sions of the Geological Survey. Absent a clear showing that the Survey's determination was improperly made, the Secretary will not act to disturb a mineral classification or determination made by the Geological Survey, Cf. Lillie Mae Yates, A-26271 (February 8, 1952).

Under section 2 (a) of the Act, the Secretary is authorized, in his discretion, to offer coal lands owned by the United States for leasing through competitive bidding. Under section 2 (b) of the Act, the Secretary may issue prospecting permits "[w]here prospecting or exploratory work is necessary to determine the existence or workability of coal deposits in any unclaimed, undeveloped area ***"

Each of the applications was rejected upon the basis of reports from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that the lands applied for are known to contain a workable coal deposit and are therefore subject to leasing, rather than to prospecting. However, we hold that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the lands contain workable coal deposits.

The application lands lie in northwestern Colorado, about 12 miles northeast from Meeker, Colorado, at elevations varying from approximately 6,500 to 9,000 feet above sea level. The terrain is rugged and mountainous, cut by numerous canyons, and heavily vegetated, so that it is difficult to traverse, as well as to trace the continuity of such coal beds as may be exposed. The area is underlain by the coal bearing Williams Fork Formation of the Mesa Verde Group. Detailed geologic

mapping of the area by Hancock in 1925 (USGS Bulletin 757), and by Hancock and Eby in 1930 (USGS Bulletin 812c) show many coal occurrences throughout the Williams Fork Formation. Hancock and Eby estimated the multiple beds of coal to have a total of 62 feet under much of the area in T. 3 N., R. 93 and 94 W. in which the permit applications lie, and a total of 2 billion tons of available coal in the two townships.

In the surrounding area of the lands sought by Goodwin there were eleven existing coal leases issued under the Act at the time of the hearing. Several of the existing leases were issued in response to preference rights earned by Goodwin through discovery of commercial coal on previously issued prospecting permits.

There are two coal mines operating in the area. The Reinau mine, located about 5 miles south of C0127926-7, is a seasonal operation producing between 10 and 20 tons per day for consumption in the Meeker area. The Redwing mine of Colowyo Coal Company, situated about 2 miles north of C-0127927 and 3 miles east of C-0127891, produces about 1,000 tons per day from the Collom bed during the peak

season.

The Blue Streak mine, located about 1 and 12 miles south of C-0127926 and 1 mile southwest of C-0127927, operated until the late 1950's. Other abandoned mines in the vicinity include the Cornrike or Nine Mile mine, approximately 3

sep

miles south of C-0127927, the Gentry mine, approximately 2 miles south of C-0127926, and the James mines, about 2 mile north of C-0127927. An unnamed abandoned mine, in NW14 sec. 3, T. 3 N., R. 94 W., containing seams of coal of 1 foot 3 inches and 5 feet 8 inches arated by 4 inches of bone, was discovered within the area of C-0127891 by USGS engineers while investigating the subject applications. Nothing is known of the abandoned mine, but it is surmised that it was worked by a local rancher for his personal needs.

At least 31 holes have been drilled into or through the Williams Fork Formation in the vicinity of these applications. Almost all have encountered coal of varying character and thickness at different depths. Goodwin drilled six exploratory holes in connection with other prospecting permits at distances ranging from 1,000 feet to 61⁄2 miles south of C-0127926-7. As a result of his findings in these drill holes, he earned preference rights to coal leases.

A coal bed of 6 feet within 163 feet of the surface was observed in the Taylor well, approximately 14 miles southwest of C-0127927. The Sun Gossard oil well in SE14SE sec. 17, T. 3 N., R. 93 W., within the original area of C-0127926, showed 79 feet of coal in 10 beds, each greater than 4 feet thick. The Kilroy oil well, over 2 miles north of C-0127926, showed 116 feet of coal in 10 beds, each greater than 4 feet thick. The Van James test

hole, approximately 1/4 mile from C-0127926 and C-0127927, showed seams of 4 and 12 feet. The Van James water well, approximately 14 mile north of C-0127927, showed seams of 7 and 2 feet.

There are no known outcrops or other exposures of coal in any of the lands remaining in the three applications except the unnamed abandoned mine on C-0127891. Goodwin concedes that coal beds exist within the application areas, but maintains that the existing knowledge is not adequate to permit an inference of workability.

With regard to quality of the coal, the Government demonstrated that coal mined in the vicinity had heating capabilities between 10,500 to 12,000 BTU's and contended that coals having a minimum value of 8,500 BTU's were workable. Goodwin admitted that coals mined from the Williams Fork Formation meet the test for heating capacity, but was of the opinion that any coal having less than 10,000 BTU's would be difficult to market. However, as we discuss below, marketability is not at issue here.

Goodwin testified that his investigations show errors in the published literature on the Williams Fork Formation and coal beds therein, because of the failure by Hancock and Eby to establish accurate vertical control for their original studies. Goodwin stated that the thickening and thinning of the beds within very short distances precluded accurate inference as to lateral extent of the beds and made

any meaningful determination of workability, or correlation between the existing exposures of coal, almost impossible.

Goodwin contends that assumptions by the Government as to correlation of exposed coal beds are shown to be incorrect in light of more recent geological evidence and that the demonstrated errors in correlation limit the lateral extent of any exposed beds. The Government admitted that some assumed correlations it had used may be in error. Goodwin averred that there was no

tracement of the Collum bed being mined in the Colowyo Redwing mine, and that the exposures of coal tended to show thickening and thinning within relatively short distances, e.g., Hancock and Eby sites 340 and 345, where a 10-foot seam of coal went to 10 feet of bone in approximately one mile.

Goodwin also claimed that the stairstepping of geological formations from the transgression-regression break the continuity of the coal beds and that the coal shown in drill holes 35-1, 35-2, 25-1 and 28-1 indicate a thinning trend toward the north, into the area of applications C-0127926-7.

Dr. Robert G. Dickinson, a geologist employed in Branch of Mineral Classification, USGS, admitted the thickening-thinning nature of the beds, but could not tell where the change occurred, or if the changes were abrupt or gradual. He and other Government witnesses agreed that the coal formations could have

splits with the bone thickening and thinning.

Goodwin testified, without disagreement from the Government's witnesses, that splits had been encountered in the Reinau mine, as well as in the now-closed Blue

Streak mine. Inferentially, it was suggested that the splits were a major factor in the closing of the Blue Streak.

Dr. Russell G. Wayland, Chief Conservation Division, USGS, maintained there were no serious problems due to lenticularity or thickening or thinning in the Williams Fork Formation, because if one seam pinched out, surely there would be another bed in the vertical series which could be mined.

Evidence of burning was reported by Hancock and Eby on the outcrops both north and south of the area in applications C-0127926-7, with no expression as to depth of burning, but with a comment that it was difficult to trace the lateral exposures of the coal because of the great amount of burning. Goodwin reported clinkered and burned coal in drill holes 25-1 and 28-1. In fact, only clinkered coal was encountered in hole 28-1 to its total depth of 490 feet. The burned coal at the bottom of hole 28-1 was approximately 1,850 feet back from the outcrop. In hole 25-1 the burning was approximately 2,500 feet from the outcrop. This is strong evidence that burning has extended through the entire distance from the outcrop to the drill holes. It was reported that coal

was burned to a distance between 100 and 200 feet from the outcrop at the Streeter mine. Goodwin reported other evidence of burned coal in hole 35-2 at a depth of 170 feet and in hole 35-1 at depths of 110, 130 and 250 feet. John P. Storrs, Regional Mining Supervisor, Branch of Mining Operations, USGS, testified that deep burning can be ascertained only by drilling. Dickinson thought the extensive burning to be vertical in extent, rather than lateral, contrary to Storrs' and Goodwin's assertions, but he admitted that closely spaced drill holes are the only method of determining the extent of underground burning. Wayland considered burning an irrelevant issue in these cases because of the general occurrence of multiple seams of coal in the Williams Fork Formation, and insisted that at least one of the many coal beds would surely be workable.

Goodwin pointed out, without contradiction, that widespread burning seriously affects the overlying rocks so that any attempt to mine through the burned area would be saddled with serious roof problems. He also asserted that the friable sands encountered in several of the drill holes indicate the possibility that the coal may be unworkable because of an inadequate roof or floor.

The appellant has presented specific evidence of discontinuity and lack of lateral extent of the coal beds, shown that there are coals of noncommercial thickness in the

area, pointed out errors in the Government's attempted correlations of coal seams, and shown other indications of conditions affecting the cost of extraction.

Goodwin recognizes that geologists may differ in the interpretation of the same data. In contrast to the broader geological approach taken by the Geological Survey, the appellant directed his evidence to the absence of specific data pertaining to the coal beds within the application area. It is his conclusion that the available information does not justify an inference that the deposits are workable because of the lack of continuity of the coal beds due to lenticularity, faulting, intrusion of dikes and splits, bone and burning. He asserts that the evidence does not establish the lateral extent of any coal bed.

The Government's position is based on generalities and broad inferences. USGS assumes workability where it can be shown that like quality products are being produced elsewhere. The Survey contends that the successful coal mining operations in the Colowyo mine together with the large number of outstanding coal leases and the general geology support its thesis that coal deposits underlying the areas sought by Goodwin are workable by legal definition.

The Government's reports and testimony, based on geologic inference has been successfully refuted by specific testimony and evidence as to the actual conditions. The topography and vegetation on the

lands make it difficult to trace a workable coal seam through the area. Hancock and Eby stressed that their correlations were only tentative. Goodwin showed that many of the correlations were in error. The Geological Survey failed to show a correlation of known workable seam of coal into or through the application lands. The Government adImitted that its correlations of the James bed for six miles were in error. Storrs admitted that his previous correlation of Location 404 with the James mine was incorrect. He would now correlate Locations 408 and 409, crossing the area in C-0127926, but admits that this seam is thin (less than 2 feet thick), dirty and, therefore unworkable.

USGS by its testimony claims that the numerous drill holes and mines, both operating and abandoned, in the area show the presence of workable coal. We cannot agree. The variances in the height and number of seams in the holes and the inability of Dr. Dickinson to correlate the seams to our satisfaction weakens the Government's case when added to the distances of the drill holes and mines from the application lands in the rugged terrain. Therefore, it appears that USGS has failed to show it possessed appropriate information regarding continuity required to determine workability. American Nuclear Corporation, A-30808 (March 5, 1968).

The testimony of the USGS expert witnesses failed to adequately cover "other conditions that affect

the cost of extraction," brought out by Goodwin and mentioned in USGS Bulletin 537, p. 82.

The cost of mining coal is affected by many factors-such as cost of prospecting, shaft sinking, or other mine opening, surface and underground plant, perhaps community plant, water, supplies, timber, feed, and insurance-all of which vary from place to place or in accordance with the method of working the mine. Within the mine the main factors are mining rate, thickness, depth, and dip or pitch of bed, variations or irregularity in thickness, partings, "sulphur” or other impurities that must be removed, kind of roof or floor, presence of gas or water, provision for drainage and ventilation, haulage and hoisting, faults, and igneous intrusions.

Goodwin and his expert witnesses raised doubts in our minds as to the workability by specifically challenging the lack of knowledge of the dip or pitch, irregularity in thickness, partings, roof and floor, faults and intrusions. Further he presented specific findings based on available data contained in thereports, samples, and other evidence, while USGS was generally content to rely on broad inferences. Further, the USGS reports and testimony failed to follow the USGS criteria set out in Bulletin 537 and adopted by the Department in Emil Usibelli, A. Ben Shallitt, A-26277 (October 2, 1951). (Trans. p. 552.) Therefore, we must conclude that the applicant made a clear enough showing that the USGS determination was improperly made.

By this opinion, we are not requiring USGS to undertake comprehensive drilling programs, or to engage