IUSDA
EPA
sffig
0
o
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Northeast Watershed
Center
University Park PA 1 6802
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research
Washington DC 20460
EPA-600/7-84-035
March 1984
Research and Development
A Preliminary Model to
Estimate the Strip Mine
Reclamation Potential of
Selected Land Uses
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
A PRELIMINARY MODEL TO ESTIMATE THE STRIP MINE
RECLAMATION POTENTIAL OF SELECTED LAND USES
by
R. W. Elfstrom, Jr. and A. S. Rogowski
U.S. Department of Agriculture, ARS
Northeast Watershed Research Center
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
EPA-IAG-D5-E763
Project Officer
Clinton W. Hall
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
Washington, D.C. 20250
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20250
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-1G)
£7>Q S. Dearborn St-eet, Room 16/0
Chicago, -IL 60604
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Energy, Minesoils
and Industry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
-------
FOREWORD
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, in
part, stress the control of nonpoint source pollution. Sections
102 (C-l), 208 (b-2,F) and 304(e) authorize basin scale development
of water quality control plans and provide for area-wide waste
treatment management. The act and the amendments include, when
warranted, waters from agriculturally and silviculturally related
nonpoint sources, and requires the issuance of guidelines for both
identifying and evaluating the nature and extent of nonpoint source
pollutants and the methods to control these sources. Research
program at the Northeast Watershed Research Center contributes to
the aforementioned goals. The major objectives of the Center are to:
. study the major hydrologic and water-quality associated
problems of the Northeastern U.S. and
• develop hydrologic and water quality simulation
capability useful for land-use planning.
Initial emphasis is on the hydrologically most
severe land uses of the Northeast.
Within the context of the Center's objectives, stripmining for
coal ranks as a major and hydrologically severe land use. In
addition, once the site is reclaimed and the conditions of the mining
permit are met, stripmined areas revert legally from point to nonpoint
sources. As a result, the hydrologic, physical, and chemical behavior
iii
-------
of the reclaimed land needs to be understood directly and in terms of
control practices before the goals of Sections 102, 208 and 304 can
be fully met.
Signed:
V
Harry B. Pionke
Director
Northeast Watershed
Research Center
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
Investigations were conducted to estimate land use reclamation
potentials at two unmined sites in Bradford Township, Clearfield
County (site 1) and Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships, Somerset
County (site 2), Pennsylvania. The objective was to design a
preliminary model which would enable a strip mine operator to deter-
mine a priori an optimum land use following reclamation.
Reclamation potentials were estimated for agriculture (corn and
meadow), forestry (pine and wildlife habitat), and recreation (trails
and multiuse) land uses. The magnitude of the change in the existing
and anticipated physical and chemical properties of the site's soils
as well as the change in related economic and aesthetic properties at
the site were estimated. The significance of the anticipated property
levels to the land use in question was also determined. For both
property magnitude and significance a number scheme ranging from 1 to
5 was preassigned to various levels of each property, indicating
optimum and least optimum property levels, respectively. The land use
with the best reclamation potential would be the one which had the
lowest significance value.
Physical property changes were greater and the anticipated
property levels were more favorable for all land uses at site 2.
Chemical magnitude values, although equal for all land uses at each
site, were higher at site 1. However, anticipated chemical property
levels also had more of an impact on land use establishment at site
2. Economic magnitude and significance values were higher at site 1.
v
-------
Site 2 was much larger than site 1; consequently, aesthetic properties
were more critical at site 2.
Economic properties had the greatest influence on magnitude
values, while aesthetic and economic properties had the greatest
influence on significance values.
At both sites, trails were least affected by the physical and
chemical properties of the soil. Economic values favored pine at
site 1 and wildlife habitat at site 2. Corn and meadow were the
most aesthetically favored at sites 1 and 2.
Wildlife habitat had the best reclamation potential at site 1
and meadow had the best reclamation potential at site 2.
vi
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The reclamation potential preliminary model was tested at Bradford
Township, Clearfield County (site 1) and Somerset/Brothers Valley
Townships, Somerset County, Pennsylvania (site 2). At both sites
reclamation potentials were estimated for corn, meadow, pine, wildlife
habitat, trails, and multiuse by comparing existing (prior to mining)
and anticipated (following reclamation) physical, chemical, economic,
and aesthetic property levels (magnitude values) and noting the effects
of the anticipated property levels on each land use (significance
values).
Results showed that the economic properties had the greatest
influence on the overall magnitude value for each of the land uses at
both sites. Overall significance values were more influenced by the
aesthetic and economic properties than by the physical and chemical
properties.
Corn was the land use most affected by the physical and chemical
properties at both sites, while trails were the least affected by
these properties. Pine was economically favored at site 1, whereas
wildlife habitat was favored at site 2. For both sites, trails
received the lowest reclamation potential based on economic properties
alone. Corn and meadow were the most aesthetically favored at both
sites. Opposition from local residents could be expected if the sites
are reclaimed to trails or multiuse.
Results indicate that wildlife habitat and meadow have the best
reclamation potential at sites 1 and 2, respectively, and multiuse
has the worst. Review and comparison of the property matrices for
vii
-------
each land use at both sites prior to mining would enable the operator
to note particularly high magnitude and significance values for
specific properties. Thus, reclamation could be geared to amend
these properties in order to improve the potential for reclaiming
the area to a given land use.
A limiting factor in this study was the inadequate information
available on the physical and chemical properties of minesoils.
Properties were estimated from analyses on only 25 Pennsylvania
minesoils. Three minesoil groups, with relatively the same amount
of minesoils in each group, were established on the basis of pH.
The sample size was small and the breakdown on the basis of pH
questionable. Therefore, supplemental data sources for existing
soil properties and anticipated minesoil properties are needed.
An expanded data source will enable this model to be applied to
a multivariate regression program for analyzing property land use
interactions. Different combinations of independent variables can
then be tested to determine the suitability of a minesoil for a
selected land use.
Furthermore, as related research progresses, it will be possible
to minimize some of the arbitrary assignment of weights and perhaps
elicit more objectivity in estimating significance values.
viii
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract v
Conclusions vii
Figures xii
Tables xiii
1. Introduction 1
Experimental sites 3
Description of site 1 4
Description of site 2 4
2. Materials and Methods 12
Reclamation potential model 12
Model properties 12
Soil coefficients 13
Land uses 13
Agriculture land uses 13
Forest land uses ; . . 13
Recreation land uses 14
Property land use interaction 14
Magnitude 17
Significance 17
Sources of data for existing and anticipated
property levels 18
Description of the model properties 20
Physical properties 20
Slope 20
Erosion 20
Texture 22
Permeability 24
Coarse fragments content 24
Depth to limiting layer 24
Bulk density 28
Chemical properties 31
pH 31
Cation exchange capacity 31
Potassium content 31
Magnesium content 34
Calcium content 34
Organic matter content 34
Sulfur content 37
Economic properties 40
Land property value 40
Reallocation of state income tax .... 41
Effect of unemployment 44
Additional costs 44
Aesthetic properties 48
Public attitude 48
Area mined and visual conformity .... 48
ix
-------
Interpretation of the calculations to
determine the reclamation potential
of a selected land use 50
An example 51
3. Results and Discussion 56
Analysis of selected site properties at
site 1 56
Physical properties 56
Slope 56
Erosion 57
Texture 57
Permeability 58
Coarse fragments content 58
Depth to limiting layer 58
Bulk density 59
Chemical properties 60
PH 60
Cation exchange capacity 60
Potassium content 61
Magnesium content 61
Calcium content 61
Organic matter content 62
Sulfur 62
Economic properties 63
Land property value 63
Reallocation of state income tax 64
Effect of unemployment 64
Additional costs 66
Aesthetic properties 66
Public attitude 66
Area mined and visual conformity 66
Estimation of reclamation potential for each
land use at site 1 68
Influence of each property on reclamation
potential at site 1 72
Comparison of changes in property levels and the
effect of these changes on each land use at
site 1 78
Analysis of selected site properties
at site 2 79
Physical properties 79
Slope 79
Erosion 79
Texture 80
Permeability 81
Coarse fragments content 81
Depth to limiting layer 81
Bulk density 82
Chemical properties 82
PH 82
-------
Cation exchange capacity 83
Potassium content 83
Magnesium content 83
Calcium content 84
Organic matter content 84
Sulfur content 85
Economic properties 85
Land property value 85
Reallocation of state income tax 86
Effect of unemployment 86
Additional costs 88
Aesthetic properties 88
Public attitude 88
Area mined and visual conformity 88
Estimation of reclamation potential for each
land use at site 2. 90
Influence of each property on reclamation
potential at site 2 94
Comparison of changes in property levels and
the effect of these changes on each land use
at site 2 94
Summary comparison of land use reclamation
potentials at sites 1 and 2 100
References 108
Appendices
A. Existing physical and chemical properties at
sites 1 and 2 113
B. Anticipated minesoil properties 123
C. Opinion survey 130
D. Explanation of additional costs required to
establish each land use 139
E. Property matrices for sites 1 and 2 142
F. Computation of weighted and average sums 166
xi
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Location of experimental sites 1 and 2
2 Site 1, Bradford Township, Clearfield County,
Pennsylvania
Soils present at site 1, Bradford Township,
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania ,
Site 2, Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships,
Somerset County, Pennsylvania
Soils present at site 2, Somerset/Brothers
Valley Townships, Somerset County,
Pennsylvania 10
Variation in property magnitude at site 1,
Bradford Township, Clearfield County,
Pennsylvania 74
Variation in property significance at site 1,
Bradford Township, Clearfield County,
Pennsylvania . 76
Variation in property magnitude at site 2,
Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships, Somerset
County, Pennsylvania 96
Variation in property significance at site 2,
Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships, Somerset
County, Pennsylvania 98
xii
-------
TABLES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
•20
21
Definitions of selected terminology
Summary of the physical and chemical properties for
minesoils Group I, Group II, and III
Weights assigned to slope
Importance values assigned to slope weight
Weights assigned to erosion
Importance values assigned to erosion weights ....
Weights assigned to texture
Importance values assigned to texture weights ....
Weights assigned to permeability
Hydraulic conductivity of various textures for
different soil horizons
Importance values assigned to permeability
weights
Weights assigned to coarse fragments content
Importance values assigned to coarse fragments
content weights
Weights assigned to depth to limiting layer
Importance values assigned to depth to limiting
layer weights
Weights assigned to bulk density
Importance values assigned to bulk density
weight
Weights assigned to pH
Importance values assigned to pH weights
Weights assigned to cation exchange capacity
Importance values assigned to cation exchange
capacity weights
Page
15
19
21
21
22
23
23
25
25
26
26
27
27
29
29
30
32
32
33
33
33
xiii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
22 Weights assigned to potassium content 35
23 Importance values assigned to potassium content
weights 35
24 Weights assigned to magnesium content 35
25 Importance values assigned to magnesium content
weights 36
26 Weights assigned to calcium content ......... 36
27 Importance values assigned to calcium content
weights ............... 36
28 Weights assigned to organic matter content 38
29 Importance values assigned to organic matter
content weights 38
30 Weights assigned to sulfur content 39
31 Weights assigned to coal seam 39
32 Importance values assigned to sulfur content
weights 40
33 Weights and importance values assigned to the
property value for selected land uses 42
34 Weights assigned to land use preference 43
35 Weights assigned to the no strip mining option. ... 43
36 Importance values assigned to land use preference
weights 45
37 Weights and importance values assigned to the
potential number of jobs for each land use 46
38 Weights assigned to unemployment. .......... 47
39 Weights and importance values assigned to
additional costs . 47
40 Weights assigned to public attitude 49
xiv
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
41 Importance values assigned to public attitude
weights 49
42 Weights assigned to area mined 50
43 Physical and chemical properties matrix for soil A
at site Y 53
44 Physical and chemical properties matrix for soil B
at site Y 53
45 Economic and aesthetic properties matrix at
site Y 53
46 Physical and chemical properties for corn at
site Y 55
47 The amount of state income tax willing to be
reallocated per family per year to prevent
strip mining and to reclaim the land to a
selected land use at site 1 65
48 Public attitude values for selected land uses based
on the percent of the population that would rank
that land use above the other land uses at site 1 . . 67
49 Reclamation potentials for each land use at
site 1 71
50 Statistical comparison of the magnitude values for
the land uses by property at site 1 77
51 Statistical comparison of the significance values
for the land uses by property at site 1 77
52 The amount of state income tax willing to be
reallocated per family per year to prevent
strip mining and to reclaim the land to a
selected land use at site 2 87
53 Public attitude values for selected land uses based
on the percent of the population that would rank
that land use above the other land uses at site 2 . . 89
54 Reclamation potentials for each land use at
site 2 93
xv
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
55 Statistical comparison of the magnitude values for
the land uses by property at site 2 ......... 99
56 Statistical comparison of the significance values
for the land uses by property at site 2 99
57 Summary of property magnitude and significance
values at site 1 101
58 Summary of property magnitude and significance
values at site 2 103
Al Existing physical property data at site 1 ...... 114
A2 Anticipated land use erosion values for each soil
at site 1 115
A3 Existing chemical properties at site 1 116
A4 Existing physical property data at site 2 117
A5 Anticipated land use erosion values for each soil at
site 2 118
A6 Existing chemical properties at site 2 119
A7 Calculations of composite C values by crop state
period (as a function of time and soil loss ratios)
for corn, pine, and wildlife habitat 121
Bl Minesoil: group I physical data based on existing pH
values greater than 5 124
B2 Minesoil: group I chemical data based on existing pH
values greater than 5 125
B3 Minesoil: group II physical data based on existing
pH values between 4 and 5, inclusive 126
B4 Minesoil: group II chemical data based on existing
pH values between 4 and 5, inclusive. ........ 127
B5 Minesoil: group III physical data based on
existing pH values less than 4 128
B6 Minesoil: group III chemical data based on
existing pH values less than 4 129
xvi
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
Cl Summary of survey responses from sites 1 and 2 .... 135
C2 Calculation of the reallocation of state income tax
property (expressed as dollars/family/year) by income
group for the land uses and the no strip mining
option at sites 1 and 2 138
El Physical properties matrix for Berks soil at site 1. . 143
E2 Physical properties matrix for Cookport soil at
site 1 144
E3 Physical properties matrix for Gilpin soil at
site 1 145
E4 Physical properties matrix for Weikert soil at
site 1 146
E5 Physical properties matrix for Minesoil at site 1. . . 147
E6 Chemical properties matrix for Berks soil at site 1. . 148
E7 Chemical properties matrix for Cookport soil at
site 1 149
E8 Chemical properties matrix for Gilpin soil at
site 1 150
E9 Chemical properties matrix for Weikert soil at
site 1 151
E10 Chemical properties matrix for Minesoil at site 1. . . 152
Ell Economic properties matrix at site 1 153
E12 Aesthetic properties matrix at site 1 154
E13 Physical properties matrix for Cavode soil at
site 2 155
E14 Physical properties matrix for Cookport soil at
site 2 156
E15 Physical properties matrix for Hazleton soil at
site 2 157
xvii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
E16 Physical properties matrix for Nolo soil at
E17
E18
E19
E20
E21
E22
E23
Fl
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
Fll
F12
F13
F14
Physical properties matrix for Wharton soil at
Chemical properties matrix for Cavode soil at
Chemical properties matrix for Hazleton soil at
site 2 ....
Chemical properties matrix for Nolo soil at site 2 . .
Chemical properties matrix for Wharton soil at
site 2 . .
Economic properties matrix at site 2
Aesthetic properties matrix at site 2
Physical properties for corn at site 1
Physical properties for meadow at site 1
Physical properties for pine at site 1 ...
Physical properties for wildlife habitat at site 1 . .
Physical properties for trails at site 1
Physical properties for multiuse at site 1 ......
Chemical properties for wildlife habitat at site 1 . .
Chemical properties for trails at site 1 .......
Chemical properties for multiuse at site 1 ......
Economic properties for meadow at site 1
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
179
xviii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
F15 Economic properties for pine at site 1 180
F16 Economic properties for wildlife habitat at
site 1 180
F17 • Economic properties for trails at site 1 181
F18 Economic properties for multiuse at site 1 181
F19 Aesthetic properties for corn at site 1 182
F20 Aesthetic properties for meadow at site 1 182
F21 Aesthetic properties for pine at site 1 183
F22 Aesthetic properties for wildlife habitat at
site 1 183
F23 Aesthetic properties for trails at site 1 184
F24 Aesthetic properties for multiuse at site 1 184
F25 Physical properties for corn at site 2 185
F26 Physical properties for meadow at site 2 186
F27 Physical properties for pine at site 2 187
F28 Physical properties for wildlife habitat at
site 2 188
F29 Physical properties for trails at site 2 189
F30 Physical properties for multiuse at site 2 190
F31 Chemical properties for corn at site 2 191
F32 Chemical properties for meadow at site 2 192
F33 Chemical properties for pine at site 2 193
F34 Chemical properties for wildlife habitat at
site 2 194
F35 Chemical properties for trails at site 2 195
F36 Chemical properties for multiuse at site 2 195
xix
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
F37 Economic properties for corn at site 2 . . . 197
F38 Economic properties for meadow at site 2 197
F39 Economic properties for pine at site 2 198
F40 Economic properties for wildlife habitat at site 2 . . 198
F41 Economic properties for trails at site 2 199
F42 Economic properties for multiuse at site 2 . 199
F43 Aesthetic properties for corn at site 2 200
F44 Aesthetic properties for meadow at site 2 200
F45 Aesthetic properties for pine at site 2 201
F46 Aesthetic properties for wildlife habitat at
site 2 201
F47 Aesthetic properties for trails at site 2 . 202
F48 Aesthetic properties for multiuse at site 2. ..... 202
xx
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
It would be advantageous for the United States to become energy
self-sufficient because of the rising costs of imported oil. Coal is
by far the most abundant of the domestic fuels, and as of January 1,
1975, more than 30% of the coal reserves were recoverable by surface
mining methods (Kleppe, 1977). Therefore, at present much emphasis
is being placed on surface mining. At the same time, higher qualita-
tive and quantitative demands are being made on the environment.
Consequently, requirements have been imposed on the surface mining
industry to reclaim the land in such a way as to maintain the environ-
mental quality during and after mining (Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977, PL 95-87).
The objective of this study was to design a preliminary model
which would serve as a general framework for a reclamation potential
model. The reclamation potential model will enable a strip mine
operator to determine a priori an optimum land use following
reclamation. The reclamation potential for a given land use will be
based on the anticipated physical and chemical properties of the mine-
soil as well as the economics and the aesthetics associated with
mining and reclamation at the chosen site. Once reclamation potentials
are established using the proposed model, the strip mine operator can
gear his reclamation plan towards the land use with the best potential.
The operator may also decide to amend certain properties to improve
-------
the reclamation potential of a land use to conform with the local land
use objectives.
The major goals of reclamation and related physical, chemical,
and socio-economic properties of strip mining and reclamation are
well documented (Zellmer and Carter, 1977; Brooks and Williams, 1973;
and Falkie, 1971). Today, coal can only be mined if a detailed
reclamation plan (Hill, 1977) has been reviewed and approved by the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (Waldrop, 1977).
McCormack (1974) already stressed the importance of reclaiming the land
to its optimum use. However, definition of optimum use can be
ambiguous, although it is generally agreed that unnecessary costs can
be avoided if a land use is selected before mining. In this study
optimum land use is defined as the land use having the best reclamation
potential score. Only three land uses, agriculture, forestry, and
recreation will be considered in this study.
At present, there is no single procedure available that provides
an assessment of impact and long range effects of strip mining on an
area (Rogowski et al., 1977). Recent evidence (Sendlein et al., 1977)
suggests that concerted efforts in that direction are being initiated.
The proposed model is a modification of the environmental impact
matrix (Leopold et al., 1971). It relies on anticipated changes in
the physical and chemical properties of the soil as a result of mining,
on the economics and aesthetics associated with mining and reclamation
processes, and on the effects of these changes on selected land uses.
Land use suitability classes had been suggested for minesoils
predating recent Federal strip mine legislation (Smith et al., 1976),
yet little work has been done with more recent minesoils (Ciolkosz
-------
et al., in press; and Pedersen, 1977). In general, minesoils are
pedogenically young and reflect the properties of their parent
material (Sobek et al., 1976), although little is known about the
rate at which changes occur after the rock strata are mined and
exposed to weathering (Davis, 1977). Except for the information on
toxicities and nutrient deficiencies in spoil materials (Fleming
et al., 1974), substantive data on chemical property changes are
also scarce. Economic and aesthetic properties are more readily
ascertained. Doyle (1974) and Boehlje and Libbin (1977) have
described various economic indicators related to surface mining
while aesthetic properties are most commonly determined through
opinion surveys (Fischer, 1975; Krutella and Fisher, 1976; and
Mann et al., 1976).
A related study in land use management is The Canada Land
Inventory (Department of Regional Economic Expansion, 1970a).
Portions of Canada have been assessed according to their land use
capabilities for agriculture (Department of the Environment, 1972),
forestry (McCormack, 1972), wildlife (Perret, 1973), and recreation
(Department of Regional Economic Expansion, 1970b). The surveys
were compared with present land use. The purposes of the land
inventory, however, was different and broader in scope than this
study.
EXPERIMENTAL SITES
The proposed model was tested at two geologically different un-
mined sites in Clearfield and Somerset Counties, Pennsylvania. The
-------
Clearfield site is in the area where brackish water sediments predomi-
nate resulting in low pH values and high potential for acid drainage.
The Somerset County site is on the fresh water sediments with over-
burden containing large quantities of limestone and dolomite.
Description of Site 1
Site 1 is located in the Pittsburgh Plateau section of the
Appalachian Plateau Province approximately 3 km northwest of Bigler
in the Bradford Township of Clearfield County (Figure 1). The exist-
ing land is a mixture of rolling to steeply sloping meadow, brush,
and woodland (Figure 2). Seventy-seven acres are scheduled to be
mined for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Kittannning coal (C1, C, and
B coal, respectively). A map of the soils present, including the
Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, and Weikert soils and an old Minesoil, and
their percent distribution are shown in Figure 3.
Description of Site 2
Site 2 is located in the Allegheny Mountain section of the
Appalachian Plateau Province approximately 8 km west of Brotherton
in Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships, Somerset County (Figure 1).
The topographic features are similar to site 1, but the slope is
less severe (Figure 4). Two-hundred and three acres are scheduled
to be mined for the Upper Freeport coal (E coal). A map of the
soils present, including the Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and
Wharton soils and their distribution are shown in Figure 5.
-------
0 40 80 120 160 km
Clearfield Co.
Somerset Co.
N
Figure 1. Location of experimental sites 1 and 2.
-------
Figure 2. Site 1, Bradford Township, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.
-------
N
SOIL LEGEND
1 Berks
2 Cookport
3 Gilpin
4 Weikert
5 Minesoils
SLOPE LEGEND
a 0-3%
b 4-8%
C 9 - 16%
d 17- 25%
e greater than 25%
150
300
450 meters
Figure 3. Soils present at site 1, Bradford Township,
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.
-------
oo
Figure 4. Site 2, Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships,
Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
-------
-------
Figure 5. Soils present at site 2, Somerset/Brothers Valley
Townships, Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
-------
Road
SOIL LEGEND
1 Cavode
2 Cookport
3 Hazleton
4 Nolo
5 Wharton
SLOPE LEGEND
o-3%
4-8%
9-16%
17- 25%
greater than 25%
675 meters
-------
Detailed maps and discussions pertaining to the topography,
stratigraphy, and coal and mineral statistics for the areas
including sites 1 and 2 are provided by Glover (1970) , Flint
(1965), and Crentz et al. (1951 and 1952).
11
-------
SECTION 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RECLAMATION POTENTIAL MODEL
Model Properties
The reclamation potential for a selected land use is based on the
changes in the physical and chemical properties of the area's soils
and on the changes in the economic and aesthetic properties of the
site. The preliminary model can be written as,
RP = A (P + C + E + A)
where RP = site reclamation potential
AP = change in physical properties of the area's soils
AC = change in chemical properties of the area's soils
AE = change in economic properties of the site
AA = change in aesthetic properties of the site
Generally speaking, a minesoil following reclamation will not
have the same physical and chemical characteristics as the natural
soil that existed there before mining (McCormack, 1974). However,
some anticipated properties of the minesoil can be estimated prior
to mining if the soil and overburden properties are known (Sobek
et al., 1976). It is also unlikely that the same economic and
aesthetic properties will prevail at the site for each land use fol-
lowing mining and reclamation. Therefore, reclamation potential is
12
-------
determined by estimating anticipated levels of the physical, chemical,
economic, and aesthetic properties and comparing these with existing
conditions.
Soil Coefficients
Usually a site to be mined is composed of several soils which have
different physical and chemical properties. During mining the soils
are removed and segregated into stockpiles. Consequently, horizons for
each soil become mixed. Therefore, when the soil's physical and
chemical properties are determined, they need to be multiplied by a
coefficient based on the soils acreage at the site.
Land Uses
Agriculture Land Uses— Three basic land uses will be considered,
agriculture, forestry, and recreation. Briggs et al. (1977) have re-
viewed the soil requirements for successful agricultural reclamation.
At both sites in this study reclamation potentials are established for
the following agriculture land uses:
Corn - The land is planted to corn annually. Species
selection is based on county crop statistics and
related literature from the Soil Conservation
Service and Agricultural Extension Services.
Meadow - The spoil is seeded with perennial grasses and/or
legumes. A land reclaimed to meadow can be used
for the production of hay and/or production of beef
cattle.
Forest Land Uses. Approximately 80% of all areas that have been
strip mined since 1945 have been reforested (Research Committee on
13
-------
Coal Mine Spoil Revegetation in Pennsylvania, 1965). Reclamation po-
tentials are derived for the following forest land uses:
Pine - Pine seedlings, suited to Pennsylvania soils
and climate, are planted in the spoil so that
a marketable pine stand will develop quickly.
Wildlife Habitat - A combination of trees, shrubs, and grasses
are planted to establish a diverse natural
setting for wildlife management.
Recreation Land Uses— Sawyer and Growl (1968) state that much em-
phasis in the past ten years has been placed on developing areas for
recreational purposes. The following recreation land uses are evaluat-
ed for their reclamation potentials:
Trails - A series of hiking and riding trails are routed
through a forest-type setting.
Multiuse - The land is reclaimed in a similar manner as in
trails, however, areas are established for
camping, ballplaying, and other accommodations,
such as registration and restroom facilities.
Property Land Use Interaction
Table 1 lists definitions of selected terminology of the reclama-
tion potential equation. The magnitude of the changes in the physical,
chemical, economic, and aesthetic property levels and the significance
of the anticipated property levels to the reclamation potential of a
given land use are recorded in matrix tables. In these tables the land
uses form the vertical axis and the properties form the horizontal
axis.
14
-------
TABLE 1. DEFINITIONS OF SELECTED TERMINOLOGY
Physical properties
Chemical properties
Economic properties
Aesthetic properties
Existing property
level
Anticipated property
level
Weight
Magnitude
Importance value
Significance
Interaction
Property matrix
Soil coefficient
Slope, erosion, texture, permeability, coarse
fragments content, depth to limiting layer,
and bulk density.
pH, cation exchange capacity, potassium
content, magnesium content, calcium
content, organic matter content, and sulfur
content.
Land property value, reallocation of state
income tax, effect of unemployment, and
additional costs.
Public attitude and area mined and visual
conformity.
The estimated or observed property level
prior to mining.
The estimated property level following
reclamation.
A number ranging from 1 to 5 such that 1
indicates an optimum property level and
5 indicates the least optimum property
level.
Anticipated weight/existing weight.
A subjective numerical evaluation describing
numerically the importance of an anticipated
property level to a given land use. Numbers
range from 1 to 5 such that 1 indicates
little importance and 5 indicates great
importance.
Anticipated weight + importance.
Magnitude)significance. Slash line does not
indicate a ratio.
A table showing the interaction of land uses
and property levels.
A value which represents the soil's relative
percentage at the site.
15
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Weighted sum Sum of magnitude X C sum of significance
X C for physical or chemical properties
on a given land use where C is the soil
coefficient.
Average sum Sum of the magnitude and sum of significance
values for the weighted physical sum, and
weighted chemical sum and for the site
economic, and aesthetic properties divided
by the number of components (7, 7, 4, and
2, respectively).
Reclamation Average sum (physical) + average sum
potential (chemical) + average sum (economic) +
average sum (aesthetic).
Exceptions are sulfur, reallocation of state income tax, effect of
unemployment, additional costs, and area mined and visual conformity
properties.
2
The exception is the sulfur property.
16
-------
Magnitude— The magnitude of the change in property levels, unless
otherwise indicated, is represented by a ratio of the anticipated
property level to the existing property level. Since each property has
a different unit of measurement, which may be very small (as in a per-
cent value) or very large (as in a cost estimate), it is necessary to
assign numbers to various levels of each property. These numbers are
referred to as weights and range from 1 to 5. A weight of 1 indicates
an optimum property level, whereas a weight of 5 designates the least
optimum property level. Magnitude ratio may be less than, equal to, or
greater than 1 depending on the degree of change expected. Ideally, a
value less than 1 is desirable because it suggests that the property
level may improve following reclamation.
Significance— The significance of the anticipated property level
to a selected land use, unless otherwise specified, is represented by
the sum of the weight assigned to the anticipated property level and
an importance value. The importance value, also ranging from 1 to 5,
is a subjective evaluation describing numerically the importance of an
anticipated property level to a given land use. A value of 1 indicates
little importance and a value of 5 represents great importance. The
lower the significance value for a land use, the better the reclamation
potential.
The magnitude value appears to the left of the slash line and the
significance value appears to the right. The slash line does not
indicate a ratio.
The reader is referred to the end of this chapter (page 51) for an
example of how to use this preliminary reclamation potential model.
17
-------
Sources of Data for Existing and Anticipated
Property Levels
Estimated existing physical and chemical property values (Appen-
dix A) are taken from readily available sources such as
Characteristics, Interpretations, and Uses of Pennsylvania Soils; Soil
Survey Reports; pertinent U.S. Geological Survey and State Geological
Survey publications; and coal company data. Anticipated minesoil
properties (Appendix B) are determined from recent physical and
chemical analyses of 25 minesoils in Pennsylvania (Ciolkosz et al.,
in press). The 25 minesoils have been categorized into three groups
according to pH. Group I minesoils have a pH greater than 5 (Tables
Bl and B2), Group II minesoils have a pH between 4 and 5, inclusive
(Tables B3 and B4), and Group III minesoils have a pH less than 4
(Tables B5 and B6). Anticipated physical and chemical properties of a
minesoil are estimated by assigning the soil to minesoil group whose pH
corresponds to the average pH (all horizons) for a given soil. A
summary of the physical and chemical properties for Group I, II, and
III are given in Table 2.
Some existing and anticipated economic and aesthetic properties
can also be determined through discussions with coal company engineers
and county courthouse personnel. Additional information is obtained
from responses to opinion surveys (Appendix C). These surveys are
designed to quantitatively approximate various environmental
qualities.
18
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR
MINESOILS GROUP I,* GROUP II,t AND Hit
Minesoil group
Texture (class)
Permeability (mm/hr)
Coarse fragments content
(% by weight)
Depth to limiting layer
(meters)
II
III
Loamy sand
101.7
77.7
.33
Physical properties
Sandy loam
34.8
75.5
.43
Loamy sand
101.7
78.8
.21
Chemical properties
PH
Cation exchange capacity
(me/ 100 grams)
Potassium (% of CEC)
Magnesium (% of CEC)
Calcium (% of CEC)
Organic matter
(% nitrogen)
6.12
20.90
.94
12.39
34.89
.12
4.34
27.02
.50
4.50
23.60
.11
3.75
21.46
.54
1.80
14.70
.10
*Group I consists of minesoils with a pH greater than 5.
fGroup II consists of minesoils with a pH between 4 and 5, inclusive.
{Group III consists of minesoils with a pH less than 4.
19
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL PROPERTIES
Physical Properties
Slope— A decrease in slope is beneficial. Excessive slope in-
hibits seed start and the use of machinery and increases erosion and
runoff. Weights have been assigned on the basis of a slope class
system (Soil Survey Staff, 1951) such that a 0 to 3% slope represents
no limitations and a slope greater than 25% represents severe
limitations (Table 3).
Unless exceptions are granted (PL 95-87, Sec. 515 (c) 2, 3, and
4), the average slope for the site should remain unchanged.
Therefore, the existing slope value equals the anticipated slope
value. The importance of the anticipated slope level to each land use
is found in Table 4.
Erosion— No erosion is desirable. Potential adverse effects of
erosion include breakdown of soil aggregates, crust formation, and
channelized flow through rills and gullies. Wischmeier (1971) states
that it is the policy of the Soil Conservation Service to plan crop-
land practices so that soil loss from a field averages less than 5
tons/acre/year (approximately 2 mm of soil). Considering this level
of erosion to be optimum, weights have been assigned in increments of
4 tons/acre/year (Table 5).
The severity of erosion depends on the steepness and length of
slope, extent of freezing and thawing, amount and intensity of
precipitation, and how water is concentrated in the soil (USDA, 1968).
The Universal Soil Loss Equation (Wischmeier and Smith, 1962 and
1965) is used to determine existing and anticipated soil loss. All
equation parameters are available through the Soil Conservation
20
-------
TABLE 3. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO SLOPE
Slope Weight
0 to 3 1
4 to 8 2
9 to 16 3
17 to 25 4
greater than 25 5
TABLE 4. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO SLOPE WEIGHT
Slope weight
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
21
-------
TABLE 5. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO EROSION
Erosion
Tons/acre/year
1 to 4
4.1 to 8
8.1 to 12
12.1 to 16
greater than 16
Weight
1
2
3
4
5
Service, however, it is necessary to make assumptions about the ground
cover for each land use to develop a cropping management factor
(Appendix A, Table A7). In Table 6, the importance of the anticipated
erosion level to each land use is shown.
Texture— In general, sands are well-aerated but are apt to be
loose, structureless, and droughty; clays compact easily favoring
puddle formation and crust over during dry periods; and loams and
silts usually have enough fine material to hold moisture (USDA, 1968).
Assuming loams are the most desirable and sands and clays are the
least desirable, textural classes (Soil Survey Staff, 1951) have been
assigned weights (Table 7).
The texture of a minesoil can be estimated if the rock types and
overburden material are known (Sobek et al., 1976). Pedersen (1977)
has found that minesoils typically have less silt and more sand in
their fine earth fraction than do natural soils. To account for this
anticipated texture change, the percent of silt and clay are calcu-
lated on the basis of field soil rather than just those fractions less
22
-------
TABLE 6. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO EROSION WEIGHTS
Erosion
Land Use 123
Corn 134
Meadow 123
Pine 123
Wildlife habitat 123
Trails 112
Multiuse 123
weight
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
TABLE 7. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO
Texture
Class
Loamy: medium textured
Loamy: medium coarse textured
Loamy: fine textured
Sandy - clayey
Sands - clays
TEXTURE
Weights
1
2
3
4
5
23
-------
than 2 mm. The importance of the anticipated texture to each land use
is listed in Table 8.
Permeability— Rapid permeability leaches the soil of nutrients
and slow permeability encourages water accumulation. Weights have
been assigned to the permeability classes outlined by the Soil Survey
Staff (1951) assuming that rapid permeability is less damaging to
plant growth and soil management than slow permeability (Table 9).
In Table 10 the relationship between soil horizon texture and
hydraulic conductivity is shown (Mason et al., 1957). Anticipated
permeabilities are established corresponding to anticipated texture.
These conductivities are summed and averaged to yield the soil's
anticipated permeability. Anticipated permeabilities for minesoil
Group I and II (sands) and Group III (medium coarse textured) are
summarized in Table 2. The importance of the anticipated permeability
to each land use is given in Table 11.
Coarse Fragments Content—A decrease in the amount of coarse
fragments is beneficial. Coarse fragments may interfere with the use
of machinery and obstruct plant growth. Furthermore, when fractions
larger than 25 mm constitute more than 80% of the spoil, it is no
longer analogous to soil (Rogowski and Weinrich, 1977). Minesoils
usually contain from 40 to 70% coarse fragments by weight (Pedersen,
1977). Weights have been assigned spanning this range (Table 12). In
Table 13, the importance of the anticipated coarse fragments content
to each land use is listed.
Depth to Limiting Layer — An increase in depth to a limiting layer
is generally desirable. Shallow bedrock impeding root growth, a
seasonally high water table contributing to flooding, or a toxic
24
-------
TABLE 8. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO TEXTURE WEIGHTS
Land
Corn
Meadow
'Pine
Wildlife
Trails
Multiuse
Texture weight
Use 1234
1113
1112
1112
habitat 1112
1112
1113
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
TABLE 9. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO PERMEABILITY
Permeability
mm/hr Weight
20.32 to 63.50 1
63.60 to 127.00 2
5.00 to 20.31 3
greater than 127.00 4
less than 5.00 5
25
-------
TABLE 10. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF VARIOUS TEXTURES FOR
DIFFERENT SOIL HORIZONS*
Texture
Hydraulic conductivity (mm/hr) by horizon
Horizon A Horizon B Horizon C
Arithmetic
mean
Sandsf
199.6
46.2
59.4
101.7
Medium coarse^
51.1
29.5
23.9
34.8
*This table is abstracted from a report by D. D. Mason, J. F. Lutz, and
R. G. Petersen (1957).
fSands texture is indicative of Minesoil Group I and III (loamy sands).
^Medium coarse texture is indicative of Minesoil Group II (sandy
loams).
TABLE 11. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO PERMEABILITY WEIGHTS
Permeability weight
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
26
-------
TABLE 12. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO COARSE FRAGMENTS CONTENT
% by weight
Coarse fragments content
Weight
less than 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
61 to 70
greater than 70
1
2
3
4
5
TABLE 13. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO COARSE FRAGMENTS
CONTENT WEIGHTS
Coarse fragments content weight
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
•1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
3
5
3
2
2
1
3
4
5
4
3
3
2
4
5
5
5
4
4
3
5
27
-------
stratum adversely affecting plant growth, can be considered as limiting
layers in land use establishment. In Table 14 weights have been
assigned assuming that a depth of 1.2 meters will not affect most land
uses.
Pedersen (1977) reported that the greatest amount of pedogenic
development in minesoils occurs in the surface horizons. The C
horizon is usually structureless and massive and unless the site is
on prime agricultural land, it will not be segregated but will be
mixed with the coal overburden containing pyrite. Therefore, the
presence of pyritic sulfur, toxic to plant growth, throughout the C
horizon of minesoils is likely. The anticipated depth to a limiting
layer for a minesoil was taken as the sum of average depths of the A
and B horizons of its respective Group (Tables Bl, B3, and B5). The
anticipated values for each minesoil group are summarized in Table 2.
Table 15 shows the importance of the anticipated depth to limiting
layer to each land use.
Bulk Density— High and low bulk densities will adversely affect
water and nutrient accumulation, the water to air ratio in the soil,
root development, and consequently crop yields. Alekseyeva (1972)
indicated that a favorable bulk density range for crops was 1.1 to
1.45 g/cc. Weights have been assigned reflecting this range
(Table 16).
Pedersen (1977) lists some values of minesoil bulk density. A
value of 1.78 g/cc, which is an average bulk density value determined
by Pedersen (1977), was taken as the anticipated bulk density for all
28
-------
TABLE 14. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO DEPTH TO LIMITING LAYER
Depth to limiting layer
m Weight
greater than 1.20 1
.91 to 1.20 2
.61 to .90 3
.30 to .60 4
less than .30 5
TABLE 15. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO DEPTH TO
LIMITING LAYER WEIGHTS
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
Depth
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
to
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
limiting
3
3
2
2
1
2
3
layer
4
4
3
3
2
3
4
weight
5
5
4
4
3
4
5
29
-------
TABLE 16. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO BULK DENSITY
Bulk density
g/cc Weight
1.25 to 1.30
1.20 to 1.24
and
1.31 to 1.35
1.15 to 1.19
and
1.36 to 1.40
1.10 to 1.14
and
1.41 to 1.45
less than 1.10
and
greater than 1.45
30
-------
minesoils. Table 17 gives the importance of the anticipated bulk
density to each land use.
Chemical Properties
pH— Low pH values inhibit the availability of nutrients and
enhance the availability of minor elements, such as aluminum and
magnesium, making them toxic to plant growth (Bennett et al., 1972).
Martin et al. (1976) list optimum and tolerable pH ranges for major
crops. Noting these ranges, weights have been assigned to various
pH levels favoring a slightly acid to neutral pH (Table 18). Table 19
summarizes the importance of the anticipated pH level for each land
use.
Cation Exchange Capacity — The exchange capacity of Pennsylvania
soils is essentially saturated with hydrogen, potassium, magnesium, and
calcium (Hinish, 1969). Hinish (1969) states that a balanced soil will
contain (as a percent of the cation exchange capacity) 2 to 5%
potassium, 10 to 25% magnesium, and 60 to 80% calcium. Using the
minimum values of these ranges, and the equations for determining the
hydrogen concentration and the cation exchange capacity (Hinish, 1969) ,
a minimum cation exchange capacity of approximately 8 me/100 g was
calculated. Weights have been assigned such that any cation exchange
capacity value at or above 8 me/100 g is acceptable and any value
below this level is not acceptable (Table 20), while Table 21 shows the
importance of the anticipated cation exchange capacity level for each
land use.
Potassium Content— Potassium is a constituent of plant protein,
maintains cell permeability, keeps iron mobile in the plant, and
31
-------
TABLE 17. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO BULK DENSITY WEIGHT
Land
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife
Trails
Multiuse
Use 1
1
1
1
habitat 1
1
1
Bulk density weight
234
234
123
123
112
111
112
5
5
4
4
3
2
3
TABLE 18. WEIGHTS
6.1 to 7.3
5.6 to 6.0
and
7.4 to 7.8
5.1 to 5.5
and
7.9 to 8.4
4.5 to 5.0
and
8.5 to 9.0
ASSIGNED TO pH
PH
Weight
1
2
3
4
less than 4.5
and
greater than 9.0
32
-------
TABLE 19. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO pH WEIGHTS
pH weight
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
TABLE 20. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY
Cation exchange capacity
me/100 g Weight
greater than or 1
equal to 8.0
less than 8.0 5
TABLE 21. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO CATION
EXCHANGE CAPACITY WEIGHTS
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
Cation exchange
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
capacity weight
5
3
2
2
1
1
2
33
-------
increases the resistance to disease (Donahue et al., 1971). Assuming
these functions proceed normally in a balanced soil (Hinish, 1969),
only soils with a potassium content in the range of 2 to 5% of the
cation exchange capacity are acceptable and weights have been assigned
accordingly (Table 22). Table 23 gives the importance of the antici-
pated potassium content for each land use.
Magnesium Content— Donahue et al. (1971) state that magnesium
aids in the uptake of phosphorus and is a necessary component of
chlorophyll. In Table 24, weights have been assigned assuming that
these properties are maintained in a magnesium balanced soil (Hinish,
1969). Table 25 lists the importance of the anticipated magnesium
content to each land use.
Calcium Content— Calcium makes cells more selective in absorp-
tion and is needed in large quantities for cell division (Donahue
et al., 1971). Balanced and unbalanced soils, with respect to calcium
content (Hinish, 1969), have been appropriately weighted in Table 26.
In Table 27, the importance of the anticipated calcium content to each
land use is given.
Organic Matter Content— An increase in organic matter content is
beneficial. Organic matter content can be estimated by the percent
carbon; however, because of the occurrence of carboniferous shale and
coal fragments in the soil, which can account for high organic carbon
values (Pedersen, 1977), percent nitrogen is used. Soil organic
matter is approximately 5% nitrogen (Donahue et al., 1971). Bremner
(1965) states that the total-N content of soils ranges from 0.02% in
subsoils to 2.5% in peats and that the surface layer of most culti-
vated soils contains between 0.06 and 0.5% N. Weights have been
34
-------
TABLE 22. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO POTASSIUM CONTENT
Potassium content
% of CEC Weight
2 to 5 1
less than 2
and 5
greater than 5
TABLE 23. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO POTASSIUM
CONTENT WEIGHTS
Potassium content weight
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
3
2
1
1
2
TABLE 24. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO MAGNESIUM CONTENT
Magnesium content
% of CEC Weight
10 to 25 1
less than 10
and 5
greater than 25
35
-------
TABLE 25. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO MAGNESIUM
CONTENT WEIGHTS
Magnesium content weight
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
4
3
2
2
3
TABLE 26. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO CALCIUM CONTENT
Calcium content
% of CEC Weight
60 to 80 1
less than 60
and
greater than 80
TABLE 27. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO CALCIUM
CONTENT WEIGHTS
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
Calcium
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
content weight
5
3
2
2
1
1
1
36
-------
assigned on the basis of percent N in the soil (Table 28). The impor-
tance of the anticipated organic matter content to each land use is
reported in Table 29.
Sulfur Content— A decrease in sulfur content is desirable. Al-
though sulfur is required for synthesis of certain vitamins in plants,
and averages 0.15% in a typical soil (Donahue et al., 1971), its
pyritic form, especially framboidal pyrite (Caruccio, 1975), poses an
environmental problem. Acid producing materials, such as pyrite, often
become mixed and distributed throughout the spoil and topsoil during
strip mining and reclamation (Rogowski and Jacoby, 1977). A weight is
assigned to sulfur content such that any value less than or equal to
.05% is considered environmentally safe (Table 30).
The Freeport and Upper Kittanning coals occur in fresh water
sediments and the Middle and Lower Kittanning coals occur in marine-
brackish water sediments (Degens et al., 1957). Because the deposi-
tion of pyrite is favored in reducing environments (marine-brackish
environments as opposed to an oxidized continental fresh water
environment), the lower formations in the Allegheny Group contain
higher pyritic sulfur than the upper formations (Caruccio and Parizek,
1967). Also, younger coals have more alkaline drainage (Degens et al.,
1957; and Emrich et al., 1968). Thus, a second series of weights have
been assigned to coal seams indicating the potential for acid
drainage (Table 31).
We recall that magnitude is represented by the ratio of the
anticipated property level to the existing property level. For this
property, magnitude is represented by the sum of two weights (one
for sulfur content, Table 30, and one for the lowest coal seam being
37
-------
TABLE 28. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT
Organic matter content
% N Weight
greater than 1.0 1
.50 to 1.00 2
.06 to .49 3
.02 to .05 4
less than .02 5
TABLE 29. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO ORGANIC
MATTER CONTENT WEIGHTS
Organic matter
content weight
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
2
1
1
1
1
38
-------
TABLE 30. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO SULFUR CONTENT
Sulfur content
% Sulfur Weight
less than or
equal to .05
greater than .05
TABLE 31. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO COAL SEAM
Coal seam
Weight
Upper Freeport 1
Lower Freeport 2
Upper Kittanning 3
Middle Kittanning 4
Lower Kittanning 5
39
-------
mined, Table 31). Also, significance is normally represented by the
sum of the weight for the anticipated property level and the impor-
tance of that level to the land use in question; however, for this
property, it is determined by the sum of the weight assigned to the
lowest coal seam to be mined at the site (Table 31) and the importance
of sulfur content (reflecting the affects of acid drainage) for a
given land use (Table 32).
TABLE 32. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO
SULFUR CONTENT WEIGHTS
Sulfur content
weight
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
3
3
4
1
2
Economic Properties
Land Property Value — Individual
property as:
sessmen
able at county and township tax assessment offices. However, site
property values are estimated because a mining site is usually com-
posed of more than one person's property and often only portions of
these properties are involved. Somerset's tax assessment scheme for
agricultural land was modified to provide a land property value for
40
-------
each land use at both sites (Table 33). Land uses were assigned to
land groups I through IV (Table 33) on the basis of group description.
Economic returns expected from the land use are considered when
determining land property value. In Table 33, importance values have
been assigned to each land use indicating how important it is for that
land use to have an economic return.
Reallocation of State Income Tax— This property was designed to
quantify by a mail survey (Appendix C, questions 5, 6, 7, and 12 and
Table C2) the visual ammenities related to agriculture, forest, and
recreation land uses. In the same manner, the value of not stripping
the land was quantified. The survey respondents ranked the land uses
according to preference (Appendix C, question 5) and then designated
the portion of his state income tax he would be willing to reallocate
in order to reclaim the land to his most preferred use (Appendix C,
question 6) or to prevent strip mining in the township (Appendix C,
question 7). These responses were indexed with income levels
(Appendix C, question 12). Average reallocation quantities were
expressed in units of dollars/family/year. Weights have been assigned
in $45.OO/family/year increments for both land use preference (Table
34) and the no strip mining option (Table 35).
For this property, magnitude is represented by the sum of the
reallocation amount and the amount assigned for preventing strip
mining. Significance values are represented by the sum of the weight
assigned to the reallocation amount for the land use and the impor-
tance value. Since expected public involvement with the land use
affects the amount of state income tax reallocated, importance values
41
-------
TABLE 33. WEIGHTS AND IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE PROPERTY VALUE FOR SELECTED LAND USES*
Group
Group
description
Land uses that
apply to group
Property value Importance
Dollars Weight value
-p-
NJ
I Ideal cropland, level to
nearly level, deep well-
drained soils
II Good to fair cropland,
gentle to moderate slopes,
medium depth soils, slight
crop limitations
III Marginal cropland, gentle
to moderate slopes, light
shallow soils, subject to
erosion
IV Pasture, rolling to steep
slopes, shallow soils,
woodland and brush, sub-
ject to strong erosion
V Kuggacl steep slopes,
mountainous, limited
woodland, barren, waste
Corn
Multiuse
Pine
Trails
Meadow
Wildlife habitat
500
250 to 450
80 to 150
40 to 60
20
4
2
3
1
*Based on Somerset County, Pennsylvania tax assessment scheme for agricultural land.
-------
TABLE 34. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO LAND USE PREFERENCE
Land use preference
Dollars/family/year Weight
greater than 180 1
136-180 2
91-135 3
45-90 4
less than 45 5
TABLE 35. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO THE NO STRIP MINING OPTION
No strip mining option
Dollars/family/year Weight
less than 45 1
45-90 2
91-135 3
136-180 4
greater than 180 5
43
-------
have been assigned indicating the importance of public involvement in
each land use (Table 36).
Effect of Unemployment— It is economically desirable to reclaim
a land to a use which provides more employment opportunities for the
immediate area, especially in areas of high unemployment. General
skills are required for maintaining each of the six land uses and
weights have been assigned on the basis of the potential number of
persons that may be required (Table 37). In Table 38, weights are
also assigned to unemployment levels. In general, unemployment
figures are usually available at the county level.
For this property, magnitude is represented by the ratio of the
anticipated number of persons (Table 37) to the percent unemployment
in the county (Table 38). Significance values were determined by the
sum of the weight for the anticipated number of jobs (Table 37) and
the importance value (Table 37), which indicates the importance of
employment availability for each land use.
Additional Costs—General summary costs for mining and strip
mine reclamation (Sendlein et al., 1977), factors affecting costs
(Brooks and Williams, 1973), and methods for estimating costs (Otte
and Boehlje, 1976; and Pundari and Coates, 1975) are available.
However, the additional costs of reclaiming a land to a selected
land use are highly variable. Relative costs estimates, expressed
in dollars/acre, based on Soil Conservation Service cost figures for
grading and planting, have been made for each of the six land uses
(Appendix D). Weights have been assigned to each land use based on
these estimates (Table 39).
44
-------
TABLE 36. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO LAND USE PREFERENCE WEIGHTS
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Land use
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
preference weight
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
4
4
5
2
3
3
3
5
5
45
-------
TABLE 37. WEIGHTS AND IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE POTENTIAL NUMBER OF JOBS FOR EACH LAND USE
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Description of
job duties
Plowing, planting, maintenance,
harvesting
Planting, maintenance
Planting, maintenance, clearing/
thinning, harvesting
Planting, maintenance, enforcement,
Planting, maintenance, enforcement,
Number of
persons
2
1
3
2
3
Weight
3
5
2
3
2
Importance
2
1
3
2
4
cleanup
Multiuse Planting, maintenance, enforcement,
cleanup
-------
TABLE 38. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO UNEMPLOYMENT
Un employmen t
Weight
less than 1 1
1 to 3 2
3.1 to 5 3
5.1 to 7 4
greater than 7 5
TABLE 39. WEIGHTS AND IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO ADDITIONAL COSTS*
Additional costs
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
dollars/acre
3630
50
75
225
200
130
Weight
5
1
2
3
3
2
Importance
1
3
2
4
4
3
*Explanations and calculations for each of these values are given in
Appendix C.
47
-------
Thus, magnitude is represented by the weighted additional cost
values (Table 39). It is assumed that additional costs can be offset
by expected monetary returns from the land use. In Table 39,
importance values have been assigned to each land use indicating the
anticipated profits.
Aesthetic Properties
Public Attitude—Community acceptance with land use selection is
critical (Research Committee on Coal Mine Spoil Revegetation in
Pennsylvania, 1965). In order to determine the public's preference
for each of the land uses, such as agriculture, forestry, or
recreation, survey techniques were used (Appendix C, question 5).
From the responses it was possible to estimate what percent of the
population favored the existing and anticipated land uses. In
Table 40, weights have been assigned to percentage ranges. The
importance of the anticipated public attitude for each land use is
shown in Table 41.
Area Mined and Visual Conformity—Aesthetically speaking, a
decrease in the amount of acres disturbed during mining is beneficial.
For this property, the magnitude is represented by the weight for the
amount of acres mined (Table 42). Ideally, the intended land use
should aesthetically blend with the rest of the landscape. This
degree of visual conformity of the land use to the surrounding area
is a subjective appraisal based on the onsite inspection and aerial
photographs (if available). The significance value is determined by
the sum of the weight for the acres to be mined and the importance
value, which indicates the degree of conformity. Importance values
48
-------
TABLE 40. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO PUBLIC ATTITUDE
% of the population in Public attitude
favor of the land use Weight
greater than 80 I
61 to 80 2
41 to 60 3
21 to 40 4
less than 20 5
TABLE 41. IMPORTANCE VALUES ASSIGNED TO PUBLIC
ATTITUDE WEIGHTS
Public attitude weight
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
4
4
5
2
3
3
3
5
5
49
-------
TABLE 42. WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO AREA MINED
Area mined
Acres
less than 25
25 to 50
51 to 75
76 to 100
greater than 100
Weight
1
2
3
4
5
range from aesthetically conforming (1), to moderately conforming (3),
and to non-conforming (5).
INTERPRETATION OF THE CALCULATIONS TO DETERMINE THE RECLAMATION
POTENTIAL OF A SELECTED LAND USE
We recall that the reclamation potential for a site is determined
by the sum of the changes in the physical and chemical properties of
the area's soils and the economics and aesthetics associated with strip
mining and reclamation. The values for property magnitude and signif-
icance are listed in the four property matrices for each land use.
These values were summed and averaged, the results are reported in the
summary tables. Differences can be .interpreted by reviewing the four
property matrices and noting unusually high and low values. This
review process can serve as a guide to select those properties, if
amended, that would improve the reclamation potential of a given land
use.
The reclamation potential for a given land use is determined by
the sum of the four property average significance values alone, with
50
-------
the optimum land use having the lowest total significance value. Low
magnitude values are beneficial; however, the values by themselves do
not indicate the severity of the property level with respect to the
land use in question (i.e., a magnitude of 1 may be the result of a
1/1 or a 4/4 ratio of anticipated to existing values). Magnitude
values are included in the determination of reclamation potentials if
significance values for two or more land uses are identical. In this
situation, the land use with the lower magnitude value, indicating a
more overall improvement in site characteristics following reclamation,
would have the better reclamation potential.
AN EXAMPLE
To illustrate the use of this model, the influence of four
properties, one physical (coarse fragments content), one chemical
(pH), one economic (effect of unemployment), and one aesthetic (area
mined and visual conformity) and their effect on the reclamation
potential of corn at a hypothetical site (Y) will be examined.
Site Y is 45% soil A and 55% soil B. Therefore, the soil
coefficients for A and B are .45 and .55, respectively. Existing
property values are as follows:
coarse fragments content: Soil A = 29%
Soil B = 492
pH: Soil A = 5.3
Soil B = 4.9
effect of unemployment: 5% unemployment in the county
area mined and visual conformity: 90 acres to be mined
51
-------
Anticipated physical and chemical values for each soil are based
on its pH value. Soil A corresponds to minesoil group I (Table Bl and
B2), the anticipated coarse fragments content and pH are 77.8% and 6.1
units, respectively. Soil B corresponds to minesoil group II (Table
B3 and B4), and the anticipated coarse fragments content and pH are
75.5% and 4.3 units, respectively.
The physical property matrix for soil A is given in Table 43.
Magnitude and significance values are taken from Tables 12 and 13.
The existing coarse fragments content of 29% has a weight of 1 (Table
12) and the anticipated coarse fragments content of 77.8% has a weight
of 5 (Table 12). Therefore, the magnitude (the ratio of anticipated
value weight to existing value weight) is 5/1 or 5 (Table 43). The
importance value of the anticipated coarse fragments content with
respect to corn, is 5 (Table 13). Therefore, the significance value
which is the sum of the weighted anticipated value and the importance
value is 5 + 5 or 10 (Table 43). The weighted sum for coarse fragments
content for soil A is the sum of the soil coefficient (.45) times the
magnitude and times the significance values above.
Physical property matrix for soil B (Table 44) and chemical
property matrix for soil A (Table 43) and soil B (Table 44) are
determined in the same manner.
The economic and aesthetic properties matrix at site Y is shown
in Table 45. Anticipated economic and aesthetic properties are
independent of the site's soils. For the effect of unemployment
property (economic), magnitude is represented by the ratio of the
weight associated with anticipated number of persons required to do
the work (Table 37) and the weight associated with the total
52
-------
TABLE 43. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR
SOIL A AT SITE Y
Land Use
Properties
Physical
Coarse fragments content
Chemical
pH
Corn
5110
3312
TABLE 44. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR
SOIL B AT SITE Y
Land Use
Properties
Physical
Coarse fragments content
Chemical
pH
Corn
2-5170
1-25 10
TABLE 45. ECONOMIC AND AESTHETIC PROPERTIES MATRIX
AT SITE Y
Land Use
Properties
Economic
Effect of
unemployment
Aesthetic
Area mined and
visual conformity
Corn
1 I 5
t I 5
53
-------
unemployment in the area (Table 38). The magnitude is 3/3 or 1
(Table 45). The significance again represented by the weights
associated with the anticipated number of people needed to do the
work (Table 37) plus the importance value (Table 37). The economic
significance value is therefore 3 + 2 or 5 (Table 45).
For the visual conformity property matrix for the area mined the
magnitude is given by a weighted value which represents the amount of
acres being mined (Table 42). Since ninety acres are being mined at
site Y, the magnitude is 4 (Table 45). Significance, given by the
sum of weighted value and the importance value, represents the degree
to which the proposed land use will conform to the surrounding
landscape (see page 50). At site Y, corn should be aesthetically
conforming, so the significance value is 4 + 1 or 5 (Table 45).
The physical and chemical properties and the weighted sums for
corn are given in Table 46. The average sums calculated (Appendix F,
Tables Fl through F12 and Tables F25 through F36) by dividing the sum
of weighted sums for individual physical and chemical properties by
the number of components (7 for physical, 7 for chemical, 4 for
economic, and 2 for aesthetic). In this example since only one
physical and chemical property each were chosen, the average sum
equals the weighted sum. Similar inferences can be made for the
economic and aesthetic properties for corn (Tables F13 through F24
and Tables F37 through F48). The average sums for the economic and
aesthetic properties equal the site values found in Table 45.
54
-------
The reclamation potential for corn at site Y, is the sum of the
four average sums:
3.37110.00 + .8416.40 + 1.0015.00 + 4.0015-00 = 9. 21126. 4
TABLE 46. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR
CORN AT SITE Y*
Properties
Physical Chemical
Soil Typef Coarse fragments content pH
510 .3312
2.5110 1.25110
Weighted sum
3-37|10.00 . 8 i* I 6 . 4 0
*Component values are taken from Tables 43 and 44.
fSoil coefficients for soils A and B are .45 and .55,
respectively.
55
-------
SECTION 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ANALYSIS OF SELECTED SITE PROPERTIES AT SITE 1
Physical Properties
Slope— Existing values of slope in the Bradford Township site 1
are found in Appendix A (Table Al). The slope for the Gilpin soil
(17 to 25%) will most likely create soil management problems related
to the use of machinery, seed emergence, runoff, and erosion.
Management problems are less likely to occur on the Weikert soil and
on the old Minesoil because the slope is less severe. The Berks and
Cookport soils have the least slope which should not inhibit manage-
ment practices. In Appendix E, Tables El, E2, E3, E4 and E5 show
separately for each soil the component values and the physical
properties matrix for different land uses. We recall that values on
the left of the slash line represent the magnitude of the property,
and the values on the right of the slash line represent the signifi-
cance of the property. Reclamation on this site will probably
restore the land to its original contour, therefore, no change in the
magnitude of slope is expected. Consequently, the matrix values of
the property slope will be determined by the values of significance,
the lower the significance the smaller the impact. The significance
values for the Berks (Table El) and Cookport soils (Table E2) are
identical. They are lower than those for the Weikert soil (Table E4)
and the Minesoil (Table E5) which also have identical significance
56
-------
5.7
values. The highest significance values occur on Gilpin soil (Table
S3). Regardless of the soil, corn has the highest and trails have
the lowest significance values.
Erosion— Existing values for erosion are reported in Appendix A
(Table Al). The composite erosion for the site preceding reclamation
is relatively low, the anticipated erosion values being dependent on
land use C factors (Table A2). No change in magnitude occurs with
the Berks soil (Table El), and the highest magnitude is found for
pine on the Minesoil (Table E5). Erosion increases or remains the
same for all land uses except meadow. A decrease in erosion occurs
if the land is reclaimed in meadow on Gilpin (Table E3) and on Weikert
soils (Table E4)• The anticipated erosion value of significance was
maximum (10) for pine, corn, and multiuse on the Gilpin soil
(Table E3) and for pine on the Weikert soil (Table E4) and on the
Minesoil (Table E5). In general, it is desirable to have low
magnitude and significance values. On all soils significance values
for meadow were consistently low.
Texture— Existing values of texture are given in Appendix A
(Table Al). Since in this study texture is correlated with
permeability the loamy texture of the Berks, Cookport, and Weikert
soils should enhance permeability, while the finer texture of Gilpin
soil may inhibit permeability. The loamy sand texture of the
Minesoil may induce excessive permeability rates leaving the profile
dry. The anticipated texture value (Table Bl) indicates that a
loamy sand texture will exist after mining. Although no change in
magnitude occurs with the Minesoil (Table E5), the change in magnitude
for the Berks (Table El), Cookport (Table E2), and Weikert soils
57
-------
58
(Table E4) shows that texture will degrade to a greater extent than it
will for the Gilpin soil (Table E3). For all soils, the significance
of the anticipated texture for corn and multiuse is slightly higher
than the significance for the other land uses.
Permeability—Existing values for permeability are found in
Appendix A (Table Al). With the'exception of the Minesoil (101.7
mm/hr), all soils at site 1 are within the optimum range (20.32 mm/hr
to 63.50 mm/hr) making them ideal for air and water movement. The
anticipated permeability value (Table Bl) is based on the hydraulic
conductivity of the anticipated texture class. No change in magnitude
occurs with the Minesoil (Table E5), while the magnitude is twice as
large but remains the same for each land use for the Berks (Table El),
Cookport (Table E2), Gilpin (Table E3), and Weikert soils (Table E4).
For all soils, the value of property significance for corn is slightly
higher than it is for the other land uses.
Coarse Fragments Content— Existing values for coarse fragments
content are summarized in Appendix A (Table Al). In existing profiles
the coarse fragments content is quite low in the Cookport soil, but
higher in the Berks, Gilpin, and Weikert soils and the Minesoil. The
anticipated values are to be found in Appendix B (Table Bl). No
change in magnitude occurs with the Minesoil (Table E5). Changes
occur in the Berks (Table El), Cookport (Table E2), Gilpin (Table E3),
and Weikert soils (Table E4). The significance value of the antici-
pated coarse fragments content is maximum for corn, meadow, and
multiuse. The other land uses appear less affected.
Depth to Limiting Layer— Depth to a limiting layer may be a
seasonally high water table (as for the Cookport soil) or bedrock
58
-------
(as for the Berks, Gilpin, and Weikert soils). Existing values are
shown in Appendix A (Table Al). For most land uses the Berks,
Cookport, and Gilpin soils extend to adequate depths. The Weikert
soil and the Minesoil are more shallow and may encourage flooding
and adversely affect plant growth. The anticipated values following
reclamation are estimated in Appendix B, Table Bl. Although no
change in magnitude occurs with the Weikert soil (Table E4) or Mine-
soil (Table E5), the increase in magnitude for the Berks (Table El),
Cookport (Table E2), and Gilpin soils (Table E3) suggests that the
depth to the limiting layer will decrease. The significance values
are again highest for corn and multiuse and lowest for wildlife
habitat.
Bulk Density— Existing values for bulk density are reported in
Appendix A (Table Al). Prior to reclamation the bulk density of the
Berks soil (1.38 g/cc) is the only acceptable value. The values for
the Cookport, Gilpin, and Weikert soils and the Minesoil are larger
and will likely affect the water and nutrient contents, the water to
air ratio, the development of the root system, and crop yields. The
value of 1.78 g/cc is used for the anticipated bulk density (Pedersen,
1977). No change in magnitude occurs with the Cookport (Table E2),
Gilpin (Table E3), Weikert soils (Table E4) and Minesoil (Table E5)
although the magnitude increased slightly for the Berks soil
(Table El). The significance value of the anticipated bulk density is
again maximum for corn. The other land uses appear less affected.
59
-------
Chemical Properties
pH— Existing values of pH in the Bradford Township site 1 are
found in Appendix A (Table A3). Prior to reclamation, the pH values
for the Berks and Weikert soils and the Minesoil are favorable for
plant growth (slightly acid to neutral). The more acidic Gilpin soil
is less favorable and the strongly acidic Cookport soil is the least
favorable. On this soil pH will most likely inhibit nutrient
availability, contribute to toxicity, and adversely affect plant
growth. In Appendix E, Tables E6, E7, E8, E9 and E10 show separately
for each soil the component values and the chemical properties matrix
for different land uses. The anticipated pH values are given in
Appendix B, Table B2. No change in magnitude occurs with the Berks
(Table E6) and Weikert soils (Table E9) and the Minesoil (Table E10).
However, the decrease in magnitude for the Cookport (Table E7) and
Gilpin soils (Table E8) may indicate an improvement in pH value
following reclamation. The significance values for all soils are
identical and at a minimum (2). We recall that a low significance
value suggests a good potential for establishing a given land use after
reclamat ion.
Cation Exchange Capacity— Existing values of cation exchange
capacity are reported in Appendix A (Table A3). The anticipated
cation exchange capacity values (Table B2) appear adequate. Therefore,
the magnitude remains the same for the Berks (Table E6), Cookport
(Table E7), Gilpin (Table E8), and Weikert soils (Table E9) as well as
the Minesoil (Table E10). The significance values for all soils are
identical and at a minimum.
60
-------
Potassium Content— Existing values for potassium content are
summarized in Appendix A (Table A3). The existing value for the
Weikert soil (2.8% of the cation exchange capacity) is the only
acceptable one. The values for the Berks, Cookport, and Gilpin soils
and the Minesoil are less than 2% and may affect the protein balance,
cell permeability, translocation of carbohydrates, iron mobility, and
resistance to disease in plants. Anticipated potassium content values
are found in Appendix B, Table B2. The magnitude remains the same for
the Berks (Table E6), Cookport (Table E7), and Gilpin soils (Table E8)
and the Minesoil (Table E10), while the magnitude increases for the
Weikert soil (Table E9) indicating a decrease in potassium content.
The significance values of the anticipated potassium content is
maximum for corn. The other land uses seem less affected.
Magnesium_Content— Existing values for magnesium content are
shown in Appendix A (Table A3). In Berks and Gilpin soils and the
Minesoil magnesium contents are greater than 10% of the cation exchange
capacity value and will probably not affect the uptake of phosphorus
and the chlorophyll balance; however, the values for the Cookport and
Weikert soils are less and may present a problem. The anticipated
magnesium content values following reclamation are estimated in
Appendix B, Table B2. No change in magnitude occurs with the Berks
(Table E6) and Gilpin soils (Table E8) and the Minesoil (Table E10).
An increase in magnesium content is anticipated in the Cookport
(Table E7) and Weikert soils (Table E9). As before, the significance
values for all soils are identical and at a minimum.
Calcium Content— Existing values of calcium content are listed
in Appendix A (Table A3). The Berks and Weikert soils are in the
61
-------
minimum range (60 to 80% of the cation exchange capacity) of a
balanced soil. The calcium content values for the other soils are
much less and will most likely affect cell absorption and division.
The anticipated values following reclamation are also very low
(Table B2). The magnitude of this property for the Cookport
(Table E7) and Gilpin soils (Table E8) and the Minesoil (Table E10)
will experience a decrease in calcium content. The significance
value of the anticipated calcium content appears higher for corn than
the other land uses.
Organic Matter Content— Existing values of organic matter con-
tent are found in Appendix A (Table A3). The premining organic matter
content for the Cookport soil (.03% nitrogen) is quite low. The
values for the Berks, Gilpin, and Weikert soils and the Minesoil are
higher and are likely to increase the availability of carbohydrates
and nutrients. The anticipated value (Table B2) is comparable to the
calcium content of the Berks (Table E6), Gilpin (Table E8), and
Weikert soils (Table E9) and the Minesoil (Table E10) and no change in
magnitude is expected for these soils. The decrease in magnitude for
the Cookport soil (Table E7) shows that reclamation may improve the
organic matter content for that soil. As before, significance values
are highest for corn.
Sulfur — We recall that the magnitude is represented by the ratio
of the anticipated property value to the existing property value.
Also, the significance is represented by the sum of the weight of
anticipated property level and the importance of that property level
to the land use. A modification of this procedure is employed to
evaluate the effect of sulfur content on the land uses. Existing
62
-------
values for sulfur content are greater than .05% for all soils and have
received a weight of 5. The magnitude is represented by the sum of
this weight and the weight assigned to the lowest coal seam being
mined at the site (Table 31). For site 1, the lowest coal seam being
mined is the Lower Kittanning (5) which has high potential for
increasing acid mine drainage. Therefore, the magnitude for all land
uses for Berks (Table E6), Cookport (Table E7), Gilpin (Table E8), and
Weikert soils (Table E9) and the Minesoil (Table E10) are at a maximum
(10). The significance is represented by the weight of the lowest
coal seam being mined and the importance of the sulfur content to the
land use (Table 32). Corn seems to be most affected, while the effect
on trails appears to be least.
Economic Properties
Land Property Value— The existing and anticipated land property
values for the Bradford Township site 1 are found in Table 33
(Group IV). The existing land is a mixture of rolling to steeply
sloping meadow, brush, and woodland. The magnitude and significance
values are given in Appendix E, Table Ell. In general, low magnitude
and significance values are desirable. No change in magnitude should
occur if this land is reclaimed to a meadow or wildlife habitat. The
other land uses will decrease the magnitude enhancing the property
values with corn having the greatest influence. Low significance land
property values occur with corn, wildlife habitat, trails, and
multiuse. Meadow has the highest significance value, suggesting that
this land use would not be economically favored at this site.
63
-------
Reallocation of State Income Tax — Values for the amount of state
income tax the people would be willing to reallocate to prevent strip
mining and the amount of state income tax the people would be willing
to reallocate in order to reclaim the land to a selected land use are
reported in Table 47. Values are estimated from responses to opinion
surveys (Appendix C, questions 5, 6, 7, and 12 and Table C2). We
recall that the magnitude value is typically the ratio of the antici-
pated property value to the existing property value. For this
property, the magnitude is represented by the sum of the reallocation
values for preventing strip mining and reclaiming the land to a
selected land use. The significance value is represented by the sum
of the amount of state income tax the people would be willing to
reallocate to reclaim the land to a selected land use and the impor-
tance value (Table 36). Magnitude and significance values are report-
ed in Table Ell. For site 1, the magnitude increases more for trails
and multiuse, indicating that people would be likely to reallocate
more for the other land uses. The significance reallocation of state
income tax values are lowest for corn and highest for trails and
multiuse.
Effect of Unemployment .— The existing township unemployment
figure is not available for Bradford Township, so the unemployment
figure for Clearfield County (8.0%), available through the county
courthouse, was used. The anticipated value is represented by the
potential number of men that would be needed to maintain a selected
land use (Table 37). Magnitude and significance values are shown in
Table Ell. The magnitude for meadow remains the same. However,
decreases in magnitude for the other land uses (especially multiuse)
64
-------
TABLE 47. THE AMOUNT OF STATE INCOME TAX WILLING TO BE REALLOCATED PER
FAMILY PER YEAR TO PREVENT STRIP MINING AND TO RECLAIM
THE LAND TO A SELECTED LAND USE AT SITE 1*
Amount of state income tax
Land Use willing to be reallocated
dollars/family/year
Prevent strip mining 49.40
Corn 121.33
Meadow 121.33
Pine 118.22
Wildlife habitat 118.22
Trails 80.60
Multiuse 80.60
*Explanations and calculations for each of these values are reported in
Appendix C.
65
-------
suggest that employment for the township could be improved. The
significance of the effect of unemployment is less for corn, pine,
and wildlife habitat than it is for the other land uses.
Additional Costs—Additional costs of reclaiming a land to a
given land use are summarized in Table 39. The magnitude (Table Ell)
is represented by the value found in Table 39 which indicates that
corn will be the most expensive to establish while meadow will cost
the least. The significance of additional costs is low for meadow
and pine and high for wildlife habitat and trails (Table Ell).
Aesthetic Properties
Public Attitude—Public attitude values for Bradford Township
for the existing and selected land uses are found in Table 48.
Values were estimated based on opinion surveys (Appendix C, question
5). Pine and wildlife habitat are slightly favored over corn and
meadow. Trails and multiuse are favored by only a small portion (3%)
of the population. Magnitude and significance values are found in
Appendix E, Table E12. No change in magnitude is likely to occur if
the land is reclaimed to corn, meadow, pine, or wildlife habitat;
however, a slight increase in magnitude indicates that some public
disapproval could be anticipated if the land is reclaimed to trails
or multiuse. The lowest significance public attitude value occurs
with corn. Maximum significance values (10) occur with trails and
multiuse.
Area Mined and Visual Conformity—Magnitude and significance
values are given in Table E12. We recall that magnitude is
represented by the ratio of the anticipated property value to the
66
-------
TABLE 48. PUBLIC ATTITUDE VALUES FOR SELECTED LAND USES
BASED ON THE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION THAT WOULD RANK
THAT LAND USE ABOVE THE OTHER LAND USES AT SITE 1
Land Use Public attitude
% of population
Corn 45
Meadow 45
Pine 54
Wildlife habitat 54
Trails 3
Multiuse 3
67
-------
existing property value. For this property, magnitude is represented
by a value which indicates the amount of acres being mined (Table 42).
Approximately 77 acres are being mined in Bradford Township. We
recall that significance is represented by the sum of the anticipated
property value and the importance of the anticipated property value.
For this property significance is the sum of a subjective numerical
representation of the degree to which the selected land use conforms
with the rest of the landscape and the importance value. All land
uses appear to be aesthetically conforming, with the exception of
multiuse. The higher significance value for multiuse indicates that
multiuse at this site would probably be somewhat out of place.
ESTIMATION OF RECLAMATION POTENTIAL FOR EACH
LAND USE AT SITE 1
The average sums of the physical properties for corn, meadow,
pine, wildlife habitat, trails, and multiuse are found in Appendix F,
Tables Fl, F2, F3, F4, F5 and F6, respectively. We note that only
the physical property magnitude values for erosion vary between land
uses. We recall that low magnitude and significance values are
beneficial. No change in magnitude occurs- with slope. Generally,
magnitude progressively increases with depth to limiting layer, bulk
density, permeability, coarse fragments content, texture, and
erosion; however, the magnitude value for erosion for meadow (Table
F2) is slightly less than the depth to limiting layer. Typically,
low significance values occur with slope, where high values occur
with coarse fragments content and bulk density.
In Appendix F, Tables F7, F8, F9, F10, Fll and F12 the average
sums of the chemical properties for corn, meadow, pine, wildlife
68
-------
habitat, trails, and multiuse are shown, respectively. There is no
variation in the chemical property magnitude values between land
uses. A decrease in magnitude with pH, magnesium content, and
organic matter content indicates an improvement in these chemical
properties after reclamation. No change in magnitude occurs with
cation exchange capacity. There is a slight increase in magnitude
with potassium content and calcium content, but the largest increase
occurs with sulfur. Significance values are lowest for pH, cation
exchange capacity, and magnesium content, where the highest
significance values occur with sulfur.
The average sums of the economic properties for corn, meadow,
pine, wildlife habitat, trails, and multisue are given in Appendix
F, Tables F13, F14, F15, F16, F17 and F18, respectively. For the
land property value, a decrease in magnitude occurs with corn
(Table F13), pine (Table F15), trails (Table F17), and multiuse
(Table F18) indicating that the property value will likely improve
if the land is reclaimed to one of these uses. No change in property
value magnitude occurs with meadow (Table F14) or wildlife habitat
(Table F16). The significance land property values for wildlife
habitat (Table F16) is less than the significance values for the other
land uses. For the effect of the reallocation of state income tax
property, somewhat higher magnitude and significance values occur with
trails (Table F17) and multiuse (Table F18) than with the other land
uses. The lowest significance reallocation of state income tax value
occurs with corn (Table F13). For the effect of the unemployment
property, a decrease in magnitude (suggesting a potential increase in
employment) occurs for all land uses except meadow (Table F14) where
69
-------
no change is anticipated. The significance effect of unemployment
values are slightly higher for meadow (Table F14), trails (Table F17),
and multiuse (Table F18). For the additional costs property, no
change in magnitude is expected for meadow (Table F14), and the
largest increase in magnitude is expected for corn (Table F13)
indicating that corn will probably be the most expensive land use to
establish. Significance additional cost values are lowest for meadow
(Table F14) and pine (Table F15), and highest for wildlife habitat
(Table F16) and trails (Table F17).
In Appendix F, Tables F19, F20, F21, F22, F23 and F24 the average
sums of the aesthetic properties for corn, meadow, pine, wildlife
habitat, trails, and multiuse are reported, respectively. For the
public attitude property value, an increase in magnitude is
anticipated for trails (Table F23) and multiuse (Table F24). The
significance public attitude value is lowest for corn (Table F19) and
highest for trails (Table F23) and multiuse (Table F24). For the
area mined and visual conformity property, the increase in magnitude
(4) is the same for all land uses. Significance values are also the
same (5) except for multiuse (Table F24), which is slightly higher
than the other land uses.
The reclamation potentials for corn, meadow, pine, wildlife
habitat, trails, and multiuse at site 1 are summarized in Table 49.
We recall that land use reclamation potentials are determined by the
significance values alone. Low magnitude values are beneficial;
however, they are only considered in the estimation of reclamation
potentials if significance values for two or more land uses are
identical. Although meadow has the lowest magnitude value (8.39),
70
-------
TABLE 49. RECLAMATION POTENTIALS FOR EACH LAND USE AT SITE 1
Land Use
Corn*
Meadowf
PineJ
Wildlife habitat§
Trails*
Multiuse**
Physical
1.68
1 . 44
1.77
1.61
1-69
1.61
7.70
6.19
6.83
6.42
5-99
6.78
Property
Chemical
2.45
2-45
2.45
2.45
2-45
2.45
6.29
5.43
5.29
5.14
4-71
5.00
average sums
Economic
2.71
2.00
2.04
2.77
2-54
2.18
5.25
5.50
5-00
5.50
6-75
6.25
Aesthetic Sum
2
2
2
2
2
2
. 50
. 50
. 50
. 50
• 84
. 84
4.50 9.34
5.00 8.39
5.00 8.76
5.00 8.88
7-50 9-52
8.50 9.08
2 3 .
22 .
22 -
22 .
24-
26.
74
12
12
06
9 5
5 3
*Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables PI, F7, F13, and F19).
fComponent values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F2, F8, F14, and F20).
^Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F3, F9, F15, and F21).
§Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F4, FlO, F16, and F22),
//Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F5, Fll, F17, and F23) .
Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F6, F12, F18, and F24),
-------
wildlife habitat has been estimated to have the best reclamation
potential at site 1, because it has the lowest significance value
(22.06) of the six land uses under consideration in this study. Pine
and meadow land uses have equal significance values; however, the
magnitude value for meadow is less making reclamation to pine less
favorable. Trails, corn, and multiuse had higher significance values
and consequently worse reclamation potentials. Multiuse had the
highest significance value (26.53), while trails had the highest
magnitude value (9.52).
INFLUENCE OF EACH PROPERTY ON RECLAMATION
POTENTIAL AT SITE 1
In Figures 6 and 7 magnitude and significance of the physical,
chemical, economic, and aesthetic properties for each land use are
displayed. Tables 50 and 51 show separately for each property the
range of values, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of
variation for property magnitude and significance values for the
land uses, respectively.
Of the four properties, the physical properties have the lowest
mean magnitude value (1.63), but the standard deviation is also low
which indicates that the magnitude of this property varies little
between land uses (Table 50). The mean magnitude values for the
chemical, economic, and aesthetic properties are higher; however,
there is no variation in mean values between land uses for the
chemical properties. The mean values for the economic properties
show the greatest variation between land uses (.34). Therefore, the
variation in the overall magnitude value for each of the land uses
appears to be most influenced by the economic properties.
72
-------
-------
73
-------
Figure 6. Variation in property magnitude at site 1, Bradford
Township, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.
-------
UJ
O
D
J—
Z
8
7
6
5
4
LAND USE
_ —
QCorn E3Wildlife Habitat
_ §2 Meadow 0 Trails ..
B3 Pine § Multiuse
— ~
_
G
Economic
PROPERTIES
Aesthetic
-------
-------
75
-------
Figure 7. Variation in property significance at site 1, Bradford
Township, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.
-------
S IGNIFICANCE
N3CO-feUlO)-JQO(OO
3-
*<
(0
o'
O
Tl
m
m
CO
o
rr
0)
S.
o
O
-t
• •••••
• * J
&i
m
o
o
3
O
>^s^^^^ I
>
Z
O
-------
TABLE 50. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF THE MAGNITUDE VALUES FOR
THE LAND USES BY PROPERTY AT SITE 1
Statistical comparison
Property Range Mean
Physical 1.44 to 1.77 1.63
Chemical 2.45 2.45
Economic 2.00 to 2.77 2.37
Aesthetics 2.50 to 2.84 2.61
Standard
deviation
.11
.0
.34
.18
Coefficient of
variation
%
7
0
14
7
TABLE 51. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF THE SIGNIFICANCE VALUES
FOR THE LAND USES BY PROPERTY AT SITE 1
Statistical comparison
Property
Physical
Chemical
Economic
Aesthetics
Range Mean
5.99 to 7.70 6.65
4.71 to 6.29 5.31
5.00 to 6.75 5.71
4.50 to 3.50 5.42
Standard
deviation
.61
.54
.66
2.31
Coefficient of
variation
%
9
10
12
43
77
-------
As shown in Table 51, the physical properties mean significance
value is the highest (6.65), but the variation between land uses is
greatest with the aesthetic properties indicated by its standard
deviation (2.31). Therefore, the variation in the overall signifi-
cance value for each land use seems to be most influenced by the
aesthetic properties.
COMPARISON OF CHANGES IN PROPERTY LEVELS AND THE EFFECT OF
THESE CHANGES ON EACH LAND USE AT SITE 1
We recall that land use reclamation potentials are determined by
the significance values which are represented by the sum of the weight
assigned to an anticipated property level and the importance of that
level to the land use in question. The assignment of higher physical
and chemical importance values to corn placed corn at a disadvantage
over meadow, pine, wildlife habitat, trails, and multiuse (Figure 7).
Trails appear to be least affected by the physical and chemical
properties. Soil amendments that improve the reclamation potential
for one land use will most likely improve the reclamation potentials
for the other land uses.
At site 1, when considering the significance values of the
economic properties, pine has been estimated to have the highest
potential and trails the lowest (Figure 7). Reclamation potentials
can improve for corn (Table F13), meadow (Table F14), pine (Table F15),
trails (Table F17), and multiuse (Table F18) if the property values
are increased; for meadow (Table F14), trails (Table F17), and
multiuse (Table F18) if the effects of unemployment are minimized; and
for corn (Table F13), wildlife habitat (Table F16), trails (Table F17),
and multiuse (Table F18) if additional costs can be reduced. Due to
78
-------
the nature of the questions used to determine the data for the reallo-
cation of state income tax, public attitude, and the area mined and
visual conformity properties (Appendix C, questions 5, 6, 7, and 12),
no improvement in these properties for any land use is likely to occur.
Corn and meadow are the two land uses most aesthetically favored in
Bradford Township, whereas much opposition may arise if the land is
reclaimed to multiuse (Figure 7).
ANALYSIS OF SELECTED SITE PROPERTIES AT SITE 2
Physical Properties
Slope— Existing values of slope in the Somerset/Brothers Valley
site 2 are found in Appendix A (Table A4). NO slope for any soil
exceeds 8%. In Appendix E, Tables E13, E14., E15, E16 and E17 show
separately for each soil the component values and the physical
properties matrix for different land uses. As with the Bradford site,
no change in magnitude of slope is expected, so the matrix values of
the property slope will be determined by the values of significance.
The significance values for the Cookport (Table E14) and the Nolo
soils (Table E16) are identical and all land uses appear to be affect-
ed in the same way. The significance values for the Cavode (Table
E13), Hazleton (Table E15), and Wharton soils (Table E17) are larger
and indicate that corn is more affected by the degree of slope than
the other land uses.
Erosion— Existing values for erosion are given in Appendix A
(Table A4). Prior to reclamation, erosion values for the Hazleton
and Nolo soils were quite low. Erosion is somewhat greater on the
Wharton soil and much greater on the Cavode and Cookport soils, which
79
-------
may affect the breakdown of soil aggregates, crust formation, and
channelized flow through rills and gullies. Anticipated erosion
values are dependent on land use C factors (Table A5.). Magnitude
values for the Cavode (Table E13), and the Cookport soils (Table E14)
indicate that if the land is reclaimed and topsoiled with either the
Cavode or Cookport soil, erosion will likely remain the same or
decrease depending on the land uses, while on the Hazleton (Table E15)
and Nolo soils erosion is expected to increase. Erosion magnitude for
the Wharton soil (Table E17) increases for all land uses with the
exception of meadow. The anticipated significance value of erosion
was minimum (2) for meadow on all soils and maximum (10) for pine on
the Wharton soil (Table E17).
Texture— Existing values of texture are reported in Appendix A
(Table A4). Since texture is correlated with permeability, the loamy
texture of the Cookport, Hazleton, and Nolo soils should enhance
permeability, while the finer texture of the Cavode and Wharton soils
may inhibit permeability. The anticipated values for the Cookport
and Wharton soils (Table Bl) indicate that a loamy sand texture will
exist after mining. For the Cavode, Hazleton, and Nolo soils
(Table B3) sandy loam texture should prevail. The only decrease in
magnitude occurs with the Cavode soil (Table E13) , which suggests
that texture may improve after reclamation. The magnitude increases
for the Cookport (Table E14), Hazleton (Table E15), Nolo (Table E16),
and Wharton soils (Table E17 ). The largest increase occurs with the
Cookport soil (Table E14). The anticipated significance value of
texture is much higher with the Cookport (Table E14) and Wharton soils
(Table E17 ). Corn and multiuse have the highest significance values.
80
-------
Permeability— Existing values of permeability are summarized in
Appendix A (Table A4). Only the Cookport and Hazleton soils have
adequate permeabilities. The permeabilities for the Nolo soil
(moderately slow) and the Cavode and Wharton soils (very slow) may
prevent air and water movement. Anticipated permeability values are
based on the hydraulic conductivity of the anticipated texture class.
The anticipated values are found in Appendix B, Tables Bl and B3. No
change in magnitude occurs with the Hazleton soil (Table E15).
Although an increase in magnitude does occur with the Cookport soil
(Table E14) , the magnitude decreases for the Cavode (Table £13.) , Nolo
(Table E.16), and Wharton soils (Table E17). Property significance
values are higher with the Cookport (Table E14) and Wharton soils
(Table E17). Again, the highest significance values occur with corn.
Coarse Fragments Content— Existing values for coarse fragments
content are listed in Appendix A (Table A4). The coarse fragments
content prior to mining was very low for all soils, except for the
Hazleton (57.5%). The anticipated values are given in Appendix B,
Tables Bl and B3• Magnitude increases for the Cavode (Table E13),
Cookport (Table E14), Hazleton (Table E15), Nolo (Table E16) , and
Wharton soils (Table E17) , which indicate that the coarse fragments
content of the soil column will likely increase after reclamation.
The significance value of the anticipated coarse fragments content is
maximum for corn, meadow, and multiuse. The other land uses seem less
affected.
Depth to Limiting Layer— Existing values for the depth to limit-
ing layer are found in Appendix A (Table A4). A seasonally high water
table is the limiting layer for all soils. The water table for the
81
-------
Cookport, Hazleton, and Wharton soils is low enough to support most
land uses. The Cavode and Nolo water tables are closer to the
surface which may prevent reclaiming the land to any land use. The
anticipated values are reported in Appendix B, Tables Bl and B3. The
only decrease in magnitude occurs with the Cavode soil (Table E13).
The magnitude increases for the Cookport (Table E14), Hazleton
(Table E15), Nolo (Table E16), and Wharton soils (Table E17). The
significance value of the depth to limiting layer is highest for corn
and multiuse and lowest for wildlife habitat.
Bulk Density;— Existing values of bulk density are shown in
Appendix A (Table A4). For all soils, bulk density values are high
(>1.45 g/cc). The value of 1.78 g/cc is used for the anticipated bulk
density (Pedersen, 1977). No change in magnitude occurs with the
Cavode (Table E13), Cookport (Table E14) , Hazleton (Table E15), Nolo
(Table E16), and Wharton soils (Table E17). The significance value of
the anticipated bulk density is again maximum for corn. The other
land uses appear less affected.
Chemical Properties
pH— Existing values of pH in the Somerset/Brothers Valley Town-
ships site 2 are listed in Appendix A (Table A6). The pH values
range from strongly acid for the Cookport and Wharton soils to very
strongly acid for the Cavode, Hazleton, and Nolo soils. Appendix E,
Tables E7, E18, E19, E2Q and E21 show the chemical properties matrix
for each soil and each land use. The anticipated pH values for the
Cookport and Wharton soils are taken from Appendix 3, Table B2, and
for the Cavode, Hazleton, and Nolo soils from Appendix 3, Table B4.
82
-------
A decrease in magnitude value for pH on the Cookport (Table E7) and
Wharton soils (Table E21) indicates that reclamation will likely
improve the pH for these two soils. The magnitude values for the
Cavode (Table E18), Hazleton (Table E19), and Nolo soils (Table E20)
increase the same amount. Significance values are at a minimum (2)
for all land uses on the Cookport (Table E7) and Wharton soils
(Table E21). Maximum significance values (10) occur with pine on
the Cavode (Table E18), Hazleton (Table E19), and the Nolo soils
(Table E20). The other land uses appear less affected.
Cation Exchange Capacity— Existing values of cation exchange
capacity are given in Appendix A (Table A6). As with the Bradford
site, existing and anticipated cation exchange capacity values
(Appendix B, Tables B2 and B4) appear adequate. The magnitude
remains unchanged for the Cavode (Table E18), Cookport (Table E7),
Hazleton (Table E19), Nolo (Table E20), and Wharton soils (Table E21) ,
Significance values of the anticipated cation exchange capacity for
all soils are identical and at a minimum.
Potassium Content— Existing values of potassium content are
found in Appendix A (Table A6). Prior to and following reclamation
(Appendix B, Tables B2 and B4), all soils fall below the minimum
value for a balanced soil (<2%). Therefore, the magnitude remains
the same for the Cavode (Table E18), Cookport (Table E7), Hazleton
(Table E19), Nolo (Table E20), and Wharton soils (Table £21). Again,
significance values of the anticipated potassium content is maximum
for corn.
Magnesium Content— Existing values of magnesium ccr.rent are
summarized in Appendix A (Table A6). The existing value for the
83
-------
Wharton soil (12.5% of the cation exchange capacity) is the only
acceptable one. No change in magnitude occurs with the Cavode
(Table E18), Hazleton (Table E19), Nolo (Table E20), and Wharton
soils (Table E21); however, a decrease in magnitude for the Cookport
soil (Table E7) indicates that magnesium content will likely increase
in the soil following reclamation. Significance values of the
anticipated magnesium content are minimum for the Cookport (Table E7)
and Wharton soils (Table E21) for all land uses. The significance
values for the other soils are higher and suggest that corn and meadow
will probably be more affected by anticipated magnesium levels than
the other land uses.
Calcium Content— Existing values for calcium content are report-
ed in Appendix A (Table A6). All soils fall below the minimum value
for a balanced soil (<60%). No change in magnitude occurs with the
Cavode (Table E18), Cookport (Table E7), Hazleton (Table E19), Nolo
(Table E20) and Wharton soils (Table E21). Because of the higher
significance value of the anticipated calcium content for corn on all
soils, this land use is again at a disadvantage.
Organic Matter Content— Existing values for organic matter con-
tent are shown in Appendix A (Table A6.). The initial organic matter
content for the Cookport soil is quite low. The magnitude remains
the same for the Cavode (Table E18), Hazleton (Table E19-) , Nolo
(Table E20) and Wharton soils (Table E21.). The magnitude for the
Cookport soil (Table E7) decreases which implies that organic matter
content in this soil may increase following reclamation. As before,
the significance value of the anticipated organic matter content is
greatest for corn.
84
-------
Sulfur Content—Existing values for sulfur content are greater
than .05% for all soils and have received a. weight of 5. The
magnitude for this property is represented by the sum of this
weight and the weight assigned to the lowest coal seam being mined
at the site (Table 31). For site 2, the lowest coal seam being
mined is the Upper Freeport which has a much lower potential for
creating acid mine drainage than the Lower Kittanning seam being
mined at site 1. The magnitude change for the Cavode (Table E18),
Cookport (Table E7), Hazleton (Table E19), Nolo (Table E20), and
Wharton soils (Table E21) increased the same amount (6). We recall
that the significance for this property is represented by the
weight of the lowest coal seam being mined and the importance of the
sulfur content to the land use (Table 32). As with site 1, corn
appears to be most affected while the effect on trails seems to be
least.
Economic Properties
Land Property Value—Existing and anticipated land property
values for the Somerset/Brothers Valley site 2 are found in Table 33
(Group II). The topography is similar to site 1, but the land is
gently to moderately sloping. The magnitude and significance values
are given in Appendix E, Table E22. No change in magnitude should
occur if the land is reclaimed to multiuse. An increase in magnitude
for meadow, pine, wildlife habitat, and trails indicates that property
values may decrease if the land is reclaimed to any of these uses. As
with site 1, corn will likely enhance land property values the most.
Significance of the anticipated land property values is higher for
meadow and pine than for the other land uses.
85
-------
Reallocation of State Income Tax—Values for the amount of state
income tax the people would be willing to reallocate to prevent strip
mining and the amount of state income tax the people would be willing
to reallocate in order to reclaim the land to a given land use are
listed in Table 52. Values were estimated from opinion surveys
(Appendix C, questions 5, 6, 7, and 12 and Table A2). The magnitude
for this property is represented by the sum of the reallocation values
for preventing strip mining and reclaiming the land to a selected land
use. Furthermore, the significance is represented by the sum of the
amount of state income tax the people would be willing to reallocate
to reclaim the land to a selected land use and the importance value
(Table 36). Magnitude and significance values are summarized in
Table E22. As with site 1, the magnitude increased the most for
trails and multiuse suggesting that people would be willing to
reallocate more for the other land uses. The significance values are
lowest for corn and meadow and highest for trails and multiuse.
Effect of Unemployment—The existing township unemployment
figure is not available for Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships, so
the unemployment figure for Somerset County (8.5%) was used. The
anticipated value is represented by the potential numer of men that
would be needed to maintain a selected land use (Table 37). Magnitude
and significance values are listed in Table E22. The same inferences
that apply to site 1 regarding magnitude and significance values also
apply to site 2. The magnitude increases more for trails and multiuse
indicating that people would probably reallocate more for the other
86
-------
TABLE 52. THE AMOUNT OF STATE INCOME TAX WILLING TO BE REALLOCATED
PER FAMILY PER YEAR TO PREVENT STRIP MINING AND TO RECLAIM
THE LAND TO A SELECTED LAND USE AT SITE 2*
Amount of state income tax willing
Land Use to be reallocated
dollars/family/year
Prevent strip mining 37
Corn 195
Meadow 195
Pine 126
Wildlife habitat 126
Trails 78
Multiuse 78
*Explanations and calculations for each of these values are
in Appendix C.
87
-------
land uses. The significance reallocation of state income tax values
are lowest for corn and highest for trails and multiuse.
Additional Costs—Additional costs of reclaiming a land to a
selected land use are found in Table 39. The magnitude for this
property is represented by the value found in Table 39. Magnitude
and significance values are reported in Table E22. The magnitude
values indicate that corn will be the most expensive to establish
while meadow will cost the least. As with site 1, the significance
of additional costs is low for meadow and pine and high for wildlife
habitat and trails.
Aesthetic Properties
Public Attitude—Public attitude values for Somerset/Brothers
Valley Townships for the existing and selected land uses are reported
in Table 53. Values are estimated from opinion surveys (Appendix C,
question 5). Corn and meadow are greatly favored over the other land
uses. Magnitude and significance values are given in Appendix E,
Table E23. Magnitude values for corn and meadow indicate that the
public will probably be satisfied if the land is reclaimed to either
of these uses. Higher magnitude values for the other land uses
suggests that aome unfavorable public reaction may occur if the
land is reclaimed to these uses. The lowest significance public
attitude value occurs with corn and meadow. As with site 1, maximum
significance values (10) occur with trails and multiuse.
Area Mined and Visual Conformity—Magnitude and significance
values are listed in Table E23. The magnitude for this
property is represented by a value which indicates the amount of
88
-------
TABLE 53. PUBLIC ATTITUDE VALUES FOR SELECTED LAND USES
BASED ON THE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION THAT WOULD RANK
THAT LAND USE ABOVE THE OTHER LAND USES AT SITE 2
Land Use Public attitude
% of population
Corn 70
Meadow 70
Pine 25
Wildlife habitat 25
Trails 5
Multiuse 5
89
-------
acres being mined (203 acres at site 2). Significance for this property
is the sum of a subjective numerical representation of the degree to
which the selected land use conforms with the rest of the landscape and
the importance value. All land uses seem to be aesthetically
conforming.
ESTIMATION OF RECLAMATION POTENTIAL FOR
EACH LAND USE AT SITE 2
The average sum of the physical properties for corn, meadow, pine,
wildlife habitat, trails, and multiuse are given in Appendix F, Tables
F25, F26, F27, F28, F29 and F30, respectively. As with site 1, only
the physical property magnitude values for erosion vary between
land uses. Low magnitude and significance values are desirable. No
change in magnitude occurs with slope or bulk density. Although
magnitude values of erosion are less than 1 if the land is reclaimed
to meadow (Table F26) or wildlife habitat (Table F28), generally,
magnitude progressively increases with permeability, slope and bulk
density, erosion, texture, depth to limiting layer, and coarse
fragments content. Low significance values are common with slope and
permeability and higher values are found with coarse fragments content
and bulk density.
In Appendix F, Tables F31, F32, F33, F34 and F35 the average sum
of the chemical properties for corn, meadow, pine, wildlife habitat,
trails, and multiuse are found, respectively. There is no variation
in the chemical property magnitude values between land uses. A
decrease in magnitude with pH and magnesium content suggests that
these chemical properties may improve following reclamation. The
magnitude remains unchanged for cation exchange capacity, potassium
90
-------
content, and organic matter content. The only increase in magnitude
occurs with sulfur. For all land uses, significance values are at a
minimum (2) for cation exchange capacity. Significance values pro-
gressively increase with cation exchange capacity, organic matter
content, magnesium content, pH, calcium content, potassium content,
and sulfur content.
The average sum of the economic properties for corn, meadow,
pine, wildlife habitat, trails, and multiuse are listed in Appendix
F, Tables F37, F38, F39, F40, F41 and F42, respectively. For the
land property value, reclaiming the land to corn (Table F37) will be
beneficial as indicated by the decrease in magnitude. No change in
property value magnitude occurs with multiuse (Table F42), while an
increase in magnitude is expected if the land is reclaimed to meadow
(Table P38), pine (Table F39), wildlife habitat (Table F40), and
trails (Table F41). The significance of the land property values
are lowest for wildlife habitat (Table F40), trails (Table F41), and
multiuse (Table F42) and highest for corn (Table F37) and meadow
(Table F38). As with site 1, the magnitude and significance values
for the reallocation of state income tax property appear higher if
the land is reclaimed to trails (Table F41) and multiuse (Table F42).
For corn (Table F37) and meadow (Table F38), the reallocation of state
income tax magnitude value remains unchanged and the significance
values are at a minimum. If the land is reclaimed to any land use
except meadow (Table F38), employment may increase as suggested by the
decrease in magnitude for the effect of unemployment property. Meadow
(Table F38), trails (Table F41), and multiuse (Table F42) have higher
significance values for this property. For the additional costs
91
-------
property, the magnitude remained unchanged for meadow (Table F38) and
increased the most for corn (Table F37). This increase implies that
reclaiming the land to corn will cost the most.
In Appendix F, Tables F43, F44, F45, F46, F47, and F48 the
average sum of the aesthetic properties for corn, meadow, pine,
wildlife habitat, trails, and multiuse are summarized, respectively.
For the public attitude property, a decrease in magnitude is expected
if the land is reclaimed to corn (Table F43) or meadow (Table F44).
Magnitude increases in the remaining land uses reflect the public's
dissatisfaction for reclaiming the land to these land uses. The
significance value of the anticipated public attitude is maximum (10)
for trails (Table F47) and multiuse (Table F48). For the area mined
and visual conformity property, the magnitude (5) and the significance
(6) are the same for all land uses.
The reclamation potentials for corn, meadow, pine, wildlife
habitat, trails, and multiuse are listed in Table 54 and are
graphically compared in Figure 9. We recall that unless values for
two or more land uses are identical (which would then require the
evaluation of magnitude values) land use reclamation potentials are
determined by the significance values alone. Reclamation at site 2
favors meadow because of its low significance value (20.55). Again,
meadow also has the lowest magnitude value (7.62). Significance
values become progressively higher with wildlife habitat, corn, pine,
trails, and multiuse. Therefore, multiuse, with a significance value
of 25.11, has the worse reclamation potential at site 2. Trails has
the highest magnitude value (9.20).
92
-------
TABLE 54. RECLAMATION POTENTIALS FOR EACH LAND USE AT SITE 2
Co
Land Use
Corn*
Meadowf
Pine$
Wildlife habitat§
Trails//
Multiuse**
Physical
1 . 77
1.63
1.81
1.69
1.74
1.70
6.58
5-50
6.08
5.31
5.31
5.81
Property
Chemical
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
6 . 72
5.80
5. 59
5.38
4.88
5.30
average sums
Economic
2.02
1.50
1.97
2.40
2.47
2.05
4.75
4.75
5.25
5.50
6.50
6.00
Aesthetic Sum
2
2
3
3
3
3
. 8 3
. 8 3
. 16
. 16
. 33
. 33
4 .
4 .
6 .
6 .
8 .
8 .
50 8.32
50 7.62
00 8.60
00 8.91
00 9.20
00 8.74
22.66
20.55
22.92
22.19
24.69
25.22
*Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F25, F31, F37, and F43)
•{•Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F26, F32, F38, and F44)
^Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F27, F33, F39, and F45)
§Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F28, F34, F40, and F46)
//Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F29, F35, F41, and F47),
Component values are taken from Appendix F (Tables F30, F36, F42, and F48),
-------
INFLUENCE OF EACH PROPERTY ON RECLAMATION
POTENTIAL AT SITE 2
Magnitude and significance values of the physical, chemical,
economic, and aesthetic properties for each land use are shown in
Figures 8 and 9, respectively. For each property, the range of
values, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation for
property magnitude and significance values are reported in Tables
55 and 56.
The chemical properties have the lowest mean magnitude value
(1.66) and exhibit no variation between land uses (Table 55). The
mean magnitude value for the physical properties is higher and
shows a slight variation between land uses. Although the aesthetic
properties have the highest mean magnitude value, the economic
properties have the highest standard deviation (.35). As with site
1, the economic properties seem to be the greatest influence on the
overall magnitude values for each of the land uses.
Mean significance values of the economic, chemical, physical, and
aesthetic properties (listed is ascending order with respect to mean
significance values) are given in Table 56. The aesthetic mean
significance value also has the largest standard deviation (1.57)
which indicates that this property has the greatest effect on the
overall significance values for each land use.
COMPARISON OF CHANGES IN PROPERTY LEVELS AND THE EFFECT OF
THESE CHANGES ON EACH LAND USE AT SITE 2
We recall that the significance (Figure 9) and not the magnitude
values (Figure 8) usually determine the reclamation potential for
each land use. Corn is again at a physical and chemical disadvantage
94
-------
-------
95
-------
Figure 8. Variation in property magnitude at site 2,
Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships,
Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
-------
8
7
6
Q 5
D
_ A
z
o
< 3
2
1
0
Physical
LAND USE
| |Corn
S3 Meadow
Pine
£3 Wildlife Habitat
QTrails
Multiuse
Economic
Aesthetic
Chemical
PROPERTIES
-------
Figure 9. Variation in property significance at site 2,
Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships, Somerset
County, Pennsylvania.
-------
00
LU
0
2
10
9
8
7
6
- 5
LU
z
O 4
3
2
1
0
LAND
QCorn
Meadow
Physical
USE
(vl Wildlife Habitat
Trails
Multiuse
Chemical
Aesthetic
PROPERTIES
-------
TABLE 55. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF THE MAGNITUDE VALUES FOR
THE LAND USES BY PROPERTY AT SITE 2
Statistical comparison
Property
Physical
Chemical
Economic
Aesthetics
Standard
Range Mean deviation
1.63 to 1.81 1.73 .07
1.66 1.66 0
1.50 to 2.47 2.07 .35
2.83 to 3.33 3.12 .23
Coefficient of
variation
4
0
17
7
TABLE 56. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF THE SIGNIFICANCE VALUES
FOR THE LAND USES BY PROPERTY AT SITE 2
Statistical comparison
Property
Physical
Chemical
Economic
Aesthetics
Range
5.26 to 6.71
4.88 to 6.72
4.50 to 6.00
4.50 to 8.00
Mean
5.78
5.61
5.29
6.17
Standard
deviation
.55
.62
.80
1.57
Coefficient of
variation
%
10
11
15
25
99
-------
because high importance values were assigned to this land use (Figure
9). Wildlife habitat and trails seem to be less affected by the
physical properties than corn, meadow, pine, and multiuse (Figure 7).
Trails also appears to be the least affected by the chemical properties
(Figure 9).
In terms of the significance values of the economic properties
for site 2, wildlife habitat has received the highest reclamation
potential and trails the lowest (Figure 9). Improvements in reclama-
tion potential are possible for corn (Table F37), meadow (Table F38),
and pine (Table F39) if the property values are raised; for meadow
(Table F38), trails (Table F41), and multiuse (Table F42) if the
effects of unemployment are reduced; and for corn (Table F37), wild-
life habitat (Table F40), trails (Table F41), and multiuse (Table F42)
if additional costs are minimized. As before, due to the data source
for the reallocation of state income tax, public attitude, and the
area mined and visual conformity properties (Appendix C, questions 5,
6, 7, and 12), changes in these properties are not likely to occur.
Corn and meadow (Figure 9) have a substantial aesthetic advantage in
Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships. Reclaiming the land to either
trails or multiuse seems to be unacceptable (Figure 9).
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF LAND USE RECLAMATION
POTENTIALS AT SITES 1 AND 2
Tables 57 and 58 show separately for each land use at Bradford
Township site 1 and Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships site 2,
respectively, the magnitude and significance values for the physical,
chemical, economic, and aesthetic properties. At site 1, anticipated
erosion values were higher (due to steeper slopes) and the anticipated
100
-------
TABLE 57. SUMMARY OF PROPERTY MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE VALUES AT SITE 1
Land use
Wildlife
Property Corn Meadow Pine habitat Trails Multiuse
Physical
slope l'°°
erosion 2'86
0,00
texture
permeability i-s?
coarse fragments
content l'77
depth to limiting
layer 1<1S
bulk density 1>17
5.68 1.00
7. 72 1.14
7-00 2-22
5.00 1.57
10.00 1.77
8.51 1.16
10.00 1.20
4 . 68 1.00
2.52 3- 48
6.15 2-22
4.00 1.57
10.00 1.77
7.00 1.15
9.00 1.17
4.68 1.00
8.12 2.39
6.00 2.22
4.00 1.57
9.00 1.77
7.00 1.15
9.00 1.17
4.68 1.00
5.24 2.92
7.00 2-22
4.00 1.57
1 n . o o 1.77
6.00 1.15
8.00 1.17
4.02 1.00
5.90 2.39
6-00 2.22
4.00 1.57
8.00 1.77
7.00 1.15
7.00 1.17
4.68
5.78
7-00
4.00
10.00
8.00
8.00
Chemical
PH '86
cation exchange
capacity 1<0°
potassium content 1.20
magnesium content '90
calcium content 2.21*
2.00 .86
2.00 1.00
10.00 1.20
2.00 .90
8-00 2 . 24
2.00 .86
2.00 1.00
8.00 1.20
2.00 .90
7.00 2.24
2.00 .86
2.00 1.00
7.00 1.20
2.00 .90
7.00 2.24
2.00 .86
2.00 1.00
6.00 1.20
2.00 .90
6.00 2.24
2.00 .86
2.00 1.00
6.00 1.20
2.00 .90
6.00 2.24
2.00
2.00
7.00
2.00
6.00
-------
TABLE 57. (continued)
Land
Property Corn Meadow Pine
organic matter
content '98 5'°° '98 lf'00 '98 4-°°
sulfur content io.oons.oo 10. 0013.00 10.0013.00
Economic
land property value -256-00 1.007.00 -756.00
o
N> reallocation of
state income tax 5-°° "'O0 5'00 5'00 5'°° 5'00
effect of
ployment
unem-
.60 5.00 1.00 6.00 .40 5.00
,_ 5.00 6.00 1.00 "i.OO 2.00 4.00
use
Wildlife
habitat Trails Multiuse
.984.00 . 9 8 "4 . 0 0 .98't.OO
10.00 14.00 10.00 11.00 10.00 12.00
1.00 5.00 .75 6.00 .50 6.00
5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 6.00 8.00
.60 5.00 .40 6.00 .20 6.00
3.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 2.00 5.00
Aesthetic
public attitude
area mined and
visual conformity
Reclamation
potential
1.0014.00
4.0015.00
1.0015.00
4.0015.00
9.34123.74 8.39122.12
1*0015.00
4.0015.00
1.0015.00
4.0015.00
1.67110.00 1.67110.00
4.0015.00
4.0017.00
1.76122.12 8.88122.06 9.52124.95 9.08126.53
-------
TABLE 58. SUMMARY OF PROPERTY MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE VALUES AT SITE 2
o
LJ
Land use
Wildlife
Property Corn Meadow Pine habitat Trails Multiuse
Physical
, 1.00
slope
erosion 1-84
i Q i;
texture
permeability '84
coarse fragments
content '*'07
depth to limiting
layer 1'99
bulk density 1'00
PH '76
cation exchange
capacity i . oo
potassium content 1.00
magnesium content *85
3.54 1.00
6.66 .59
5.12 1.95
3.59 .84
10.00 4.07
8.08 1.99
10.00 1.00
5.76' .76
2.00 1.00
10.00 1.00
5.29 .85
2.77 1.00
2.00 1.83
4.59 1.95
3.06 .84
10.00 4.07
7.08 1.98
9.00 1.00
5.29 .76
2.00 1.00
8.00 1.00
5.29 .85
2.77 1.00
7.02 .96
4.59 1.95
3.06 .84
9.00 4.07
7.10 1.98
9.00 1.00
5.29 .76
2.00 1.00
7.00 1.00
4.82 .85
2.77 1.00
3.66 1.35
4.59 1.95
3.06 .84
9.00 4.07
6.08 1.98
8.00 1.00
5.29 .76
2.00 1.00
6.00 1.00
4.35 .85
2-77 1.00
4.66 1.04
4.59 1.95
3.06 .84
8.00 4.07
7.08 1.98
7.00 1.00
4.82 .76
2.00 1.00
6.00 1.00
4.35 .85
2.77
3.66
5.12
3.06
10.00
8.08
8.00
5.29
2.00
7.00
4.82
^loii.m r.nr.ror.1- l.QQ 8.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 6.00
-------
TABLE 58. (continued)
Land use
Property Corn Meadow Pine
organic matter
content 1'°° 5<0° 1>0° •* • ° ° i.oo 4.00
sulfur
Economic
. t 6.00 11.00 6.00 9.00 6.00 9.00
land property value ' 50 6'00 2'00 7'00 U5° 7'°°
reallocation of
state income tax 2-°° 2'°° 2'00 2'00 "-00 5'00
effect of unem-
ployment '6° 5-°° 1-°° 6'00 -140 5-°°
• •
„-,! „„„.-„ 5.00 6.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 4.00
Wildlife
habitat Trails Multiuse
1.0014.00 I.OO 4.00 1.00 4.00
6.00 10.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 8.00
2.00 5.00 1.50 5.00 1.00 5.00
4.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 5.00 8.00
.605.00 .406.00 .206-00
3-00 7.00 3-00 7-00 2-00 5-00
Aesthetic
public attitude
area mined and
visual conformity
Reclamation
potential
.6713.00
6713.00 1.3316.00 1.3316.00 1.67110-00 1-67I10-00
5.0016.00 5.0016.00 5.0016.00 5.0016.00 5.0016.00 5-OOI6-00
). 32122. 68 7.62120.55 8.60122.92 8.91122.19 9.20124.69 8.74125.11
-------
texture less favorable; however, higher magnitude values were experi-
enced at site 2, because the anticipated and existing depths to
limiting layers and the coarse fragments content showed substantially
greater variation at site 2 than site 1. Although the change in
physical properties was greater at site 2, the anticipated physical
property levels were more favorable for all land uses at site 2 which
is indicated by the lower significance values.
Chemical magnitude values, equal for all land uses at a particu-
lar site, were higher at site 2. Primarily, this difference is due
to the sites' geologies. Site 1 is more likely to produce acid
mine drainage because of the older coal seams being mined, compounded
by the lack of neutralizing strata to offset potential acidity. Thus,
there was a larger ratio of anticipated to existing sulfur content
at site 1. The chemical properties were to change more at site 1,
but the significance of the anticipated chemical property levels were
more severe at site 2.
Magnitude values for the economic properties were higher at site
1 than site 2. However, the land property values were higher for all
land uses at site 2, which indicates that the original property value
of site 1 (Table 33, Group IV) was lower than that of site 2
(Table 33, Group II). Consequently, more improvement could be
anticipated at site 1 if any of the land uses are established. With
the exception of pine, significance values were lower at site 2 than
site 1. The reallocation of state income tax was responsible for
the higher significance values at site 1. The dollars/family/year
for preventing strip mining at site 2 (Table 52) was lower than the
value estimated for site 1 (Table 47). Also, with the exception of
105
-------
trails and multiuse, the dollars/family/year for reclaiming a land to
a selected land use was higher at site 2 (Table 52) than at site 1
(Table 47).
Aesthetic magnitude values were noticeably higher at site 2,
because the amount of acres disturbed was nearly threefold that of
site 1. Significance values at site 2 were generally greater than
those at site 1, suggesting that the public's attitude and the
degree to which the land use conformed with the surrounding land-
scape were more critical in contributing to land use reclamation
potential at site 2.
Reclamation potentials for each land use at sites 1 and 2 are
also shown in Tables 57 and 58, respectively. For all land uses,
except wildlife habitat, magnitude values at site 1 were higher
than those at site 2 indicating that the average change in the
physical, chemical, economic, and aesthetic property levels were
greater at site 1. Significance values at site 1 were also greater
than those at site 2 for corn, meadow, trails, and multiuse. The
higher significance values that occurred with pine and wildlife
habitat at site 2 were primarily due to the aesthetic property-land
use interactions and partially due to the chemical property land-use
interactions. Based on significance values, the following land uses
(listed in order of preference) would be: wildlife habitat, meadow,
pine, corn, trails, and multiuse at site 1; and meadow, wildlife
habitat, corn, pine, trails, and multiuse at site 2. Wildlife
habitat proved to be the land use with the best reclamation potential
at site 1 while meadow was favored at site 2. The significance value
for multiuse, the land use with the worst reclamation potential at
106
-------
both sites, was higher at site 1 (26.53) than at site 2 (25.11). At
sites 1 and 2 trails had the highest magnitude value (9.52 and 9.20,
respectively). However, it was not necessary to consider the
magnitude values for the estimation of reclamation potential at
either site, because significance values for each land use were
different.
107
-------
REFERENCES
1. Alekseyeva, YU. S. 1972. Change in the water-physical properties of
soil on reclaimed land used as a pasture (in Russian).
Pochvovedeniye 1972 (ll):74-78.
2. Bennett, 0. L., J. N. Jones, Jr., W. H. Armiger, and P. E. Lunberg.
1972. New techniques for revegetating strip-mined areas. In
Proc. 27th Ann. Mtg. SCSA, Portland, Oregon, p. 50-55.
3. Boehlje, M. and J. D. Libbin. 1977. Economics of mining coal in
Iowa. 1S-ICP-46. Energy and Mineral Resources Institute,
Ames, Iowa. 32 p.
4. Bremner, J. M. 1965. Jjn C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis,
part II. Agronomy 9:1149-1178. Amer. Soc. of Agron., Madison,
Wisconsin.
5. Briggs, J. M. and T. S. Covin. 1977. Reclamation planning at the
Iowa coal project demonstration mine. Paper No. 77-2517.
Presented at 1977 Winter Mtg. ASAE, Palmer House Hotel,
Chicago, Illinois. Dec. 13-16. 18 p.
6. Brooks, D. B. and R. L. Williams. 1973. Planning and designing for
mining conservation. In R. B. Cummins and I. A. Given (ed.) SME
mining engineering handbook. Vol. 2, Chpt. 19. The American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,
Inc., Port City Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
7. Caruccio, F. T. 1975. Estimating the acid potential of coal mine
refuse, ^n M. J. Chadwick and G. T. Goodman (ed.) The ecology
of resource degradation and renewal, p. 197-205.
8. and R. Parizek. 1967. An evaluation of factors influencing
acid mine drainage production from various strata of the
Allegheny group and the ground water interactions in selected
areas of western Pennsylvania: special research report SR-65.
Coal Research Section, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania. 213 p.
9. Ciolkosz, E. J., R. L. Cunningham, and G. W. Petersen. In press.
Characteristics, interpretations, and uses of Pennsylvania
minesoils. Progress report. The Pennsylvania State University
Agric. Exp. Stat., University Park, Pennsylvania.
10. Crentz, W. L., A. L. Bailey, and J. W. Miller. 1951. Preparation
characteristics of coal from Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
jn Bureau of mine report of investigations, 4834, U.S. Dept.
of Int. 23 p.
108
-------
11. Crentz, W. L., A. L. Bailey, and J. W. Miller. 1952. Preparation
characteristics of coal from Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.
In Bureau of mine report of investigations, 4894, U.S. Dept.
'of Int. 27 p.
12. Davis, G. 1977. Forest service mining reclamation research. Li
Energy environment II. EPA decision series. EPA 600/9-77-012.
p. 191-193.
13. Degens, E. T., E. G. Williams, and M. L. Keith. 1957. Environmental
studies of carboniferous sediments. Part I. Bulletin of the
American Assn. of Petroleum Geologists, 41:2427-2455.
14. Department of the Environment. 1972. The Canada land inventory:
soil capability classification for agriculture. Report No. 2.
Cat. No. Fo 63-2/1972. Information Canada, Ottawa. 16 p.
15. Department of Regional Economic Expansion. 1970a. A guide for
resource planning: the Canada land inventory. Pamphlet.
Cat. No. RE 63-7/1970. Queens Printer for Canada, Ottawa. 8 p.
16. . 1970b. The Canada land inventory: land capability classi-
fication for outdoor recreation. Report No. 6. Cat. No. RE
63-6/1969. Queens Printer for Canada, Ottawa. 114 p.
17. Donahue, R. L., J. C. Shickluna, and L. S. Robertson. 1971. Soils
and plant nutrition, chpt. 11. In Soils: an introduction to
soils and plant growth. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
18. Doyle, F. J. 1974. Variables affecting grading costs for strip mine
and refuse bank reclamation. In First symposium on mine and
preparation plant refuse disposal. National Coal Assn.
p. 212-227.
19. Emrich, G. H. and D. R. Thompson. 1968. Some characteristics of
drainage from deep bituminous mines in western Pennsylvania.
In Proc. of the 2nd symposium on coal mine drainage research,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, p. 190-222.
20. Falkie, T. V. 1971. Land reclamation for the mining industry. Paper
No. EQC 32. Presented at the 1971 AIME Environmental Quality
Conference, Washington, D. C. June 7-9. 8 p.
21. Fischer, D. W. 1975. Willingness to pay as a behaviourial criterion
for environmental decision making. J. of Env. Mgt. 3:29-41.
22. Fleming, A. L., J. W. Schwartx, and C. D. Foy. 1974. Chemical factors
controlling the adaptation of weeping lovegrass and tall fescue to
acid mine spoisl. Agron. J. 66:715-719.
109
-------
23. Flint, N. K. 1965. Geology and mineral resources of southern Somerset
County, Pennsylvania. Pa. Geol. Survey, 4th Series. County
Report C56A, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
24. Glover, A. C. 1970. Geology and mineral resources of the southern half
of the Clearfield 15-minute quadrangle, Pennsylvania. Pa. Geol.
Survey, 4th Series. Bulletin A84cd. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
25. Hill, R. D. 1977. Premining planning: the key to environmental
acceptable surface mining. Paper No. 77-2216, ASAE. Dec. 13-16.
7 p.
26. Hinish, W. W. 1969. Interpreting soil tests for agronomic crops.
College of Agric. Ext. Service, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania. 4 p.
27. Kleppe, T. S. 1977. Mining and mineral policy: 1977 annual report of
the Secretary of the Interior under the Mining and Minerals Policy
Act of 1970. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D. C. p. 15.
28. Krutella, J. V. and A. C. Fisher. 1976. Studies in the valuation of
commodity and amenity resources. In The economics of natural
environments: Chpt. 2. John Hopkins University Press,
Washington, D. C.
29. Leopold, L. B., F. E. Clarke, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. R. Balsley. 1971.
A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. Geol. Survey
Cir. 645. 13 p.
30. Mann, S. H., T. J. Douglas, J. L. Nasar, and F. R. Tellefsen. 1977.
The determination of the economic effect of pesticide use on
human health: a gaming approach to willingness-to-pay. Working
Paper No. 32. Center for the Study of Environmental Policy,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
31. Mason, D. D., J. F. Lutz, and R. G. Petersen. 1957. Hydraulic
conductivity as related to certain soil properties in a number
of great soil groups—sampling errors involved. Soil Sci. Soc.
Proc. 21:554-560.
32. Martin, J. H., H. Leonard, and D. L. Stemp. 1976. p. 56. _In_
Principle of field crop production, 3rd ed. Macmillan Publishing
Co., Inc., New York.
33. McCormack, D. E. 1974. Soil reconstruction: for the best soil after
mining. In Second research and applied technology on mined land
reclamation. National Coal Assn. p. 159-161.
34. McCormack, R. J. 1972. The Canada land inventory: land capability
classification for forestry. Report No. 4. Cat. No. RE
63-4/1970. Information Canada, Ottawa. 72 p.
110
-------
35. Otte, J. A. and M. Boehlje. 1976. A model to analyze the costs of
strip mining and reclamation IS-ICP-3. Energy and Mineral
Resources Research Institute, Iowa State University, Ames,
Iowa. 19 p.
36i Pedersen, T. A. 1977. Comparison of some morphological, chemical,
and physical characteristics of minesoils and contiguous natural
soils. M.S. Thesis, 206 p. The Pennsylvania State University
(Micro 4 PSUm 1977). Univ. Microfilms, University Park,
Pennsylvania.
37. Ferret, N. B. 1973. The Canada land inventory: land capability
classification for wildlife. Report No. 7. Information
Canada, Ottawa. 30 p.
38. Pundari, N. B. and J. A. Coates. 1975. Estimate of reclamation costs
resulting from federal law. Coal Age SO(April):127-131.
39. Research Committee on Coal Mine Spoil Revegetation in Pennsylvania.
1965. G. Davis, et al. (ed.). Northeast Forest Experiment
Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agric. 46 p.
40. Rogowski, A. S. and E. L. Jacoby, Jr. 1977. Water movement through
Kylertown strip mine spoil. Paper No. 77-2057. Presented at
1977 Ann. Mtg. ASAE, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina. June 26-29. 24 p.
41. , H. B. Pionke, and J. G. Broyan. 1977. Modeling the impact
of strip mining and reclamation processes on quality and quantity
of water in mined areas: a review. J. of Environ. Qual.
6:273-244.
42. and B. E. Weinrich. 1977. Modeling water flux on strip-
mined land. Paper No. 77-2061. Presented at 1977 Ann. Mtg.
ASAE, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
June 26-29. 17 p.
43. Sawyer, L. E. and J. M. Growl. 1968. Land reclamation. _In E. P.
Pfleider (ed.) Surface mining, p. 247-266. American Institute
of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.,
Maple Press Co., York, Pennsylvania.
44. Sendlein, L. V. A., C. E. Anderson, and J. B. Gulliford. 1977. Land
restoration: the Iowa experiment. In Fifth symposium on surface
mining and reclamation. National Coal Assn. p. 283-297.
45. Smith, R. M., A. A. Sobek, T. Arkle, Jr., J. C. Sencindiver, and J. R.
Freeman. 1976. Extensive overburden potentials for soil and
water quality. Environmental Protection Technology Series,
EPA-600/2-76-184. p. 31-34.
Ill
-------
46. Sobek, A. A., R. M. Smith, W. A. Schuller, and J. R. Freeman. 1976.
Overburden properties that influence minesoils. In Fourth
symposium of surface mining and reclamation. National Coal Assn.
p. 153-159.
47. Soil Survey Staff. 1951. Soil survey manual. U.S. Dept. Agric. Hdbk.
No. 18. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D. C.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. 30 U.S.C. Chpt.
1201-1328; Publ. L. 95-87, Aug, 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 445.
48. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1968. Restoring surface mined lands.
Misc. Publ. No. 1082. 18 p.
Waldrop, M. 1977. Strict law challenges strip mine operators. C & EN,
Augs. p. 18-19.
49. Wischmeier, W. H. 1971. The erosion equation—a tool for conservation
planning. Jbi Proc. 26th Ann. Mtg. Soil Cons. Soc. Am., Ankeny,
Iowa. p. 73-78.
50. and D. D. Smith. 1962. Soil loss estimation as a tool in
soil and water management planning. Publ. No. 59, Int. Assoc.
Sci. Hydrology, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, p. 148-159.
51. and . 1965. Predicting rainfall erosion losses from
cropland east of the Rocky Mountains. Agric. Hdbk. No. 282.
U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, D. C. 47 p.
52. Zellmer, S, D. and R. P. Carter. 1977. Abandoned coal mine refuse
areas: their reclamation and use. Paper No. 77-2515.
Presented at 1977 Winter Mtg. ASAE, Palmer House Hotel,
Chicago, Illinois. Dec. 13-16. 17 p.
112
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
EXISTING PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
AT SITES 1 AND 2
113
-------
-------
TABLE Ai . EXISTING PHYSICAL PROPERTY DATA AT SITE 1
Physical properties
Soil
Type
Berks
Cookport
Gilpin
Weikert
Minesoil*
Soil
coefficient
.26
.08
.18
.05
.43
Slope
<•/
/o
4 to 8
4 to 8
17 to 25
9 to 16
9 to 16
Erosion
t/ac/yr
1.1
3.5
6.8
4.2
1.6
Texture
class
SIL
L
SCL
SIL
LS
Permeability
mm/hr
34.80
34.80
58.42
34.80
101.70
Coarse
fragments
content
% by wt
57.0
17.7
49.1
62.5
77.8
Depth to
limiting
layer
m
.76
.68
.76
.38
.33
Bulk
density
g/cc
1.39
1.48
1.72
1.46
1.78
*Existing physical properties for the Minesoil are the anticipated physical properties for Group I
Minesoils (Appendix B, Table Bl).
-------
TABLE A2. ANTICIPATED LAND USE EROSION VALUES FOR EACH SOIL AT SITE 1
Erosion values
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
C
factor *
.29
.01
.52
.18
.25
.20
Berksf
5.4
.2
9.6
3.3
4.6
3.7
Cookport J
5.1
.2
9.1
3.2
4.4
3.5
Soil type
Gilpin§
t/ac/yr
39.3
1.4
70.5
24.4
33.9
27.1
Weikert*
11.0
.4
19.7
6.8
9.5
7.6
Minesoil**
15.5
.5
27.8
9.6
13.4
10.7
*See Table A7 for C factor calculation.
fThe RKSLP product for the Berks soil is 18.48 t/ac/yr.
tThe RKSLP product for the Cookport soil is 17.60 t/ac/yr,
§The RKSLP product for the Gilpin soil is 135.52 t/ac/yr.
#The RKSLP product for the Weikert soil is 37.88 t/ac/yr.
*The RKSLP product for the Minesoil is 53.46 t/ac/yr.
-------
TABLE A3 . EXISTING CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AT SITE 1
Chemical properties
Soil
Type
Berks
Cookport
Gilpin
Weikert
Minesoilt
Soil
coefficient
.26
.08
.18
.05
.43
Cation
exchange
pH capacity
me/ 100 g
6.49 10.7
5.06 20.0
5.68 14.9
6.22 10.8
6.12 18.1
Potassium
content
%f\4
O]
1.8
.6
1.1
2.8
.9
Magnesium
content
: CEC me/ 100 g
10.8
9.7
10.5
6.5
12.4
Calcium
content
63.4
29.4
27.2
59.7
29.4
Organic
matter
content
% N
.11*
.03
.19
.11
.12
*0rganic matter content for the Berks and Weikert soils are based on the mean average of the
organic matter content for the Cookport and Gilpin soils.
tExisting chemical properties for the Minesoil and the anticipated chemical properties for
Group I Minesoil (Appendix B, Table B2).
-------
TABLE A4 . EXISTING PHYSICAL PROPERTY DATA AT SITE 2
Physical properties
Soil
Type
Cavode
Cookport
Hazleton
Nolo
Wharton
Soil
coefficient
.15
.19
.28
.04
.34
Slope
%
4 to 8
0 to 8
4 to 8
0 to 8
4 to 8
Erosion
t/ac/yr
12.4
11.7
3.4
3.6
7.1
Texture
class
SiCL
L
L
SiL
SiCL
Permeability
mm/hr
2.54
34.80
44.45
8.12
2.54
Coarse
fragments
content
% by wt
18.9
17.7
57.5
13.8
8.2
Depth to
limiting
layer
m
.30
.68
1.21
.08
.69
Bulk
density
g/cc
1.54
1.48
1.86
1.66
1.62
-------
TABLE A5 ANTICIPATED LAND USE EROSION VALUES FOR EACH SOIL AT SITE 2
i-1
H
00
Erosion values
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
C
factor*
.29
.01
.52
.18
.25
.20
Cavodet
8.2
.3
14.7
5.1
7.1
5.6
Cookportt
5.2
.2
9.4
3.2
4.5
3.6
Soil type
Hazleton§
t/ac/yr
5.1
.2
9.2
3.2
4.4
3.5
Nolo//
5.8
.2
10.5
3.6
5.0
4.0
Wharton**
13.6
.5
24.5
8.5
11.8
9.4
*See Table A7 for C factor calculation.
fThe RKSLP product for the Cavode soil is 28.22 t/ac/yr
$The RKSLP product for the Cookport soil is 18.00 t/ac/yr.
§The RKSLP product for the Hazleton soil is 17.7 t/ac/yr.
//The RKSLP product for the Nolo soil is 20.16 t/ac/yr.
RKSLP product for the Wharton soil is 47.03 t/ac/yr.
-------
TABLE A6. EXISTING CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AT SITE 2
Soil
Type
Cavode
Cookport
Hazleton
Nolo
Wharton
Soil
coefficient
.15
.19
.28
.04
.34
PH
4.66
5.06
4.90
4.90
5.2
Cation
exchange
capacity
me/ 100 g
16.1
20.0
20.2
27.2
16.8
Chemical
Potassium
content
%_ £
or
.9
.6
.2
.9
1.0
properties
Magnesium
content
CEC me/100 g -
3.7
9.7
1.2
4.0
12.5
Calcium
content
6.8
29.4
2.6
6.2
18.5
Organic
matter
content
% N
.18
.03
.15
.14
.20
-------
Calculation of C, the Cropping Management Factor
Land use C factors were based on a composite of crop stage periods
that were estimated from Agricultural Handbook 282 (Wdschmeier and
Smith, 1965). These include Period F (rough fallow, 1/2 month), 1
(seedling, 1 month), 2 (establishment, 1 month), 3 (growing and matur-
ing crop, 1 month), and 4 (residue or stubble, 1/2 month). Wischmeier
and Smith (1965) provide further descriptions of these crop stage
periods.
In order to use the handbook for land uses evaluated in this study,
it was necessary to make certain assumptions for ground cover following
reclamation. For corn, ground cover was compared to first year corn
after sweet clover (Table 2, line 52, Wischmeier and Smith, 1965); for
meadow, a grass and legume mix (Table 2, line 122, Wischmeier and Smith,
1965); for pine, continuous cotton (Table 2, Wischmeier and Smith,
1962); and for wildlife habitat, first year corn after grass and legume
hay (Table 2, line 61, Wischmeier and Smith, 1965). Trails and multiuse
were assumed to be generally composed of a combination of bare, meadow-
like, pine-like, and wildlife habitat-like areas. Therefore, the C
factors for these land uses were based on a composite sum of the C
factors estimated for meadow, pine, and wildlife habitat (with bare
areas having a C value of 1).
In Table A7 calculations were made for the composite C factors (as
a function of time) for corn, pine, and wildlife habitat. The C value
for meadow (.01) was taken directly from the handbook. Trails were
assumed to be 5% bare, 85% meadow, and 10% pine, A composite C value
120
-------
TABLE A7. CALCULATIONS OF COMPOSITE C VALUES BY CROP STATE PERIOD (AS A FUNCTION OF
TIME AND SOIL LOSS RATIOS*) FOR CORN, PINE, AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
Land Use
Corn
Pine
Wildlife habitat
C values by crop stage period as a function of time and soil
F 1 2 3
.5 month(.23) 1 month(.45) 1 month(.38) 1 month (.28)
.5 month(.45) 1 month(.SO) 1 month(.80) 1 month(.52)
.5 month(.08) 1 month(.25) 1 month(.30) 1 month(.20)
loss ratios Sum
4 (C)
.5 month(.44) .29
.5 month (.48) .52
.5 month(.22) .18
*Soil loss ratios were taken from Table 2, Wischmeier and Smith (1965).
-------
for trails based on these percentages was estimated to be .25. For
multiuse, the percentage breakdown was 57, bare, 40% meadow, 15% pine,
and 40% wildlife habitat which were proportionately combined to
derive a cropping management factor of .20.
122
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
ANTICIPATED MINESOIL PROPERTIES
123
-------
-------
TABLE Bl. MINESOIL: GROUP I PHYSICAL DATA BASED ON EXISTING pH VALUES GREATER THAN 5
to
Soil No*
317
318
1042
1044
1045
1723
5436
6350
Mean
SD
CV%
Sand
5.
7.
5.
7.
7.
5.
16.
5.
7.
3.
44
8
5
9
6
2
9
0
8
7
4
Texture
Silt
9.8
9.2
8.0
10.0
10.3
5.2
13.2
13.3
9.9
2.6
26
Clay
4.
4.
3.
5.
3.
2.
5.
6.
4.
1.
31
Physical
properties
Coarse fragments
content
— % by weight
4
3
1
3
5
9
8
9
5
4
80
78
82
76
79
86
64
74
77
6
8
.0
.7
.7
.9
.0
.1
.7
.4
.8
.4
Soil horizon
A
10.
45.
40.
12.
35.
7.
5.
10.
21.
16.
80
2
7
6
7
6
6
1
2
1
8
B
cm
0.0
0.0
0.0
66.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.5
12.1
24.3
200
depth
C
162.6
139.7
129.5
73.7
134.6
165.1
177.8
132.1
139.4
32.0
23
*These are sample numbers used in analysis of minesoils (Ciolkosz et al., in press).
-------
TABLE B2. MINESOIL: GROUP I CHEMICAL DATA BASED ON EXISTING pH VALUES GREATER THAN 5
N>
Ol
Chemical properties
Soil No*
317
318
1042
1044
1045
1723
5436
6350
Mean
SD
CV%
PH
7.33
7.57
6.30
5.64
5.28
5.15
5.04
6.67
6.12
.10
2
Cation exchange
capacity}"
me/100 g
18.82
19.07
16.70
17.68
14.47
17.25
22.73
40.52
20.90
8.27
40
Potassium
1.41
.95
.92
.94
.99
.89
.47
1.13
.94
.27
29
Magnesium
% of CEC me/ 100 g -
14.88
13.97
13.17
14.59
8.09
14.38
7.66
3.75
12.39
3.13
25
Calcium
57.01
54.69
34.07
19.34
24.88
11.48
4.70
73.00
34.89
24.31
70
Organic
matter
% N
.087
.058
.107
.130
.113
.09
.175
.165
.12
.04
.33
*These are sample numbers used in analysis of minesoils (Ciolkosz et al., in press).
Tme/100 g of material less than 2 mm.
-------
TABLE B3. MINESOIL: GROUP II PHYSICAL DATA BASED ON EXISTING pH VALUES BETWEEN 4 AND 5, INCLUSIVE
Physical properties
Soil No*
1041
1602
1720
1722
2407
3317
5435
5437
6348
Sand
11.
4.
8.
5.
7.
3.
21.
17.
No
2
3
1
7
3
9
9
2
data
Mean
SD
CV%
9.
6.
64
9
3
Texture
Silt
10.9
10.7
6.6
3.2
10.2
11.0
13.4
7.2
No
data
9.2
3.2
35
Clay
4.
6.
2.
1.
4.
10.
6.
2.
No
9
0
3
1
5
1
5
6
Coarse fragments
content
% by weight
73.4
79.
82.
90.
77.
75.
59.
73.
69.
0
5
0
5
2
1
4
0
A
10.
38.
10.
7.
7.
10.
5.
10.
33.
Soil horizon depth
2
1
2
6
6
2
1
2
0
B
cm
61.0
0.0
27.9
30.5
12.7
No
data
68.6
27.9
0.0
C
116.8
160.0
139.7
119.4
215.9
No
data
154.9
190.5
119.4
data
4.
2.
<0
8
9
75.
8.
11
5
6
14.
12.
82
7
0
28.6
25.5
89
152.1
36.2
24
*These are sample numbers used in analysis of minesoils (Ciolkosz et al., in press).
-------
TABLE B4. MINESOIL: GROUP II CHEMICAL DATA BASED ON EXISTING pH VALUES BETWEEN 4 AND 5, INCLUSIVE
KJ
Chemical properties
Soil No*
1041
1602
1720
1722
2407
3317
5435
5437
6348
Mean
SD
CV%
PH
4.22
4.27
4.38
4.70
4.52
4.01
4.62
4.30
4.07
4.34
.24
6
Cation exchange
capacity f
me/ 100 g
23.00
38.35
17.15
15.55
39.04
27.24
19.13
16.26
47.47
27.02
11.80
44
Potassium
.52
.42
.54
.56
.43
.45
.59
.44
.53
.50
.06
<1
Magnesium
% of CEC me/100 g -
.74
4.38
3.38
5.14
7.99
4.19
8.57
No data
1.62
4.50
2.75
<1
Calcium
10.78
52.23
6.00
6.30
53.18
8.44
19.39
No data
32.51
23.60
19.98
85
Organic
matter
% N
.14
.10
.07
.06
.07
.10
.13
.15
.15
.11
.04
36
* These are number samples used in analysis of minesoils (Ciolkosz et al., in press)
tme/100 g of material less than 2 mm.
-------
TABLE B5. MINESOIL: GROUP III PHYSICAL DATA BASED ON EXISTING pH VALUES LESS THAN 4
Physical properties
Soil No*
315
316
1601
M 1721
OO
1724
1725
2408
6349
Mean
SI)
CV%
Sand
4.5
16.0
12.9
6.3
5.5
7.8
12.2
6.6
9.0
4.2
47
Texture
Silt
w
8.0
10.4
7.7
2.5
2.3
10.0
9.6
13.0
7.9
3.8
48
Clay
5.5
6.6
3.4
1.2
1.2
5.2
5.2
5.4
4.2
2.1
<;L
Coarse fragments
content
% by weight
82.3
66.7
76.1
89.8
90.7
76.9
73.4
74.8
78.8
8.3
10
Soil
A
10.2
0.0
10.2
7.6
7.6
22.9
7.6
38.1
13.0
12.0
92
horizon depth
B
cm
40.6
0.0
25.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
15.8
193
C
121.9
152.4
147.3
208.3
208.3
241.3
218.4
149.9
181.0
43.0
24
*These are sample numbers used in analysis of minesoils (Ciolkosz et al., in press).
-------
TABLE B6. MINESOIL: GROUP III CHEMICAL DATA BASED ON EXISTING pH VALUES LESS THAN 4
N>
VO
Soil No*
315
316
1601
1721
1724
1725
2408
6349
Mean
SD
CV%
pH
3.67
3.48
3.87
3.96
3.68
3.89
3.92
3.52
3.75
.19
5
Cation exchange
capacityf
me/100 g
18.82
13.32
10.48
19.67
27.78
19.47
27.23
35.92
21.46
8.21
38
Chemical
Potassium
.74
.68
.93
.05
.32
.65
.52
.40
.54
.28
52
properties
Magnesium
% of CEC me/100 g -
.11
2.70
.29
1.73
2.73
1.90
3.97
.97
1.80
1.32
73
Calcium
.27
9.01
No data
4.07
4.37
4.67
33.42
32.66
12.64
14.17
112
Organic
matter
% N
.11
.06
.06
.06
.17
.12
.07
.20
.10
.07
<1
*These are number samples used in analysis of minesoils (Ciolkosz et al., in press)
tme/100 g of material less than 2 mm.
-------
APPENDIX C
Opinion Survey
130
-------
-------
Mail questionnaires, with enclosed pre-stamped self-addressed
return envelopes, were sent to families in the immediate localities
of Bradford Township site 1 and Somerset/Brothers Valley Townships
site 2. The families were randomly selected from applicable voter
registration lists. A cover letter (page 134) also accompanied each
survey and served to introduce the author and his research. The
survey (pages 135 and 136) was developed to attempt to quantify the
environmental qualities related to agriculture, forestry, and
recreation land uses as well as strip mining and reclamation.
Survey responses from site 1 (29% return) and site 2 (42% return)
are summarized in Table Cl- Responses to question 5, 6, 7, and 12
(assumed to be representative of site population responses) were used
to estimate the reallocation of state income tax property. For each
land use including the no strip mining option this property was
calculated by summing the products for each income group of the average
land use dollar value (Table Cl, questions 6 and 7), the median
income level of the given income group, and the percent of the popula-
tion which that income group represents (Table C2). Responses to
question 5 (Table Cl) were used to evaluate the public attitude
property by establishing a ranking of the land uses according to
preference.
131
-------
Bob Elfstrom
600 N. Allen Street
State College, Pa. 16801
Phone: (814) 238-4976
To The Family,
I am currently doing research for my graduate thesis at Penn State
I believe that it's possible to develop a ranking of land use alterna-
tives for strip mine reclamation based on certain costs. The costs of
establishing certain environments involving the chemical and physical
properties of the soil can be determined from books and other printed
information. However, the costs of the value that people place on these
different land uses cannot similarly be found. This is why I am asking
for your help.
Although anonymous, your responses will be of great value to me.
I hope you realize, as a selected representative family of your township,
that your responses could have some implication in the selection of
environmental land uses for strip mine reclamation in your township.
If you have any question or comments, please feel free to contact
me at any time. Please complete this survey at your leisure and return
it within the enclosed, pre-stamped envelope.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and advice.
Sincerely,
Bob Elfstrom
Enclosures
132
-------
LAND RECLAMATION SURVEY
1. How many people are in your family?
2. To be answered by the respondent:
*. Tour age _
b. Your sex Q Kale Q Female
c. Education Q Grammar School Q Senior High Q A Years College
Q Junior High O 2 Years College Q More
d. Your occupation __ ___
3. How many years has your family lived in the township? _
4. Can you see any mining activity from your home or way to work? Q Yes ^^ No
5. If a portion of your township was to be strip mined, one of three land uses have the
chance of becoming established: Environment A - an economic crop field (Agricultural
Use); Environment B - a wildlife habitat (Woodland or Forest); or Environment C -
camping, hiking, and picnic areas (Recreation). In order of preference, how would
your family rank the environments with 1 • favorite, 2 - less favorite, and 3 - least
favorite?
Environment A Environment B Environment C
6. If your family was given a choice of how your State tax (which is 2 cents for every
dollar) was to be distributed, how much of this 2 cents would your family say should
be spent for your favorite Environment?
7.
1 • • •
0
Cent
How much of this
any stripping?
(ill
fill
0
Cent
i » T .„_».., -f- ,__ | -T r- — r- 1 t
1
Cent
2 cents would your family say should be spent
1
Cent
1 1 1 '• |
2
Cents
in order to prevent
I I I I 1
• 1 i 1 |
2
Cents
8. In your township, should more, less, or an equal amount of money be spent on local
government when compared to environmental improvement?
^\ More ^^ Less Q Equal Amount
9. In your township, would your family favor or oppose the idea of the stripped land
being converted into a residential development or shopping center complex?
Cj Favor £\ Oppose
(PLEASE TURN OVER)
133
-------
10. On a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 representing a beautiful place to live and 0 an
place to live, how would your family rate your township?
8
10
11. In your township, should more, less, or an equal amount of money be spent on
education and medical services when compared to environmental improvement?
^^ More Q Lesa Q Equal Amount
12. What is your approximate total family Income?
O 50-5,999 O $6.000-10,999 Q $11,000-19,999 Q $20,000 and over
13. Place an X in any box which corresponds to any activity that a oenfcer of your
family does for that season.
Outdoor Activity
Hunting
Fishing
Skiing or snowmobiling
Camping
Hiking or picnicking
Boating or swimming
Individual or team sports
(golf, tennis, Softball)
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
14. Any comments?
THANK YOU
134
-------
TABLE Cl. SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES FROM SITES I AND 2*
Site responses
Question number and description Site 1 Site 2
1. Average number of people per family 3.46 4.07
2. Average age (years) 44.4 . 39.2
Number of male respondents 20 21
Number of female respondents 8 19
Education! 2.9 3.8
3. Average number of years in township 25.9 24.6
4. Can see any mining activity
Number of respondents answering yes 27 36
Number of respondents answering no 14
5. Agriculture
Number of respondents answering most
favorite 12 28
Number of respondents answering less
favorite 7 8
Number of respondents answering least
favorite 5 4
Forestry
Number of respondents answering most
favorite 15 10
Number of respondents answering less
favorite 8 23
Number of respondents answering least
favorite 2 3
Recreation
Number of respondents answering most
favorite 1 2
Number of respondents answering less
favorite 5 5
Number of respondents answering least
favorite - 14 27
6. Average agriculture dollar value per income
& level
7. $0 to 5,999 .009 .010
$6,000 to 10,999 .010 .009
$11,000 to 19,999 .008 .014
$20,000 and over .010 .010
135
-------
TABLE Cl (CONTINUED)
Question number and description
Site 1
Site responses
Site 2
Average forestry dollar value per in-
come level
$0 to 5,999
$6,000 to 10,999
$11,000 to 19,999
$20,000 and over
Average recreation dollar value per
income level
$0 to 5,999
$6,000 to 10,999
$11,000 to 19,999
$20,000 and over
Average prevent strip mining dollar
value per income level
$0 to 5,999
$6,000 to 10,999
$11,000 to 19,999
$20,000 and over
8. Local government vs environmental
improvement
Number of respondents answering
more
Number of respondents answering
less
Number of respondents answering
equal amount
9. Reclaimed as residential development
or shopping center complex
Number of respondents that favored
Number of respondents that opposed
10. Average township rating
11. Education and medical service vs
environmental improvement
Number of respondents answering
more
Number of respondents answering
less
Number of respondents answering
equal amount
.020
.010
.007
.010
no response
no response
.010
no response
.006
.007
.004
.001
6
5
17
19
8
4.8
2
18
.010
no response
.006
.009
no response
no response
no response
.008
.005
.006
.008
.003
8
8
21
20
20
8.3
13
1
24
136
-------
TABLE Cl (CONTINUED)
Site responses
Question number and description Site 1 Site 2
12.
13.
Percent of respondents per income level
$0 to 5,999
$6,000 to 10,999
$11,000 to 19,999
$20,000 and over
Average number of activities
15
18
52
15
7.5
8
14
39
39
7.2
*Some questions were left unanswered by some of the respondents.
fEducation was coded in the following manner: grammar school = 1,
junior high = 2, senior high = 3, two years of college = 4, four
years of college = 5, and more than four years of college = 6.
137
-------
TABLE C2. CALCULATION OF THE REALLOCATION OF STATE INCOME TAX PROPERTY (EXPRESSED AS
DOLLARS/FAMILY/YEAR) BY INCOME GROUP FOR THE LAND USES
AND THE NO STRIP MINING OPTION AT SITES 1 AND 2
U)
oo
Calculation/income group
Land Use
Agriculture
Site 1
Site 2
Forestry
Site 1
Site 2
Recreation
Site 1
Site 2
No strip mining
option
Site 1
Site 2
$0 to 5,999
,009($3,000)(15%)
.010($3,000)(8%)
.Q20($3,000)(15%)
,010($3,000)(8%)
no response
no response
.006($3,000)(15%)
.005($3,000)(8%)
$6,000 to 10,999
.010($8,500)(18%)
.009 ($8, 500) (14%)
.010($8,500)(18%)
no response
no response
no response
.007($8,500)(18%)
.006($8,500)(14%)
$11,000 to 19,999
.008($15,500)(52%)
.014($15,500)(39%)
.007($15,500)(52%)
.006($15,500)(39%)
.010($15,500)(52%)
no response
.004($15,500)(52%)
.008($15,500)(39%)
$20,000 and over
.010($25,000)(15%)
.010($25,000)(39%)
.010($25,000)(15%)
.009($25,000)(39%)
no response
.008($25,000)(39%)
.001($25,000)(15%)
.003($25,000)(39%)
Sum
dollars/
family/year
121.33
195.24
118.22
126.42
80.60
78.00
49.40
37.59
-------
APPENDIX D
EXPLANATION OF ADDITIONAL COSTS REQUIRED
TO ESTABLISH EACH LAND USE
139
-------
-------
Explanation of Additional Costs Required to
Establish Each Land
Additional costs for corn include grading to some degree (perhaps
terracing), fertilizer and other soil amendments, seed cost, and
planting. Of the land uses evaluated in this study, corn would likely
require the most extensive grading. The cost of grading to change the
slope of one acre of land by 1% requires the movement of 7260 cubic
yards of soil. With a Soil Conservation Service figure of $.50/cubic
yard, this amount of grading costs $3630.00/acre (Table 39). It was
not necessary to estimate the other additional costs of establishing
corn, because corn grading costs far exceed the anticipated costs for
establishing the other land uses.
The costs of seed and fertilizer should be considered with meadow
and the remaining land uses. However, because fertilizer additions
are highly variable (depending on post-mining soil chemical analyses) ,
they have been left out of cost estimations. A combination of trefoil
at $4. 40 /pound and fescue at $.80/pound may be used to establish a
meadow. In terms of economics, a larger proportion should be allotted
to fescue. Meadow, for this study, was composed of 67% fescue and 33%
trefoil, costing approximately $50.00/acre on a moderately steep
terrain (Table 39).
All cost estimates for grading, seed, stock, and planting costs
as well as the quantities of seed or stock required per acre were
obtained from the Soil Conservation Office, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.
140
-------
Pine seedling ($10.00/1000 trees) and planting costs ($70.00/acre)
were evaluated in estimating the additional costs for establishing
pine. Approximately 670 trees are needed to sufficiently cover an
acre. Therefore, the total additional cost for pine was $76.50/acre
(Table 39).
An area suited to wildlife may be composed of a combination of
poplar $35.00/1000 trees), locust and alder ($10.00/1000 trees), and
bush and shrubbery ($150.00/1000 plants). An economic 1 acre planting
scheme may include 500 poplar, 250 locust, and 250 alder relying on
voluntary growth to provide for ground cover. Total costs, including
planting (which is about three times as expensive as pine due to the
greater degree of bulk handling of larger stock with protectively
bagged roots) approached $225.00/acre (Table 39).
To estimate the additional costs of establishing trails, it was
necessary to employ a composite of land use costs for pine and wild-
life habitat. The percentage of land use composition for trails is
described in Appendix B. Costs were estimated to be $200.00/acre
(Table 39).
As with trails, the percentage of land uses for multiuse, includ-
ing meadow, pine, wildlife habitat (as reported in Appendix A), was
used to develop a composite cost for multiuse. The cost was $130.OO/
acre (Table 39); however, additional costs would be incurred if
sanitary and camping facilities were constructed.
141
-------
APPENDIX E
PROPERTY MATRICES FOR SITES 1 AND 2
142
-------
-------
TABLE El. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR BERKS SOIL AT SITE 1
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth
Land Use Slope Erosion Texture Permeability content limiting
Corn l " 2
Meadow 1 3 2
Pine 1 3 2
Wildlife habitat 1 3 2
Trails 1 3 2
5 47 2
4 46 2
4 46 2
4 46 2
3 46 2
4 47 2
5 1.67
4 1.67
4 1.67
4 1.67
4 1.67
4 1.67
10 1.33
10 1.33
9 1.33
9 1.33
8 1.33
10 1.33
to Bulk
layer density
8 1.67
7 1.67
7 1.67
6 1.67
7 1.67
8 1.67
10
9
9
8
7
g
-------
TABLE E2. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR COOKPORT SOIL AT SITE 1
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth
Land Use Slope Erosion Texture Permeability content limiting
Corn l " J|
Meadow * 3 1
Pine l 3 3
Wildlife habitat l 3 l
Trails 1 3 2
Mill )-•{ llCC. J 3 l
5 47 2
2 46 2
6 46 2
2 46 2
3 4 6 2
2 47 2
5 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
10 1.33
10 1.33
9 1.33
9 1.33
a 1.33
10 1*33
to Bulk
layer density
B 1
7 1
7 1
6
7
8 1
1 0
9
9
8
7
8
-------
TABLE E3. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR GILPIN SOIL AT SITE 1
•e-
Ln
Physical properties
Land Use Slope
Corn l 8
Meadow 1 7
Pine l 7
Wildlife habitat l 1
Trails J 6
Mill *- -1 ticA ^ '
Erosion Texture Permeability
2.5010 1.3317 2J5
.502 1.3316 214
2.5010 1.3316 2 I U
2.507 1.3316 2 I If
2.509 1.3316 2 j "»
2.5010 1.3317 2 I if
Coarse
fragments
content
2.50 10
2.50 10
2.50 9
2.50 9
2.50 8
2.50 10
Depth to
limiting layer
1.3318
1.3317
1.3317
1.3316
1.3317
1.3318
Bulk
density
1 10
1 9
1 9
1 6
1 7
1 8
-------
TABLE E4. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR WEIKERT SOIL AT SITE 1
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth to Bulk
Land Use Slope Erosion Texture Permeability content limiting layer density
Corn l 6 1'5
Meadow 1 5 *5
Pine 1 5 2'5
Wildlife habitat * 5
Trails 1 " l'5
Mi.l f- -t tit^f* 15
) 7 if 1 7 2
) 2 if 6 2
} 10 >f 6 2
L t 1.25
if 1.25
if 1.25
10 18
10 17
9 1 7
9 16
8 1 7
10 IS
1 10
1 9
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 8
-------
TABLE E5. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR MINESOIL AT SITE 1
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth to
Land Use Slope Erosion Texture Permeability content limiting layer
Corn 'I6 " 9
Meadow * 5 * 2
Pine M5 5 l°
Wildlife habitat * 5 3 6
Trails l " * 7
\f.,1 *-•! ,,o^> 15 36
1 7 1
1 6 1
1 6 1
1 6 1
16 1
17 1
5 1
l» 1
1* 1
•» 1
1* 1
4 1
10 18
10 17
9 1 7
9 1 6
8 1 7
10 16
Bulk
density
1 10
1 9
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
-------
TABLE E6. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR BERKS SOIL AT SITE 1
4^
OO
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur
Land Use pH capacity content content content content content
Corn J 2 J
Meadow 1 2 l
Pine ' 2 l
Wildlife habitat 1 2 l
Trails 1 2 l
Multiuse l 2 l
2 110 1
2 18 1
2 17 1
2 16 1
2 16 1
2 17 1
2 5
2 5
2 5
2 5
2 5
2 5
8 1
7 1
7 1
6 1
6 1
6 1
5 10
if 10
"t 10
W 10
I* 10
it 10
15
1 3
1 3
"
1 1
12
-------
TABLE E7. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR COOKPORT SOIL AT SITE 1
Chemical properties
Land Use pH
Corn >33 2
Meadow '33 2
Pine '33 2
Wildlife habitat >33 2
Trails '33 2
Mill t-i iiao * 3 3 2
Cation Organic
exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur
capacity content content content content content
12 110 .20
12 18 .20
12 17 .20
12 16 .20
12 16 .20
12 17 .20
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
8 • 75
7 .75
7 . 75
6 .75
6 . 75
6 .75
5 10
4 10
i> 10
>t 10
'
4 10
It 10
15
1 3
13
14
1 1
12
-------
TABLE E8. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR GILPIN SOIL AT SITE 1
H1
t_n
O
Chemical properties
Cation
exchange Potassium Magnesium
Land Use pH capacity content content
Corn -50
Meadow ' s °
Pine -50
Wildlife habitat -50
Trails -50
Multiuse -50
2 1
2 1
2
2 1
2 1
2
2 1
2 1
2
2 1
2 1
2
10
8
7
6
6
7
i
i
l
i
i
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
Organic
Calcium matter Sulfur
content content content
M
M
M
ll
>l
M
8 1
7 1
7 1
6 1
6 1
6 1
5 10
it 10
it 10
it 10
it 1 0
i) 10
15
13
1 3
m
1 1
12
-------
TABLE E9. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR WEIKERT SOIL AT SITE 1
Chemical properties
Land Use pH
Corn l 2
Meadow 1 2
Pine l 2
Wildlife habitat J 2
Trails * 2
Mul I--IHQO J 2
Cation Organic
exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur
capacity content content content content content
12 510 .20
12 58 .20
12 57 .20
12 56 .20
12 56 .20
12 57 .20
2 5
2 5
2 5
2 5
2 5
2 5
8 1
7 1
7 1
6 1
6 1
6 1
5 10
it 10
4 10
4 10
t» 10
if 10
15
13
13
l>t
11
12
-------
TABLE E10. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR MINESOIL AT SITE 1
t_n
M
Chemical properties
Land Use pH
Corn 1 2
Meadow l 2
Pine l 2
Wildlife habitat 1 2
Trails 1 2
Cation Organic
exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur
capacity content content content content content
12 110 12 1
12 18 12 1
12 17 12 1
12 16 12 1
12 16 12 1
12 17 12 1
8 1
7 1
7 1
6 1
6 1
6 1
5 10
it 10
it 10
<» 10
4 10
it 10
15
13
1 3
m
1 1
12
-------
TABLE Ell ECONOMIC PROPERTIES MATRIX AT SITE 1
Land property
Land Use value
Corn '2S
Meadow 1<0°
M Pine '75
Ul
U)
Wildlife habitat l4°0
Trails >75
e.
7.
6.
5.
5.
Mill 1--! 11J5Q • 50 5 '
00
00
00
00
00
00
Economic
properties
Reallocation of state Effect of
income tax unemployment
5.
5.
s .
5.
6 .
6.
00
00
00
00
00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
8.00
00 S. 00
. 60
1.00
. "*0
. 60
. 40
S
6
5
5
6
.20 6
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
Additional
costs
5
1
2
3
3
2
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
6.00
if . 00
4.00
7.00
7.00
5. 00
-------
TABLE £12. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES MATRIX AT SITE 1
Land Use
Aesthetic properties
Public attitude
Area mined and
visual conformity
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
1.001 1). 00
1.001 5.00
1.001 5.00
1.00! 5.00
1.671 10.00
1.671 10.00
4.0015.00
4.0015.00
4.0015.00
4.0015.00
4.0015.00
4.0017.00
154
-------
TABLE Ell PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR CAVODE SOIL AT SITE 2
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth
Land Use Slope Erosion Texture Permeability content limiting
Corn J * '75
Meadow l 3 '*5
Pine 1 3 1
Wildlife habitat * 3 '50
Trails l 3 '50
7 .673 .202 5
2 .67 3 .20 2 5
8 .673 .202 5
*t .673 .202 5
3 .673 .202 5
•* .673 .202 5
10 .80
10 .80
9 .80
9 .80
8 .80
10 .80
to Bulk
layer density
8 1
7 1
7 1
6 1
7 1
8 1
10
9
9
8
7
8
-------
TABLE El,4. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR COOKPORT SOIL AT SITE 2
Ui
ON
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth to Bulk
Land Use Slope Erosion Texture Permeability content limiting layer density
„ 12 .67
Corn
Meadow 1 2 *33
Pine 1 2 1
Wildlife habitat 1 z *33
Trails l 2 '67
M . . 1 1- -! . . r. n 12 "33
5 47 25 5
2 46 24 5
6 46 24 5
2 46 24 5
3 46 24 5
2 47 24 5
10 1.338 1
10 1'33
9 1.33
9 1.33
6 1.33
10 1.33
7 1
7 1
6 1
7 1
8 1
10
9
9
8
7
8
-------
TABLE £15. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR HAZLETON SOIL AT SITE 2
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth to
Land Use Slope Erosion Texture Permeability content limiting layer
Corn l " 2
Meadow l 3 l
Pine l 3 3
Wildlife habitat ' 3 l
Trails > 3
. 13 1
5 23 1
2 23 1
6 23 1
2 23 1
3 23 1
2 23 1
2 1-67
2 1.67
2 1-67
2 1.67
2 1.67
2 1.67
10 i» 8
10
-------
TABLE E16. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR NOLO SOIL AT SITE 2
Ln
CO
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth
Land Use Slope Erosion Texture Permeability content limiting
Corn 1 2 2
Meadow ' 2 1
Pine l 2 3
Wildlife habitat 1 2 J
Trails l 2 2
Mill t-iiis<=> 1 2 *
5 213 .252 5
2 23 .252 5
6 23 .252 5
2 23 .25 2 5
3 23 .252 5
2 23 .252 5
10 1.25
10 1.25
9 1.25
9 1.25
8 1.25
10 1.25
to Bulk
layer density
10 1
9 1
9 1
8 1
9 1
10 1
10
10
9
8
7
8
-------
TABLE E17. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR WHARTON SOIL AT SITE 2
H*
<_n
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth to Bulk
Land Use Slope Erosion Texture Permeability content limiting layer density
Corn 1 "
Meadow l 3
Pine 1 3 2-
Wildlife habitat l 3 l'
Trails 1 3 *•
Mul 1-i iico * 3 * •
29 1.337 .405 5
502 1.3316 .404 5
5010 1.3316 .404 5
506 1.3316 .404 5
506 1.336 .404 5
506 1.337 .404 5
10 1.338
10 1.337
9 1.337
9 1.336
8 1.337
10 1.338
1110
1 9
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 &
-------
TABLE E18. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR CAVODE SOIL AT SITE 2
ON
O
Chemical properties
Cation
exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium
Land Use pH capacity content content content
Corn x'25 10 l <
Meadow 1'25 9 l '<
Pine 1-25 9 l <
Wildlife habitat 1<25 9 l '
Trails 1'25 8 1 '
\f_ i j i « i /-l i-i i«^oy ii
110 19 18
18 19 17
17 18 17
16 17 16
16 17 16
17 18 16
Organic
matter Sulfur
content content
15 6
1 4 6
1 >t 6
1 t 6
1 "t 6
1 "» 6
1 1
9
9
10
7
8
-------
TABLE Ei9. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR HAZLETON SOIL AT SITE 2
Chemical properties
Cation
Organic
exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur
Land Use pH
Corn l'25 10
Meadow 1-25 9
Pine 1'25 9
Wildlife habitat 1.2 s 9
Trails l'25 9
M..1 »--t ..„„ 1.25 9
capacity content content content content content
1 2 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
12 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
10 1
8 1
7 1
6 1
6 1
7 1
9 1
9 1
8 1
7 1
7 1
8 1
8 1
7 1
7 1
6 1
6 1
6 1
5 6
"* 6
4 6
I* 6
>» 6
M 6
1 1
9
9
10
7
8
-------
TABLE E20. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR NOLO SOIL AT SITE 2
Chemical properties
Land Use pH
Corn i.25|io
Meadow '""I9
Pine *-25 9
Wildlife habitat 1<2S 9
Trails 1.25 8
M.iltHiico 1.25 9
Cation Organic
exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur
capacity content content content content content
1 2 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
I 2 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
10 1
8 1
7 1
6 1
6 1
7 1
9 1
9 1
8 1
7 1
7 1
8 1
8 1
7 1
7 1
6 1
6 1
6 1
5 6
4 6
<* 6
"* 6
t 6
it 6
1 1
9
9
10
7
8
-------
TABLE E21. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES MATRIX FOR WHARTON SOIL AT SITE 2
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur
Land Use pH capacity content content content content content
Corn '33 2 l 2 1 10 l 2 1 8 l
Meadow «33 2 l 2 l 8 l 2 ' 7 '
£ plne .332 12 17 12 17 1
Wildlife habitat *33 2 * 2 J 6 J 2 l 6 *
Trails '33 2 l 2 1 6 x 2 J 6 J
M.. !«-,-..„„ .33 2 12 17 12 16 1
5 6
>t 6
"* 6
4 6
it 6
it 6
1 1
9
9
10
7
8
-------
TABLE E22. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES MATRIX AT SITE 2
Economic properties
Land Use
Corn
Meadow
Pine
Wildlife habitat
Trails
Multiuse
Land property
value
. 50
2.00
1.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Reallocation
income
i
i
3
3
k
4
. 00
• 00
. 00
• 00
. 00
. 00
2
2
5
5
8
8
of state
tax
. 00
• 00
. 0 0
• 00
. 00
. 00
Effect of
unemployment
.60
1.00
. 40
. 60
.40
• 20
5.
6 .
5.
5.
6 .
6 .
00
00
00
00
00
00
Additional
costs
5. 00
1*00
2.00
3.00
3.00
6.00
<*• 00
4.00
7.00
7.00
2-00 5.00
-------
TABLE E23. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES MATRIX AT SITE 2
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and visual
Land Use Public attitude conformity
.6713.00 5.0016.00
Meadow .67|3.oo 5.oo|6.oo
p£ne 1.3316.00 5.0016.00
Wildlife habitat 1. a a | e. o o s. o o 16. o o
Trails i.67iio.oo s.oois.oo
Multiuse 1.67110.00 s.ooie.oo
165
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AND AVERAGE SUMS
166
-------
-------
TABLE PI. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR CORN AT SITE 1*
Physical
properties
Coarse Depth to
Soil Permea- fragments limiting Bulk Average
Typef Slope Erosion Texture bility content layer density sumj
Berks 1 " 2
Cookport l " 2
Gilpin ' a 2-50
Weikert 1 6 1'50
Minesoil 1 6 "
Weighted
sum 1-°° 5'68 2'86
5 ") 7 2
5 47 2
10 1.307 2
7 it 7 2
9 17 1
7.72 2.22 7.00 1.57
5 1.67
5 5
5 2-50
5 1.25
5 1
5.00 1.77
10 1.3018 1.6710
10 1 . 3 0 j 8 110
10 1*3016 110
10 118 110
10 1110 110
10.00 1.1518.51 1.17 10.00 1,68 7.70
*Cotnponent values are taken from Appendix E (Tables El, E2, E3, E4, and E5) .
tsoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .A3,
respectively.
= 11.74/53.91.
-------
TABLE F2. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR MEADOW AT SITE 1*
00
Physical properties
Coarse Depth to
Soil Permea- fragments limiting Bulk Average
Typef Slope Erosion Texture bility content layer density sumf
Berks l 3
Cookport 1 3 1
Gilpin 1 7 '50
Weikert 1 5 '50
Minesoil l 5 l
Weighted
sum
4 46 24 1.67
2 46 24 5
2 1.306 24 2.50
2 49 24 1.25
2 16 14 1
2.52 2.22 6.15 1.57 4.00 1.77
10 1.307 1.679
10 1.307 19
10 1.307 19
10 1.307 1.679
10 17 19
10.00 1.16 7.00 1.20 9.00 1.4416.19
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables'El , E2 , E3 . E4 » and E5 ) •
tsoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and A3,
respectively.
tSum = 10.06/43.35.
-------
TABLE F3. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR PINE AT SITE 1*
CTN
Physical
properties
Coarse Depth to
Soil Permea- fragments limiting Bulk Average
Typef Slope Erosion Texture bility content layer density sum|
Berks 1 3 2
Cookport l 3 3
Gilpin * 7 2'50
Weikert l s 2'50
Minsoil l 5 5
Weighted
sum I-°° "'68 3-"8
<( * 19 17 19
4.00 1.77 9-00 1.15 7.00 1.17 9,00 1.77 6.83
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables El , E2 , E3 , E4 , and E5 ) .
TSoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively.
$Sum = 12.36/47.80.
-------
TABLE F4. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT AT SITE 1*
Soil
Typef
lierks
Cookport
Cilpin
Weikert
Minesoil
Physical properties
Slope
Erosion
Texture
Permea-
bility
1|3
T
1 I 5
2 I 4
1 I 2
2.5017
3 ! 6
46
1) 6
1.306
i» 6
16
2J4
2,4
2,4
1 I 4
Coarse
fragments
content
1.6719
5,9
2.5019
1.2519
1 I 9
Depth to
limiting
layer
1.3016
1.30,6
1.3016
1,6
116
Bulk
density
1.6718
1|.
1|.
1,8
1 I 8
Average
sum$
Weighted
sum
2.3915.24 2.221 7.00 1.5714.00 1.77110.00 1.1516.00 1.1718.00 1.6116.42
* Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables El , E2 , E3 , E4 , and E5 ) .
fSoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively.
JSum = 11.27/44.92.
-------
TABLE F5. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR TRAILS AT SITE 1*
Physical properties
Coarse Depth to
Soil Perinea- fragments limiting
Typef Slope Erosion Texture bility content layer
Berks l 3 2
Cookport 1 3 ^
Gilpin l 6 2'50
Weikert 1 " l-50
Minesoil l ** *
Weighted
sum 1-°° "-02 2'92
3 46 24 1.678 1.307
3 46 24 58 1.107
9 1.306 24 2.508 1.307
5 46 24 18 17
7 16 14 1.258 17
5.90 2.22 6.00 1.57 4.00 1.77 8.00 1.15 7.00
Bulk Average
density sumj
1.67 7
1 7
1 7
1 7
1 7
1.17 7.00 1.6915.39
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables El , E2 , E3, E4 , and E5 ) .
fSoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively.
urn = 11.80/41.92.
-------
TABLE F6. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR MULTIUSE AT SITE 1*
Physical properties
Coarse Depth to
Soil Perinea- fragments limiting Bulk Average
Typef Slope Erosion Texture bility content layer density sumj
Berks 1 3 2
Cookport l 3 l
Gilpin 1 7 2'50
Weikert l 5 1
Minesoil l 5 3
Weighted
sum l-°° "•68 2'39
4 47 24 1.67
2 47 24 5
10 1.307 24 2.50
4 47 24 1.25
6 17 14 1
b.78 2.22 7.00 1.57 4.00 1.77
10 1.308 1.678
10 1.308 18
10 1.308 18
10 18 18
10 18 18
10.00 1.15 8.00 1.17 8.00 1.61 6.78
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables El, E2, E3, E4, and E5).
fSoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively.
$Sum = 11.27/47.46.
-------
TABLE F7. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR CORN AT SITE 1*
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typef pH capacity content content content content content sumj
Berks l
Cookport *33
Gilpin -50
Weikert *
Minesoil 1
Weighted
sum -86
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2.00 1.00
2 110 12 58 15 1015
2 110 -202 18 .755 1015
2 110 12 18 15 1015
2 510 .202 58 15 1015
2 110 12 18 15 1015
2.00 1.20 10.00 .90 2.00 2 . 2 U 8.00 .98 5.00 10.00 15.00 2.i»5j6.29
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E6, E7 , E8, E9 , and E10).
fSoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively.
= 17.18/44.00.
-------
TABLE F8. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR MEADOW AT SITE 1*
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typef pH capacity content content content content content sum$
Berks l
Cookport >33
Gilpin •50
Weikert 1
Minesoil *
Weighted
sum ' 8
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2.00 1.00
2 18 12 57 1 it 1013
2 18 .202 17 .751 1013
2 18 12 17 lit 1013
2 58 .202 57 14 1013
2 18 12 17 1 it 1013
1.00 1.20 8.00 .90 2.00 2.24 7.00 .98 4.00 10.00 13.00 2.45 5.43
* Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E6, E7, E8, E9, and E10) .
fSoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively.
$Sum = 17.18/38.00
-------
TABLE F9. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR PINE AT SITE 1*
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Type* pH capacity content content content content content sum:}:
Berks 1
Cookport *33
Gilpin '50
Weikert 1
Minesoil l
Weighted
sum '86
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2.00 1.00
2 17 12 57 l"t 1013
2 17 .202 17 .751* 1013
2 17 12 17 1 «f 1013
2 57 .202 57 14 1013
2 17 12 17 1 <» 10113
2.00 1.20 7.00 .90 2.00 2 . 2 if 7.00 .98 if . 0 0 10.00 13.00 2 . <» 5 j 5 . 2 9
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E6, E7, E8, E9, and E10) .
tSoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively .
= 17.18/37.00.
-------
TABLE F10. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT AT SITE 1*
Chemical
properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typef pH capacity content content content content content stunt
Berks *
Cookport '33
Gilpin '50
Weikert l
Minesoil :
Weighted
sum '86
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2.00 1.00
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 5
2 1
2.00 1.20
6 1
6 .20
6 1
6 .20
6 1
6 . 00 .90
2 56 lit 101"*
2 16 .754 1014
2 16 14 10 14
2 56 14 1014
2 16 14 10 14
2.00 2.24 6.00 .98 4.00 10.00 14.00 2.45 5.14
Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E6 , E7 , E8 , E9 , and E10 ) .
tsoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively.
= 17.18/36.00.
-------
TABLE Fll. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR TRAILS AT SITE 1*
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Type-j- pH capacity content content content content content sum|
Berks 1
Cookport -33
Gilpin >5°
Weikert 1
Minesoil l
Weighted
• 86
sum
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2.00 LOO
2 16 12 56 14 1011
2 16 .202 16 .754 1011
2 16 12 16 14 1011
2 56 .202 56 14 1011
2 16 12 16 14 1011
2.00 1.20 6.00 .90 2.00 2.24 6.00 .98 4.00 10.00 11.00 2.45 U . 7 1
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E6, E7, E8, E9, and E10).
|Soil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively.
|Sum = 17.18/33.00.
-------
TABLE F12. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR MULTIUSE AT SITE 1*
oo
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typef pH capacity content content content content content sum±
Berks 1
Cookport ' 3 3
Gilpin '50
Weikert l
Minesoil *
Weighted
sum * 86
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2.00 1.00
2 17 12 56 1 if 10 12
2 17 .202 16 .751* 1012
2 17 12 16 14 10 12
2 57 .20 2 56 14 10 12
2 17 12 16 1 If 10 12
2.00 1.2017.00 .90 2.00 2.24 6.00 .98 4.00 10.00 12.00 2.4515.00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E6, E7, E8, E9, and E10).
fSoil coefficient for Berks, Cookport, Gilpin, Weikert, and the Minesoil are .26, .08, .18, .05 and .43,
respectively.
$Sum = 17.18/35.00.
-------
TABLE F13. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR CORN AT SITE 1*
Economic properties
Land property
value
Reallocation of state
income tax
Effect of
unemployment
Additional
costs
Average
sumt
.2516.00
5.0014.00
.6015.00
5.0016.00
2.7115.25
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table
fSum = 10.85/21.00.
TABLE F14. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR MEADOW AT SITE 1*
Land property
value
Economic properties
Reallocation of state
income tax
Effect of
unemployment
Additional
costs
Average
sumf
1.0017.00
5.0015.00
1.0016.00
1.0014.00
2.0015.50
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table Ell).
tSum = 8.00/22.00.
-------
00
o
TABLE F15. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR PINE AT SITE 1*
Land property
value
.7516.00
Economic properties
Reallocation of state
income tax
5.00 5.00
Effect of
unemployment
. 1*0 I 5. 00
Additional
costs
2.0014.00
Average
sumf
2.04 5.00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table Ell)
tSum = 8.15/20.00
TABLE F16. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT AT SITE 1*
Economic properties
Land property
value
Reallocation of state
income tax
Effect of
unemployment
Additional
costs
Average
sumf
1.0015.00
5-0015.00
•6015.00
3- 00 I 7• 0 0
2.7715.50
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table Ell)
fSum = 11.10/22.00.
-------
TABLE F17. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR TRAILS AT SITE 1*
Economic properties
Land property
value
Reallocation of state
income tax
Effect of
unemployment
Additional
costs
Average
sunrf
7516.00
6.0018.00
.4016.00
3.0017.00
2.5416.75
OO
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table Ell).
tSum = 10.15/27.00.
TABLE F18. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR MULTIUSE AT SITE 1*
Economic properties
Land property
value
Reallocation of state
income tax
Effect of
unemployment
Additional
costs
Average
sumf
.50(6.00
6.0016.00
.2016.00
2.0015.00
2.1816.25
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table Ell)
tSum = 8.70/25.00.
-------
TABLE F19. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR CORN AT SITE 1*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
1 .0015. 00 t.00 I 5.0 0
2.5015.00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E12).
tSum = 5.00/10.00.
TABLE F20. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR MEADOW AT SITE 1*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
1.0015.00 •». 00 I S. 00 2. 50 I 5. 00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E12).
fSum = 5.00/10.00.
182
-------
TABLE F21. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR PINE AT SITE 1*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
1.0015.00 <*.00|5.00 2.5015.00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E12)
fSum = 5.00/10.00
TABLE F22. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT AT SITE 1*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
1.0015.00 1.0015.00 2.5015.00
^Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E12)
fSum = 5.00/10.00.
183
-------
TABLE F23. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR TRAILS AT SITE 1*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sunrf-
1.67110.00 4.00 5.00 2.8417.50
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E12 )
fSum = 5.67/15.00
TABLE F24. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR MULTIUSE AT SITE 1*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
1.67110.00 4.00 7.00 2.8418.50
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E12)
tSum = 5.67/17.00.
184
-------
TABLE F25. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR CORN AT SITE 2*
Soil
Typet
Slope
Physical properties
Erosion Texture
Coarse
fragments
Permeability content
Depth to
limiting layer
Bulk
density
Average
sum$
00
Oi
Cavode
Cookport
Hazleton
Nolo
Wharton
l 2
.75,7
.6715
T
T
2 I 9
.6713
T
2 I 3
2,3
1.3317
.2012
2 I 5
1,2
• 2512
.4015
5110
5110
1.67110
5110
5110
80 I 8
1.3318
"I"
1.25110
1.3318
1110
1110
1110
1 I 10
1110
Weighted
sum
1.0013.54 1.8416.66 1.9515.12
8i» 3 • 59
'071 10-00
1-99 8-08
1-00110-00 1.8116.71
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E13, E14, E15, E16, and E17) .
tSoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
= 12.69/46.99.
-------
TABLE F26. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR MEADOW AT SITE 2*
00
Physical properties
Coarse
Soil
Typef Slope Erosion
Cavode l 3 -25 2
Cookport l 2 ' 3 3 2
Hazleton 1 3 l 2
Nolo l 2 l 2
Wharton > 3 '50 2
Weighted
„„_ l.OO 2.77 .59 2.00
o UD1
fragments Depth to Bulk Average
Texture Permeability content limiting layer density sumj
.673 -202 5
it 6 24 5
23 12 1-67
23 .252 5
1.336 .1*0 "* 5
1.954.59 .84 3. 06 4-07
10 -807 19
10 1.337 19
10 "* 7 19
10 1.259 19
10 1.337 19
10.00 1.99 7.08 1-00 9.00 1.63 5.50
^Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E13, E14, E15, E16, and E17).
tSoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
$Sum = 11.44/38.50.
-------
TABLE F27. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR PINE AT SITE 2*
CXI
—I
Soil
Typet Slope Erosion
Cavode 1 3 * 8
Cookport 1 2 l 6
Hazleton 1 3 2 5
Nolo 1 2 2 5
Wharton l 3 2'50 10
Physical properties
Coarse
fragments Depth to Bulk Average
Texture Permeability content limiting layer density sumt
.673 .202 5
it 6 24 5
23 12 1.67
23 .252 5
1.336 . tO "* 5
9 .80
9 1.33
9 "»
9 1
9 1.33
7 1
7 1
7 1
9 1
7 1
9
9
9
9
9
Weighted
sum
1.0012.77 1.83(7.02 1 . 9 5 I "* . 5 9
81* I 3 . 06
-------
TABLE F28. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT AT SITE 2*
Soil
Typef
Physical properties
Slope Erosion Texture Permeability
Coarse
fragments
content
Depth to
limiting layer
Bulk
density
Average
sum:}:
00
oo
Cavode
Cookport
Hazleton
Nolo
Wharton
113 . 50 I <»
112 .3312
1,3 1,2
112 112
113 1.5016
.6713
T
2 I 3
T
1.33(6
,2012
T
12
,
.2512
, <»0 I <*
5,9
5,9
1.6719
T
519
.8016
1.3316
t I 6
1,8
1.3316
1,8
1,8
1,8
1 I 8
Weighted
sum
1.0012.77 .9613.66 1 . 9 5 I <* . 5 9
.8413.06
4.0719.00
1.9816.08
1.0018.00
1.6915.31
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E13, E14, E15, E16, and E17) .
tsoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
$Sum = 11.80/37.16
-------
TABLE F29. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR TRAILS AT SITE 2*
Soil
Typef
Physical properties
Slope Erosion Texture Permeability
Coarse
fragments
content
Depth to
limiting layer
Bulk
density
Average
sum$
00
Cavode
Cookport
Hazleton
Nolo
Wharton
T
M2
1 I 3
1 I 2
1 I 3
.5013
.6713
2 I 5
2 I 5
1 . 50 I 6
.6713
T
T
T
1.3316
.2012
2 I 4
1,2
.2512
40 ! 1*
5 I 8
T
1.6718
T
51 8
.8017
1.3317
4 I 7
1|3
1.3317
T
T
M7
7
Weighted
sum
1.0012.77 1.3514.66 1.9514.59 .8413.06 4.0718.00
1.9817.01
1.0017.00 1.74 15. 31
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E13, E14, E15, E16, and E17).
fSoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
JSum = 12.19/37.16.
-------
TABLE F30. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR MULTIUSE AT SITE 2*
Physical properties
Coarse
Soil
Typef Slope Erosion
Cavode 1 3 l **
Cookport 1 2 '33 2
Hazleton l 3 l 2
Nolo l 2 1 2
Wharton 1 3 1-50 6
Weighted
1.002.77 1 . 01* 3 .66
sum
fragments Depth to Bulk Average
Texture Permeability content limiting layer density sum$
.673 .202 5
H 1 7 2>t S
23 12 1.67
23 .252 S
1.337 .1*0 <« 5
1.95 5.12 .8i| 3-06 "t-07
10 .808 18
10 1.338 18
10 48 18
10 110 18
10 1.338 18
1Q.QO 1.98 8.08 1*00 8*00 1.70 5*81
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E13, E14, E15, E16, and E17) .
tSoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
$Sum = 11.88/40.69.
-------
TABLE F31. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR CORN AT SITE 2*
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typef pH capacity content content content content content sumj
Cavode 1>2S
Cookport >33
Hazleton 1>25
Nolo 1'25
Wharton ' 3 3
Weighted
sum '76
10 112 1
2 12 1
10 112 1
10 112 1
2 12 1
5.76 1.00 2.00 1.00
10 19 18 15 611
10 .202 118 15 611
10 19 18 15 611
10 19 18 15 611
10 12 18 15 611
10.00 .85 5.29 1.0018.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 11.00 1.6616.72
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E18, E7, E19, E20, and E21).
tSoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
$Sum = 11.61/47.05.
-------
TABLE F32. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR MEADOW AT SITE 2*
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typef pH capacity content content content content content sumt
Cavode 1<25
Cookport *33
Hazleton
Nolo
Wharton
Weighted
sum '76
9 1
2 1
9 1
9 1
2 1
5.29 1.00
2 18 19 17 lH 69
2 18 .202 17 11* 69
2 18 19 17 14 69
2 18 19 17 1
-------
TABLE F33. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR PINE AT SITE 2*
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typej pH capacity content content content content content sum$
Cavode l'25
Cookport >33
Hazleton 1>25
Nolo l'25
Wharton -133
Weighted
sum "76
9 1
2 1
9 1
9 1
2 1
5.29 1.00
2 17 18 17 14 69
2 17 -202 17 14 69
2 17 18 17 14 69
2 17 18 17 14 69
2 17 12 17 14 69
2.00 1.00 7.00 .85 4.82 1.00 7.00 1.00 4.00 6.00 9.00 1.6615.59
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E18, E7, E19, E20, and E21).
tsoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
$Sum = 11.61/39.11.
-------
TABLE F34. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT AT SITE 2*
vo
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typef pH capacity content content content content content sumj
Cavode l'25
Cookport <33
Hazleton l'25
Nolo l-25
Wharton '33
Weighted
sum '76
9 1
2 1
9 1
9 1
2 1
5.29 1.00
2 16 17 16 lit 610
2 16 .202 16 11* 610
2 16 17 16 14 610
2 16 17 16 14 6 10
2 16 12 16 l>t 6 10
2.00 1.00 6.00 .85 k . 3 5 1.00 6.00 1.00 it . 0 0 6.00 10.00 1.66 5.38
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E18, E7, E19, E20, and E21).
tSoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
$Sum = 11.61/37.64.
-------
TABLE F35. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR TRAILS AT SITE 2*
VO
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typef pH capacity content content content content content sumj
Cavode ll25
Cookport *33
Hazleton 1-2S
Nolo 1'25
Wharton ' 3 3
Weighted
sum -76
8 1
2 1
8 1
8 1
2 1
"» . 82 1.00
2 16 17 16 li» 67
2 1 6 .20 2 16 11* 67
2 16 17 16 1 U 67
2 16 17 16 l"f 67
1 16 12 16 lit 67
2.00 1.00 6.00 *85 H . 3 5 1-00 6-00 1.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 1.66 4.88
* Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E18, E7, E19, E20, and E21).
tsoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
tSum = 11.61/34.17.
-------
TABLE F36. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR MULTIUSE AT SITE 2*
Chemical properties
Cation Organic
Soil exchange Potassium Magnesium Calcium matter Sulfur Average
Typef pH capacity content content content content content sumj
Cavode 1 ' 2 5
Cookport '33
Hazleton 1>2S
IT i 1.25
Nolo
Wharton °33
Weighted
sum '76
9 1
2 1
9 1
9 1
2 1
5.29 1.00
2 17 18 16 I"* 68
2 17 .202 16 I >t 68
2 17 18 16 Ik 68
2 17 18 16 Ik 68
2 17 12 16 l"f 68
2.00 1.00 7.00 .85 4.82 LOO 6-00 1.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 1.6615.30
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Tables E18, E7, E19, E20, and E21).
fSoil coefficient for Cavode, Cookport, Hazleton, Nolo, and Wharton are .15, .19, .28, .04 and .34,
respectively.
$Sum = 11.61/37.11.
-------
TABLE F37. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR CORN AT SITE 2*
Land property
value
.50 6.00
Economic properties
Reallocation of state
income tax
2.0012.00
Effect of
un emp 1 oymen t
.60 5.00
Additional
costs
5.00 6.00
Average
sumf
2.02 i» . 75
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E22).
tSum = 8.10/19.00.
TABLE F38. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR MEADOW AT SITE 2*
Economic properties
Land property
value
Reallocation of state
income tax
Effect of
unemployment
Additional
costs
Average
sumf
2.0017.00
2.0012.00
1.0016.00
1. 00 I if. 00 1.5014.75
^Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E22)
fSum = 6.00/19.00.
-------
TABLE F39. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR PINE AT SITE 2*
Economic properties
Land property
value
Reallocation of state
income tax
Effect of
unemployment
Additional
costs
Average
sumt
1.5017.00
4.0015.00
.4015.00
2.0014.00
1.9715.25
CO
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E22)
fSum = 7.90/21.00.
TABLE F40. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT AT SITE 2*
Land property
value
2.00 5.00
Economic properties
Reallocation of state
income tax
4.00 5.00
Effect of
unemp loymen t
.6015.00
Additional
costs
3.00 7.00
Average
sumt
2.4015.50
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E22),
fSum = 9.60/22.00.
-------
TABLE F41. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR TRAILS AT SITE 2*
Economic properties
Land property
value
Reallocation of state
income tax
Effect of
unemployment
Additional
costs
Average
sumf
1-501 5-00
5.0018-00
.1*0 I 6 . 00
3.0017.00 2 .1*7 I 6 . 50
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E22)
fSum = 9.90/26.00.
TABLE F42. ECONOMIC PROPERTIES FOR MULTIUSE AT SITE 2*
Economic properties •
Land property
value
Reallocation of state
income tax
Effect of
unemployment
Additional
costs
Average
sumt
1 • 00 I 5.00
5.0018.00
•2016.00
2.0015.00 2.05(6-00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E22).
tSum = 8.20/24.00.
-------
TABLE F43. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR CORN AT SITE 2*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
.6713.00 5-0016.00 2-831^.50
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E23)
tSum = 5.67/9.00.
TABLE F44. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR MEADOW AT SITE 2*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
.67 3.00 5.0016.00 2 . 8 3 I "* . 5 0
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E23)
tSum = 5.67/9.00.
200
-------
TABLE F45. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR PINE AT SITE 2*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
1.3316.00 5.0016.00 3.1616.00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E23).
tSum = 6.33/12.00.
TABLE F46. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT AT SITE 2*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumt
1.3316.00 5.0016.00 3.1616.00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E23).
fSum = 6.33/12.00.
201
-------
TABLE F47. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR TRAILS AT SITE 2*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
1.67)10.00 5. 001 6.00 3.3318.00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E23)
fSum = 6.67/16.00.
TABLE F48. AESTHETIC PROPERTIES FOR MULTIUSE AT SITE 2*
Aesthetic properties
Area mined and
Public attitude visual conformity Average sumf
1.6710.00 5.0016.00 3.3318.00
*Component values are taken from Appendix E (Table E23).
fSum = 6.67/16.00.
202
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
if lease read Jnuruclions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A preliminary model to estimate the strip mine
reclamation potential of selected land uses
,. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
R. W. Elfstrom, Jr. and A. S. Rogowski
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
6
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Northeast Watershed Research Center
USDA-ARS, 110 Research Building A
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA-IAG-D5-E763
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research & Development
Office of Energy, Minerals & Industry
Washinoton, D.C. 20460 .
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Interim 9/1/75-8/31/80
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This project is part of the EPA-planned and coordinated Federal Interagency
Energy/Environment R&D Program. .
16. ABSTRACT
Investigations were conducted to estimate land use reclamation potentials at
two unmined sites, one in Clearfield and one in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The
objective was to design a preliminary model which would enable a strip mine operator
to determine a priori an optimum land use following reclamation. Reclamation
potentials were determined for agriculture, forestry, and recreation. The magnitude
of the change in the existing and anticipated physical and chemical properties of the
site's soils as well as the change in related economic and aesthetic properties at the
site were estimated and the significances of the property levels to the land use were
determined.
Physical property changes were greater and the anticipated property levels were
more favorable for all land uses at the Somerset County site. Chemical property
levels were higher at Clearfield site but had more impact on land use establishment
at the Somerset site. Economic property levels were higher at the Clearfield site and
the aesthetic property levels were more critical at the Somerset site. At both sites,
trails were least affected by the physical and chemical properties of the soil.
Economic values favored pine at site 1 and wildlife habitat at site 2, while corn and
meadow were the preferred aesthetically at both sites by the responders. Wildlife
habitat had the best reclamation potential at site 1 and meadow had the best
reclamation potential at site 2.
17.
(Circle One or More)
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C.~ COSATI Field/Group
Ecology
^Environments^
Earth
(Envrfon'menial Engineering^
Geography •
Hydrology. Limnology
Biochemistry
Eartn Hyorosphere
Combustion
Refininc
Energy Conversion
Physical Chemistrv
Materials Handling
Inorganic Cnemisiry
Organic Cnemisiry
Chemical Engineering
6F 8A 8F
8H 10A 10B
7B 7C 13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report}
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS fTHispage/
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |