ORDES
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY:
LAND USE AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
PHASE II
OHIO RIVER DASIN ENERGY STUDY
-------
November 1980
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY:
LAND USE AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
By
J.C. Randolph
William W. Jones
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana 47401
Prepared for
Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES)
Grant No. EPA R805609
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
CONTENTS
Figures v
Tables ..... viii
Acknowledgement xi
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
2.0 Baseline Environment 4
2.1 Land Use 4
Land area 4
Major land uses 4
2.2 Terrestrial Ecology 27
Climate 27
Physiography 27
Soils 27
Flora 30
Fauna 31
Terrestrial ecosystem assessment variables 40
Ecosystem dynamics 64
3.0 Scenarios 69
3.1 Scenario Methodology 69
3.2 Scenario Descriptions 69
4.0 Siting 72
4.1 Siting Methodology 72
4.2 Siting Patterns 73
5.0 Impact Assessment 94
5.1 Approach 94
5.2 Land Use 94
Land use conversion due to electrical generating
facilities 94
Land use conversion from transmission lines 97
Land use conversion from coal surface mining .... 127
5.3 Terrestrial Ecology 127
Energy conversion facility impacts 128
Transmission line Impacts 141
6.0 Scenario Comparisons 144
6.1 Business as Usual (Scenario 2) 144
6.2 More Stringent Environmental Regulations 147
More Stringent Environmental Regulations (Scenario 1)
versus Business as Usual Regulations (Scenario 2) . 147
Very Stringent A1r Quality Regulations (Scenario la)
versus More Stringent Environmental Regulations
(Scenario 1) . 149
111
-------
Very Stringent A1r Quality (Scenario (la) versus
Very Stringent Air Quality with Concentration
Siting (Scenario Ib) 149
Agricultural Land Protection (Scenario Ic) versus
Stringent Environmental Regulations (Scenario 1) . 150
Agricultural Land Protection (Scenario Ic) versus
Agricultural Land Protection with Concentrated
Siting (Scenario Id) 151
6.3 Export of Electricity from Coal-Fired Units 152
Coal-fired Export (Scenario 2a) versus Business as
Usual (Scenario 2) 152
6.4 Low and Very High Economic Growth 153
Low Economic Growth (Scenario 5) versus Business as
Usual (Scenario 2) 153
Very High Economic Growth (Scenario 5a) versus
Business as Usual (Scenario 2) 153
Low Economic Growth (Scenario 5) versus Very High
Economic Growth (Scenario 5a) 154
6.5 Very Low Energy Growth 154
Very Low Energy Growth (Scenario 6) versus Business
as Usual (Scenario 2) 154
6.6 Higher Electrical Energy Growth 155
High Electrical Energy Growth (Scenario 7) versus
Business as Usual (Scenario 2) 155
6.7 Alternatives to Coal Emphasis 156
Natural Gas Emphasis (Scenario 4) versus Business as
Usual (Scenario 2) 156
Nuclear Fuel Emphasis (Scenario 2c) versus Business
as Usual (Scenario 2) 157
Nuclear-Fueled Exports (Scenario 6) versus Business
as Usual (Scenario 2) 158
Alternative Fuels Emphasis (Scenario 3) versus
Business as Usual (Scenario 2) 159
References 160
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1-1 Ohio River Basin Energy Study Region - Phase II 3
2-1 Generalized land use map of the ORBES region 20
2-2 Agricultural lands distribution 23
2-3 Forest lands distribution 24
2-4 Public lands distribution 25
2-5 Urban and built-up lands distribution 26
2-6 Primary land surface forms 1n the ORBES region 28
2-7 Generalized soil map of the ORBES region 32
2-8 Potential natural vegetation in the ORBES region 34
2-9 Forest resources in the ORBES region 36
2-10 Soil productivity in the ORBES region 61
2-11 Natural areas distribution 62
2-12 Endangered/threatened vertebrate species distribution 65
4-1 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 1 74
4-2 Proposed nuclear-fueled capacity additions for all scenarios . . 75
4-3 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario la 76
4-4 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario Ib 77
4-5 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario Ic 78
4-6 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario Id 79
4-7 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 2 80
-------
Number Page
4-8 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 2a 81
4-9 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 2b 82
4-10 Nuclear-fueled capacity additions for Scenario 2b 83
4-11 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 2c 84
4-12 Nuclear-fueled capacity additions for Scenario 2c 85
4-13 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 3 86
4-14 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 4 87
4-15 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 5 88
4-16 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 5a 89
4-17 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 6 90
4-18 Coal-fired capacity additions for Scenario 7 91
5-1 Land quality/terrestrial systems impact analysis 95
5-2 Illinois total land use conversion by electrical generating
facilities, 1975-2000 117
5-3 Indiana total land use conversion by electrical generating
facilities, 1975-2000 118
5-4 Kentucky total land use conversion by electrical generating
facilities, 1975-2000 ". 119
5-5 Ohio total land use conversion by electrical generating
facilities, 1975-2000 120
5-6 Pennsylvania total land use conversion by electrical qeneratlng
facilities, 1975-2000 121
5-7 West Virginia total land use conversion by electrical generating
facilities, 1975-2000 122
5-8 ORBES region total land use conversion by electrical generating
facilities, 1975-2000 ... .123
5-9 ORBES region reversible land use conversion by electrical
generating facilities, 1975-2000 124
vi
-------
Number Page
5-10 ORBES region irreversible land use conversion by electrical
generating facilities 125
5-11 Biospheric nitrogen cycle 135
5-12 Quantitative relationships of pools and fluxes for the
biospheric carbon cycle 137
5-13 Changes in the concentration of atmospheric C02, 1958-1971 ... 139
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2-1 Illinois Land Use Baseline Data 5
2-2 Indiana Land Use Baseline Data 8
2-3 Kentucky Land Use Baseline Data 11
2-4 Ohio Land Use Baseline Data 15
2-5 Pennsylvania Land Use Baseline Data 17
2-6 West Virginia Land Use Baseline Data 18
2-7 Summary of Land Use Data for the ORBES Region 22
2-8 Definitions of Forest Types Appearing in Figure 2-9 38
2-9 Illinois Terrestrial Ecosystem Baseline Data 41
2-10 Indiana Terrestrial Ecosystem Baseline Data 45
2-11 Kentucky Terrestrial Ecosystem Baseline Data 48
2-12 Ohio Terrestrial Ecosystem Baseline Data 52
2-13 Pennsylvania Terrestrial Ecosystem Baseline Data 55
2-14 West Virginia Terrestrial Ecosystem Baseline Data 56
2-15 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystem Variables in the ORBES
Region (From County Totals) 58
2-16 Key to Indices Used for Terrestrial Ecosystem Assessment
Units 59
3-1 Description of Basic ORBES Scenarios 70
3-2 Basic Scenario Assumptions for Environmental Controls and
and Economic Growth 71
4-1 Summary of Planned and Scenario Capacity Additions for the
ORBES State Portions for All Scenarios 92
4-2 Summary of Total Capacity Additions for the ORBES States
Portions for All Scenarios 93
5-1 Representative Values of Land Requirements for Various Components
of an Electrical Generating Station 96
viii
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number Page
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
Estimate of Present (1976) Land Use by Energy Conversion
Facilities in the ORBES Region
Detailed Analysis of Potential Land Use Conversions by
Major Category in Kentucky for Scenario 1
Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 1
Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario la
Potential Land Use Conversion By Major Category for
Scenario Ib
Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario Ic
Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario Id . . . .
Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 2
. . 98
. . 99
. . 100
. . 101
. . 102
. . 103
. • 104
. . 105
5-10 Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 2a 106
5-11 Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 2b 107
5-12 Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 2c 108
5-13 Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 3 109
5-14 Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 4 110
5-15 Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 5 Ill
5-16 Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 5a 112
5-17 Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 6 113
1x
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number Page
5-18 Potential Land Use Conversion by Major Category for
Scenario 7 114
5-19 Summary of Maximum Absolute Values (acres) and Relative
Values (percentage) of Land Use Conversion for Each
Major Category by Scenario 115
5-20 Transmission Line Requirements for Selected Energy
Facilities in the ORBES Region 126
5-21 Trace Element Constituents of Coal and Coal Ash 130
5-22 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystem Assessment Units
for All Scenarios (1976-2000) 142
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A great number of individuals worked together during the four year
course of the Ohio River Basin Energy Study. Most have received
acknowledgement in other volumes, those who directly contributed to this
volume deserve special mention here: Keith Bobay, Michael Ewert,
Olicea Franklin, Jim Kariya, Anne Mackenzie, Cathy Partenheimer, David Skole,
Joel Wagner, and Larry Wong.
xi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES) began in the fall of 1976
when the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded grants to
faculty members at a group of universities to carry out initial steps in
the assessment of potential environmental0 socia!0 and economic impacts of
the "proposed concentration" of electrical generating facilities in the
lower Ohio River Basin0 With the assistance of many additional researchers
from other universities and organizations0 the ORBES assessment has continued
over more than three years through two phases„
1.1 BACKGROUND
In the wake of the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo9 many electric utility
companies began announcing plans to construct generating facilities in certain
portions of the Ohio River Basin. Following these announcements„ a variety
of social and technological forces became focused on the basin. Concerns
over air and water quality were mirrored by concerns for national energy
needSo In an effort to identify the implications of locating future energy
conversion facilities in the Ohio River Valley9 in 1975 the U0 S0 Senate
Appropriations Committee directed EPA to perform a specific study;
"The committee is aware of plans in various stages of develop-
ment which could lead to a concentration of power plants along
the Ohio River in OhioD KentuckyB Indiana and Illinois,, Although
the environmental impacts of such a concentration could be critical9
the decision-making authority regarding construction of these faci-
lities is dispersed throughout the federal government and several
state governmentso1"
"The committee directs the Environmental Protection Agency to
conduct.0.an assessment of the potential environmental0 social0
and economic impacts of the proposed concentration of power
plants in the Lower Ohio River Basin,, This study should be
comprehensive in scope9 investigating the impacts from air0
water0 and solid residues on the natural environmental and
residents of the region. The study should also take into
account the availability of coal and other energy sources in
this region" (U. S. Congress0 1975).
Phase 1
To carry out the congressional mandate0 EPA awarded grants in 1976 to
six universities in the lower Ohio River Basin states of Illinois0 Indiana,,
Kentucky and Ohio to produce Phase I of the study. In cooperation with EPA
officials,, Phase I researchers interpreted the mandate as requesting an
assessment tied to the Eastern Interior Coal Province,, approximately located
in western and southern Illinoiss southern Indianas and western Kentucky.
The relationship of this region to the concentrated pattern of proposed
pocar plant construction along some stretches of the lower Ohio River was
1
-------
viewed by Phase I researchers and EPA as the principal focus of the Initial
year of ORBES. Thus, the boundaries of the region for Phase I Included all
but the northern tier of counties in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, and all of
Kentucky.
During Phase I, comprehensive scenarios for energy development in the
four states were analyzed by three preliminary assessment teams composed of
researchers from: (1) Indiana University, Purdue University and The Ohio
State University, (2) University of Kentucky and University of Louisville,
and (3) Chicago Circle and Urbana-Champaign campuses of the University of
Illinois. Phase I findings were integrated and summarized in a publication
entitled ORBES PHASE It Interim Findings (Stukel and Keenan, 1977).
Phase II
Due to concerns that the ORBES Phase I region representated an artificial
boundary in the determination of impacts on a total basin system, EPA, univer-
sity researchers, and congressional leaders involved in initiating ORBES all
agreed that the Phase II study region should be expanded to accomodate repre-
sentative portions of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Thus, the ORBES Phase
II study region (Figure 1-1) includes virtually all of West Virginia and the
southwestern portion of Pennsylvania in addition to the original Phase I
region.
When Phase II was commenced in the fall of 1977, 13 university faculty
members at eight universities served as an Interdisciplinary core team of
researchers. Core team members included representatives of the six univer-
sities Involved in Phase I plus researchers from West Virginia University
and the University of Pittsburgh. Other research specialists were called
upon as needed to fill 1n critical research gaps as identified by the core
team.
The emphasis during Phase II was on performing more detailed analyses
of Issues raised during Phase I and others as they arose during the assess-
ment. The Phase II work plan elements Included the following: (1) completion
of the data base, (2) identification of policy issues affecting energy
development in the region, (3) construction of plausible future energy
scenarios, (4) siting energy facilities for each of the scenarios, and (5)
assessing the impacts of each of the scenarios.
This volume represents the final technical report summarizing land use
and terrestrial ecology data and analyses conducted during Phase I and II of
ORBES. Where necessary, the report draws heavily upon Information within:
Indiana University et al. 1977; Fowler et al. 1980; Loucks et al. 1980;
Willard et al. 1980.
-------
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY REGION
_ PHASE I I
Ohio River Drainage Basin
FIGURE 1-1
-------
SECTION 2
BASELINE ENVIRONMENT
2.1 LAND USE
An understanding of the general patterns of land use within the ORBES
region 1s critical for the analysis of potential land use conversion from
present uses to energy-related uses. A regional analysis of major land use
types Indicates the Interrelationships of climate, physiography, soils,
vegetation, and the history of human development and the possible constraints
on future land uses.
Land_Area^
The ORBES region covers a total of 121,841,104 acres of land. The
greatest amount of ORBES-region land within a single state occurs in Illinois—
32.8 million acres (29 percent of total regional land area). The smallest
amount 1s in Pennsylvania, where the ORBES portion constitutes 8.8 million
acres (7 percent of total regional land area). Within the ORBES borders of
Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia are 17 percent, 17 percent, 21 per-
cent, and 11 percent of the total regional land area.
Major Land Uses
A generalized land use map of the ORBES region 1s presented in Figure
2-1. As seen from this map, the region can be roughly divided Into two primary
land uses: (1) agricultural lands of Illinois, northern Indiana, and north-
western Ohio, and (2) forest lands of southern Indiana, Kentucky, southeastern
Ohio, West Virginia, and western Pennsylvania.
Specific land use data at the county level are presented in Tables 2-1
through 2-6 for four major land use categories: agriculture, forest, public,
and urban and built-up lands. These land uses were selected for analysis
because of their regional importance and because a uniform data base exists
for them for all six ORBES states. In some cases county percentages may
exceed 100% due to overlap between the public lands category and others. For
example, since public lands can include both forest and agricultural lands
within their boundaries, these lands could be counted twice. A summary of
the land use data for the ORBES region is given in Table 2-7. Distribution
maps for each of the four land use categories are presented in Figures 2-2
through 2-5.
The primary land use in the ORBES region is agriculture; these lands
constitute about 54 percent of the regional total. Of the ORBES state por-
tions, Illinois has the highest total agricultural land use (23.2 million
acres; 71 percent). Indiana has the next greatest amount of agricultural
lands (14.4 million acres; 70 percent of the ORBES state portion). Pennsyl-
vania has the lowest amount of agricultural land use (2.2 million acres; 24
percent) and West Virginia the lowest percent (2.4 million acres; 18 percent).
Agriculture is the most common land use in the Eastern Interior Coal Province
but 1t 1s relatively unimportant in the Appalachian Coal Province.
4
-------
TABLE 2-1. ILLINOIS LAND USE BASELINE DATA
County
Adams
Alexander
bond
brown
Bureau
Calhoun
Cass
Champaign
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Coles
Crawford
Cumberland
teWitt
Douglas
Edgar
towards
Effingham
Fayette
Ford
Franklin
Fulton
Gal latin
Greene
Grundy
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Henderson
Henry
Iroquois
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jersey
Area
(Acres)
554,210
113.400
245,120
196,480
555,520
165,650
236,800
640,000
453,568
323,200
296,960
298,694
324, 4GO
262,880
221 ,440
255, 3CO
268,740
401 ,920
144,000
309 ,480
45G.730
312,320
277,760
559,360
209,900
347.520
275,980
278,400
510,140
117,120
243.840
528,640
718,080
385.800
31 6. GOO
307,360
239,362
Agricultural Lands
Acres %
433,149 7C
64,782 45
183,779 75
146,626 75
470,010 C5
87,545 53
192,885 81
572,900 90
393,792 87
251,414 78
225,865 7C
224,163 75
257,924 79
211,980 75
175,150 79
224,350 8C
247,021 92
349,481 87
115,291 80
213,076 '69
309,289 .67
283,511 91
207,882 75
419,754 75
145,658 69
262,711 76
238,754 87
204,586 73
406.840 80
47,759 41
187,012 77
467,511 88
652,310 91
206,579 54
253,795 fiO
279,921 76
162,507 6f5
Fort.-.U Lands
Acres %
61,700 11
43,100 30
35.700 15
38,200 19
25,600 5
57,700 35
32,000 14
7,100 1
1C, 466 4
48,000 15
47,100 16
30,990 10 '
24,084 7
47,400 17
24,483 11
9,200 4
4,700 2
20,312 5
21,465 13
54,000 18
91,500 20
1,254 1
40,119 14
96,338 17
45,700 22
55,952 16
11,050 4
48,713 17
73,900 14
44,117 38
41,256 17
11,500 2
13, COO 2
113, ,"18 29
44.2H7 14
44.52R 12
52,615 22
Public Lands
Acres
9.151 2
39,793 24
0 0
1 ,500 1
7.415 1
18.315 11
9,872 4
0 0
0 0
974 1
0 0
19,530 7
2,019 1
672 1
0 0
370 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
320 1
1,682 1
0 0
7,702 3
4,751 1
10,666 5
0 0
279 1
1 ,683 1
152 1
23,882 20
4,480 2
1 ,090 1
1 ,920 1
4f.,4l.',f. 12
1,103 i
2,200 1
10,r,58 5
Urban and Lull t-u'p
Lands
Acres %
22,221 4
8,458 6
9,794 4
4,525 2
22,954 10
2,476 1
6,369 3
35,441 6
35,152 8
12,232 4
13,971 5
13, C0£ 5
26,161 8
16,0'l5 C
11,671 5
15,888 6
9,468 4
22,040 5
4,265 3
30,195 10
31,905 7
11,028 4
17,043 6
14,613 3
4,234 2
13,169 4
9,683 4
14,577 5
17,712 3
5,862 5
6,402 3
27,003 5
21 ,080 3
12, 458 3
7,rno z
20,510 6
6,758 3
5
-------
Table 2-1 Continued
County
Johnson
Kankakee
Knox
LaS«lle
Lawrence
Livingston
Logan
HcDonough
McLean
Hacon
Hacoupln
Madison
Marlon
Marshall
Mason
Massac
fenard
Mercer
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
tioultrle
Peorla
Perry
Platt
Pike
Pope
Pulaskl
Putnam
Randolph
Rich land
St. Glair
Saline
Sanganon
Schuyler
Scott
Area
(Acres)
219,500
434,700
465,920
737,920
239,360
667,520
396,080
372,480
750,720
368.640
558,080
467,840
370,615
252,800
346,240
157.440
199,680
355,340
243,200
449,075
3C1 ,600
220,800
399,360
283,500
279,680
530,560
243.840
130,600
106,240
380,100
232,960
428,000
245, 7CO
563 .200
277.7CO
160,640
Agricultural Lands
Acres %
121,671 55
357,185 82
383,896 82
647,499 88
184,525 77
613,191 92
367,104 92
307,773 83
398,133 93
304,558 83
444,711 80
300,181 64
255,528 69
206.703 82
271.483 78
105,087 67
174,321 87
• 300,900 85
158,431 65
367,305 82
299,203 33
194,435 8C
288,499 72
210.858 74
256.475 92
395,310 75
95,295 39
84,951 65
75.199 71
273,854 72
189,293 81
2 04, 01 f. f.C
164. C49 67
448,446 80
18«,OT3 68
132,095 82
Forest Lands
Acres %
75. COO 34
21 ,625 5
4C.500 10
31 ,521 4
34,000 14
11,000 2 .
9,400 2
26,200 7
6,467 1
7,490 2
75,400 14
54,200 12
72,969 20
23.400 9
40,000 12
32,622 21
14,400 7
24,300 7
60,000 25
40,100 11
26,100 7
4 ,250 2
39,200 10
35,697 13
7.000 3
85.800 16
61,072 25
28,600 22
13,738 13
59.80G 16
26,748 11
58,300 14
34,900 14
37,195 7
76,700 2R
15,100 9
Public Lands
Acres £
21 ,502 10
2,968 1
0 0
4,663 1
590 1
0 0
750 1
1 .252 1
1 .687 1
364 1
.737 1
465 1
3,019 1
4,918 2
13,519 4
7,552 5
520 1
1 ,400 1
0 0
0 0
827 1
9,200 4
2,154 1
2,524 1
1 1
2,672 1
85,706 35
0 0
0 0
6,f>12 2
3,8f,7 2
11,278 3
14,010 6
4,067 2
760 1
0 0
Urban and bullt-Up
Lands
Acres I
4,765 2
31,175 7
11,070 2
29,937 4
9,950 4
22,896 3
15,217 4
25,367 7
35,302 5
36.627 10
15.100 3
77,296 17
23,646 6
5,806 2
18,481 5
8.406 5
6.224 3
10,581 3
4,966 2
18,151 4
22,297 6
7,639 3
43,359 11
19,441 7
10,929 4
12.391 2
7,312 3
9,300 7
10,889 10
27,094 7
12,200 5
60,224 14
17,590 7
51,912 9
5.827 2
5^65 4
-------
Table 2-1 Continued
County
Shelby
Stark
Tazewel 1
Union
Vermilion
Wabash
Warren
Washington
iJayne
White
Williamson
Woodford
Area
(Acres)
494.0CO
186.240
417.920
264,900
574,720
141,440
346,830
361 ,265
457,600
320,640
271,900
343,680
Agricultural Lands
Acres %
391 ,977 79
171.763 92
331,072 79
146,002 55
484,817 84
122,982 87
306.562 8C "
274,687 76
356,076 7C
254,336 79
128.663 47
291, 3C8 85
Forest Lands
Acres Z
45,177 9
5,000 3
28,400 7
76,400 29
33,543 6
9,215 7
19,600 6
57,218 1C
67,358 15
30.700 11
68,900 25
22,600 7
Public Lands
Acres %
11,214 2
0 0
1,866 1
43,096 16
1 ,760 1
635 1
0 0
1.417 1
1 ,301 1
0 0
44.325 16
2.901 1
Urban and Hum-Up
Lands
Acres %
25,884 5
5,722 3
45,587 11
7,617 3
40,753 7
7.461 5
10,405 3
15,226 4
21,330 5
15,320 5
25,282 9
17,314 5
Sources: (University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service 1970; Illinois Department of Conservation 1978;
Illinois Departnent of Conservation Undated; U. S. Department of the Interior 1970)
-------
TABLE 2-2. INDIANA LAND USE BASELINE DATA
County
Adm
Alltn
Bartholomew
ben ton
Blackford
Boone
Brown
Carroll
Cass
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Crawford
Davless
Dearborn
Uecatur
Delaware
Dubols
Fayette
Floy a
Fountain
Frankl In
Fulton
Gibson
Grant
Greene
Hamilton
Hancock
Harrison
Hendrlcks
henry
Howard
Huntlngton
Jackson
Jasper
Jay
Jefferson
Area
(Acres)
220.700
428,800
256,600
261,700
106,800
273,280
206,400
239.300
265,600
245,500
232,960
260.500
199,700
275,600
195,800
236,550
253.500
276,800
137,600
95,300
254, 020
252,100
234,900
319,300
269,500
351,300
256,500
195,200
306,500
266,900
256.000
187,000
249,600
332,800
3b9,100
247,000
234,300
Agricultural Lands
Acres X
190,667 36
317.392 74
161,818 63
247,324 95
87,424 82
230,453 84
29,525 14
205.054 8C
213,216 80
104,926 43
145,092 62
231,784 89
85,219 43
217,004 79
134,568 69
190,000 83
179, 7P1 71
165.4C9 60
106 ,011 77
40.03C 42
204.011 80
168,747- 67
19C.630 85
252,173 79
213,423 79
218,871 62
195,229 76
163,872 84
155,616 51
194,670 73
199,526 78
157,356 84
203,019 81
1S3,7(.2 55
30h,924 65
211.510 86
133.206 57
Forest Lands
Acres X
15,000 7
35,237 8
34,886 14
2,000 1
10,849 10
11,407 4
135,140 65
16,289 7
18.981 7
90.083 37
47,933 21
9,665 4
97,454 49
38,643 14
44,540 23
23,537 10
11,534 5
88,695 32
19,001 14
37,182 39
27.44C 11
60,000 24
14,472 6
45,060 14
14,123 5
100,253 29
13,239 5
8,469 4
131,490 43
17.000 6
17,111 7
7,000 4
20,430 P,
110,323 33
25.613 7
19,450 8
63.436 27
Public Lands
Acres X
0 0
0 0
20,435 8
0 0
0 0
6 1
58,843 29
0 0
0 0
16,368 7
•Q 0
0 0
31,276 16
8,200 3
0 0
24 1
0 0
4,621 2
0 0
0 0
200 1
16,445 7
0 0
7,472 2
0 0
2,787 1
0 0
0 0
12,934 4
0 0
800 1
0 0
16,747 7
36,028 11
4,500 1
0 0
23,336 10
Urban and Uu1lt-Up
Lands
Acres X
8,978 4
64.000 15
16,700 7
6,256 2
4,400 4
16,398 6
2,700 1
10,050 4
18,800 7
29,496 12
11,330 5
9,870 4
4,730 2
9.547 3
8.500 4
7.000 3
50,787 20
e.esi 3
3,500 3
3,500 4
8,548 3
7,600 3
7,705 3
12,397 4
23.300 9
9.550 3
24.826 10
13,798 7
7.000 2
25.610 10
29,800 12
15.477 8
11,200 4
9,400 3
10.108 3
10,400 4
8,175 3
8
-------
Table 2-2 Continued
County
Jennings
Johnson
Knox
Kosdusko
Lawrence
Madison
Marlon
Marshall
Martin
Miami
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Noble
Ohio
Orange
Owen
Parke
Perry
Pike
Posey
Pulaski
Putnam
Randolph
Rlpley
Rush '
Scott
Shelby
Spencer
Starke
Sullivan
Switzerland
Tlppecanoe
Tlpton
Union
Area
(Acres)
241,200
201 ,240
330.900
334,300
293,760
289,850
257,300
284,120
220,800
243.200
246,400
324,330
259,700
262,400
55,680
259,059
246.400
286,570
245,760
214,400
264,900
277,100
312,320
292,500
282,600
261,700
123,400
261,760
253,400
199,000
292,500
141,440
320,600
167,000
107,080
Agricultural Lands
Acres %
138.632 57
154.029 77
267,569 79
272,689 82
141,091 48
226.513 78
86,850 34
220,875 78
68,075 31
201,610 R3
85,962 35
279,584 86
129,501 50
206,730 79
38,137 68
118,254 46
116,152 47
175,420 61
94,9f.7 39
117,987 55
212,243 80
220,983 80
202,767 65
258,551 88
182,685 65
232,713 89
68,268 55
235,179 90
167.656 66
134,657 68
225,679 77
100,292 71
248,695 78
142,127 H5
80,580 75
Forest Lands
Acres %
69.878 29
8,488 4
38,721 12
28,047 8
117,416 40
15,875 5
12,407 5
26,678 9
72,996 33
18,119 7
110,000 45
24,000 7
92,392 36
25,524 10
14,567 27
102,770 40
115,000 47
86,595 30
94,300 3R
77,951 36
32,973 12
32,000 12
72,000 23
13,226 5
55,525 20
12,851 5
43,592 35
7,607 3
69,780 28
27,000 14
54,791 19
36.490 2f
21,571 8
10,000 fi
15,000 14
Public Lands
Acres %
4,393 2
5,410 3
21 1
9 1
16,162 6
254 1
0 0
0 0
78.306 35
2,600 1
56.665 23
0 0
5,085 2
2,678 1
C 0
27,906 11
11,231 5
6,877 7
58,656 24
10,270 5
4,400 2
5,846 2
937 1
0 0
5.905 2
0 0
7,189 6
0 0
1,747 1
2,324 1
5,816 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
1,515 1
Urban and Dull t-Up
Lands
Acres %
7,100 3
21,400 11
15,997 5
23,090 7
15,767 5
27,200 9
146,087 57
15,140 5
3,100 1
9,703 4
24,087 10
9,297 3
14,423 £
9,603 4
1,576 3
5,650 2
4,988 2
9,841 3
6,495 3
5,800 3
6,473 2
7,294 3
13,000 4
10,385 4
8,400 3
7,800 3
8,000 6
9,300 4
5,721 2
13.038 7
7,350 3
2,500 2
18,705 5
7.600 5
4.604 4
-------
Table 2-2 Continued
County
Vanderburgh
Vennlll Ion
Vigo
H abash
Warren
Warrlck
Washington
Wayne
Wells
White
Whltley
Area
(Acres)
154 .200
168,300
265.600
269.400
235.500
249,700
330,120
258.900
235,500
318.000
215,000
Agricultural Lands
Acres Z
92.619 60
110,888 71
167.948 63
219,504 81
194.869 83
114,030 46
176,097 53
181 ,018 70
. 203,641 86
287,691 90
174,348 81
Forest Lands
Acres 2
18,736 12
30,346 18
45,000 17
20.552 8
23,350 10
72,479 29
130,891 40
23,000 9
17,333 7
12,807 4
20,102 9
Public Lands
Acres X
0 0
0 0
26 1
15,689 6
0 0
87 1
10,896 3
9 1
1 ,065 1
0 0
0 0
Urban apd built-up
Lands
Acres %
29,006 19
7,707 5
32,300 12
13.000 5
5.556 2
11,300 5
5,826 2
32,000 12
8,405 4
9,598 3
7,946 4
Sources: (Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service 1968; Indiana Department of Natural Resources 1978;
Indiana Department of Natural Resources Undated; Indiana Department of Natural Resources 1975)
10
-------
TABLE 2-3. KENTUCKY LAND USE BASELINE DATA
County
Adalr
Allen
Anderson
Ballard
Barren
Bath
Bell
Boone
Bourbon
Boyd
Goyle
Bracken
Breathitt
Brecklnrldge
DulUtt
Butler
Cal dwell
Galloway
Can.pbel 1
Carlisle
Carroll
Carter
Casey
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Crittendsn
Cumberland
Davless
Edmonson
Elliott
Estlll
Fayette
Fleming
Floyd
Franklin
Area
(Acres)
251 ,520
232,960
131,840
165,760
311,040
183,680
236,000
161,280
192,000
102,400
117,120
130,560
361,160
360,960
192,000
283,520
22R.4EO
245,760
95,360
124,800
83,200
257,280
278,400
464,640
165,760
303,360
121,600
233,600
198,400
295,680
194,560
153,600
166,400
179.200
224,000
255,300
135.040
Agricultural Lands
Acres %
131,191 52
131,696 57
91 ,278 69
119,606 72
214,558 69
123,441 67
6,976 3
104,532 65
173,801 91
34,333 34
87,059 74
86,119 66
22,250 6
181,520 50
69,432 36
124,789 44
122,411 54
134,357 55
.34,663 36
75,550 61
49,240 59
65,652 26
115,607 42
293,575 63
140,273 85
45,491 15
53,361 44
130,051 56
70,418 35
204,440 69
71.847 37
35,892 23
31,562 21
140.3.°,7 78
l'jfi.146 70
33.227 13
74.S30 55
Forest Lands
Acres %
108,880 43
83,800 36
34,100 26
36,793 22
72,131 23
42,543 23
202,171 85
44,400 27
5,100 3
57,200 56
20,100 17
39,600 30
279,585 77
160,000 44
74,600 39
135,500 48
79,200 35
77,100 31
18,800 18
42,400 34
26.600 32
181,900 70
153,800 55
131,400 28
12,200 7
247,600 82
61 ,209 50
87,800 37
117,656 59
66,200 22
67,796 35
114,100 74
117,3ffi! 71
5,&no 3
60.300 27
192,600 75
44,700 33
Public Lands
Acres %
0 0
2, COO 1
0 0
10,194 6
3,399 1
19,186 10
14,100 . 6
864 1
0 0
0 0
565 1
0 0
10,000 3
6,155 2
42,855 22
0 0
1 ,929 1
1 ,000 1
900 1
237 1
809 1
9,100 4
0 0
29,635 6
0 0
72,549 24
5,950 5
0 0
3,900 2
303 1
53,600 28
350 1
3,955 2
1 ,042 1
0 0
10,3bO 4
124 1
Urban and Bu1lt-Up
Lands
Acres %
4,939 2
3,819 2
4,179 3
3,169 2
10,016 3
540 3
9,577 4
6,985 4
3,851 2
7.104 7
5,651 5
2,010 2
4,755 1
8,160 ' 2
4,857 3
4,084 2
19,109 8
10.431 4
37,490 39
2,606 2
3,447 4
6,638 3
5,989 2
13,980 3
5,133 3
3,424 1
1.562 1
5,149 2
1,286 1
14,275 5
3,776 2
2,096 1
3.R26 2
21,742 12
4.6f,0 2
3,754 1
10.966 8
11
-------
Table 2-3 Continued
County
Fulton
Gallatln
Garrard
Grant
Graves
Grays on
Gre«n
Greenup
Hancock
Hardln
Marian
Harrison
Hart
Henderson
Henry
Hlcksian
Hopkins
Jackson
Jefferson
Jessamine
Johnson
Ken ton
Knott
Knox
Larue
Laurel
Lawrence
Lee
Leslie
Letcher
Lewis
Lincoln
Livingston
Logan
Lyon
HcCracken
McCreary
Area
(Acres)
129.920
64,000
151,040
159,360
358,400
327,680
100.480
224.640
119.680
394,240
300,160
197,120
272,000
277.120
184.960
157,440
353,920
215,680
240,000
113,280
1C8.960
105,600
227.840
238,720
166,400
285,440
272,000
134,400
263,680
216.960
311.040
217,600
199, 6W)
360,320
161 ,920
160,000
267.520
Agricultural Lands
Acres I
88.594 68
41.431 65
119,948 79
118,980 75
248.624 69
195.420 60
111.848 62
53.461 24
56.194 47
201 .250 51
7.173 2
153,804 7fi
139.520 51
190,517 69
129,724 70
113,789 72
144,243 41
47,775 22
101,325 . 42
91 ,502 81
25,410 15
40,965 39
14,388 6
42,524 18
99,458 60
80,173 28
40,906 15
20,792 15
6,583 2
19,077 9
62,384 20
145.402 67
109.675 55
229,962 64
31 ,241 19
87,078 54
13.057 5
Forest Lands
Acres %
32,300 25
19,600 30
23,800 16
38,400 24
80,200 22
115,760 35
60,200 33
158,000 70
56,800 47
100,000 25
260.600 87
33.500 17
lOT.'TOS 39
61.300 22
44.800 2«
37,900 24
160.332 45
109,273 50
33,500 14
12,200 ' 11
136,900 81
28,200 27
197,600 87
177.700 74
55,700 33
140,867 49
222.800 82
102.312 76
228.500 86
186,939 R6
23fl,57fi 76
58,700 27
73.300 37
109,700 30
28,222 17
37.COO 23
92,838 35
12
Public Lands
Acres t
2,040 2
0 0
0 0
1 .579 1
0 0
4.477 1
0 0
3,330 1
0 0
48,000 12
6.388 2
0 0
1,530 1
5,935 2
0 0
456 1
853 1
56,196 26
397 1
0 0
0 0
747 1
0 0
86 1
100 1
57,185 20
0 0
7,012 5
52.083 20
11.435 5
6,600 2
11 1
400 1
0 0
42,200 26
9,028 6
170.114 63
Urban and Bullt-Up
Lands
Acres X
5,480 4
1,820 3
3,880 3
1 ,265 1
12,517 3
5,706 2
4.690 3
4,925 2
2.613 2
14,297 4
10,691 4
4,475 2
5.180 2
9,246 3
4,496 2
3.613 2
12.898 4
4,279 2
77,222 32
5.202 5
3,406 2
32.100 30
5,448 2
5,970 3
3.567 2
9,598 3
5 ,088 2
2.544 2
3,967 2
4.312 2
6,101 2
2,100 1
3.008 2
9.338 3
8.000 5
21.462 13
1,704 1
-------
Table 2-3 Continued
County
McLean
Madison
Magoffln
Marlon
Marshall
Martin
Mason
Keade
Men 1 fee
Mercer
Netcalfe
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Huhlenberg
He 1 son
Nicholas
Ohio
Oldham
Owen
Owsley
Pendleton
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaskl
Robertson
Rockcastle
Rowan
Russell
Scott
Shelby
Simpson
Spencer
Taylor
Toiid
THgg
Trimble
Area
(Acres)
164,480
285.440
193,920
219,520
193,920
147,840
152,320
195,200
134,401
163,840
189,440
213,760
130,560
236,160
307,840
279,680
130,560
381 ,440
117,760
224,640
126,080
178,560
219,520
503,040
110,720
418,560
64,640
199,040
185,600
152,320
181,760
245,120
152,960
123,520
181,760
240,640
293.760
93.440
Agricultural Lands
Acres %
108,703 66
205,895 72
28,292 15
122,435 56
104,865 54
10,282 7
127,482 84
93,636 48
20,811 15
136,507 83
95,721 51
105,768 49
106,043 81
53,021 22
137,644 45
144,992 52
102,699 79
160,151 42
82 ,962 70
138,603 62
23,880 19
119,975 67
9,826 4
29,964 6
21,939 20
185,330 44
45,646 71
50,048 25
39,146 21
57,593 38
148,637 82
194,617 79
116.770 7C
92,530 75
92,935 51
170. 1C6 71
89.517 30
55,341 59
Forest Lands
Acres %
45,500 28
49,200 17
161,000 83
82,800 37
6C.100 34
130,100 88
18,500 12
75,800 39
79,387 59
17, COO 10
88,000 46
99,000 46
18,700 14
165,470 70
140,900 45
117,200 42
23,900 18
195,800 51
22,200 19
81,000 36
92,799 73
50,500 28
187,200 85
425,173 84
69,969 63
178,420 42
16,300 25
129,128 65
92,555 50
62,563 41
25,600 14
31,400 13
23.300 15
24.600 20
65,800 36
61,700 26
52.587 18
34.600 37
Public Lands
Acres %
0 0
3.321 1
0 0
0 0
5.083 3
0 0
0 0
3,000 2
40,386 30
18 1
0 0
30 1
0 0
9,533 4
338 1
4,235 2
5,659 4
150 1
209 1
1,254 1
15,957 13
448 1
4,989 2
10,116 2
16,502 15
27,954 7
100 1
12,418 6
61 ,489 33
13,399 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1,300 1
16 1
84,f.OO 29
0 0
Urban and tiuilt-Up
Lands
Acres %
4.207 3
8,134 3
3,187 2
4,515 2
12,300 6
1,714 1
3,874 3
4,791 2
2,470 2
5,510 3
3,919 2
4.089 2
3.110 2
3.489 1
6,284 2
8,627 3
2,192 2
12.411 3
5,640 5
2,120 1
2,302 2
3,938 2
4,569 2
7,199 1
4,859 4
6,154 1
1,674 3
6,249 3
3,417 2
12,154 8
3.025 2
6, "23 3
6.750 4
2.532 2
1.300 1
5.294 2
20.000 7
1.93R 2
13
-------
Table 2-3 Continued
County
Union
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Whltley
Wolfe
Uoodford
Area
(Acres)
217.600
349,440
196,480
281,600
216,960
293,760
145,280
123,520
Aorl cultural Lands
Acres I
140.934 65
235,064 67
137,886 70
80.508 29
132,120 61
50,543 17
33,023 23
102,893 83
Forest Lands
Acres X
37.594 17
90,600 26
47,100 24
178,941 64
67.600 31
196.566 67
92,622 64
8.700 7
Public Lands
Acres X
5,420 2
0 0
153 1
12,142 4
0 0
44.798 15
14,887 10
285 1
Urban and BufU-Up
Lands
Acres X
6,166 3
9,641 3
4,974 3
400 1
5.635 3
9.434 3
3.645 3
3,930 3
Sources: (Kentucky Conservation Needs Inventory Comnlttee 1970; 0. M. Stlne 1977; Kentucky Department of Parks 1978;
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 1977; Kentucky Department of parks 1978)
14
-------
TABLE 2-4. OHIO LAND USE BASELINE DATA
County
Adams
Allen
Ashland
Athens
Auglalze
Belmont
Brown
Butler
Carroll
Champaign
Clark
Clermont
Clinton
Columbiana
Coshocton
Crawford
Darke
Delaware
Fairfleld
Fayette
Franklin
Gallla
Greene
Guernsey
Hamilton
Hardln
Harrison
Highland
Hocking
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Knox
Lawrence
Licking
Area
(Acres)
376,320
262,400
267,520
322,290
256.000
342,273
314,019
301 ,240
248,320
277,064
257,177
292,920
263,040
342,103
348.800 .
258,435
387,150
281 ,600
323,200
259,840
343,680
300,991
266.060
332,160
264,960
29(5,880
257,920
352,640
268,650
270,520
268,256
268,040
334,720
291 ,840
439,040
Agricultural Lands
Acres %
163,365 43
189,848 72
182,438 68
108,844 34
205,375 80
170,427 50
215,984 69
173,960 58
115,943 47
219,239 79
187,645 73
149,618 51
217,699 83
195,631 57
164.857 47
190,791 77
320,83fi 83
219,694 78
23E.241 73
228,210 88
172,900 50
120,613 40
200.630 75
153,921 46
45,163 17
252.227 84
103,260 40
246,416 70
59,681 22
159.0C5 59
99,693 37
70.507 26
231.699 69
63.575 22
294,762 67
Forest Lands
Acres X
187,100 50
23,010 9
51,383 19
180,043 56
20,840 8
124,492 36
76,800 24
31,793 11
113,800 46
32,804 12
23,875 9
91.000 31
17.113 7
88,768 26
148,400 43
25,080 10
21,515 6
26,739 9
52,138 .16
11,867 5
19,671 6
154,600 51
19,000 7
155,400 47
33,409 13
20,324 7
138,700 54
84,200 24
173,084 64
93,500 35
141,200 53
148,?00 56
68,507 20
169,200 5fi
8f>,262 20
Public Lands
Acres %
1C, 340 5
1 ,274 1
4,726 2
29,557 9
3,100 1
7,591 2
2.014 1
3,102 1
8,970 4
1,455 1
10,564 4
2.759 1
7,024 3
6,C03 2
6.224 2
221 1
449 1
17.C20 6
1 ,685 1
2.277 1
1,219 1
11,055 4
1.722 1
20,181 6
0 0
15 1
13,954 5
12,527 4
12,997 16
6,018 2
9.6R9 4
fi.Sflfi 3
2.742 1
56.530 19
2.124 1
Urban and Gu1lt-Up
Lands
Acres %
11,702 30
30,840 12
16,208 6
18.949 6
17,824 7
24,127 7
11,239 4
68,007 23
11,177 5
17,119 6
34.780 14
35.434 12.
15,754 6
43,804 13
16.R38 5
18,638 7
23.319 6
20.205 7
19,963 6
12,775 5
129,813 38
11,647 4
25,497 10
18,267 5
171,855 65
15,238 5
10.634 4
13,493 4
10,118 4
9.R93 4
16.121 6
31.800 12
20.7ft 6
15.212 5
36.407 8
15
-------
Table 2-4 Continued
County
Logan
Madison
Matron Ing
Marlon
Medina
Melgs
Mercer
Miami
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Morrow
Musklngum
Hoble
Perry
Plckaway
PUe
Portage
Preble
Rich! and
Ross
Scloto
Shelby
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Union
Vlnton
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wyandot
Area
(Acres)
295,040
296,660
268.160
259,200
271 .200
277.610
290,560
260.480
291 .200
297,600
266,880
258,560
424.320
255,140
261.760
324.375
283.520
319,320
273,280
318,080
439,680
389,760
261 ,760
366,720
264,229
391,145
352.640
277,760
263,040
261,120
407,680
352,640
259,017
Agricultural Lands
Acres X
231,843 79
262.266 88
95,511 36
203,263 78
173.297 64
89.514 32
243,653 84
210,091 81
116,667 40
156.251 53
128.544 48
194,224 75
210.288 50
117,361 4C
107,464 41
285,046 RC
113,222 40
147,675 46
217.495 80
191,903 60
237,114 54
89,116 23
211,866 81
175,934 48
59,449 22
137,630 35
162,762 46
229,678 83
49,459 19
178,027 fR
124.171 30
258,58? 73
213,499 P2
Forest Lands
Acres X
30,495 10
13,275 4
31,026 12
23,861 9
41,814 15
168,100 61
23,438 >,
18,901 7
147,606 51
18,250 6
115,000 43
46.235 18
175,600 41
115.700 45
116.500 45
12.566 4
151,698 54
89,327 28
25,538 9
70,759 22
170,300 44
254,500 65
23,550 9
67,120 18
46,411 18
86,224 22
15C.300 44
18.638 7
193,900 74
33,042 13
239,500 59
52.R70 15
24,<>r>7 10
Public Lands
Acres X
6,452 2
183 1
5,405 2
2,904 1
870 1
3,333 1
12,200* 4
16 1
15,972 5
268 1
8,923 3
172 1
19,571 5
6,913 3
23,899 9
4,474 1
11,142 4
10,619 3
1.80R 1
4,379 1
31,743 7
65.716 17
1 .708 1
6,747 2
4,760 2
28,155 7
3.180 1
30 1
49.665 19
5,250 2
2R.845 7
2,134 1
R/J93 3
Urban and Bullt-Up
Lands
Acres X
14,709 5
12.058 4
77,326 29
17,762 7
19,598 7
11,945 4
15,314 5
21,647 8
13,386 5
108,707 37
9,482 4
11,004 4
24,437 6
11.183 4
14.340 5
13,137 4
8,172 3
36,206 11
14.738 5
37.0P6 12
16,607 4
25,466 7
14,425 6
86,458 24
124,042 47
60,f38 16
9.996 3
20.620 7
37.537 14
7,680 3
21.151 5
25,101 7
10,040 4
Sources: (Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Needs Coroi>1ttee 1971; Melvln 1970; Ohio Department of Natural Resources
1977a; Ohio Department of Natural Resources 1976a; Ohio Department of Natural Resources 1977b; Ohio Depart-
ment of Natural Resources 1976t>; Ohio Department of Natural Resources Undated)
16
-------
TABLE 2-5. PENNSYLVANIA LAND USE BASELINE DATA
County
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Cambria
Clarion
Clearfleld
Elk
Fayette
Forest
Greene
Indiana
Jefferson
Lawrence
Mercer
Somerset
Venango
Washington
Westmoreland
Area
(Acres)
467,200
419,840
282,240
508,160
444,800
383,360
732,160
516,480
508,160
266,240
369,280
528.000
417,280
234,880
435,840
693,760
432,000
548,480
654,720
Agricultural Lands
Acres %
41.013 9
128,065 31
81,398 29
153,572 30
34,332 19
78,900 21
55.547 8
19,662 4
111,360 22
6,712 3
190,528 52
160,487 30
74,220 18
92,761 39
185.518 43
169.864 24
47,440 11
265,041 48
209,998 32
Forest Lands
Acres %
R6.278 18
218,900 52
134,600 48
261,600 26
284,600 64
272,600 71
607.9.TO 83
360,364 70
317,300 62
138,OCf. 52
147,752 40
289,400 55
292,813 70
92,700 39
147, £25 34
443,400 64
352,700 82
192,703 35
312,100 48
Public Lands
Acres X
1 ,423 3
5,843 1
8,756 3
24,557 5
20,401 5
21 ,284 6
104,515 14
238,328 46
42,732 8
118,700 45
10,317 3
11,126 2
47,748 11
4,968 2
8,103 2
50,363 7
32,194 7
11,041 2
14,043 2
Urban and Bullt-Up
Lands
Acres X
254,968 55
24,871 6
46,000 16
3G.500 7
31 ,900 7
22,700 6
36.916 5
13,754 3
40,302 8
4.B33 2
19,500 5
34,000 • 6
26,181 6
20.000 9
44.631 10
34,404 5
18,500 4
50,200 9
69,448 11
Sources: (Pennsylvania Soil Conservation Service 1970; Key et al. 1979; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources 1975a; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 1975b; Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources 1977)
17
-------
TABLE 2-6. WEST VIRGINIA LAND USE BASELINE DATA
County
harbour
Boone
B rax ton
Brooke
Cabell
Calhoun
Clay
Doddrldge
Fayette
611 mer
Grant
Greenbrler
Hancock
Harrison
Jackson
Kanawha
Lewis
Lincoln
Logan
McDowell
Marlon
Marshal 1
Mason
Mercer
Mlngo
Nonongalla
Monroe
Nicholas
Ohio
Pleasants
Pocahontas
Preston
Putnam
Raleigh
Randolph
Ritchie
toane
Summers
Taylor
Area
(Acres)
215,040
320,600
330,900
57,000
178,560
179,800
218,900
204,200
421,760
217,000
304,190
656,480
52,500
267,520
296.320
581,100
250,900
200,320
291,800
341 ,120
197,800
195,800
276,400
266,900
270,720
233,500
302,600
412.600
68,500
83,200
603,520
412,800
223,400
3CC.230
663,100
289.280
311.000
228.900
108,800
Agricultural Lands
Acres Z
64,772 30
3,200 1
87,855 27
14,100 25
30,334 17
33,135 18
22,062 10
40,587 20
35,400 8
42,370 20
56,815 19
134,982 21
11,600 22
98.643 37
72,678 25
46,000 8
89,691 36
25,246 9
3,700 1
3,999 1
50,000 25
71 ,642 37
98,878 36
47,470 18
2,000 1
42,489 18
108,837 36
44,995 11
29.156 43
9,668 12
93,354 15
101.300 25
44,849 20
56.346 15
84,489 13
83,211 29
95,200 31
48,856 21
30,359 35
Forest Lands
Acres 2
130,327 61
290,000 90
213,633 65
23.900 42
118,203 66
138,600 77
189,350 87
149,625 :3
352,400 84
167,468 77
219,014 72
401 ,860 61
24,600 47
115,070 43
206,179 70
453.500 78
134,300 54
245,545 88
260,500 89
302,500 89
120.000 61
110,920 57
162,304 59
186,445 70
242,300 90
144,940 62
185,035 61
312,923 76
21.407 31
68,910 83
209,431 35
273,700 6C
166,986 75
295,115 76
383, 21R 5R
197,200 30
197,800 64
152.321 67
55.000 SI
Public Lands
Acres 2
2,141 1
9.000 3
17,187 5
133 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
6.866 2
2,167 1
17.030 6
106,514 16
1.39P, 3
530 1
64 1
9.052 2
2,389 1
7,155 3
3,305 1
25,896 8
188 1
62 1
13,135 5
7.142 3
12.850 5
6.350 3
100,895 33
23,696 6
199 1
0 0
317,367 52
10,380 3
0 0
1 ,691 1
187,029 28
6,405 2
0 0
22,777 10
4,109 4
Urban and Bullt-Up
Lands
Acres %
5,998 3
9,800 3
6.100 2
7,600 13
19,403 11
2,802 2
3,200 1
3.200 2
22,800 5
3,999 2
3,015 1
9,542 1
11.100 21
13,509 5
9,000 3
49,700 9
5,187 2
3,519 1
14.100 5
16,821 5
14,800 7
7,496 4
7,511 3
14.702 6
12,512 5
12,505 5
4,995 2
6,826 2
11,497 17
2.009 2
5.200 1
10,453 3
6.6C3 3
21,230 5
10,393 2
6.510 2
6,000 2
5.007 2
1 .000 4
18
-------
Table 2-6 Continued
County
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Wayne
Webster
Wetzel
W1rt
Wood
Wyoming
Area
(Acres)
269,400
163.800
225,300
328,320
352, COO
231 ,700
149,800
235,500
322,600
Agricultural Lands
Acres %
22,500 8
51 ,540 31
76.810 34
41,900 13
13.470 4
23,496 10
33.664 22
63,152 27
16,000 5
forest Lands
Acres %
139,600 52
105,716 65
131,400 58
270,300 C2
266,099 75
196,067 85
109,932 "3
145,900 62
287,637 89
Public Lands
Acres %
101,492 38
355 1
2,535 1
8,123 2
73,119 20
9,176 4
5,127 3
0 0
3,823 1
Urban and Bullt-Up
Lands
Acres %
4,000 1
3,206 2
5,000 2
7,134 2
3,311 1
5,616 2
2,500 2
15.09C 6
8,563 3
Sources: (West Virginia Soil Conservation Service 1970; West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Undated a;
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Undated b)
19
-------
ro
o
-------
Mostly cropland
Cropland with grazing land
Cropland with pasture, woodland, and forest
Irrigated land
forest with some cropland and
Forest and woodland grazed
Forest and woodland mostly ungrazed
Subhumid grassland and semiarid grazing land
Open woodland grazed (pihon, juniper, aspen groves,
chaparral and brush)
Desert shrubland grazed
Desert shriibland mostly ungrazed
Alpine meadows, mo.untain peaks above timber line,
sparse df^ltundra, lava flows, and barren land
Swamp u
Marshland
Moist tundra and muskeg
Urban areas—as defined by U.S. Bureau of the Census
Figure 2-1. Generalized land use map of the ORBES region.
-------
TABLE 2-7. SUMMARY OF LAND USE DATA FOR THE ORBES REGION
State
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
OWES Region
ORUES Acres X
32,797,350 27
20,595,959 17
20,620,254 17
25,555,881 21
0,842,080 7
13,428,780 11
121,841.104 100
Public Lands
Acres %
547.164 2
429,190 2
699,439 3
1,445,622 6
776,442 9
1,128,852 8
5,026,709 4
Urban and
Bullt-Up Lands
Acres X
1,538,052 5
1.200,095 6
1,957,523 9
834,818 3
829.608 9
445,172 3
6.805.268 6
Agricultural Lands
Acres X
23,170,488 71
14,433,705 70
11.761,622 57
11.751,700 46
2,156.418 24
2,410,800 18
65.684,733 54
Forest Lands
Acres I
3,275,470 10
3,556,697 17
5,659,823 27
10,988,246 43
4,953,481 56
9.276,089 69
37.709.806 31
The second most common land use 1n the ORBES region 1s forest land which
constitutes 31 percent of the regional total. The Kentucky ORBES portion has
the greatest total forest land use (11.0 million acres; 43 percent). The
highest percentage of land 1n forest use 1s 1n West Virginia (9.3 million
acres; 69 percent). Of the ORBES state portions, Illinois has the least
amount (3.3 million acres) and lowest percentage (10 percent) of forested
land, due to both limited natural forests and extensive conversion to agri-
culture. Forests are the most common land use in the Appalachian Coal
Province but are relatively unimportant 1n the Eastern Interior Coal Pro-
vince.
Approximately 6 percent of the ORBES region 1s in urban and built-up
lands. The greatest amount and percentage of this land use occur 1n the ORBES
state portion of Ohio (2.0 million acres; 9 percent) while the lowest state
portion occurs in West Virginia (0.4 million acres; 3 percent).
Of the four categories analyzed, public lands constitute the least amount
of land use, approximately 4 percent of the regional total. Public lands are
defined as those 1n either state or federal ownership and are generally held
aside for recreational uses. The greatest total public lands land use occurs
1n the Kentucky state portion (1.4 million acres; 6 percent). The highest
percentage of public lands occurs in the Pennsylvania state portion (0.8
million acres; 9 percent). The lowest total and percentage of public lands
land use occur in the Indiana state portion (0.4 million acres; 2 percent).
22
-------
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
ro
OJ
PERCENTAGE. OF COUNTY
EBI. - 100.
UBI. - so.
82 41. - C.O.
no. - ?o.
PRFPARED rna OHIO BIVE» BASIN ENERGY STJDY
BY CAOS/UKX. rtBROARY, 1980
FIGURE 2-2. AGRICULTURAL LANDS DISTRIBUTION
-------
r\a
-pa.
'E
FOREST LRNCS
CENTRGE OF CC
GIa LiCC L£p r i'3"3
FIGURE 2-3. FOREST LANDS DISTRIBUTION
-------
PUBLIC
LfiNDS: STnTF
PERCENTRG;": OF
FEDERRL
COUNTY
3 N N E R S H
ro
en
2C.
DC.
- 1
- 10.
ERE?fi1EC FCfl INKiBNO CMVEBS! IT 'j"Efl
er cotis uicc. 'jf.fi 1979
FIGURE 2-4. PUBLIC LANDS DISTRIBUTION
-------
URBAN AND BUILT-UP LANDS
ro
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTY
OVER 23
21. - 25.
16. - 20.
11. - 15.
6. - 10.
1. - 5.
MKMKD FOR OMO HMD MSM ENCKY STUCK
r. i»«o
FIGURE 2.5. URBAN AND BUILT-UP LANDS DISTRIBUTION
-------
2.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
This section is an attempt to summarize a very large volume of informa-
tion describing the terrestrial ecology of the ORBES region.1 The data
describing the terrestrial features of the ORBES region are highly variable
in quantity and quality. As there are no standardized sets of variables
that are routinely monitored and reported, either on an interstate or intra-
state level, the level of resolution of the information varies from extremely
detailed, site-specific data to very generalized, nonquantitative overviews.
Because political boundaries rarely follow natural ecological or physio-
graphic patterns, there are always difficulties in describing the natural
features of an area when the data are available from several sources in
several states. For purposes of this presentation the integrative concept
of a biome will be used. A biome is any area where regional climates and
substrates interact with regional biota to form large, recognizable, geo-
graphically-based units.
Climate
The annual solar radiation and mean annual precipitation patterns are
fairly similar throughout the ORBES region. Although there is a pattern of
decreasing precipitation from east to west across the region, the regional
climate can be considered fairly uniform.
Physiography
While there are certain similarities among the terrestrial ecosystems
of the ORBES region, it is obvious that the hilly and mountainous terrain
of the upper Ohio River Basin presents a different physiographic setting
than that of the largely glaciated lowlands in the lower Ohio River Basin.
The primary physiographic subdivisions of the ORBES region are the Appala-
chian Highlands of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, southeastern Ohio, and
eastern Kentucky; the Eastern Interior Uplands of western Kentucky, southern
Indiana, and southern Illinois; and the Central Lowlands of western Ohio,
northern Indiana, and most of Illinois. A more detailed presentation of
the primary land-surface forms is seen in Figure 2-6.
Soils
Three major soil classes follow a similar pattern: inceptisols (weakly
developed, usually light, thin soils with low organic matter) in the Appala-
chian Highlands, mollisols (deep, nearly black, organic rich soils) in the
of the material presented here is taken from the preliminary technology
assessment reports prepared by the Indiana-Ohio, Illinois, and Kentucky assess-
ment teams during Phase I (Indiana University, The Ohio State University, and
Purdue University 1977; University of Kentucky and University of Louisville
1977; University of Illinois at Chicago Circle and at Urbana-Champaign 1977)
and from the baseline data reports from West Virginia (Cardi 1979) and Penn-
sylvania (Kay et al. 1979).
27
-------
ro
CO
-------
ro
o
SCHEME OF CLASSIFICATION
SLOPE (Capital letter)
A More than 80*/i of area gently sloping
B SO-80Vt ot area gently sloping
C 20-SO*/i of area gently sloping
D Less than 20*/o of area gently sloping
LOCAL RELIEF (Numeral)
I 0-100 feet
2 100-300 feet
3 300-500 feel
4 500.1000 feet
S 1000-3000 feet
6 Over 3000 feet
PROFILE TYPE (Lower case letter)
a More than 75'/e of gentle slope
is in lowland
b 50-7SV. of gentle slope
is in lowland
c 50-75'/. of gentle slope
is on upland
CLASSES OF
LAND-SURFACE FORM
PLAINS
Flat plains
Smooth plains
Irregular plains, slight relief
rregular plains
TABLELANDS
Tablelands, moderate relief
Tablelands, considerable relief
Tablelands, high relief
Tablelands, very high relief
PLAINS WITH HILLS OR MOUNTAINS
Plains with hills
Plains with high hills
Plains with low mountains
Plains with high mountains
OPEN HILLS AND MOUNTAINS
Open tow hills
Open hills
Open high hills
Open low mountains
Open high mountains
HILLS AND MOUNTAINS
Hills
d More than 75% of gentle slope
is on upland
More than 50"/» ot area
covered by standing water
Crests
j - ! Escarpments and valley side*
In the 'ast three *vmho!s width ot line i<-
dtrecsiv propornonal to height oi teaiure
tihovp it1- ba'ie
Figure 2-6. Primary land surface forms
in the ORBES region.
-------
Eastern Interior Uplands, and alfisols (well-developed, gray to brown,
podzollc, moist mineral soils) in the Central Lowlands. This pattern Is
seen in Figure 2-7.
Flora
Potential Vegetation—
From these patterns of regional climates and substrates it is possible
to develop patterns of potential natural vegetation. Potential natural
vegetation 1s defined as the vegetation that would exist 1f human beings
were not affecting the natural ecosystems and only natural ecosystem develop-
ment (succession) were occurring. This potential natural vegetation Indicates
the biotic potential of all locations and is indicative of patterns of pre-
settlement vegetation.
The patterns of potential natural vegetation of the ORBES region are seen
in Figure 2-8. These patterns reflect both physiographic and cUmatological
influences. The primary patterns are northern hardwoods of eastern West
Virginia; mixed mesophytic forests of western West Virginia, southeastern
Ohio, and eastern Kentucky; Appalachian oak forest of western Pennsylvania,
northern West Virginia, and eastern Ohio; beech-maple forest of northern and
western Ohio, and northern and central Indiana; oak-hickory forest of central
and western Kentucky, southern Indiana, and southern Illinois; and bluestem
prairie of central and northern Illinois (all according to terminology of
Kuchler, 1966). The first five of these are a part of a larger, recognizable
unit often referred to as the Eastern Deciduous Forest Biome.
Prior to settlement by European immigrants, broadleaf deciduous forests
occupied about 90 percent of the ORBES region lying within Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, and Kentucky and all of the ORBES region 1n West Virginia and Pennsyl-
vania. The distributions and compositions of these presettlement communities
are believed to follow the patterns of potential natural vegetation shown 1n
Figure 2-8.
Post-settlement Changes—
The major changes in the original vegetation brought about by settlement
have been the conversion of forest and prairie into agricultural land. On
many of the glaciated soils in the northern part of the ORBES region, trees
have been eradicated, except along fencelines and waterways and In ravines.
Large portions of northwestern Ohio and northern Indiana have undergone major
land use conversion from beech-maple forests to agriculture. Virtually all
of the Illinois prairie has been converted to agricultural land use. The
portions of the region along the Ohio River in the lower basin and 1n the
Appalachian Highlands have been subjected to much less deforestation, pri-
marily because of physiographic constraints. The more rugged and ungladated
terrain is not suited for intensive agriculture and is not widely used for
grazing. Unforested lands predominate on ridge tops and valley bottoms;
forests cover slopes, bluffs, and banks of large rivers.
Present Vegetation--
The present patterns of vegetation in the ORBES region are shown in
Figure 2-9. Table 2-8 gives brief descriptions of the major forest types
appearing In Figure 2-9. The acreages and percentages of forest resources
30
-------
by county and by state are given in Tables 2-1 through 2-60 The term "forest
resource" as used here refers to much more than the commercial aspects of
timber production. Forests provide habitats for many wildlife species„ offer
numerous and varied recreational opportunities for humans, are important in
watershed soil and hydrological dynamics, and serve as regulators in nutrient
uptake and release in biogeochemical cycles,, Kentucky has the highest total
acreage of forests in the ORBES region„ and West Virginia has the highest
percentage of land in forest land use. Because of both the relatively
limited extent of naturally occurring forests and the great extent of con-
version to tillage, Illinois has the least amount of forest resources,
Fauna
Original Fauna—
The original fauna of the ORBES region was predominantly a deciduous
woodland fauna. ("Fauna" as used here describes terrestrial and amphibious
vertebrates.) Wetland faunas were well represented, although somewhat
localized inasmuch as wetlands were extensive only along the northern
border of the ORBES region0 Other localized faunas included those of
prairies, caves„ and rock outcroppings and other forms of steep relief.
The only fauna that wasp and is0 largely endemic to the ORBES region, and
thus unique, is the karst (cave) fauna, which is especially well represented
in southern Indiana, Kentucky,, and southeastern West Virginia,,
Post-settlement Changes--
Following human settlement there was selective elimination of the larger
animals„ followed by the assisted return of deerc beavers0 and wild turkeys.
Patchwork clearing of forests permitted certain prairie and forest edge
species to increase in numbers at the expense of species of the forest
proper; for example, fox squirrels replaced gray squirrelsD opossums and
raccoons became more numerous„ and bobcats became rarer,, Many amphibian„
reptile, and bird species characteristic of rivers in the ORBES region
appear to be declining in population, though the causes of this have not
been adequately studied. On the other hand0 several large impoundments
in the Ohio coal counties„ especially in the southeastern Muskingum River
watershed, serve as new stopping points for large numbers of ducks and
geese.
Game Animals and Furbearers°=
Much is known regarding the status of populations of game animals and
furbearers. Knowledge of their life cycles and the quality of available
habitats permits inferences to be made as to the general welfare of their
populations,, More importantlyD fish and gams authorities monitor abundances
of most species on an annual basis through extrapolation from indices of
abundance,, Also, data are available from the Fur Resources Committee of
the International Association of Gams, Fish and Conservation Commissioners
for fur harvests between 1970 and 19750 The latter set of data isB of
course, biased as a population indicator by state and local trapping
regulations, species-specific traditional hunting and trapping preferences,
and variability across species and years with respect to monetary incentives.
In generalB the most widely abundant game species today are those that
can inhabit hedgerows and woodlots on farms. Of these, the most common are
31
-------
OJ
ro
-------
CO
co
3
^
5
<
ix>
I
o
<
.1
0
t/»
K
z
a
_i
z
INCEPTISOIS
tft i
i!
«
i
§'
|
a
|
D
a
2
ii
1
WARM SOILS
Mean annual soil temperature higher than about 47°F
MOIST ! WET [ DRY
•• * •• i ^H
^^H j ^BB , ^^B
Udalfs A6> A7> A8
.
••1
Psammenta
Quartripaamnimta E10
Udlpammnta E121
mmm
AiKfepta
Dyatrandapta 12
Ochrepta
Oystrachrepta 18
Eutrochrapta 19
Fragtochrapta 110.
Tropcpta 112
Unibiopts
Haplumbrapta 114
Urtolls M6 M7 M8
-|—- -
Orthoi Ol
nm
Aqualla Al A2
IMalfa A9 A10
Xmlfa All A12 A13
1 tmm
^^H
ArgUa Dl D2 D3 D4
OrtMda DS D6
\
••Jl
Aqunfa El
j|J-
H2
m
Fkmrta E2
OrttMoU £3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8
Paameata
Tofripaawmnta Ell
Uatipsamramta £13
Xtropumnmita £14
mm*
Aguepta
Haplaquepta IS
Humaguopta 16
••
Anctepta
Eirtrandepta 13
Ochrepta
Uatochrepta 111
,
.„.„.. „. u,ii UaWla M9 MIO Mil M12
Aquolla Ml M2»| M]3 Mu
mmm
Aaooda SI
wm
Humutta U2 U3 j Aqmtta Ul
COOL SOILS
Mean annual soil temperature
lower than about 47°
MOIST | WET
~— •— •~^^~-^-- — - -t — - - . ™ — «
j
Boralfa A3 A4 AS |
99
Paammenta
Cryopsammenta £9
1
_ ..
\
1
[ "
••
HI
mmm \ mmm
AnOepta
• ..Cryantfepta 11
Ochreptt
Ciyochrapia 17
Umbrgpta
Cryambraota 113
Bomb M3 M4 MS
Xenda MIS M16
H|
Ultra O2
_
•
Xwntta U7
UduHa U4 US U6 .
i 1
• • r '
•
Udtfta VI V2
a
Uatatta V3 V4
; j terota VS
X2 X4 . XI XS
AQuapta
Ciya«i*pta 14
i
i
. .. 1
Orthoda 32 S3 S*2
1
!
j
BBBBHBi
X3
Figure 2-7. Generalized soil map of
the ORBES region.
-------
to
-------
CO
en
EASTERN FORESTS
NEEDLELEAF FORESTS
~^1 Creal Lake! spruce-fir forejl
'•'**" '' IPicei-Abin)
Conifer bog
fPicei-Urii-Jhuji)
Creal Lakes pine forest
(Pinusl
Northeastern spruce-fir forest
(Hcn-ft>iKt
Southeastern spruce-fir forest
BROADLEAF FORESTS
Northern floodplain forest
IPopulw-S*lix-Ulmtu)
Maple-basswood forest
(Acer-THta)
Oak-hickory forest
fQuercus-Ca/ya)
Elm-ash forest
(Ultnus-frtxinus}
Beech-maple forest
Ifagus-Acer)
Mixed mesophytic forest
CENTRAL AND EASTERN GRASSLANDS
GRASSLAND
Foothills prairie
(Agropyron- f tst uca-5(t'pa)
Grama-needlegrass-wheafgrau
rBoufe/oua-Stipa- Agropyron)
Grama-buffalo grass
(BoutctcHji-Buchlo?)
Wheatgrass-needlegrass
f Agropyron-Sfipa)
Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
(Agropyron-Andropogon-Stipi)
Wheatgrass-grama-buffalo grass
I [
I ** I
Appalachian oak forest
(Qutrcus)
Mangrove
(Avicenn ia-ft/iizop/iora)
BROADLEAF AND NEEDLELEAF FORESTS
Northern hardwoods
Northern hardwoods-fir forest
(Acer-Betut*-Abin*Jtugt
Northern hardwoods-spruce forest
1 Btuestem-grama prairie
j (Andropogoft'Bovtelovi)
« I Sandsage-bluestem prairie
. . J (Arttmiiit-Andropogon)
"J"~~j Shinnery
_ 1J fQuercuj-Andropogxwi)
Northern cordgms prairie
-
Bluestem prairie
(Androoogon-Panicum-SorghastrumJ
Nebraska Sandhills prairie
B lackland prairie
(Andropogon-Stip*)
BlOestem-sacahuisu prairie
I Southern cordgrass prairie
Palmetto prairie
(Serenoa-Arisltda)
GRASSLAND AND FOREST
COMBINATIONS
r 9 jfl-1^?] °*k "vanna
[" /T..JF;.J (Quercut-Andropogon)
Figure 2-8.
Potential natural vegetation
in the ORBES region.
Sub-tropical pine forest
(Hnut)
Blackbell
fUquidambar-Querrus*/um'peruit
Cypress savanna
rraxodium-Mariscus)
Evcrgtades
fMariscvs and Migno/ia-Persea)
-------
-------
GO
EASTERN FORESTS
I White—red—jack pine
• Spruce—fir
I Longleaf—slash pine
Loblolly-shortleaf pine
^^^H Oak-pine
^^^B Oak-hickory
^^^H Oak-gum—cypress
^^H| Elm-ash-cot ton wood
^^^^1 Maple—beech—birch
^^^^R Aspen—birch
WESTERN FORESTS AND.K«AWAII
"i. -
^^^H Douglas-fir
^m Hemlock-Sitka spruce
^^^H Redwood
^^^^1 Ponderosa pine
^^^H Lodgepole pine
j^^^l Fir-spruce
^^^^1 Hardwoods
^^^^1 Chaparral
rcl|H Pinyon—juniper
ALASKA FORESTS
COASTAL FORESTS
^^^^1 Hemlock—Sitka spruce
INTERIOR FORESTS
^•••1 Spruce—hardwoods
^HHI Weil slocked: commercial
H^^H Spruce—hardwoods
HHH Medium to poor: noncommercial
Figure 2-9.
Forest resources in the
ORBES region.
NONFOREST
Land that has never supported for-
ests and land t'ormerlv forested
\\htrh i- now developed tor cither
UH">
-------
TABLE 2-8. DEFINITIONS OF FOREST TYPES APPEARING IN FIGURE 2-9
Oak-pine. Forests in which hardwoods (usually upland oaks) comprise a
plurality of the cover but 1n which southern pines comprise 25 to
50% of the cover. (Common associates Include gum, hickory, sassa-
fras, and yellow-poplar.)
Oak-hickory. Forests 1n which upland oaks or hickory, singly or 1n com-
blnation, comprise a plurality of the cover except where pines comprise
25 to 50%, in which case the stand would be classified oak-pine. (Common
associates Include yellow-poplar, elm, maple, black walnut, black locust,
and catalpa.)
Oak-gum-cypress. Bottomland forests in which tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum,
oaks, or southern cypress, singly or in combination, comprise a plurality
of the cover except where pines comprise 25 to 50%, in which case the
stand would be classified oak-pine. (Common associates Include cotton-
wood, willow, ash, elm, hackberry, and maple.)
Elm-ash-cottonwood. Lowland forests 1n which elm, ash, cottonwood, or soft
maple, singly or 1n combination, comprise a plurality of the cover.
(Common associates include willow and sycamore.)
Maple-beech. Forests in which 50% or more of the cover is maple or beech,
sTngly or in combination, except stands that are classified redcedar-
hardwoods or oak-pine.
38
-------
cottontail rabbit and bobwhite quail„ followed by fox squirrel, raccoon9
woodchuck0 red fox0 striped skunk, and opossum,, Raccoon comprise about 25
percent of the fur harvests, several hundred thousand having been taken
annually between 1970 and 1975 in Indiana0 Kentucky,, and Ohio,, While the
opossum is another furbearer s, it varies in importance over the ORBES regionD
constituting 2 to 6 percent of the fur harvest in Ohio and Indiana and 8 to
18 percent in Kentucky; this illustrates the opossum's preference for more
southern climes0 The red fox is a furbearer of lesser importance; it is
further discussed below in relation to the gray fox0 The striped skunk is
of little importance as a furbearer; it lives only in those forest-edge
environments near water.
Several game birds are common in farmlands,, The ring-necked pheasant,
for example,, is popular with hunters in Indiana0 Ohio5 and Pennsylvania.
Other birds not subjected to sport hunting that have prospered in agricul-
tural areas in recent years include starling9 red-winged blackbirds, brown-
headed cowbird, and common grackle,, The first three species are now so
abundant in the ORBES region that they comprise a widely known nuisance to
humans during the winter flocking period in southern Kentucky,,
Gams species needing more woodland than those mentioned above include
white-tailed deer, gray squirrel0 turkeys and gray fox. White-tailed deer
are most abundant in the Ohio coal counties throughout southern and north-
eastern Indiana0 most of Kentucky and West Virginia? and western Pennsylvania.
Gray squirrel are scarce in western Indiana and Illinois but plentiful in
large wooded tracts in the rest of the ORBES region,, Gray squirrels are
the most hunted gams species in West Virginia. Gray squirrels inhabit
primarily extensive hardwood forests with mast-producing trees0 charac-
teristic of much of the Appalachian Plateau. Wild turkey were extinct
in Indiana and Ohio in the early twentieth century. Populations and
distributions of turkeys today reflect programs to re-establish the species
as a free-ranging resident. Large populations of turkey occur in extensive
tracts of government-protected forests in Perry and Clark counties in Indiana
and in Hockings, Vinton0 and Athens counties in Ohio0 though turkey are now
also spreading throughout the Ohio coal region„ The turkey ranks as one
of the six most hunted game species in West Virginia. West Virginia and
Pennsylvania lead the northeastern states in turkey populationss with West
Virginia having the tenth largest turkey population in the nation,,
The gray fox is a furbearer of relatively minor importance0 It is taken
about as often as the red fox in Indiana and Ohio but about twice as often as
the red fox in Kentucky,, despite the fact that the gray fox's pelt is worth
only about half as much as the red's. Unlike the red fox0 which is adapted
to agricultural areas„ the gray fox prefers the woodlands and rimrock country
remote from humans and are more common in the southern portions of the ORBES
region. The gray fox populations and the ongoing expansion of the turkey
populations are both indicators of the rural nature of much of the ORBES
region today,,
Muskrat0 beaver9 and mink require aquatic habitats. Muskrat occur
almost anywhere that permanent marsh0 ditchf, or stream water is available.
They are prolific breeders and can develop large populations rapidly. Muskrat
are the most important furbearers in the region„ with a combined total of
over one million taken each year in OhiOs, Indiana and Kentucky. The apparently
39
-------
greater abundance of muskrat in Ohio and Indiana may be due to the greater
prevalence of marsh habitats 1n the northern portions of those states. The
beaver was nearly exterminated in the ORBES region but is now widely dis-
persed, though still not plentiful. Mink populations are not very well
monitored but may be expected along small, clean streams. Mink are generally
of relatively minor Importance as furbearers with respect to numbers taken.
Among waterfowl, mallard and wood duck are common. In Ohio, hunter harvest
surveys taken at the county level reveal that the most common dabblers taken
are, in descending order, wood duck, mallard, black duck, green-winged teal,
and blue-winged teal, while the most common divers are ring-necks, followed by
lesser scaup. The Pennsylvania ORBES region is located on a major waterfowl
migration route that is part of the Atlantic flyway. Consequently, the rivers
of the area occasionally serve as resting places for migrating species such as
the ring-necked duck, greater scaup, golden-eye, buffle-head, mallard, oldsquaw,
and common merganser. Ducks breeding in this area include the mallard, wood duck,
and black duck.
Other wetland migratory game birds of lower density or hunter preference
are coots, sora rails, Virginia rails, Wilson's snipe, woodcock, and common
galllnules.
While generally more numerous than many game species, data describing dis-
tributions and abundances of non-game species are usually very sparse. Song-
birds comprise the largest group of terrestrial vertebrates in the ORBES region.
Strictly woodland species have experienced population decreases over the years
due to the clearing of mature forests. Conversely, populations of species
preferring second growth woodland and thickets, suburban yards and gardens,
and agricultural areas have increased.
Terrestrial Ecosystem Assessment Variables
County-level data for four-terrestrial ecosystem variables, for which a
somewhat homogeneous data base exists, were collected as baseline data for
assessing terrestrial ecosystem Impacts. These variables Include: class I
and II soils, forest lands, natural areas, and endangered species. Tables 2-9
through 2-14 present data for these variables for all ORBES region counties.
Table 2-15 summarizes these data for ORBES state portions. Values for each
variable were indexed according to units ranging in value from 1 (low) to 10
(high) according to the indices presented 1n Table 2-16. The units were then
used in the terrestrial ecosystem assessment model discussed in detail in
Section 5.3.
Soil Productivity—
The development of new energy facilities in the ORBES region will Involve
major land use conversions and will subsequently result in some loss of pro-
ductive soils. The magnitude of impacts to ecological systems will vary
according to the soil productivity lost. A good assessment of productive
soils in the ORBES region can be made by considering the soil capability
classes defined and inventoried in the soil and water conservation needs In-
ventories for the six ORBES states (see Purdue University Cooperative Exten-
sion Service (1968) for an example).
40
-------
TABLE 2-9. ILLINOIS TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM BASELINE DATA
County
Adams
Alexander
Bond
Brown
Bureau
Callioun
Cass
Champaign
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Coles
Crawford
Cumberland
DeWUt
Douglas
Edgar
Edwarus
tfflngham
Fayette
Ford
Franklin
Fulton
Area
(Acres)
554,240
143,400
245,120
196,480
555,520
165.650
236,800
640, 000
453,568
323,200
296,960
29b,694
324, 4 GO
282,800
221 ,440
255,360
268,740
401 ,920
144,000
309,480
458.730
312,320
277.760
559.360
Class I & II Soils
Acres * Units
303,533 55 6
29,102 20 2
129,888 53 6
96.513 49 5
454.296 82 9
40,759 28 3
127,189 54 6
583,242 91 10
379,349 84 9
163,824 51 6 •
115,874 39 4
101,637 34 4
261,374 81 9
135,577 48 5
124,829 56 6
217,947 85 9
249,367 93 10
360,976 90 • 9
74,526 52 4
109,772 35 4
222,414 48 5
265,348 85 9
101,4(53 37 4
364,145 62 7
Forest
Acres » Units
61,700 11 2
43,100 30 3
35.700 15 2
38,200 19 2
25,600 5 1
57,700 35 4
32,000 14 2
7,100 1 1
16,466 4 1
48,000 15 2
47,100 16 2
30,990 10 1
24,064 7 1
47,400 17. 2
24,483 11 2
9,200 4 1
4,700 2 1
20,312 5 1
21,465 15 2
54,500 18 2
91 ,500 20 2
1,254 1 1
40,119 14 2
96.338 17 2
Natural Areas
»(N"iJ (Uc) Total Units
2 3 23 9
3 2
11 1
2 3 38 10
12 2
8 1
2 121
1 262
4 1
1 3 17 6
6 2
2 1
3 2 18 7
12 1
4 2 12 4
4 1
2 3 16 6
5 2
1 110
1 393
1 2
4 1
2 2 D 1
1 1
1 241
2 1
T2 2 27 10
3 1
3 283
1 2
1 231
1 1
1 110
2 120
1 231
1 1
1 220
1 3 11 4
3 2
2 1
7 2 20 7
6 1
1 383
i 2
1 1
2 251
1 1
8 1 B 3
Endangered Species
# Per tounty Units
7-10 5
>20 10
1-3 1
1-3 1
1-3 1
11-15 7
7-10 5
1-3 1
1-3 1
4-6 3
1-3 1
1-3 1
4-6 3
4-C 3
1-3 1
0 0
1-3 1
4-6 3
4-6 3
4-6 3
1-3 1
0 0
1-3 1
4-6 3
41
-------
Table 2-9 Continued
County
GalUtln
Greene
G runty
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardln
Henderson
Henry
IroquoU
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jersey
Johnson
Kankakee
Knox
LaSalle
Lawrence
Livingston
Logan
McUonough
McLean
Macoo
Area
(Acres)
209,900
347,520
275,980
278.400
.510,140
117,120
243,840
528,640
718,000
3C5.800
316,8-0
367,300
239,362
219.500
434,700
465,920
737,920
239.360
667,520
398,080
372,480
750,720
308,640
Class I & 11 Soils
Acrus '* Units
122.369 58 6
224.275 65 7
224,669 81 9
101 ,966 37 4
355,819 70 7
20,047 17 2
128, G8S 53 6
340,104 64 7
580.379 81 9
77,784 20 2
121 ,604 38 4
118,016 32 4
130,411 54 6
42,825 20 2
310,307 71 8
290,122 62 7
619.417 84 9
139.040 58 6
579,979 87 9
365,005 92 10
303,987 82 9
689,510 92 10
311,328 84 9
Forest
Acres % Unl ts
45,700 22 3
55.962 16 2
11,050 4 1
48,713 17 2
73,900 14 2
44,117 38 4
41,256 17 2
11,500 2 1
13,600 2 1
113,218 29 3
44,287 14 2
44,528 12 2
52.615 22 3
75,600 34 4
21.625 5 1
46,500 10 1
31 .521 4 1
34,000 14 2
11,000 2 1
9,400 2 1
26,200 7 1
6,467 1 1
7,490 2 1
Natural Areas
*(H1) (Uc) total Units
3272
1 1
2262
2 1
1 3 13 5
2 2
6 1
0 0 0
1 3 13 5
1 2
4 3 44 10
13 2
6 1
3 2 15 5
9 1
4 2 10 3
2 1
1 3 15 5
6 2
3 3 65 10
25 2
6 1
2 3 12 4
2 2
2 1
3283
2 1
2 2 12 4
8 1
2 3 63 10
27 2
3 1
1 3 29 10
7 2
12 1
2272
3 1
1 3 26 10
6 2
11 1
1372
4 1
2251
1 1
4293
1 1
4141
2 3 14 5
3 2
2 1
5 2 13 5
3 1
Endangered Species
» Per County Units
4-6 3
4-6 3
4-6 3
1-3 1
4-6 3
7-10 5
4-6 3
1-3 1
1-3 1
16-20 9
4-6 3
1-3 1
7-10 5
7-10 5
4-6 3
1-3 1
1-3 1
7-10 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
1-3 1
0 0
42
-------
Table 2-9 Continued
Coun ty
Macoupln
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Mason
Hassac
henara
Mercer
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Houltrie
Peoria
Perry
Piatt
P1ke
Pope
Pulaski
Putnam
Randolph
Rlcliland
St. Clair
Saline
Area
(Acres)
558,080
467,840
370,615
252,800
346,240
157,440
199,680
355,840
243,200
449,075
361,600
220,800
399,360
283,500
279,680
530,560
243,840
130.600
106,240
380,100
232,960
428,800
245.760
Class I & 11 Soils
Acres « Units
382,710 69 7
257.741 55 6
108.224 29 3
209,005 83 9
153,574 44 5
47,661 30 3
151,171 76 8
221,566 62 7
95,579 39 4
325,179 72 8
262,650 73 8
195.788 89 9
239,032 60 6
51,677 18 2
252,602 90 9
305,739 58 6
36,137 15 2
35,510 27 3
68,250 64 7
136,536 36 4
93,917 40 4
191,334 45 5
101.229 41 5
Forest
Acres % Unfts
75,400 14 2
54,200 12 2
72,969 20 2
23,400 9 1
40,000 12 2
32,622 21 3
14,400 7 1
24,300 7 1
60.000 25 3
48.100 11 2
26,100 7 1
4,250 2 1
39,200 10 1
35,697 13 2
7,000 3 1
85,800 16 2
61,072 25 3
28,600 22 3
13,738 13 2
59,808 16 2
26,748 11 2
58,300 14 2
34.900 14 2
,
natural Areas
*(Ui) (Uc) Total Units
1 3 17 6
4 2
6 1
4 2 11 4
3 1
1 3 13 5
3 2
4 . 1
3283
2 1
3 3 47 10
13 2
12 1
1 3 34 10
14 2
3 1
1251
3 1
2262
2 1
6 3 45 10
13 2
1 1
2262
2 1
2241
1220
5 2 21 8
11 1
5 2 12 4
2 1
1351
1 2
1 3 28 10
3 2
19 1
7 3 97 10
36 2
4 1
1 3 15 5
4 2
4 1
4293
1 1
1 3 21 8
7 2
4 1
2241
2 3 43 10
17 2
3 1
1 3 15 5
4 2
4 1
tndanqered Species
* Per County Units
1-3 1
7-10 5
4-6 3
0 0
7-10 5
11-15 7
0 0
4-6 3
11-15 7
1-3 1
4-6 3
1-3 1
1-3 1
4-6 3
0 0
.7-10 5
7-10 5
7-10 5
0 0
16-20 9
4-6 3
7-10 5
1-3 1
43
-------
Table 2-9 Continued
County
Sangamon
Schuyler
Scott
Shelby
Stark
Tazcwell
Union
Vermilion
Uabash
Warren
Washington
Wayne
White •
Williamson
UooUford
Area
(Acres)
563,200
277,760
160,640
494,060
186,240
417,920
204,900
574,720
141,440
346, SiiO
3C1 ,265
457,600
320,640
271 ,900
343,680
Class I & II Soils
Acres » units
433.902 77 8
144,889 52 6
92,796 58 6
344,081 70 7
145.363 78 8
294,538 70 7
76,593 29 3
459,808 80 8
92,535 65 7
281,755 81 9
111,835 31 4
156,950 34 4
174,594 54 6
69.7C7 20 3
270.513 79 C
Forest
Acres % Units
37.195 7 1
76.700 28 3
15,100 9 1
45,177 0 1
5,000 3 1
28,400 7 1
76,400 29 3
33,543 6 1
9,215 7 1
19,600 6 1
57,218 16 2
C7.85C 15 2
30,700 11 2
68,900 25 3
22,600 7 1
Natural Areas
Hill) (Uc) Total Units
3272
1 1
3131
1220
1 2 2 10
0 — 0 10
3 2 16 &
10 1
1 3 37 10
12 2
10 1
1 3 28 10
11 2
3 1
1383
2 2
1 1
2251
1 1
1 3 13 5
4 2
2 1
3131
0 --00
1 3 28 10
12 2
1 1
1 3 10 3
7 1
Endangered Species
i "far County Units
1-3 1
1-3 1
4-6 3
4-6 3
1-3 1
4-6 3
16-20 9
4-6 3
7-10 5
0 0
1-3 1
1-3 1
4-6 3
4-6 3
1-3 1
Uc • uniqueness coefficient where: 1 • normal
2 * medium
3 - high
Nj • number of natural areas 1n each uniqueness category
Sources: (Ackerman 1975; tvers et al. 1977; Illinois Department of Conservation 1978b; Illinois Nature Preserve Commission
1977; University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service 1970.)
44
-------
TABLE 2-10. INDIANA TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM BASELINE DATA
County
Adams
Allen
Bartholomew
Ben ton
Blackford
Boone
Brown
Carroll
Cass
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Crawford
Daviess
Dearborn
Decatur
be 1 aware
Dubois
Fayette
Floy a
Fountain
Franklin
Fulton
Gibson
Grant
Greene
Hamilton
Hancock
Harrison
llendricks
Henry
Howard
Huntingdon
Jackson
Area
(Acres)
220.700
428.800
256,600
261,700
106.800
273,280
206.400
239,300
265,600
245,500
232,960
260,500
199,700
275,600
195.800
236.550
253.500
276,800
137,600
95,300
254,080
252.100
234,900
319,300
269,500
351,300
256,500
195,200
306,500
266,900
256 ,000
187,000
249,600
332, UOO
Class I & II Soils
Acres % Units
204,532 93 10
305,879 71 8
1 71 ,061 67 7
242.589 93 10
97.209 91 10
250,183 92 10
28,636 14 2
199,621 83 9
215,113 81 9
102,897 42 5
53,264 23 3
241.444 93 10
27,651 14 2
157,128 57 6 •
57,891 30 3
165.513 70 7
179,357 71 8
86,785 31 4
93,888 68 7
24,473 26 3
194,292 76 8
95,045 38 4
140,411 60 6
200,260 63 7
175,687 65 7
141,487 40 4
214,270 B4 9
169,582 87 9
56,131 18 2
216.620 8.1 9
190,033 77 8
169,456 91 10
197.270 79 8
146,555 44 5
Forest
Acres » Units
15,000 7 1
35,237 8 1
34,886 14 2
2,000 1 1
10,849 10 1
11,407 4 1
135,140 65 7
16,289 7 1
18,981 7 1
90.0G3 37 4
47,933 21 3
9,665 4 1
97,454 49 5
38,643 14 2
44,540 23 3
23,537 10 1
11,534 5 1
88,695 32 4
19,001 14 2
37,182 39 4
27,446 11 2
60.000 24 3
14,472 6 1
45,060 14 2
14,123 5 1
100,253 29 3
13.239 5 1
8,469 4 1
131,490 43 5
17,000 6 1
17.111 7 1
7,000 4 1
20,430 8 1
110,323 33 4
natural Areas
*(lli) (UCJ Total Units
0 0 0
1351
2 1
0 0 0
0 —'00
0 0 0
0 — 0 0
1231
1 1
1110
1110
1220
0 —00
1 220
1283
6 1
1110
1110
0 — 0 0
3131
1110
1351
2 1
0 0 0
2251
1 1
0 —00
0 — 0 0
1231
1 1
1110
0 --00
1 220
0 — 0 0
1 3 12 4
3 2
3 1
0 --00
0 — 0 0
1110
2120
1 220
. Endana«;red Species
ff Per tounty Units
3 1
4 3
6 3
4 3
3 1
4 3
6 3
9 5
7 5
7 5
8 5
4 3
9 5
10 5
6 3
6 3
4 3
10 5
4 3
7 5
11 7
5 3
4 3
13 7
3 1
9 5
4 3
5 3
9 5
5 3
4 3
3 3
4 3
0 5
45
-------
Table 2-10 Continued
County
Jasper
J«y
Jefferson
Jennings
Johnson
Knox
Kosdusko
Lawrence
haalson
Marlon
harshall
Martin
Miami
Nonroe
Kontgomery
Morgan
Noble
Ohio
Orange
Owen
Parke
Perry
Pike
Posey
Pulaskl
Putnam
Randolph
Rlpley
Rush
Scott
Shelby
Area
(Acres)
359.100
247.000
234.300
241 ,200
201 .240
330,900
334,300
293, 7CO
289.850
257,300
284,120
220,800
243,200
2 40. 400
324,330
259,700
262,400
55.680
259,059
246,400
2GC.570
245.760
214.400
264.900
277,100
312.320
292,500
282.600
261.700
123,400
261 .700
Class I & II Soils
Acres * units
131,723 37 4
226,588 92 10
88,646 38 4
112,236 47 5
148,648 74 8
215,884 65 7
229,050 69 7
76.808 26 3
249,898 86 9
92,849 36 4
175.760 62 7
48,509 22 3
174,152 72 8
46,599 19 2 .
260,430 GO 8
125. 1C4 48 5
125,483 48 5
15,683 29 3
55.195 21 3
63.689 26 3
172.274 60 6
52,944 22 3
101,854 48 5
166,007 63 7
80,685 29 3
148.179 47 5
260,150 89 9
101,530 36 4
242.2S8 93 10
71,705 !»8 6
224,614 Ofc 9
Forest
Acres X Units
25.613 7 1
19,450 8 1
63.436 27 3
69.878 29 3
8,488 4 1
38,721 12 2
26,047 8 1
117,416 40 4
15,875 5 1
12,407 5 1
26.C78 9 1
72,996 33 4
18,119 7 1
110,000 45 5
24,000 7 1
92,302 3C 4
25,524 10 1
14,567 27 3
102,770 40 4
115,000 47 5
86,595 30 3
94.300 38 4
77,951 36 4
32,973 12 2
32,000 12 2
72,000 23 3
13,226 5 1
55,525 20 2
12,1151 5 1
43.502 35 4
7,607 3 1
Natural Areas
*(in; IUCJ Total Units
1231
1 1
1110
1220
4141
0 0 0
2120
1241
2 1
1231
2 1
0 ~ 0.0
0 --00
0 —00
1110
0 0 0
1 241
2 1
1 393
1 2
4 1
1231
1 1
2262
4 1
0 --00
1220
2262
2 1
3283
2 1
1110
0 - 0 0
4141
1 220
5151
1231
1 1
2283
4 1
0 0 0
0 - 0 0
1220
Endangered Species
1 Per County Units
3 1
3 1
7 5
6 3
6 3
14 7
3 1
9 5
4 3
6 3
3 1
10 5
5 3
7 5
5 3
6 3
3 1
7 5
9 5
8 5
10 5
8 5
10 5
13 7
4 3
4 3
4 3
5 3
4 3
7 5
6 3
46
-------
Table 2-10 Continued
County
Spencer
Starke
Sullivan
Switzerland
Tippecanoe
Tlpton
Union
Vanderburgh
Vermin 1on
V1go
Wabash
Warren
Warrick
Washington
Wayne
Wells
dhite
yhitley
Area
(Acres)
253,400
199,000
292,500
141,440
320,600
167,000
107,060
154,200
168,300
265,600
269,400
235,500
249,700
330,120
258,900
235,000
318,000
215,000
Class I & II Soils
Acres * Units
132,541 52 6
26,665 13 2
135,521 46 5
35,323 25 3
255,648 80 8
158,692 95 10
77,554 72 8
83,460 54 6
119,886 71 S
143.538 54 6
196,664 73 8
188,150 80 8
10G.750 43 5
123,176 37 4
188, 90C 73 8
211,200 90 9
213,647 67 7
137,116 64 7
Fun.'St
Acres % Units
69,780 28 3
27,000 14 2
54,791 19 2
36,490 26 3
24,571 8 1
10,000 6 1
15,000 14 2
18,736 12 2
30,346 18 2
45,000 17 2
20,552 8 1
23,350 10 1
72.479 29 3
130.CS1 40 4
23,000 9 1
17,333 7 1
12,807 4 1
20,102 S 1
natural Areas
f(lli) (Uc) Total Units
1220
0 —00
0 —00
0—0 0
2120
0 -00
1 220
1 241'
2 1
1110
1 2 4-1
2 1
6162
4141
0 — 0 0
2120
5151
1231
1 1
0 --00
1110
Endangered Species
H Per County Units
7 5
3 1
12 7
8 5
11 7
4 3
4 3
n 5
11 7
12 7
3 1
10 5
6 3
C 5
4 3
4 3
9 5
4 3
Uc B uniqueness coefficient where: 1 « normal
2 = medium
3 = high
Ml = number of natural areas In each uniqueness category
Sources: (Barnes undated; Indiana Department of Natural Resources 1978; Indiana Department of Natural Resources undated;
Indiana University, The Ohio State University and Purdue University 1977; Lindsey et al. 1969; Purdue University
Cooperative Extension Service 1968.)
47
-------
TABLE 2-11. KENTUCKY TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM BASELINE DATA
County
Adalr
Allen
Anderson
Balltrd
Barren
Bath
bell
tioone
Bourbon
boyd
boyle
Bracken
Breathltt
Brecklnrldge
bullltt
butler
Caldxell
Calloway
Campbell
Carlisle
Carroll
Carter
Case,y
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Crlttenden
Cumberland
Davless
kdmonson
Elliott
EStlll
Fayette
Fleming
Area
(Acres)
251,510
232.960
131,840
165.760
311,040
183,680
236,000
151.280
192.000
102.400
117,120
130,560
361,160
360,960
192,000
283,520
22G.4GO
245,760
95.360
124,800
83,200
257,380
278,400
464,640
165,760
303,360
121,600
233,600
198,400
295,680
194,560
153,600
166,400
179,200
224.000
Class I & II Soils
Acres V Units
41,484 16 2
21.694 9 1
12,869 8 1
74,382 45 5
135,760 44 5
35.180 19 2
4.95C 2 1
19,206 12 2
71 ,05o 37 4
7.3CC 7 1
3C.5C2 31 4
12,389 9 1
11,270 3 1
39,609 24 3
39,987 20 2
74.029 20 3
113,230 50 5
103.C56 42 5
8,067 8 1
62,056 50 5
17,337 20 2
16,451 6 1
55,303 20 2
221 ,673 48 5
57,222 35 4
18,883 6 1
17,873 15 2
92,242 39 4
23,708 12 Z
128,752 44 5
33,989 17 2
8,776 6 1
20,777 12 2
81 .821 46 5
42.448 19 2
Forest
Acres % Units
108.880 43 5
83,800 36 4
34,100 26 3
36,793 22 3
72,131 23 3
42,543 23 3
202,171 85 9
44,400 27 3
5,100 3 1
57.200 56 6
20,100 17 2
39.600 30 3
279,585 77 C
160,000 44 5
74,600 39 4
135,500 48 5
79,^00 35 4
77,100 31 4
18,800 18 2
42,400 34 4
26,600 32 4
181,900 70 7
153,800 55 6
131,400 28 3
12,200 7 1
247,600 82 9
61,209 50 5
87,800 37 4
117,656 59 6
66.200 22 3
67,796 35 4
114,100 74 8
117.9R2 71 8
5.500 3 1
60,300 27 3
natural Areas
*(I)1) (Uc; Total Units
1110
0 0 0
1110
0 — 0 0
11 1 0
0 0 0
2120
1251
3 1
0 — 0 0
0 0 0
1110
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 - 0 0
0 —00
0 — 0 0
1110
0 — 0 0
.2120
0 0 0
1110
1110
1110
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 — 0 0
0 —00
0 0 0
0 0 0
1110
1241
2 1
0 --00
0 —00
2120
1110
Endangered Species
i Per County Units
3 1
2 1
1 1
12 7
7 5
1 1
7 5
3 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
5 3
5 3
11 7
4 3
5 3
14 7
2 1
11 7
2 1
4 3
2 1
5 3
2 1
1 1
3 1
7 5
4 3
6 3
19 9
4 3
5 3
6 3
2 1
48
-------
Table 2-11 Continued
County
Floyd
Franklin
Fulton
Gallatln
Garrard
Grant
Graves
Grayson
Green
Green up
Hancock
Hardln
liar Ian
Harrison
Hart
Henderson
Henry
Hickman
Hopkins
Jackson
Jefferson
Jessamine
Johnson
Ken ton
Knott
Knox
La rue
Laurel
Lawrence
Lee
Leslie
Letcher
Lewis
Lincoln
Livingston
Logan
Lyon
McCracken
Area
(Acres)
255,360
135,040
129,920
64 ,000
151,040
159,360
358,400
327,680
180,480
224,640
119,680
394,240
300,160
197,120
272,000
277,120
184,960
157,440
353.920
215.680
240,000
113,280
168,960
105,600
227,840
238,720
166,400
285,440
272,000
134.400
263, C80
216,960
311,040
21 7, GOO
199,680
360,320
161.920
160,000
Class I & II Soils
Acres '* Units
6,645 3 1
29,721 22 3
73,716 57 6
7,326 11 2
21,489 14 2
10,496 6 1
192,587 54 6
89,877 27 3
58,956 33 4
20,268 9 1
33,888 28 3
129,065 33 4
7,417 2 1
51,087 26 3
48,830 18 2
164,482 59 6
53,529 29 3
01,108 51 6
117,500 33 4
8,828 4 1
78,629 33 4
34,943 31 4
6,851 4 1
9,725 9 1
6,100 3 1
31,914 13 2
72,728 44 5
37,024 13 2
12.640 5 1
4.311 3 1
6,911 3 1
3,802 2 1
20,252 6 1
ti2,0li6 2« 3
60.730 30 3
173,360 48 5
20,124 16 2
4U.06U 30 3
Forest
Acres 'A Units
192,600 75 8
44.700 33 4
32,300 25 3
19,600 30 3
23,800 16 2
38,400 24 3
80,200 22 3
115,760 35 4
60,200 33 4
158,000 70 7
56,800 47 5
100,000 25 3
260,600 87 9
33,500 17 2
107,705 39 4
61,300 22 3
44,800 24 3
37,900 24 3
160,332 45 5
109.273 50 5
33,500 14 2
12,200 11 2
136,900 81 9
28,200 27 3
197.600 87 9
177,700 74 8
55,700 33 4
140,867 49 5
222,800 82 9
102,312 76 8
228.500 86 9
186,939 86 9
238,578 76 8
58,700 27 3
73.300 37 4
109.700 30 3
28,222 17 2
37,600 23 3
llatural Areas
f('ili) (Uc) Total Units
0 -00
1 -lo
0 — 0 0
0 0 0
1110
0 — 0 0
0 --00
2120
0 — 0 0
0 — 0 0
0 --00
1110
1110
1110
0 — 0 0
1220
0 --00
0 — 0 0
1 220
0 — 0 0
2120
3131
0 - 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 — 0 0
0 0 0
0 - 0 0
0 — 0 0
0 .-00
0 — 0 0
1110
0 — 0 0
0 — 0 0
2120
0 - 0 0
0 — 0 0
Endangered Species
tl Per tounty Units
2 1
6 3
12 7
2 1
2 1
1 1
10 5
3 1
2 1
2 1
4 3
4 3
9 5
1 1
6 3
9 5
2 1
1 7
8 5
3 1
16 9
3 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
2 1
6 3
1 1
3 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2' 1
b 3
5 3
13 7
10 b
49
-------
Table 2-11 Continued
County
HcCreary
McLean
Madison
Migoffln
Marlon
Marshall
Martin
Mason
Mtade
Ntnlfee
Mercer
Matcalfe
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Muhlenberg
Nelson
Nicholas
Ohio
Oldham
Owen
Owsley
Pendleton
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaskl
Robertson
Rock castle
Rowan
Russell
Scott
Shelby
Simpson
Spencer
Taylor
Todd
Trlgg
Area
(Acres)
267.520
164.480
285.440
193,920
219.520
193.920
147.840
152,320
195.200
134.401
163.840
189,440
213.760
130, SCO
236.160
307,840
279,680
130,560
381,440
117,760
224,640
126,080
178,560
219,520
503,040
110,720
418,560
64,640
199,040
185.600
152,320
1C1 ,760
245,120
152,960
123,520
181 ,760
240 ,640
293.760
Class I A 11 Soils
Acrx-i '. Units
ii,383 3 1
53,748 33 4
58,337 20 2
11,462 6 1
55.956 25 3
75,058 39 4
5,172 3 1
35,741 23 3
46.654 24 3
8.922 7 1
41.388 25 3
51,883 27 3
51,626 24 3
35.066 27 3
18,740 8 1
102.065 33 4
73,646 26 3
14.207 11 2
125.843 33 4
45,097 38 4
17,425 7 1
7,114 6 1
18,210 10 1
3,296 2 1
9,791 2 1
8,347 7 1
71,340 17 2
7,064 11 2
33.475 17 2
17.433 9 1
27,289 18 2
49,206 27 3
93,988 38 4
05,692 56 C
20.158 16 2
51,910 34 4
125,043 51 6
53.123 18 2
1 OP:', t
Feres i l/nits
92,8311 35 4
45,500 28 3
49,200 17 2
161,000 83 9
82.800 37 4
66,100 34 4
130,100 88 9
18.500 12 2
75,800 39 4
79,387 59 6
17,600 10 1
88,000 46 5
99,000 46 5
18,700 14 2
165,470 70 7
140,900 45 5
117,200 42 5
23,900 18 2
195,800 51 6
22.200 19 2
61 ,000 36 4
92,799 73 8
50,500 28 3
187,200 C5 9
425,173 84 9
69.969 63 7
178,420 42 5
16.300 25 3
129,128 65 7
92,555 50 5
62,563 41 5
25.600 14 2
31,400 13 2
23,300 15 2
24,500 20 2
65,800 30 4
61,700 26 3
52,587 18 2
Natural Area:,
»{Wr TUcl To taT Units
0 --00
0 0 0
2120
0 -00
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 .-00
0 — 0 0
0 —00
1110
0 —00
0 --00
1 1 10
0 —00
0 0 0
0 .-00
0 —00
0 — 0 0
0 —00
1110
0 —00
0 0 0
0 — 0 0
0 0 0
0 —00
2241
1110
0 ..00
5151
0 —00
1110
0 -00
1110
1110
0 .-00
1110
1110
0 --00
LndaiKii.Tcd Species
FTer County Urill?
9 5
4 3
2 1
1 1
2 1
19 9
1 1
1 1
14 7
2 1
1 1
2 1
3 1
2 1
1 1
8 5
2 1
2 1
7 5
2 1
3 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
6 3
4 3
2 1
3 1
4 3
2 1
1 1
2 1
4 3
2 1
3 1
6 3
15 7
50
-------
Table 2-11 Continued
County
Trimble
Union
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
WMtley
Wolfe
Woodford
Area
(Acrus)
93,440
217,600
349,440
196,480
281 ,600
216,960
293,760
145,280
123,520
Class I & II Soils
Acres £ Units
24,278 25 3
100,450 46 5
135.442 39 4
35,267 18 2
31,342 11 2
95,073 44 5
45,141 15 2
7,637 5 1
47,509 46 5
Forts t
Acres 'k Units
34,600 37 4
37,594 17 2
90,600 26 3
47,100 24 3
178,941 64 7
67,800 31 4
196,566 67 7
92,622 64 7
8,700 7 1
Natural Areas
fr(lu) (Uc) Tutul Units
0 --00
0 - 0 0
2120
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 1 20
2120
3131
Endamwred Species
H frer County Units
2 1
6 3
11 7
3 1
7 5
4 3
5 3
5 3
1 1
'uc » uniqueness coefficient where: 1 « normal
2 = medium
3 = high
N1 * number of natural areas 1n each uniqueness category
Sources: (Babcock 1977; Kentucky Conservation Needs Inventory Committee 1970; Stine 1977; The Nature Conservancy 197G.)
51
-------
TABLE 2-12. OHIO TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM BASELINE DATA
County
Adams
Alltn
Ashland
Athens
Auglalze
Belmont
Brown
Butler
Carroll
Champaign
Clark
Clermont
Clinton
Columbians
Coshocton
Crawford
Darke
Delaware
Fair-field
Fayette
Franklin
Gall la
Greene
Guernsey
Hani 1 ton
Hardln
Harrison
Highland
Area
(Acres)
376.320
262.400
267.520
322.290
256,000
342,273
314.019
301.240
248,320
277,064
257.177
292,920
263,040
342,103
348.800
258.485
387,150
281 .GOO
323,200
259,840
343.680
300,991
266,060
332, ICO
264.960
298,880
257.920
352.640
Class 1 & I! Soils
Acres * units
81,377 22 3
209,668 80 8
138.303 52 6
34,445 11 2
215,318 84 9
25.093 7 1
86,182 27 3
151.501 50 5
57,449 23 3
205,174 74 8
156,071 61 7
GO, 079 27 3
174,335 66 7
78,539 23 3
48.130 14 2
199,81: 77 8
320,347 83 9
220,726 78 8
182,014 56 6
227,873 88 9
195,419 57 6
47,955 16 2
192,868 72 8
47.639 14 2
29,649 11 2
213.626 71 8
27,034 10 1
138,833 30 4
Forest
Acres S Units
107,100 50 5
23,010 9 1
51,388 19 2
180,043 56 6
20,840 8 1
124,492 36 4
76,800 24 3
31,793 11 2
113,800 46 5
32.804 12 2
23,875 9 1
91 ,000 31 4
17.113 7 1
88.768 26 3
148.400 43 5
25.080 10 1
24,515 6 1
26.739 9 1
52.138 16 2
11 ,867 '5 1
19,671 6 1
154.600 51 6
19,000 7 1
155,400 47 5
33,409 13 2
20.324 7 1
138,700 54 6
84,200 24 3
Natural Areas
*(\D) (Uc) Total Units
1 3 20 7
5 2
7 1
3131
1 3 12 4
2 2
5 1
2262
2 1
4141
2272
3 1
1251
3 1
1 3 10 3
7 1
1241
2 1
1 3 16 6
4 2
5 1
4141
7172
7172
3 2 14 5
8 1
3131
1241
2 1
1272
5 1
2293
5 1
2283
4 1
1110
5 2 17 6
7 1
3131
1 3 10 3
1 2
5 1
1110
8 2 27 10
11 1
0 »00
3131
1 283
0 1
tndangered Species
t Per county units
7 5
0 0
1 1
7 5
0 0
3 1
2 1
2 1
4 3
3 1
3 1
3 1
1 1
7 5
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
4 3
4 3
1 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
3 1
2 1
52
-------
Table 2-12 Continued
County
Hocking
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Knox
Lawrence
Licking
Logan
Madison
Hahonlng
Marlon
Medina
Melgs
Mercer
HI ami
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Morrow
Musklngum
Noble
Perry
Plckaway
Pike
Portage
Preble
R1 chl and
Ross
Scloto
Shelby
Area
(Acres)
268.650
270.520
268.256
268.040
334.720
291 .840
439.040
295.040
' 296,660
268.160
259,200
271 .200
277,610
290,560
260,480
291 ,200
297.600
266.880
258.560
424,320
255,140
261 ,760
324,375
283,520
319.320
273.280
318.080
439.680
389.760
2bl .7 tO
Cluss I X II Soils
Acres * bii f Is
30,248 11 2
64,810 24 3
24,271 9 1
14.246 5 1
140.036 42 5
23,546 8 1
204.082 46 5
188,475 64 7
272,070 92 10
71,772 27 3
201.084 78 8
69.028 25 3
34.399 12 2
258.633 89 9
200.207 77 8
23.736 8 1
151.518 51 6
24,579 9 1
188,716 73 8
59,688 14 2
19.386 8 1
45,561 17 2
276,757 85 9
54.048 19 2
93,953 29 3
201 ,586 74 8
171,521 54 6
186,573 42 5
55.986 14 2
222.012 05 9
forest
Acres % Units
173,084 64 7
93,500 35 4
141,200 53 6
148.200 56 6
68,507 20 2
169.200 58 6
86.262 20 2
30,495 10 1
13,275 4 1
31,026 12 2
23,861 9 1
41,814 15 2
168.100 61 7
23,438 8 1
18,901 7 1
147,606 51 6
18.250 6 1
115,000 43 5
46.235 18 2
175,600 41 5
115,700 45 5
116,500 45 6
12.566 4 1
151,698 54 6
89.327 28 3
25,538 9 1
70.759 22 3
170,300 44 5
254,500 65 7
23.500 9 1
llatural Areas
(•(III) (uc) ToUl Units
1 3 19 7
2 2
12 1
1272
5 1
1 2 13 5
11 1
2251
1 1
1251
3 1
3131
1 3 12 4
2 2
5 1 .
1 2 10 3
8 1
1110
1272
5 1
0 .-00
4141
1110
1110
1 2 11 4
9 1
2251
1 1
5151
1110
0 —00
0 ..QO
1231
1 1
2120
2283
4 1
3131
3 2 20 7
14 1
1251
3 1
1272
5 1
1241
2 1
3272
1 1
3131
Endangered Species
» Per County Units
2 1
2 1
3 1
4 3
1 1
3 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
5 3
2 1
1 1
5 3
0 0
3 1
3 1
3 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
4 3
1 1
53
-------
Table 2-12 Continued
County
Stark
SlIMlt
Trwbull
Tuscarawas
Union
Vinton
Hirren
Washington
Haynt
Hyandot
Area
(Acres)
366.720
264,229
291,145
352.640
277,760
263.040
261.120
407.680
352.640
259.017
Class I & II Soils
Acres i units
124.434 34 4
61.905 23 3
87,271 22 3
80,019 23 3
221.621 80 8
23,413 9 1
134.601 52 6
32,296 9 1
209.550 59 6
183,939 71 8
Forest
Acres i units
67.120 18 2
46,411 18 2
86,224 22 3
156.300 44 5
18.638 7 1
193,900 74 8
33,042 13 2
239.500 59 6
52.870 15 2
24.957 10 1
Natural Areas
«(iii} (Uc) total Units
2 2 12 4
8 1
2 2 17 6
13 1
3131
1293
7 1
1110
1110
2262
2 1
1283
6 1
2 2 10 3
6 1
2120
Endangered Species
i Per County units
3 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
5 3
1 1
0 0
'uc « uniqueness coefficient where: 1 • normal
2 • medium
3 - high
MI • nunber of natural areas 1n each uniqueness category
Sources: (Anderson et al. 1976; Herrlck 1974; Ohio Department of Natural Resources 1976; Ohio Department of Natural
Resources 1978; Ohio Soil and.Water Conservation Heeds Committee 1971.)
54
-------
TABLE 2-13. PENNSYLVANIA TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM BASELINE DATA
County
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Cambria
Clarion
Clearfleld
Elk
Fayette
Forest
Greene
Indiana
Jefferson
Lawrence
Mercer
Sonierset
Venango
Washington
Westmoreland
Area
(Acres)
467,200
419,840
282,240
508,106
444,800
383,360
732,160
516,480
50C.160
266,240
369,200
528,000
417,260
234,880
435,840
693.760
432,000
548,480
654,710
Class I & 11 Soils
Acres '* Units
51,191 11 2
95,199 23 3
83,857 30 3
203,438 40 4
99,005 22 3
74,166 19 2
161,379 22 3
02,841 16 2
106,252 21 3
34,716 13 2
36,743 10 1
144,259 27 3
90,646 22 3"
74,183 32 4
19,895 5 1
147,164 21 3
65,173 15 2
40,009 7 1
169,710 26 3
Forest
Acres '» Units
86,278 18 1
218.900 52 6
134,600 48 5
261 ,COO 26 3
284,600 C4 7
272,600 71 0
607, SCO 03 9
360,364 70 7
317.300 62 7
138,066 52 6
147,752 40 4
289,400 55 6
292,013 70 7
92,700 39 4
147,625 34 4
443,400 64 3
352,700 82 9
192,703 35 4
312,100 48 5
natural Areas
ft(Ui) (Uc) Total Units
1 2 17 6
15 1
1251
3 1
1251
3 1
3 2 25 9
19 1
4141
1 110
4141
7 1 72
2 2 16 6
12 1
3131
2120
4141
2120
2 2 15 5
11 1
1 2 17 6
15 1
9 V 9 3
3131
2120
5 2 25 9
15 1
Endangered Species
(/ Per County Units
2 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
3 1
2 1
4 3
0 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
2 1
0 0
3 1
uniqueness coefficient where: 1 = normal
2 - medium
3 * high
number of natural areas in each uniqueness category
Sources: (Kay et al. 1979; Pennsylvania Soil Conservation Service 1970.)
55
-------
TABLE 2-14. WEST VIRGINIA TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM BASELINE DATA
County
Barbour
Boone
.Braxton
Brooke
Cabell
Calhoun
Clay
Ooddrldge
Fayette
Gllmer
Grant
Greenbrler
Hancock
Harrison
Jackson
Kanawha
Lewis
Lincoln
Logan
McDowell
Marlon
Marshall
Mason
Mercer
Mlngo
Monongalla
Monroe
Nicholas
Ohio
Pleasants
Pocahontas
Preston
Putnam
Raleigh
Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
SuRwers
Area
(Acres)
215.040
320,600
330,900
57.000
178,560
179.800
218.900
204.200
421.760
217,000
304.190
656,480
52,500
267,520
296,320
581 .100
250,900
280,320
291,800
341.120
197,800
195.800
276.400
266.900
270.720
233.500
302,600
412.600
68,500
83,200
603,520
412.800
223,400
386.230
663,100
289.280
311.000
228.900
Class I & II
Acres *
10,010 5
10,838 3
18.814 6
3,937 7
22,377 13
9,118 5
5,022 2
17,393 9
22.523 5
11,747 5
16,319 5
31.693 5
8.228 16
13,881 5
23,960 8
14,738 3
10,688 4
13,125 5
3,869 1
3,073 1
9,284 5
9.455 5
37,102 13
17,799 7
3,852 1
10.353 4
16,874 6
19,991 5
5,267 8
3.916 5
28,338 5
64,071 16
22,586 10
19,121 5
31,064 5
23,657 4
17,946 6
17.486 8
Soils
Units
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Acres
130,327
290,000
213,633
23,900
118,203
138.600
189,350
149.625
352.400
167.468
219,014
401,860
24,600
115,079
206.179
453,500
134,300
245.545
260.500
302.500
120.000
110,920
162.304
186,445
242,300
144.940
185.035
312,923
21 ,407
68.910
209,431
273,700
166.986
295.115
383,218
197.200
197,800
152.321
Forest
i
61
90
65
42
66
77
87
73
84
77
72
61
47
43
70
78
54
88
89
89
61
57
59
70
90
62
61
76
31
83
35
66
75
76
58
30
64
67
Units
7
9
7
5
7
8
9
8
9
8
8
7
5
5
7
8
6
9
9
9
7
6
6
7
9
7
7
8
4
9
4
7
8
8
6
3
7
7
»(lli
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
4
0
3
5
1
1
2
3
1
1
0
3
1
0
0
3
0
4
1
3
1
1
11
6
1
3
11
4
2
2
Natural
) IUC>
—
--
1
1
1
—
1
—
1
--
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
—
1
1
--
—
1
~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Areas
Total
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
4
0
3
5
1
1
2
3
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
4
1
3
1
1
11
6
1
3
11
4
2
2
Units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
4
2
0
1
4
1
0
0
Endangered Species?
d* Per County Units
56
-------
Table 2-14 Continued
County
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Wayne
Webster
Wetzel
Wlrt
Wood
Wyoming
Area
(Acres)
108,800
269,400
163,800
225,300
328,320
352,600
231,700
149.800
235,500
322,600
Class I & II Soils
Acres '* Units
4,854 4 1
14,179 5 1
14,184 9 1
12,486 6 1
19,568 6 1
4,962 1 1
8,883 4 1
12,514 8 1
27.028 11 2
8,454 3 1
Forest
Acres '* Units
55,900 51 6
139,600 52 6
105,716 65 7
1 31 ,400 58 6
270,300 82 9
266,099 75 8
196,067 85 9
109,932 73 8
145,900 62 7
287,637 89 9
natural Areas
if(lli) (Uc) Total Units
1 110
4 141
3 131
1 110
0 0 0
4 141
0 —00
1 110
2 1 20
1 1 1.0
p
tndanoered Species
jr Per County Units
Uc = uniqueness coefficient where: 1 » normal
2 = medium
3 = high
M{ « number of natural areas in each uniqueness category
2Tliere were no available data for the sub-state distribution of vertebrates for West Virginia.
Sources: (Cardl 1979; West Virginia Soil Conservation Service 1970.)
57
-------
TABLE 2-15. SUMMARY OF TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM VARIABLES IN THE ORBES REGION (FROM COUNTY TOTALS)
01
03
State
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
ORBES REGION
ORBES Acres
32,797,350
20,595,959
20,620,254
25,555,881
8,842,880
13,428,780
121,841.104
X
27
17
17
21
7
11
100
Natural Areas
(No.)
426
137
370
67
150
99
1,249
Class
I and II Soils
Acres X
18,289,215
12,037,894
8,517,044
5,875,984
1.780,346
756,627
47,257,110
56
58
41
23
20
6
39
Forest
Acres
3,275.470
3.556.697
5.659.823
10.988.246
4.953,481
9,276,089
37.709,806
X
10
17
27
43
56
69
31
Endangered
Vertebrate
Species (No.)
227
317
308
92
17
*
961
*No sub-state endangered vertebrate species data were available for West Virginia.
-------
TABLE 2-16. KEY TO INDICES USED FOR TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT UNITS
Endangered Species
Number
Per County Units
0 0
1-3 1
4-6 3
7-10 5
11-15 7
16-20 9
>20 10
Natural Areas
3
z UCN1*
c=l bfl Units
0-5 0
6-10 1
11-15 2
16-20 3
21-25 4
26-30 5
31-35 6
36-40 7
41-45 8
46-50 9
>50 10
Soil Productivity
Class I & II Soils
Percentage of County Units
0 0
1-10 1
11-20 2
21-30 3
31-40 4
41-50 5
51-60 6
61-70 7
71-80 8
81-90 9
91-100 10
Forest
Same
as
for
Soils
UC = uniqueness coefficient where:
1 = normal
2 = medium
3 = high
= number of natural areas in each uniqueness category
59
-------
Class I and II soils, as defined in the inventories, represent the most
productive soils. Soils in class I have few limitations that restrict their
use. They are suited to a wide range of plants and may be used safely for
cultivated crops, pasture, woodland, and wildlife. Soils in class II have
some limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require moderate con-
servation practices. However, the limitations are few and the practices
easy to apply. Class II soils may be used for cultivated crops, pasture,
woodland, or for wildlife food and cover.
The number of acres of land having class I or II soils is given for each
ORBES county in Tables 2-9 through 2-14. Figure 2-10 shoves the distribution
of these soils in the ORBES region. The acreages of class I and II soils
included in the tables and figure are presently in a number of land uses,
including: cropland, pasture and range, orchards, forests and other open
lands. These lands have a high potential productivity for agriculture and
silviculture.
Natural Areas—
Lindsey (1969) defines a natural area as "any outdoor site that contains
an unusual biological, geological, or scenic feature or else illustrates common
principles of ecology uncommonly well." In recognizing the ecological signi-
ficance of natural areas, many states have developed extensive natural areas
programs. As a part of these programs, natural areas are identified and often
times ranked a-cording to uniqueness and preservation status.
The number and distribution of natural areas, by county, for the ORBES
states is presented in Tables 2-9 through 2-14 and in Figure 2-11. Both
uniqueness and number of natural areas for each ORBES county were used in
calculating the units and used in preparing Figure 2-11. Table 2-16 shows how
unit values were calculated for natural areas and other terrestrial ecosystem
variables.
Because of variations in the emphasis placed on natural area programs
among the ORBES states, care should be taken to only compare natural area
distribution and abundance between counties of the same state rather than
between states. For example, Illinois has recently completed a thorough
natural areas survey whereas Kentucky's natural areas program is not as well-
developed. These differences in policy are well illustrated in Figure 2-11.
The distribution and abundance of natural areas in the ORBES region are
useful elements of the ecological baseline in that natural areas can serve as
indicators of environmental significance. Natural areas can include relic
communities representing pre-settlement conditions, critical habitat for rare
or endangered species, unusual examples of flora and/or fauna, and other
features of scientific or educational value. As indicators of environmental
significance, natural areas can be useful in describing the environmental
quality of the ORBES counties.
Unique and Endangered Species-
Several species in the ORBES region, though not endangered, may be
regarded as unique elements of our biological heritage, because they repre-
sent surviving members of families with many extinct species. As they have
few or no close relatives, several of these unique species, such as paddle-
60
-------
SOIL PRODUCTIVITY; LflND C'PPRBlLlT
PFRCENTRGE OF COUNTY
CLRSSES
II
• 31. - ICO.
BG1. - 80.
HMi. - 60.
D21. - 10.
DC. - 20.
flREC FOR I NO I tun L'MVERSITr OpEf>
BT C1C1S JICC. CEPI 1973
FIGURE 2-10. SOIL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE ORBES REGION
-------
CT*
ro
a i;. - ic. Low Score
FIGURE 2-11. NATURAL AREAS DISTRIBUTION
-------
fish, hellbender;, alligator snapping turtle,, and beaverD are quite strange in
appearance,, Others, though not strange looking in themselves, are impressive
when seen in their natural habitats; these include bald cypress, sycamore,,
cave blindfish0 osprey, wild turkeyD and cedar waxwing.
In general0 riparian habitats support the greatest number of unique
species; more specifically, the preferred habitat type is meandering river
bordered by southern floodplain foresto In the ORBES region, this community
occurs in Posey County0 Indiana0 and is represented in discontinuous blocks
downstream along the Wabash and Ohio Rivers and along the Mississippi River
adjacent to and downstream from southern Illinois. Most of those unique
species intolerant of the southern floodplain habitat would be best accommo-
dated within the ORBES region by mountains bordering large clear streams in
eastern Kentucky.
In recognizing the "esthetic, ecological„ educational„ historical0 re-
creational, and scientific value" of endangered and threatened species of
fish, wildlife,, and plants to the nation and its people; and recognizing its
duty to conserve to the extent practicable the various species facing extinction;
the U. S. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205)0
The law encourages the states and all federal agencies to conserve endangered
and threatened species and to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the
law.
In compliance with the law, federal and state agencies have identified
those species that are endangered or threatened with extinction,, During the
three-year period (August 1976 through August 1979) in which the Endangered
Species Technical Bulletin has been keeping its "Box Score of Species ListingsD"
the number of domestic endangered and threatened species has risen from 178 to
239,, The number of critical habitats has risen from 1 to 34, Inasmuch as man-
kind seems responsible for an abnormally high rate of extinction in contrast
to the normal evolutionary process,, future human acts0 for example, large
construction projects,, that result in the conversion of wildlife habitat and
could conceivably affect endangered species or critical habitats, must be
closely scrutinized,,
Animal species occurring in Indiana or Ohio and regarded by either of the
two state governments or by the federal government as endangered are listed in
the Phase I report (Indiana University et al. 1977). A list of plant species
similar to that for animals but restricted to those regarded by the federal
government as threatened or endangered is presented in the same report0 En-
dangered plant and animal species in West Virginia and Pennsylvania are given
in baseline reports for those states (Cardi 1979; Kay et a!0 1979), Endangered
animal species in Illinois are listed in the Phase I report (University of
Illinois 1977) and in Ackerman (1975). The Phase I report for Kentucky did
not discuss endangered species, A report by Babcock (1977) presents a thorough
listing of endangered plants and animals of Kentucky.
The only terrestrial animal species that is listed by the federal govern-
ment as endangered and is essentially restricted to the ORBES region is the
Indiana bat (Myotis soda11sj. In addition^ a majority of, the surviving popu-
lation of KirFIancfrs"warbTe'rs (Dendrolca kirtlandii) probably migrate across
Ohio seasonally. The federally endangerecTAmerican peregrine falcon (Falco
63
-------
peregrinus anatum) is occasionally sited in the ORBES region during its
migration.
The distribution and occurrence of endangered species at the substate
level for the ORBES states is not widely known primarily due to the infre-
quent nature of sitings. Indiana bat wintering cave locations are an
exception. For most species, however, only maps indicating suspected or
previous ranges are available at the county level. The number of state and/or
federally endangered or threatened vertebrate species having suspected ranges
which include ORBES counties is given in Tables 2-9 through 2-14. Figure
2-12 gives a distribution map for these species. There were no available
data for the substate distribution of vertebrates for West Virginia.
The occurrence of endangered species can be most thoroughly evaluated
in impact assessments at the site-specific level. To be effective, an evalua-
tion at this level must include (1) biological knowledge about each given
species, (2) a thorough survey of all suspected habitats that could be
affected by the proposed project, and (3) an understanding of the social
and political tradeoffs involved in the decision making process.
Rare and endangered species can have important functions within terres-
trial ecosystems. While the few common or "dominant" species usually account
for much of the energy flow within a community, it is the large number of
rare species that largely determines species diversity (Odum 1971). Although
there are many theories concerning the role that species diversity plays in
community stability, succession, and productivity, it remains generally
accepted that high community stability is associated with a high level of
species diversity, with no clear indication of which is dependent on the
other. Although Odum refers to rare species in a broader sense than do state
and federal legislation, rare and endangered species, as defined by state and
federal law, represent a past and potential species diversity that is presently
being lost.
Ecosystem Dynamics
The animals and plants described in the preceding sections interact with
each other and with their physical environment in a complex, dynamic fashion.
Although a detailed discussion of ecosystem dynamics is beyond the scope of
thie report, this section contains brief descriptions of some of the ecological
interactions occurring within each of the three most common rural biotic communi-
ties of the ORBES region—upland hardwood forests, farmlands, and riparian
communities.
Upland Hardwood Forests—One of the most important community interactions
is that of energy flow through food webs. Food sources vary from animal to
animal and from time to time. Of the upland hardwood forest fauna, only in-
sects feed on the mature leaves of hardwood trees. Most herbivorous verte-
brates find the leaves too high in fiber relative to the nutrient content and
tend to eat buds and flowers in the spring and early summer and berries, nuts,
seeds, and tubers in the late summer, fall, and winter. Nuts in particular
are present in rich supply 1n the oak-hickory forest, helping to support
abundant populations of squirrels and, in the past, turkey. Green bark is
an alternative winter food source for some species, such as mice, rabbits,
and deer.
64
-------
en
ENDANGERED/THREATENED VERTEBRATE
SPECIES DISTRIBUTION
NO. OF SPFCIES PER COUNTY
20
16-20
11 -15
7 - 10
- 6
1 -3
n
PREPARED fan OHIO RIVER BAStJ ENERGY S1UOT
BY CAGtS/U«X. FEBRUARY, 1980
FIGURE 2-12. ENDANGERED/THREATENED VERTEBRATE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION
-------
Occupying other niches 1n the forest food web are the birds, most of
which, Including the woodpeckers and songbirds, are Insectivorous; the sala-
manders, which form a common and diverse group of forest floor predators;
and the reptiles, which range 1n food habits from the carnivorous snakes
to the omnivorous box turtle. The large forest predators of past and present
Include bobcat, gray fox, and owls.
One large portion of the forest fauna, migratory songbirds, Is not
resident throughout the year. These birds transport a fraction of the
forest nutrients southward 1n the fall In their bodies. Inasmuch as many
of them die in the winter and do not return, these birds constitute a small,
seasonal drain on forest nutrient production. This loss is replenished by
the gradual weathering of the soil.
Nutrient cycles in general play an important part in community dynamics.
The annual growth cycle of the hardwood trees is the most pervading feature
influencing the nutrient cycle of the upland hardwood forest and the growth
cycles of other plants as well as animals. Most of the hardwoods flower
before leafing out in the spring and bear fruit before or during leaf shed
in the summer and fall, thus governing the food habits of herbivores as des-
cribed above. Before leaf production by trees in the spring, the herbaceous
plants of the forest floor are especially active, accounting for the commonly
observed spring woodland wildflowers and the generally green aspect of the
forest floor in middle and late spring. In warm, moist weather, fungi actively
decompose leaves and twigs fallen from the previous fall. Many fungi gather
energy in this fashion 1n the spring and early summer and bear fruit during
wet periods in the later summer and fall. In the autumn, most of the leaves
of a given tree tend to fall beneath it and in decomposing, release nutrients
that are recovered by the parent tree. Generally, nutrient movement in the
form of dissolved or particulate chemicals tends to be low in soil because
dead leaf cover and decomposing humus retain the chemicals or, alternatively,
give them up to the roots and above ground structures of living trees. The
decomposing leaves may also Inhibit growth in young members of the same species
or in members of other species by a complex, little-understood process known
as allelopathy.
The upland hardwood forest community tends not to be continuous and uni-
form over broad areas, because it experiences periodic variation due to wild-
fires, tornadoes, and local individual tree falls. These phenomena open up
patches of the forest floor to direct sunlight in summer when adjacent areas
are shaded.
Farmland Communities—Farmland communities vary from large areas of
continuously cropped land Interspersed with farmsteads (buildings and any
yard trees, bushes, and flower gardens), through fields interrupted by
woody hedgerows and small wood lots, to large wooded tracts interspersed
with grazed brushland and small tilled areas. A major feature is the transi-
tional "edge" community occurring where wooded and nonwooded land meet.
Lateral nutrient transport is an important feature 1n farmland communi-
ties. It occurs through soil erosion, harvest and removal of crops and appli-
cation of fertilizer.
66
-------
The annual floral growth cycle is partly natural and partly governed .by
agricultural practice,, The natural fraction is a mixture of the hardwood
forests and old-field successional cycles,, Old-field plants generally flower
in the late spring and summer and bear seeds during the summer and fall. In
the wooded areas0 the woodland spring flora is often reduced because the woods
are too open and brushy for them or because the plants have been trampled by
grazing animals or displaced by pastoral plants.
>D
The animal portion of farmland communities is composed of livestock
wildlife, and agricultural insect pests. In intensively farmed areas0 the
vertebrate wildlife consists of highly mobile birds and mammals. If there
are farm ponds, toads and0 to a lesser extent0 frogs may be present,, Some
birds, including pheasants, bobwhite quail, and sparrows, nest within cropped
land (e.g.D alfalfa), but most birds and mammals tend to roost0 nest or den
in the wooded and brushy areas and to feed in weeds along the edges of these
areas or in the croplands,, Species exhibiting this behavior include herbi-
vores such as doves, rabbits, and woodchucks; ormivores such as crows„ black-
birds of several species0 opossum0 and striped skunkj and the predatory red
fox, hawks, kingbirds0 and robins0
As land use departs from intensive agriculture and trends toward abandoned
old fields and brushlands, particularly in association with forest areas, wild-
life diversity may increase substantialIy0 with the inclusion of snakes, voles,
deer? and more songbirds. Some wildlife characteristic of permanent prairies
may inhabit advanced old fields, but since these areas are in a state of change
woodland eventually takes over. Functional features distinguishing the old
field-brushland community from the hardwood forests include solar heating near
the ground,, denser ground cover due to brush and herbaceous vegetation, and the
summer flowering and fruiting periods of the vegetation present. The solar
heating and ground cover enhance diversity of reptiles, while the summer flowering
and fruiting period permits a higher degree of herbivory in small birds than is
encountered in hardwood forests.
Riparian^jCpjroiunities^°°The most obvious feature of riparian communities is
the juxtaposition of land and moving water. A number of habitats may be avail-
able at the land-water interface due to temporal and geographical variations
in the effects of streamflow upon the land. Such habitats include open and
snag-covered high banks and sand banks associated with the main stream0 oxbow
ponds, marshes„ and swamps of severed channels, as well as annual floodplains
and alluvial terraces„
The lateral transport of dissolved and particulate nutrients in stream
water can be moderate to great in quantity relative to the lateral nutrient
transport which occurs in upland hardwood forests,, Natural nutrient sources
include soil erosion of untilled soils and the decomposition of dead leaves
and other detritus washed into the water, while artificial sources are repre-
sented by erosion of tilled landB feedlot runoff„ and urban wastes. The most
important aspects of nutrient transport for the terrestrial portions of
riparian communities is the deposition of silt-borne nutrients on floodplains
during floods. It would appear that the rate of this deposition has increased
over the past decades, as historical descriptions of the Ohio River Basin
indicate that presently murky waters were once clear,,
67
-------
The annual cycle of nutrient movement through riparian communities and
the resultant community productivities vary among habitats according to the
degree of annual inundation by water. The high points of sand bars above
flood levels are natural habitats for relatively xeric old field herbs and
woody brush. These communities have typical old field seasonal cycles. In
an average year, the terraces may not flood either, and the forests growing
on them behave much like upland hardwood forests. The major differences
include the greater soil fertility of the terraces and differences in forest
species composition. Seasonally flooded areas support flood-tolerant vege-
tation, which during high water periods survives as emergent woody vegetation
(trees such as sycamore, silver maple, willow, and water tupelo; shrubs such
as buttonbush and swamp-privet), rootstocks, or seeds. Whereas the herbaceous
flora of the upland woods generally produces flowers and succulent leaves in
the spring, such growth may not occur until well into the summer in riparian
communities that flood in the spring. Mud bars along oxbows may support
succulent vegetation into late summer, providing food for muskrat, swamp
rabbit, and other riparian herbivores. Vegetation of oxbow ponds grades from
terrestrial into emergent and submerged aquatic species. The greatest produc-
tion tends to occur during late spring and summer.
The vertebrate fauna of riparian communities is probably the most diverse
within the ORBES region. The fauna of the alluvial terraces often includes
species also found in upland hardwood communities, some as permanent residents
and some as upland visitors that have come to the river for water. The annual
floodplains support a uniquely riparian amphibian community and also moles that
burrow through exposed soils. Oxbows are inhabited by uniquely riparian
amphibians (including tree frogs) and reptilian communities. A distinct unique
reptilian community may be found along the main channel.
The general riparian avifauna includes many species that feed on aquatic
and emergent aquatic insects. Examples are wood duck, killdeers, swallows,
and many species of warblers. Fish-eating birds include mergansers, herons,
ospreys, bald eagles, and kingfishers. The total number of animal species
that feed on aquatic life but reproduce on land is quite large, so that loss
of aquatic life through degraded water quality may result in loss of these
terrestrial animals.
Animals not associated with a particular riparian community include snakes
and turtles; migratory ducks and geese, which rest on water and feed in grain
fields; raccoon and striped skunk, which feed in uplands as well as lowlands;
and bats, which winter in upland caves and feed over streams and possibly
reproduce in riparian trees.
68
-------
SECTION 3
SCENARIOS
3.1 SCENARIO METHODOLOGY
The Ohio River Basin Energy Study is a regional technology assessment
utilizing a research design characterized as a "scenario" methodology.
Because the purpose of the ORBES project is to inform decision makers and
the general public of implications associated with energy development in the
Ohio River valley through the year 2000, it was important that the study
examined as many plausible future energy and environmental conditions
(scenarios) as time and resources permitted. Scenarios are not forecasts
of what "the future" will be, but rather represent alternative plausible
futures which depend upon the course of events and selection of alternative,
but likely, policies and conditions.
A number of scenario models were used in conjunction with present-day
regional conditions to specify a plausible set of future energy and fuel use
characteristics in the ORBES region. These models included: energy and fuel
demand, economic growth, population projections, coal supply and allocation,
and siting of additions to regional generating capacity.
3.2 SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS
A brief description of the ORBES scenarios analyzed in this study is
presented in Table 3-1. The scenarios are variations and combinations of
assumed types of energy conversion technologies, environmental control
standards, and levels of economic growth. All scenarios encompass the base
period (the mid-1970's) through the year 2000. A description of the basic
scenario assumptions for environmental controls and for economic growth are
presented in Table 3-2.
69
-------
TABLE 3-1. DESCRIPTION OF BASIC ORBES SCENARIOS
Scenario
Fossil Fuel
1
la
Ib
Ic
Id
2
2a
4
5
5a
6
7
Nuclear Fuel
25
2c
Alternative
3
Technology
Emphasis
conventional ,
coal emphasis
conventional ,
coal emphasis
conventional ,
coal emphasis
conventional,
coal emphasis
conventional ,
coal emphasis
conventional ,
coal emphasis
conventional ,
coal -fired exports
conventional,
natural gas
emphasis
conventional,
coal emphasis
conventional ,
coal emphasis
conventional ,
coal emphasis
conventional,
coal emphasis
Emphasis
conventional ,
nuclear-fueled
exports
conventional ,
nuclear emphasis
Fuel Emphasis
alternative
Environmental Controls
strict
strict (very strict air
quality), dispersed siting
strict (very strict air
quality), concentrated
siting
strict (strict agricultural
land protection), dispersed
siting
strict (strict agricultural
land protection), concen-
trated siting
base case
base case
base case
base case
base case
base case
base case
base case
base case
base case
Economic Growth
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
low
very high
high (very low
energy growth -
1.9% through 1985;
0.7% annual decline
1985-2000)
high (high elec-
trical energy growth
- 4.0%)
high
high
high
70
-------
TABLE 3-2. BASIC SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
ENVIRONMLHTAL CONTROLS
Air
Lax
Air quality standards
set by SIPs are not
complied with.
Base Case
Current urban SIPs 1n
urban areas and current
rural SIPs 1n rural areas
are applied.
Water
Land
Current effluent standards
apply.
Federal standards prior
to SHCRA are applied.
Strict
Stringent pollution emission
standards for urban areas
set by 1978 state implementa-
tion plans (SIP) under the
Clean A1r Act are applied.
95X reduction 1n effluent
Is achieved using extensive
reclrculatlon of water.
Interim and permanent perfor-
mance standards under the
Surface Mining Control and
Act of 1977 (SMCRA) are applied
but with strengthened site-
specific applications.
Very Strict
No coal-fired additions
sited In counties with
current violations of
national ambient air
quality standards
(NAAQS) for S02 and
particulates and/or
with less than full
PSD Increment avail-
able for 24-hour and
secondary standards.
Ag lands protection:
no additions In counties
having greater than
50% Class I and II
soils.
ECONOMIC GROWTH
Rate
low
high
very high
Regional Growth (%)
Z.I
2.47
3.1
National Growth (%)
3.26
3.26
3.26
71
-------
SECTION 4
SITING1
4.1 SITING METHODOLOGY
An ORBES siting model was developed to provide a means of converting the
scenario policies into a geographical pattern of impacts that could be assessed
and evaluated. Consistent with scenario policies, the required number of "new"
base-load coal-fired and nuclear-fueled steam electric generating units are
added to the network of existing and planned facilities. Policy changes can
be simulated by the model when they are functionally related to the siting
issues, that is, to the geographical and temporal allocation of new generating
capacity.
The ORBES siting model depends upon the scenarios for three basic pieces
of information: (1) regional energy demand for electric utilities, (2) energy
technology characterizations, and (3) siting issues. The specification of
final-year regional energy demand is necessary to calculate the generating
capacity additions that must be sited. The technological characteristics of
the "standard" generating units that are to be sited and the specification of
fuel mix (by region or state) are needed to determine the number of scenario
unit additions to be sited and to define the siting issues and date require-
ments. Siting issues include those areas relevant to the location of future
generating units of primary concern to the assessment and to the policies it
addresses.
The final demand for energy from electric utilities in the ORBES region
in the year 2000 was allocated to state subregions on the basis of the distri-
bution of projected demand in 1985. The existing installed and planned capa-
city for which sites have been announced was then subtracted from the "required"
capacity to determine the total unisted additions. These additions were trans-
lated into the number of standard coal-fired and nuclear-fueled units (scenario
additions), as specified by the scenario, to be located according to the site
suitability of ORBES-region counties.
The suitability of ORBES counties as sites for future electrical generating
stations was determined by using a linear weighted suitability model. Siting
issues were represented in the model by specific variables for which quantita-
tive data were collected at the county level. These variables included: maxi-
mum 24 hour sulfur dioxide concentration, maximum 24 hour particulate concentra-
tion, public lands, natural areas, class I and II soils, forest lands, water
availability, seismic risk, and population density. Weights for each variable
were adjusted to reflect policy and technology assumptions within each of the
scenarios.
Utility plans for capacity additions were used to meet short-term regional
energy demand only. Scenario addition units were sited after 1985. The scenario
unit additions, by fuel type, were allocated within each state subregion, two
*Taken largely from Fowler et al. 1980.
72
-------
units at a time, according to the rank order suitability indices of the
candidate counties. A county could be selected more than once provided
that its total sited electrical generating capacity did not exceed 2,600
megawatts coal-fired and 4,000 megawatts nuclear-fueled. Scenario unit
additions that could not be sited in the state subregion to which they
were assigned were sited in an adjacent state.
4.2 SITING PATTERNS
Figures 4-1 through 4-18 illustrate the regional siting patterns for
scenario unit additions developed during the ORBES study for 15 scenarios.
Capacity additions, as currently planned for by utilities, are also desig-
nated. Proposed nuclear capacity additions (Figure 4-2) are consistent for
all scenarios. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the 15 siting patterns, giving
the number of counties with facilities sited and the sited capacity for each
state for planned, scenario, and total additions. The planned additions
remain constant for all scenarios, however, the scheduling of these additions
varied according to scenario.
Scenarios 2a, 5a, and 7 required the greatest total capacity additions;
in excess of 116,000 megawatts each. Scenarios 2c, 4, and 6 required the
fewest capacity additions, less than 60,000 megawatts each.
73
-------
SCENARIO I: CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, STRICT CONTROLS
'TGTRL PROPOSED CQPL-P I RE.Q" GENERGT ING
CRPPCITY RDDITION5. 1975-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
30CO. - 5400.
2000. - 3000.
-non „ j**>nn
. ~ .,- . *. ^KW .
500. - 1033.
250. - 503.
JVJ 100. - 250.
rn : . - 100.
DO- - o.
* "5 (Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit
additions
INVENTORY
FIGURE 4-1. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 1
-------
cn
OTflL PROPOSED NUCLERR GcNEhRTT'NG
CnPRCl'TT RDDITIQNS, 1976-35
3000. - 5:-400.
2000. - 3COO.
iCOO. - 2000.
jg-SCC. - 1000.
gj 250. - SCO.
iVj 100. - 250.
HI i . - !00.
Do- - =.
(Planned additions)
: LRC Ei-E
CLME*.
FIGURE 4-2. PROPOSED NUCLEAR-FUELED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR ALL SCENARIOS
-------
CT>
SCENARIO IA:
VERY STRICT AIR QUALITY CONTROLS, DISPERSED SITING
TQTRL PROPOSED CQRL-FIREQ GEN5RRTING
CRPRCITY RDDITIO'NS. 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
(Planned additions)
3 Number of scenario unit additions
: E.RC ELLCTBI
fen T«it twts&r nES
^ 0!CC 4UCJ3T.
J N& UMT INVENTORY
FIGURE 4-3. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO la
-------
SCENARIO IB:
VERY STRICT AIR QUALITY CONTROLS, CONCENTRATED CITING
TOTRL PROPOSED CGRL-FIRED GENERRTJNG'
CRPRCITY RDDITIONS, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS, 1986-2000
3000. - 5400.
!12000. - 3000.
1000. - 2000.
g-j 500. . - 1000.
- - 500.
:VJ 100. - 250.
"Hi. - 300.
(Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit additions
p.C ^
6' Ct.&!l JICC dUCJSI. :91S
!N& JM T
FIGURE 4-4. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO Ib
-------
SCENARIO 1C:
AGRICULTURAL LANDS PROTECTION, DISPERSED SITING
TOTRL PROPOSED- COflL-FIRED GENERATING
CRPRCITY RDDITIONS, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS, 1986-2000
-j
oo
5?jfi:E: IRC
GEKER&T!NG UMT INVENTORY
3000. - 5400.
2200. - 30CO.
1000. - 2000.
500. - 1000.
250. - 500.
] --'0- - 250.
D '• - :°3.
Ho. - o.
H£GP*'PTTS(Planned additions)
3 Number of scenario unit additions
3) Scenario unit additions dedicated
to supply Ohio demand
I^ L".CC
FIGURE 4-5. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO Ic
-------
10
SCENARIO ID:
AGRICULTURAL LAND PROTECTION, CONCENTRATED SITING
TOTRL PROPOSED COPL-FIREO GENERATING
RPRCITT RDDITIONS, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
r-
LRC ELLCT^ICPL GENERA !\G UNIT INVENTORY
3000. - 5400.
2000. - 3000.
1000. -.2000.
ggsoo. - 1000.
gj 250. - 500.
FT] ;oo. - 250.
G3 i. - 100.
MEGP^'PTTS (Planned additions)
3 Number of scenario unit additions
(3) Scenario unit additions dedicated
to supply Ohio demand
•f.*.*
GJSr. ;97S
FIGURE 4-6. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO Id
-------
SCENARIO 2: CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, BASE CASE CONTROLS
TOT'flL PROPOSED CORL-FIRED GENERRTING
TT RDDITION5. 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
00
o
MEGPHflTTS (Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit
additions
FIGURE 4-7. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 2
-------
CO
SCENARIO 2a:
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, BASE CASE CONTROLS, COAL-FIRED EXPORT
. TQTflL PROPOSED COflL-FIRED GENERATING
CRPRCITT RDDITION5, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARia UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
S2JP.CE: ERC ELE.Cfr.CaL GENERATING UM T INVENTORY
.p.tpc«jr «•?<( T-E tNE^Gr HESCJHCEO
et ctn; jicc tiucjs;. ><)Ti
(Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit
additions
/-z\ Circled numbers include
units for export
FIGURE 4-8. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 2a
-------
00
ro
SCENARIO 2b:
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY. BASE CASE CONTROLS, NUCLEAR-FUELED EXPORT
TOTRL PROPOSED CQRL-FIRE3 GE'NERRTJNG
CRPflCITT RQDJTIQKiS, 1976-85
PLUS SCBtf ARIO UNIT ADDITIONS, 1986-2000
TTT
3003. - 5UOO.
2000. - 3000.
10CC. - 2CCO.
250. - 500.
100. - 250.
1.- 100.
no. -
MEGP«'RTTS (Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit
additions
52ijRCC: E°.C
••l»e»f? r?^ THE
er c'-c,!r; ji
GCNERRTING JM T INVENTORT
FIGURE 4-9. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 2b
-------
CO
co
SCENARIO 2h:
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY. BASE CASE CONTROLS, NUCLEAR-FUELED EXPORT
TCTRL PROPOSED NUCLERR GENERATING
CflPRCITY flDDITIQNS, 1976-35
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS, 1986-2000
LPC EXEC'^ICSL GEMERCT:NG DM" INVENTORY
ODO. - 54CC.
2000. - 3CCO.
iCCO. - 2000.
igjlsco. - IOOG.
250. - 5CC.
iOG. - 250.
ME&RWRTT5 (Proposed additions)
2 Number of scenario unit
additions
s~^. Circled numbers include
units for export
FIGURE 4-10. NUCLEAR-FUELED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 2b
-------
SCENARIO 2.CI
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY. BASE CASE CONTROLS, NUCLEAR EMPHASIS
TOTRL PROPOSED CORL-FI RED- GENERRTING
CRPRCITY RDDITIONS, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
3000. - 5MOO.
12000. - 3000.
_ iOOO. - 2COO.
§2500. - 1000.
§3250. - 500.
S3 iOO. - 250.
[Hi. - 500.
GO. - o.
(Planned additions)
z Number of scenario unit additions
5?JF,CE: LRC ELECTHICPL GEKEP&TING UNIT INVENTORY
=c.f,.cr> f Jf.
«.UCJ5'. 1975
FIGURE 4-11. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 2c
-------
CO
in
SCENARIO 2c:
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, BASE CASE CONTROLS, NUCLEAR EMPHASIS
TCTRL PROPOSED NUCLERR G'ENERRTING
CRPRCITT RDDITIONS, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS, 1986-2000
3000. - 54CO.
2000. - 3CGO.
iOOO. - 2000.
SCO. - 1COC.
250. - 500. '
(V.1 100. - 250.
Q 1 . - IOC.
no. - o.
TS (Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit addition'.
SOJRCE: ERC ELECTRICRL GENE^ciiNG
P^J'PIEO FOB 'HE ENE'.Gt RESCJBCtS CiNTES
ST CM;;; oicc. «I;GW'ST. 1973
INVENTORY
FIGURE 4-12. NUCLEAR-FUELED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 2c
-------
CO
SCENARIO 3:
ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGY, BASE CASE CONTROLS
TOTRL PROPOSED CQfiL-FIRED GENERATING
CfiPPCITT RDDITIONS, 1976-85
PLUS SCBVARIO UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
3000
2000
1000
500.
250.
EsU iOO.
Hi. -
DO- -
- 5400.
- 3000.
- 2000.
- 1000.
- 500.
- 250.
100.
K£GPiJfiTTS (Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit
additions
SOJR:J:: ERC
c«-&i; jicc
GENERATING UNIT
FIGURE 4-13. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 3
-------
00
SCENARIO 4:
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, NATURAL GAS EMPHASIS, BASE CASE CONTROLS
TGTRL PROPOSED COflL-FIREO GENE.RRTING
CRPRCITT RDDITIONS,' 1976-85
SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
(Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit
additions
SOURCE: ERC ELtCTH'.CaL GENERATING UM T INVENTORY
pp.tocot^ c-^ 7n£ tNEIGf RESrjBCSi CtNTES
'et C-i!" J'.-'. fcOGJt'. :9^S
FIGURE 4-14. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 4
-------
SCENARIO 5:
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, BASE CASE CONTROLS, LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH
TOTRL PROPOSED CORL-FIRED GENERRTING
CRPRCITY RDDITIGNS, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
VTT
3000. - 5400.
32000. - 3000.
;ooo. - 2000.
500. - 1000.
250. - 500.
3 100- - 250.
Bl. - 100.
0. - 0.
MECRWPTTS (Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit
additions
.E: E«C ELtCr^ICOL
>;7 r-^ IMC INt^C' '.ESCUOCti
6' t««015 OICC
DM T INVENTORT
FIGURE 4-15. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 5
-------
00
VO
SCENARIO 5a:
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY. BASE CASE CONTROLS, VERY HIGH ECONOMIC GROWTH
TOTRL PROPOSED CORL-FIREQ GENERATING
CRPRCITT RDDITIONS, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS, 1986-2000
3000. - 5400.
H2000. - 3000.
ji iOOO. - 2000.
- 1000.
250. - 500.
iOO. - 250.
[Hi.- 500.
KEGRWRTTS (Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit additions
::JR:E: i°,c ELLCTRICFIL GLNERCfTiNG UNIT INVENTORT
•p.l»t;'1ir TR THE INIRGT P.tSCJRCLS CINTE1
6t C^iiS J!CC ttUGJS'. 1975
FIGURE 4-16. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 5a
-------
SCENARIO 6:
CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, BASE CASE CONTROLS, VERY LOW ENERGY GROWTH
TOTRL PROPOSED CORL-FI RED -GENERRTING
CRPRCITT RDDITIONS, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS. 1986-2000
TTT
3000. - 5400.
1 2COO. - 3000.
1000. - 2000.
- :ooo.
- 500.
•3 ;00. - 250.
- 100.
KEGfi,JRTTS (Planned additions)
z Number of scenario unit additions
p:E: Lp.c ELECT^ICPL GENERATING UNIT INVENTORY
e»tr TN ''•I IN'^Gt P.tSIJRCti CtNIES
6' Cdtll C!Cl «
-------
SCENARIO 7:
CONVENTIONAL COAL EMPHASIS, BASE CASE. HIGH ELECTRICAL ENERGY GROWTH
TQTRL PROPOSED CGfiL-FIRED GENERATING
CRPRCITT ADDITIONS, 1976-85
PLUS SCENARIO UNIT ADDITIONS
1986- 2000
3000. - 5400.
aooo. - 3000.
J LOCO. - 2DCO.
30. - ;oo3.
250. - 500.
v, :oo. - 250.
GL - JOG.
GO. - o.
M£CPrJRT7S (Planned additions)
2 Number of scenario unit additions
RCE: E.RC ELLCr^;CflL GENEPfcT!S& JN!" INVENTCRT
citr TCP. "ft IN™.G< RESCJBlEi CINIEI
6' C^IS U!Ct
FIGURE 4-18. COAL-FIRED CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR SCENARIO 7
-------
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF PLANNED AND SCENARIO CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOR THE ORBES STATE PORTIONS FOR ALL SCENARIOS
8
no. of counties sited in
« coal-fired megawatts
(4,056) » nuclear-fueled megawatts
SCENARIO
PLA'WLU
All Scenarios
SCENARIO ADDITIl
1
la
Ib
Ic
Id
2
2a
2b
2c
3
4
5
5a
6
7
STATES
Illinois
8/4,399 (4,056)
US
7/8,450
7/8,450
4/8,450
7/8,450
4/8,450
7/8,450
7/8,450
8/8,450 (1,000)
11/2,600 (19,000)
5/5,850
2/2,600
6/6,500
9/11,050
2/1,300
10/11,700
Indiana
9/8,951 (2,260)
12/11,700
11/11,700
5/11,700
11/11,700
5/11,700
11/11,700
11/11,700
11/11,700 (1,000)
5/3,900 (7,000)
9/8,450
4/4,550
10/9,750
14/15,600
2/2,600
15/16,250
Kentucky
8/8,880
8/10,400
12/10,400
4/10,400
15/10,400
7/10,400
8/10,400
8/11,700
8/10,400c
3/2, 600 c
6/7,150
3/3,250
7/8,450
11/14,300
1/1,300
14/18,200
Ohio
6/3,927 (810)
18/13,000
17/13,000
8/13,000
6/5,200*
6/10, 400b
10/13,000
12/21,450
13/13,000 (10,000)
5/5,200 (2,000)
8/9,100
5/5,200
10/11,050
15/16,900
4/3,900
19/20,800
Pennsylvania
3/5,504 (1,830)
8/9,100
8/9.100
4/9,100
8/9,100
4/11,050
9/9,100
9/12,350
10/9,100 (8,000)
5/2,600 (5.000)
6/5,850
4/2,600
7/7,150
12/11,700
2/1 ,300
11/10,400
West Virginia
2/2,552
9/9,100
10/9.100
4/9,100
9/16,900
4/9,100
8/9,100
8/16,250
8/9.100C
4/3,900 c
6/6,500
3/3,900
7/7,800
10/12,350
2/2,600
13/16,250
10
ro
aTwelve Ohio units sited in West Virginia due to lack of suitable unio sites.
t>Four Ohio units sited 1n West Virginia due to lack of suitable Ohio sites.
cj
-------
TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF TOTAL CAPACITY ADDITIONS FOK THE ORBES STATES PORTIONS FOR ALL SCENARIOS
15 _ no. of counties sited in
12,849 total coal-Tired megawatts
(4,056) = total nuclear-fueled megawatts
SCENARIO
1
la
Ib
Ic
Id
2 .
2a
2b
2c
3
4
5
5a
6
7
STATES •
Illinois
15/12,849 (4,056)
15/12,849 (4,056)
12/12,849 (4,056)
14/12,849 (4,056)
12/12,849 (4,056)
15/12,849 (4,056)
15/12,849 (4,056)
16/12,849 (5,056)
18/6,999 (23,056)
13/10,249 (4,056)
10/6,999 (4,056)
14/10,899 (4.056)
17/15,449 (4,056)
10/5,699 (4.056)
18/16,099 (4,056)
Indiana
18/20,651 (2,260)
17/20,651 (2,260)
11/20,651 (2,260)
18/20,651 (2,260)
12/20,651 (2,260)
17/20.651 (2.260)
17/20.651 (2,260)
17/20.651 (3,260)
12/12,851 (9,260)
15/17.401 (2,260)
11/13,501 (2,260)
16/18,701 (2,260)
20/24.551 (2,260)
10/11.551 (2,260)
21/18,510 (2,260)
Kentucky
14/19.280
20/19,280
12/19,280
23/19,280
15/19,280
14/19,280
14/20,580
14/19,280
11/11,480
12/16,030
11/12,130
13/17,330
17/23,180
9/10,180
20/27,080
Ohio
24/16,927 (810)
24/16.927 (810)
15/16,927 (810)
13/9,127 (810)
13/14,227 (810)
15/16,927 (810)
16/25,377 (810)
18/16.927 (10.810)
10/9,127 (2,810)
12/13,027 (810)
10/9,127 (810)
13/14.977 (810)
18/20,827 (810)
9/7,827 (810)
22/24,727 (810)
Pennsylvania
11/14,604 (1,830)
11/14,604 (1,830)
7/14.604 (1,830)
11/14,604 (1,830)
7/16.554 (1,830)
12/14.604 (1,830)
12/17,854 (1,830)
13/14,604 (9,830)
8/8.104 (6.830)
9/11 .354- (1.830)
7/8.104 (1,830)
10/12,654 (1,830)
15/17,204 (1,830)
5/6,804 (1,830)
14/15,904 (1,830)
West Virginia
10/11,652
11/11,652
5/11,652
11/19,452
6/19.452
10/11,652
9/18,802
9/11,652
5/6,452
7/9.052
4/6,452
8/10,352
11/14,902
4/5,152
14/18,802
TOTAL
92/77,373 (8,956)
98/77,373 (8,956)
62/77,373 (8,956)
90/95,963 (8,956)
65/103,078 (8,956)
83/95,963 (8,956)
83/116,196 (8,956)
87/95,963 (28,956)
64/55,013 (41,956)
68/77,113 (8,956)
53/56,313 (8,956)
74/84,913 (8,956)
98/116,113 (8,956)
47/47,213 (8.956)
109/121,122 (8,956)
10
co
-------
SECTION 5
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.1 APPROACH
The overall approach taken for the analysis of land quality and terres-
trial ecosystems is shown in Figure 5-1. A major problem with these analyses
is the very heterogeneous data base. The analyses discussed here are very
simplistic approaches to examining the complexity of variables useful to
understanding the quality and human use of terrestrial ecosystems. Questions
concerning the geography of possible energy facilities are also directly
relevant to the questions of land quality and use. Thus, as Figure 5-1
indicates* the ORBES linear weighting siting model (discussed fully in
Section 4.0), the land quality data and analysis (see Section 2.1), and
information concerning the terrestrial ecology of the ORBES region (Section
2.2) are highly interrelated. There are four fundamental steps in the impact
assessment process: (1) development of some reasonably homogeneous, repre-
sentative, region-wide data base; (2) development of the scenarios and the
siting model to project the number of facilities, their potential locations,
and their construction schedule; (3) development of standardized model
facilities; and (4) integration of the preceding three steps. Steps 1 and
2 were discussed previously. Steps 3 and 4 will be addressed here.
5.2 LAND USE
In order to assess the impacts of the ORBES energy scenarios on land use,
current land use conversion by the three major energy land use conversion
categories must be determined. These categories are: (1) electrical generat-
ing facilities, (2) transmission line rights-of-way, and (3) surface coal mines.
For each of these categories, average land use conversion rates were calculated
for the "standard" electrical generating facility sited in the scenarios. The
calculated rates were then used in assessing the land use conversion impacts
of the 15 siting configurations.
Land Use C_onvers.t1pn_ Due toJElectrical Generating Facilities
Land use requirements for the planned and scenario addition facilities
were estimated from those of six planned facilities in the ORBES region
(Table 5-1). The average land ownership at the six facilities studied was
1,100 acres per 650 MWe generating capacity. Of this, 400 acres of land
were directly impacted and 700 acres were not directly impacted.
Areas directly impacted by a facility were considered to have undergone
an irreversible land use conversion. These areas include buildings, fuel and
waste storage areas, and associated roads at the construction site. Areas
associated with a facility but not directly impacted by it were considered
to have undergone a reversible land use conversion. For example, utility-
owned lands at a facility site that are contiguous to but not included in
the actual construction area were considered as not irreversibly impacted.
The notion of irreversible and reversible land use conversion is often one
of considerable debate. There are those who would argue that no land use
94
-------
LAND QUALITY/TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS IMPACT ANALYSIS
Electrical Demand
Capacity Additions
Regional
Exclusionary Screening
Linear
Weighted Siting Model
Air Quality
• TSP
• S02
Water Availability
Ecological Systems
and Land Use
• Public Lands
• Natural Areas
• Soil Productivity
• Forest Land
Population Density
Seismic Suitability
Quarter County Analysis
Scenarios
Siting Patterns
for Scenario Additions
Standard Plant Characteristics
Land Quality/Terrestrial
Systems Impact Analysis
Pollutant Transport Impacts
• Forest Species
• Agricultural Species
• Biogeochemical Cycles
Direct Displacement Impacts
• Land Use Conversion
• Biogeochemical Cycles
Coal Demand
Teknekron:
Air Quality Analysis
t
Loucks: Sub-Injurious
Effects on Vegetation
Coal Mining
Willard:
Land Use Impacts
of Surface Mining
Impact Evaluation
Policy Analysis
BASELINE
DATA
FIGURE 5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1. REPRESENTATIVE VALUES OF LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR
VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF AN ELECTRICAL GENERATING STATION
(All Units Are Acres)
Facility
East Bend
Trimble Co.
Merom
Rockport
Kill en
Average
Cooling
Total Land Total Land
Owned at Site Per 650 MWe
1,777
2,300
2,650*
3,820
U50
2,459
Ponds: 1-2 acres/MWe
2-4 acres/MWe
960
644
1,749
955
946
1,051
(coal)
(nuclear)
Land
Impacted
600
1,844
--
1,970
650
1,266
Land Impacted
Per 650 MWe
323
511
—
493
350
419
*Without cooling pond.
96
-------
conversion is really completely irreversible. While that may be the case,
the expense and time needed to reverse certain land uses would be so far
beyond the time frame of this project as to be irrelevant. So, in the
ORBES study, an irreversible land use is defined as one that is at least
likely to exist for the normal life of a generating facility, and probably
much longer.
Using these estimates of land requirements, present (1976) land use by
energy conversion facilities in the ORBES region was calculated (Table 5-2).
Land requirements ranged from 20,311 acres for Kentucky to 33,007 acres for
Ohio. The total for the ORBES portion of the six states was 140,673 acres,
while the sum of the state totals was 203,884 acres.
Because land uses at each of the planned or scenario addition facility
sites are not discernible from U. S. Geological Survey topographic base maps,
the proportion of land use categories (agricultural, forest, public, and
other) potentially undergoing conversion at these sites was assumed to be
the same as for the county in which the site was located (see Tables 2-1
through 2-6). Using the energy facility land use requirements presented in
Table 5-1, reversible, irreversible, and total land use conversion by cate-
gory was summed for each state for the 15 ORBES energy scenarios. Table 5-3
gives one example of the 90 detailed analyses performed in this way.
Tables 5-4 through 5-18 summarize the potential land use conversion
within each state and for the ORBES region by major land use for each of
15 scenarios. Graphical summarizations of these results are given for each
state in Figures 5-2 through 5-7 and for the ORBES region in Figures 5-8
through 5-10. Table 5-19 presents a summary of the maximum absolute values
(acres) and relative values (percentage) of land use conversion for each
major category by scenario.
Land Use Converstion_Frpm Transmission Lines
the amount of land required for transmission line rights-of-way (R-O-W)
varies according to plant capacity, voltage carried, number of lines, and
length of lines. Transmission line R-O-W account for the greatest amount of
reversible land use conversion associated with energy conversion facilities.
Average R-O-W widths range from 210 feet for 138 kV lines to 250 feet for 765
kV lines (Smith et al. 1977). Multiple line corridors can be from 500 to
1,000 feet wide (Kitchings et al. 1972). Nationally, a gross average of 13
acres is disturbed per mile of transmission line. The heights of transmission
towers range from 55 to 140 feet (Smith et al. 1977).
There are approximately 300,000 miles of overhead high voltage trans-
mission lines nationally which supply power from generating plants to sub-
stations. The rights-of-way for these lines require approximately 4,000,000
acres of land (Arner, 1977). The ORBES region share of national electrical
generation in 1976 was 15 percent (Federal Energy Administration 1977t Jansen
1978; Hartnett and Saper 1979). A first approximation of the ORBES region
share of existing transmission line R-O-W land use requirements can be made
by assuming a direct proportionality between land use and electricity generated.
This yields an approximation of 600,000 acres of land required for existing
transmission line R-O-W in the ORBES region, or approximately 4,700 acres per
650 MWe generated.
97
-------
TABLE 5-2. ESTIMATE OF PRESENT (1976) LAND USE BY ENERGY
CONVERSION FACILITIES IN THE ORBES REGION
STATE
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Total
ORBES REGION
Generating
Capacity JMWel1
14,376
12,322
12,002
19,504
12,081
12,840
83,125
Total
Land Use
iAcresj2
24,329
20,853
20,311
33,007
20,445
21,729
140,673
STATE
Generating
Capacity (MWe)
26,486
15,989
12,002
25,067
28,087
12,846
120,477
TOTAL
Total
Land Use
(Acresj
44,822
27,058
20,311
42,421
47,532
21,739
203,884
Jansen, S. D. 1978. Electrical Generating Unit Inventory 1976-1986.
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Energy
Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Chicago.
2Based on an estimate of 1,100 acres per 650 MWe site.
98
-------
TABLE 5-3. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY IN KENTUCKY FOR SCENARIO 1
(COAL, CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY, STRICT CONTROLS, HIGH GROWTH). ONE EXAMPLE OF THE 90 ANALYSES CONDUCTED.
10
10
Scenario
1
State
Kentucky
1985
Carroll
M^son
Jerferson.
Vebster
Scene
Triable
Levis
Hancock
Sub-Total
2000
Bracken
5c- one
Triable
Gallatin
Oldhan
Mason
Meads
oreckir.ridge
Ar.cerson
Ker.ry
Sub-Iotal
GRAND TOTAL
y (MHu)
Additions
nd
o Additions
nuclear)
11 c gj
o a. tn
550,550,550
300, 500
425
240, 240
600, 600
495,495,495
1300, 1300
240
8SOO
650, 650
800,650,650
675, 675
650, 650
650, 650
650, 650
650, 650
650, 650
650
650
12550
21350
Capacity (MWc)
c
3
U
1650
800
425
480
1200
1485
2600
240
8800
1300
2100
1350
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
650
650
12550
21350
ai
^ -'j
cvio rs
O M 2
PN
•J M
1.S Z
O t-4
-o rl
o < — ;
495
240
128
144
360
446
780
72
2665
390
630
405
390
390
390
390
390
195
195
3765
6430
V)
5
,-J
0
^H
J3
0-
**
J.
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
in
t)
«
00
M
59
84
42
61
65
59
20
47
66
65
59
65
70
84
48
50
69
70
en
•D
C
tq
u
O
a* •
to a
0 &
£ M
2789
1352
718
811
2028
2510
4394
406
15008
2197
3549
2282
2197
2197
2197
2197
2197
1099
1099
21211
36219
Public Lands
-o
O *-x
CO CJ
C. 3
en
>> iu
*-1 U ^^
•rt cc CO
^ 00 0
K -^ C
1782
864
459
518
1296
1604
2808
259
9590
1404
2268
1458
1404
1404
1404
1404
1404
702
702
13554
23144
Public Lands
tn
hi
o
<
18
0
5
0
13
0
56
0
92
0
23
0
0
14
0
28
28
0
0
93
185
c
CC
cc
CJ
1051
726
193
316
842
946
562
122
4758
927
1474
860
913
983
1179
674
702
484
491
8687
13445
Forest LanJa
3)
'J
570
104
64
161
350
593
2134
122
4098
421
612
539
421
267
16S
548
618
183
16S
3945
8043
•t.
•o
U
O
y.
^
143
35
197
41
91
fci
56
16
643
56
150
5S
70
1-0
3D
154
30
35
42
326
1469
-------
TABLE 5-4 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 1
(Conventional Technology. Strict Controls). (All units are acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
. Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBFS Region
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Commitment
of
Land Resources
1985
78
4,380
471
357
"S72S6
240
4,808
1,549
354
"5795T
108
1,133
1,276
419
77937
52
2,733
2,353
370
57505
40
383
1,120
39
1,582
112
1,344
2,278
813
4*75*47
630
14,781
9,047
2,352
26,810
2000
81
4,754
770
471
T**57~6
148
4,869
2,130
724
77S7T
216
5,530
2,225
609
17550
53
4,987
2,267
474
777BT
108
999
4,208
325
5*754*0*
407
1,129
3,658
467
5756T
1,013
22 ,?68
15,?58
3,070
41,609
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985
135
7,459
800
609
?7o"o"3
416
8,376
2,698
616
1I7T66
188
T-,973
2.222
732
57TTF
92
4,758
4,098
643
9"759"T
70
667
1.950
68
77755*
194
2,341
3,970
1.417
7,912
1,095
25,574
15,738
a ,0fl5
46,492
100
2000
139
8,098
1,312
803
10*7357
260
8,481
3,710
1 .2P4
11,715*
379
9,638
3,878
1,017
1T*9~T2"
93
8,687.
3,945
826
13755T
189
1,741
7,330
568 .
7752*8"
707
1,965
6,374
814
"?"86"0"
1,767
38,flO
26,549
5,?92
72,218
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Through 2000
433
24,691
3,353
2.240
3'0,7l7
1,064
26,534
10,087
2.958
46,643
891
18,274
9,601
2.777
31 ,543
290
21,165
12/.63
2.313
367431
407
3,790
14.608
1 .000
19,805'
1,420
6,779
16.2PO
3.511
27,990
4ff\f
,505
101,233
66,59?
14,799
187,129
2
of
Total
1
80
11
8
TOTJ
3
65
25
7
TOO"
3
58
30
9
TOU
58
35
6
TOO"
19
74
5
TOO*
5
2*
58
13
TOO"
54
If
36
-------
TABLE 5-5 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO la
(Conventional Technology, Dispersed Sitinn, Very Strict Air).
units are acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
""Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBES Renion
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forost lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Cormitment
of
Land Resources
1985
78
4,380
471
357
17286
240
4,808
1,549
6^5T
108
1,133
1,276
419
?^3T
52
2,733
2,353
370
575W
40
383
1,120
39
TT587
112
1,344
2,278
813
47547
630
14,781
9,047
2,352
26,810
2000
44
4,816
743
462
6,065
160
5,559
1,654
494
7^67
225
5,801
1,926
630
E£52"
61
4,676
2,625
416
77775
124
1,104
4,059
353
TJSG
359
1,431
3,368
503
S766T
973
23,387
14,375
2.85G
41,593
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985
135
7,459
800
609
9,003
416
8,376
2,698
616
1FJ06
188
1,973
2,222
732
57TT5"
92
4,758
4,098
643
97S9T
70
667
1,950
68
I^BT
194
2,341
3,970
1.417
7,922
1/\f\C
,095
25,57/1
15,738
4,085
4f,492
2000
77
8,237
1,278
791
10,383
IftT
281
9,680
2,880
870
1377TT
393
10,108
3,393
1,101
14,995
ln*7
107
8,148
4,569
727
13755T
217
1,923
7,070
617
Tffi
623
2,492
5,869
877
^TsTT
1,698
40,588
25,059
4,983
72,378
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Through 2000
1*5 A
334
24,892
3,292
2.219
10,737
Inm
tl>9/
28,423
8,781
2.334
40,635
914
19,015
8,817
-Z.882
31,521"
•ST5
312
20,315
13,645
2.156
36,428
451
4,077
14,199
1.077
15,804
1,288
7,608
15.485
3.610
27~9Tr
4TOC
,396
104,330
64,219
14,278
187,223
%
of
' Total
i
i
81
11
7
TOO"
70
22
5
TOO
3
60
28
9
TOO"
56
37
6
TOO"
2
21
72
5
TM
5
27
55
13
TOD"
?
f.
C /"
5f
~)A
J*!
Y0~0~
101
-------
TABLE 5-6 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO Ib
(Conventional Technology, Very Strict A1r, Concentrated Siting).
(All units are acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
""Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBES Region
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Conmitnent of
Land Resources
1985
78
4,380
471
357
T"?8"6"
240
4,808
1,549
354
"f"95T
108
1,133
1,276
419
77918"
52
2,733
2,353
370
5*7558"
40
383
1,120
39
T75B7
112
1,344
2,278
813
~f"W
630
14,781
9,047
2,352
26,810
2000
40
5,128
639
650
""74*57
177
5,206
1,621
249
77553
220
4,892
2,909
520
S754T
37
3,900
2,448
559
"5""9"4"4*
96
879
4,481
184
5*754*6*
327
1,511
3,678
124
5*76~4"0*
897
21,516
15,776
2.2P6
40,475
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985
135
7,459
800
609
?7o~o"3"
416
8,376
2,698
616
177TT56
188
1,973
2,222
732
57"T5*
92
4,758
4,098
643
•"T55T
70
667
1.950
68
77755*
194
2,341
3,970
1.417
77577
1,095
25,574
15,738
4,085
46,492
2000
70
8,832
1,096
1,125
lT7ll3
309
9,070
2,822
434
177635*
386
8,521
5,100
905
1T79T7
65
6,797
4,263
972
177557
168
1,530
7,806
322
578*2F
567
2,633
6,409
217
""""8*2*5"
1..565
37,383
27,4
-------
TABLE 5-7 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO Ic
(Convpntlonal Technology, Ag. Lands Protection, Dispersed Siting,
High Growth). (All units are acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
. Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
"Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
""Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBES Renion
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985
78
4,380
471
357
5,286
240
4,808
1,549
354
6795T
108
1,133
1,276
419
52
2,733
2,353
370
40
383
1,120
39
T7582
112
1,344
2,278
813
630
14,781
9,047
2,352
2fi~7'8l6
2000
149
3,740
1,035
354
5*278
148
4,461
2,238
405
77252
214
1,440
1,486
178
OTs
318
3,131
2,749
248
256
1,972
7,847
400
10,475
383
1.176
3,481
620
1,468
15,920
18,836
2,205
36,429
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985
135
7,459
800
609
9'003
416
8,376
2,698
616
188
1,973
2,222
732
57TT5
. 92
4,758
4,098
643
7T59T
70
667
1,950
68
2»755
194
2,341
3,970
1,417
7752?
1,095
25,574
15,738
• 4 ,085
W&S7
2000
256
6,374
1,764
601
8»995
259
7,771
3,896
' 707
12,633
374
2,511
2,588
317
17790
554
5,454
4,787
434
11,229
448
3,431
13,669
700
18,248
665
2,050
6,066
1,081
^87?
2,556
27,591
32,770
3.P40
667T57
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Through 2000
618
21.953
4.070
1,921
28,562
1,063
25,416
10,381
2.0P2
38,942
884
7.057
7,572
1,646
1,016
16,076
13,987
32 ',774
814
6,453
24,586
. 1 .207
33,060
1,354
6,911
15,795
3,931
5,749
83,f6f
76,391
12,482
178,488
t
• of
Total
1
77
14
7
~59~
3
65
27
5
TDD"
5
41
44
10
TDTJ
tf\
49
5
TDD"
2
20
74
4
TDD"
5
25
56
14
TDD"
'7
43
7
100
103
-------
TABLE 5-8 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO Id
(Conventional Technology, Ag. Lands Protection, Concentrated Siting).
units are acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORDES Reqion
~>ub!1c lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Comnitment of
Land Resources
1985
78
4,380
471
357
r?§6
240
4,808
1,549
354
ST55T
108
1,133
1,276
419
7T§3T.
52
2,733
2,353
370
57508"
40
383
1,120
39
T7552"
112
1,344
2,278
P13
4~^47
630
14,781
9,047
2,352
26,810
2000
186
3,509
1,235
351
3T58T
104
4,690
2,178
280
725?
443
3,184
2,992
326
KTS4T
524
3,514
2,128
280
F^4T
80
1,537
5,375
260
7257
304
1,509
3,264
563
5754"0~
1,641
17,943
17,172
2,060
38,816
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985
135
7,459
800
609
TtfoT
416
8,376
2,698
616
127T06"
188
1,973
2.222
732
STHS
92
4,758
4,098
643
9,591
70
667
1,950
68
77755
19'4
2,341
3,970
1.417
7.52?
1,095
25,574
15,738
4,085
46,492
2000
318
5,980
2,103
595
S^9T
182
8,172
3,792
490
17J3T
774
5,551
5,187
569
ITTOTTT
912
6,122
3,708
490
41,232
140
2,676
9,368
455
17^3?
532
2,625
5,687
9fl3
ST527
2.P5R
31.12P
29,8*5
3,582
67,411
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Throuqh 2000
717
21 ,328
4,609
1,912
28,566
942
26,046
10,217
1.740
38,545
1.513
11.841
11,677
2.046
27.077
1,580
17,127
12,287
1.783
32,777
330
5.263
17.813
822
24,228
1,142
7.819
15,199
3.776
27,936
6.224
89,424
71 ,8P2
12,079
179,529
X
of
Total
3
75
16
6
. TOD"
2
67
26
5
TOO"
6
44
43
7
TOD"
5
52
37
6
TOO"
1
22
74
3
TOO"
4
28
54
14
TOO"
3
50
40
7
W
104
-------
TABLE 5-9 POTENTIAL LAUD USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 2
(Conventional Technology, I..-Q: Controls). (All units are acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
PubTTc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
PuFlTc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORDES Region
PUUTic lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Commitment
of
Land Resources
1985
78
4,380
471
357
5,286
. 240
4,808
1,549
354
6795T
108
1,133
1,276
419
27936"
52
2,733
2,353
370
5,508
40
383
1,120
39
T7582
112
1,344
2,278
813
630
14,781
9,047
2,352
26,810
2000
52
4,147
706
363
17568
128
4,555
2,024
761
7,468
512
3,652
3,893
519
8,576
62
4,717
2,210
793
7,782
88
1,294
3,676
584
5,642
296
1,689
2,953
721
37659
1,129
20,324
15,519
3,422
40,395
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
'1985
135
7,459
800
609
9,003
416
8,376
2,698
616
12,106
188
1,973
2,222
732
57TT5
92
4,758
4,098
643
9«591
70
667
1,950
68
7T755"
194
2,341
3,970
1,417
7792?
1,095
25,574
15,738
4,085
46,492
2000
91
7,060
1,202
618
^97T
225
7,935
3,528
1.321
892
6,364
6,784
905
14,945
107
8,217
3,847
1 ,381
13>552
154
2,254
6,402
1,017
9,827
518
2,941
5,146
1,257
57867
1,973
35,241
?7,007
5,950
70,172
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Throuoh 2000
356
23,046
3,179
1,947 .
28,528
1,009
25,674
9,799
3,058
39,540
1,700
13,122
14,175
TT?572
313
20,425
12,508
3,187
36,433
352
4,598
13,148
1 .708
19,806'
1,120
8,315
14,347
4.208
27,990
4,827
95,920
67,311
15,809
183,869
%
of •
Total
1
81
11
7
TOO
3
65
25
7
TOO"
5
42
45
8
TOO"
1
5G
34
9
TOO"
23
66
9
TOO"
4
30
51
15
TOO"
2
52
37
9
100
105
-------
TABLE 5-10 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOP SCENARIO 2a
Lax Controls. Foal Export). (Ml units are acres}.
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
H^ubllc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBES Region
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985 2000
78
4,380
471
357
T28T
240
4,808
1,549
354
67§5T
108
1,133
1,276
419
T3&.
52
2,733
2,353
370
5,508
40
383
1,120
39
T755?
112
1,344
2,278
813
37537
630
14,781
9.047
2.352
26,810
52
4,147
706
363
"572615
128
4,555
2,024
761
77355
841
5,743
6.257
969
iSTSTo
62
4,717
2,210
793
7,787
148
2.225
6,755
946
lU7o73
408
2,105
4,344
818
77575"
1,639
23 ,492
22,2%
JL650
52,077
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
"1985 2000
135
7,459
800
609
TTolft
416
8.376
2.698
616
iTTToT
188
1,973
2.222
732
57TT5"
92
4,758
4,098
643
9.59T
70
667
1.950
68
1775T
194
2,341
3,970
1.417
T&2
1,095
25,574
15,738
4. 085
46,492
91
7,060
1,202
618
S757T
225
7,935
3,528
1,327
1I7FH
1,467
10,008
10,904
1.690
OTeT
107
8,217
.3.B47
1,381
13,552
259
3,875
11,767
1.649
iTTBto"
714
3.663
7,567
1 .425
17,319
2.PP3
40,758
38,615
8.090
90,526
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Through 2000
356
23,046
3,179
1.947
26,526
1,009
25,674
9,799
3.P5P
39,540
2,604
18,857
20,659
3.810
45,930
313
20.425
12,508
3,187
157*33
517
7,150
21 ,592
m
1.428
9,453
18,159
4.473
33,513
6,2?7
104,605
85,896
19.177
7TT3B5"
%
of
Total.
1
81
11
7
TOD"
3
65
25
7
TOO"
6
41
45
8
TOO"
1
56
34
9
TOO"
2
22
68
8
TOO"
4
28
54
13
W
3
ffl
40
9
W
106
-------
TABLE 5-11 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 2b
(Conventional Technology, Lax Controls, Nuclear Export)
(All units are acres)
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
~Tublic lands
Ag. lands
Forest lends
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBF.S Ren ion
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Coiur.itment
of
Land Resources
1985 2000
78
4,380
471
357
57286
. 240
4,808
1,549
354
6,951
108
1,133
1,276
419
733F
52
2,733
2,353
370
S7TJ08"
40
383
1,120
39
T7582'
112
1,344
2,278
813
77577
630
14,781
9,047
2,352
26,810
58
4,693
731
406
5,888
190
4,908
2,191
798
8,087
773
6,529
6,596
917
177815"
62
4,717
2,210
793
77787
88
1,294
3,676
584
?7E7?
520
3,201
5,383
1,515
1U76T9"
1,691
25,342
20,787
5,013
52,833
Reversible
Commitment
of
Land Resources
1985 2000
135
7,459
800
609
9,003
416
8,376
2,698
616
127T06
188
1,973
2,222
732
57TT5"
92
4,758
4,098
643
S759T
70
667
1,950
68
7755
194
2,341
3,970
1.417
77?27
1,095
25,574
15,738
4,085
46,492
102
8,010
1,245
694
10705T
333
8,551
3,820
1,392
14,096
1,345
11,375
11,494
1,598
25,812
107
8,217
3,847
1,381
137557
154
2,254
6,402
1.017
?7877
906
5,577
9,380
2,639
l£,W
2,947
43,984
36,188
8,721
91 ,840
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Throuqh 20CO
373
24,542
3,247
2.066
30,228
1,179
26,643
10,258
3.160
41,240
2,414
21,010
21,588
3,666
48,678
313
20,425
12,508
3,187
•31,753"
352
4,598
13,148
1 ,708
T9,tf06
1,732
12,463
21,011
6,384
'41 ,5~90
6,363
109,681
81,760
20,171
217,975
%
of
Total
1
81
11
7
TOO"
3
65
25
7
TOO
5
43
44
8
TITO"
1
56
34
9
TDD"
2
23
66
9
TOO
4
30
51
15
TOU
3
50
op
•jn
g
TOff
107
-------
TABLE 5-12. POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 2c
(Conventional Technology, Nuclear, Base Case, High Growth).
(All units are acres)
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
PubTlc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBES Region
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Comnltment of
Land Resources
1985 2000
78
4,380
471
357
S^fBT
240
4,808
1,549
354
579BT
108
1,133
1,276
419
7TJ3T
52
2,733
2.353
370
STBTHf
40
383
1,120
39
1,582
112
1,344
2,278
813
77547
630
14,781
9,047
2.352
26, 81 6
160
11,495
1,406
1.120
14,181
52
5.126
1,732
460
77170"
180
2,714
1,847
442
5TTB3"
9
1,892
884
160
2794T
207
1,648
2.403
453
4.7T1
28
456
1,728
205
TpTTT
636
23,331
10,000
2.840
36, §67
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985 2000
135
7,459
800
609
416
8.376
2,698
616
12.106
188
1,973
2.222
732
92
4.758
4.098
643
70
667
1.950
68
2,755
194
2.341
3.970
14 17
77127
1,095
25,574
15,738
4.08S
46.492
284
20,024
2,447
1.945
24,700
103
8,927
3,018
805
^2,853
315
4,726
3,216
771
16
3.296
1.537
290
57T39"
361
2,871
4,186
789
8,207
49
794
3,012
358
TTSTJ
1,128
40,638
17,416
4.958
64.V45
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Through 2000
657
43,358
5,124
4.031
53,170
811
27,237
8,997
2.235
39,280
791
10,546
8,561
2.364
22,262
169
12.679
8,872
1.463
23,183
678
5,569
9,659
1.349
17,255
383
4,935
10.988
2.793
19,099
3.489
104,324
52,201
14.235
174,249
%
of
Total
1
82
10
7
TOff
2
69
23
6
TOO1
4
47
38
11
TBo~
1
53
40
6
TOT
4
32
56
8
TOT
2
26
57
15
TOT
2
59
31
8
TOT
108
-------
TABLE 5-13 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 3.
(Alternative Technology, Base Case, Lax Controls, High Growth).
(All units are acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Connitrrent of
Land Resources
1985 2000
Ohio
— Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
JOB
1,133
1,276
l
358
2,697
2,681
Kentucky
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
pf\
52
2,733
2,353
370
57505
Oft
29
3,830
1,553
353
57763"
40
382
1,120
39
68
762
2,845
354
116
1,465
2,481
876
184
1,085
2,115
242
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985 2000
135
7,459
800
609
^003
188
1,973
2,222
732
92
4,758
4,098
643
9T59T
70
667
1,950
68
203
2,552
4.324
1.526
77
6,211
752
555
77395
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Z40
4,808
1,549
354
6755T
eu
3,840
1,351
584
57855
HID
8,376
2,698
616
12710E
6,692
2,356
107507
626
4,701
4,673
702
51
6,673
2,702
616
189
1,994
6,906
685
322
1,888
3,685
421
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
634
14,901
9,250
2,415
27 ,200
/tij
15,853
10,985
2,260
29,861
1 ,IU«»
25,785
16,092
4,194
47,175
1 ,1UO
28,159
21 ,074
3,997
54 ,"6 36
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Throuqh 2000
334
21 ,689
2,463
1,846
26,332
877
23,716
7,954
2.572
357TT9
1,280
10,504
10,852
2.255
24,691
224
17,994
10,706
1,982
3U,~9"OT
367
3,805
12,821
1.146
18,139
825
6,990
12,605
3,065
OT35"
3,907
84,698
57,^01
12J56G
T5n_ft7?
%
of
Total
1
82'
9
7
W
2
68
23
7
TSO"
5
42
44
9
TOD"
1
58
35
6
100
2
21
71
6
ITHJ
4
30
54
13
TOT
3
53
36
8
loo"
109
-------
TABLE 5-14 POTENTIAL LAMP IKE CONVERSION BY MMOP CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 4
(Conventional Technology, Lax Controls, Natural Gas).
(All units in acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
Pubnc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Hest Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBES Renion
Puhlic lands
An. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Conmitment
of
Land Resources
1985
60
2,8f3
305
240
153
3,016
798
207
77177
61
632
794
323
L810
13
1,457
697
252
277T?
40
383
1,120
39
T755?
93
948
1,590
f20
3775T
6?Q
9,?99
5,304
1,681
16,70/1
200P
50
3,424
489
276
7339
139
4,194
1,547
336
208
1,992
1,808
341
7734?
43
2,614
2,217
231
57TOT
76
677
2,620
253
37527
71
1,078
1,417
342
Z»9°8
587
13,979
10,090
1.779
2C//I3
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985
104
4,857
516
40P
265
5,253
1,380
360
110
1,100
1,383
565
37T5S
23
2.533
1,214
434
TTZUT
70
667
1,950
68
77755"
162
1,651
2,772
1.081
5,666
734
16,0fl
9,?24
2,916
28,935
2000
87
5,849
834
471
T^TT
243
7,308
2,696
587
1157817
359
3,471
3,148
595
77573
76
4,557
•3,860
405
1*7593
133
1,180
4,563
442
S73T5
123
1,877
2,469
596
5.<*5
1,021
?4,?42
17,570
3.096
45,929
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Throunh 20CO
301
16,993
2,144
1.395
20,833
800
19,771
6,430
1.490
28,401
738
7,195
7,133
^1,824
™.890
155
11,161
7,988
1,322
20,626
319
2,907
10,253
802
T7778T
449
5,554
8,248
2,639
16.P90
2,762
63,581
42,196
9,47?
HE, Oil
I
Of
Total
1
82
10
7
TUD"
3
69
23
5
4
43
42
11
TOT
1
54
39
6
2
20
72
6
W
•
33
49
16
TOT
2
54
36
8
TOT
no
-------
TABLE 5-15 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 5
(Conventional fechnolooy, Lax Controls, Low Growth).
(All units in acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
FuiblTc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Publfc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBES Ren ion
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Conmitnent
of
Land Resources
1985 2000
78
4,380
471
357
240
4,808
1,549
354
jt Q fcf 1
U * .73 1
108
1J33
1,276
419
2,936
52
2,733
2,353
370
57508
40
383
1,120
39
1,582
112
1,344
2,278
813
630
14,781
°,047
?,352
26,810
44
3,228
510
265
104
4,042
1,512
600
419
3,196
3,268
462
7,345
46
4,225
1,887
414
84
1,012
3,301
438
200
1,415
2.409
407
•3741T
OA*T
R97
17,118
14,400
2.586
33,488"
Reversible
Commitrient of
Land Resources
1PS5 2000
^ *ic
135
7,459
800
609
M 1 f
416
8,376
2,698
. 616
188
1,973
2,222
732
57TT5
92
4,758
4,098
643
70
667
1,950
68
194
2,341
3,970
1 ,417
7,917
Innc
,095
25,574
15,738
4,085
46,492
^^
77
5,496
869
451
IPS
7,0*3
2,636
1.046
10,90"
731
5,571
5,696
807
12,805
79
7,361
3,285
721
1T744~6
147
1,762
5,749
764
350
2,464
4,198
709
7772T
1_ — _
,5f7
29,6517
22/33
4,498
58,1~9T
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Throuqh 2000
^•a A
334
20,563
2,650
1,682
757279"
943
24,269
8,395
2,6lf
36~,273
1,446
11,873
12,462
2.420
269
19,077
11,623
2.148
33,117
341
3,824
12,120
1.309
17,594
856
7,564
12,855
3.346
24,621
4,189
P7.170
60,105
13.521
164,985
?
Of
Total
82
11
7
3
67
23
7
TOO
5
42
44
9
TDD"
1
58
35
6
TDD"
2
22
69
7
T5o
3
31
52
14
TOO
3
53
36
n
100
111
-------
TABLE 5-16 POTENTIAL LAUD USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 5 a
(Conventional Technology, Coal, Base fase, Very High Growth).
(All units are acres).
Location and
r.ojor Lend
Use Category
niinois
rTjoTTc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Indiana
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kest Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORDES Region
fVc Tands
/•g. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Irreversible
Corunitmont of
Land Resources
1985 2000
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985 2000
78
4.3P.O
471
357
240
4,808
1,549
354
108
1,133
1,276
419
TJS55
52
2,733
2,353
370
40
383
1,120
39
112
1,344
2,278
813
7^47
630
14,781
9,047
2.352
~
60
4,779
695
531
6,065
228
6,163
2,951
945
572
4,941
4,723
757
70
6,095
3,097
937
104
1,766
4,768
1.020
408
2,040
3,969
853
7270"
1,442
25,784
20,203
5.043
527472"
135
7,459
800
^ 609
416
8,376
2.698
616
188
1,973
2,222
732
92
4,758
4,098
643
70
667
1,950
68
77755"
194
2.341
3.970
1.417
7t527
1,095
25,574
15,738
4,085
46,492
140
8,650
1,348
939
400
10,736
5,143
17^929
997
8,611
8,231
1.319
197T55
121
10,618
5,391
1.633
TTTTts
182
3.075
8,305
1^775
177337
714
3,551
6,914
1.488
17,567
2,554
45,250
35,332
8,804
9T940
Total
Land" Use
Conversion
Through 2000
413
25,277
3,314
2,436
31,440
1,284
30,083
12,341
3.565
47,273
1,865
16,658
16,452
3.227
38,202
335
24,204
14,939
3.583
43,061
396
5,891
16.143
2,902
25,332
1,428
9,276
17,131
4.S71
32,406
5,721
111,389
80,320
20,284
217,714
%
of
Total
1
80
11
8
TOD"
3
64
26
8
TOT
5
44
43
8
TOO"
1
56
35
8
TOO"
2
23
64
11
TOff
4
29
53
14
TOO"
3
51
37
9
TOO"
112
-------
TABLE 5-17 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 6
(Conventional Technology, Coal, Base Case, Very Low Growth).
(All units are acres).
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Irreversible
Conmitment of
Land Resources
1985 2000
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985 2000
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
75
4,080
457
333
4~^45
31
1,532
246
133
O42"
Indiana
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
PublTc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
V.'est Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
Public rands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORGES Region
PuKlTc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
66
888
950
/O
17
1,402
626
369
2.414
40
383
1,120
39
T7587
440
10,718
5,541
1.977
18,670
99
3,408
1,252
248
5,007
103
1,782
1,335
320
44
2,624
2,340
219
24
307
1,225
56
43
799
990
273
2TT05
344
10,452
7,388
1.219
129
6,936
776
567
M08
265
5,253
1,389
360
77267
117
1,5*6
1,654
715
TOT
28
2,443
1,092
642
T^OT
70
667
1,950
68
27757
162
1,651
2,772
1,081
5,666
771
IB, 496
9,633
3,433
32"73l3
55
2,646
426
230
37357
173
5,938
2,182
433
17726
178
3,106
2,327
558
FTTH?
77
4,574
4,077
384
9TTT?
42.
534
2,134
98
27S5B"
67
1,392
1,725
476
3,660
592
18,1°0
12,871
2.179
33,832
Total
Land" Use
Conversion
Through 2000
290
15,194
1,905
1,263
18,652
690
17,616
5,621
1,248
?57T75
464
7,322
6,266
_2.002
TB7557
166
11,043
8,135
1,614
20,958
176
1,891
6,429
261
S77B7
361
4,790
7,077
2.450
14,678
2,147
57,856
35,433
8.838
1(74,274
%
of
Total
2
81
10
7
TDTT
3
70
22
5
W
3
46
39
12
TOD"
1
53
39
8
TOT
2
22
73
3
TOT
2
33
48
17
TOTT
2
55
34
8
99
113
-------
TABLE 5-18 POTENTIAL LAND USE CONVERSION BY MAJOR CATEGORY FOR SCENARIO 7
(Conventional Technology, Base Case, High Economic Growth, 45
Year Plant Life) (All units are acres)
Location and
Major Land
Use Category
Illinois
Irreversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985 2000
Reversible
Commitment of
Land Resources
1985 2000
Indiana
PubTlc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Ohio
Tubllc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Kentucky
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
West Virginia
Public lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
Pennsylvania
TubTIc lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
ORBES Region
Pub he lands
Ag. lands
Forest lands
Other lands
Totals
78
4,380
471
357
57287
240
4,808
1,549
354
F^5T
108
1,133
1.276
419
2,936
52
2,733
2.353
370
5^07
40
383
1,120
39
"H587
112
1,344
2,278
813
4^547
630
14,781
9,047
2.352
26,810
60
5,041
784
583
57*58"
232
6,356
3,112
989
10.68S)
736
5,996
5,381
1.317
13,430
110
7,659
3,847
• 1 .001
12,517
184
1,983
6,734
1.173
10,074
348
1,854
3.461
801
574T4"
1,670
28,889
23.319
5.864
59,742
135
7,459
800
609
TTBoT
416
8.376
2,698
616
12,106
188
1,973
2.222
732
57TTF
92
4,758
4,098
643
TOFT
70
667
1.950
68
27755"
194
2,341
3,970
1.417
7,92?
1,095
25,575
15,738
4.085
46,492
105
8,630
1,347
1.002
11,684
407
11,073
5,424
1.727
18,63l
1,284
10,450
9.374
2.295
23,403
191
13,340
6.695
1.745
21,971
322
3,454
11,731
171546
609
3.228
6,030
1.397
11,264
2,918
50,175
40.601
10^207
1037901
Total
Land Use
Conversion
Through 2000
378
25,510
3,402
2.551
31,541
1,295
30.613
12.783
3.686
48,377
2,316
19,552
18,253
4.763
44,884
445
28,490
16,993
3.759
4T.587
616
6,487
21,535
3.321
31 ,959'
1,263
8,767
15.739
4.428
30,197
6,313
119,419
88,705
22.508
236,945
%
of
Total
1
80
11
8
TOT
3
63
26
8
TOT
5
44
41
11
TOT
1
57
34
"TOO"
2
20
67
10
W
4
29
52
15
TOff
3
50
37
10
TTJO"
114
-------
TABLE 5-19. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUES (ACRES) AND RELATIVE VALUES (PERCENTAGE)
OF LAND USE CONVERSION FOR EACH MAJOR CATEGORY BY SCENARIO
Maximum Absolute
Values (Acres)
Scenario
1
1A
IB
1C
ID
2
2A
2B
2C
3
4
Public
1,420
PA
1,288
PA
1,200
PA
1,354
PA
1,580
KY
1,700
OH
2,604
OH
2,414
OH
811
in
1,280
OH
800
IN
Ag.
26,534
IN
28,423
IN
27,460
IN
25,416
. IN
26,046
IN
25,674
IN
25,674
IN
26,643
IN
43,358
IL
23,716
IN
19,771
IN
Forest
16,280
PA
15,485
PA
16,355
PA
15,795
PA
17,813
WV
14,347
PA
21 ,592
WV
21 ,588
OH
10,988
PA
12,821
WV
10,253
WV
Other
3,511
PA
3,610
PA
2,741
IL
3,931
PA
3,776
PA
4,208
PA
4,473
PA
6,384
PA
4,031
IL
3,065
PA
2,639
PA
Total
40,643
IN
40,635
IN
38,945
IN
39,942
IN
38,945
IN
39,540
IN
45,930
OH
48,678
OH
53,170
IL
35,119
IN
28,491
IN
Public
5
PA
5
PA
4
PA
5
OH, PA
6
OH
5
OH
6
OH
5
OH
4
OH.WV
5
OH
4
OH
Maximum Relative
Values (%}
Ag.
80
IL
81
IL
81
IL
77
IL
75
IL
81
IL
81
IL
81
IL
82
IL
82
IL
82
IL
Forest
74
WV
72
WV
78
WV
74
WV
74
WV
66
WV
68
WV
66
WV
57
PA
71
WV
72
WV
Maximum
Relative
Conversion-
State (Z)a
Other
13
PA
13
PA
9
IL.PA
14
PA
14
PA
15
PA
13
PA
15
PA
15
PA
13
PA
16
PA
.18
IN
.18
IN
.17
IN
.21
WV
.17
IN
.17
IN
.21
WV
.19
OH
.17
IN
.15
IN
.12
IN
Maximum Conversion
Category (Region)
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Continued
-------
TABLE 5-19. Continued
Maximum Absolute
Values (Acres)
Scenario
5
5A
6
7
Public
1,446
OH
1,865
OH
690
IN
2,316
OH
Ag.
24,269
IN
30.083
IN
17,616
IN
30,613
IN
Forest
12,855
PA
17,131
PA
8.135
KY
21,535
WV
Other
3,346
PA
4,571
PA
2,450
PA
4,763
OH
Total
36.223
IN
47,273
IN
25,175
IN
49,687
KY
Public
5
OH
5
OH
3
IN, OH
5
OH
Maximum Relative
Values (%}
82
IL
80
IL
81
IL
80
IL
Forest
69
WV
64
WV
73
WV
67
WV
Other
14
PA
14
PA
17
PA
15
PA
Maximum
Relative
Conversion-
State (S)a
.16
IN
.20
IN
.11
IN
.21
IN
Maximum Conversion
Category (Region)
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
"Maximum total conversion relative to the total land area of a state.
-------
Illinois :Total Land Use Conversion
^6O~
CO
CD
o
CO
-50-
CO
TO
CO
co 40-
13
O
JZ
•4— '
§30-
CO
CD
0 20-
-------
CD
Indiana : Total Land Use Conversion
By Electrical Generating Facilities, 1975-2000
13
O
ffl 30-
O
(/)
0)20-
>
c
O
O
2! 10-
Z>
•o
c
CO
— 1 n
P—
0
F
A
O
F
A
A = Ag
F = Fo
Pr%
- Pu
Or\t.
-
F
A
- UL
o
F
A
Lands
rest Lands
blic Lands
ler Lands
1 O O
F
A
F
A
o
F
A
0
F
A
O
F
A
O
F
A
o
H
A
O
F
A
O
F
A
o
F
A
O
F
A
- P
1 1A 1B 1C 1D 2 2A 2B 2C 3 4 5 5A 6 7
Scenario Number
Figure 5-3
-------
CO
Kentucky : Total Land Use Conversion
By Electrical Generating Facilities, 1975-2000
o
H—
O
^40-
c
03
CO
o
-^ 3O-
c
0
CO
0)
O
O
•o-
c
(O
i n
P-
A
F
P
0
o
F
A
O
F
A
— A r
M£
= Fc
- Pi
i i
= 01
"
o
F
A
I Lands
)rest Lands
jblic Lands
ther Lands
o
F
A
o
F
A
O
F
A
0
F
A
O
F
A
=^=
F
A
===:
F
A
F
A
O
F
A
O
F
A
o
F
A
O
F
A
1 1A 1B 1C 1D 2 2A 2B 2C 3 4 5 5A 6 7
Scenario Number
Figure 5-4
-------
Ohio : Total Land Use Conversion
By Electrical Generating Facilities, 1975-2000
to
o>
ro
o
o 501
<
M—
O
(/)
"O AO-
c 40
(0
(/)
3
o
fE 30-
Land Use Conversion (
-* ru
090
p-
A = Ag
Fr-"
:
P =
0 =
o
F
A
= i-o
= Pu
= ot
o
F
A
Lands
rest Lands
blic Lands
her Lands
0
F
A
O
F
A
O
P
F
A
O
F
A
O
P
F
A
O
P
F
A
0
F
A
O
f
F
A
0
F
A
O
p
F
A
O
p
F
A
0
F
A
O
P
F
A
1 1A 1B 1C 1D 2 2A 2B 2C 3 4 5 5A 6 7
Scenario Number
Figure 5-5
-------
ro
CO
Pennsylvania : Total Land Use Conversion
By Electrical Generating Facilities, 1975-2000
o oul
<
*o
CO
-O 40-
c
CO
CO
ZJ
o
•^ -^n
,_ 30
c
CO
^- JT.J L
o> 20-
>
c:
o
O
g K>-
ID
-o
c
(O
-J n
A
F
P
0
O
P
F
A
= Aj
= Pi
0
P
F
A
I Lands
>rest Lands
jblic Lands
ther Lands
o
p
F
A
0
p
F
A
O
F
A
O
p
F
A
O
p
F
A
0
p
F
A
O
F
A
0
F
A
O
F
A
O
F
A
O
p
F
A
O
F
A
O
p
F
A
1 1A 1B 1C 1D 2 2A 2B 2C 3 4 5 5A 6 7
Scenario Number
Fiaure 5-6
-------
West Virginia : Total Land Use Conversion
By Electrical Generating Facilities, 1975-2000
PO
ro
o
o
W40-I
•o
C
to
c
o
^ 20-
CD
c
o
o
o> 1°-
to
ZD
•o
c
«J n
»
C^^
=y=
F
A
-"—
F
A
••••••••••M
F
A
o
F
A
F
A
o
sssssss
F
A
o
F
A
o
••«••••••••
F
A
A =
F =
P =
o -
v/
O
F
A
Ag Lands
Forest Lands
Public Lands
Other Lands
o
F
A
"
F
A
*J
F
A
O
^^^•^••••B
••••••••MBia
F
A
I-
A
O
F
A
1 1A 1B 1C 1D 2 2A 2B 2C 3 4 5 5A 6
Scenario Number
Fiaure 5-7
-------
ORBES REGION : Total Land Use Conversion
By Electrical Generating Facilities, 1975-2000
240-
220*
200-
10 180-
CD
t-
O
<
on (Thousands of
<» "£. g
O 0 c
0)
>
C
0 80'
o>
CO
Z>
-o 6°-
c
CO
_J
40-
20-
O
A
F
p
. 0
= A
= F
= C
o
p
F
A
G LANDS
OREST LANDS
UBLIC LANDS
)THER LANDS
0
p
F
A
0
P
F
A
0
P
F
A
O
P
F
A
O
P
F
A
O
P
F
A
O
P
F
A
O
P
F
A
O
P
F
A
O
t>
F
A
O
P
F
A
0
P
F
A
O
F
A
O
P
F
A
Scenario Number
Figure 5-8
123
-------
ORBES REGION : Total Reversible Land Use Conversion
By Electrical Generating Facilities, 1975-2000
A = AG LANDS
F = FOREST LANDS
P = PUBLIC LANDS
180-
(U 140-
<
0 120-
•o
C
CO
co 100-
3
O
.c
I—
"- ' 80-
c
o
CO
v_
(U 60-
O
0
CO
Z>
_
c 20-
co
_J
o
0 = OTHER LANDS
0
F
A
0
F
A
O
F
A
O
c
U
F
A
O
F
A
0
P
F
A
0
p
F
A
O
F
A
0
F
A
O
F-
A
O
F
A
O
p
F
A
O
F
A
O
p
F
A
1 IS IB Tc TD * 2* 2B 2C 3 4 5 5A 6 7
Scenario Number
Figure 5-9
124
-------
ORBES REGION : Total Irreversible Land Use Conversion
By Electrical Generating Facilities, 1975-2000
A = AG LANDS
F = FOREST LANDS
P = PUBLIC LANDS
^ 0 = Other Lands
o
M—
O
=3
o
^ 80-
"-"
C
O
-------
To estimate land use requirements for future transmission line R-O-W
in ORBES, transmission line characteristics were reviewed from current
literature and R-O-W land use requirements were estimated using data for
five planned energy facilities in the ORBES region. The average for the
five facilities was used as a first approximation of R-O-W land use require-
ments for the planned and scenario addition energy facilities in the ORBES
region.
Table 5-20 presents transmission line requirements for the five planned
energy facilities used in making the estimate. Land requirements for trans-
mission line rights-of-way range between 484 to 2,181 acres for those facilities,
The greatest acreages are for those facilities requiring the longest lines.
When relativized to the ORBES standard coal-fired plant size of 650 MWe, trans-
mission line R-O-W requirements range between 262 to 1,677 acres per 650 MWe
generated, with a mean of approximately 800 acres per 650 MWe. This value is
considerably lower than the 4,700 acres per 650 MWe estimated for existing
energy facilities. The lower value probably reflects the use of existing
transmission line corridors for new lines and/or the siting of new facilities
closer to existing corridors.
TABLE 5-20. TRANSMISSION LINE REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTED
ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE ORBES REGION
Facility
Ghent
(Units I & II)
East Bend
(Units I & II)
Spurlock
(Unit II)
Merom
(Units I & II)
Patriot
Total
Capacity
(MWe)
1,100
1,200
500
980
1,950
No. and
Voltage
of Lines
N/A
2-345 kv
345 kv
N/A
3-345 kv
Length
of Lines
(Miles)
N/A
13.3
71
74
120
Width of
ROW (ft)
N/A
300
N/A
150
150
Total Land
Involved
(Acres)
703
484
1,290
1,345
2,181
Land Per
650 MWe
(Acres)
415
262
1,677
892
727
The estimated land use requirements for new R-O-W in the ORBES region is
73 percent of the potential land use requirements for new energy conversion
facilities (1,100 per 650 MWe). This could result in an additional total land
use conversion of 76,000 acres for Scenario 6 (lowest conversion) or 173,000
acres for Scenario 7 (highest conversion).
Most of this land would be reversibly impacted, although this type of
impact can involve major land use changes, particularly when transmission
line corridors cross forested lands. Approximately 5 to 20 percent of the
126
-------
land required for rights-of-way are irreversibly dedicated to substations,
access roads, and support towers.
Land Use Conversion from Cpa_l Surface Minimi
From January 1978 to December 1979, the Environmental Systems Application
Center, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, conducted
an ORBES Support Study titled "A Land Use Analysis of Existing and Potential
Coal Mining Areas in the Ohio River Basin Energy Study Region." This support
study was directed by Daniel E. Mil lard. The following results from that study
are presented here to provide a more complete documentation of energy-related
land use conversion in the ORBES region.
In the ORBES region, approximately 1.6 million acres (about 1 percent of
the ORBES region total) have been affected by the surface mining of coal,
although only 18 percent of the total surface-minable reserves has been mined.
Surface minable reserves constitute only about 17 percent of the total coal
reserve base in the ORBES region. Because of physiographical differences,
approximately two acres of land must be displaced in the Appalachian Coal
Province to yield the same amount of coal as one acre in the Eastern Interior
Province.
Agriculture is an important land use in the Eastern Interior Basin, while
forestry or the timber reserve is relatively unimportant. The converse is true
of the Appalachian Basin. The greatest potential for conflicts between agri-
culture and surface mining occurs in Illinois. For forestry, the potential
for conflict is greatest in central and southern West Virginia.
Historical trends in surface mining are more apparent than regional
trends. Mining has progressed from small, localized operations with a
moderate impact upon the topography to large, extensive operations which
mine deeper, move more spoil, and can dramatically alter the natural topo-
graphy. Both spoil grading and revegetation exhibit definite historical
trends. Older operations have minimal grading of spoil and extensive natural
revegetation. Contemporary operations grade spoil to nearly original contour
and extensively replant the mined area (with varying degrees of success). The
kinds of species planted have also changed through time. Originally, trees
were planted extensively; now forage species are most commonly sov/n. Post-
mining land use has also changed, as is reflected in planted species, from
forest-related uses to pasture, particularly in Illinois and Indiana.
Reclamation for permanent land use usually takes more than two years after
mining operations cease. In fact, the total regional area affected by surface
mining, about 400,000 acres (25 percent) have been affected for at least 10
years and have been reclaimed only partially. Data for the remaining 75 percent
are incomplete. The amount of time and money necessary to restore a site
according to the Permanent Regulatory Program of the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 will be higher in the Appalachian Province than
in the Eastern Interior Province.
5.3 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
Impacts on terrestrial ecosystems in ORBES from energy-related facilities
can be grouped into two major types, direct displacement impacts and pollutant
127
-------
transport Impacts. Direct displacement impacts—vegetation removal, loss of
wildlife habitat, direct impacts on wildlife, soil disturbances—are those
impacts resulting from irreversible and reversible land use conversions asso-
ciated with construction activities. Irreversible land use conversion results
in permanent losses of primary productivity and wildlife habitat in the affected
areas. The magnitude of direct displacement impacts from irreversible land
conversions Is dependent on the particular habitat displaced and Its associated
characteristics (I.e., species diversity, evenness, and composition). Reversible
land use conversions result in short or long-term losses in primary productivity
and wildlife habitat. Such conversions occur largely due to land clearing for
temporary roads, nonpermanent structures and transmission line rights-of-way
(R-O-W). Of the three, displacement Impacts from transmission line R-O-W are
the most extensive.
Pollutant transport Impacts are those resulting from the movement of
pollutants through the environment. For example, energy conversion facilities
produce a number of potentially toxic residuals ranging from sediment runoff
from construction activities to gaseous oxides of sulfur and nitrogen from
coal combustion. The ultimate fate and effect of these residuals depends
upon pollutant transport mechanisms, which can Involve atmospheric, aquatic,
and terrestrial pathways.
Energy Conversion Facility Impacts^
Direct Displacement-
Construction may eventually remove all existing vegetation from energy
conversion facility sites. For six facilities planned or under construction
in the ORBES region, the amount of land directly impacted during construction
averaged 400 acres per 650 MWe generated (Table 5-1). Most of this land 1s
Irreversibly converted to the main boiler facility, coal storage, cooling
towers or ponds, ash storage, substations, and miscellaneous roads and parking
areas.
Mobile wildlife depart from these areas and less mobile wildlife, typically
amphibians and reptiles, fossorial mammals, and baby animals of many kinds, may
be unintentionally destroyed. Some of the more tolerant animals may merely move
to the periphery of the construction area and not leave the site. If construc-
tion of a cooling pond is part of the overall development plan, displacement
impacts will increase considerably, although some lake habitat will be created.
Those species displaced from the conversion facility must seek suitable
habitat, if available in areas adjacent to the impacted area. Where unusual,
rare, or critical habitats are displaced, such as wetlands or Isolated habitats
at the edge of their geographic range, suitable alternatives may not be avail-
able. Under these circumstances, displacement impacts will be more severe and
undesirable.
Besides the direct displacement of animal species from their preferred
habitat, energy conversion facilities can also interfere with the normal migra-
tory habits of certain species. At a Wisconsin energy facility sited between
a major highway and the Wisconsin River, white-tailed deer movements along the
river, between foraging and yarding sites, were restricted due to the presence
of the facility (Jones 1975). In a similar way, power plant stacks and cooling
128
-------
towers have been shown to be an obstacle to migratory birds (Willard and
Willard 1978)0
Local traffic of construction personnel to and from the construction area
may increase the frequency of road mortality of animals0 especially if workers
commute long distances through rural areas,, In the ORBES region„ animals
prone to road mortality include white-tailed deerB cottontail rabbit, opossumD
box turtle0 and snakes.
Energy facilities sited on highly productive lands or forests can result
in ecosystem level impacts as well,, The loss of prime farmland to energy con-
version facilities has been a major concern of agricultural specialists,, Faci-
lities sited within large tracts of forest lands can disrupt trophic structures,,
community energy budgets9 and biogeochemical cycles; all essential to the
functioning of the forest ecosystem,,
Pollutant Transport--
Jyges-=The basic constituents moved by the various pollutant transport
machaHTsmT from energy coaversion facilities can be grouped into five cate-
gories: (1) oxidesD (2) hydrocarbons and other organic compounds, (3) mstals,,
(4) particulates0 and (5) sediments,, Oxides include those of nitrogen (e.g.D
N02 and those of sulfur (e«9-o $02)0 These compounds evolve as coal is burned
and are emitted as gases into the atmosphere,, The levels of SOa emitted during
conversion are largely dependent on the coal properties,, while NOX levels depend
on the combustion process utilized.
Hydrocarbon and organic emissions occur when some of the coal and/or oil
organic material is not completely oxidized. Included in this category are
photochemical oxidants0 carbon monoxide„ and carbon dioxide that are released
into the atmosphere,,
Metals such as mercury,, volatilize and leave the stack as vapors. Other
metals such as cadmium,, Iead0 copperD chromium;, and arsenic may only partially
volatilize and may become mobilized by hydrological transport from ash disposal
sites.
Table 5-21 presents the major inorganic and metallic constituents of an
eastern coal sample and its ash.
Particulates are defined as dispersed matter existing in either solid or
liquid phase. When dispersed through the atmosphere these materials may have
toxic effects on vegetation by blocking stomates and preventing the normal
gaseous diffusion of C02 and 62,, Through inhalation0 particulates may adversely
affect terrestrial vertebrates,,
Sediments usually occur in erosional transport processes,, In aquatic
systems9 suspended sediments increase turbiditys increase the attenuation of
light,, and adsorb metallic solutes.
Sources and Impacts—The construction of energy conversion facilities
causes the erosional transport of adsorbed,, dissolved,, and suspended materials
as the existing vegetation is cleared from the site,, Recent studies in deci-
duous ecosystems report increased cation and nitrate losses via hydraulic
export in watersheds where the vegetation has been removed (Likens0 et a!0
129
-------
TABLE 5-21. TRACE ELEMENT CONSTITUENTS OF COAL AND COAL ASH
Element
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadml urn
Chromium
Copper
Fluorine
Germanium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Z1nc
Coal (ppm)
0.08
0.87
440.
0.29
37.7
0.11
1.8
5.2
78.2
0.48
0.15
26.2
0.131
0.87
3.67
0.98
< 13.
16.2
Botton Ash (ppm)
< 1.0
4.4
5600.
0.40
83.2
1.1
15.6
68.
44.6
< 0.1
1.0
56.7
< 0.010
3.2
14.5
0.14
< 100.
< 8.0
Prec1p1tator Ash (ppm)
4.4
61.
15,000.
5.2
1040.
4.2
8.9
238.
2880.
9.2
4.0
374.
< 0.010
12.
92.9
16.4
< 100.
386.
SOURCE: Dvorak, A.J. 1977. The environmental effects of using coal for generating
electricity. Argonne National Laboratory and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
NOTE: Data from a particular batch of coal are not necessarily representative
of all coal. Sulfur content (4 percent) Indicates use of eastern coal.
130
-------
1970)„ Noise and emissions from construction equipment are additional pollu-
tants transported during the construction phase.
A cosl-fired energy conversion facility is the source of a number of
potential pollutants during normal operation. The most important of these
is the emission of gaseous and particulate residuals as coal is burned0 The
combustion of coal emits oxides of sulfur and nitrogen,, carbon dioxide,,
carbon monoxide„ trace elements0 and hydrocarbons„ The atmospheric trans-
port of these constituents may be localized or dispersed over large areas
that involve major airsheds. To date the main interest in the gaseous
transport of emitted pollutants has been centered around effects on human
health0 crop damage, and the effects on the cycling of nutrients in the
biosphere and the ecosystem (U, S0 Department of the Interior 1978)»
Gaseous emissions from coal-fired conversion facilities account for
approximately 7 percent of the total primary pollutants being discharged by
anthropogenically related activities (U. S. Department of Energy 1977).
However, in terms of specific pollutants related to the combustion of fossil
fuels, the contribution is greater., For example, between 50 and 80 percent
of the atmospheric injection of sulfur oxides is attributed to current human
sources of fossil fuel combustion (Granat, et a!0 1976)0
Sulfur and nitrogen oxides account for approximately 98 percent of the
total gaseous emissions from coal =fired generation facilities,, Carbon mon-
oxide,, hydrocarbons0 and other inorganic compounds constitute the remaining
2 percent (U0 S0 Department of Energy 1977).
Once in the atmosphere„ numerous conversions may take place that can
give rise to secondary pollutants. Some of these secondary compounds including
sulfate aerosols, nitric and sulfuric acids0 ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate
may have adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial systems. The formation
of acid rain exemplifies these effects.
Oxides of nitrogen and sulfur undergo a series of reactions that evolve
acidic compounds. These oxides are transported by prevailing winds to con-
siderably distant locations„ where their acid end-products are eventually
scavenged by precipitation^ The SOa initially emitted at the source is thus
deposited as sulfate (SOiT) some distance away.
The inputs of sulfate anions and hydrogen cations have a profound effect
in certain ecosystems0 In unbuffered terrestrial systems, sulfate deposition
results in cationic Iosses0 including the leaching of aluminum (Cronan et al=
1979). In poorly buffered aquatic systems0 decreasing pH9 and increased
terrestrial aluminum inputs can have toxic effects to organisms.
Under certain meteorological conditions (called plume fumigation) con-
centrated deposition of pollutants may occur within short distances from the
source. In these cases„ upward diffusion of gaseous effluents is inhibited
by a temperature inversion and organisms within a few kilometers of the
source may receive injury. Generally,, atmospheric transport involves the
movement of pollutants upwind where they are returned to earth by impaction,
dry deposition, or precipitation scavenging,,
131
-------
A detailed discussion of the extent of terrestrial ecosystem Impacts 1n
the vicinity of energy conversion facilities that might result from local
fumigation of this type is presented in the ORBES support study "Subinjurious
Effects of Gaseous Sulfur and Nitrogen Emission and Their Conversion Products
on Crops and Forests of the Ohio River Basin States" (Loucks et al. 1980).
Another potential source of transportable pollutants is the coal storage
area. Windblown coal dust from coal storage piles reduces air quality and
leaves deposits on vegetation. Particulate coal "soot" may plug the stomates
of leaves, lower photosynthetic activity, and cause leaf necrosis (U. S. Depart-
ment of the Interior 1978). Surface water runoff from coal storage piles
contains coal fines and various concentrations of minerals and trace elements,
including heavy metals. The transport of these elements can result in signi-
ficant impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Noise generated during the unloading of unit trains or barges may affect
wildlife In the immediate vicinity of the railroad spur or docking facility.
Noise effects on wildlife have not been investigated to an extent that can be
used for impact assessment. Laboratory studies with captive animals has shown
that the effects of intermlttant noise on animals are less severe than the
effects of continuous noise (U. S. Department of the Interior 1978).
Seepage from ash disposal sites may actively transport solutes. The
transport of solutes is Influenced by a number of factors and the kinetics
are very complex. Specifically, the pH of the leachate, the concentration
of trace, organic, or Inorganic species in the ash, the permeability of the
Impoundment site, the redox potential of the leachate, and the permeability
of the soils all facilitate the solute transport of pollutants (U. S. Depart-
ment of Energy 1977).
Impacts of cooling tower plumes on terrestrial communities have been
reviewed in an International Atomic Energy Symposium (1977), in a U. S.
Energy Research and Development Administration Symposium (1974), and by
Dinger (1976). Attention has been focused on two types of cooling towers-
mechanical draft and natural draft. To date most observations associated
with large cooling towers have been qualitative so the magnitudes of Impacts
are therefore speculative. Some potential cooling tower impacts in the ORBES
region include: ground fog, icing, drift deposition, and cloud seeding.
Mechanical draft towers have been associated with occurrences of these
phenomena more often than have natural draft towers. Some adverse Impacts
of these phenomena on terrestrial biotic communities can include damage to
vegetation from acidic mist, rain, or snow when stack gases of fossil-fuel
power plants and cooling plumes interact, the breakdown of vegetation due
to excessive icing, excessive salt deposition on vegetation, and fallout of
biocides used to keep power plant circulating systems free of algae. Because
of the realized impacts of cooling tower plumes remain to be quantified, it
is not practical to speculate on the relative adversities of cooling towers
1n different parts of the ORBES region.
Alteration of Biogeochemlcal Cycles—
Of the many elements essential for life, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and
phosphorus are among the most Important. Carbon, in association with hydrogen
and oxygen is found in energy-rich materials such as carbohydrates. These
together with nitrogen and sulfur are essential for the synthesis of proteins.
132
-------
Phosphorus is required by living organisms for the transfer of chemical
energy within protoplasm. Each of these elements circulates throughout
the biosphere in large biogeochemical cycles,, The term biogeochemical
cycle is used to emphasize a multi component system involving geological ,
biological „ and chemical contents0 constituentss and processes., Most of
the elements occur in various chemical phases depending on the elements, the
particular cycle0 and the characteristics of the specific pool in which the
element is present, Biogeochemical cycles may be viewed on either a global
and biospheric level or at the ecosystem level „ The term nutrient cycling
is used within the ecosystem context of biogeochemical cycling.
The cycles of carbon „ nitrogen0 sulfur 0 and phosphorus exist as a
series of pools interconnected by pathways of transfer between pools,, A
pool consists of a quantity of a particular element residing in some physi-
cal or biological component of the ecosystem or biosphere. For example0 the
carbon cycle consists of four large pools: the atmosphere 0 land surfaces
(including vegetation and other organisms) „ the oceans, and marine sediments,,
All cycles are dynamic and quantities of elements are transferred between the
pools during a given period of time0 The quantity of material passing from
pool to pool per unit time is the flux
Another way of comprehensively approaching flux rates and pool sizes is
the concept of turnover time,, Simply stated0 this value is calculated as
the quantity of a particular element in a specific pool divided by the flux
rate into or out of that pool. The turnover time thus describes the time
required for movement of a quantity of nutrient equal to that in the pool.
On a biospheric level 9 the flux out of various pools is balanced by
flux into the pools. For example0 in the carbon cycle one of the major
routes of flux is the removal of carbon dioxide (COa) from the atmospheric
pool by its fixation in organic compounds through photosynthesis. This is
balanced by the processes of returning COz to the atmosphere through plant
respiration0 metabolism, and decomposition,, Conceivably 0 the present carbon
cycle has been in overall steady state for long periods of timeD but periods
of mountain building0 vulcanismD shifting climates0 changing global areas of
land and sea, and changing coverage of land by vegetation may have acted to
create shifts in the system over geological time (Reiners 1972).
Ecosystem-level biogeochemical cycling follows the principals of global
cycling. However9 for a given system there may be inputs of elements to the
system that arrive from outside the theoretical system boundaries and exports
that are lost from the system entirely. The total amount of nutrients in the
biotic and abiotic pools of an ecosystem is termed the nutrient capital of
the system,, This quantity may be stable0 or it may be changing over time as
a function of the net gain or loss of the nutrients by various inputs and
output processes,, Some inputs or outputs from the ecosystem may occur solely
as gaseous or dissolved abiotic flux. Other inputs and outputs may occur as
organic particulates» Most major input routes involve chemical fixation from
the atmosphereD release by weathering or deposition in precipitation. Major
routes of nutrient export in deciduous ecosystems occur by conversion to vola-
tile gases and hydrologic export via dissolution in ground and surface waters.
133
-------
Major blogeochemical cycles, before the Intervention of humans, were
probably in a steady state condition; where flux rates into and out of pools
were balanced over the entire cycle. There is little doubt that the steady
state 1s being disturbed within our own era through the burning of fossil
fuels (Relners 1972).
The blogeochemical cycles of N, P, C, and S show complex Involvement
with organisms that aid in the negative feedback control of flux rates. As
the size of a particular pool or the flux rate between pools 1s increased
or decreased by a disturbance, these feedback controls operate to restore the
original condition. The controls usually regulate flux rates by varying their
Intensity of operation in response to the disturbance. Response must be rapid
and in proportion to the magnitude of the disturbance.
Thus, the regulatory function of negative feedback control of blogeochemi-
cal processes is frequently biotic. It usually occurs in situations where flux
is mediated by some group of organisms that exert their control by the increase
or decrease in population numbers. The nitrogen cycle is an excellent example
of a cycle that exhibits such controls.
The Biospheric Nitrogen Cycle—Chemical speciation of nitrogen is medi-
ated in almost all cases By metabolic activities of organisms. Nitrogen
exists 1n various chemical forms; from highly oxidized nitrate (NO3") to
highly reduced ammonium (NHi/). Within a given reservoir in the biospheric
cycle of nitrogen, this chemical speciation may exist. Because many of the
pathways are controlled by biotic factors, negative feedback response to
disturbances may occur.
Figure 5-11 shows the distribution of nitrogen within various pools of
the biosphere and the annual transfer rates between pools. The largest pool
of nitrogen exists in mineral and sedimentary deposits. Within the scope of
geological time these deposits may become available to the entire cycle, but
for most discussions these pools of nitrogen are considered sinks (Soderlund
and Swensson 1976). Within the actively circulating portion of the biosphere
the largest nitrogen pool is the atmosphere. Atmospheric nitrogen is chiefly
diatomic gaseous nitrogen. However, nitrous oxide (N20), ammonia (NH3),
ammonium (NHi* ) and nitrate (NO3") are also present in the atmosphere.
Anthropogenically influenced fluxes into and out of the atmospheric pool
occur as nitrogen is industrially fixed for the production of fertilizers and
when oxides of nitrogen are released through the combustion of fossil fuels
(Soderlund and Swensson 1976). Prior to 1914, mineral nitrate deposits were
the main source of the fixed nitrogen required for fertilizers. However, with
the development of the Haber process in 1914, mineral nitrate extracts were
replaced by industrially fixed nitrogenous compounds (Smith 1974). Processes
that Industrially fix molecular nitrogen generate nitrogenous compounds from
inactive forms in the biosphere.
Increased nitric acid/oxide levels in the atmosphere from the combustion
of fossil fuels has been implicated in the occurrence of acid precipitation in
the northeastern states (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1979). Nitric
oxide is converted to nitric acid in the presence of water and returns to
earth as acid. While the exact effect of acid rain on ecosystem nutrient
134
-------
r
o
-
Almospltotic riMtoyc-n c
3,800.000 g
? o
fl V "" TJ £
- ^ >•
S t, „ Biolo^
c
o
u
c
c
• «'
.0
i
? '
: o
IT E
c ^
-------
cycling 1s still unclear, there may be serious consequences for cation
leaching and organismal toxiflcatlon in unbuffered systems.
The Biospheric Phosphorus Cycle—Several elements required by living
organisms do not have a significant atmospheric pool. Of these, phosphorus
1s the most important and has the simplest biogeochemistry. Biospheric
phosphorus involves sedimentary cycling, in which the predominant net
source is released from igneous and sedimentary rocks by weathering. The
major pools are land surfaces and mineral deposits. Leaching and transport
by water from the continents to the ocean basins is the major export flux.
Eventually, phosphorus deposition in marine sediments is the ultimate sink,
where return to the actively circulating portion of the biosphere occurs
only in terms of geologic uplift.
Phosphate (P0«*=) is the major form of phosphorus. Plants assimilate
phosphate directly from the soil solution; animals excrete organic phosphorus
salts in urine; and phosphatizing bacteria convert organic phosphorus to
available phosphate. Essentially, phosphorus involves only the soil and
aquatic components of the ecosystem nutrient cycle. On the ecosystem level
biological control retains phosphorus within the system by tight internal
recycling.
The Biospheric Carbon Cycle—During the geologic history of the earth,
quantities of carbon, which greatly exceed that which is currently in circu-
lation, were stored in the form of coal, oil, and carbonate minerals. Early
in the formation of the biosphere, large amounts of organic material were
laid down in beds not undergoing decomposition. As production exceeded de-
composition, these organic beds accumulated, and after eons of sedimentation
and pressure, these beds became the present day reserves of coal and oil —
large carbon pools isolated from biogeochemical cycling except in geological
time. Humans are now releasing portions of these stored carbon pools into
the active carbon cycle.
Figure 5-12 shows the quantitative relationships of pool sizes and flux
rates for the world carbon cycle. The largest pool is sedimentary carbonate
mineral deposits. Flux out of this pool is from rock weathering 1n the
terrestrial sphere and solution of carbonate sediments in the oceans. The
exact flux rates for these pathways are unknown (Reiners 1972). Flux into
this pool is from sedimentation. Carbon is stored in sedimentary rocks in
reduced organic form. Some of this is commercially available coal and oil,
but most (almost 2000 times as much) is bound in sedimentary minerals such
as shales, dolomites, and other carbonates.
Other carbon pools in the global cycle are the atmosphere, land, and
oceans. The fluxes that connect these pools are a continuous exchange
between the atmosphere and oceans, and the emission of CO2 through combus-
tion of fossil fuels. These pools and their associated flux pathways
constitute the actively circulating portion of the biosphere.
The largest carbon pool within the actively circulating portion of the
biosphere 1s in carbonate and biocarbonate in seawater. Broecker et al.
(1979) estimate that this pool, in continuous contact with the atmosphere,
is a net sink for excess atmospheric inputs of CO2 from combustion of fossil
fuels. Thus, the ocean may ultimately absorb enormous amounts of excess C02.
136
-------
land
Rri4ii(ali.->n
Alntosflthcrc
700
54
Oci'
75
Asiimilitlion
l.aml plai
56?
Comunicfi
9; \oo
?0
Occ.in wjd.-r
30.000
F'hylopljnkum
?0
70.000.000
Cu.il ilnd
10.000
Ooail ouj.
rnjtlcr
<- 1
F
FIGURE 5-12. QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS OF POOLS AND
FLUXES FOR THE BIOSPHERIC CARBON CYCLE.
Source: Modified from B. Bolin, "The Carbon Cycle."
Scientific American, 223(3): 124-32 (1970.
137
-------
The oceanic carbon pool 1s approximately 50 times greater than the
atmospheric pool. Carbon exists in the atmosphere predominantly as C02.
A small amount (less than 1 percent) of the atmospheric carbon pool exists
as gaseous methane (CHi*)» carbon monoixde (CO), and organic carbon. Carbon
flux out of the atmosphere occurs as photosynthesis extracts COa. This flux
to biotic pools has been estimated at 100 billion metric tons per year. Flux
out of the atmospheric pool to the oceanic reservoir occurs by the solution
of C02 in water as carbonate, bicarbonate, and carbonic acid, and is a func-
tion of the reaction:
C02 + H20 -> H2C03 •*• H+ + HCOa' -^ 2H+ + C03*
Carbonic Bicarbonate Carbonate
Acid
Atmospheric inputs from land-based pools occur as plant respiration,
decomposition, and heterotrophic respiration release COa. These combined
fluxes account for approximately 100 billion metric tons per year (Reiners
1972). Fossil fuel combustion accounts for an additional 3.6 billion metric
tons per year. Oceanic flux to the atmosphere has been estimated to be 98.2
billion metric tons annually. The difference between atmospheric inputs and
outputs of C02 results in a net annual flux to the atmosphere of 1.8 metric
tons (Reiners 1972; Woodwell et al. 1978; Broecker et al. 1979).
Calculations of the global carbon budget are not precise nor complete.
Estimates of the atmospheric carbon budget assume a net carbon flux of 1.8
metric tons annually to the atmosphere. Over the past eight years, several
reviews of the global carbon budget confirm a steady annual increase in
atmospheric carbon as COa. Observations since 1958 at the Mauna Loa, Hawaii
Observatory provide the best records. Figure 5-13 shows the long-term varia-
tion and increase in atmospheric C02 content. The upward trend is thought
to result from the release of carbon from the combustion of fossil fuels
(Broecker et al. 1979).
Because the net annual increase in the carbon dioxide content of the
atmosphere is slightly less than half the input from fossil fuel releases,
additional C02 sinks may be functioning. The two possibilities most dis-
cussed have been the oceans and the biota (Uoodwell et al. 1978).
The biota could act as a carbon sink with an increase in photosynthetic
COa uptake stimulated by the Increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere. While laboratory tests show stimulation of photosynthesis
by enhanced concentrations of C02, more recently the assumption that atmo-
spheric C02 increases stimulate photosynthetic uptake has been questioned
(Woodwell et al. 1978). In fact, many of the global carbon budgets in the
literature suggest that through practices of land clearing and forest burning
there has been a COa flux out of the biotic pool. Woodwell et al. (1978)
state that evidence 1s overwhelming that there has been a steady state
reduction in the land area occupied by the earth's forests. This leads
to the conclusion that the single major sink for carbon is the oceans.
However, Broecker et al. (1979) content that regrowth of previously cut
forests have balanced the rate of forest destruction since 1958. Few
hypotheses about sinks available for deposition of excess C02 can be ruled
138
-------
1963 196S 1967 1969 1971
1957
FIGURE 5-13. CHANGES IN THE CONCENTRATION OF ATMOSPHERIC
C02, 1958-1971.
Source: G.M. Woodwell, R.H. Whittaker, W.A. Reiners,
G.E. Likens, C.C. Delwiche and D.B. Botkin,
"The Biota and the World Carbon Budget."
Science, 179:141. (1978).
139
-------
out unequivocally. In any case, Increase in the atmospheric pool of carbon
exists and there 1s little doubt that the steady state carbon budget Is
being disturbed by fossil fuel combustion.
The exact Impact on the biosphere from increasing the atmospheric carbon
pool at an increasing rate 1s not completely known and has been the subject
of considerable discussion. The National Academy of Science reports that the
basic model relating C02 to global warming 1s correct, and that an increase
in the C02 content of the atmosphere will lead to a global warming and signi-
ficant climatic changes (Science 1979).
The Biospheric Sulfur Cycle—Unlike carbon and nitrogen, the blogeochemical
cycling of sulfur Ts most; Important at a regional level. The largest pools are
in soils and sediments. The major chemical species, sulfate (SOj,-) has a short
atmospheric turnover time giving ecosystem-level control of cycling more Impor-
tance (Granat et al. 1976). Availability of sulfur, primarily as the soluble
anion, is regulated by internal cycling within the ecosystem.
Less sulfur is cycled in the ecosystem than carbon and nitrogen, and 1t
is seldom a limiting nutrient. The residence time of sulfate In the vegetation
component of the cycle is short. Sulfate is taken up in solution by the standing
crop vegetation, not incorporated into biomass, and released through precipita-
tion leaching in the canopy (Eaton et al. 1973). It is thought that organisms
use the sulfate anion as an ionic balance to the uptake of cationic nutrients.
Thus, sulfur is characteristically in short supply and under strong biological
control.
Generally, natural atmospheric inputs of sulfur are aerosols from sea
spray, volatile sulfur from biological decay and volatile sulfur from aneorbic
decomposition in waterlogged soils. However, at the present time the greatest
single flux occurring in the cycling of sulfur comes from anthropogenic sources
(Smith 1974; Granat et al. 1976). When burned, the sulfur 1n fossil fuels is
converted to sulfur oxides (principally SOj). After being discharged into the
atmosphere these oxides may be converted to sulfate and sulfuric acids. In the
atmosphere sulfate and sulfuric acid have short residence times and are scavenged
by precipitation, giving rise to the phenomena of acid rain.
As wet and dry deposition of the sulfuric acid and the anion occur, the
biogeochemistry in certain ecosystems may be affected. Some uncertainty exists
as to the exact affect of acid deposition on terrestrial and freshwater eco-
systems; and the particular effect may vary depending on the ecosystem. Generally,
the concentrations of cations and anions are balanced in the hydro!ogic exports
from terrestrial ecosystems. With increased deposition of the sulfate anion
in add precipitation, and because of the high mobility of this anion, sulfate
concentrations in hydrologic outputs increase. This results in increased eco-
system cation export in response to ionic balance (Cronan and Schofield 1979).
It must be noted that the exact effects of acid rain on biogeochemical
cycles in temperate ecosystems is unclear. Effects may vary depending on the
system. For instance, ecosystems in association with calcareous soils which
are well buffered by the presence of bicarbonate anions may not be affected
as much as unbuffered ecosystems.
140
-------
The dominating role of anthropogenic sulfur emissions is apparent,, As
much as 80 percent of the total emissions of sulfur to the atmosphere are
from anthropogenic sources (Granat et alo 1976)0 These emissions are
usually confined to a rather limited area and the impact on biogeochemical
cycles has thus been regionally and unevenly distributed,, The use of global
sulfur budgets in impact studies would therefore be less relevant than re-
gional or ecosystem level analysis,,
Terrestrial Ecosystem Assessment Model--
Because of the heterogeneous data base and the complexity of the poten-
tial terrestrial ecosystem impacts associated with energy conversion, a model
similar to that used to assess land use impacts was developed to evaluate the
impacts of the ORBES scenarios on terrestrial ecosystems in the ORBES region.
Four variables representing terrestrial ecosystem quality,, and for which some-
what homogeneous data bases exist0 were selected for use in the model. These
variables include: percentage of class I and II soils,, percentage of forest
lands„ numbers and quality of natural areasD and numbers of endangered species,,
The importance of these variables in describing terrestrial ecosystem quality
was discussed in Section 2,2,,
County level data for the four variables were collected and values for
each variable were indexed according to units ranging in value from 1 (low)
to 10 (high). These units were weighted equally and summed to produce a
county-level index,, The county indices were then used in assessing the
siting configurations in each scenario by allocating the county index for
every 650 MWe sited in that county„ For example„ if "Nice County" has a
county index of 25 terrestrial ecosystem assessment units„ then one 650 MWe
facility sited in "Nice County" would be assessed 25 units.
State totals were then used to evaluate the various siting configurations
represented in the scenarios,, States having higher terrestrial ecosystem
assessment unit totals for a given scenario would have a higher probably
of increased ecological impact under that scenario. No absolute threshold
values for assessment unit totals indicate "good" or "poor" ecological quality.
Therefore,, only relative increases or decreases in ecological impacts can be
ascertained from the model by making scenario comparisons,, particularly with
the business-as-usual case. Since the data base is state dependent0 assess-
ment units can be compared across scenarios only for a given ORBES state
portion,, not across states. Table 5°22 presents a summary of terrestrial
ecosystem assessment units for all scenarios.
Tjrajisnnssion Line Impacts
Due to the large land use requirements for transmission line corridors
(Section 5.2), displacement impacts on terrestrial ecological systems can be
substantial. Terrestrial ecological communities undergo the greatest impacts
from transmission line development during the construction phase. These
impacts are particularly severe in forested areas where clearcutting causes
destruction of existing plant life and results in the displacement of woodland
fauna, Clearcutting also causes erosion problems including gullying, loss of
soil nutrients, and decreased soil water retention capacity (Kitchings et al,
1972), Compaction of soil by heavy machinery in the R-O-W inhibits natural
revegetation,
141
-------
TABLL 5-22. SUMMARY OF TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT UNITS FOR ALL SCENARIOS (1976-2000)
ro
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia9
ORBES Total
Scenario
1
390
458
268
300
277
164
1857
la
385
472
264
320
263
159
1863
Ib
390
518
288
294
246
167
1903
Ic
411
447
274
178
283
273
1866
Id
413
452
241
240
270
191
1807
2
356
451
266
305
270
156
1804
2a
378
444
274
434
330
257
2117
2b
411
470
264
462
405
154
2166
2c
679
425
167
212
216
87
1786
3
334
386
213
247
196
122
1498
4
309
331
148
170
134
87
1179
5
345
415
245
273
222
140
1640
5a
426
520
330
367
377
191
2211
6
258
301
129
161
118
71
1038
7
442
533
396
427
350
249
2397
'No sub-state endangered vertebrate species data were available for West Virginia.
-------
Revegetation in the R-O-W is generally manipulated to include only her-
baceous or shrubby species of plants. In forested areas, this can benefit
species of animals adapted to edge communities and can provide for greater
species diversity. Species which avoid crossing open areas, such as the
wild turkey, may be adversely affected.
Transmission line rights-of-way have lesser impacts upon agricultural
lands. Farm implements can maneuver beneath the larger lines, which permit
continued cultivation in the R-O-W. Permanent loss of agricultural lands
is confined only to the area at the base of the transmission line towers.
Aerial application of fertilizers and pesticides can be restricted in cul-
tivated fields bisected by transmission lines.
Right-of-way maintenance represents a long-term disruption of the initial
habitat. The maintenance of a primitive access road in the R-O-W is necessary
to allow for periodic transmission line inspection and repair. In addition,
vegetation in the R-O-W must be controlled to prevent the regrowth of trees.
Spray application of herbicides is sometimes used to control vegetation, how-
ever, this method has inherent environmental problems. Spray drift can cause
injury to nontarget sensitive species, particularly to crop species. Accumu-
lation of herbicides in food chains is also a potential deleterious effect.
Movement of herbicides via surface runoff can cause adverse impacts in stream
systems. Spray management is generally conducted on any given R-O-W once every
four years.
Collisions between birds and transmission towers and lines are well docu-
mented in the literature (see Willard and Willard, 1976 for a review). Colli-
sions are most frequent during migration, at night, or during bad weather,
however, incidents are not restricted to these conditions. Walkinshaw (1956)
reports that during a two-day period, characterized by calm, clear weather
conditions, 15 sandhill cranes were found dead under a small 30 foot tall,
two wire transmission line. Some had completely sheared off wings and legs.
Walkinshaw also notes that a roost was located nearby. Other accounts suggest
that collisions are more frequent where transmission line corridors cross
migratory flyways or are located near refuges and other areas of concentrated
bird populations (Willard and Willard 1976).
Cases are reported where, during humid conditions, electrostatic charges
from high-voltage transmission lines create conditions directly beneath the
lines that are hazardous to humans, and presumably animals.
Ozone, which in sufficient concentrations is toxic to plants and animals,
is produced by coronal discharge around 765-kilowatt lines. To date, accumu-
lations of ozone in potentially damaging amounts have not been reported (Dinger
1976).
143
-------
SECTION 6
SCENARIO COMPARISONS
A variety of alternative plausible futures, or scenarios, were developed
for the Ohio River Basin Energy Study (see Sections 3 and 4). The scenarios
were derived from an array of policy assumptions about various conditions in
the study region from the base period (mid-1970's) through the year 2000.
In this section, major land use and terrestrial ecosystem impacts that would
be expected under 15 of the ORBES scenarios are identified and discussed.
Additional contrasts are made between these effects and current conditions
in the ORBES study region (see Section 2). See the Ohio River Basin Energy
Study: Main Report (forthcoming) for impact results in other disciplines.
6.1 BUSINESS AS USUAL (Scenario 2)
The single most important factor in terms of total land use conversion
under BAU--and indeed under all scenarios—is the growth rate of generating
capacity through the year 2000. In general, land resources probably would
meet the demand adequately, although the number of suitable sites for
generating facilities could be limited by the year 2000.
• Under BAU, the land conversion required by 2000 for all energy-
related uses (generating facilities, transmission line rights-
of-way, and surface mining for utility coal) could total 991,000
acres (1,548 square miles), or 0.8 percent of the total land in
the ORBES region.
• Under BAU, the total land use conversion in the ORBES region
due to new electrical generating facilities would be 183,869
acres between 1976 and 2000, in addition to the current
140,700 acres used for electrical generating facilities.
• By 1985, 26,810 acres in the ORBES region would be
irreversibly committed to these facilities and 46,492
acres would be reversibly committed; between 1986 and
2000, 40,395 more acres would be irreversibly committed
and 70,172 more acres reversibly committed.
• In the ORBES portion of Indiana, total land use conver-
sion by 2000 would be 39,540 acres, the greatest commitment
among the ORBES state portions. Between 1976 and 1985,
6,951 acres would be irreversibly committed; between
1986 and 2000, 7,468 more acres. Reversible land use
conversion between 1976 and 1985 would amount to 12,106
acres; between 1986 and 2000, 13,015 additional acres.
a In the ORBES portion of Illinois, total land use conversion
by 2000 would amount to 28,528 acres. By 1985, 5,286 acres
would be irreversibly committed; between 1986 and 2000,
5,268 additional acres. In terms of reversible commitment,
9,003 acres would fall into this category between 1976 and
1985; 8,971 additional acres, between 1986 and 2000.
144
-------
• In the State of Kentucky (all of which is in the ORBES region),
total land use conversion by 2000 would be 36,433 acres. Be-
tween 1976 and 1985, 5,508 acres would be irreversibly committed;
between 1986 and 2000, 7,782 additional acres. In terms of
reversible commitment, 9,591 acres would fall into this category
between 1976 and 1985, and 13,552 additional acres between 1986
and 2000.
• In the ORBES portion of Ohio, total land use conversion by 2000
would be 31,572 acres. Of this total, 2,936 acres would be
irreversibly committed between 1976 and 1985, and 8,576 additional
acres between 1986 and 2000. Reversible commitment would amount
to 5,115 acres between 1976 and 1985 and to 14,945 additional
acres between 1986 and 2000.
• In the ORBES portion of West Virginia, total land use conversion
by 2000 would amount to 19,806 acres. Between 1976 and 1985,
1,582 acres would be irreversibly committed; between 1986 and
2000, 5,642 additional acres. Between 1976 and 1985, 2,755 acres
would be reversibly committed; between 1986 and 2000, 9,827 addi-
tional acres.
• In the ORBES portion of Pennsylvania, land use conversion by
2000 would total 27,990 acres. Irreversible commitment would
total 4,547 acres between 1976 and 1985 and 5,659 additional
acres between 1986 and 2000. Reversible commitment would
total 7,922 acres between 1976 and 1985 and 9,862 additional
acres between 1986 and 2000.
• Of the total land conversion required for generating facilities by
2000 under BAU, 52 percent would be agricultural lands, 37 percent
forest lands, 2 percent public lands, and 9 percent other land uses.
• The estimated land use requirement for new transmission line rights-
of-way in the ORBES region is an additional 73 percent of the poten-
tial land use requirements for new energy conversion facilities.
Under BAU, total R-O-W land use requirements would be 134,224 acres.
• By 1985 under BAU, coal tonnage production in the ORBES region would
increase by 162 million tons per year over 1974 levels (439.7 million
tons per year). As a result, 111 new standard mines (each producing
1.5 million tons per year) would be opened; 64 would be underground
mines and 47 would be surface mines. By 2000 under BAU, production
would increase by 376 million tons per year over 1974 levels and 267
new standard mines would be opened (171 underground and 96 surface).
t By 1985 under BAU, 46 million tons of low sulfur coal would be
consumed by electrical generating units in the ORBES region per
year. By 2000, an additional 37.4 million tons would be consumed.
• Under BAU, the surface mining of coal for all purposes within the
ORBES region would affect 2.33 million acres between 1976 and 2000;
this is approximately 1.5 times greater than the total acreage
affected by coal surface mining during the past 100 years.
145
-------
t Under BAU, 673,000 acres (29 percent of the 2.32 million acres in
the ORBES region) would be affected by the surface mining of coal
for electrical power generation during the period 1976 through
2000. Of this, 184,000 acres would be affected in the Eastern
Interior Coal Province, and 489,000 acres would be affected in
the Appalachian Province.
• One standard 650 megawatt electric, coal-fired power unit would
use 1.14 million tons of coal annually, or 17.1 million tons
over the period 1985 through 2000. To meet the coal demand of
one standard unit supplied entirely by surface-mined coal, 193
acres per million tons would be affected in Illinois (Eastern
Interior Coal Province), and 458 acres per million tons would
be affected in eastern Kentucky (Appalachian Province).
0 Two scaling factors strongly influence estimates of affected surface
mine acreages: acreage-to-tonnage ratios and surface-to-total pro-
duction ratios.
0 At present, surface mining produces approximately half the ORBES
region coal, while underground mines produce the remainder. Under
BAU by the year 2000, the underground portion would increase.
0 Surface-mining production currently ranges from 19 to 98 percent
of total production, depending on the geographical location.
Under BAU, these proportions would change to 26 to 60 percent
of production by the year 2000.
0 Primarily because of the steeper slopes, a given amount of sur-
face mined coal disturbs 2.4 times as much surface area in eastern
Kentucky as in Illinois. In general, this relationship holds
between the other Appalachian and Eastern Interior Coal Province
states.
0 In general, under BAU—as well as under all scenarios—the probabi-
lity of conflict between prime agricultural land use, steep slope
land form, and surface mining would change little from current
conditions.
0 Locally, prime farmland conflicts would be more important in
Illinois and Indiana and less important in eastern Kentucky
and West Virginia; the converse is true of steep slope con-
flicts.
0 Coal to supply SIP-governed units in the ORBES region originates
in the hills of eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania;
thus, the possibility of conflict with prime farmland is small.
0 Under BAU, the surface mining of coal for scenario units would
be 22 percent more likely to affect prime farmland and 6 percent
more likely to affect steep slopes than the mining for existing
facilities.
146
-------
t A minimum of two years from the cessation of mining is required to
reclaim the land with quick-growing cover species. At present,
151,000 acres in the ORBES region are undergoing to two-year re-
clamation process. In 2000 under BAD, 220,000 acres would be
undergoing this process.
t Although the Appalachian region contains more sloping land
than does the Eastern Interior Coal Province, reclaimed eco-
logical productivity and land use would vary only slightly
under BAU—and, indeed, under all scenarios.
t Under BAU for the ORBES region, ecologically related impacts (as
measured by terrestrial ecosystem assessment units defined in
Section 5.3) would increase 1,804 units by 2000 from the 1976
total of 1,306 units (a 138 percent increase).
• Between 1976 and 2000 in the ORBES state portion of West
Virginia, an increase of 156 terrestrial ecosystem assess-
ment units would result (101 percent); in Ohio, 305 units
(103 percent); in Illinois, 356 units (123 percent); in
Pennsylvania, 270 units (141 percent); in Kentucky, 266
units (161 percent); and in Indiana, 451 units (216 percent).
6.2 MORE STRINGENT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
More Stringen^t Environmental Regulations (Scenario 1) versus Business as
Usual Regulations (Scenario
teg
"ZT
The land conversion required for all energy-related uses and for elec-
trical generating facilities would increase slightly in the ORBES region
under the more stringent environmental regulations case (Scenario 1) from
the conversion required under business as usual conditions (Scenario 2).
The acreage required for surface mining, however, would decrease slightly
under the more stringent case. Terrestrial ecosystem impacts also would
increase slightly under the more stringent case.
• Under the more stringent environmental regulations case, the
land conversion required for all energy-related uses (generating
facilities, cooling reservoirs, transmission line rights-of-way,
and utility coal surface mining) would be approximately 1 percent
higher in 2000 than under BAU.
t Approximately 40 standard 650 megawatt electric generating
units would be distributed to more central locations under
the more stringent case than under BAU.
• If an average-sized cooling reservoir (975 acres) were to
be built for each of the 15 Ohio sites dispersed away from
major water sources, an additional 14,600 acres would be
required.
147
-------
• The more stringent case would result in a 6 percent increase
in agricultural land conversion for generating facilities
from the conversion required under BAU.
The increased use of scrubbers by electrical generating facilities under
the more stringent case would result in a decrease in thermal efficiency.
Thus, electrical generating facilities would have to burn more coal to pro-
duce the same megawattage as under BAU. To meet the increased needs of these
facilities, coal production would be expected to increase slightly under the
more stringent case. However, it is not anticipated that any more new stan-
dard mines would be opened under the more stringent case than under BAD, and,
in fact, the total acreage needed for surface mining of land actually would
decrease by the year 2000.
• By 2000 under the more stringent environmental regulations case,
only slightly more coal would be produced per year than under BAUj
the same number of standard mines would be opened up under each
scenario between 1976 and 2000; and electrical generating units
would consume substantially more coal under the more stringent
case than they would under BAU.
0 By 2000 under the more stringent case, only 15.1 million more
metric tons of coal would be produced than under BAU.
0 Under the more stringent case, the same number of new standard
mines (275) would be opened as under BAU between 1976 and 2000,
although two fewer underground mines and two more surface mines
would be opened than under BAU.
0 By 2000 under the more stringent case, electrical generating
units would consume 31 million more tons per year than they
would under BAU.
0 The cumulative acreage that would be affected by surface mining
for utility coal for the period 1976 to 2000 would decrease slightly
under the more stringent environmental regulations case—to 665,000
acres, compared with 673,000 acres under BAU.
0 Under the more stringent case, the land use requirements of
state coal-mining regions for surface mining of utility coal
would decrease slightly from BAU requirements: in eastern
Kentucky, 27 percent; in Ohio, 24 percent; in western Pennsyl-
vania, 14 percent; in western Kentucky, 10 percent; in Indiana,
10 percent; in West Virginia, 9 percent; and in Illinois, 6
percent.
0 In the ORBES region in 2000, terrestrial ecosystem impacts would be
greater under the more stringent case (1,857 units) than under BAU
(1,804 units). This increase suggests that counties located inland
from the Ohio River corridor generally would have higher ecological
assessments (as defined in the model) than counties bordering the
river.
148
-------
0 In 2000, terrestrial ecosystem impacts would be less in the
ORBES portion of Ohio under the more stringent case (300
units). In all other ORBES state portions, however, the
impacts of more stringent case impacts would be slightly
to significantly more than those of BAU: in Illinois, 9
percent (390 terrestrial ecosystem units); in Indiana, 2
percent (458 units); in Kentucky, 1 percent (368 units);
in Pennsylvania, 3 percent (277 units); and in West
Virginia, 5 percent (164 units).
Very Stringent Air Quality Regulations (Scenario la) versus More Stringent
Environmental Regulations "(Scenario 1 )
Under the very stringent air quality regulations case (Scenario la),
land use requirements and terrestrial ecosystem impacts in the ORBES region
would not change significantly from those under the more stringent environ-
mental regulations case (Scenario 1).
• The very stringent air quality regulations case would not require
any more land for electrical generating facilities than would be
necessary under the more stringent environmental regulations case.
0 Terrestrial ecosystem impacts in the ORBES region in the year 2000
would be only slightly higher under the very stringent air quality
regulations case (1,863 units) than under the more stringent en-
vironmental regulations case (1»857 units) because more units are
sited in counties off the Ohio River corridor.
0 Under the very stringent air quality case, assessment units
would be 4 percent greater (472 units) in the ORBES portion
of Indiana and 7 percent greater (320 units) in the ORBES
portion of Ohio than under the more stringent case, where
the measurements would be 458 and 300 units, respectively.
Terrestrial ecosystem impacts would be slightly lower under
the former case than under the latter in Illinois (385 versus
390 units), Kentucky (264 versus 268 units), and Pennsylvania
(263 versus 277 units).
Very Stringent Air Quality (Scenario la) versus Very Stringent Ajr Quality
?1tincf(S~ce"narjo_lbj
Under very stringent air quality regulations with concentrated siting
(Scenario Ib), total land use requirements in the ORBES region would not
change much from the dispersed siting case (Scenario la), although fewer
counties would be involved and different land types would be affected.
Concentrated siting would cause more terrestrial ecosystem impacts, however,
than would dispersed siting.
0 Policies encouraging concentrated facility siting would not
reduce the total land requirements in the ORBES region to any
appreciable extent. For example, total land use conversion for
generating facilities would be approximately the same under the
149
-------
concentrated siting case and the dispersed siting case. However,
because of changes in the geography of the siting patterns, land
use conversions within major categories would change.
0 Concentrated siting would result 1n a small increase (3 per-
cent) in forest land conversion from the conversion required
under dispersed siting (64,200 acres). The ORBES state portion
requiring the most forest conversion under concentrated siting
would be Ohio—a 9 percent increase over the amount required
under dispersed siting in that state portion (8,800 acres).
• Very strict air quality regulations with dispersed siting would
require land in 65 counties; very strict air quality regulations
with concentrated siting would require land in 29 counties.
• Concentrated siting would result in slightly greater ecological
impacts regionwide (1,903 units) in 2000 than would more dispersed
siting (1,863 units).
• Terrestrial ecosystem Impacts under concentrated siting would
be greater than under dispersed siting in four ORBES state
portions: Illinois (by 1 percent), Indiana (by 10 percent),
Kentucky (by 9 percent), and West Virginia (by 5 percent).
These impacts would be less 1n Ohio (8 percent) and Pennsyl-
vania (6 percent).
Agricultural Land Protection (Scenario Ic) versus Stringent Environmental
Regulations '[Scenario" TT
Policies protecting prime agricultural lands (Scenario Ic) could be
effective in preserving these lands, but there would be a corresponding in-
crease in forest land conversion from the conversion required under the more
stringent environmental regulations case (Scenario 1). Regionwide, terres-
trial ecosystem Impacts would be about the same under both scenarios, although
very significant changes would occur in some ORBES state portions.
• Under agricultural land protection, additional energy facilities
are sited in West Virginia because of few suitable nonagricultural
sites in Ohio. As a result, 46 percent less land would be required
under the more stringent environmental regulations case. In West
Virginia, however, 67 percent more land would be required under
the former scenario than under the latter for electrical generating
facilities.
• Under agricultural land protection, less agricultural land (7 per-
cent less, or approximately 17,000 acres) would be required than
under the more stringent environmental regulations case.
0 Under agricultural land protection, 76,391 acres of forest land
would be required, compared with the 66,592 acres required under
the more stringent environmental regulations case.
0 Although siting impacts on agricultural soil productivity should
decrease under the agricultural land protection case, in the ORBES
150
-------
region overall terrestrial ecosystem impacts would be approximately
the same as in the more stringent environmental regulations case
(1,857 units versus 1.866 units). The reduction of impacts on
agricultural lands in the protection case, however, would cause
a shift in impacts by a similar magnitude to the other terrestrial
ecosystems.
• Under agricultural protection, terrestrial ecosystem impacts
in Ohio would decrease by 40 percent from the more stringent
environmental case, because of the siting shift from Ohio to
west Virginia. Consequently, impacts in West Virginia under
the agricultural protection case would be 66 percent greater
than under the more stringent regulations case.
Agricultural Land Protection ^Scenario Ic) versus Agricultural Land Protection
Concentrated sTtTng IScenarig^
The major differences in land use and terrestrial ecosystem impacts be-
tween the agricultural land protection case with dispersed siting (Scenario
Ic) and the same case with concentrated siting (Scenario Id) occur at the
state rather than the regional levels.
t The agricultural land protection case with dispersed siting and
the case with concentrated siting are very similar in their siting
patterns; each would require about 4 percent less land for electrical
generating facilities than would be required under the more stringent
environmental regulations case (Scenario 1) for the entire ORBES re-
gion.
• Scenario addition generating facilities would require land in
29 counties under concentrated siting policies and land in 55
counties under dispersed siting policies.
• The concentrated siting pattern increases the number of facilities
sited in Ohio; thus the land conversion required for electrical
generating facilities in that state portion is 58 percent greater
than the conversion required under dispersed siting.
t Within each ORBES state portion except West Virginia and Illinois,
more agricultural land would be converted under the agricultural
land protection case with concentrated siting than under the same
case with dispersed siting.
t Policies requiring concentrated siting would require 7 percent
more agricultural lands for energy facilities regionwide than
would dispersed siting.
• The agricultural land protection case with concentrated siting would
result in a 3 percent decrease regionwide from the terrestrial impacts
associated with a dispersed siting pattern. This decrease is greatest
in Kentucky (by 12 percent) and West Virginia (by 30 percent). How-
ever, concentrated siting would result in a 35 percent increase in
Ohio from those impacts that occur with dispersed siting.
151
-------
6.3 EXPORT OF ELECTRICITY FROM COAL-FIRED UNITS
Coal-Fired Export (Scenario 2a) versus Business as Usual (Scenario 2)
Under the coal-fired exports case with cooling towers (Scenario 2a),
regionwide land use requirements for electrical generating facilities and
for surface mining would increase significantly from BAU (Scenario 2) re-
quirements. Terrestrial ecosystem impacts likewise would increase signifi-
cantly.
t The coal-fired exports case would require 222,135 acres for electrical
generating facilities between 1976 and 2000, compared with 183,869
acres under BAU.
• Most of this increase in total land use requirements would occur
in the ORBES state portions of Ohio (45 percent), Pennsylvania
(20 percent), and West Virginia (65 percent)—the states nearest
the northeastern United States—the destination of the exported
electricity.
• From 1976 to 2000, 67 more new standard coal mines (48 underground
and 19 surface) would be opened in the ORBES region under the coal-
fired exports case than would be opened under BAU. In the year
2000 under the coal-fired exports case, 81 million more metric
tons of coal would be produced per year by these mines than would
be produced by the mines added under BAU.
• Because the coal-fired exports case would result in such a large
increase in the surface mining for utility coal, as many as 727,000
acres might be affected under BAU.
0 The ORBES state portion that would be most affected by surface
mining for utility coal would be Ohio (207,000 acres); the state
portion least affected would be Illinois (48,000 acres).
0 Surface mining for coal for all purposes within the ORBES region
would affect 2.5 million acres between 1976 and 2000 under the
coal-fired exports case, compared with 2.3 million acres under
BAU for the same period.
0 The increased use of coal to generate more electricity for export
would result in a 17 percent increase in regionwide terrestrial
ecosystem impacts over BAU impacts.
0 These impacts would be highest in the ORBES state portions of
Ohio (42 percent), Pennsylvania (22 percent), and West Virginia
k (65 percent), where most of the additional facilities are sited
to reduce transmission losses.
0 Because a higher potential exists under the coal-fired exports case
than under BAU for acid rain events, as well as for a possible dis-
ruption of present biogeochemical cycles, further reductions in the
primary productivity of natural and agricultural systems could occur.
152
-------
6.4 LOW AND VERY HIGH ECONOMIC GROWTH
Low Economic Growth (Scenario 5) versus Business as Usual (Scenario 2)
The differences between the low economic growth case (Scenario 5) and
the historic economic growth case, or BAU (Scenario 2), would range from
fairly significant to minor with respect to regional land use requirements
and terrestrial ecosystem impacts.
• The low economic growth case would result in a 10 percent reduc-
tion in regionwide land conversion for electrical generating
facilities from the conversion required under BAU, reflected in
about a 10 percent reduction in land requirements in every ORBES
state portion.
• Thirty-nine fewer new standard coal mines (24 underground and 15
surface) would be opened between 1976 and 2000 than would be
opened under BAU.
• By the year 2000, 68.5 million fewer tons of coal would be
produced per year than under BAU.
t By 2000 the low economic growth case would result in 9 percent
fewer regional terrestrial ecosystem impacts than the impacts
registered under BAU, ranging from 3 percent in Illinois to 18
percent in Pennsylvania.
Very High EconomicJSrowth. IScenario 5a) versus Business as Usual (Scenario 2)
Under the very high economic growth case (Scenario 5a), regional land
use conversion requirements and terrestrial ecosystem impacts would be sig-
nificantly higher than those expected under BAU (Scenario 2).
• Under the very high economic growth case (Scenario 5a), the land
conversion required by 2000 in the ORBES region for all energy
uses (generating facilities, transmission line rights-of-way,
surface mining for utility coal) would total a little over 1
million acres, or 6 percent higher than the acreage required
under BAU.
• Electrical generating facilities alone would require 18 percent
more land than under BAU; the greatest increase would occur in
West Virginia (28 percent) and the least in Illinois (10 per-
cent).
0 Sixty-four more new standard coal mines (23 underground and 41 sur-
face) would be opened between 1976 and 2000 than under BAU.
• By 2000 under very high economic growth, 125.1 million more
tons of coal would be produced per year than would be produced
under BAU.
153
-------
• By 2000 the very high economic growth case would result in 23 per-
cent more regional terrestrial ecosystem impacts than under
BAU, with the increase ranging from 15 percent in Indiana to 40
percent in Pennsylvania.
a Because of the increased total loadings of air pollutants expected
under very high economic growth conditions, a higher potential exists
than under BAU (Scenario 2) for acid rain events, as well as for a
possible disruption of present biogeochemical cycles. Such events
and disruption could lead to reduced primary productivity in natural
and agricultural systems.
Low Economic Growth (Scenario 5) versus Very High Economic Growth (Scenario 5a)
a Regional land use requirements and terrestrial ecosystem impacts would
be significantly higher under the very high economic growth case than
under the low growth case.
• Regionwide, by the year 2000, the very high economic growth case
would require about 52,000 more acres (32 percent) than the low
economic growth case for electrical generating facilities; among
the ORBES state portions, the increase would range from 25 per-
cent in Illinois to 44 percent in West Virginia.
• Under very high economic growth conditions, 337 new standard coal
mines (197 underground and 140 surface) would be opened between
1976 and 2000, in comparison to the 267 standard mines (171 under-
ground and 96 surface) that would be opened under the low economic
growth case.
• By 2000, the very high economic growth case would be producing
940.6 million tons of coal per year; the low economic growth
case 747 million tons.
• The very high economic growth case would require 15 percent more
land than the low economic growth case for the surface mining of
coal for power plants and 25 percent more land for surface mining
to fill all energy needs.
• In terms of regional terrestrial ecosystem impacts, by 2000 the
very high economic growth case would result in 35 percent more
impacts than those that would be registered under the low econo-
mic growth case; the increase among the ORBES state portions
would range from 23 percent in Illinois to 70 percent in Penn-
sylvania.
6.5 VERY LOW ENERGY GROWTH
Very Low Energy Growth (Scenario 6) versus Business as Usual (Scenario 2)
In terms of land use and terrestrial ecology, the very low energy growth
case would entail the lowest land use conversion and the fewest terrestrial
ecosystem impacts of all the scenarios.
154
-------
• Land use conversion under the very low energy growth case would
amount to 104,274 acres by the year 2000, or 43 percent lower
than the amount under business as usual conditions.
• The reduction of land use requirements from BAU among the
ORBES state portions would range from 35 percent in Illinois
to 56 percent in West Virginia.
• The very low energy growth case also would result in the fewest
regional terrestrial ecosystem impacts in 2000 (1,038 assessment
units) of all scenarios; this total is 42 percent lower than under
BAU.
• All ORBES state portions would experience fewer terrestrial eco-
system impacts under the very low energy growth case, ranging
from 28 percent fewer in Illinois to 56 percent fewer in Penn-
sylvania.
6.6 HIGHER ELECTRICAL ENERGY GROWTH
High Electrical Energy Growth (Scenario 7J versus Business as Usual
(Scenario 21
The high electrical energy growth case (Scenario 7) would result in
the greatest land use conversion and the most terrestrial ecosystem impacts
of any scenario analyzed for impacts in these areas.
• Under the high electrical energy growth case, land conversion
for all energy uses (generating facilities, transmission line
rights-of-way, and surface mining for utility coal) would total
approximately 1.1 million acres (1,740 square miles) by 2000.
This acreage is 12 percent higher than under business as usual
(Scenario 2) and represents 1 percent (190,377 square miles) of
the total land in the ORBES region.
t Among the ORBES scenarios, the greatest land conversion for elec-
trical generating facilities (236,945 acres) would occur under the
high electrical energy growth case. This amount is 29 percent
higher than under BAU.
• In terms of the total land within the region (121.8 million
acres), the generating facility land requirements under the
high electrical growth case would represent only 0.2 percent;
thus, land resources do not appear to be a limitation. However,
the number of suitable sites for generating facilities could be
limited by the year 2000.
• The high electrical growth case would not result in the greatest
land requirement among scenarios in four state portions: Illinois,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
t
The high electrical energy growth case would result in the highest
regionwide terrestrial ecosystem impacts in 2000 (2,397 units) of
155
-------
of the other scenarios. This total is 33 percent higher than
under BAD.
t All ORBES state portions would experience more terrestrial
ecosystem impacts under the high electrical growth case than
under BAU. This increase would range from 18 percent in
Indiana to 60 percent in West Virginia.
• Because the high electrical energy growth case probably would result
in increased total loadings of air pollutants, a higher potential
exists than under BAU for acid rain events, as well as for a possi-
ble disruption of present biogeochemical cycles. Such events and
disruptions will lead to reduced primary productivity in natural
and agricultural systems.
6.7 ALTERNATIVES TO COAL EMPHASIS
Natural Gas Emphasis (Scenario 4) versus Business as Usual (Scenario 2)
The natural gas emphasis case (Scenario 4) would require substantially
less land conversion and result in substantially fewer impacts on terrestrial
ecosystems than would BAU (Scenario 2).
• Regionwide, the natural gas emphasis case would require 36 percent
less land for electrical generating facilities than would the BAU
case in 2000.
• Under the natural gas emphasis case, Kentucky would experience
43 percent less land requirements for electrical generating
facilities than under BAU. The Ohio portion of the ORBES
region would experience 47 percent less. These two states
would exhibit the greatest decreases of all ORBES state
portions.
• Under the natural gas emphasis case, 133 fewer new standard coal
mines would be opened between 1976 and 2000 than would be opened
under BAU. This difference represents 75 fewer underground mines
and 58 fewer surface mines.
t By 2000 under the natural gas emphasis case, 282 million fewer
tons of coal would be produced per year than would be produced
under BAU.
• Terrestrial ecosystem impacts would be 35 percent lower regionwide
in 2000 under the natural gas emphasis case than they would be
under BAU.
§ All ORBES state portions would experience a reduction from BAU
impact levels under the natural gas case, ranging from a 13
percent reduction in Illinois to a 50 percent reduction in
Pennsylvania.
156
-------
Nuclear Fuel Emphasis (Scenario2cJ versuj Business as Usual (Scenario 2)
Policies encouraging the increased use of nuclear-fueled generating
capacity (Scenario 2c) would result in slightly fewer land requirements
than under business as usual conditions (Scenario 2). Terrestrial eco-
system impacts also would be about the same under both scenarios. This
decrease is primarily due to the lower total capacity additions required
for the nuclear fuel case (96,969 MWe) than in the BAD case (104,919 MWe)
(see Table 4-2).
t The land requirements for generating facilities under the nuclear
emphasis case would be about 5 percent lower than the BAU require-
ments.
t The ORBES state portion that would be most affected by a
nuclear fuel emphasis is Illinois, which would experience an
86 percent increase in land requirement over that of BAU.
• Land requirements would decrease in West Virginia (by 13 per-
cent), Ohio (by 29 percent), Pennsylvania (by 32 percent), and
Kentucky (by 36 percent), because fewer generating facilities
would be sited in those states under nuclear emphasis than
under BAU.
• Land requirements under nuclear emphasis would be essentially
the same as those under BAU in Indiana.
• Policies that encourage increased numbers of nuclear-fueled units
would result in the highest relative conversion of agricultural
lands in comparison to all other scenarios examined--59 percent
more than under BAU.
• In the ORBES region, 11,815 acres of agricultural land would
be required under nuclear emphasis—a 17 percent increase over
BAU requirements.
t Of the total agricultural land required under an emphasis on
nuclear fuel, 39 percent would be in Illinois.
• Among all scenarios, the lowest relative conversion (31 percent) of
forest land in the ORBES region would occur under the nuclear fuel
emphasis case. This forest conversion would be 13 percent lower than
BAU conversion.
• Under the nuclear fuel emphasis case, 128 fewer new standard coal
mines would be opened than would be opened under BAU. This reduc-
tion includes 90 fewer underground mines and 38 fewer surface mines.
• By 2000 under nuclear emphasis, 162.9 million fewer tons of
coal would be produced per year than would be produced under
BAU.
157
-------
• Regionwlde, the emphasis on nuclear power would result 1n slightly
fewer terrestrial ecosystem impacts in 2000 as under BAU (1,786
units versus 1,804 units).
t Within the region under nuclear emphasis, the ORBES state
portion of Illinois would experience 91 percent more terres-
trial ecosystem impacts than under BAU because that state's
favorable policies toward nuclear energy would allow many
additional units to be sited there.
• Less favorable policies toward nuclear energy in Kentucky and
West Virginia would result in no nuclear units being sited.
Thus, under nuclear emphasis, there would be 37 percent fewer
terrestrial ecosystem impacts in Kentucky and 44 percent fewer
in Wast Virginia than under BAU.
0 Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio would also experience fewer terres-
trial ecosystem impacts under nuclear emphasis than they would
under BAU.
Nuclear-Fueled Exports (Scenario 6) versus Business as Usual (Scenario 2)
The use of nuclear-fueled units to supply additional capacity required
for export to northeastern states will require greater land use requirements
than the business as usual case.
• Energy conversion facility land requirements for the nuclear-fueled
export scenario would be 217,975 acres or 19 percent more than under
BAU.
t ORBES state portion land requirement increases would be greatest
in Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (49 percent). Most of the
nuclear-fueled export additions are sited in those states because
of their favorable nuclear energy policies and to minimize trans-
mission line losses.
0 Under the nuclear-fueled export case, terrestrial ecosystem impacts
would increase 20 percent over the business as usual case, from 1,804
assessment units to 2,166 assessment units.
0 Terrestrial ecosystem impacts under the nuclear-fueled export case
would be greatest in Ohio (51 percent) and Pennsylvania (50 percent).
0 Impacts would be 1 percent lower than BAU in Kentucky and West
Virginia under the nuclear-fueled export case.
Alternative Fuels Emphasis (Scenario 3) versus Business as Usual (Scenario 2)
Policies encouraging the use of alternative energy sources (Scenario 3)
would result in decreases from business as usual (Scenario 2) land requirements
for conventional energy conversion facilities. Total ecological impacts also
would be lower under alternative emphasis than under BAU.
158
-------
• Under the alternative fuel emphasis case in the year 2000, the
land converted for all conventional energy uses (generating
facilities, transmission line rights-of-way, and surface mining
for utility coal) would total 896,897 acres in the ORBES region.
This total is 10 percent lower than BAU conversions. However,
the amount of land required for the alternative sources has not
been analyzed. Indeed, the total land requirements for the
alternative fuel emphasis case might not be very different from
those of the scenarios requiring conventional fuels.
• Because fewer coal-fired facilities would be required under the
alternative fuel emphasis case, total land conversion for coal-
fired facilities would be 14 percent lower than under BAU.
• Under the alternative fuel emphasis case, 78 fewer new standard
coal mines would be opened between 1976 and 2000 than would be
opened under BAU. This reduction represents 46 fewer underground
mines and 32 fewer surface mines.
• By 2000 under the alternative fuel case, 115.5 million fewer
metric tons of coal would be produced per year than would be
produced under BAU.
• From 1976 to 2000 under the alternative fuel emphasis case, the
surface mining of coal for generating facilities would affect
622,000 acres; this is 51,000 acres (8 percent) less than under
BAU.
• Regional terrestrial ecosystem impacts would be 29 percent lower
in 2000 under the alternative fuel emphasis case than under BAU.
• The reduction from BAU impact levels under an alternative fuel
emphasis would range among the ORBES state portions from 6 per-
cent in Illinois to 27 percent in Pennsylvania.
• However, since alternative technology units were not sited in
this study, total ecological impacts under an alternative
emphasis might be higher than suggested here.
159
-------
REFERENCES
Ackerman, K. 1975. Rare and Endangered Vertebrates of Illinois. Illinois
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Environmental Science.
Anderson, D.M. and C.C. King (eds.). 1976. Environmental Analysis of Central
Ohio-An Initial Approximation, Map Folio. Ohio Biological Survey, Colum-
bus.
Babcock, J. V. 1977. Endangered Plants and Animals of Kentucky. College of
Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Barnes, W. B. Undated. Indiana Nature Preserves. (Reprinted from "Outdoor
Indiana"). Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature
Preserves, Indianapolis.
Bolin, B. 1970. The carbon cycle. Scientific American, 223(3):124-32.
Broecker, W. S., T. Takahashi, H. J. Simpson, T. H. Peng. 1979. Fate of
fossil fuel carbon dioxide and the global carbon budget. Science 206:
409-418.
Cardi, V. 1979. West Virginia Baseline. Ohio River Basin Energy Study.
Urbana, Illinois.
Cronan, C. S. and C. L. Schofield. 1979. Aluminum leaching response to
acid precipitation: effects on high-elevation watersheds in the north-
east. Science 204:304.
Delwiche, C. C. 1970. The nitrogen cycle. Scientific American, 223 (3):
137-146.
Dinger, B. E. 1976. Non-radiological effects on terrestrial environs.
In, R. A. Karamand and K. Z. Morgan (eds.) Environmental Impacts of
Nuclear Power Plants. Pergamon Press, New York. pp. 52-108.
Dvorak, A. J. 1977. The Environmental Effects of Using Coal for Generating
Electricity. Argonne National Laboratory and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Eaton, J. S., G. E. Likens and F. H. Borman. 1973. Throughfall and stem-
flow chemistry in a northern hardwood forest. J. Ecol. 61:495-508.
Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. 1976-79. Box score of species
listings. Vols. I-IV. Endangered Species Program. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
Evers, R. A. and L. M. Page. 1977. Some Unusual Natural Areas in Illinois.
Biological Notes No. 100. Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana.
Fowler, G. L., J. C. Randolph, and R. E. Bailey. 1980. The Ohio River
Basin Energy Facility Siting Model. Ohio River Basin Energy Study
Phase II, Grant Nos. EPA R805588, R805589, and R805609 (forthcoming).
160
-------
Granat, L., H. Rodhe, and R. 0. Hallberg. 1976. The Global Sulphur Cycle.
In, B. H. Swensson and R. Soderlund (eds.) Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
Sulphur-Global Cycles SCOPE Report 7, Ecol. Bulletin, Stockholm. 22:
89-134.
Herrick, J. A. 1974. The Natural Areas Project-A Summary of Data to Date.
Informative Circular No. 1. Ohio Biological Survey, The Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Illinois Department of Conservation. 1978a. Illinois Department of Con-
servation Recreational Areas. Springfield.
Illinois Department of Conservation. 1978b. Illinois Natural Areas Survey.
Natural Areas Section, Springfield.
Illinois Department of Conservation. Undated. Public Hunting Areas in
Illinois. Springfield.
Illinois Nature Preserve Commission. 1977. Preserving Illinois' Natural
Heritage, Biennial Report 1975-1976. Rockford.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1975. Public Access Sites and
State Fishing Areas on Lakes and Streams in Indiana. Indianapolis.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1978. Indiana State Beaches,
State Parks, State Recreation Areas and State Memorials. Division of
State Parks, Indianapolis.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1978. Non-game and endangered
species conservation, a preliminary report. Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indianapolis.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Individual Maps of
Indiana State Forests. Forestry Division, Indianapolis.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Undated. List of Indiana natural
areas and nature preserves, by county, map number, name of area and
state division, ownership, priority and type, acreage and location.
(Mimeo). Division of Nature Preserves, Indianapolis.
Indiana University, The Ohio State University, and Purdue University. 1977.
Preliminary Technology Assessment Report, Vol. II-A, 3 pts. Ohio River
Basin Energy Study, Phase I, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
International Atomic Energy Agency. 1975. Environmental Effects of Cooling
Systems of Nuclear Power Plants. IAEA STI/PUB 378, Vienna, Austria.
Jones, W. W. 1975. Mammal Survey at the Columbia Generating Station. In,
D. E. Willard (ed.) Documentation of Environmental Change Related to the
Columbia Electric Generating Station, IES Report 46. Institute for
Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
161
-------
Kay, G. P., J. L. Sykora and M. A. Shapiro. 1979. Pennsylvania Baseline,
Part 2. Ohio River Basin Energy Study. Urbana, Illinois.
Kentucky Conservation Needs Inventory Committee. 1970. Kentucky Soil and
Water Conservation Needs Inventory. Lexington.
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 1977. Places to Hunt -
A Guide to Public Hunting Areas in Kentucky. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Parks. 1978a. Facilities Guide - Kentucky State
Parks and Shrines. Frankfort.
Kentucky Department of Parks. 1978b. Kentucky Recreation Facilities Inven-
tory. Division of Planning and Grants, Frankfort.
Kitchlngs, J. T., H. H. Shugart, and J. D. Story. 1972. Environmental
Impacts Associated with Electrical Transmission Lines. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Likens, G. E., F. H. Boman, N. M. Johnson, D. W. Fisher, and R. S. Pierce.
1970. Effests of forest cutting and herbacide treatment on nutrient
budgets in the Hubbard Brook watershed-ecosystem. Ecol. Monogr. 40:23-47.
Undsey, A. A., D. V. Schmelz, and S. A. Nichols. 1969. Natural Areas in
Indiana and Their Preservation. Indiana Natural Areas Survey, Department
of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, Lafayette.
Loucks, 0., T. V. Armentano, R. Usher, W. Williams, R. W. Miller, and L. Wong.
1980. Sub-injurious Effects of Gaseous Sulphur and Nitrogen Emissions and
Their Conversion Products on Crops and Forests in the Ohio River Basin
States. Ohio River Basin Energy Study Phase II, Champaign, Illinois.
Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W. B. Saunders Company, Phila-
delphia.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1976a. Ohio State Forests-Areas and
Facilities. Division of Forestry, Columbus.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1976b. Boating Areas. Division of
Watercraft, Columbus.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1976c. Endangered Wild Animals in
Ohio. Publication 316. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Columbus.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1977a. Fishing and Hunting Areas.
Division of Wildlife, Columbus.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1977b. Ohio State Parks - Discover
Ohio Naturally. Division of Parks and Recreation, Columbus.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1978. Directory of State Nature
Preserves. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Columbus.
162
-------
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Individual Maps of Ohio
Wildlife Areas. Division of Wildlife, Columbus.
Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee. 1971. Ohio Soil and
Water Conservation Needs Inventory. Columbus.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1975a. State/Federal
Recreation Areas - COWAMP Study Area 8. Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1975b. State Recreation
Areas - COWAMP Study Area 9. Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1977. "Pennsylvania
State Parks." Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania Soil Conservation Service. 1970. "The Pennsylvania Soil and
Water Conservation Needs Inventory." Morgantown.
Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. 1968. "Indiana Soil and
Water Conservation Needs Inventory." Purdue University, Lafayette.
Reiners, W. A. May, 1972. A summary of the world carbon cycle and recommen-
dation for critical research. In, G. Woodwell and E. V. Pecan (eds.)
Carbon and the Biosphere, Brookhaven symposium in Biology.
Science. 1979. C02 in climate: gloomsday predictions have no fault. Science
206:912-913.
Smith, F. 1974. Cycles of Elements. In, G. W. Cox (ed.) Readings in Conser-
vation Ecology. Appleton Century Crofts, New York. pp. 623-652.
Smith, T. W., 0. C. Jenkins, J. S. Steinhart, K. A. Briody, and D. Schoengold.
1977. "Transmission Lines: Environmental and Public Policy Considerations."
Institute for Environmental Studies. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Soderlund, R. and B. H. Swensson. 1976. The Global Nitrogen Cycle. In,
B. H. Swensson and R. Soderlund (eds.) Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulphur -
Global Cycles. SCOPE Report 7. Ecol. Bull. 22:23.
Stine, D. M. 1977. An Inventory of Parks, Unique Areas, and Habitats in
Kentucky. ME Thesis. University of Louisville, Louisville.
Stukel, James J. and B. R. Keenan. 1977. ORBES Phase I: Interim Findings.
Interagency Energy-Environmental Research and Development Program Report,
EPA 700/7-77-120, Grant No. EPA R805848. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
The Nature Conservancy. 1976. Kentucky Chapter, The Nature Conservancy,
Critical Areas.
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle and at Urbana-Champaign. 1977.
Preliminary Technology Assessment Report, Vol. II-C. Ohio River Basin
Energy Study, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
163
------- |