Congressional Record
March 1, 1977
|
|
Legislative History Congressional Record March 1, 1977 |
| |
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, at the hearing held on the surface mining bill (S.
7) on February 7, certain questions were raised about a report entitled "Energy and Economic
Impacts of H.R. 13950." These questions focused on the differences in the coal production loss
estimates calculated from the alluvial valley floor provisions of H.R. 13950, between the initial ICF
draft report dated January 24 and the final draft report dated February 1, 1977.
S3266 On February 9, I asked for the ICF Corp. to explain these differences. They responded to
my request on February 18. I believe their response completely clarifies the situation. In view of
the wide interest in and discussion of the questions, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to ICF
and their response be printed in the RECORD for the information of Senators and other interested
persons.
S3266 There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
{S3267} WASHINGTON, D.C., February 9, 1977.
S3267 Mr. DON KLEIN, ICF, Inc., Washington, D.C.
S3267 DEAR MR. KLEIN: On 7 February, 1977, during a hearing held by the Subcommittee on
Minerals, Materials and Fuels on S. 7, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
Senator Hatch raised certain questions about a report entitled "Energy and Economic Impacts of
H.R. 13950", which was submitted by ICF, Inc., to the Council on Environmental Quality and the
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. EQ6ACO16.
S3267 Senator Hatch referred to differences in the coal production loss estimates calculated from
the alluvial valley floor provisions of H.R. 13950, between the initial ICF draft report dated 24
January and the final draft report dated 1 February, 1977.
S3267 We would appreciate it if you would explain what the differences are and why ICF
changed the estimates in the initial draft. Did any employee of the Federal Government direct ICF
to change the estimates? Your response will be inserted into the hearing record.
S3267 Very truly yours, LEE METCALF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and
Fuels.
S3267 ICF, INC., Washington, D.C., February 18, 1977.
S3267 Senator LEE METCALF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
S3267 DEAR SENATOR METCALF: Mr. Daniel E. Klein, Project Manager of our surface
mining reclamation study, has given me your letter concerning our draft report (of January 24, 1977
and February 1, 1977) entitled "Energy and Economic Impacts of H.R. 13950," submitted to the
Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
EQ6ACO16. He did so because I am the ICF Director in charge of this study.
S3267 GENERAL COMMENTS
S3267 As I am sure you understand, it is common practice for government agencies to solicit
comments on draft reports prepared by contractors. This review procedure is common in academia
and most professional research efforts as well. We think this is a good procedure because it gives
those who prepare the reports (like ourselves) the benefit of experience and expertise that is not
available in any one organization. We welcome such reviews because they generally help to
improve the quality of our products.
S3267 This practice was followed for our analysis of the impacts of H.R. 13950. The purpose of
the January 24 draft was to solicit comments from our clients and other knowledgeable
professionals. Of the numerous comments received, most were obviously based on thoughtful and
careful review. We considered each comment carefully. When we judged the comment was not
sound, we attempted to refine our report appropriately. When we judged the comment was not
sound, we made no changes. In no instance was any compromise made to the analytical integrity of
our report in order to effect findings which would appear politically desirable. No changes were
made which would distort or conceal substantive points. No omissions of previously-analyzed
issues were made. No changes were made which would impart a partisan tone (either for or against)
to the discussion. It was we (and not our clients) who determined whether and how we would
respond to each specific comment.
S3267 Given that this was the procedure that was followed and that this procedure is common
practice, we were surprised and distressed that questions concerning differences between our January
24 and February 1 drafts were raised during the Subcommittee hearing on February 7th. This we
consider an extremely important matter because we understand the tone of these questions reflected
adversely on our professional integrity. Accordingly, we appreciate this opportunity to respond to
the points raised in your letter.
S3267 It is our view that the February 1 draft is superior to the January 24 draft because we were
able to refine the earlier draft in response to numerous thoughtful comments. Hence, we would
characterize our report as having been "refined" or "changed for the better" but not as having been
"tampered with" or "laundered."
S3267 Further, please note that none of the summary findings and/or conclusions changed
between the two drafts. The changes were limited to refining a portion of two sets of numerical
estimates (in each report we suggested that specific numbers should not be given undue emphasis)
and to making numerous editorial changes.
S3267 On February 10, 1977, we prepared a memorandum for our clients (CEQ and EPA) which
details the modifications we made between the interagency review version of January 24, 1977 and
the Draft Final Report released February 1, 1977. A copy of this memorandum is attached.
Further, please note that the February document is also a draft, and the analysis is still proceeding.
S3267 Below, we respond to specific points raised in your letter.
S3267 ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOOR PROVISIONS
S3267 You asked us to explain the difference between the two draft reports in the coal production
loss estimates associated with the alluvial valley floor provisions of H.R. 13950.
S3267 The alluvial valley floor production impacts estimated under the low and moderate
production impact scenarios were not changed. Further, the reserve base impacts were not changed.
The changes were confined to the "worst case" or "high impact" production estimate.
S3267 The "worst case" estimates for the alluvial valley floor provisions of the January 24 draft
were retitled as "high impact" estimates in the February 1 draft. This change was made for two
reasons. First, it was argued by some that "worst case" implied that we opposed such an outcome;
whereas others might see such an outcome as desirable. In keeping with an apolitical approach, this
term was changed to a more neutral "high production impact."
S3267 Second, it was argued by some that our worst case estimate was the most extreme case
imaginable - that every mine having alluvial valley floors within the lease area would be impacted.
These reviewers were concerned that we were biasing our findings by using such an extreme case.
We responded to this argument because it is clear that the joint probability of every such mine being
impacted is extremely low. A "high impact" estimate need not include the most extreme case
imaginable, but can reflect reasonable probability judgments.
S3267 In the interagency review draft of January 24, the "worst case" production impact was
estimated by assuming that all new production capacity from mines having any alluvial valley floor
area within the lease tract would be impacted (delayed, revised, or curtailed). This assumption had
the effect of impacting about 70 percent of new western production and existing Montana
production. Based upon comments generated during the interagency review and a re-examination of
our interviews with western coal producers (fully documented in Appendix F), we decided to modify
this assumption for the high production impact estimates in the February 1 Draft Final Report.
S3267 Some of the comments from interagency reviewers and the producers noted that many of
the new mine sites would not likely encounter permitting problems because the mine a) would be far
removed from the valley floor (e.g., where a ridge might separate the mine from the area where the
lease tract overlapped an alluvial valley), b) would have negligible impact, and/or c) would affect an
alluvial valley floor which was of poor water quality or otherwise unproductive. For reasons such
as these, our moderate impact estimates are about 15 percent of planned production from mines
having alluvial valley floors in the least tract. Importantly, it is the moderate impact scenario that
reflects (1) what we believe would happen if the bill were interpreted in a manner we believe is
consistent with the apparent intent (as reflected in the statutory language or Committee Report), and
(2) our best judgments based upon existing data.
S3267 Accordingly, it was reasonably clear that a high impact estimate should be greater than the
moderate impact estimates but less than one hundred percent of production from all mines having
alluvial valley floors within the lease tract. However, we had essentially no data to indicate where
within these bounds the high estimate should fall. For the February 1 report, we assumed that
one-half of such production would be impacted. The effect of this revised assumption was to reduce
the high production impact scenario by one-half. In all cases, the data (and lack thereof) and
assumptions are fully documented in the report.
S3267 Due to the substantial uncertainties associated with estimating these impacts, we believe
that no undue emphasis should be attached to any specific number or set of numbers. This was
noted in the second paragraph on page one of our report:
S3267 "In several parts of this analysis, complete and accurate data did not exist. Further, the
methodologies developed were often only approximate in the accuracy of the results rendered.
Accordingly, the findings of this analysis should be interpreted; no undue weight should be given to
any particular number."
S3267 In the case of the alluvial valley floor provisions, the point being made was that there is a
wide range of potential impacts (associated with both data uncertainty and varying interpretations of
the language of the bill) ranging from zero to some very large numbers. This point did not change at
all between the interagency review of January 24 and the Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977.
S3267 REPORT PREPARATION RESPONSIBILITIES
S3267 You asked: "Did any employee of the federal government direct ICF to change the
estimates?"
S3267 No. All changes were made by ICF, and all were authorized by myself as Director of the
study. Indeed, even if we had received such direction, our professional ethics would have precluded
us from following such direction, if it would have meant our reporting an analytic finding that did
not represent our best judgment.
S3267 In some cases, reviewers took the trouble to suggest specific language changes. When we
agreed with the thrust of the comment, we considered including the specific language. In most cases,
we edited the suggestions prior to inclusion in the report. In those instances where we judged that
the review comments did not contribute to the substance and/or appeared to be political at the
expense of the analytical integrity, such comments were rejected. The final version of the draft
report was edited exclusively by ICF and represents our best effort and judgments as of the date of
the report.
S3267 Numerous changes were made between the January 24 interagency review version and the
February 1 Draft Final Report, in response to what we considered to be valid reviewer comments as
well as continuing analysis by ICF. As detailed in the attached memorandum, there were essentially
three types of changes made:
{S3268} (1) Text changes, in order to improve readability and clarity, and to impart a more
neutral tone to the analysis,
S3268 (2) the alluvial valley floor high production impact scenario, where all data and
assumptions are fully documented, and
S3268 (3) the reserve base impacts of the surface owner protection provisions, where all data and
assumptions are fully documented.
S3268 It is important to note that throughout our study we have fully documented the data and
assumptions underlying the impact estimates. Thus, any changes in impact estimates can be related
directly to changes in underlying assumptions, where such changes are based upon what we consider
to be analytically sound judgments.
S3268 The Draft Final Report which we submitted on February 1, 1977 represents our best
analytical judgments at this time.Still, we must note that it is a draft report, and is subject to further
modification as additional reviewer comments are received. Should new evidence be presented
which convinces us that further modifications are warranted, further modifications will be made and
the assumptions clearly documented. As stated in the Preface to the report,
S3268 "This draft is being distributed for purposes of review and comment. Further work is being
conducted. Refinements are underway. Constructive comments are welcomed."
S3268 Again, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions.I would be pleased to
answer any further questions you might have.
S3268 Sincerely yours, C. HOFF STAUFFER, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Directors .
S3268 ICF, INC., Washington, D.C. February 10, 1977.
S3268 MEMORANDUM
S3268 To: Barry R. Flamm (CEQ); James Speyer (EPA).
S3268 From: C. Hoff Stauffer, Jr.; Daniel E. Klein.
S3268 Subject: "Energy and Economic Impact of H.R. 13950."
S3268 It has come to our attention that questions have been raised regarding modifications to our
report between the Draft Final Report released on February 1, 1977, and the interagency review
version of January 24, 1977. Some of the differences have been noted during both the Senate
hearings on S. 7 (February 7, 1977) and the House hearings on H.R. 2 (February 8, 1977). On
these occasions an inference was made that such changes could have been due to political
considerations rather than analytical judgments. In this memorandum we would like to fully resolve
any confusion which may had arisen.
S3268 We wish to strongly emphasize that in no instance in our Draft Final Report (or in any
preliminary drafts and/or memoranda) was any compromise made to the analytical integrity in order
to effect findings which would appear politically desirable. The Draft Final Report of February 1
represents our very best analytical judgments at that point in time, just as any earlier drafts and/or
memoranda represented our best judgments at earlier points in time. Hence, changes over time
represent what we consider to be improvements in methodology, data, and/or assumptions, and in no
way represent analytical compromises made for political convenience.
S3268 Throughout our study we have fully documented the data and assumptions underlying the
impact estimates. Thus, any changes in impact estimates can be related directly to changes in
underlying assumptions, where such changes are based upon what we consider to be analytically
sound judgments and are fully documented. Any textual changes relate directly to efforts to (a)
improve clarity, (b) improve readability, or (c) impart a more neutral tone to the document, since
our study does not represent an advocacy document but rather an analysis.
S3268 The following sections will expand upon these points and detail the changes in particular
impact estimates which have been noted in previous discussions.The first section will be a general
discussion of ICF's approach in developing a Draft Final Report. This is followed by a detailed
explanation of changes found between the interagency review version of January 24, 1977 and the
Draft Final Report released on February 1, 1977.
S3268 GENERAL COMMENTS
S3268 Since ICF began its analysis of H.R. 13950, our approach has been one which has stressed
cooperation with numerous and diverse interest groups, both in and out of government. This
analysis has proven to be quite complex; since our own resources are limited, we have welcomed
valid inputs from all who were willing to contribute. The primary vehicle for the solicitation of
advice has been the use of draft reports and memoranda. These reflected our best judgments and
knowledge at the time. By virtue of the extensive cooperation and thoughtful comments we received
from others, we were often able to make what we considered analytical improvements in subsequent
drafts. In those instances where we felt that the reveiw comments did not contribute to the substance
and/or appeared to be political at the expense of the analytical integrity, such comments were
rejected.
S3268 In keeping with this approach, we prepared preliminary copies dated January 24, 1977 for
the purpose of interagency reveiw. This was done for the purpose of allowing several agencies
(CEQ, EPA, FEA, BOM, DOI, OMB, TVA) to review and comment prior to the release of our
Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977. It was never intended that the interagency review version
of January 24 be the version submitted as our Draft Final Report under the terms of our contract. In
fact, we at ICF were making several minor changes concurrent with the interagency review. Due to
the high level of cooperation from these agencies, we were able to make what we consider to be
analytically sound modifications and editorial improvements. Any suggestions which would have
compromised the analytical integrity to achieve politically desirable findings were rejected, as were
any other suggestions we judged to be unsound.
S3268 Accordingly, the Draft Final Report which we submitted on February 1, 1977 represents
our best analytical judgments at this time. Still, we must note that it is a draft report , and is subject
to further modification as additional reveiwer comments are received. As stated in the Preface to the
report,
S3268 "This draft is being distribuetd for purposes of review and comment. Further work is being
conducted. Refinements are underway. Constructive comments are welcomed."
S3268 CHANGES IN TEXT
S3268 Some questions have arisen regarding textual changes which have occurred between
versions leading up to the Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977. The concern was that these
changes were made in an effort to distort to conceal substantive points developed in earlier versions.
These concerns are unfounded.
S3268 Before describing the changes, it is useful to note types of changes which were not made.
No changes were made which would distort or conceal substantive points. No omissions of
previously-analyzed issues were made.No changes were made which would impart a partisan tone
(either for or against) to the discussion.
S3268 The text changes which have been made in the Draft Final Report can be cateogrized in
three basic types:
S3268 (1) Readability. Several minor changes were made throughout the report to rephrase
sentences and paragraphs in an effort to improve readability and facilitate understanding of some of
the more difficult points.
S3268 (2) Clarity. Several additions were made in the Draft Final Report to expand upon the
assumptions, methodologies, and findings. Most of these additions were made in response to
questions raised during the review process, and include footnotes, supplementary descriptors, and
additional caveats where necessary.
S3268 (3) Tone. Throughout this study we have attempted to present an impartial and factual
analysis. This is in keeping with our instructions to develop impact estimates and not an advocacy
document. We have refrained from expressing judgments as to the merits of the legislation or to
what preferred legislation might read, and have limited our analysis to the impacts of H.R. 13950 as
reported August 31, 1976. Although we have tried to present our analysis in neutral terms, we have
been made aware of several instance in which the phrasing could possibly suggest a bias either for or
against the bill. To avoid the appearance of having taken any advocacy position, alternative
wordings were sought which would not suggest a bias while still retaining the substantive value. We
did not make such tonal changes when the result would have been a diminuation of the analytical
finding.
S3268 Examples of such text changes which are particularly noteworthy are the first two major
conclusions in the Executive Summary of the Draft Final Report. These paragraphs do not add any
new material to the section, but seek to highlight the major conclusions which follow. In the
interagency review version of January 24, these two paragraphs were combined. While the first part
(relating to impacts which were not great) remained the same, the second part (relating to non-cost
impacts and varying interpretations) was made less specific in the Draft Final Report. During the
interagency review, it was suggested that this paragraph was combining general findings with
specific points, and that insufficient detail had yet been presented which would make these specific
points meaningful. Further, it was suggested that the original wording implied that these were the
only impacts, where in fact there were several more. In response to what we considered to be valid
criticism, we reworded this to read as two general conclusions. We note that all of the specific issues
raised are still raised in detail in the Summary, and all are analyzed in full in the body of the report.
S3268 ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS - HIGH PRODUCTION IMPACT SCENARIO
S3268 Between the interagency review version of January 24 and the February 1 Draft Final
Report, the assumptions used to develop the high production impact scenario for alluvial valley
floors were modified. Whereas in the interagency review version the assumption was made that any
lease area containing alluvial valley floors would be impacted, the Draft Final Report took account
of the fact that not all of these sites would be impacted under a reasonable high impact scenario.The
effect of this change in assumptions was to reduce the high production impact estimates to
approximately one-half of those estimated in the interagency review version.
S3268 The assumptions used in developing these estimates are fully documented in the analysis,
and are summarized in the Executive Summary. The scenario specification used in the interagency
review version of January 24 is as follows (underlining added):
S3268 "A worst-case production impact is based upon very stringent interpretations of imprecise
terms. Lands are not assumed to be undeveloped range land if there is any potential for hay
production. Very small changes in water quantity or quality are assumed to be adverse effects.
Finally, it is assumed that the grandfather clause is applicable only to presently permitted acreage;
unpermitted parts of the long-range mining plan are not included. In states such as Montana, all
mines become potentially impacted, since only one year's acreage is permitted at a time.
{S3269} Under these interpretations, the impact upon production can be quite high. To estimate
the magnitude of this impact, the percent of lease tracts containing alluvial valley floors (Table 2) is
used as an estimate of the percentage of new mines which could be impacted. In Arizona, New
Mexico, and Washington, it is assumed that new mines will not affect alluvial valley floors, since
they are not characteristic of these areas. Thus, the percent of new surface mine production which
could be impacted is assumed to be as follows:
____________________________________________________________________________
____
Percent impacted
Colorado 71
Montana 65
North Dakota 91
Wyoming 81
____________________________________________________________________________
____
S3269 Further, it is assumed that existing Montana production could be impacted in the same
proportion, since only one year's acreage is permitted at a time. Using these assumptions in
conjunction with the surface production forecast developed in Chapter III, the worst-case impacts
are developed as follows:
____________________________________________________________________________
____
*6*
WORST
-CASE
IMPAC
T
*6*[
Milli
on
tons]
Year Colorado Montana North Dakota Wyoming Total
1977 0.7 21.4 3.3 9.8 35.2
1978 1.3 22.3 4.5 22.8 50.9
1 979 2.4 24.0 5.0 39.3 70.7
1980 3.7 27.1 6.3 57.9 95.0
1981 4.7 29.6 6.8 65.5 106.6
1982 6.1 32.6 7.3 91.7 137.7
1983 7.4 35.9 7.7 101.0 152.0
1984 9.0 39.5 8.2 128.3 185.0
1985 10.6 43.4 8.6 148.4 211.0
____________________________________________________________________________
____
S3269 Note: Although it is unlikely that this production will all be shut down, the potential for
extensive litigation is quite high, which could in turn lead to substantial short-term production
delays.
S3269 Source: Interagency Review version of Jan. 24, 1977, pp. F-34, 35.
S3269 In the Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977, we chose (properly, we think) to modify
these assumptions to account for the fact that lease areas are often much larger than the mine site
itself, and in many cases the mining plan would be far removed from and/or would have negligible
impact upon the alluvial valley floor located elsewhere within the lease tract. The scenario
specifications are likewise fully documented in the analysis, and are summarized in the Executive
Summary. These specifications are as follows
S3269 "A high production impact is based upon very stringent interpretations of the provisions.
Lands are not assumed to be undeveloped range land if there is any potential for hay production.
Very small changes in water quantity or quality are assumed to be adverse effects. Finally, it is
assumed that the grandfather clause is applicable only to presently permitted acreage; unpermitted
parts of the long-range mining plan are not included. In states such as Montana, all mines become
potentially impacted, since only one year's acreage is permitted at a time.
S3269 Under these interpretations, the impact upon production can be quite high. To estimate the
magnitude of this impact, the percent of lease tracts containing alluvial valley floors (Table 2) is
used as an initial basis of the percentage of new mines which could be impacted. At this starting
point, this percentage is used as a surrogate measure to indicate those mines which need to be
concerned with potential alluvial valley floor impacts. However, even under a reasonable high
impact scenario, many of these sites will not likely have permitting problems with respect to alluvial
valley floor provisions. Some will be near alluvial valley floors which contain poor quality water or
are clearly not productive. Others will be located at a considerable distance from the alluvial valley
floor or have the mining area separated from the valley floors by ridges. Under the high impact
scenario, it is assumed that one-half of the mine sites having alluvial valley floors within the lease
boundaries will have no permitting problems, and that the remaining one-half could be subjected to
impacts (delays, mining plan revisions, production cutbacks, etc.). In Arizona, New Mexico, and
Washington, it is assumed that new mines will not affect alluvial valley floors, since they are not
characteristics of these areas. Thus, the percent of new surface mine production which could be
impacted is assumed to be as follows:
____________________________________________________________________________
____
*3*[In percent]
Near alluvial valley Assumed affected by H.R.
floors 13950
Colorado 71 35
Montana 65 32
North Dakota 91 45
Wyoming 81 40
____________________________________________________________________________
____
S3269 Further, it is assumed that existing Montana production could be impacted in the same
proportion, since only one year's acreage is permitted at a time. Using these assumptions in
conjunction with the surface production forecast developed in Chapter III, the worst-case impacts
are developed as follows:
____________________________________________________________________________
____
*6*
HIGH-
PRODU
CTION
IMPAC
T
*6*[
Milli
on
tons]
Year Colorado Montana North Dakota Wyoming Total
1977 0.4 10.6 1.6 4.8 17.4
1978 .6 11.0 2.2 11.3 25.1
1979 1.2 11.8 2.5 19.4 34.9
1980 1.8 13.4 3.1 28.6 46.9
1981 2.3 14.6 3.4 32.4 52.7
1982 3.0 16.1 3.6 45.3 68.0
1983 3.7 17.7 3.8 49.9 75.1
1984 4.4 19.4 4.0 63.4 91.2
1985 5.2 21.3 4.3 73.0 103.8
____________________________________________________________________________
____
S3269 Note: Although it is unlikely that this production will all be shut down, the potential for
delays are quite high, which could in turn lead to significant short-term production losses.
S3269 Source: Draft Final Report, Feb. 1, 1977, p. 36-37.
S3269 Several points are worthy of note:
S3269 The production impacts estimated for the low and moderate production impact scenarios
remained the same in the interagency review version and the Draft Final Report of February 1.
Further, the reserve base impacts remained the same under all scenarios. Importantly, it is the
moderate impact scenario that reflects (1) what we believe would happen if the bill was interpreted
consistent with the apparent intent (as reflected in the statutory language or Committee Report), and
(2) our best judgments based upon existing data.
S3269 In estimating production impacts due to the alluvial valley floor provisions, the term
"production impact" should not be equated with the term "production losses". As clearly noted in
the summary tables:
S3269 "Production impacts, as used here, do not necessarily mean production losses; delays
and/or mining plan revisions are alternative impacts."
S3269 The term "worst-case production impact" was changed to "high production impact" in the
Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977, This change was made for two reasons. First, it was
claimed by some that "worst-case" implied that we opposed such an outcome, whereas others might
see such an outcome as desirable. In keeping with an apolitical approach, this term was changed to
a more neutral "high production impact." Second, a worst-case estimate calls for the most extreme
case imaginable; in this case, the joint probability every mine having alluvial valley floors within the
lease area being impacted. The joint probability of such an event is extremely small. A high impact
estimate, on the other hand, need not include the most extreme case imaginable, but can be tempered
with judgment concerning the low probability that every mine having alluvial valley floors within
the lease area might be impacted. This judgment is clearly stated in our report.
S3269 The change in assumptions made in the Draft Final Report was based upon our
professional judgment that our original assumptions were overly strict. Through discussions
generated during the interagency review process, coupled with a re-examination of the interviews
with the western mine operators (fully documented in Appendix F), we concluded that alternative
assumptions were necessary in order to ensure that the analysis presented our best analytical
judgments at that point in time.
S3269 The February 1, 1977 report is still a draft report. All assumptions have been
documented. Reviewer comments are still welcome.Should new evidence be presented which
convinces us that further modifications are warranted, further modifications will be made and the
assumptions clearly documented.
S3269 Due to the substantial uncertainties associated with estimating these impacts, we believe
(as clearly stated in our report) that no undue emphasis should be attached to any specific number or
set of numbers. In the case of the alluvial valley floor provisions, the point being made was that
there is a wide range of potential impacts (associated with both data uncertainty and varying
interpretations of the language of the bill) ranging from zero to some very large numbers. We note
that this point did not change at all between the interagency review version of January 24 and the
Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977.
S3269 SURFACE OWNER PROVISIONS - RESERVE BASE IMPACTS
S3269 Between the interagency review version of January 24 and the February 1 Draft Final
Report, the assumptions used to develop the reserve base impacts of the surface owner protection
provisions were changed. The methodology used to develop these estimates is the same in both
versions - beginning with estimates of the quantity of federal strippable coal beneath non-federal
surface, adjustments are made to account for (1) the percent of this land owned by a qualified
surface owner, (2) the percent of qualified surface owners who might be unwilling to consent to
having the coal reserves leased, and (3) the nearby reserves which would be excluded. The changes
in impacts relate directly to changes in these adjustment factors, and in total reduce the impacts by
about one-half.
S3269 The description of the methodology is identical in both the interagency review version of
January 24 and the Draft Final Report of February 1, and reads:
S3269 "We know of no data, on either a raw or aggregate basis, which would indicate the
proportion of non-federal lands which are owner-occupied. Even county courthouse records which
would indicate surface ownership would not indicate the residency or income information needed to
resolve Section 714's criteria. Further, it is also a matter of conjecture as to how those private
surface owners who do fall under the provisions of Section 714 would respond.
{3270} Accordingly, the amount of reserves which may actually be excluded under Section 714
is likely to be significantly less than the federal coal beneath non-federal surface. Since there is no
data which would indicate the portion owned by qualified surface owners or their willingness to
allow leasing, only a subjective estimate of excluded reserves can be made. In this analysis, three
estimates are made, covering a range of qualified ownership percentages and willingness to allow
leasing."
{S3270} In the interagency review version of January 24, the reserve base impacts were
developed as follows (page V-10):
____________________________________________________________________________
____
Scenario
Low impact Moderate impact High impact
Federal coal
beneath non-Federal
surface (million
tons) 9,126 12,120 13,071
Times qualified
surface owner
(percent) 33 50 67
Times percent
unwilling to allow
leasing 25 50 75
Plus nearby
reserves
effectively
excluded (percent) 10 20 30
Equals reserves
impacted (million
tons, rounded) 800 3,600 8,500
____________________________________________________________________________
____
S3270 In the Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977, the reserve base impacts were developed as
follows (page V-11):
____________________________________________________________________________
____
Scenario
Low impact Moderate impact High impact
Federal coal
beneath non-Federal
surface (million
tons) 9,126 12,120 13,071
Times qualified
surface owner
(percent) 25 35 50
Times percent
unwilling to allow
leasing 15 30 50
Plus nearby
reserves
effectively
excluded (percent) 10 20 30
Equal reserves
impacted (million
tons, rounded) 400 1,500 4,200
____________________________________________________________________________
____
S3270 The following points are worthy of note:
S3270 In both versions the estimates of federal strippable coal beneath non-federal surface are the
same. Reserve base impact estimates differ only because of changes in the subjective estimates of
(1) the percent of this land owned by qualified surface owners, and (2) the percent of qualified
surface owners who might be unwilling to consent to having the coal reserves leased.
S3270 The factors which changed were and still are subjective estimates, based upon a paucity of
meaningful data. Our subjective estimates were revised based upon reviewed comments relating to
the success that energy companies have been having in acquiring surface rights in the West. These
comments led us to believe that our earlier estimates had been too high.
S3270 The February 1, 1977 report is still a draft report. All assumptions have been
documented. Reviewer comments are still welcome. Should new evidence be presented which
convinces us that further modifications are warranted, further modifications will be made and the
assumptions clearly documented.
S3270 We are uneasy about these estimates because there are very few data upon which
assumptions can be based. We considered making no estimates at all, but judged this would not be a
positive contribution toward helping others understand the potential impacts of the bill. Hence, we
decided to estimate a range of potential impacts, making clear our methodology and assumptions.
This gives the reader the opportunity to test the effects of alternative assumptions on the estimates.
This page is..
