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)

-------