to the SMCRA regulatory program would take place over a 10-12 year period. Metallurgical coal production from the Appalachian region of the U.S. would also be impacted and additional offsets or production from other sources would be necessary, if there is a decline in production. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, represents the current state of coal production (the baseline) under the current interpretation of SMCRA and would not materially change within the impact analysis. Impact analysis of the proposed rule does not consider any current trends caused by EPA’s reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and 401, 402, 404 permitting processes as applied to the Appalachia region. This analysis does not consider other externalities potentially impacting coal production; that is, any projected increases in coal production from region to region are assumed to be possible and do not consider such things as transportation limitations, production limitations from equipment or labor forces, greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory impacts to mining, etc. 4.7.1.2 Impact Estimation The DEIS Mining Analysis team estimated ranges of potential individual and cumulative impacts to current coal production levels that would be caused by the implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. For each region, coal production was projected to stay the same, increase, or decrease based on the effects of each alternative. This estimation process was undertaken during the course of an informal elicitation process. The informal elicitation process involved coal mining Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) experienced in mining operations and coal
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES



 







4-250

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

regulatory programs, who estimated the order of magnitude of the coal production tonnage that could be lost within each coal mining region. Due to limitations of time and budget, potential impacts to land acres and stream lengths associated with coal mining activities were considered to be proportional to coal production levels. 4.7.1.3 Expert Elicitation Process The expert elicitation is a systematic approach to synthesize subjective judgments of experts on a subject where there is uncertainty due to insufficient data, when such data is unattainable because of physical constraints or lack of resources. It seeks to make explicit and usable the unpublished knowledge of the experts, based on accumulated experience and expertise, including insight into the limitations, strengths and weaknesses of the published knowledge and available data. Usually, the subjective judgment is represented as a “subjective” probability density function (PDF) reflecting the experts belief regarding the quantity at hand, but it can also be for instance the experts beliefs regarding the shape of a given exposure response function. The elicitation process is a method of subjective probabilities in which an expert or experts are asked to estimate various behaviors and likelihoods regarding specific model variables or scenarios. This method has seen increasing usage in environmental risk assessment and is used by federal agencies such as EPA (EPA/630/R-97/001, March 1997). An expert elicitation can be informal or formal. Informal elicitation methods include self assessment, brainstorming, causal elicitation (without structured efforts to control biases), and taped group discussions between the project staff and selected experts. In contrast, formal elicitation methods generally follow the steps identified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC, 1989; Oritz, 1991; also see Morgan and Henrion, 1990; IAEA, 1989; Helton, 1993; Taylor and Burmaster; 1993) and are considerably more elaborate and expensive than informal methods. According to NCRP’s definition of an expert (NCRP 1996), an expert has: (1) training and experience in the subject area resulting in superior knowledge in the field, (2) access to relevant information, (3) an ability to process and effectively use the information, and (4) is recognized by his or her peers or those conducting the study as qualified to provide judgments about assumptions, models, and model parameters at the level of detail required. Therefore, the individuals who participated in the elicitation process, as mentioned above, are experts and, therefore, the described elicitation process is valid. 4.7.1.4 Expert Panel Requirements and Qualifications The SME panel involved in this project included a balanced sample of experts able to make and express judgments on the uncertainties that are to be elicited, based on their in-depth knowledge of the coal industry. The expert panel represented both the industry operational point of view and the environmental and NGO perspective regarding coal mining company responses to potential regulatory changes. The diversity of expert views itself carries valuable information and should be part of the open reporting of the study results, and heterogeneity among experts is highly desirable.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-251

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

The purpose of the initial informal elicitation (also called “first-round” expert elicitation) was to provide reasonable/plausible input for a sensitivity analyses, as well as a semi-quantitative ranking of potential impacts to coal mining operations and the industry as a whole. The key uncertainties identified through this sensitivity analyses could then be subjected to a second round expert elicitation. The execution of an Expert Elicitation process requires skills and experience, and the involvement of different experts. In general, three types of experts can be distinguished: generalists, subject matter experts, and normative experts (See Kotra et al., 1996, and Loveridge, 2002). SME’s typically are at the forefront of a specialty relevant to the problem and are recognized by their peers as authorities because of their sustained and significant research on the topic. Required competencies of subject-matter experts include:     possess the necessary knowledge and expertise have demonstrated their ability to apply their knowledge and expertise represent a broad diversity of independent opinion and approaches for addressing the topic(s) in question are willing to be identified publicly with their judgments (at least be willing to be identified as member of the expert panel, while individual judgments might be reported anonymously) are willing to identify, for the record, any potential conflicts of interest flexibility of thought and ability to objectively consider evidence that challenges his or her own conventional wisdom ability to explain complex topics in clear and straightforward terms

  

The EIS mining expert team members were selected to fit the description of SMEs and represent a range of viewpoints and perspectives. 4.7.1.5 Industry Consultation not Included in Elicitation A key element to a more rigorous analysis (second-round expert elicitation) would include canvassing the industry in order to obtain probabilistic ranges of impact based on the opinion of representatives of major coal producers throughout the country. The results from that survey would serve as a sounding board that would allow the expert team to refine its defined impact ranges while obtaining a first-hand opinion from industry experts regarding the impacts of each Alternative. However, OSM determined that detailed consultation with industry should not be undertaken at this time. An initial simulation of the effects of potential rule changes on selected (representative) operations (surface and underground) located in the various coal-producing regions would provide additional assurance about the soundness of the assumptions made by the

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-252

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

expert team during the informal elicitation process. OSM is interested in receiving comments in this regard. 4.7.1.6 Deterministic versus Stochastic Impact Approaches Even though the elicited regional coal production shift impact values are incorporated into the model developed by the expert team in a deterministic fashion (a single percentage value is associated with the impact of each matrix element), in reality, these values represent the most likely value within a range elicited by the team. For example, Element # 1, Stream Definition, may be considered to have an individual impact of 30% on the surface production of Region 1 under Alternative 2; however, even though it is the most likely impact (in the opinion of the experts), in reality that impact may be between 25% and 35%. A more detailed analysis would require a formal elicitation process through which probabilistic ranges of impact would be defined by the experts. Those ranges, which are defined by a minimum, maximum and “most likely” impact values, would then be used to build a stochastic prediction model (Monte Carlo simulation). The stochastic prediction model would take into consideration the impact ranges defined by the experts and generate Beta PERT (or simply, PERT) distributions. These distributions use the most likely value, but are designed to generate a distribution that more closely resembles realistic probability distribution. The PERT distribution constructs a smooth curve which places progressively more emphasis on values around (near) the most likely value, in favor of values around the edges. In practice, this means that the experts "trust" the estimate for the most likely value, and believe that even if it is not exactly accurate (as estimates seldom are), they have an expectation that the resulting value will be close to that estimate. Assuming that many real-world phenomena are normally distributed, the appeal of the PERT distribution is that it produces a curve similar to the normal curve in shape, without knowing the precise parameters of the related normal curve as shown below:

27 28 29 30 Each probabilistic element would have and individual impact on coal production that, combined with all the other elements of a specific Alternative, would render the probabilistic cumulative impact of that Alternative on the production of a given region.
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-253

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6

At this point, the deterministic model (using the “most likely” impact values) has been completed, while the stochastic model is still being developed. The following is a detailed explanation of the methodology involved in the development of the deterministic model: 4.7.1.7 Baseline Data The baseline data (representing Alternative 1 in the DEIS) was obtained from the 2008 DOE/EIA production reports as shown in the following table:

7 8 9 10 11 12 4.7.1.8 Estimation of Production Losses (Tons) As noted above, the impact of the implementation of the various alternatives on the regional baseline production was based on an informal elicitation process in which the team SME panel estimated the tons that would be lost in each region due to the revised regulatory requirements. Based on their knowledge of both the industry and the characteristics of the various coal regions,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-254

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

the expert team assessed the potential effect that the 11 elements contained in each Alternative would have on the surface and underground production in those regions. The experts determined which elements would only have a cost impact and those which would likely cause a reduction in production (lost tons) based on restrictions it would impose on where and how mining operations could be undertaken. For example, elements such as “Fish and Wildlife Protection and Enhancement” would have a cost impact, while the “Stream Definition” and “Material Damage Definition” would have an impact on production. The most stringent interpretation of the material damage and/or stream could literally prevent surface mining in certain regions, for example. The expert team only elicited the potential impact (expressed in terms of lost tons) originated by elements that would directly or indirectly affect the ability of an operator to carry out mining operations in a technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically profitable manner. The SME panel was constrained by both time and budget restrictions for this assessment. As an example of the result of this process, the following table shows the estimated coal production losses (tons) corresponding to the implementation of Alternative 4 as estimated during the informal elicitation process:

17
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-255

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5

4.7.1.9 Conversion of Coal Losses to Energy Losses (BTU) Since one of the initial premises of this study was to maintain the energy production from coal nationwide, the lost tons were converted into energy, by multiplying them by the typical heat content of the coals from each region (as shown in the DOE/EIA). The corresponding losses are shown in the following table:

6

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-256

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

For example, the implementation of Alternative 4 in the Appalachian Region would cause the loss of 16.81 million tons of coal per year (1.11 million tons of underground coal and 15.71 million tons of surface coal). Since the typical heat content of coal from that region is 24.61 million Btu per ton, then the corresponding energy loss would be 16.81 MM ton x 24.61 MM Btu/ton = 413.69 Trillion Btu (27.24 Trillion Btu from underground coal and 386.46 Trillion Btu from surface coal). Applying the same principle to all the regions, the final estimated nationwide impact of the application of Alternative 4 is the loss of 531.92 Trillion Btu (79.04 Trillion Btu from underground coal and 452.88 Trillion Btu from surface coal). The following table summarizes the losses described above.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 It can be observed that some mining methods and/or regions were not affected by the implementation of this Alternative (shaded in green). These are called “unaffected areas” and the production from those “unaffected areas” is called “unaffected production”. The coal necessary to make up the energy losses caused by this Alternative will come from the “unaffected areas”. 4.7.1.10 Apportioning of Make-up Energy As noted previously, the additional coal required to make up the energy losses would be obtained from the unaffected areas. For this analysis, it was considered that each unaffected area would contribute to the energy make-up, proportionally to its current production. As observed in the following table, the Northern Rocky Mountains Region is an “unaffected area”, with an “unaffected production of 63 Trillion Btu from underground mining and 9,221 Trillion Btu from Surface mining, for a regional sub-total of 9,284 Trillion Btu. Those figures

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-257

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

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

are the result of multiplying the “unaffected production” (tonnage) by the typical heat content of coal coming from that region: 3.67 MM ton x 17.13 MM Btu/ton = 63 Trillion BTU (Unaffected underground production) 538.39 MM ton x 17.13 MM Btu/ton = 9,221 Trillion BTU (Unaffected surface production) 63 Trillion Btu + 9,221 Trillion Btu = 9,284 Trillion BTU As shown in the table, the total unaffected production would reach 10,766 Trillion BTU. Since the 9,221 Trillion BTU of surface unaffected production from the Northern Rocky Mountains Region represent 85.65% of the national unaffected production (9,221 Trillion BTU ÷ 10,766 BTU = 85.65%), then it is assumed that 85.65% of the lost energy will come from that region. Similarly, since the 1,450 Trillion BTU of underground unaffected production from the Illinois Basin Region represent 13.47% of the national unaffected production, it is assumed that the same percentage of the lost energy will come from that region, and so on.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 In this case, 14.4% of the make-up energy will come from underground operations and the remaining 85.86% will come from surface mines. The following table shows how the lost energy is distributed among the unaffected regions. For example, since the apportioning indicates that 85.65% of the lost energy will come from surface operations in the Northern Rocky Mountains Region, then an additional 459 Trillion BTU will need to come from that area (532 Trillion Btu x 85.65% = 456 Trillion BTU).

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-258

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4.7.1.11 Required Additional Coal Production The following table shows the additional coal production by region required to make-up the calculated energy losses. The necessary apportioned energy contribution of each region is divided by the typical heat content for coals form those regions, in order to calculate the necessary tons of coal. For example, the 456 Trillion BTU from surface mines in the Northern Rocky Mountains/Great Plains Region that will have to be produced represent an additional production of 26.8 Million tons (456 Trillion BTU ÷ 17.13 Million BTU = 26.8 Million tons). The table indicates that a total of 30.1 Million tons will need to be produced at the unaffected areas in order to compensate the calculated energy losses.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 As shown in the table, in order to compensate for the loss of the 26.8 Million tons, 30.1 Million tons from unaffected areas are required. 4.7.1.12 Required Production Increases The following table shows the required increase of production (percentage) for each unaffected region and how much the current production of those areas would need to be increased in order to obtain the necessary tons to make-up the estimated energy losses. For example, an additional
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-259

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4

0.2 Million tons of underground coal will be required to come from the Northern Rocky Mountains Region. Since the current underground production of that region is 3.67 Million tons (as indicated in the baseline data), the additional requirement represents an increase of production of 4.94% (0.2 Million tons/3.67 Million tons = 4.94%).

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4.7.1.13 Final Production Change Projections The following table shows the final production distribution reflecting the production shifts corresponding to the implementation Alternative 4. In the specific case of Alternative 4, 1,178 Million tons of coal will need to be produced in order to provide 23,470 Trillion Btu which, under the baseline conditions, is achieved with 8 Million tons of coal less (1,170 Million tons under Alternative 1).

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-260

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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 4.7.1.14 Projection of Changes to Acreage Affected The modified production table shows the variations in production (increases and reductions expressed both in tons and as percentage) when comparing the baseline data (Alternative 1) with each of the proposed Alternatives. Those variations were used as the basis for the quantification of the impact on affected land acres and stream lengths, as detailed in the following sections. 4.7.1.15 Acreage Affected by Surface Mining The expert team consulted well documented and reliable sources of information, such as the Energy Information Administration (EIA,) and obtained reports on the weighted average coal thickness for each one of the coal-producing regions. Using a typical coal density of 80 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3), a well-established and widely accepted value used by industry and Federal Agencies such as MSHA, NIOSH and OSM, the expert team estimated the typical surface mineable coal content (tons per acre or ton/ac) for each one of those regions. The theoretically affected areas under each alternative were obtained by dividing the annual coal production by their corresponding regional coal content (ton/yr ÷ ton/ac = ac/yr).

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-261

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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 4.7.1.16 Acreage Affected by Underground Mining In order to determine the areas affected by underground mining, members of the expert team contacted state and federal agencies. Information on the acreage of areas associated with mining operations was collected and analyzed in order to separate the areas directly related to mining activities from those corresponding to either the “shadow area” of the underground mines or those at various stages of reclamation, as well as those related to inactive permits. The previously described process allowed the expert team to ascertain the total permitted areas affected by mining operations under the criteria established by the proposed rule. Since the acres obtained through this process reflect the areas to be affected during the life of the permit, they were divided by the number of years that represent the average life of a permit in the areas under consideration, in order to obtain affected acres per year (permitted ac ÷ yr = ac/yr). For the various Alternatives, it was assumed that the affected areas would be directly proportional to coal production; therefore, the coal-producing areas that, according to the impact model will experience a decrease in production, will similarly have their affected areas reduced in the same proportion. On the other hand, those areas that are forecast to have their yearly production increased will also experience a proportional increase in their affected areas.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-262

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4.7.1.17 Affected Stream Lengths Coal production shifts also affect streams within the regions, as measured by stream lengths. Total lengths of streams (perennial, intermittent and other) were calculated using GIS analysis techniques to isolate the National Hydrography Database flowlines that fell within the coal resource region within each of the coal producing states. Perennial and intermittent streams are self-explanatory. The definition of “Other” streams generally refers to artificial channels and other waterways that make up the NHD flowlines. Detailed information on ephemeral channels has not been collected and was not calculated as part of this analysis. In addition to the determination of the total length of perennial, intermittent and other stream length in each state,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-263

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

the total corresponding land area making up the coal resource area in each of the respective states was determined through GIS measurement. Using the results from the stream length and land area determinations previously described, stream densities were calculated for each of the coal producing states. The results for each coal producing state were then combined into the seven coal resource regions and an overall stream density for each coal resource region was calculated using a weighted basis. Weighted regional average stream densities were calculated for perennial, intermittent, other and total. Those stream densities were then multiplied by the underground and surface impacted areas (ac/yr) for each of the coal resource regions for each of the Study Alternatives (as described in the preceding sections) to determine the stream impact lengths in miles/year.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

4.7.2

Geomorphology and Topography

Geomorphology is the science focused on developing an understanding of the form of the Earth's land surface and the processes by which that form is shaped (by both natural and man-made changes). Topography is the shape or configuration of the land, and is typically represented on a map by contour lines. Coal mining activities can involve extensive land disturbance including pits, waste disposal areas, fills, and facilities.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-264

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

The magnitude and extent of typical land disturbance from coal mining is closely associated with the mining type and mining location, as described in the discussion of mining types by region in Section 3.1. The geomorphology/topography impact assessment assessed how the elements associated with each alternative could affect the land surfaces in and around coal mine areas. The extent and regional context of impacts for this programmatic EIS would parallel the projected coal production shifts, with the increases or decreases in production within each region largely determining the extent of geomorphologic/topographical changes. Changes to landforms from coal mining are largely controlled by the SMCRA regulatory program through provisions for a return of land to approximate original contour, and variances to that requirement for approved post-mining land uses.

4.7.3

Water Resources

Coal mining and reclamation operations, if not properly planned and conducted, can have major impacts on the hydrologic balance of the mine site and surrounding area. Mining can interfere with the natural equilibrium of ground- and surface-water flow systems. Some of the components of these systems are: flow patterns of ground water within aquifers; the quantity of surface water as measured by the rate and duration of flows of streams; the erosion, transport, and deposition of sediment by surface runoff in stream flow; the quality of both ground and surface water, including both suspended and dissolved materials; and the connection between ground and surface waters. Although impacts to the hydrologic balance are unavoidable, protection of hydrologic values is an important component of SMCRA. The proposed federal action evaluated in this DEIS primarily consists of revisions to various provisions of the existing SMCRA regulatory program to improve protection of streams from the impacts of coal mining on a nationwide basis. Protection of water resources is a major issue and objective based on public comments associated with the previous proposed changes to SMCRA (see 34666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 117 / Friday, June 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules). The Water Resources section of this DEIS includes subsections on the following topics:      water resource planning, chemical contaminant transport, surface water hydrology, fluvial processes, and groundwater hydrology

In this DEIS, assessments of potential environmental impacts for each of these topics have been presented independent of one another to facilitate a logical analysis. However, it is acknowledged that these components of the hydrological system are interrelated. The interrelationships between these components are complex and depend upon a number of physical, chemical, and biological factors, which, in turn, are dependent upon meteorological,
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-265

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

geological and physiographic conditions. The impact of coal mining on any one of these factors can trigger changes throughout the hydrologic system. Surface and underground coal mining methods would generally affect hydrologic systems in different ways. As noted previously, this EIS is programmatic and assesses potential effects on a broad scale. Site-specific impacts cannot be identified within the scope of this impact analysis. The environmental impacts on water resources were analyzed through evaluation of how the various water, land, and other elements could affect how mining companies would likely operate after implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives. Impact analysis also considered two important metrics, the projected increases or decreases in acreage and stream lengths affected by coal mining on a regional basis (see Section 4.9.1). These anticipated acreage and stream length impacts were derived from and are directly proportional to the projected coal production shifts between regions that are projected to result from implementation of specific rule considerations. Impact conclusions for each of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5) were compared to Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative), or baseline condition.

4.7.4

Biological Resources

Mining activities have the potential to cause changes to biological resources such as vegetation, wildlife, habitats, and wetlands. Plant and animal species that have been afforded special protection as “special status species” (in coordination with the Endangered Species Act and/or state statues) are also considered in the assessment of biological resource impacts. Consideration of habitats is important to impact assessment for biological resources. A habitat is the place where species live and grow – it is made up of physical factors such as soil, moisture, temperature, and light as well as biotic factors such as the food availability and the presence of predators. When habitats change, either by natural or anthropogenic means, it affects both the organisms within the habitat, and the ecological systems next to the habitat (edge effects). The most recognizable forms of habitat change are habitat destruction, habitat alteration, and habitat fragmentation, typically as a result of human activity. Some of the more common causes of habitat destruction include mining, logging, trawling, and urban sprawl (Primm and Raven, 2000). Changes like these that occur suddenly can affect a population or an entire species; healthy populations of wildlife often rebound naturally after such sudden events, but endangered or rare species may require special assistance to recover (BLM, 2004). The biggest reason for species extinctions is habitat loss (Cunningham et al., 2003). In the United States, only 42 percent of the natural vegetation remains, and in many heavily fragmented regions in the East and Midwest, less than 25 percent of the natural vegetation remains (Primack, 2002). The main impacts of these habitat changes are the changes in species composition at the site of the change, habitat loss to the species that rely on the particular ecosystem, and direct destruction of the species that are unable to move. Evaluation of potential impacts to aquatic and terrestrial habitats and the species that occur in these habitats is assessed across the different coal-mining regions for the alternatives considered in this DEIS. The discussion for Alternative 1 summarizes impacts to biological resources
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-266

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

reported for coal mining under the types of operations and production scenarios that are likely to occur under the current SMCRA regulatory program. The subsections titled “water elements” include discussion of impacts to aquatic habitats during mine construction and operation, such as direct changes to habitat due to mining activities in, through, or near streams; and direct and indirect changes to habitats and impacts to species due to changes in water quality. The subsections titled “land elements” include discussion of impacts to terrestrial habitats during mine construction and operation, such as direct changes to terrestrial habitats due to land clearing, habitat changes that may occur as a result of mine operations, and exposure of terrestrial species to mining-related chemicals. The subsections titled “other elements” include discussion of impacts associated with reclamation and enhancement actions that would be required under the different alternatives. Wetlands can be impacted by coal mining in two separate ways, physically and chemically. When a wetland is impacted physically by mining, it is a direct impact. The wetland is directly filled, dredged, or drained by mining or mining activities. A wetland can be impacted chemically by mining with run-off or groundwater with a relatively high content of dissolved minerals or an extreme pH. Indirect impacts can also occur, are less discrete and are often unintentional. An example of an indirect impact would be the diversion of run-off away from a site to control erosion that consequently changes the amount of water reaching an adjacent wetland causing a change in the wetland’s hydrology, leading to a change in the plant community. Indirect impacts are difficult to quantify as often times these effects are not reported and they can occur off-site. Wetland impacts are typically described in loss of acres due to filling, dredging, or draining and loss of wetland functions as a result of an activity, such as coal mining. Calculating the loss of wetland acreage of a mine site is a direct measurement of the area impacted. Wetlands functions are services wetlands provide to the overall ecosystem in which they are located. Determining the loss of wetland functions is not a direct measurement as wetland functions are not easy to observe and measure. As such, wetland functions are generally described qualitatively. Nationally, wetland losses are mainly attributed to agriculture, forest plantations, and rural development. Mining has not been a large attributing factor in wetland loss since 1998 (Dahl 2006). Impacts to specific locations of wetlands acreage and function due to changes in surface and underground coal mining under each Alternative are not presented in this DEIS due to the broad scale of analysis and a lack of available information. Impacts have been described qualitatively and proportionally where feasible.

4.7.5

Land Use, Visual Resources, and Recreation

In many cases, use of land for coal mining purposes is a dedicated use that is long-term in nature and may be incompatible with other land uses. Land use impacts are commonly identified when land use changes occur, when those land use changes may not result in the “highest and best use” of land, when a new land use may be incompatible with surrounding land uses, or when a new land use may be incompatible with land use plans or policies. Some land use conflicts would be
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-267

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

expected to occur because of the Proposed Action and alternatives, but because this is a programmatic EIS, specific land use analysis cannot be conducted. Land use analysis is generally qualitative within this EIS; however, it can generally be stated that as coal mining locations change, those regions projected to have additional coal mining would see more land dedicated to a coal mine land use rather than other uses, while those regions projected to have reduced coal mining activity would see coal mined land reclaimed and that land become available for other land uses. The projected regional changes in acreages affected by coal mining (associated with the projected regional production shifts) are used as a major metric to assess land use effects. Recreation is one land use that can be affected by coal mining activity; the quality of some natural areas used, or potentially used in the future, could be adversely affected by mining. Again, the magnitude of effect cannot be specifically located or measured at the programmatic level. Since coal resource locations are “fixed”, there is no discretion as to the location of a coal mine once a specific coal resource is determined as a mine location; that is, the coal resource in the ground cannot be moved from one location to another. However, if constraints to a specific coal resource location exist, that specific resource may be excluded from consideration as a mineable resource – in that case the coal resource would remain in place and the land would be used for other purposes. The visual quality of land can be substantially affected by coal mining through the presence of facilities, roads, ground disturbance, and other activities. Natural areas and special land features can be partially or fully impacted such that the visual value of land is reduced. The magnitude, duration, and frequency of impacts to visual resources is largely determined by the number of viewers affected, the viewer sensitivity to visual chances, distance and atmospheric conditions of viewing, and the compatibility of coal mining with other nearby land uses. New coal mining activity in close proximity to existing coal mining areas may be more acceptable in terms of land use and visual effects compared to a new coal mine in areas that have not previously had a coal mining land use.

4.7.6

Socioeconomic Resources

Socioeconomic analyses generally include detailed investigations of potential effects to population, employment, income, and housing conditions of a community or area of interest. The socioeconomic conditions of a coal-producing region could be affected by changes in the rate of population growth, changes in the demographic characteristics of a region, or changes in employment in the region caused by the implementation of the Proposed Action or alternative. In addition to these characteristics, populations of special concern, as addressed by EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 1994) and other specific statutes and agency rules, are identified and analyzed for environmental justice impacts. The analysis of potential socioeconomic effects is closely associated with the estimated coal production shifts in each region for each alternative, and with worker productivity. The
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-268

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

differences between surface and underground coal mining production shifts and worker productivity were considered in the analysis. The average productivity per employee per hour by coal mining method (i.e., underground or surface) by region was taken directly from EIA data for 2009 (EIA, 2010b). An estimate of total labor hours to produce total tons of coal, by coal mining method, was calculated from the average productivity, the number of employees, and the total production for 2009 from the EIA data. From the total labor hours, an average total annual hours per employee by coal mining method was developed. To calculate the estimated number of employees by coal mining method (i.e., underground or surface), the total estimated production by method was divided by the average regional productivity per employee per hour, and then divided by the total average hours worked per employee by coal mining method. This calculation accounts for the difference in average productivity for employee by coal mining method (e.g., in the Northern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains underground coal mining productivity is 4.64 tons per hour per employee, while for surface coal mining the average productivity is 27.65 tons per hour per employee). To analyze the effects throughout the remainder of the regional economies of the coal-producing counties, information concerning effects on employment, income, and output were derived from the Draft Conceptual Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), Appendix I – State Baseline Economic Impact Analysis. Alternatives 2 through 5 are compared to the baseline conditions as represented by the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Since the impact analysis was based primarily on production shifts for each mining type by region and on existing worker productivity data, the analysis does not easily lend itself to projection of effects due to the grouped water elements, land resource elements, and other elements. As such, the estimated effects are presented for the combined effects from each action alternative, with topics chosen to represent the major socioeconomic variables. As a programmatic EIS, impact estimates are provided on a regional basis, and specific impacts that could result from a specific coal mining operation cannot be reported as a part of this broad-scale EIS.

4.7.7

Occupational and Public Health and Safety

Occupational health and safety statistics based on coal production rates and mining methodology (i.e., underground or surface mining) were established previously in Section 3.20. Therefore, potential impacts to occupational health and safety have been evaluated based on the projected geographic shifts in mining production and associated shifts in methods of surface mining or underground mining. Occupational safety elements (falling material, material handling, and slipping or falling) resulting in fatalities and non-fatal days lost were evaluated compared to Alternative 1 (baseline conditions). The type of injury (fatal or non-fatal) is similar for underground and surface mining; however, the probability of injury (fatal or non-fatal) is greater for underground miners. Occupational health elements evaluated include disorders of the skin, lungs, repeated trauma, and other (kidney disease, diabetes, cardiopulmonary).
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-269

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 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

There is little available literature for public health statistics associated with coal mining. Hendryx and Ahern (2008) found that as coal production increased, public health status in Appalachia was adversely affected and the rates of cardiopulmonary disease, lung disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and kidney disease increased. In another study, Hendryx and Ahern (June/July 2009) attempted to evaluate mortality rates in the Appalachian Basin. Studies of these types are unavailable for other coal basins, where population densities are generally lower than in Appalachia; however, regional increases or decreases in coal production would be expected to increase or decrease local mortality rates. Blasting associated with surface mining has been associated with public safety concerns. Eltschlager (2001) reported that adverse affects resulting in public complaints from blasting include flyrock, ground vibrations, and airblast. Eltschlager, Harris, and Baldassere (2001) suggested that fugitive carbon-based gases in residences may be associated with blasting. Eltschlager, Shuss, and Kovalchuck (2004) also completed a study indicating that carbon monoxide poisoning in a residence 400 feet from a surface mine was attributed to blasting at the mine. Based on these studies, increased public safety incident rates from blasting are associated with surface coal mining activities, and a regional increase or decrease in surface mine coal production would be expected to increase or decrease local public safety incident rates associated with blasting. However, population densities near coal mines need to be considered as well, and overall population density in coal basins outside Appalachia are generally lower. Lower population densities would have a suppressing effect on potential safety incidents due to production shifts.

For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 1/12/11 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES

4-270