OKDES
A LAND DSL ANALYSIS
OF EXISTING AND SMJTLNTIAL
COAL SURFACL MINING ARMS IN TIIL
OHIO RIVtR BASIN LNLRGY STUDY KI-.fUON
PHASE II
OHIO RIVER DASIH EKERGY STUDY
-------
November 1980
A LAND USE ANALYSIS
OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL
COAL SURFACE MINING AREAS IN THE
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY REGION
By
Daniel E. Willard
Michael A. Ewert
Mary Ellen Hogan
Jeffrey D. Martin
Environmental Systems Application Center
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana 47405
Prepared for
Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES)
Subcontract Under Prime Contract R805588
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
PREFACE
This study was designed to provide the ORBES Core Team with information
on existing and potential impacts of surface mining on land use. The general
reader will find that historical facts and our interpretation of federal
surface mine regulation are largely self-contained. Other issues, particu-
larly those dealing with the future, draw heavily from other ORBES work and
should be best understood with concurrent consultation with other ORBES
reports, particularly the Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES): Main
Report.
As a cautionary note, however, a few of our assumptions deviate from
those of other ORBES work slightly, and our analyses of ORBES Scenarios are
limited to four. These factors result from differences in the official time
frames between our research and certain other aspects of ORBES work. Our
main research phase concluded July 31, 1979 with small modifications being
made to November 30, 1979. Our assumptions differ from those of some other
ORBES reports as follows:
1) We refer to low sulfur coal as having 1% sulfur or less as
opposed to 1.8% or less. This difference does not modify
our scenario work.
2) We designated a portion of our utility coal as originating
in counties with major surface reserves. All coal to be
used by future power plants, however, corresponds to coal
assignments elsewhere in ORBES work.
A number of people provided substantial assistance in producing this
report.
Susan Eggert assumed the major responsibility of compiling data on
surface mine production and affected acreages for the various counties.
Margaret Cockburn extracted a portion of the data needed from surface
mining permits in Ohio.
Craig Caupp and Joel Wagner assisted in the field by collecting data
during visits to 35 sites. Caupp also contributed to the literature search
and Wagner provided a portion of the graphics.
Virginia Gleason of the Bituminous Coal Research Institute provided
valuable library assistance. Walt Hausemeuler of the Indiana Geological
Survey furnished information on coal production. Don Blome of the Univer-
sity of Kentucky Institute for Mining and Mineral Research served as a
valuable consultant at various points during the project. We thank
William W. Oliver of the Indiana University Law School for arranging a
-------
visit to an active surface mine. Gary Fowler and Steve Jansen of the
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle made computer production of
several of our figures possible.
Ann McMillan edited several of the drafts of this report. The following
persons typed portions of one or more drafts: Stephanie Collins, Carolyn
Douglas, Carla Laymon, Judy Perkins, Sheila Lewis, Becky Miller, Jolane
Moneyhim. Cathy Partenhelmer typed the final draft.
The authors assume responsibility for any mistakes which may remain.
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
The land use changes resulting from the surface mining of coal in
the Ohio River Basin depend on the distribution of the coal, the econo-
mic attractiveness of the coal, demand, rigor and effectiveness of
regulatory mechanisms, and the resilience of the existing ecosystems.
This study assumes three levels of coal demand taken from ORBES scenarios.
The study analyzes existing industrial and governmental data on distri-
bution, availability, and extraction of strippable coal. The history
of reclamation enforcement and compliance is examined and several poten-
tial land use results of the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 are analyzed. All of these factors are compared to existing
patterns of topography, agriculture, and forestry. Results indicate that
surface disruption per ton of coal is greater in the Appalachian Basin
than in the Eastern Interior Basin. Further, restoration as a result of
reclamation appears to occur on the average more rapidly and cheaply in
the Eastern Interior Basin because farmland uses, most common in the
Eastern Interior Basin, are also more adaptive to quick restoration than
is the forest cover typical of the Appalachian basin. The various scenarios
when compared show little difference in Ohio Basin wide impacts. However,
each scenario supports a pattern of significant variation from state to
state as a result of differences in topography and land use.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of a subcontract to Indiana
University under Prime Contract EPA R805588010 between the University of
Illinois and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
covers the period 1 January 1978 to 31 July 1979 with all research com-
pleted as of 30 November 1979 and the semi-final draft completed as of
30 April 1980.
-------
CONTENTS
Preface iii
Abstract v
Contents vii
Technical Report 1
1. Introduction 1
2. Coal Mining Areas of the ORBES Region 3
3. State Regulation of Surface Mining 5
Historical Development of Surface Mining Activity 5
Historical Facts about State Surface Mining Regulation 7
Evidence Concerning the Success of State Regulations 7
4. Possible Impacts of Federal Surface Mine Regulation on Lane Use . . 15
Introduction 15
Federal Regulatory Scheme 15
Regrading 17
Revegetation 18
Prime Farmland 19
Steep Slope Mining and Mountaintop Removal 20
Response of the Coal Industry 22
Legal Footnotes and References . 28
5. Quantitative Data on Coal Reserves and Mining Activity 35
Mineable Coal Reserves 35
History of Surface Mine Production 35
Recent Surface Production 39
Geographical Relationships Between Strippable Reserves and
Surface Mining Activity 39
Total Affected Acreage by County 42
Coal Refuse Areas 44
Land Area Requirements for Surface Mine Production 44
6. Surface Land Use in the Regions of Surface-Mining Activity and
Potential 51
Introduction 51
Agriculture 51
Forestry 54
7. Quantitative Land Classification 55
Introduction 55
Land Capability Class 1 55
Land Capability Classes 7 and 8 55
Flat Lands: 0.25% Slope 58
Steep Slope Lands: >25%, >30% Slope Depending on State 58
-------
8. Application of ORBES Scenarios: Future Coal Production for All
Purposes 61
Introduction 61
Ratios of Surface to Underground Mining 62
Ratios of Land Area to Production 64
Land Area Affected by Total Surface Production 64
9. Application of ORBES Scenarios: Coal Production for ORBES Scenarios
Power Plants 66
Introduction 66
Affected Lands 71
Interactions between Surface Mining, Prime Farmlands, and
Steep Slopes 71
10. Capsul Review of Past and Present Reclamation 84
Introduction 84
Quality of the Data 84
Lands Mined Prior to 1977 85
Changes 1n Land Use Resulting from Surface Mining . 97
Rates of Recovery 97
Agricultural Productivity 100
Visits to Field Sites 103
Reclamation in the Future Ill
Summary 114
Literature Cited 116
Personal Communications 125
vm
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Coal constitutes the fuel for 90% of electrical generation in Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania (Page, 1979).
Future development will continue this trend. Electrical growth rate has
slowed during the past decade and environmental regulation has shifted
emphasis to lower sulfur western coals. However, the widespread use of
scrubbers and development of synthetic fuel from coal in the east and an
increasing demand for other uses for water in the west can reverse this
trend.
Only 18% of the ORBES strippable reserves have been mined, but this has
affected more than 1,600,000 acres (2,500 square miles, 1.3% of the ORBES
region). At least 4,000,000 acres (3.3%) of the ORBES region are underlain
with strippable coal. The surface conditions above the coal, economic value
of the coal and the regulatory practices in various portions of the region
all vary. Thus, we considered all three in this paper. Because all three
are uncertain we applied several ORBES scenarios to predict high, low and
moderate results. The scenarios were not picked as being particularly likely
but rather to show the limits of potential impact.
Throughout this report we are concerned with both the changes in land
use and the amount of time land is unavailable for any useful purpose.
These depend on coal demand by location, the effectiveness of the regulatory
process and the ecological capability of the land to recover. Each of these
is interrelated and is carried through the entire paper. All three contain
some inherent uncertainty as well. A particular regulation may change the
economics of coal in a certain area so that it becomes profitable enough to
reclaim after mining. Similarly, the ecological capability affects the
reclamation costs. Graphically, the interrelation seems straight forward
(Figure 1-1). Demand for coal generally or for a particular coal may in-
crease seam value. This would be the logical trend with an increased demand
for electrical utility energy. Thus, with more value there can follow higher
customer charges and more gross proceeds to spend on reclamation.
reclamation cost
less ^\ ./more
feasible/A feasible
seam value
Figure 1-1. Seam Value vs. Reclamation Cost
1
-------
Either new technology or weaker requirements may reduce recovery costs.
Ecological capability is more fixed and dependent on location. Thus,
we developed the following objectives:
Objectives
A. Summarize the available literature on land involvement in
surface mining in the ORBES region, reclamation practices
and successes, ecosystems present on such lands, and their
use by people.
B. Conduct field work to evaluate the accuracy of the literature
and to complete our Information in poorly documented areas.
C. Examine and compare the success of the regulatory processes
for surface mine reclamation in each ORBES state, and pre-
dict the pattern of regulation under the Federal Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
D. Develop a method to integrate historic influences on land
use with potential impacts of the SMCRA and the ORBES scen-
arios.
E. Apply the method using scenarios which have high, moderate and
low coal demand to evaluate future trends in land use.
F. Report this study to the ORBES Core Team.
At this writing (January, 1980), the relation of state processes and
the Federal SMCRA are very unclear and changing rapidly. In the last week,
January 13-20, the Office of Surface Mining temporarily withdrew some of
the new regulations dealing with exempting some operators from restoring
Prime Farmland and bonding. OSM 1s being challenged in court by operators
such as Peabody Coal Company and environmental groups such as the National
Wildlife Federation. Our findings are sensitive to the outcome of these
negotiations.
-------
2. COAL MINING AREAS OF THE ORBES REGION
Coal resources are distributed unevenly throughout the ORBES region.
These irregularities greatly affect the location of potential changes in
land use. Data on reserves can imply where mining may occur; data on
production indicate where various levels of activity have occurred. Natu-
rally, we can expect to find effects upon land use where mining has occurred,
is about to occur, or will occur eventually.
Within the ORBES region lie portions of two geographically separated
coal fields, the Eastern Interior Basin and the Appalachian Basin
(Figure 2-1). The coal in both basins is entirely bituminous in form,
with heating values ranging from 10,500 to 14,000 btu's per pound. Commer-
cially valuable seams with a high percentage of fixed carbon become more
abundant from west to east, and are most abundant in eastern West Virginia
and Eastern Kentucky.
-------
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY PHASE II
Figure 2-1 ORBES COAL FIELDS
* ' * • y\ * ' / *'
4 , " t f, *
fflJ/Juffi-:»:::':'X::::-!w:-:-:% '.'*
^ALACHIAN
^^^^^
^EASTERN
INTERIOR
BASINl
^B"'.--.'
Source : Adapted From COAL FIELDS of the UNITKD STATES by James Trumbull.1960.
-------
3. STATE REGULATION OF SURFACE MINING1
Laws become weak without a system of enforcement to back them. The
Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is more
restrictive than pre-existing state laws, that is, more insistent on com-
plete reclamation to the original topography. Not only do states have
their own regulations but also their own enforcement agencies, and rigor of
the law and the rigor of compliance may vary. We recognize that adequate
reclamation may not follow future mining activity throughout the ORBES
region. In using the past as an indicator of the future, three features
of importance include the history of mining activity, the history of state
legislation and evidence of compliance or noncompliance with state law.
Historical Development of Surface Mining Activity
Surface mining developed gradually throughout the ORBES region. In
the early 1900's, production was generally so low and scattered that much
of the mined tonnage may not have been recorded. For instance, the date
when any state produced its first million tons is probably unknown. In
most states annual rates of production rose steadily, and by 1922 the U.S.
Bureau of Mines was publishing annual reports of surface mine production
in its Minerals Yearbook series. Except for West Virginia, which experi-
enced a decline in surface mine production during the 1930's, production
in the other states continued to increase into the mid-1940's as did the
demand for coal and technological advances in mining equipment.
Table 3-1 lists dates marking cumulative production of the first 10
and 100 million tons of surface-mined coal in the ORBES portions of the
states. The dates marking production of 10 million tons may be a few
years behind the actual year due to the aforementioned lags in record
keeping. By the time 100 million tons were produced, annual increments
were so large that the listed years are either correct or within one year
of the actual year. It is clear that Illinois and Indiana have relatively
long histories of surface mine production while Ohio and Pennsylvania
follow closely. Kentucky-East is a newcomer, where dramatic increases in
production have occurred during the 1960's.
section was completed in July, 1979.
-------
Table 3-1
Dates Marking 10 Million and 100 Million Tons of
Cumulative Surface Mine Production'
o>
Eastern Mid-Continental Basin
Appalachian Basin
State
Illinois3
Indiana
Kentucky - West
10 Million
Tons
Date
1925
1923
1946
Years
B.P.2
55
57
37
100 Million
Tons
Date
1939
1939
1954
Years
B.P.2
41
41
26
State
Kentucky - East
Ohio
Pennsylvania3
West Virginia3
10 Million
Tons
Date
1951
1920
1926
1943
Years
B.P.2
29
60
54
37
100 Million
Tons
Date
1968
1945
1945
1949
Year
B.P.'
12
35
35
31
Sources for computation: Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, 1955; Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbooks, for 1915-1975; Kentucky, Currens and Smith,
1977; Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1956.
2Years before 1980.
30RBES counties only.
-------
Counties which stand out as having a long and productive history of
surface mining include Fulton and Perry Counties, Illinois; Pike and Warrick
Counties, Indiana; Muhlenberg County, Kentucky; Belmont, Jefferson and
Harrison Counties, Ohio; and Clarion and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania.
The structure of the mining industry differs from state to state and
region to region (Walls et al., 1979). Table 3-2 reflects these differences
in terms of the numbers of surface-mining permits issued for large vs. small
mining operations. In the last decade all states have required all signifi-
cant operations to have permits. The greatest contrast occurs between
Illinois and Indiana, where large mines equal or outnumber small mines,
and eastern Kentucky and Pennsylvania, where small mines outnumber large
mines. For enforcement purposes eastern Kentucky and Pennsylvania, in con-
trast to Illinois and Indiana, would require greater facilities due to their
ten-fold greater number of permits and operations.
Historical Facts about State Surface Mining Regulation
Regulatory programs have varied from state to state (Table 3-3). Clearly,
some states took 20 years longer than others to pass any form of reclamation
law at all, and the lags did not correspond to surface-mining activity (e.g.,
Illinois vs. Pennsylvania). However, for eight or more years, all states
have had laws aimed at significant restoration of mined lands. This capa-
bility has included preparation of a pre-mining reclamation plan. Thus,
the ORBES states have the experience for understanding the federal law and
complying with it both within the state regulatory agencies and the mining
industry.
Five of the six states permitted an option in which operators could
elect to reclaim a distrubed parcel of land other than the one which they
had mined. For such an option there had to be an abundance of orphaned, un-
reclaimed land available, as often was the case. Table 3-4 indicates that
this option remained effective for about 20 years in four of the six states.
A major argument favoring the option was that spoils from recently mined
land needed several years of weathering before vegetation could grow on them.
But it had negative aspects. The operators did not mine and prepare land
to facilitate reclamation. Responsibility for a particular piece of land
was obscured, and land which was most difficult to reclaim tended to remain
unreclaimed. Some agency files were such that an outsider could have a
difficult time determining responsibility for a given piece of land.
Evidence Concerning the Success of State Regulations
Successful reclamation can be defined two ways. Were the laws satisfied?
Or, was the land reclaimed? On the one hand the law may be enforced but rules
are loose and the product tends to be shoddy; on the other, the law may be
stringent but unenforced. Table 3-5 concerns these issues. This table in-
-------
eludes the relative amount of recent mining activity, the percentage of land
covered by law and adequately reclaimed, and a ratio of citations to permits.
The first Index 1s Column #4 which Is the ratio of Column #3 to Column #2.
If considerable mining activity 1s recent, much land covered by law may be
legally unreclaimed due to Insufficient time for reclamation. If little
mining activity 1s recent, much of the acreages should be reclaimed but
possibly under lax versions of the law.
In Column #5, "Reclamation Ratio," a high ratio Indicates that either
(1) most land legally requiring reclamation has been reclaimed according to
law, or (2) that recent mining activity Is so little that the acreage requiring
reclamation Is so trivial as to be overshadowed by natural, voluntary, and
compliance reclamation occurring over many years. A low ratio may mean poor
legal standards, non-compliance or a large amount of recently mined acres 1n
the process of being legally reclaimed.
Columns #4 and #5 taken 1n conjunction, narrow the possibilities. The
figures for Indiana suggest an early history in which less attention was
paid to reclamation. The figures for eastern Kentucky suggest that recent
disturbance may be an Important factor; Kentucky's law may be effective and
working. In West Virginia reclamation appears to be succeeding much better
than In Indiana. The first laws in both states are about equally old. How-
ever, West Virginia never had an alternative lands option for reclamation.
Finally, the SCS standards (that 1s, our source) may differ slightly (due to
natural topographic contrasts, Figures 7-3 and 7-4), in which case the ob-
server is not impartial.
Columns #6, #7 and #8 concern enforcement. Citation rate (Column #8)
varies from state to state. It is possible that law enforcement was not
equal among the states for the period covered. However, alternative explana-
tions are (1) that the type of violation requiring a citation varies from
one state to the next, or (2) that the surface-mining industry is more edu-
cated in some states than in others. If we assume that medium to large mine
operators are more experienced and have more technical resources than small
operators, then the low citation rates in Illinois and possibly Indiana may
be explained by operator experience.
8
-------
Table 3-2
Numbers of Surface Mining Permits and Mines
Eastern Interior
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky-West
Approximate Number
of Permits Issued
Annually*
403
150
170
Number of Surface Mines in 19752
Large Mines Small Mines
Total (>500tOOO tons) (<10,000 tons)
374
60
155
18
13
17
3
13
51
Appalachian
Kentucky-East
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
930_
4503
1,100
250
1,350
315
703
369
6
11
7
2
527
64
213
79
'Sources of permit data: Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, 1976-1978
(Annual Reports, Surface-Mined Land Conservation and Reclamation); Indiana De-
partment of Natural Resources, unpublished data; Kentucky Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection, computer printout of permit data; Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, tally of permit files; Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources, Richard R. Thompson, personal communication; West
Virginia Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data.
2source:
1975.
II. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook for
3These permits may include numerous amended acreages in addition to the original
acreage permitted.
4The number of mine locations is about 70.
-------
Table 3-3
Surface Mining Regulatory History By State
1
STATE
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
KENTUCKY
OHIO
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
FIRST REGULATORY PERMIT AND
ACT BONDING REQUIREMENT
1962'
1941*
1954
1948
1945
13
18
23
1962
c
1941"
1954
1948
1945'
1939
28
1939
14
19
24
29
INITIAL GRADING , PREMINING RECLAMATION
REQUIREMENT EXTENSIVE^GRADING PLAN PREREQUISITE TO
(STRIKE-OFF) REQUIREMENT PERMIT
1962^
1951
1954
1948'
1945
1945
10
15
,20
25
30
1971'
1968
1964
19*9
1953
1963
11
16
21
,26
31
1971
1968
1964
1965
1963
1967
12
17
22
27
32
1 All dates are effective dates of the specific legislative acts.
2 Extensive grading includes grading to rolling topography, original contour or any reduction of spoil
pile peaks and ridges that is not characterized as "strike-off."
3 Open Cut Land Reclamation Act, 1961 111. Acts. Effective January 1, 1962.
4 IBID., §1(4) made a permit necessary for surface mining in Illinois. §8 required a $200 per acre bond
[51,000 minimum) as a prerequisite for the permit.
IBID., §6(a) required grading to rolling topography adjacent to public highways. Elsewhere, spoil piles
would be struck off to make a plateau not less than 10' wide (pasture) or cropland grading capable of being
transversed by farm machinery.
6 Surface-Mined Land Conservation and Reclamation Act, 1971 111. Acts. §6(a) required grading to a rolling
topography with slopes no more than 15% grade unless the post-mining land use mandates more slope. However,
no slope will be required to be greater than 30* or less than original grade. Effective September 17, 1971.
IBID.. §5(e) 14
-------
8 1941 Ind. Acts, Chapter 68 . Effective February 28, 1941.
9 IjBID. , §3 required surface mining operators in Indiana to have a permit. §7 required a bond of $25 per acre
($125 minimum) as a prerequisite for permit.
1951 Ind. Acts, Chapter 129 §4(b). Operator shall work any unsightly ridges by striking off to 8' width.
Any isolated peaks shall be struck off to a minimum of 15'. Effective July 1, 1951.
1967 Ind. Acts, Chapter 344 §6(a). Operators were required to reduce peaks and ridges and diminish depressions
to a rolling topography. Effective January 1, 1968.
12 IBID. , §5(b) (vii).
13 1954 Ky. Acts, Chapter 8. Effective July 1, 1954.
IDID., §6(1) made permits necessary for surface mining. §6(4) required a bond between $100-250 per acre.
IBIJ3. , §9(5) required.operators to "grade spoil banks" with no further elaboration of the requirements.
1964 Ky. Acts, Chapter 61 §4(1)(e) required gradinn to a "rolling topography to be defined by regulation."
^ Effective March 19, 1964.
17 IBID., §3(4).
18 Strip Coal Mining Act, 1947 Ohio Laws. Effective January 1, 1948.
IBID., §4 requires a permit to surface mine in Ohio. §5 requires a $100 bond per acre ($1,000 minimum).
2^ IBID. , §4 also requires that the operator strike, off spoil piles to a width of 15'.
21
Coal Strip Mine Land Reclamation Act, 1949-1950 Ohio Laws. §898-232(A) requires the operator to grade surface
of spoil banks to gently rolling topography. Any isolated peaks must be graded to a level surface with a
width of at least 20'. Effective July 23, 1949.
22 1965 Ohio Laws. Effective August 19, 1965.
23 Bituminous Coal Open Pit Mining Conservation Act, 1945 Pa. Laws. Effective May 31, 19^5.
IDID., §1 requires both permit and bond of $200 per acre (minimum $2,000).
pc
3 IBID., §10 requires that peaks and ridges of spoil banks be leveled and rounded off to permit planting of
vecetation.
-------
1953 Pa. Laws. §5 requires operator to backfill to 15' of public highway right of way boundary and provide
lateral support at an angle not greater than 40°. Effective August 19, 1953.
27 1963 Pa. Laws. Effective July 16, 1963.
28 1939 W. Va. Acts, Chapter 84. Effective June 11, 1939.
IBID., §1 requires a permit and bond of $150 per acre (no minimum amount).
1945 W. Va. Acts. Chapter 85 §4(5) requires regrading overburden so as to refill any ditches and trenches.
Effective March 10, 1945.
1963 W. Va. Acts. Chapter 139 §2(a) requires grading to a rolling topography and minimizing the number of
large rocks. Effective July 1, 1963.
32 1967 W. Va. Acts, Chapter 45 §20-6-9. Effective July 1, 1967.
-------
Table 3-4
Alternative Land Reclamation Option
STATE
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
KENTUCKY
OHIO
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
Starting Date
1
January 1, 1962J
February 28, 19414
June 1, 19545
January 1, 19487
May 31, 19458
none
Ending Date2
September 16, 1971
December 31, 1967
August 2, 19776
April 9, 1972
December 31, 1964
none
Duration
9 yrs., 9 months
26 years, 10 months
23 years, 2 months
24 years, 3 months
18 years, 7 months
none
1
Effective date of state law providing for alternative land reclamation option.
Last effective date for state law containing this option.
Open Cut Land Reclamation Act, 1961 111. Acts.
41941 Ind. Acts, Chapter 68.
51954 Ky. Acts, Chapter 8.
6SMCRA became effective on August 3, 1977.
71947 Ohio Laws.
81945 Pa. Laws.
13
-------
Table 3-5
Indicators of the Success of the State Reclamation Laws
State
IL
IN
KY-W
KY-E
OH
PA
WV
Acres of
Historical
Total Land
Affected1
240.707
156,055
124,983
284,609
438,329
386,370
228,027
Acres of
Recent
Land Affected
(1971-1976)2
28,231
22,663
27,215
87,014
70,703
—
39,849
Recent as a
X of Historical
Total1. 3
12
14
22
31
16
—
17
Annual Number
of Operations
Reclamation or Permits
Ratio Issued5' 6
(X)1' * (1969-1972)
66
43
79
35
68
79
95
40
40
"V 875
178
560
401
Average Number .of
Annual Citations
For Non-Compliance
(1969-1972)5' 6
1.8
2.3
342
35
3,033
118
Ratio:
Citations to
Permits (X)7' 8
4
6
39
20
542
29
iAdapted to ORBES Region from U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1979.
2References listed with Table 5-4.
3provides an index of recent vs. old mining activity. If considerable mining activity is recent, much land covered
by law may be legally unreclaimed due to insufficient time for reclamation.
'•Ratio of all reclaimed land to this same land plus lands mined under law and still needing reclamation in this and
the proceeding column suggests non-compliance, lax inforcement, or lax legislation.
5Source: Council on Environmental Quality, 1973.
6The form of measure is not Identical from state to state; however, comparisons are strongly suggestive.
7Adapted from Council on Environmental Quality, 1973.
•High ratios suggest strong law enforcement effort; low ratios suggest cither good compliance p_r_ lax enforcement.
-------
4. POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF FEDERAL SURFACE MINE REGULATION ON LAND USE1
Introduction
The purpose of this section is to analyze the impacts of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) on post-mining land
use in the ORBES region. This analysis will not attempt to evaluate the
numerous specific provisions of the Act, but will focus on five aspects
of the surface-mining process that can directly affect post-mining land
use and are subject to regulatory control. These aspects include regrading
and revegetation requirements, provisions for mining on prime farmland,
and the special regulations for Steep Slope Mining and Mountaintop Removal.
[Note: Because this chapter deals extensively with legislative issues, docu-
mentation follows a legal style and appears at the end of this chapter, not
in Literature Cited or Personal Communications.]
Federal Regulatory Scheme
The implications for land use of these aspects would be meaningless
without an overall view of the SMCRA scheme for regulating surface mining
and reclamation. Congress intended to ensure that the objectives of en-
vironmental protection and reclamation are co-equal with the objective of
producing coal. To implement these primary objectives, SMCRA set up the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) within the De-
partment of the Interior to administer a two-phase program for surface mine
regulations. Under the initial phase, OSM formulated interim regulations
to be generally effective in all states that are regulating some aspect of
surface mining on the effective date of the Act. These interim regulations
have been effective since February 3, 1978, for all new surface mine opera-
tions and since May 3, 1978, for pre-existing operations. These regulations
did not implement the SMCRA permit system and only required compliance with
eight of the general performance standards.
As part of the second phase, OSM has developed regulations for a per-
manent federal regulatory scheme in the event that any state does not exer-
cise its option to develop a state regulatory program. If a state does
implement its own plan, the permanent regulations function as minimal guide-
lines.
Completed in July, 1979 and not revised since then.
15
-------
The federal regulations discussed In this analysis are the Final Rules
for the Permanent Regulatory Program.6 Unlike the Interim regulations,
these Final Rules Incorporate all of the performance standards required by
SMCRA.7
Within the SMCRA regulatory scheme, the responsibilities for land use
by surface mined areas are left to the states, subject to meeting certain
federal minimum requirements, unless the state Is unwilling or unable to
assume these responsibilities on Its own Initiative. Careful reading of
SMCRA and subsequent OSM regulations Indicates a large degree of federal
control of state programs. This control has caused concern on the part of
the coal operators that "...procedural requirements for state programs sig-
nal a drift away from the strip mine law's state lead concept"8 and live up
to the coal Industry's comment that "the federal formula Is not workable In
the fifty states and the prohibitory provisions coupled with the Invitation
for unlimited litigation and the opportunity for bureaucratic stagnation will
seriously impair the industries' ability to provide increased coal produc-
tion."9
In order to be approved by OSM, all state laws and regulations must be
"consistent" with SMCRA where consistency 1s defined as "no less stringent
than, meet the minimum requirements of and Include all applicable provisions
of the Act."10 These minimum standards can be viewed as providing long needed
uniformity in state regulations or, conversely, as one of the first massive
federal intrusions into state and local land use planning.11
With this general overview of the federal regulatory scheme In mind, we
will discuss each of the five selected regulatory provisions. These provi-
sions will be discussed with respect to their possible effects on land use
in light of field observations of past reclamation efforts, statements made
by the coal industry, and a knowledge of the ORBES state's regulatory history.
Any actual changes in land use will be the result of enforcement of the
Final Rules by OSM under a federal program or state enforcement of state law
based on the Final Rules. Enforcement will play a key role In realizing
these changes in a consistent manner throughout the ORBES region. Consistent
regional enforcement will be significant since the ORBES states fall into
three different OSM regions.12 Because an assessment of the capability of
enforcement state-by-state is beyond the scope of this analysis, we assume
uniform enforcement of the regulations as written. This assumption is con-
trary both to the known realities of bureaucratic enforcement and to the
flexibility in enforcement stressed by both OSM13 and the coal Industry.11*
The potential changes 1n land use under a strict regulatory scheme may under-
score the need for flexibility in federal enforcement and for state involve-
ment in program planning and maintenance.
16
-------
Re grading
The past 30-year history of grading requirements among the ORBES states
demonstrates a progression from minimal grading requirements of striking off
spoil ridgetops to the extensive backfilling, compacting, and grading neces-
sary to achieve "approximate original contour" under the Final Regulations15
and under some pre-SMCRA state programs (Table 3-3). This grading require-
ment is an extremely important factor in influencing post-mining land use.16
Field observations indicate a positive correlation between requirements for
grading to original contour and production of hay and alfalfa on reclaimed
lands. In some states this result is partially due to the requirement for
"quick cover" that hay and grass provide. However? it is expensive to move
the earth17 and achieve original contour, and any immediate capital return
on regraded land prior to bond release would be favorable to operators. If
regraded land is sown with wheat the first year, alfalfa and yellow sweet
clover the next year, the operator has fulfilled grading and quick cover re-
quirements in addition to harvesting wheat and hay for sale within two years
after mining (see also Chapter 10).18
As a result of regrading expense and the increased cost of land,19 many
coal companies retain the land after mining and manage it for grazing and
agricultural purposes. While short term leasing of the mineral rights is
often the rule in many states, i.e. Indiana, land retention by the operator
is becoming more common. In some cases the land management company is a
subsidiary,20 but this phenomenon is no longer limited to large operations.
Many small companies also manage or maintain the reclaimed land for the
available economic return.21
The greatest disadvantage of grading to the requirement of original
contour is that it limits the post-mining land use to uses possible prior
to mining; that is, it decreases diversity of post-mining land use. While
this requirement insures that the surface mined land will blend into the
surrounding area after mining has ceased, the value of post mining land is
often contingent on its unique characteristics of water and topography that
are the result of mining.22 For example, the stripped area around the Coal
City Club in Coal City, Illinois, consists of ungraded mounds of spoil in-
terspersed with areas of water which contrast distinctly with the surrounding
flat Illinois prairie. The area is the subject of a multi-million dollar
recreational housing development that is utilized by residents of the Chicago
area 60 miles away.23 Under the requirements for grading to original contour
this use would not be feasible. In fact, the area would be reclaimed to a
plain typical of Illinois (see also Chapter 10).
The requirement of grading to original contour effectively eliminates
some reserves from being mined, particularly reserves under certain steep
slopes where grading to original contour or mountaintop removal is not pos-
sible or economically feasible. The extent to which reserves minable
17
-------
according to pre-law criteria are affected by this grading requirement
has not been determined. However, considering the large strippable coal
reserves located in the steep terrain of Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia,
the reservation may be significant.
Summary; Strict adherence to the original contour grading requirement
will have trie following land use changes:
1. Increased hay and pasture land uses on surface-mined land.
2. Decrease in diversity of post-mining land use and emphasis on
hay and pasture uses.
3. Some Increase in coal company management of land after mining.
4. Possible reduction in strippable reserves that can be mined in
accordance with federal law.
Revegetation
SMCRA Environmental Protection Performance Standards21* affect revegeta-
tion of surface-mined land in two ways: first, by determining the type of
vegetation to be used and second, by requiring success in the revegetation
process. The vegetation must be diverse, permanent, and capable of self-
regeneration.25 In addition to these criteria, the vegetative cover must
be successful five years after seeding and fertiziling has ceased.26 There-
fore, in reyegetating a surface-mined area, the operator must not only be
concerned with what type of cover is being planted, but whether that cover
will be successful for the requisite five-year period. As a result of this
requirement, the operator must maintain a long term interest in the land
and its subsequent use.
The Permanent Regulations expand upon both of these basic requirements
by requiring that all disturbed land shall be seeded or planted to achieve
a vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety native to the area of dis-
turbed land.27 If the regulations had stopped there, these provisions would
clearly decrease the diversity of land use by limiting revegetation to pre-
minlng communities. This could be a formidable task, given the inability of
many surrounding communities to persist on recent post-mining land. However,
"cover" is defined to be a "mixture of species having superior or equal uti-
lity 1n comparison to naturally occurring vegetation."28
While this clarification allows for greater diversity in post-mining
revegetated communities, the meaning of "utility" remains unclear. Utility
may refer to market price after harvest or to usefulness in the ecological
sense of slope stabilization or community stability. A strict "market price"
interpretation could preclude the land from being suitable for mining. For
18
-------
example, in the coal field of eastern Kentucky, surface mining is likely
to take place on land with hardwoods, particularly oaks and hickories.
Since it would be impossible to plant a typical hardwood forest immediately
after mining, the alternatives for vegetative cover include some native
grasses for haying or tree species such as black locust and Virginia pine,
which are suitable for recently mined lands. The market value of these
alternatives cannot measure up to the naturally occurring hardwood forest,
and, under a "market place" interpretation, the requirements for revegeta-
tion could not be met. Clearly, some further guidelines are needed to allow
for more diverse revegetation of surface mined lands.
Under the Final Regulations the success of the plantings will be deter-
mined by comparison to a reference area.29 The revegetated area will be
compared to an approved, unmined area for ground cover and productivity.30
Unfortunately, this test fails to take into account the long term persistent
differences between mined and unmined land that make comparisons of pro-
ductivity difficult. The percent cover test is likely to give an adequate
measure of the success of revegetation without emphasis on productivity.
Success is also contingent upon yearly observations over a five-year
period following seeding and fertilizing. This particular requirement
could have far-reaching consequences for post-mining land use, for as long
as the operator must maintain a five year interest in the land, any reclama-
tion method that results in some short term economic return is likely to be
favored.31 This requirement may encourage continued fertilization, irriga-
tion, and harvesting of the land by the operator to achieve some harvestable
return.
This continued responsibility encourages subsidiary management (large
operations) or retention of the land by the coal operators. Furthermore,
the land use under these situations is likely to favor agricultural pro-
ductivity (grazing and haying) with smaller acreages allocated to various
other uses.
Summary: While the type of vegetation required by the Proposed Permanent
Regulations encourages diverse use, the requirement for success does not. To-
gether, the revegetation and regrading requirements reinforce the movement of
surface-mined land into pasture and hay production and encourage long term
operator use of the land.
Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland is a land classification based on pre-mining land use or
on actual characteristics of the soil. If the pre-mined land is classified
as Prime Farmland by the Secretary of Agriculture,32 it is subject to a unique
set of regulations under SMCRA.33 The goal of these regulations is reclama-
tion to a level of equal productivity to unmined prime farmland within a
19
-------
reasonable period of time. Although the feasibility of achieving "equal"
productivity can be debated, it is clear that the regulations for prime
farmland Involve rigorous pre-min1ng treatment of the land. The soil is
to be segregated by separate soil horizons, and these layers are to be re-
placed Immediately or stored separately.3k After mining and regrading to
original contour, these horizons are to be replaced in natural sequence
with precautions to avoid compacting.35 This process of reconstruction of
soil is both costly and time-consuming.
The State of Texas challenged the provisions of the soil segregation
of prime farmland under the Federal Interim Regulations.36 OSM ruled that
mixing of soils would be permitted if a higher agricultural yield could be
obtained after mining.37 Other provisions concerning prime farmland have
been the subject of litigation38 and extensive comments from the coal indus-
try. 39
These regulations effectively discourage mining operations on prime
farmlands. The concern of industry over the scope of the grandfather ex-
emption of prime farmlands in the original permit area or in an approved
mining plan prior to August 3, 1973, is good evidence of this discourage-
ment. Acres of potentially minable land will not be mined because of the
difficult process of soil reconstruction and the goal of equal or higher
productivity. These provisions are particularly relevant to the State of
Illinois, where much of the coal is overlain with prime farmland soil.
As far as post-mining land use is concerned, "Prime Farmland" is auto-
matically determined to be the highest and best use. Stringent regulations
are set up to ensure that productive row crop agriculture is possible after
mining. This determination leaves no latitude for development of alterna-
tive uses. The inflexibility of these provisions effectively ensures pre-
servation of valuable prime farmland without an absolute ban on mining these
lands.
Summary; The prime farmland provisions automatically designate agri-
culture as the highest and best use of the land. This restriction limits
post-mining land use to agriculture and requires the operator to comply with
rigid, costly soil reconstruction regulations to achieve high agricultural
productivity. These regulations effectively increase the difficulty of
mining and consequently decrease the likelihood that prime farmlands will
be mined.
Steep Slope Mining and Mountaintop Removal
Steep Slope Mining and Mountaintop Removal are two types of mining opera-
tions which require special regulation under SMCRA. These operations are
widely applicable to mining in the Appalachian Region. In recognition of
the Importance of the coal reserves and mining potential in this area, SMCRA
20
-------
allows variance from the requirements of grading to original contour for
these two operations.1*0 This variation from standard grading requiements
is tightly controlled in recognition of the many erosion and water quality
problems that occur in conjunction with mining mountainous terrain.
The deviation for Steep Slope (greater than 20%) does not allow any of
the highwall to remain exposed but does permit disturbance of unmined areas
above the highwall, which is otherwise prohibited. Thus, while giving the
appearance of relaxed standards, these regulations still limit or reduce
steep slope mining because of the difficulty in covering the highwall or
covering the highwall and still meeting the requirements for slope stabil-
ity. •»!
The steep slope requirements also present numerous engineering diffi-
culties.1*2 From an engineering standpoint, the requirements for a 1.3 static
safety factor1*3 and watershed control are difficult to meet and make the
variance from grading to approximate original contour very difficult to ob-
tain.1*1* Therefore, these provisions generally operate to discourage steep
slope mining and leave mountaintop removal as the only viable method to re-
move the coal.
Surface mining by Mountaintop Removal removes all overburden on top of
the coal seam and replaces the steep mountaintop with a level plateau. This
procedure is subject to special guidelines allowing variance from the require-
ments of grading to original contour.1*5 This flexibility is important to
the mountainous ORBES region, and particularly to the State of West Virginia,
which takes great pride in its work with valley and head of hollow fills
that are associated with mountaintop removal.1*^ Unfortunately, the large
capital costs for equipment to remove the overburden makes this type of
operation very difficult for the small coal operator.
Operations of mountaintop removal and valley and head-of-hollow fills
create flat land or rolling terrain which is extremely valuable in steep
mountain and narrow valley regions. Currently, the West Virginia Department
of Natural Resources has issued permits for two housing developments on
mountaintop removal land.1*7 Quite understandably, the mine operator can,
and often does, speculate on the economic return from these areas. The
mining operation can take land originally worth $50-$75/acre in surface
rights and increase the value to $1,500-$2,000/acre after reclamation.1*8
Ironically, the valley and head-of-hollow fills were not allowed under
the proposed interim regulations.1*9 However, OSM responded to suggestions
from industry and revised regulations to allow this type of waste disposal
and the type of post-mining land use associate with it.50
The difficulty of steep slope mining, the high economic return on moun-
taintop removal operations and the availability of technology that can re-
move the tops of mountains, suggests the future growth of mountaintop removal
21
-------
within the ORBES region. Mountaintop removal will result in commercial and
residential land use near urban areas51 and further the trend toward pasture
and agricultural use on the flattened land in more remote areas.
Summary; The federal requirement of regrading to original contour dis-
courages contour mining on steep slopes. While the variance for steep slopes
theoretically should allow more mining, operationally it does not. Mountain-
top removal operations provide increased commercial and residential land use
and could become the prevalent type of mining operation because of the high
economic return on flat land in the mountains.
Response of the Coal Industry
"The coal industry is making every effort to bring surface mining
operations into compliance with the goals and standards of SMCRA."
Robin Turner, Vice President, North American Coal Corporation52
"Much of the industry has approached implementation of the Act in
the same manner that they dealt with it while it was before Congress -
they are fighting it tooth and nail."
Karl J. Englund, Director, Citizens Coal Project, Environ-
mental Policy Institute53
Somewhere between these two extreme viewpoints is the real response of
the industry to SMCRA and OSM regulations. The controversy results from two
opposing forces, the need for more production and the need to mine in an en-
vironmentally sound manner. Congress anticipated this problem and provided
that production of coal and environmental protection are to be equal goals of
SMCRA. However, the goal of environmental protection is costly in terms of
both economics and delay. The impacts of delay on the consuming public are
not yet well recognized. 5
-------
Interim Program; SMCRA required an active9 viable Interim program to
be In operation within six months of the effective date of the Act.55 New
operators were required to comply with Interim regulations by February 30
1978 while all operations were to be in compliance by May 3, 1978.56 These
deadlines were complicated by the lack of adequate appropriations in imple-
menting SMCRA57 and Congressional delay in confirming Walter Heine as
Director of OSM.58 In the meantime, development of interim regulations was
left up to a mining task force comprised of 80 persons borrowed from various
Interior Agencies. These haphazard proceedings accentuated the coal indus-
tries' mounting concern: "Congress forced a yet-to-be formed agency with no
official money and a staff detailed from other agencies to develop highly
complex regulations in only 90 days that will have a massive impact on coal
industry for many years to come. Allowing enough time for more careful re-
view in developing regulations could have prevented many of the economic
hardships9 costly delays9 and time-consuming litigation."59
Despite these difficulties OSM published its proposed interim regula-
tions on September 70 1977.60 After receiving comments from the public and
the coal industry, the OSM's final rules for the interim regulatory program
became available on December 13, 1977961 nearly six weeks after the dead-
line set by SMCRA and only five months before the compliance deadline for
all operationSo Once these interim regulations were completed,, OSM began
to formulate the proposed rules for the permanent regulatory program.
In the meantime,, the coal industry was disturbed over the requirements
of the interim program. Charges of "bureaucratic overkill"62 and "the gospel
of coal according to Big Brother"63 prompted hearings in January, 1978 by
the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment in exercise of the over-
sight jurisdiction. One of the major issues before the Subcommittee during
the two-day hearings was extensions of SMCRA deadlines. The state of Kentucky
called for a short term delay; Ben Lusk of the Mining and Reclamation Council
of America wanted a six-month delay while National Independent Coal Operators
Association asked for a nine-month to one year delay.61* Despite the various
pleas. Subcommittee Chairman Morris Udell decided it would be the best polic
to "muddle through" the regulations and time constraints as they now exist.
As a final compromise; OSM issued extensions for submitting schedules for
reconstruction of sediment ponds and related regulations.66
In spite of these extended deadlines, the coal industry maintained that
it was unable to fully comply with the interim regulations for the following
four reasons: 1) OSM was six weeks late in issuing regulations, 2) Congress
took six months to appropriate funds for OSM, which took even longer to be-
come operational, 3) the lengthy UMW strike prevented any construction, and
4) extremely severe weather conditions added to construction delay.67 However,
OSM reported that despite these difficulties "most operators are planning to
move ahead with complying with this Act."68
23
-------
Now that the Interim regulations were on the way to becoming effective,
technical Issues presented by the rules became the source of controversy be-
tween OSM and the coal Industry.
The five principal areas of controversy were control of sedimentation,
provisions for blasting, Prime Farmlands, underground mining, and pre-existing
structures.69 As originally written, the provisions for control of sedimen-
tation would eliminate many steep slope mining operations in Appalachia.70
However, In dealing with these problem areas, OSM demonstrated flexibility
In response to Industrial concern by modifying these provisions 1n the re-
vised Interim regulations published February 27, 1978."71In fact, the revised
regulations drastically reduced the design criteria requirements for surface
mine sedimentation ponds and temporary diversion structures, which allowed
mining in West Virginia to continue essentially as normal.7* This example
of agency-Industry Interaction indicates that reasonable compromises can be
made to iron out technical difficulties.
The final focal point of industry's concern was the fate of small opera-
tors under the interim regulatory scheme. While small producers (annual
production <100,000 tons) were given a limited exemption from all performance
standards until January 1, 1979,73 it Is not clear that this exemption will
suffice to allow these operators to stay in business. The problem is clearly
stated by Ron Turner, Vice President of North American Coal: "We have brought
the entire technical expertise of our company to bear on an Interpretation
of these regulations for several months. Even with this effort, we are not
confident (1) we understand the problems and (2) we have the resources to
meet the compliance deadlines. Small operators...are simply not going to be
able to cope with massive and highly technical requirements set down In the
regulations. "7I+
In early 1977 this controversy over the scope of the federal Interim
regulations erupted Into court action by the coal industry. Surface Mining
Regulation Litigation75 was the result of 24 consolidated cases involving
over 40 coal operators who attacked the Interim regulations on both substan-
tive and procedural grounds. The district court upheld most of the provi-
sions of the interim regulatory scheme and denied a preliminary injunction
blanket. However, regulations dealing with pre-existing nonconforming struc-
tures and facilities and the scope of grandfather exemptions covering prime
farmlands were remanded to Secretary of Interior for further consideration.
Regulations dealing with sedimentation ponds were enjoined until the Secretary
responded to the industry's objections. Finally, regulations dealing with
effluent limitations were enjoined to the extent that they conflict with
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.76 This opinion was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, on May 25, 1978.77
On August 24, 1978, the district court issued its second and final re-
view of the Interim regulations after Interior's reconsideration of these
regulations under the terms of the first district court decision.78 The
24
-------
court again instructed Interim to amend design criteria for valley and head-
of-hollow fills9 waste dam construction, and stream buffer zones. Interior
was further enjoined from enforcing the "historical use" clause of prime
farmlands section.79 This decision is currently on appeal.80
In the ORBES region there have been two cases filed in federal court in
Indiana challenging the constitutionality of entire federal regulatory scheme.81
A coalition of Appalachian landowners have also filed suit in federal court
in eastern Kentucky challenging the constitutionality of the approximate ori-
ginal contour provisions of SMCRA.82 In Virginia, the Virginia Surface Mining
and Reclamation Association and others, including the Commonwealth of Virginia
have also filed suit,, In the only decision reported so far0 U.S. District
Judge Glen Williams of the Western District of Virginia enjoined nearly all
of Title V of SMCRA on the grounds that the Act is a taking of property with-
out due process of law and thereby violates the Fifth Amendment.83 The out-
come of these challenges will have important ramifications for the coal
industry and the survival of the interim regulatory scheme.
Permanent Regulatory Program; At the same time that OSM has been in-
volved in controversy over the interim regulatory program it has been in the
process of formulating regulations for the permanent regulatory program. Un-
like the interim program, the final program interprets all of the Environ-
mental Protection Standards and implement SMCRA permit process. The proposed
permanent regulations were issued on September 18, 197881* and OSM invited
public and coal industry comments at public hearings in six cities. The
views of the coal industry were expressed by testimony from members of the
National Coal Association/American Mining Congress Joint Surface Mining
Committee.85 The comments were sharply critical of OSM's short 60 day comment
period,86 provisions regulating alluvial valley floors,87 the entire perma-
nent regulatory program,88 the lack of distinction between surface and under-
ground mining,89 and regulations on the disposal of excess spoil, coal waste
banks and dams, and backfilling and grading.90
OSM released a draft regulatory analysis shortly following the release
of the proposed permanent regulations.91 The Joint Committee described this
report as "an inadequate and misleading document...that failed to evaluate
the impacts of the regulations on coal production, coal reserves, balance of
payments, employment and economic vitality of communities in the nation's
coal mining regions,"92 The Committee maintained that in the case of Appala-
chian coal9 six rules alone could add as much as $17.17 per ton to the cost
of producing coal in some mines. In the midwest, it could cost 6.11 more a
ton.93 The Joint Committee's criticism of OSM's economic analysis has re-
ceived some support from the Carter Administration's Regulatory Analysis Re-
view Group. The group reported that the proposed federal surface mining
controls are so prohibitive that they might "lock out" billions of tons of
western coal and cost anywhere from $2 billion to $3 billion a year.91*
-------
After the close of the comment period on November 27, 1978, OSM ini-
tially refused to receive any further comments. However, under pressure
from the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), the administrative record was
re-opened for further comment on documents filed by CEA.95 The additional
economic Input from the administration's advisors 1s the subject of new
suit in U.S. District Court filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, the
National Wildlife Federation and the Council of Southern Mountains.95 The
action alleges that the Information supplied to OSM by CEA on the cost Im-
pact of the regulations had "tainted" the comment process,96 and the groups
seek to enjoin OSM from considering these comments and prohibit further
meetings with CEA.96 The outcome of this litigation 1s, as yet, unknown.
In response to the requests of the coal industry, the House Subcommittee
on energy and the Environment held two days of hearings on OSM's Implementa-
tion of SMCRA in March. "Almost 45 witnesses raised a continuous drumbeat
of criticism against OSM."97 One of the focal points of this criticism was
the OSM deadline for submission of state programs. Governor Julian Carroll
(Kentucky) and Governor Ed Herschler (Wyoming) criticized the rigidity of
OSM deadlines and expressed concern that OSM had not afforded the states
the primary role contemplated by SMCRA. On the other hand, environmental
organizations accused the states of "foot dragging" in refusing to upgrade
existing state programs.
The Final Permanent Regulations were finally issued on March 13, 1979,98
nearly a month after OSM's original estimate99 and over seven months from the
SMCRA deadline.100 The issuance of these regulations helghted the coal In-
dustry's clamor about state programs being unable to meet the August 3, 1979
deadline. In response to this concern, Secretary Andrus decided to seek Con-
gressional amendment of SMCRA to allow the states additional time to submit
their proposals.101 Secretary Andrus announced his decision at oversight
hearings held by the Senate Subcommittee on Energy Resources and Materials
Production on June 19 and 21, 1979. If these new deadlines are approved by
Congress, the states would have until March 3, 1980 to finalize their appli-
cations.
The promulgation of the final rules for the permanent regulatory pro-
gram also prompted the American Mining Congress, the National Coal Association
and 105 of their member coal companies to file suit challenging the legality
of the final regulations.102 The regulations were also challenged 1n the same
court by seven environmental groups including the National Wildlife Federation
and the Natural Resources Defense Council.103 Both of these suits seek an
injunction to prevent the Secretary from enforcing or applying the contested
regulations.10
-------
federal surface mining program. It is certainly not easy to design and
implement a plan applicable to all 50 states, and the end of the difficul-
ties with compliance is not yet in sight. However, sincere efforts on both
sides will make dealing with the realities (both good and bad) of the SMCRA
less difficult.
27
-------
Legal Footnotes and References
Public Law 95-87, 91 Stat.445
30 U.S.C.A. § 1201 e£se£. (1979)
21977 U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, p. 632.
330 U.S.C.A. §1251 et seg. (1979), Subchapter V - Control of Environmental
Impacts of SurfaceToJiMining
4These standards are listed in 30 U.S.C.A. §1265 (b) and (d) (1979). The
standards implemented during the interim regulatory program include §1265
(b) (2), (3), (5), (10), (13), (15), (19) and §1265 (d) (1).
530 U.S.C.A. §1253 (1979).
644 Fed. Reg. 15312 (March 13, 1978)
entire text of the performance standards is found in 30 U.S.C.A.
§1265 et se£. (1979).
8Coa1 Age, vol. 83, no. 9 (September, 1978) p. 11.
Mining Congress Journal, vol. 64, no. 2 (February, 1978) p. 112.
the consistency provisions in 30 U.S.C.A. §1255 (a) (1979) and regula-
tions defining consistency in 44 Fed. Reg. 15324 (March 13, 1978) (To be
codified in 30 C.F.R. § 730.5 (a)).
^Daniel Kelly, an attorney with the firm of Ice, Miller, Donadio and Ryan,
Indianapolis, IN and counsel for the AMAX Coal Company; personal communica-
tion.
Virginia and Pennsylvania are in Region I, Illinois, Indiana and
Ohio are in Region III, and Kentucky is in Region II.
^"...sufficient flexibility is inherent in the Act to allow both oeprators
and Government to diligently pursue implementation." Implementation of the
Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act of 1^77: Oversight Hearings
Before the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, 95th Cong.
2nd Sess. 6 (1978) (statement of Walter Heine, OSM Director). Hereafter
cited as "Oversight Hearings Report."
^"Someway, somehow we must have a cooperative relationship between industry
and regulators if we are to succeed in attaining the objectives of the law
and meet our national energy goals... instead of a cold war we need a detente
...instead of an adverse relationship we need a flexibly cooperative atti-
tude." E.R. Phelps, President, Peabody Coal Co. and Chairman of the Joint
National Coal Association/American Mining Congress Committee on Surface Mine
Regulations. Mining Congress Journal, vol. 6^, no. 2 (February, 1978) p. 113.
28
-------
1530 U.S.C.A. § 1265 (b) (3) (1979) and 44 Fed. Reg. 15411 (March 13, 1978)
(To be codified in 30 C.F.R. §§816.102-105).
In actual mining operations "approximate original contour" usually results
in a slightly rolling topography. Most ORBES states have been dealing
with type of requirement for sometime (see Table IP). This federal require-
ment will tend to perpetuate the trend toward pastural and agricultural
reclamation of surface mined lands.
See Final Environmental Statement, Permanent Regulatory Program Implement-
ing Section 501 (b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977, U.S. Dept. Int. p. BIII-11 to -16.
17See "Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Costs," U.S. Dept. Int., Bureau of
Fines Circular 8695 (1976) and Alan M. Schlottman, Envi ronmental Regu1ati on
and the Allocation of Coal, Praeger Publishers (Mew York: 1977) p.70-104.
ISRick Sarver, Director of Reclamation, Mac Energy Division, Valley Coal,
Coonville, Ohio, personal communication.
'°Irwin Reiss, President, Meadowlark Farms, Inc. (a subsidiary of AMAX Coal
Company, Indianapolis, IN), personal communication.
20See "Reclaiming Land for Profit," Coal Age, (October, 1963) p. 94. Meadow-
lark Farms, Inc. is now a division of AMAX Coal Company.
2^Coal Mining and Processing, vol. 15, no. 3 (March, 1978) p. 64A.
22See Steep Slope Mining and Mountain Top Removal Section, supra.
2^Tom Testa, Park Ranger, Goose Lake Prairie State Park; Coal City Area Club
member; personal communication.
2430 U.S.C.A. § 1265 (1979).
2530 U.S.C.A. § 1265 (b)(19) (1979).
2630 U.S.C.A. § 1265 (b)(20) (1979). (To be codified in 30 C.F.R. §816.111 (a)),
2744 Fed. Reg. 15413 (March 13, 1979).
28IBID. § 816.111 (b) (3).
29IBH). § 816.116(a).
30IBID. § 8l6.116(b)(l) and (b)(3).
3'Rick Sarver, Director of Reclamation, Mac Energy, Coonville, Ohio; personal
communication.
3230 U.S.C.A. § 1257 (b) (16) (1979) indicates that a soil survey should be
made of potentially minable farmland after an initial reconnaissance in-
spection indicates that land may be prime farmland..
29
-------
33The special standards are found In 30 U.S.C.A. § 1265 (b)(7) (1979).
3444 Fed. Reg. 15451 (March 13, 1979). (To be codified in 30 C.F.R. § 823.1-
.15).
35IBID. § 823.14.
.C. Bowling, "State Problems in Implementing the Federal Surface Mine Law,"
Mining Congress Journal, vol. 64, no. 10 (October, 1978) p. 72, and 43 Fed.
Reg. 22459 (May 25, 1978).
3?Coal Mining & Processing, vol. 15, no. 9 (September, 1978) p. 36.
38In re Surface Mine Litigation, 452 F. Supp. 327 (D.D.C. 1978).
on
0 There are five principal areas on which we did receive quite a bit of
public comment.. .Third,... prime farmlands..." Statement of Walter Heine,
OSM Director, Oversight Hearings Report, p. 6.
4030 U.S.C.A. § 1265 (c)(l) and (d) (1979).
'"Contour mining is getting much tougher now with very tall highwalls. . ."
Bruce Burgess, West Virginia coal operator, "Mining Projects Add Puilding
Space in Mountainous Areas," Coal Mining and Processing, vol. IB, no. 3
(March, 1978) p. 80.
42
"Steep Slope Mining and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977, "Mining Congress Journal, vol. 64, no. 9 (September, 1978) p. ?33.
4344 Fed. Reg. 15454 (March 13, 1978) (To be codified in 30 C.F.R. §826..15(a)
and (b)).
^Charles F. Peters, Division of Reclamation, Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, personal commu-
nication.
4530 U.S.C.A. § 1265 (c)(2) (1979). 44 Fed. Reg. 15452 (March 13, 197P) (To
be codified in 30 C.F.R. § 824.11 (a)(5).
Testimony of James Pitsenbarger, Reclamation Director, West Virginia Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Oversight Hearings Report, p. 13.
Projects Add Building Space in Mountainous Areas," Coal Mining
Processing, vol. 15, no 3 (March, 1978) p. 80.
48"Pittston Sets Up Large Valley Fill," Coal Age, vol. 82, no. 12 (December,
1977) p. 116.
49Proposed Federal Regulations for the Interim Program, 42 Fed. Reg. 62683
(December 13, 1977) § 715.15 (b).
50
See 30 C.F.R. §715.15 (b)(1979).
30
-------
For example, Independence High School, Reckley, West Virginia, another
high school near Welch, West Virginia plus a large commercial shopping
center near Clarksburg, West Virginia were all built on mountaintop re-
moval and valley fills. "Surface Mining Regulations Spell Disaster for
Appalachia," Coal Mining and Processing, vol. 15, no 5 (June, 1978) p. 72.
52
Oversight Hearings Report, p. 38.
530versight Hearings Report, p. 238.
Carl Bagge, President, National Coal Association, "Coal - The Once and
Future KING," Coal Mining and Processing, vol. 15, no. 1 (January, 1^78)
p. 57.
5530 U.S.C.A. 1252 (b) (1979).
5630 U.S.C.A. 1252 (c) (1979).
Oversight Hearings Report, p. 6. The appropriations for OSM ($30,880,000)
were finalized by Public Law 95-240 (92 Stat 109) on March 7, 1978.
^President Carter nominated Heine for Director on Ortoher 19, 1978 anH
Heine was confirmed by the Senate on December 6, 1978. "Update on Surface
Mining Legislation, " Mi n inn Congress Journal , vol. 64, no. 2 (February,
1978)'p. 116.
Dagge, "Coal - The Once and Future KINd," Coal Hining and Proressjnp,
vol. 15, no. 1 (January, 1978) p. 57.
e°42 Fed. Reg. 44920 (September 7, 1977).
61 42 Fed. Ren. 62C3Q (December 13, 1977).
62R.E. Samples, chief executive of Consolidation Coal Company in "Surface
Mining Regulations Spell Disaster for Appalachia," Coa 1 Hijrijig jind Pro-
cess ing, vol. 15, no. 5 (June, 1978) p. 70.
.M. Sheldon, attorney for the State of Illinois, Coal Mini no and Processing,
vol. 14, no. 12 (December, 1977) p. 36.
Oversight Hearings Report, p. 60.
^
^"Surface Mining Regulations Spell Disaster for Appalachia," Coa1_ Minjjig
and Processing, vol. 15, no. 5 (June, 1978) p. 71.
6643 Fed. Reg. 8090 (February 27, 1978). See also David r,. Todd, "Surface
Mining Regulations and Litigation for 1978," Mi n i n g Co n g res s Journal, vol.
65, no. 2 (February, 1979) p. 48.
67IDID.
"^Oversight Hearings Report, p. 10.
69
Oversight Hearings Report, p. 3 and 4.
31
-------
70"Surface Mining Regulations Spell Disaster for Appalachia," Coal Mining
and Processing, vol. 15, no. 5 (June, 1978) p. 70.
43 Fed. Reg. 8090 (February 27, 1978).
72
"Surface Mining Regulations Spell Disaster for Appalachia," Coal Mining
and Processing, vol. 15, no. 5 (June, 1978) p. 70.
7343 Fed. Ren. 8091 (February 27, 1978) §710.11 (d)(3).
7/I"Why Industry Can't Cope with 1977 Surface Mining Act," Coal Mininn and
Processing, vol. 15, no. 6 (June, 1978) p. 69. See also Nicholas P. Chironis,
"A Small Operator Survives in Ohio," Coal Age, vol. 84, no. 3 (March, 1^79)
p. 74.
75452 F. Supp. 327 (D.D.C. 1978) A surirary of In^ re Surface Mini no Regulation
Litigation is available in 8 Environmental Law "Reporter 20407 (1978).
76In re Surface Mining Regulation Litioatinn, 452 F. Sunp. 327, 323 (D.D.C.
-- . ---- --
77See 46 U.S. Law V'eek 2665 (1978) and David G. Todd, "Surface Mining Regula-
tions and Litioation for 1978," Mining Congress Journal, vol. 65, no. 2
(February, 1979) p. 49.
78David G. Todd, "Surface Mining Regulations and Litigation for 1978," Mining
Congress Journal , vol. 65, no. 2 (February, 1979) p. 49.
79
In re Surface Mining Regulation Litigation, 456 F. Supp. 1301 (D.D.C. .1978).
80See David G. Todd, "Surface Mining Regulations and Litigation for 197P,"
MTrn'ng Congress Journal , vol. 65, no. 2 (February, 1979) p. 50, Charles Cook,
Edward Green and David Todd, "Spotlight on Surface Mining," Mining Congress
Journal^, vol. 65, no. 4 (April, 197°) p. 17, and Charles Cook, Edward
Green and David Todd, "Spotlight on Surface Mining," Mining Congress Journal,
vol. 65, no. 7 (July 1979) p. 18.
81 Indiana v. Andrus, Civ. No. IP 78-500-C (S.D. In., Filed August 16, 1978)
and Indiana Coal Association v U.S. Civ. No. IP 78-501-C (S.D. In., filed
August 16, 1978). These cases have been consolidated. See also David G.
Todd, "Surface Mining Regulations and Litigation for 1978,'' MiTrTng Congress
Journal , vol. 65, no. 2 (February, 1979) p. 50.
82
David G. Todd, "Surface Mining Regulations and Litigation for 1978," Mining
Congress Journal , vol. 65, no. 2 (February, 1979) p. 50.
83charles Cook, Edward Green and David Todd, "Spotlight on Surface Mining,"
Mining Congress Journal , vol. 65, no. 4 (April, 1979) p. 17 and "Industry
News, Coal Mining and Processing, v. 16, no. 4 (April 1979) p. 41.
8443 Fed. Reg. 41662 (September 18, 1978).
32
-------
is joint committee has been instrumental in evaluating and commenting on
the OSM regulations as the regulations have been issued. See David G. Todd,
"Surface Mining Regulations and Litigation for 1978," Mining Conoress Journal,
vol. 65, no. 2 (February, 1979) p. 45.
^Testimony of Harrison Loesch, vice president (government relations), Peabody
Coal Co., in "Industry News," Coal Mining and Processing, vol. 16, no. 1
(January 1979) p. 31.
87 IBID. , Testimony of John Paul, vice president (public affairs), Am ax Coal
Co.
"IBID. , Testimony of Robin Turner, vice president (administration), North
American Coal Co. He stated that the proposed regulations for the permanent
state programs "are exceedingly complex in their demands on the states.
They impose a series of unnecessary procedural hurdles which can unfairly
trip up states which are making good faith efforts to have their plans
approved."
"IBID. , p. 32, Testimony of Steve Young, vice president (government affairs),
Consolidation Coal Co.
90David G. Todd, "Surface Mining Regulations and Litigation for 1978," Amer-
ican Mining Congress Journal, vol. 65, no. ? (February 1979) p. 46.
P1IBID. p. 47.
92IBID.
Divorshak, "Uheels of Government," Minjnn Congress Jo urn ail , vol. 65,
no. 1 (January, 1979) p. 6 and "Industry Mews," Coal Mining and Processing,
vol. 16, no. 2 (February, 1979) p. 29.
-^"Industry News," Coal Mining and Processing, vol. 16, no. 3 (March, 1979)
p. 8.
97Charles Cook, Fdward Green and David Todd, "Spotlight on Surface Mining,"
Mininn Congress Journal, vol. 65, no. 4 (April, 197°) p. 16.
9R44 Fed. Reg. 15312 (March 13, 1979).
-'""Industry Mews," Coal Mining and Processing, vol. 16, no. A (April, 1979)
p. 42.
10030 U.S.C.A. § 1251 (b) (1979).
Charles Cook, Edward Green and David Todd, "Spotlinht on Surface Mining,"
! "in ing Congress Journal, vol. f5, no. 7 (July, 197°) p. 16.
33
-------
102
Charles Cook, Edward Green and David Todcl, "Spotlight on Surface Mininn,"
Mining Congress Journalt vol. 65, no. 6 (June, 1979) p. 15.
103IBID.
104IBID.
34
-------
5. QUANTITATIVE DATA ON COAL RESERVES AND MINING ACTIVITY
This chapter provides baseline data for relating various reserves
and mining with the ecological capabilities of the surface. Obviously, much
depends on the political and economic climate, but this chapter shows several
broad relationships which affect recoverability. Of particular interest is
the relation between surface land use and amount of surface disturbed per ton
of coal mined.
Minable Coal Reserves
Thomson and York (1975) provide tonnage and sulfur content of economi-
cally recoverable reserves in the ORBES region. Recent trends in mining set
economic criteria. Tonnage and sulfur contents have been derived from an
extensive review of state publications on reserves as well as through direct
consultation with the Illinois and Indiana Geological Surveys pertaining to
unpublished data.
Strippable reserves within ORBES counties are provided in Figure 5-1
Deep minable reserves are shown in Figure 5-2. Deep-minable reserves exceed
Strippable reserves in every state, but not in every county. In Kentucky-
West, efficient mining methods (60% extraction if deep-mined, 90% if surface-
mined) would bring potential surface production to within two-thirds of
potential deep production. In other states, potential deep production is
many times larger than potential surface production, suggesting that the ul-
timate method will be production from deep mines.
Low sulfur coal (*l%)t useful toward meeting clean air standards, is most
abundant in southeastern West Virginia and along the southeastern border of
eastern Kentucky. Important counties are ranked according to tonnage and
method of mining in Table 5-1. The Eastern Interior basin (hence Illinois
and Indiana) contains very little low sulfur coal.
History of Surface Mine Production
As this report will demonstrate, there are general and regional relation-
ships between production and area of land surface disturbed. Since some
ecological communities and related land uses require decades to develop, a
knowledge of historical production is relevant.
35
-------
Figure 5-1
SURFACE MINEABLE RESERVES IN 1974
MILLION SHORT TONS
B 800.01 - 1,800.41
311.35 - 800.00
H 100.01 - 311.34
0 5.01 - 100.00
Q 0.01 - 5.00
LH 0 ;SURFACE MINED CO.
D NOT RELEVANT
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
BYCAGIS/UKC. FEBRUARY. 1980
Sources: Thomson and York, 1975 (surface-mined counties Identified through sources
listed with Figures 5-3 and 5-5)
-------
Figure 5-2
DEEP MINEABLE RESERVES IN 1974
MILLION SHORT TONS
H 2,200.01 - 6,515.66
H 1,541.78 - 2,200.00
H 800.01 - 1,541.77
E3 100.01 - soo.oo
[=]] 0.01 - 100.00
[H SURFACE RES. ONLY
D NO significant reserves
CO
-I
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
BY CAGIS/UICC, FEBRUARY, 1980
Source: Thomson and York, 1975
-------
Table 5-1
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
TOTALS
STRIPPABU
Million
Short Tons
438.49
439.05
328.69
325.15
308.67
289.35
238.59
251.90
237.79
215.77
160.59
150.70
148.28
121.73
91.13
82.01
73.48
66.18
62.07
58.77
4.188.39
Location
KENTUCKY - EAST
Perry
P1ke
Harlan
Breathltt
Knott
Letcher
Leslie
Floyd
1.638.39
by County
WEST VIRGINIA
Logan
Qoone
Kanawha
M1ngo
McDowell
Raleigh
Fayette
Webster
Nicholas
Clay
Randolph
Wyoming
2.550.00
Distribution of Low Sulfur Coal In the ORBES Region:
Th» Most Abundant Reserves According to Method of Mining and County1•
DEEP MIHABIE
2, 3
ni ii ion
Short Tons
,459.47
,356.51
.211.97
.098.29
.019.18
950.29
935.13
818.94
766.00
747.11
682.87
588.83
513.25
489.31
460.15
435.34
375.90
348.31
311.79
272.38
KENTUCKY - EAST
P1ke
Harlan
Knott
Floyd
Perry
Letcher
Leslie
Location by County
' PENNSYLVANIA WEST VIRGINIA
Logan
Wyoming
Raleigh
H1ngo
Nicholas
Boone
McDowell
Fayette
Kanawha
Randolph
Clay
Webster
Cambria
TOTAL MINABLE
Million
Short Tons
1 ,948.06
1,645.86
1.336.08
1.275.44
1.271.08
1.270.74
1.257.99
1.083.41
1.054.59
917.52
898.64
868.84
684.57
586.04
579.43
551.38
551.28
430.32
385.27
337.84
Location by
KENTUCKY - EAST
Pike
Harlan
Knott
Perry
Floyd
Letcher
Leslie
Breathltt
County
WEST VIRGINIA
Logan
Raleigh
Klngo
Wyoming
Boor.e
Nicholas
teCov.ell
Kanawha
Fayette
Webster
Randolph
Clay
14,841.02
4,648.11
272.38
9,920.53
18,934.38
5,306.32
13.628.06
'Coal with sulfur content of IX or less.
2Cerived from Thomson and York, 1975.
37r.ese data are restricted to coal seams greater than 24 1n. thick in Kentucky-West and greater than 28 1n. thick 1n the
other states, and covered by overburden not thicker than that which Industry has found economically removable. Econo-
mically strippalle coal seans for the various states expressed as overburden to coal are Illinois, 18:1 (to 150 ft.};
Zr.dana, 20:1 (to 90 ft.); Kentucky West, 18:1 (to ISO ft.); Kentucky-East. 14:1 (to 120 ft.); Ohio, 15:1 (to 120 ft.);
Pennsylvania. 15:1 (to 120 ft.); West Virginia, 15:1 (to 120 ft.).
W
00
-------
To facilitate location of mined and mining areas geographically, we
have compiled data on total production at the county level (Figure 5-3).
These data suffer from several types of problems: 1) failure to report tonnage,
2) concealment of tonnage within multiple county or state totals, and 3) ton-
nage reported from counties where it was not mined. The last type of problem
occurs because some reports use the tipple as the location of the mine, al-
though the tipple may be located in a county adjacent to the land being mined.
Recent Surface Production
Figure 5-4 gives a view of the ongoing trend in surface-mining activity.
This information in combination with data on reserves is useful in estimating
regional locations of future mining activity. Here, we have averaged 1976
production, our most recent information at the time of this task (Walls et al.
1979, gave 1977 surface production for all states but Indiana), with 1974 and
1975 production. The 3-year average tends to even out year to year varia-
tion and gives better representation of small producing counties than would
any single year taken alone.
Geographical Relationships Between Strippable Reserves and Surface Mining
Activity
In a broad sense, counties with high reserves (>200,000 million tons)
have already experienced high levels of extraction (>30 million tons) through
the ORBES region (no comparisons, West Virginia). This is clearly the case
in 24 of 42 counties (57%) and at least modestly so in 29 of 42 counties
(69%). In 11 counties, all located in the Eastern Interior Basin,
exploitation of large reserves is slight. These counties are: in Illinois -
Gallatin, Greene, Grundy, Henry, Knox, Madison, Morgan, Schuyler, and Stark;
and in Kentucky-West - Butler and Henderson. Very lightly exploited counties
include Greene. Madison, and Morgan in Illinois and Henderson (no record of
surface mining) in Kentucky. Thus, depending on the quality of the coal, on
local ordinances, and on the economics of reclamation, these counties can be
expected to become focal points of surface mining in the future.
In contrast, extensive extraction (>30 million tons) has occurred in
nine counties with moderately low reserves (<100 million tons) remaining.
These counties are: in Pennsylvania - Allegheny, Armstrong, Cambria, Indiana,
Jefferson, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland; in Kentucky-East - Bell
County. Counties with extensively depleted reserves include Allegheny, Elk,
and Venango Counties in Pennsylvania.
Thus, within the ORBES region as a whole, Pennsylvania has a mature sur-
face-mining industry with relatively high depletion of its reserves (although
still only about 25-50% depleted), while Illinois has extensive reserves.
None of the counties involved in this comparison ranks high in Strippable re-
serves of low (*1%) sulfur coal.
39
-------
Figure 5-3
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF SURFACE
MINE PRODUCTION BY COUNTY
MILLION SHORT TONS
H 100 - 301
H 50 - 100
H 5-50
0 LESS THAN 1 - 1
D NOT RELEVANT
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
BY CAOS/UICC, FEBRUARY. 1980
Sources: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1924-1977 (Minerals Year-
books, 1923-1975)
Also, for Illinois; Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, 1955 through
1976 (Coal Reports)
Indiana: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey, unpub-
IIshed data; Indiana Coal Association, unpublished reports
Kentucky: Currents and Smith, 1977
Ohio; Onio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, 1956
Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 1941-1971
(Bituminous Coal Division Reports)
-------
Figure 5-4
THREE-YEAR AVERAGE SURFACE PRODUCTION (1974-1976)
THOUSAND SHORT TONS
H 2,000+ - 17,000
|H 1,000+ - 2,000
HI 500+ - 1.000
B2 100+ -500
Q .001 - 100
CD o
n NOT RELEVANT
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
. FEBRUARY, 1980
Sources: Walls et a!., 1979; U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1975
Minerals Yearbook; and state agency reports as listed with Figure 5-3
-------
Total Affected Acreage by County
We needed to know what has happened to lands surface-mined for coal, and
expected to find temporal and regional differences. We examined records of
affected acreages as a first cut at this objective.
We obtained as much published county-level data as we could and supple-
mented this with unpublished data from the various state agencies responsible
for permitting surface-mine operations. For every state there was a record
of old (pre-1970) mined acreages. In all states except Ohio and Pennsylvania,
mapping methods, often incorporating aerial photography, have been used to
estimate old mined acreages. Thus, old and relatively recently mined areas
were treated in the same manner and tabulated as to the date of survey. For
Ohio and Pennsylvania we did not learn the method of determing acreage.
Pennsylvania presented an additional complication; only inadequately reclaimed
acreage was tabulated, while adequately reclaimed acreage went unassessed.
The Pennsylvania survey failed to account for perhaps 50,000 acres affected
prior to 1963 in the ORBES portion of Pennsylvania (see Davies et al., 1965,
for the total affected acreage of Pennsylvania's bituminous coal basin).
To obtain data on acreages affected between 1970 and June, 1976, the ter-
mination date for our survey, we had to work with data derived from surface-
mining permits. Table 3-2 lists the number of permits issued annually and
explains the extent to which the various state divisions of reclamation had
compiled the data before making it available to us. It is clear that the
number of permits are issued for mining in the Eastern Interior Basin than
in the Appalachian Basin. This difference corresponds to differences
between the mining industries within the two basins; there are a few large
mines in the Eastern Interior Basin and many small mines in the Appalachian
Basin. The availability of the data varied from published reports for
Illinois, through easily accessible files of original permits in Ohio, to
massive and relatively inaccessible files of permits in Pennsylvania. A tally
of the Pennsylvania permits proved to be beyond the capability of the present
study. As an aside, it is worth noting that the floor space and staffing of
the various divisions of reclamation tended to reflect the numbers of permits
issued — small and compact in Illinois and Indiana, large and extensively
staffed in Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Figure 5-5 shows county acreages of land affected by surface mining of
coal from the earliest discemable excavations through June 30, 1976. In
the preceding introduction we explained that both mapping and permit data
were used to derive total acreages. Mapping methods are explained in the
following references: Illinois (Haynes and Klimstra, 1975), Indiana (Powell,
1972), Kentucky-East (Eastern Kentucky University Cartographic Laboratory,
1975), and West Virginia (Schmidt and Stoneman, 1972). For the first three
states, aerial photography, U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, and
planimetry were used for computing acreages. For West Virginia, aerial photo-
graphy, topographic maps, and a method of estimating contour strip width from
slope data were employed. Permitted acreage was available in two basin forms:
the area of proposed mining activity (Kentucky-West, Kentucky-East, West
42
-------
Figure 5-5
LAND AREA AFFECTED BY SURFACE MINING FOR COAL
ACRES PER COUNTY
H 20,000 - 65,000
JH 10,000 - 19,000
JH 5,000 - 9,999
g£j 500 - 4,999
E3 1-499
D NOT RELEVANT
Sources
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
BY CAGIS/UICC, FEBRUARY, 1980
Illinois: Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, 1977
Indiana: Powell, 1972; Indiana Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data
Kentucky: Carter et.al., 1974; Eastern Kentucky University Cartographic Laboratory,
1975/Kentucky Department of Natural .Resources and Environmental Protection,
computer printout of permit data
Ohio; Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1973; Ohio stripmine permits, 1973-1976
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, unpublished data
West virginTa; Schmidt and Stoneman, 1972; West Virginia Department of Natural
Resources, unpublished data
-------
Virginia) and the actual disturbed area as confirmed by inspection (Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio). After consultation (Roger Hall, West Virginia Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, and Bill Rainey, West Virginia
Surface Mining and Reclamation Association, personal communications) we con-
cluded that 37% of the permitted acreage in mountainous areas may never be
affected during mining. This acreage may serve only as a buffer zone to
contain occasional accidental slippages of spoils. Thus, raw permit totals
for Kentucky-East and West Virginia were multiplied by 0.63 before being
incorporated into Table 5-4.
Since compilation of this material the Soil Conservation Service (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1979) has obtained data on affected acreages. Their
survey was completely independent from ours and based on consultation with
local SCS officials. We have referred to this work in assessing accuracy of
our data in Chapter 7.
Coal Refuse Areas
Coal refuse areas result from surface disposal of impurities separated
from coal, either during the process of working deep-mine tunnels or during
the cleaning of coal for shipping, or both. The refuse areas are variously
known as mine dumps, gob areas (solid, rocky refuse in piles) or slurry
areas (washings of fine particles in broad flat areas which are typically
diked). These areas may be extremely toxic and unresponsibe to the typical
methods of reclaiming overburden. A careful survey of these areas is limited
to Illinois (Klimstra and Terpening, 1974; Nawrot, Haynes, et al., 1977;
Nawrot, Pursell, et al., 1977). In 1971 there were 5,500 acres of uncovered
gob and slurry associated with surface mining, and in 1976 there were 4,637
acres similarly associated with underground mines. If we add the acreages
of the other ORBES states to that of Illinois, the total area affected by
gob, slurry, and toxic mine dumps probably exceeds 60,000 acres, given the
increased contribution due to deep mining in the Appalachian Basin.
Land Area Requirements for Surface Mine Production
To project the impact of surface mining on land area we needed a rela-
tionship between coal tonnage and surface area. Three factors confound this
relationship. 1) More land is disturbed than is actually mined. 2) The yield
of land actually mined varies proportionally with the net thickness of the
surface mineable coal seams underlying in the surface. Some ratios of mined
land are given in Table 5-2. In the Appalachian Coal Field a greater propor-
tion of unmlnedland is disturbed per ton of coal mined, than in the Eastern
Interior Basin. 3) Edge to area ratios, according to Powell (1972), vary
inversely with tonnage productivity. The hi Hi ness of the Appalachian Coal
Field necessitates contour stripping in a majority of mining operations, and
contour stripping has a high edge to area ratio. Disturbance of unmined land
44
-------
occurs through spreading of overburden on unmined land. To illustrate
conventional contour-mining plans yielding maximum and minimum disturbances
of unmined land Drnevich et al. (1976) have applied several plans to a given
Landscape. With appropriate planning they reduced the disturbance of un-
mined land from 67% to 37% of the total disturbed area without reducing the
mineable tonnage. However, the minimum disturbance on a 24% slope is about
1.5 times larger than the mined area compared to about 1.2 for typical area
stripping in Illinois and Indiana (Table 5-2). An additional source of
disturbance to unmined land in Appalachia results from the remoteness of
many of the mine sites, which require long haul roads over unmined land
for access.
Table 5-3 gives a 30-year record of the average seam thickness of mined
seams according to state and region. With exception of West Virginia, thinner
seams are mined in Appalachia than in the Eastern Interior Basin. This fac-
tor only exaggerates the high acreage to tonnage relationship to be expected
in Appalachia, since on the average rather little surface-mineable coal under-
lies any given area of land surface.
Table 5-2
Ratio of Mined Land to Total Land Affected During Mining1
State % Mined
EASTERN INTERIOR COAL FIELD
Illinois 83
Indiana 83
Kentucky-West 81
APPALACHIAN COAL FIELD
Kentucky-East 61
Ohio 67
Pennsylvania 67
West Virginia 63
Source:Calculated from U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1979: p. BIII-4.
45
-------
Table 5-3 Average Thickness of Surface-Mined Coal Seams1
Year
State T9S5 T¥5U T95B RJETJHJF5 HTTF
EASTERN INTERIOR
BASIN - feet '
Illinois 4.5 5.0 4.8 5.0 5.3 4.3
Indiana 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.2 3.9
Kentucky-West 5.9 5.2 5.0 5.1 5.0 4.2
APPALACHIAN BASIN
Kentucky-East
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
3.6
3.7
4.1
6.1
5.6
3.8
3.7
5.5
3.3
3.8
3.2
5.8
3.1
3.7
3.2
4.9
4.3
3.6
3.2
4.9
3.6
3.1
3.2
4.3
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Yearbooks, except the Column
1976, which has been calculated from Keystone coal data.
46
-------
Table 5-4 LAND AREA REQUIREMENTS
FOR SURFACE PRODUCTION
HISTORICAL GRAND TOTALS THROUGH 1970:
STATE
DATES OF
PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION1
(1,000 TONS)
ACRES2
ACRES PER
MILLION TONS
EASTERN INTERIOR
Illinois 1911 - 1970 729,16? 157,320 216
Indiana 1914 - 1970 487,490 103,705 213
Kentucky-West3 1927 - 1970 446,775 76,36.° 171
APPALACHIAN
Kentucky-East 1928 - 1970 152,911 83,644 547
Ohio 1914-1970 700,200 282,632 *04
Pennsylvania 1917 - 1963 498,385 133,600"»5 268
West Virginia 1916-1970 523,205 251,446 481
EARLY 1970's:
SURFACE MINE ESTIMATED AFFECTED
PRODUCTION ACREAGE
1971 through 1975 JULY 1971 through ACRES PER
STATE INCLUSIVE (1,000 TONS) JUNE 1976 MILLION TONS
EASTERN INTERIOR
Illinois 146,384 28,23l6 193
Indiana 117,121 22,6636 19*
Kentucky - West 157,282 27,2157 173
APPALACHIAN
Kentucky - East 190,013 87,0147 458
Ohio 165,184 70,7036 428
Pennsylvania 153,853 No Data
West Virginia 107,597 39,8497 370
JData from U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbooks.
2Sources as for Figure 5-1.
3Caldwell, Crlttenden, Hancock, Union, and Webster Counties omitted due to
Insufficient data.
''This estimate refers to acres of abandoned strip mine lands, and 1s undoubt-
edly much less than the total affected area for the period (see text).
5Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, unpublished map.
6Affected acreages.
Permitted acreage reduced by .63. 47
-------
Tables 5-4 and 5-5 give acreage to tonnage estimates for the ORBES re-
gion. The average estimates, which have been less accurately recorded over
the years than tonnage, come from three different sources. Table 5-5 pre-
sents results compiled by local SCS officials from many sources of data. We
can assume but not prove that a portion of each state estimate includes per-
sonal familiarity with conditions at the county level. The remainder may
have been drawn from published reports. In Table 5-4 a majority of the data
on acreages affected through 1970 come from aerial surveys often combined
with field checks. Acreages affected during 1971 through 1975 rely heavily
on summation of surface-mining permit data, either by state reclamation
agencies or through this study. To obtain affected acreages we adjusted
totals, of raw permit data according to the advice of state reclamation people.
Figure 5-6 gives a display of county data for the ORBES major coal producing
counties. Both disturbed area and production represent average annual esti-
mates for six years (1970-1975). It is evident that Appalachian Coal Field
counties are less productive per unit of disturbed area than are the Eastern
Interior Coal Field counties.
The tables confirm predictions: a mine operator must disturb more land
in Appalachia per ton of coal than in the Eastern Interior Coal Field. The
decimal ratios of Eastern Interior to Appalachia for Tables 5-4 and 5-5 are
.48, .47, and .48 respectively. If we use the information in Table 5-5 and
years 1960, 1965 and 1976 in Table 5-3 to approximate the difference, the area
and seam width data as listed give a decimal ratio of .64, which is less ex-
treme. On the basis of Powell's (1972) contrast of small surface mines in
hilly southern Indiana vs. large mines in flat northern Indiana, we propose
that Table 5-2 over-estimates the ratios of mined land to total affected land
in Kentucky-East, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
48
-------
Table 5-5 LAND AREA REQUIREMENTS
FOR SURFACE PRODUCTION
HISTORICAL GRAND TOTALS THROUGH 1977:
STATE1
EASTERN INTERIOR
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky-Hest
DATES OF
PRODUCTION
1911-1977
1914-1977
1927-1977
PRODUCTION2
(1,000 TONS)
927,062
657,095
678,937
ACRES3 »4
240,707
156,955
124,983
ACRES PER
MILLION TONS
260
239
184
APPALACHIAN
Kentucky-East 1928-1977 446,005 284,609 638
Ohio 1914-1977 928,414 438,329 472
Pennsylvania 1917-1977 889,552 386,370 434
West Virginia 1916-1977 672,445 228,027 339
Portions of States.
Data From U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbooks.
Adapted From U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
1979.
^Acreage involved in sand, gravel and other non-coal mining may be included
unavoidably. Such acreage should not exceed 10% of the totals.
49
-------
Figure 5-6
Production vs. Disturbed Area
ORBES Counties of High and Intermediate Level Annual Production
01
o
-------
6. SURFACE LAND USE IN THE REGIONS OF SURFACE-MINING
ACTIVITY AND POTENTIAL
Introduction
The ORBES region supports many types of land use. Of these, agricul-
ture and forest resources occupy the greatest acreages and conflict most
severely with surface-mining activity.
Surface topography and potential and practiced land use influence
requirements for reclamation. Briefly stated, land forms of the Eastern
Interior Basin vary from flat or gently rolling topography with a local
relief of 100-300 feet (typical of the greater part of this basin) to mod-
erately steep hills with local relief of 300-500 feet (in southern Illinois
and parts of western Kentucky). Land forms typical of the Appalachian
Basin vary from steep hills and rolling topography with local relief of
300-1,000 feet (common in Ohio, northern West Virginia, and Pennsylvania)
to steep mountains with a local relief of 1,000-3.000 feet (characteristic
of eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia) (the National Atlas, 1970).
Figure 6-1 provides a generalized map of dominant land uses. The Eastern
Interior Basin and the Appalachian Basin contrast sharply. Row crop agri-
culture dominates in the former; forests are scarce. In the latter, row crop
agriculture is scarce, and forests and forestry are important.
Agriculture
The importance of agriculture as an active as opposed to a potential land
use in the Eastern Interior Basin and its relative unimportance in the Appa-
lachian Basin are well illustrated in Stewart et al. (1975) and in the U.S.
Agricultural Censuses conducted every five years.
We conducted a survey by county (approximately) of agricultural activity
in relation to present and potential, or reserve, surface-mining activity.
Important features of this survey appear below, with counties containing
large reserves of strippable coal underlined:
51
-------
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY PHASE II
Figure 6-1
GENERALIZED LAND USE
NON-ORBES
tm FOREST
CROPLAND
URBAN
'.ource: Adapted From THE NATIONAL ATLAS, 1970.
CROPLAND,? ASTURE,WOODLAND
-------
Corn: Important in Illinois in all surface-minable counties in an in-
verted "U" from Perry County, through Henry, Gruncjy, Vermilion, and
Wabash Counties.Corn is an important crop in southwestern Indiana
from Vigo through Sullivan, Daviess, Pike, and Warrick Counties. Corn
production, lower than in Illinois and" Indiana but still significant,
occurs in Kentucky-West, in Stark, Carroll, and Cplumbiana Counties
of Ohio, and in Mercer, Lawrence, Venango, and Butler Counties 'Of
Pennsylvania.
Soybeans: Production is most extensive in central Illinois where strip-
pable reserves are relatively small and deep-minable reserves are ex-
tensive. However, the crop is clearly important in St. Clair, Madison,
Scott, LaSalle, Grundy, and Gal latin Counties. Soybean production is
aTso~important in Daviess and Gi'bso'n" Counties, Indiana.
Wheat: Production is important in a belt across southcentral Illinois
and adjacent southern Indiana. The only county with extensive strip-
pable reserves and wheat production is St. Clair County, Illinois
Vegetables: Production is moderate in the vicinity of Vermilion County,
Illinois, and lightly scattered in Stark and Columbiana Counties, Ohio,
and across the ORBES region of Pennsylvania. Orchards are also repre-
sented sparsely in eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania.
Cattle and Hogs: These animals, when raised for meat products, tend to
be maintained close to sources of grain. Fattening of cattle is an
important activity in much of Illinois, especially in the northern
part including Henry, Bureau, and LaSalle Counties. Hog production
occurs throughout Illinois, especially in the western part which in-
cludes such counties with major strippable reserves as Fulton, Greene,
Henry, Knox, Madison, Peoria, and St. Clair. Hog production is also
important in southwestern Indiana, including Knox and Sullivan Counties,
and in Daviess, Henderson, and Union Counties, Kentucky.
Milk Cows: Grazing is scattered throughout the ORBES region with excep-
tion of southern West Virginia and most of Kentucky-East. Important
grazing areas approximately include St. Clair and Washington Counties,
Illinois; Coshocton, Holmes, and Wayne Counties, Ohio; and Butler and
Lawrence Counties, Pennsylvania.
Chickens: This type of livestock, most often housed in buildings, does
not have any special land requirements. Production is widely scattered
throughout the ORBES region, but is lowest in West Virginia and south-
eastern Kentucky. An area of intense production occurs in Dubois
County, Indiana.
53
-------
To summarize, Intensive agricultural production of many crops and live-
stock occurs 1n the Eastern Interior basin, especially in I'lUnois.
Agriculture is generally unimportant in the Appalachian Basin. With the
possible exception of tobacco (not listed), the only agricultural resource
in the coal basin of Kentucky-East and West Virginia appears to be chicken
farming, and even this resource is trivial relative to production of chickens
elsewhere in the ORBES region and in the eastern United States.
The potential for agricultural productivity in Illinois has been treated
by Mausel et al. (1975). Emphasis was placed on topographic and soil char-
acteristics. The region with the highest potential for productivity includes
part or all of Champaign, DeWitt, Douglas, Logan, Macon, McClean, Moultrie,
and Piatt Counties. None of these counties contain strippable reserves.
Douglas, Logan, Macon, and McClean Counties have moderate to large deep-
minable reserves. A moderately high potential for productivity occurs in
all or part of several counties with strippable reserves: Bureau, Edgar,
Grundy, LaSalle, Livingston, McDonough, Stark, Vermilion, and Warren.
Forestry
Considerable potential and practiced forestry occurs in the Appalachian
Basin. The forest resources of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio were
evaluated in an ORBES Phase I Preliminary Technology Assessment Report (Volume
II-A, Part 1: pp. 123-152). The forest resources of Pennsylvania and West
Virginia have been reviewed by Kay et al. (1979) and Cardi (1979), respectively.
Information on West Virginia and additional treatment of Kentucky are avail-
able in Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1978). These reviews have drawn ex-
tensively from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Resource Bulletins
for the six states.
A general conclusion is that forest covers a high percentage (often over
80%) of many of the counties in the Appalachian Basin. However, much of the
forest has been harvested and remains commercially depleted and understocked
with valuable species of trees for future harvests. In Ohio and Pennsylvania,
forested acreages have increased substantially in the last 25 years, and in
Pennsylvania the harvest capability has actually improved from an all-time
low in the mid-1940's. Forests in central and southern West Virginia are
extensive and contain a high volume of timber (Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
1978). The quality of forest in much of Kentucky-East, where over 80% of
the land is forested has remained only fair.
Summary; Agriculture is an important land use in the Eastern Interior
Basin, while forestry or the timber reserve 1s relatively unimportant. The
converse Is true of the Appalachian Basin. The greatest potential for conflicts
between agricultural and surface mining occurs in Illinois. For forestry, the
potential for conflict is greatest in central and southern West Virginia.
54
-------
7. QUANTITATIVE LAND CLASSIFICATION
Introduction
Our approach to land classification reflects two major categories of
land use, row crop agriculture and forest resources use. It also focuses
on two constraints of the 1 77 Federal SMCRA, Prime Farmlands and Steep
Slopes. We recommend that our results be viewed as suggestive of focal
points of future surface mining activity but at one or two levels of
approximation removed from proven interaction. At the least removed
level, the parameter which we explored is a direct measure of a land use
or constraint variable. However, we do not demonstrate that coal reserves
lie directly beneath specific areas of the land use or form; the best we
do is assign rough levels of probability as explained in Chapter 9. Further
removed from known interaction are parameters which only suggest land use and
form. That is, the measure which we present is known to be correlated with
a land use or form in the ORBES region, but does not indicate that land use
or form in every case. Figures 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 give inferential measures
of land use. Figure 7-4 gives a direct measure of the steep slope constraint
variable.
In each figure the form of data is percentage of county area occupied
by the given parameter. In most cases the county areas are actually inven-
tory acreages as defined by various state Soil Conservation Needs Inventories.
Land Capability Class 1 (Figure 7-1)
Land in this category is moderately level and has very few limitations
for agricultural use. When such land has not been converted to urban, indus-
trial or transporation uses, it is highly suited to row crop agriculture,
and receives a state designation as Prime Farmland. A portion, perhaps half,
of Class 2 land is also Prime Farmland.
Land Capability Classes 7 and 8 (Figure 7-2)
Lands in these categories present serious hazards to agricultural utili-
zation, and almost never support row crops. In the eastern portion of the
ORBES region these lands tend to be steeply sloping. However, they can also
55
-------
Figure 7-1
PRIME FARMLANDS: LAND CAPABILITY CLASS 1
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTY
| 20 - 45
P 10 - 19.9
H 6-9.9
Eg) 3-5.9
0 0-2.9
n NOT RELEVANT
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVES BASIN ENERGY STUDY
BYCACJS/UICC. FEBRUARY. 1980
Sources: the most recent Conservation Needs Inventory for each of the six states
-------
Figure 7-2
PROBLEM LANDS: LAND CAPABILITY CLASSES 7 & 8
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTY
1^ 80 - 96
H 50 - 79.9
11 20 - 49.9
^ 10 - 19.9
£3 0-9.9
D NOT RELEVANT
Oi
-J
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
BY CAGIS/UICC, FEBRUARY. 1980
Sources : the most recent Conservation Needs Inventory for each of the six
states
-------
represent rock outcrops and extremely stony glaciated land. In the western
portion of the ORBES region, Class 7 and 8 lands may be river bottom wetlands
subject to annual flooding. In most cases Class 7 and 8 lands are wooded
because any other use Is uneconomical. In the eastern portion of the ORBES
region some of these lands have been converted to pasture by land owners
lacking more suitable lands for pasture development.
Flat Lands; 0-2.5% Slope (Figure 7-3)
These lands tend to be Prime Farmlands and as such include Class 1 lands.
However, these lands may have soils of low permeability, or soils subject to
periodic flooding. Row crop agriculture is by far the predominant use of
these lands.
Steep Slope Lands; >25%, >30% Slope Depending on State (Figure 7-4)
These lands are steeply sloping as stated. The slopes tend to be wooded,
but can support pasture at the more level end of reference (i.e., e.g., nearer
to 25% slope than 40% slope). These lands probably give a conservative esti-
mate of forestation, particularly in southeastern Ohio and western Pennsyl-
vania. All of these lands fall under the Steep Slope Provisions of the SMCRA.
58
-------
Figure 7-3
FLAT LANDS: 0 - 2.5 PERCENT SLOPE
PERCENT OF COUNTY ACREAGE
H 64.1 -81
H 50.1 - 64
|H 30.1 - 50
gj 10.1 - 30
E3 0-10
D NOT RELEVANT
Ol
-------
Figure 7-4
STEEP SLOPE LANDS: OVER 25 PERCENT,
OVER 30 PERCENT SLOPE DEPENDING ON STATE
PERCENT OF COUNTY ACREAGE
|[ 85.1 - 100
H 70.1 - 85
j 45.1 - 70
_j 15.1 - 45
•3 0-15
NOT RELEVANT
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
BYCAGIS/UICC, FEBRUARY. 1980
Sources: Lee et al., 1976; Purdue University et a!., 1971; Runge et al., 1969;
Conservation Needs Inventory Data Bank (computer printout of 1967 slope
data for Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania)
-------
8. APPLICATION OF ORBES SCENARIOS: FUTURE
COAL PRODUCTION FOR ALL PURPOSES
Introduction
This is the first of two chapters pertaining to individual ORBES scenarios.
The scenario identification used here refers to the list provided in the ORBES
Memorandum dated 16 November 1979, which includes Scenarios #1 through #6 and
their various subsets.
For general readers of this report, Scenario #1 tests moderately high
energy demand and strict environmental controls. Scenario #2 tests moderately
high energy demand and moderate environmental controls. Scenario #2a tests
high energy demand involving additional energy for export as generated elec-
tricity. Scenario #2 tests low coal-produced energy demand and moderate en-
vironmental controls. Scenario #1 and $2 have their coal demands to supply
power plants fairly evenly distributed among the ORBES states, but with
moderately dispersed (Scenario #1) or conventionally concentrated (Scenario
#2) siting patterns of Individual power plants among the states. Scenario
#2a is an electrical power export scenario, which resembles Scenario #2 in
western ORBES, but which includes massive increases in generating capacity in
Ohio and modest increases Kentucky-east, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. From
the standpoint of land use Impacts from surface mining, these scenarios repre-
sent cases from low impact to worst case considering all scenarios developed
prior to 24 October 1979 (i.e., exclude Scenario #7). As presented in the
following sections (Prime Farmlands Conflicts, Steep Slopes Conflicts), the
net impact indices did not vary appreciably from one scenario to the next
(e.g., Table 9-5). Thus, no other scenarios were assessed, and our complex
process of indicating county land use impacts was complete. In the 16 November
1979 list of scenarios, Scenarios #lc (Agricultural Lands Protection) and #5a
(Very High Growth in Generating Capacity) may influence land use in patterns
by shifting the impact index (e.g., Scenario #lc) or increasing the magnitude
of the worst case (e.g., Scenario #5a).
Total Surface Production for each scenario is defined as coal produced
for all purposes, one of these purposes being generation of electricity. In
this chapter analysis of mining impacts on land use is limited to summation
of affected acreage. For general interpretation one may assume that surface
uses are non-productive for a two-year period following mining, but that a
return to some form of productivity will occur in five years. Our objective
is to place in perspective our analysis of the impacts of mining utility coal
(Chapter 9).
61
-------
Ratios of Surface to Underground Mining
Coal will be mined by surface and underground methods. Given a total
demand for coal, the proportion of this coal which will be surface-mined is
the single most sensitive factor in the estimation of land use impacts due
to surface mining. Within any state, the greater the fraction to be surface-
mined, the greater will be the affected acreage of land, provided one ignores
surface slumping of deep mines. Table 8-1 provides several relevant surface
to deep tonnage ratios. From the first two number columns it is evident
that surface reserves in 1976 were being exploited disporportionately more
than they occur in nature. The OTA projections predict a gradual decline in
surface mining relative to underground mining. Calculations derived from the
ORBES Demand Model reflects this trend in the case of large changes (e.g.,
Indiana, Kentucky-East) except in West Virginia.
Table 8-1 Ratios of Surface to Underground Mining (Annual Tonnage)
(% Surface Mined or Mineable)
Dbserve^ Estimated Hypothetical (2000)This Study
(1976)1 (Reserve Base)2 OTA Low3 OTA High3 (year 2000)*»
Illinois 47%
Indiana 98
Kentucky-West 56
Kentucky-East 55
Ohio 64
Pennsylvania 48
West Virginia 19
19%
16
31
27
17
5
13
34%
68
46
32
48
16
17
33%
56
45
30
44
17
16
48%
52
58
30
60
45
26
Adapted to ORBES Region From Walls, 1979.
2Adapted to ORBES Region From Thomson and York, 1975.
Calculated From U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1979.
••Derived from the ORBES Demand Model by approximate reapportionment of
Bureau of Mines District Production to the states.
62
-------
Table 8-2
LAND AFFECTED BY SURFACE MINING FOR COAL
Ratios in Acres per Million Tons
COAL FIELD
EASTERN INTERIOR
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky-Vfest
AVERAGE
APPALACHIAN
Kentucky-East
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
AVERAGE
THIS STUDY
193
194
TQT
458
428
1
SCS*
(1979)
260
239
184
Hutchins3
(1979)
OTA"
(1979)
(5 states)
T5F
1975 Reserve
(PRODUCTION) ( Pase ) (9 states)
638 198 158
378
370
408
472
434
339
47T
168
183
154
TTT
149
163
142
TBT
17F
1 Derived from Table 5-4 (see text for further explanation).
^Land area adapted to the ORBES Region from U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service (1979); Tonnage calculations from this study.
Calculated from Hutchins (1979), pp 62 and 66.
^Calculated from U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1?79), p. 246.
^Extrapolated from adjacent counties in Ohio and West Virginia.
63
-------
Ratios of Land Area to Production
Table 8-2 provides ratios of Land Area to Production. The derivation
and plausibility of the ratios 1n general are discussed In Chapter 5. The
ratios used for Scenario calculations are listed in the lefthand column.
These ratios are the same as the 1971-1975 period ratios of Table 5-4 except
for Kentucky-West. We judge Kentucky-West to be similar to Indiana and
Illinois In most respects (e.g., topography, mine size) although the mined
seams are slightly thicker (Table 5-3). From the standpoint of overall coal
field averages the ratios used for Scenario calculations fall between the
calculations based on SCS and OTA data.
Land Area Affected by Total Surface Production
Table 8-3 provides estimates of total cumulative affected acreages over
the 25 year scenario period. The acreages involved in the four Scenarios
exceed the historical grand total affected acreage of the ORBES region (1.86
billion acres through 1977, U.S.D.A., S.C.S., 1979) by 20% (Scenario #3) to
32% (Scenario #2a). The apportionment of affected acreage to coal basin is
22% Eastern Interior and 78% Appalachian. Much of the difference between
coal fields results from the higher acreage to production ratios in the
Appalachian Coal Field.
Table 8-4 concerns recently affected land. Such land will be at various
stages of recent disturbance starting with clearing for mining, then mining,
and ending with recent reclamation. Vegetative cover will vary from barren
to row crop and first-year field. No trees will be present unless small
ones have been planted. During this period the regional differences in ground
cover are reduced to a minimum. In eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, this
period is to be one of deforestation. In rough terms the rate of impact is com-
parable to 1/3 to 2/3 of a county every two years. The Scenario #3 rate of
impact is 25% above 1976 1n the year 2000; Scenario #2a is 59% above the 1976
rate.
Table 8-3 Cumulative Acreage Affected by Surface Mining of
Coal for All Uses: 1976-2000
Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario 128 Scenario #3
Illinois 184,000 182,000 194,000 166,000
Indiana 137,000 135,000 143,000 125,000
Kentucky-West 187,000 185,000 196,000 169,000
Kentucky-East 565,000 560,000 586,000 521,000
Ohio 426,000 421,000 447,000 384,000
Pennslyvania 515,000 508,000 539,000 464,000
West Virginia 328,000 325,000 348,000 393.000
TOTAL 2,342,000 2,316,000 2,453,000 2,222,000
X of Total 1.92 1.90 2.01 1.82
ORBES Region
64
-------
Table 8-4 Two-Year Accumulated Total Acreage of Recently Mined Land
at About Year 2000, and Comparison with the 1976 Estimate
Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #2a Scenario #3
Illinois 19,000 19,000 20,000 16,000
Indiana 12,000 12,000 13,000 10,000
Kentucky-West 19,000 18,000 20,000 16,000
Kentucky-East 44,000 43,000 47,000 37,000
Ohio 42,000 42,000 46,000 36,000
Pennsylvania 51,000 50,000 54,000 43,000
West Virginia 37,000 36,000 40,000 31,000
TOTAL 224,000 220,000 240,000 189,000
(Year 2000)
TOTAL. 151,000 151,000 151,000 151,000
(Year 1976)
65
-------
9. APPLICATION OF ORBES SCENARIOS: COAL PRODUCTION
FOR ORBES SCENARIOS POWER PLANTS
Introduction
This section deals with a selected group of Interactions between the
land surface and coal demand by coal-fired power plants. The specifications
for the power plants were provided by the ORBES Core Team. We make several
strict assumptions in estimating land Involvement. These assumptions have
been supplied by the ORBES Core Team and the initial products of this Support
Study. Understanding the assumptions will aid the reader to understand the
acreage demand estimates and assess their validity.
Our analysis requires the following assumptions.
a) The heat value of coal for all ORBES coal-fired power plants
is 12,450 btu per pound.
b) The thermal efficiency of these power plants in converting coal
energy into electrical energy 1s 0.343.
c) The operating capacity factor of these power plants is 50 percent
of the maximum load capability.
d) The operating lifetime of these power plants is 35^ years from the
date of coming on line.
Thus, an ORBES 650 MWe "standard" coal-fired power plant uses 1.14 million
tons annually, or 17.1 million tons in 15 years (e.g., 1985-2000. the Scenario
Addition Period as explained below).
We calculated how much land one 650 MWe power plant supplied entirely
with surface-mined coal from a given state would use in the course of 15 years.
Using the tonnage to acreage surface relationship developed in Chapters 5
and 8, the estimates for each ORBES State/Coal Region 1s provided 1n Table
9-1. The land affected will vary from 3,300 to 7,800 acres, which equals 1/7
to close to one third of a standard 6 mi. x 6 ml. township, depending on the
state.
66
-------
Table 9-1 Acres of Land Affected to Fulfill Coal Demand for One 650 MWe
Power Plant Supplied Entirely by Surface-Mined Coal and
Operating Throughout the Scenario Addition Period of 15 Years
Cumulative Acreage
Acres Per (Annual Demand =
Coal Region. State Million Tons 1.14 Million Tons)
Eastern Interior
Illinois 193 3,300
Indiana 194 3,317
Kentucky-West 194 3,317
Appalachian
Kentucky-East 458 7,832
Ohio 428 7,319
Pennsylvania 378 6,464
West Virginia 370 6,327
To estimate the net demand for surface-mined coal by all power plants
for a given ORBES scenario, we have characterized power plants between 1976
and 2000 into three groups with one subgroup. The relationship of these
groups to coal demand is provided in Table 9-2. The groups represent
Existing, Planned, and Scenario Additions. Existing power plants are
operating today, Planned power plants are under construction or announced
by electrical utility companies, and Scenario Addition power plants are
estimates of units necessary to fill electrical demand in the year 2000.
Planned power plants are to come on line between 1976 and 1993. The first
Scenario Addition power plants will begin generating in 1985; others will
follow with the last facilities scheduled for 2000. ORBES assumes that all
of the coal-fired power plants will use ORBES coal except in the very few
cases where it is definitely known that coal for Existinq power plants 1s
imported (e.g., from Virginia and the Western Coal Field;. Given this assump-
tion, additional assumptions apply to each of the three different groups of
power plants.
a) For Existing power plants there are published data (summarized by
ORBES Core Team, Blome memo 8/31/79 a) listing the states of origin of coal
shipped to them. Neither the counties of the origin nor the mining methods
have been included. Thus, for the present project we summed (the coal supplies)
according to state or origin for all power plants existing in 1976. To esti-
mate the portion of coal supplied by surface mining we multiplied the total
67
-------
0)
00
Table 9-2 Several Variables Involved in the Estimation of Surface-Mined Coal Demand by ORBFS Power Plants,
(See text for additional explanation).
Variable
Existing Power Plants Existing Power Plants (SIP) Planned Power Plants Scenario Addition Power Plantt
MV.'e per unit
Maximum
time span
of operation
Unit time
span of
operation
Oriain of
coal supply
Mining
method
Annual coal
volume per
650 MUe
(Million tons)
Variable as stated
1976 - 2000
1976 - decommissioning
(1976 - <2000)
state(s)
as published
estimated from 1976
state proportions
(surface vs. underground)
1.14
Variable as stated
1976 - 2000
1976 - decommissioning
(1976 - < 2000)
state, county
(Appalachian Coal Field)
as stated
Variable as stated
1976 - ?000
start up - 2000
[(1976-1993) - 2000)]
state, county
(home state)
as stated
650
1986 - 2000
start up - 2000
[(1986-2000) - 2000]
state, county
(home state)
as stated
1.14
1.14
1.14
-------
tonnages for each given state by the surface to total production fraction
for that state in 1976 (see Table 8-1). At first approximation these totals
give a single year of surface-mined coal supply by state at 1.14 million
tons of coal per 650 MWe generating station.
To estimate the cumulative coal supply for each power plant over several
years (1976-2000) we allowed an active power plant lifetime of 35 years and
projected the date of decommissioning from the published starting date (data
supplied by ORBES Core Team; Jansen, 1978). The state ratios of surface-mined
to total production were held constant at 1976 proportions through the year
2000.
b) Certain Existing power plants have a requirement for SIP coal (low
sulfur coal). SIP requirements take effect in 1985 and continue for the
active life of the given power plant. The ORBES Core Team (Blome memo,
8/31/79 b) has provided the state, county, and mining method for production
of SIP coal. Generally, power plants in Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky are
to receive SIP coal from Kentucky-East; power plants in Ohio and West Virginia
get SIP coal from West Virginia; and Pennsylvania power plants get SIP coal
from Pennsylvania. In certain computations of coal demand for Existing power
plants, SIP coal appears as excess coal. To correct for this we subtracted
the excess tonnage from the home state coal supplies. (Note: In Kentucky,
SIP coal from Kentucky-East replaces non-SIP coal from Kentucky-West).
c) For Planned power plants the ORBES Core Team (Blome memo, August,
1979) has furnished coal supplies according to state, county, and method of
mining. Some of the tonnages were assigned to announced mine openings or
expansions as listed in Walls et al. (1979). Other supplies come from con-
jured mines. All supplies originate within the home state of the power plant.
Coal demand is 1.14 million tons per year per 650 MWe of power generation.
d) For Scenario Addition power plants, the ORBES Core Team (Blome memo,
8/31/79 c) has furnished coal supplies according to state, county and method
of mining. All supplies originate within the home state of the power plant.
Coal demand is 1.14 million tons per year for each 650 MWe power plant unit.
We have emphasized surface-mined coal. Underground-mined coal has been
omitted from calculation through the aforementioned processes, but is shown
in Table 9-3. In relation to both surface and underground coal demand by all
ORBES coal fired power plants, surface-mined coal demand represents only 43%
of Total Utility Coal Demand for the period 1976-2000, and underground-mined
coal represents the remainder.
69
-------
Table 9-3 Cumulative Coal Demand, 1976-2000, According to Scenario #2 (the base case):
A Comparison of Total Coal Demand for All Uses and for ORBES Power Plants
Total Coal Demand for All Uses
Underground Mined
Million Tons
Surface Mined
Million Tons
Total
Electrical Utility Coal Demand
Underground Mined
Million Tons
Surface Mined
Million Tons
Total
Utility Coal as % of Coal for
All Uses
Eastern Interior Basin Appalachian Basin Total
IL
1,051
53
943
47
1,994
412
62
254
38
666
33
IN
355
34
698
66
1,053
414
54
345
46
759
72
KY-W
735
44
952
56
1,687
309
47
351
53
660
39
KY-E
1,860
60
1,222
40
3,082
168
30
391
70
559
18
OH
612
38
983
62
1,595
301
45
372
55
673
42
PA
1,503
53
1,345
47
2,848
546
69
241
31
787
28
WV
2,874
77
879
23
3,753
646
80
162
20
808
22
8,990
56
7,022
44
16,012
2,796
57
2,115
43
4,911
31
-------
Affected Lands
Table 9=4 summarizes the results of our coal demand calculations pre-
dicting acreages of land to be affected within the states0 This table also
distinguishes between acreages subdivisible to the county level and acreages
not so specifically locatable. Only about one=half of the affected acreages
can be assigned to counties under each of the three scenarios,, This results
because existing power plants need a large proportion of the coalD and the
sources of this coal have not usually been traced to county during the course
of this studyo
In no case does the coal demand as reflected in affected acreages con°
stitute half of the total projected surface mining activity within the ORBES
region (Chapter 8)0 The excess coal will be exported and that the remainder
will be used for purposes other than electrical power generation (e0g00
coking) (Core Team)0
Table 9=5 gives acreages affected at the county level0 We have listed
these as the maximum and minimum amounts drawn from any of the three scenarios,,
The center column gives the power plant category: S = SIP0 P = Planned0 C =
Conjured0 (R) = Reserves for Existing power plants. The category (R) is not
associated with finite acreages since Existing power plants do not have coal
supply counties assigned to them (for other than SIP coal). Category (R)
counties do„ however, have large surface reserves,, and with few exceptions
(e.g.o Henderson,, Kentucky) support large surface mine industries capable
of supplying existing power plants,, We have listed category (R) counties
to give balance to total set of counties used in import evaluation (two right-
hand columns in Table 9=5).
Interactions, Bejween_ Surface Mining,, Prime Farmlands„ and Steep Slopes
The Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Permanent Regulatory
Program (U.So Department of Interior,, Office of Surface Mining,, 1979) gives
special recognition to the mining of Prime Farmlands and Steep Slopes (Slopes
>20%] making reclamation more difficult and costly for these land forms than
for several other types of Iand0 For mining of Prime Farmlands„ diesel scrapers
must collect and stockpile the soil in two separate constituents representing
the A horizon and the B0 or B plus C horizons. After miningB the company
must level the spoils,, replace the B/C horizon,, then the A horizon on top0
and demonstrate through planting and harvest that high quality agricultural
capability has been restored to the land, Thus0 the economic potential for
future land use is clearly implied within the law.
The constraints governing mining of Steep Slopes can render surface
mining uneconomical where economic conditions prevailed formerly0 Producti-
vity or economic return from reclaimed steep slopes does not appear to be a
significant issue legally. In terms of actual or potential land use0 steep
slope lands are forested lands or are recommended for forestation (except in
-------
Table 9-4. Scenario Acreages: Cumulative Acreages Which Would be Affected by Surface Mining For Coal
For the 1976-2000 Period, and County Coal Mine Siting Information.
-4
Eastern Interior
Scenario and County Coal Field State Appalachian Coal Field State ORBES
Siting Information IL IN Ky-W Ky-E OH PA WV TOTAL %
Acres per mi
Scenario #1
Sited to
Not sited
Total
Scenario #2
Sited to
Not sited
Total
Scenario #2a
Sited to
Not sited
Total
Scenario #3
Sited to
Not sited
11 ion tons
counties
to counties
counties
to counties
counties
to counties
counties
to counties
193
22,000
24,000
46,000
25,000
24,000
49,000
24,000
24,000
48,000
19,000
24,000
194
26,000
38,000
64,000
29,000
38,000
67,000
29,000
38,000
67,000
26,000
38,000
194
50,oon
18,000
68,000
50,000
18,000
68,000
50,000
18,000
68,000
48,000
18,000
458
109,000
71 ,000
180,000
108,000
71,000
1 79 ,000
118,000
71 ,000
189,000
93,000
71 ,000
428
67,000
91 ,000
158,000
68,000
91 ,000
159,000
116,000
91 ,000
207,000
58,000
91 ,000
378
19,000
71 ,000
90,000
20,000
71 ,000
91 ,000
17,000
71 ,000
98,000
9,000
71 ,000
370
30,000
29,000
59 ,000
31 ,000
29 ,000
60,000
31 ,000
29,000
60,000
27,000
29,000
323,000
342,000
665,000
331 ,000
342,000
673,000
385,000
342 ,000
727,000
280,000
342,000
49
51
100
49
51
100
53
47
100
45
55
Total
43,000 64,000 66,000 164,000 149,000 80,000 56,000 622,000
100
-------
Table 9-5
Surface Mine Counties for ORBES Scenarios,
Range in Estimated Mine Acreage, and Land Use
Impact Indices for the Mines
State
County
IL
Fulton
Greene
Grundy
Henry
Jackson
Knox
Madison
Peoria
Perry
Randolph
Saline
Stark
St. Clair
Vermilion
Williamson
IN
Clay
Daviess
Fountain
Knox
Pike
Sullivan
Warrick
KY-W
Butler
Daviess
Henderson
Hopkins
Muhlenbern
Ohio
Un i on
KY-E
Bell
Breathitt
Clay
Harlan
Johnson
Leslie
Letcher
Magoffin
Martin
Perry
Pike
Affected Acreage
Maximum Minimum
1,700
--
--
--
7,200
3,200
—
300
-
P,100
-
4,100
_
-
1,500
5,200
1,600
2,000
5,ROO
6,900
6,700
9,900
10,900
-
5,900
14,600
5,600
2,900
12,300
44,000
4,100
_
5,700
19,000
3,400
2,400
15,800
10,500
800
0
-
-
-
7,200
3,200
-
0
-
8,100
-
4,100
_
-
900
5,200
1,600
0
5,800
5,100
6,100
9,900
10,900
_
5,300
14,600
5,600
2,900
12,300
44,000
4,100
„
5,700
8,900
3,400
2,400
15,800
10,500
800 _,
Power Plant
Category
Supplied
C
(R)
(R)
(R)
P
P
(R)
c
(R)
C
(R)
c
(R)
iii
C
P
P
c
P
P,C
P,C
P
P
(R)
P,C
P
P,C
P
s
s,c
5 w
P
(R)
\ /
P
s,c
y w
S
s
P
s
1 ^
Impact Indices
Prime Steep
Farmlands Slopes
++++
++++
+f++
++++
++++
++++
++
++++
++
++
++++
++++
++++
+:::
++++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
+
++++
+++
++
+
+
+++
o
n
o
o
o
n
0
0
o
o
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
0
0
+
0
•H-++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
-------
State
County
Effected Acreage
Maximum Minimum
Power Plant
Category
Supplied
Impact Indices'
Prime Steep
Farmlands Slopes
OH
Athens
belmont
Carroll
Columbiana
Coshacton
Harrison
Jefferson
Muskingum
Noble
Perry
Stark
Tuscarawas
Vinton
13,100
600
6,400
25,300
7,700
9,600
5,100
9,600
9,000
19,500
7,100
3,400
1,300
0
3,200
25,300
4,500
0
1,300
7,100
0
9,800
0
P,C
C
C
C
P
C
C
C
(R)
C
C
P,C
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PA
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Clarion
Clearfield
4,700
5,700
13,700
4,700
1,500
R,200
(R)
P
C
(R)
s,c
0
0
wv
Boone
Fayette
Kanawha
Logan
McDowell
Mingo
Raleigh
Wayne
2,600
600
24,400
1,100
3,700
2,600
0
21,700
0
3,700
S
C
S,C
(R)
(R)
C
(R)
p
0
0
0
0
Sources for Determination of Impact Indices; Agricultural and Industrial Board
of Kentucky, 1953; Brant, 1956; Bureau and Powell, 1974; Callahan and Callahan,
1971; ChHstman et al., 1971; Conservation Needs Inventory Data Bank, 1967;
Couchot, 1978; Council on Environmental Quality, 1973; Cox, 1974; DeLong, 1955,
1978; DeLong and White, 1963; Hayhurst et al., 1974; Heard. 1979; Kelley, 1974.
1975; Kentucky Department of Commerce, Division of Research and Planning, 1975;
Lamborn, 1956; Lee et al., 1976; Lesslg et al., 1968, 1977; Mausel et al., 1975;
Montgomery, 1974; Mull1ns et al., 1963, 1965, 1969; Ohio Soil and Water Conser-
vation Needs Committee, 1971; Paschal 1 et al., 1938 a, b; Pennsylvania Conser-
vation Needs Inventory Committee, 1968; Powell, 1976; Purdue University et al.,
1971; Rubel et al., 1979; Runge et al., 1969; Sholes and Skema, 1974; Shumate
and Lesslg, 1976; Smith et al., 1952; Smith and Stall, 1975; Spencer, 1953;
Thomson and York, 1975; Treworthy et al., 1978; USDA-SCS, 1977, 1979; USDA-SCS
et al., 1975; USDI-GS, 1969 a, b, c, 1972 a, b, 1976, 1977 a, b; University of
Illinois Agricultural Experimental Station. 1977; Weir, 1953; Weir and Deane,
1958; Weir and Stanley, 1953; West Virginia Conservation Needs Inventory
Committee, 1970; WMtmore, no date.
74
-------
exceptional cases, e.g, ski resorts). Steep slopes today are largely forested
as can be demonstrated through overlays of land form and land use maps from
the U.S. National Atlas. However, the quality of the forests varies appreci-
ably as a result of varied harvesting practices, poor restocking, natural
species composition,and antiquated surface-mining practices. An appropriate
map quantifying forest quality (mostly by tree size and wood volume rather
than species composition) is available in the document, National Coal Utiliza-
tion Assessment (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1978). In the ORBES region
steep slopes constitute a large, if not the largest subset of Class 7 and 8
lands defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, which this authority
recommends for commercial, recreational or wildlife oriented forestation (see
any SCS state Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory for a description).
Thus, as a summary we assume that mining of steep slopes will influence future
forestry more than any other form of land use.
We selected Prime Farmlands and Steep Slopes for quantitative assessment
primarily because of their special mention in the USDI, OSM Surface Mining
Regulations. Also, we had a broad, although uneven, data base available to
allow analyses of these land use associated issues. With other issues,
interactions with mining activity would be much more speculative. Interest-
ingly, Prime Farmlands and Steep Slopes represent conflicts between the mining
company, the government, and the surface rights owner. Surface mining con-
tinues to be a source of impact to the surface conditions while reclamation
standards inhibit the mining company.
Conflict Indices: We adopted a five-point scale (0-++++, or 0-4) to
evaluate potential interactions between surface mining, Prime Farmlands and
Steep Slopes (Table 9-5, righthand columns). We interpret the points on the
scale as having the following approximate significance:
0 unlikely, although possible, but having significance only
to a few individuals locally
+ probable, but having significance only locally within a
county
++ probable and having widespread significance within a county
depending on the total acreage disturbed
+++ highly probable and having significance beyond county borders
depending on the total acreage disturbed
++++ highly probable and having national significance
75
-------
We developed our county assessments depending on evidence that strlppable
coal reserves underlie Prime Farmlands or Steep Slopes. Such evidences are
documented with Table 9-5. They Include maps of coal deposits, coal outcrops,
strlppable reserves, mlned-out areas, prime farmlands, county sell surveys,
surface contours, and slope angle areas. For several counties the relation-
ship between slope angle and reserves has been assessed In a form directly
applicable to our study (e.g., Council on Environmental Quality, 1973). Me
also used our computer printout of slope frequency data from the 1967 Con-
servation Needs Inventory Data Bank as a crosscheck against the contour
maps. Figures 9-1 and 9-2 give locations of Prime Farmland and Steep Slope
conflicts, respectively.
The quality of our data varies from state to state and county to county.
Illinois data are best with a recent survey of economically strlppable re-
serves, a prime farmland map, and a regional rating of prime farmlands
separating the very best from good. Indiana and Kentucky-West have coal
deposit maps with coal seam structural contours and mined-out areas shown.
Assessment of the Appalachian Coal Field required examination of Individual
documents about counties, often containing outdated or presumably outdated
Information.
We used the conflict Indices to contrast Scenarios (Table 9-6), one
Power Plant category with another (Table 9-7), and one state with another
(Tables 9-8 and 9-9). For each estimate we weighted the Index using the
acreages Involved at the county levels and then divided by the total affected
acreage within the category assessed (e.g., all Scenario II affected acreage).
Thus, a categorical calculation becomes the sum of affected county acreages
multiplied by respective county Indices then divided by the total sum of
affected acreages. For Existing Power Plants we used a slightly different
system of weighting. We set the 1976 surface production by the counties 1n
Table 9-4 proportional to the surface mined coal demand for Existing Power
Plants within each home state, scaled each county production figure by the
county conflict Index, and then divided by the aforementioned state coal
demand for Existing Power Plants. We used this form of estimation to off-
set the lack of definite county data on coal demand for Existing Power Plants.
Table 9-10 summarizes Scenario coal demand according to each level of
the conflict scale. The data used In developing this table are identical to
the data used in constructing the aforementioned tables except that we deleted
affected acreage as a variable. This table ranks coal tonnage according to
the constraints limiting mining. The table provides the mineral Interest view
as opposed to the surface land use view of the conflict between the two issues.
That 1s, it shows how much coal is associated with a given level of constraint
which could Increase the cost of extraction.
We can summarize our findings briefly. The net Prime Farmland Indices
for each of the Scenarios Is only about one (Table 9-6). This supports the
view that modification of Prime Farmlands through surface mining Is mostly
a local issue as opposed to a national one. It has become a national issue
76
-------
Figure 9-i CONFLICT RATING: PRIME FARMLANDS VS. SURFACE RESERVES
++
0 0
0 UNRANKED COUNTY
D NOT RELEVANT
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY
BY CACIS/UKX. FEBRUARY. 1980
Sources: see Table 9-5 (bottom) for listing
-------
Figure 9-2
CONFLICT RATING: STEEP SLOPES VS. SURFACE RESERVES
CONFLICT RATING
B-H--H-
+-M-
UNRANKED COUNTY
NOT RELEVANT
PREPARED FOR OHIO RIVER BASM ENERGY STUDY
BYCAGIS/UCC, rCBRUARY. 1980
Sources: see Table 9-5 (bottom) for listing
-------
Table 9-6 The Net Impact of Three Scenarios on Two Types of Landform in the
ORBES Region (ORBES-Wide Impacts Rated on a Scale of 0-4)
Acres
Scenario Required
#1 655,000
n 663,000
#2a 717,000
#3 622,000
Prime Farmland
Impact
1.049
1.081
1.048
1.063
Steep Slope
Impact
1.602
1.618
1.586
1 . 636
Table 9-7 The Net Impact of Three Scenarios on Two Types of Landform in the ORBES
Region: Organization According to Power Plant Category (Impact Scale
of 0-4).
ORBES-WIDE IMPACTS RATED ON SCALE OF 0-4
Coal Demand
Facilities
Existing - Non SIP
(All Scenarios)
SIP and Planned
Acres
Required
342,000
225,000
Prime Farmland
Impact
1.036
1.042
Steep Slope
Impact
1.443
1.935
(All Scenarios)
Planned Additions:
Scenario #1 88,000 1.117 1.379
Scenario #2 96,000 1.332 1.460
Scenario #2a 150,000 1.082 1.394
Scenario #3 55,000 1.317 1.609
79
-------
Table 9-8 Prime Farmland Conflicts: Acres Affected and Impact Indices (Scale = 0-d) According to State and Power
Plant Category
oo
o
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky-West
Kentucky-East
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky-West
Kentucky-East
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Existing
Non - SIP
(All Scenarios)
24 ,000
38,000
18,000
71 ,000
91 ,000
71 ,000
29,000
2.709
2.558
1.250
0.000
0.765
0.624
0.231
SIP & Planned
(All Scenarios
10,000
21,000
47,000
88,000
39,000
6,000
14,000
4.000
2.778
1.909
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
) Scenario #1
Acres Affected
12,000
5,000
3,000
11,000
28,000
13,000
16,000
Impact Indices
2.666
2.882
1.556
0.000
1.205
1.000
0.034
Planned Additinns
Scenario #2
14,000
8,000
3,000
10,000
30 ,000
14,000
17,000
2.857
2.923
1.636
0.000
1.522
1.000
0.000
Scenario #2a
14,000
8,000
3,000
20,000
77,000
1 1 ,000
17,000
2.857
2.923
1.636
0.000
1.083
1.000
0.000
Scenario #3
9,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
19,000
3,000
13,000
2.452
2.875
2.000
0.000
1.667
1.000
0.000
-------
Table 9-9 Steep Slope Conflicts: Impact Indices (Scale = 0-4) According to State and Power Plant Category
1
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky-West
Kentucky-East
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Existing
Non-SIP
(All Scenarios)
0.000
0.000
0.225
4.000
0.572
0.624
3.769
SIP & Planned
(All Scenarios)
0.000
0.000
0.308
4.000
0.178
1.000
4.000
Planned Additions
Scenario #1
0.000
0.000
0.444
4.000
0.341
0.565
3.966
Scenario #2
0.000
0.000
0.364
4.000
0.783
0.897
4.000
Scenario #2a
0.000
0.000
0.364
4.000
0.717
0.869
4.000
Scenario #3
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.000
0.667
1.000
4.000
Acres affected are the same as in Table 9-8.
oo
-------
Table 9-10 Cumulative Coal Demand According to Conflict Scale, Power
Category, and Scenario (Volume in Millions of Tons)
Plant
Power Plant
Category
Existing
Planned and SIP
Scenario Additions:
Scenario #1
Scenario #2
Scenario #2a
Scenario #3
Scenario #1 Total
Scenario #2 Total
Scenario #2a Total
Scenario #3 Total
Prime Farmland
Low
0
284
251
76
61
139
47
611
596
674
582
Confli
1
354
254
73
59
87
23
681
667
695
631
Steep Slope Conflict
0 1
Existing
Planned and SIP
Scenario Additions:
Scenario #1
Scenario #2
Scenario #2a
Scenario #3
Scenario #1 Total
Scenario #2 Total
Scenario #2a Total
Scenario #3 Total
567
411
154
152
217
102
1132
1130
1195
10PO
237
89
48
42
62
17
374
368
388
343
82
ct Scale
2
247
44
P4
97
90
75
375
388
381
366
Scale
2
11
8
0
26
39
11
19
45
58
30
3
104
101
8
27
*8
21
213
232
253
2?6
3
18
0
2
0
0
0
20
18
18
18
High
4
60
110
29
36
36
11
199
206
206
181
4
216
251
66
60
82
47
533
527
54P
514
Net
Index
1.335
1.426
1.400
1.706
1 . 386
1.582
1.377
1.418
1.375
1.392
Net
Index
1.121
1.461
1.172
1.191
1.172
1.282
1.252
1.254
1.247
1.266
-------
because the total acreage of prime farmlands affected throughout the ORBES
region and the nation as a whole has amounted to many thousands of acres
over the years. However, recognition of surface mine reclamation as a
national issue has lagged behind rapid growth in surface mining by several
decades. If surface-mineable coal reserves were to have coincided with
Prime Farmlands precisely (which they do not; Table 9-5, Figure 9-1)
national recognition might have come earlier. Prime Farmlands as a state
issue has proceeded federal concerns by at least five years (e.g., the
Illinois SMC & R Act, Rule 1104, see Chapter 10, Agricultural Producti-
vity). This historical event is compatible with Table 9-8, which shows
Illinois as relatively the most severely impacted state. Provided that
federal and state regulations succeed in restoring Prime Farmlands, the
temporary removal of these lands from productivity should remain a local
issue. The projected level of coal utilization for ORBES power plants pro-
vides a liberal estimate of 15,000 acres suspended from production during
any given growing season (given four years between the last pre-m1ning
crop and the first post-mining crop of high quality).
Steep Slope indices show higher net values for the Scenarios than do
Prime Farmland indices. We attribute this phenomenon to the high demand of
the ORBES power plants for low sulfur coal, which is restricted to Steep
Slope terrain in the ORBES region. The relatively recent upsurge in surface
mining on Steep Slopes (Kentucky-East and West Virginia in Tables 3-1 and
5-4; also Currens and Smith, 1977) and the assured demand for low sulfur
coal may have contributed to national concern over Steep Slope mining. As
discussed in Chapter 4, the difficulties associated with reclamation of con-
tour stripped Steep Slope lands may favor practice of mountaintop removal
where practicable. The affect of this process on most areas will result
in Increased agricultural utilization of Steep Slope areas. This trend will
not create prime farmland for row crop agriculture but rather will increase
grazing and hay meadow forms of agriculture.
Alternatively, we have calculated the proportion of coal resource con-
strained by special requirements for surface mine reclamation. The net impact
indices for Prime Farmlands and Steep Slopes are slightly over one for each
power plant category and each scenario. The net impact indices of Prime
Farmland constraints are slightly higher than those for Steep Slopes. The
amount of most highly constrained coal (Scale #4) varies from 9.3 to 9.9% for
Prime Farmlands and from 25 to 26% for Steep Slopes according to Scenario.
The high conflict category clearly concerns less Prime Farmland coal than
Steep Slope coal. We interpret this contrast in relation to the net impact
indices for the Scenarios as a function of surface land form interspersion
over local blocks of mineable coal. Steep Slopes tend to overlie all of
the coal locally whereas Prime Farmlands, lower quality farmlands, and other
lands may be interspersed over coal locally.
83
-------
10. CAPSULE REVIEW OF PAST AND PRESENT RECLAMATION
Introduction
After operators have ceased mining a given parcel of land and have ful-
filled their legal requirements for reclamation, the land is called post"
mined or an "affected area" and will acquire a post-mining land use. All
land has potential use. Actual use may remain largely unknown until docu-
mentation during a census of surface-mined lands. Until then, land use is
both unknown and unobserved. Following a census, the use may be recorded
as "none observed" (e.g., in Haynes and Klimstra, 1975) at which time it
becomes safe to speculate that any use is at most light. Reclamation legis-
lation is becoming increasingly stringent because public discontent with
early reclamation practices appears to have exceeded public acceptance. In
this section we examine some of the evidence concerning potential and actual
land use.
Quality of the Data
In our survey we found few comprehensive studies documenting observed
post-mining land use on a county or state-wide basis. Observed post-mining
land use in an exact sense has been compiled for Illinois only. We were
able to extend coverage of the ORBES region through Inferential data. Some
data were general summaries of the type of grading and/or vegetation on lands
from which bond had been released. Kentucky and West Virginia appear to lack
summarized land use data, observed or Inferred. Both states request a state-
ment about post-mining land use on their surface-mining permit applications.
However, inasmuch as this information involves land that has not been mined
at the time of application, the level of inference is one step more removed
from any census of actual post mining use. Further, the task of analyzing
several years of accumulated permits would be large (see Table 3-2), and the
entries by prospective mine operators are often casual (Charles F. Peters,
personal communication).
To broaden our perspective of old vs. recent methods of reclamation, we
visited 34 field sites (Figure 10-1) and two additional active mines.
84
-------
Lands Mined Prior to 1977
Paone et al. (1974) indicated that the ORBES states are much above the
national average in their efforts toward reclamation. In numerical terms
the figures suggest that 50-65% of all lands ever used for any form of
mining in these states have been reclaimed. They defined "reclaimed" as
being in compliance with state laws or as having been restored to a useful
condition. The Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1979) took a different view reporting that percentages of affected lands
not needing reclamation are as follows: Illinois, 30%; Indiana, 34%;
Kentucky, 37%; Ohio, 36%; Pennsylvania, 40%; and West Virginia, 58%. The
discrepancy between the two studies appears to lie in definition of "ade-
quate reclamation." The Paone study accepted as reclaimed lands which met
requirements of the reclamation laws in effect at the time of mining. The
SCS study required more stringent criteria of either (1) productive utiliza-
tion at any level of restoration, or (2) reclamation to modern (though not
defined) standards. Much of the land requiring reclamation was not covered
by any law, and as such remains a nagging problem of the past as opposed to
a growing problem of the future.
Data on observed land use are available for Illinois. Table 10-1 tab-
ulates land use on lands mined prior to any laws governing reclamation. Table
10-2 gives land use of lands mined under Illinois' first surface mine law.
The largest category in both tables indicates that no active land use was
evident at the time of census (38% of pre-1962 acres; 64% of post-1962 lands).
The percentages of unused land for both periods is so large that enhancement
of land use through active reclamation is not perceived in these data.
One factor, the age of spoils, has allegedly influenced recreational use
of surface-mined lands in Illinois. Recreational use tends to favor wooded
spoils (Haynes and Klimstra, 1975; Ashby et al., 1978), which are more plenti-
ful and mature on pre-law lands (Table 10-1).
Data on observed land use of pre-1960 lands in Indiana as of 1960 are
available in Guernsey (1960). The data for Indiana are less precise than
those for Illinois (Haynes and Klimstra, 1975). Some categories of land use
have been combined and others have been inferred.
Inferential or potential land use is listed according to dominant type
of grading or type of vegetation for several states as follows: Illinois,
Table 10-3; Indiana, Tables 10-4 and 10-5; Ohio, Table 10-6; and Pennsylvania,
Table 10-7.
On a regional basis, efforts at forestation appear to increase from west
to east (Illinois, 30% on old lands, 7% on intermediately aged lands and 5%
on recent lands; Indiana, 55% on old lands, 10% on recent lands; Ohio, 60-65%
on intermediately aged lands; and Pennsylvania, 82-85% on old and intermedi-
ately aged lands). Conversely, potential land use for pasture and hay
85
-------
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY PHASE II
Figure 10-1
00
o>
SURFACE MINE STUDY SITES
ORBES COAL FIELDS
AREA MINING
CONTOUR MINING
-------
EASTERN INTERIOR BASIN
APPALACHIAN BASIN
ORBES Western Coal Field
ORBES Eastern Coal Field
00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fiatt
Prairie Plan
Coal City Club
Goose Lake
Atkinson
Sherwood
Banner
Pyramid
Streamline
Harmattan
Kickapoo
Patoka
Greene-Sullivan
Lynnville
Enos
Fox Run
Mortons Gap
Richland
Central City
Rockport
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Log Mountain
Beaver Creek
Hazard
Piedmont
Cadiz
Harrison Rec. Area
Haydenville
Minkers Run
Valley Coal
Moraine
Babcock
Windmill Gap
Alpena Gap
Blackwater Falls
-------
Table 10-1
Observed Land Uses on "Pre-Law" (-pre-1962) Lands
Surface-Mined for Coal In Illinois!.2
Acres
Recreational Lands
County
Adams
Srown
Bureau
Clark
Crawford
Edgar
Fulton
Gal latin
Greene
Grundy
Hancock
Henry
Jackson
Jefferson
Jersey
Johnson
Kankakee
Knox
LaSalle
Livingston
Kadi son
Marshall
McDonough
Kercer
Morgan
Peoria
Perry
Pike
Randolph
Saline
Schuyler
Scott
Stark
St. Clalr
Vermilion
Wabash
Wllllanson
Pasture
0
1
1.639
.
0
0
11.154
31
0
0
18
953
2.466
0
-
0
180
8.063
29
-
-
1
5
0
~
674
2.826
-
914
164
566
0
150
2,115
27
0
104
Hay
0
.
0
-
0
0
1.354
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
352
0
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
Row Crop
0
-
0
-
0
0
682
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
23
0
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Orchard
0
-
0
-
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
o •
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
80
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tlafcer
0
-
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
1.126
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Organized
0
-
0
-
0
0
3,171
0
0
4,240
0
685
77
0
-
0
491
1,066
3
-
-
0
0
0
•
4
2,593
-
0
27
0
0
0
485
1,231
0
5
Unorganized
0
-
0
-
0
0
394
0
0
0
0
8
40
0
-
0
377
12
0
-
-
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
17
0
0
0
156
17
0
62
Residential
0
-
0
-
0
0
329
0
0
1.326
0
21
0
0
-
0
24
0
11
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
Other Buildings
and Roads
0
-
110
-
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
47
27
0
-
0
0
53
23
-
-
0
0
0
-
51
47
—
0
6
5
0
0
11
37
0
19
Additional
Mining
0
-
0
-
0
0
173
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
30
0
0
-
»
0
0
0
-
90
208
—
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
0
83
No Land
Use Evident
171
-
872
-
4
48
6.047
170
27
616
81
580
1.231
62
-
1
618
1,151
953
-
-
0
0
0
-
392
5.043
-
1.286
5.170
648
1
71
2.458
2.218
6
7,272
Water
Area3
6
306
.
0
3
2.963
7
3
1.143
4
302
130
9
.
0
359
1,350
33
-
.
2
1
0
.
58
1,063
_
207
170
129
0
9
594
522
0
178
TOTALS
32.080 1.744
705
125
1.131
14.078
1.084
1,730
470
643
table accounts for 100.558 acres when the total acreage should be 98.483 acres. Evidently, some acreages have been
assigned two land uses. (Two additional categories Involving additional acreages have not even been Included 1n this table.)
2Adapted from Hayr.es and Kl lustra. 1975.
3Uater areas have been assigned several uses Including about 651 of the acreage as recreational and 35J as consumptive.
37.197
9.571
-------
Table 10-2
County
Observed Land Uses on Post-Law Lands Surface-Mined
for Coal 1n Illinois during the Period 1962-1971>>2
00
-------
Table 10-3 M"Jor Types Of Ve9*ut1ofl Observed on Unds Surface-Mined for Coil IB Illinois1* 2
Acres
(O
O
Early Invaders
(Heeds)
County
Adams
Brown
Bureau
Crawford
Edgar
Fulton
Gal latin
Greene
Grundy
Hancock
henry
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnson
Kankakee
Knox
LaSalle
Marshall
HcUonough
Menard
Peorla
Perry
Pop*
Randonph
Saline
Schuyler
Scott
Stark
St. Clalr
V« mil Ion
Habash
Williamson
Total
X Pre-1962
Acres
I 1962-1971
Acres
Pre-1962
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
81
80
7
50
0
1
0
67
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
66
244
0
0
16
16
0
172
1.180
0.4X)
1962-1971
16
0
13
0
0
1.225
1,177
4
644
0
0
114
292
22
0
363
0
0
0
2
59
2,517
26
591
736
0
0
52
646
0
0
974
10.573
(21.41)
Grasses
I Kerbs
(Pasture-Oldfleld)
Pre-1962
0
_
2,244
0
0
11,120
55
0
1.768
0
982
1.005
0
0
301
7.777
110
1
5
0
827
2.742
0
862
723
370
0
195
1.553
804
0
686
34,714
(40.9%)
1962-1971
0
0
0
0
0
10.204
1
0
150
0
0
472
0
0
0
4.416
0
0
0
3
3,244
3.206
0
2,068
1,270
460
0
1,486
5,276
1,059
163
2.027
35,505
(71. 8X)
Herbs, Shrubs. Small
Trees
(Brushland)
Pre-1962
78
.
313
3
48
4.266
114
0
2.361
18
446
1.353
61
0
1.142
746
72
0
0
0
232
2,968
0
430
1,731
417
1
0
1,277
1,583
6
3,364
23,548
(27.7*)
1962-1971
0
0
198
0
0
189
28
0
0
0
0
137
21
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
223
0
0
676
173
0
43
33
0
4
892
2.769
(5.6%)
Early Forest
(Open Woodland)
Pre-1962
52
1
61
0
0
5,587
25
0
214
0
628
995
0
0
0
1.512
13
0
0
0
0
4,472
0
559
1,370
92
0
0
2,026
1,132
0
1.817
22,691
(26.7*)
1962-1971
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
216
0
0
29
0
0
0
'o
0
0
230
612
(1.2*)
Forest or Woodland
Pre-1962
18
16
0
0
229
0
0
5
0
81
40
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
970
0
146
0
0
0
0
342
31
0
823
2.833
(3.3*)
T962-197T
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
(O.OX)
IPre-1962 1s known as pre-law, when Illinois was without any legislation controlling surface Mine reclamation.
1962-1971 covered a period with mdest, but not extensive requlreimts for regradlng spoils.
^Adapted fro* Haynes and Kllustra. 1975.
-------
Table 10-4
Early Historical Land Uses Before and After Mining
for Coal in Indiana'*2
Acres
County
Clay
Daviess
Fountain
Greene
Knox
Owen
Parke
Pike
Spencer
Sullivan
Vermillion
Vigo
Warrick
Other
Counties
Total
% of Total
Total
Acres in
Survey
18,295
2,218
380
18,200
2,825
2,690
443
16,104
890
8,303
2,340
7,727
13,265
156
93,836
1002
Pre-Mininq Land Use
Crop land3
14,015
1,915
310
5,200
2,525
1,850
180
7,604
440
3,669
800
6,305
5,682
0
50.495
53.8%
Other Uses
4,280
303
70
13,000
300
840
263
8,500
450
4,634
1,540
1,422
7,583
156
43,341
46.22
Forest4
(Trees)
17,280
1,450
300
5,725
325
1,550
210
3,385
280
5,800
1,660
3,500
9,949
156
51,363
54.72
Post-Mining
Pasture - Hay
(grasses and
Legumes)
250
0
0
2,925
350
100
0
0
0
200
0
525
0
0
4.350
4,62
Land Use
Recreatipn-
1,900
1,400
0
3,800
70
1,100
21
333
280
2,430
1,200
5,530
260
0
18,324
19.52
Un-used5
(Barren)
660
720
60
0
1,775
1,140
227
12,485
550
783
1,140
1,670
3,316
0
24,685
26.32
iThis survey covers the period 1934 through 1959.
2Source: Guernsey, 1960.
3Th1s category includes tilled row crop land, but does not state this explicitly.
4This category does not distinguish between saplings and mature timber, which is probably scarce.
^This category includes orphaned acres as well as unseeded acres which mining companies were allowing to leach prior to planting.
-------
Table 10-5 Reclaimed Surface Mined Land in Indiana
According to County and Grading Class
Acres in Grading Class^
County
Clay
Daviess
Dubois
Fountain
Gibson
Greene
Knox
Martin
Owen
Parke
Perry
Pike
Spencer
Sullivan
Vermillion
Vigo
Warren
Warrick
Forest
Range
Pasture-Hay Row Crop Other
39.2
0
0
16.7
0
35.0
16.0
0
0
8.3
7.0
1,401.2
28.0
472.0
2.8
4.8
0
165.0
8.8
0
0
13.0
66.0
1,370.3
668.0
0
0
3.5
0
1,580.2
141.2
1,865.0
3.0
0
0
5,579.7
331.0
41.4
0
0
0
76.5
0
0
21.9
0
20.5
823.7
554.2
1,168.0
318.3
104.0
0
534.9
105.9
0
0
0
74.1
0
26.5
0
9.1
0
0
177.0
99.6
249.0
1,353.0
798.4
0
1,9 67.0
Total
1
2,196.0 11,298.7 3,994.4 4,859.6
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39.5
39.5
"Definition of Grading Classes (from Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, undated, Standards for Surface Mine Grading):
Forest - slope steepness 33.3% maximum, pH of soil
permitting establishment of vegetation
Range - slope steepness 33.3% maximum, pH of soil
5.5 or higher
Pasture - slope steepness 25% maximum, and for lengths not
-Hay to exceed 100 ft; no permanent rocks greater than
6 inches diameter left exposed at surface;
soil replacement
Row Crop - slope steepness 8% maximum, and for lengths
not to exceed 125ft; no permanent rocks
greater than 6 inches diameter left exposed at
surface; soil replacement
92
-------
Table 10-6
Reclaimed Surface-Mined Land 1n Ohio According to
Permit Year and Type of Vegetation'» 2
Acres
Affected
45,270
(100%)
52,120
(100%)
. 50,655
(100%)
53,608
(100%)
23,044
(100%)
224,697
(100%)
Acres Reclaimed as
Forest
21,815
(48%)
32,599
(62%)
34,310
(68%).
32,955
(62%)
6,638
(29%)
133,992
(60%)
Pasture-Hay
19,409
(43%)
17,483
(34%)
15,138
(30%)
15,543
(29%)
3,315
(14%)
70,888
(32%)
Non- vegetated-*
4,046
(9%)
2,038
(4%)
958
(2%)
708
(1%)
77
(
-------
Table 10-7 Early Trends 1n Revegetatlon of Surface-Mined Land
1n Pennsylvania According to Year of Plantlngl
Inferred Land Use (acres)
Woodlands Pasture-Hay
Period (trees and shrubs) (grasses and legumes)
1954 through 1958 38,952 6,854
(85%) (15%)
1959 through 1963 45,108 9,635
(82%) (18%)
Total 84,060 16,489
(84%) (16%)
Source: Davis et al., 1971.
94
-------
Table 10-8
Land Uses Before and After Mining for Coal 1n Illinois:
Data Compiled from Approved Surface Mining Permits^* ?• 3
Penr.1t
Year
1972
1973
iS74
1975
1976
1977
Totals
Row Crop*
Before
3,854
2,782
2,481
3,547
9,074
1.513
23,251
After
0
1,682
1,936
2.836
9,350
2.325
18,129
Change
-3.854
-1.100
- 545
- 711
+ 276
+ 812
-5,145
Pasture (& Water)
Before
1,124
1.706
1,116
1,037
2.894
_999
8,876
After
5,785
3,697
2,713
3,638
6,452
893
23,178
Change
+• 4.661
* 1,991
+ 1.326
* 2.601
+ 3.558
- 106
+14,302
Acres
Forest
Before
1,329
1,124
1,387
2.081
5,249
1.263
12,433
After
396
234
300
51
982
262
2,225
Change
- 933
- 890
- 1,037
- 2,030
- 4,267
- 1.001
-10.208
Before
--
—
0
0
0
Wildlife
After
0
0
0
0
0
289
289
Recreation
Change
—
--
0
0
+289
+289
Before
42.5
0
0
0
0
-.
•42.5
After
0
0
0
17
27
0
44
Change
-42.5
0
0
+17
+27
..
+ 1.5
Before
0.8
0
0
36.2
18.6
9.0
64.6
Industrial
After
168.5
0
35.0
159.4
425.2
15.7
803.8
Change
+167.7
0
+ 35.0
+123.2
+406.6
+ 6.7
+739.2
'The 'before" colums refer to land use for a five-year period proceeding application for a mining permit.
?The 'After* columns refer to .approved reclamation plans, not to realized land uses.
3lh;s Information has been derived from the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, 1973-1978 (1972-1977 Annual Reports,
Surface-Pined Land Conservation and Reclamation).
4Th1s category Includes land to have level grading and land to have level grading plus dark topsoll replacement. The two
categories are not distinguished because the latter has been Implemented only recently, and Is still quite small.
(O
-------
Table 10-9
Reclaimed Surface-Mined Land in Indiana According to
Permit Year and Grading Class
Year Acres in Grading Class
Forest Range Pasture-Hay Row Crop/Other
1968 1,293 2,041 34 34
1969 . 543 3,002 36 36
1970 1,230 2,624 205 41
1971 865 2,318 668 79
1972 482 2,879 370 475
1973 236 2,740 558 1,063
1974 247 1,813 1,144 1,569
1975 391 1,472 1,472 1,813
1976 159 1,829 1,810 1,566
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data
2
Definition of Grading Classes (from Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, undated, Standards for Surface Mine Grading):
Forest - slope steepness 33.3% maximum, pH of soil
permitting establishment of vegetation
Range - slope steepness 33.3% maximum, pH of soil
5.5 or higher
Pasture - slope steepness 25% maximum, and for lengths not
-Hay to exceed 100 ft.; no permanent rocks-greater than
6 inches diameter left exposed at surface;
soil replacement
Row Crop - slope steepness 8% maximum, and for lengths
not to exceed 125 ft.; no permanent rocks
greater than 6 inches diameter left exposed at
surface; soil replacement
96
-------
decreases from west to east (Illinois, 41% on old lands, 72% on intermediately
aged lands; Ohio, 30% on intermediately aged lands; Pennsylvania, 16% on old
and intermediately aged lands). At this level of resolution, regional varia-
tion in potential post-mining land use conforms with regional variation in
existing land use (Figure 6-1).
Changes in Land Use Resulting from Surface Mining
Inferred changes in land use are given for Illinois in Table 10-3 and
10-8 for Indiana in Tables 10-4 and 10-9. In early years of surface mining
and reclamation, the use of land for production of row crops such as corn
and soybeans ceased and production did not return. Recent data indicate that
the net change in row crop acreage has reversed in Illinois. The proportion
of land returned to row crop capability has also been increasing in Indiana.
Doyle (1976) emphasized negative aspects of surface mining row crop land in
Illinois. His major contention is that present standards of reclamation
will not restore the pre-mining agricultural productivity to surface-mined
land. Grandt (1978) took the opposing view and presented the results of
several studies in support of his view (see section on Agricultural Produc-
tivity to follow).
Table 24 indicates that recent trends in reclamation in Illinois result
in a net loss of forest land. Table 10-9 suggests that forestation, once
popular in Indiana, has become so unpopular that we can project a net loss
of forest land in Indiana. Ashby et al. (1978) reviewed positive aspects
of forestation. They conclude that after 30 years of growth, stands of trees of
commercial valuable as timber have developed, especially in southern Illinois.
In many parts of Illinois, forested areas satisfy a demand for recreational
lands. Forested ungraded spoils have worked well in this capacity.
Reclamation of lands to range, pasture, or hay has been the recent pre-
ferred land use in Illinois and Indiana and has become the preferred land use
in Ohio. Grandt (1971) and Reiss (1974) have reported favorably on this type
of land use as it applies to overall coal company planning in the management
of mined and unmined lands.
Rates of Recovery
Recovery can be defined by two standards: (1) legal standards for release
of bond, and (2) achievement of the intended type of land use. Various state
standards for revegetation require a permanent vegetative cover of 70-90% or,
in the case of land to be tilled, continuous cropping. Tables 10-10 and 10-11
measure lag times between issuances of mining permits and releases of bonded
acres (as reclaimed) in Illinois and Ohio. It must be recognized that mining,
reclamation, inspection, and the paper work behind releasing the bond all
97
-------
Table 10-10 Rates of Reclamation 1n Illinois as Defined
by Release of Bonded Acres!». 2
Number of
Years After Periods
Start of 1n Category Cumulative Fraction
Permit Year (Sample Size) of Bond Released (%)
<1 3 1.1
1 4 7.0
2 3 42.8
3 2 69.6
4 1 85.1
Hhis table defines reclamation as legally approved and released from bond by the
Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, Land Reclamation Division. It 1s
known that sometimes acres have been reclaimed and approved long before the
responsible mining company has applied for release of bond (E. E. Filer, personal
communication).
^This information has been derived from the Illinois Department of Mines and
Minerals, 1973-1978 (1972-1977 Annual Reports, Surface Mined Land Construction
and Reclamation).
98
-------
Table 10-11 Rates of Reclamation 1n Ohio as Defined
by Release of Bonded Acres^» 2
Lag Times Between the Permit Year and Achievement of a Specified
Level of Reclamation
Permit Year
1957
1958
1959
1960
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1965
1967
1967
1968
The Greatest
Apparent
Expenditure
of Effort
(years)
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
>502
(years)
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
4
>75%
(years)
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
6
5
Table defines reclamation as legally approved and released from bond by the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources. It 1s possible that some acres were reclaimed at an
earlier date, but that the coal companies lagged 1n application for release of bond.
2Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1973.
99
-------
occur within the measured intervals. In both states, 50% and 75% of this
combined activity appears to occur within three and four years, respectively.
From a perspective of land use, data on wide area achievement of objec-
tives are lacking. Example rates are available as follows:
Quick cover crop such as wheat (occasionally with economic return) -
one or two growing seasons following mining (e.g., 6-18 months)
Taylor, 1978, Rich Sarver, personal communication).
Perennial grasses and legumes - 2 to 3 growing seasons following
mining (1.5-2.5 years) (Anonymous, 1963, 1968).
Commercial forest - Christmas trees and pulpwood - 10 to 20 years
(Bakeis, 1969; Ashby et al., 1978).
Commercial forest - pulpwood and at least a little saw timber -
29-35 years (Anonymous, 1963; Ashby et al., 1978).
Agricultural Productivity
Reclamation of former agricultural land to pre-mining agriculture use
is a clear goal of the Federal Surface Mining Control Act of 1977 and the
Illinois Surface-Mined Land Conservation and Reclamation Act of 1971. Quan-
titative, hard data Include (1) productivity measurements (e.g., bushels per
acre) of various row and forage crops following various applications of fer-
tilizer and (2) gains in weight of livestock in relation to density and
duration of grazing. A measure of success is the extent to which production
on surface-mined land equals production on adjacent unmined land exhibiting
the pre-mining soil type.
Grandt (1978) has concluded that row crop soils can be restored to their
original condition of productivity for growth of corn and soybeans. He
summarized several field studies conducted in Illinois. Preparation of sur-
face mined areas for row crop production involved two general experiments.
One provided a layer of topsoil, the other did not. The plots without top-
soil had been mined several years prior to testing with crops, and thus had
had the advantage weathering and conditioning from fallow vegetation. During
crop test seasons chemical fertilizer was applied to both test plots. Corn
yields reported by Grandt range from 60 bushels/acre in St. Clair County to
67-94 bushels/acre in Knox County with 75-85 bushels/acre constituting mid-
range. In a three-year test of continuous corn planting in Knox County,
production dropped from 94 to 68 bushels/acre. In the same study, corn
planted on old surface-mined land provided with a fresh layer of topsoil
yielded 121 bushels/acre without significant decline over the three-year
period and without a significant difference from a control plot of corn on
unmined land. Corn planted on recently mined land reclaimed with dark top-
100
-------
soil replacement (Illinois SMC & RA0 Rule 1104) yielded 69 bushels/acre,
Grandt estimated that the plot had a pre-mining production capability of
50-91 bushels/acre depending on the intensity of crop management invested
during farming. The censuses of agriculture have indicated that average
corn production on all farms of Knox County ranges from 74-91 bushels/acre
depending on census year (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,
1967, 1972, 1977).
It appears that drought may affect corn production on recently reclaimed
land more severely than on unmined land (Caspall, in Doyle0 1976). However,
this phenomenon appears to need further investigation.
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has developed a
program, Prairie Plan, with dual goals of disposing of municipal sludge through
land application and concurrent reclamation of surface-mined and eroded lands
(AnonymousB 1974; Lynam, 1978). Economically profitable production of corn
is one of their long-range goals, and several surface-mined fields are re-
ceiving gradual soil conditioning through application of liquid sludge. The
majority of fields were stripped more than 20 years ago; however, some still
required regrading of spoils in 1971, Table 10-12 presents results of test
plantings of corn on several surface-mined fields. Some problems encountered
have included poor water holding capacity (droughtiness and ponding) and stoni-
ness, which restricts plowing. Treatment of spoils during mining predated
any legal requirement for topsoil segregation and replacement. Relative to
the Fulton County average production of 82 bushels per acre (calculated from
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1967, 1972as 1977a), the surface-
mined fields appear to need more conditioning to increase productivity. How-
ever, the county-wide average yield may be misleading; much of the Prairie
Plan acreage was originally forest soil and was therefore less productive
than portions of the county covered with prairie soils (Lloyd Klindworth,
personal communication). Grandt (1971), in summarizing reclamation for pro-
duction of grains, stated that in most cases 10 years of forage (perennial
grasses and legumes) should precede grain production on any continuing basis.
Wheat is good guick cover for freshly graded spoils as well as a poten-
tial crop. Taylor (1978) claimed that production on surface-mined lands in
Indiana often exceeds 25 bushels per acre. Neale Teague (personal communica-
.iign) gave the range as 15-40 bushels per acre. The average production for
several Indiana coal counties (predominantly unmined land) was 37 bushels per
acre in 1964, 35 in 1969, and 32 in 1974 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972b,
1977t>). One surface-mined field in Fulton County, Illinois, yielded 30 bushels
per acre one year and 10 bushels per acre the following year (Anonymous, 1963).
Other plantings on old surface-mined lands have ranged from 8.3 to 20.1 bushels
per acre (Hugh McMillans, persona 1 coronun 1 cation). Wheat production in Fulton
County averaged 31 (range 25-39) bushels per acre for the Agricultural Censuss
of 1959 through 1974 (U.S. Department of Commerce; 1967, 1977). It appears
that on occasion wheat can clear a profit and thus constitute an economically
sound land use from a purely agricultural perspective.
-------
Tdbl6 10"12 Experimental Production of Com at Prairie Plan, Fulton County, Illinois^
Com Production by Year (bushels per acre)2
ro
Field
Number
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
11
12
13
17
25
26
28
30
1972 1973 19745 1975
42.6
51.7 45.6 8.8 60.2
35.5
3.6 (6)
(6)
7.1
16.1
3.6 32.9 (6)
41.1
23.4
1976 1977 1978
13.6
21.8
32.2
35.2
18.5
26.0
20.3
11.1
28.3
30.9
38.2
11.2
31.6
Level of Fertilization by .Year (tons of dry sludge
per acre)3
1972
4.6
1.9
1973
1.5
0.7
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.5
2.4
1974
19.0
24.0
24.4
24.5
23.2
21.3
12.1
16.3
29.4
17.0
16.2
29.1
19.2
9.7
27.3
17.2
20.1
19?5
29.0
18.4
10.2
38.3
40.0
22.3
25.4
6.7
35.2
19.2
14.9
30.1
20.9
29.0
12.4
36.6
19.4
1976
53.8
57.5
37.2
52.3
36.0
6.0
32.1
20.4
53.0
27.2
17.7
59.4
15.0
0.0
43.9
42.4
45.0
1977
0.0
36.9
0.1
30.0
0.0
28.5
0.0
12.6
0.0
26.0
36.0
40.7
37.4
50.2
48.3
0.0
56.1
1Source: Hugh McMillan, unpublished data.
2Average yield for all harvests 1s 27 bushels per acre.
^Application of sludge: 1972 through 1975 by spray Irrigation partly during the growing season.
1976, 1977 by direct Incorporation Into the soil during non-growing season.
4Same site as entry number 2B, Table 10-13.
^Production throughout Fulton County was much below average during this year.
Planted but not harvested.
-------
Soybeans have been tested according to land reclaimed to the Illinois
SMLC & RA Rule 1104 topsoil replacement. The estimated production was 19-25
bushels per acre, or intermediate between basic agricultural management (18
bushels per acre) and high level management (32 bushels per;.;acre) (Grandt,
1978).
Reclamation to pasture is a popular trend in land use (Tables 10-1, 10-2,
10-8). Brief quantitative data on the quality of pasture are available for an
unidentified site in Illinois (Grandt, 1971). Small lots of steers, some
grazed on surface-mined pastures, showed equal gains in weight of about 1.3
pounds per day over a three-year period. This study did not state whether
densities of grazing materials were the same on the mined and unmined lands.
However, one may assume that the quality of forage actually consumed by the
steers was similar. As part of a successful farming operation in Fulton
County, Illinois, 350-450 young cattle have been grazed on surface-mined
land for about five months annually before being placed in feed lots for
finishing. Reference to pasturage of contour mixed benches is rare. One
plan without published results called for spring to fall grazing of 80 cattle
(cows with calves) on 55 acres of bench at Jellico, Tennessee, which is ad-
jacent to Kentucky (Charton and Carr, 1977).
In summary, Grandt (1978) felt that pre-mining yields of grain and seed
crops can be achieved on surface-mined lands with topsoil segregation and
replacement. However, he concluded that the land should be planted with a
legume-grass conditioning cover for a few years prior to row cropping. This
cover should not be cut for hay during the first years of conditioning inas-
much as even hay and pasture productivity needs several years to develop
thoroughly (Klimstra and Jewell, 1974).
There have been several special programs to facilitate reclamation. All
states are able to perform reclamation with funds generated from bonds on de-
linquent mining operations. In addition, there are diverse programs within
government and private industry which promote reclamation. An example of a
governmental program is Pennsylvania's Operation Scar!ift, created through
bond issue in the mid-1960's. Scarlift reclaims orphaned lands. The
Kentucky Reclamation Association (KRA) is a non-profit, self-financed private
organization created by several coal companies. KRA gives technical advice
and contracts to perform physical aspects of reclamation (Montgomery, 1965).
Meadowlark Farms, the land management subsidiary of AMAX .Coal Company, inte-
grates reserve land, coal-less land,and surface-mined land into farm manage-
ment units (Anonymous, 1963).
Visits to Field Sites
We conducted field studies in the spring and summer of 1978 to obtain
first-hand knowledge of the status of surface-mined lands in the ORBES region.
Through our site visits (Figure 10-1), we sought an array of the kinds and
types of lands being mined as well as the forms of reclamation and the post-
mining land uses of these lands.
103
-------
By site-specific analysis, we developed insight into the ecological
rates of recovery, both in terms of planted and volunteer vegetation. We
were able to observe a wide variety of reclamation techniques and speculate
on possible causes of either success or failure of the individual reclama-
tion effort. Finally, in the overall analysis of site data, we attempted
to identify regional trends in land use conversion, reclamation success,
and many other factors associated with the surface mining of coal.
Selection of Sites: We selected study sites according to the following
criteria:
1. Adequate coverage of the ORBES region was desirable.
2. Sites near high production areas were favored.
3. Sites near access roads were favored.
4. Strip mines on public land were favored because permission for
study was not required."
During the course of our investigation, we found that public sites were
limited, both in geographic dispersion and in era of mining activity. That
is, none of the publically owned sites had been mined recently. Therefore,
we turned to privately owned sites, which eventually constituted over half
of our Field Sites.
Results: Tables 10-13 and 10-14 give the name, location method of
mining (area vs. contour stripping), and dates of mining activity for 34
Field Sites, which are also located in Figure 10-1. One of these sites,
Valley Coal (Site #29), is an active, medium sized mine. We also took some-
what more brief, though adequate, guided tours of two large mining operations:
Old Ben Coal Company, Pike County Indiana, an area mining operation; and
Falcon Coal Company, Breathitt County, Kentucky (E), an operation engaged in
mountain-top removal.
Data on the topography, vegetation, and apparent land use were avail-
able from simple visual Inspection. Other data, covering exact ownership,
pre-mining land use, and any intended or planned post-mining land use, were
much more scattered in availability. Records of our Field Site profiles
became specialized beyond the scope of this report, and have been retained
in open file at the Environmental Systems Application Center.
As for general trends, we saw how mining has progressed from small, lo-
calized operations with a moderate impact upon the topography to large, exten-
sive operations which mine deeper, move more spoil, and can dramatically
alter the natural topography. Both spoil grading and revegetation exhibit
definite historical trends. Older operations have minimal grading of spoil
104
-------
Table 10-13 STUDY SITES OF THE EASTERN INTERIOR BASIN
STATE
County
Name of Site
ILLINOIS
Fulton
F1att
Prairie Plan
Field #15
Prairie Plan
Field #16
Prairie Plan
Field 124
Prairie Plan
Private
Grundy
Coal City Area Club
Goose Lake Pratrie
State Park
Henry
Atkinson
Knox
Sherwood Camp
Sherwood Slurry Basin
Peoria
Banner Mine
Perry
Pyramid State Park
Streamline Mine
Vermilion
Harmattan Mine
Kickapoo State Park
INDIANA
Pike
Patoka State Fish
Wildlife Area
Sullivan
Greene-Sullivan State
Forest
Warrlck
Lynnvllle Park
Enos
KENTUCKY -WEST
Hopkins
Fox Run
Mortons Gap
Richland
Muhlenberg
Central City Area
Ohio
Rockport
Site t
1
2A
2B
2C
20
3
4
5
6A
6B
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Type of
Mining
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
area
contour
area
area
area
Dates of Years Before
Mining 1980
1939-1969 l
pre-19462
pre-19462
pre-19462
pre-19462
1945-19533
1952 3
1950-1953 "
1936-19405'6
end ca. I9607
1959-1974 8
1932-1 938 9
1973-19751°
ca. 1963-1970H.12
1925-1934 12, i3
pre-1943-1946 u
pre-1938 >5
1963-1964 i6
1967-197017
pre-1952, post-
1963"."
pre-1952,
pre-196318.20
pre-19522i
post-1952,
pre-196322
pre-1952,
pre-196318, 23
11-14
>34
>34
>34
>34
28-35
28
27-30
40-44
ca. 20
6-21
42-48
5-7
10-ca. 17
46-55
34->37
*
16-17
10-13
>28, <17
>28. <17
>28
<28, >15
>28, >15
105
-------
Footnotes for Study Sites of the Eastern Interior Basin (Table 10-13)
1 Kevin Brooks, Consolidation Coal Company, Morris, Illinois, personal
communication.
2 Saint David, Illinois Quadrangle, 1948.
3 Tom Testa, Park Ranger, Goose Lake Prairie State Park; family member,
Coal City Area Club, Coal City, Illinois, personal communication.
4 Carter et al., 1973.
5 Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, 1937-19G1 (Coal Reports).
6 Philip Christy, Reclamation Director, Midland Coal, Trivoli, Illinois,
personal communication.
7 Charles Casey, Illinois Police Association, personal communication.
8 Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, 1975.
9 Arata, 1959.
10 T. J. Dulley, Reclamation Officer, Southwestern Illinois Coal Corporation,
Percy, Illinois, personal communication.
11 H. G. Perrine, Jr., Manager, Real Estate Service, AMAX Coal Company,
Indianapolis, Indiana, personal communication.
12 David L. Reinertsen, Geologist and Acting Head of the Educational
Extension Section, Illinois Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois,
personal communication.
13 Karr, 1968.
14 Delbert E. Parr, AMAX Coal Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, personal
communication.
15 Linton, Indiana Quadrangle, 1940.
16 Amil Siebe, President, Lynnville Park Board, Lynnville, Indiana, personal
communication.
17 Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, Strip
Mine Permits.
18 Site has been restripped following a period of inactive mining.
106
-------
Table 10-14 STUDY SITES OF THE APPALACHIAN BASIN
STATE
County
Name of Site
KENTUCKY-EAST
Bell
Log Mountain East
Log Mountain West
McCreary
Beaver Creek East
Beaver Creek West
Perry
Hazard South
Hazard Northeast
OHIO
Beltnont
Piedmont Reservoir
Harrison
Cadiz
Harrison County
Reclamation Area
Hocking
Hay den v1 lie Lower
Haydenvllle Upper
Mlnkers Run North
Mlnkers Run South
Valley Coal
PENNSYLVANIA
Butler
Bear Run
Lake view
Sunken Garden
WEST VIRGINIA
Fayette
Babcock St. Park
Mercer
Windmill Gap
Randolph
Alpena Gap South
Alpena Gap North
Site 1
21A
21B
22A
22B
23A
23B
24
25
26
27A
27B
28A
28B
29
30A
30B
30C
*
31
t
32
33A
33B
Type of
Mining
contour
contour
contour
contour
contour
contour
contour
area
contour
contour
contour
contour
contour
area
contour
contour
contour
contour
contour
contour
contour
Dates of
Mining
1963-19641
1963-1964,
19701'2
19583
1955-19563
pre-1 959-6014
pre-1 959-60u
pre-19605
pre-19586
pre-19607
pre-1960,
19732.8,9
ca. I9608*9
1952, 19662'8
19528
1976-1977"
1959»l
1955-196211
1954-195811
ca. 194712
1965!3 A*
1957-195815
1957-195816
Years Before
1980
16-17
16-17, 8
22
24-25
>20
>20
>20
>22
>20
>20, 7
ca. 20
28, 14
28
3-4
21
18-25
22-26
ca. 33
13
21-22
21-22
Tucker
Blackwater Falls
State Park
34
contour
1948"
32
107
-------
Footnotes for Study Sites of the Appalachian Basin (Table 10-14)
Willis G. Vogel; U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Berea,
Kentucky; personal communication.
2
Site has been restripped following a period of inactive mining.
3 Musser, 1963.
4 Rev. Drew Martin, Big Creek Church (Adjacent to Site), personal communication.
Piedmont, Ohio Quadrangle, 1961.
Harrisville, Ohio Quadrangle, 1960.
Jewett, Ohio Quadrangle, 1961.
o
R. F. Elisar, District Ranger, Wayne National Forest, Athens, Ohio,
personal communication.
g
Union Furnace, Ohio Quadrangle, 1961.
Rick Sarver, Director of Reclamation, Mac Energy Division, Valley Coal,
Coonville, Ohio, personal communication.
Eugene Frund, Chief of Mineral Section, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, personal
communication.
12
Lacy B. Aliff, Jr., Assistant Land Manager, Westmoreland Coal Company,
Tarns, West Virginia.
13 C. L. Helmick, Chief Engineer, Pocahontas Land Corporation, Bluefield,
West Virginia, personal communication.
14
Grumpier, West Virginia Quadrangle, 1967.
Dr. Manley, Forest Geologist, Monongahela National Forest, El kins, West
Virginia, personal communication.
Reclaimed as orphaned land by West Virginia Department of Natural Resources.
Anthony P. Mollish, Operations Manager, Timber!ands Division, Westvaco,
Rupert, West Virginia, personal communication.
108
-------
19 Saint Charles, Kentucky Quadrangles, 1954 and 1963.
20 Nortonville, Kentucky Quadrangles, 1953 and 1963.
21 Madisonville West, Kentucky Quadrangle, 1954.
22 Central City West, Kentucky Quadrangles, 1953 and 1963.
23 Paradise, Kentucky Quadrangles, 1954 and 1963.
109
-------
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY PHASE II
Figure 10-2 COMMON REGIONAL SPECIES
cottonwood
g|| elmsp;-?:
j-box elder§
llalfalfail
Common Area Wide:
black locust
red maple
fescue
Rare Area Wide:
red & white oaks
hickories
beech
ash
-------
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 sown. Post-mining land use has also changed, as is re-
flected in planted species, from forest-related uses to pasture.
An initial purpose of the field studies was to assess the regional trends
in strip mining, reclamation, and land use. Although we were able to observe
some regional trends, we based these observations on only the 34 sites spread
throughout the states; thus, we present our conclusions with reservation.
Some regional trends are evident, however, the dominant method of mining
is obviously regional. Volunteer vegetation appears to have a regional dis-
tribution and, to a lesser degree, so does planted vegetation.
A capsule digest of regional abundances of important vegetation is given
in Figure 10-2. This diagram places the observer on the coal-free portion of
the Cincinnati Geologic Arch and allows the observer to move as shown by
arrows. Expectations of finding listed plants are high in regions flagged
by arrows, and lower to unlikely elsewhere.
Through our field studies we were impressed by the potential of surface-
mined lands. Although once considered worthless, these lands are not worth-
less. The potential exists for recreation, wildlife habitat, water supply,
forestry, commercial or residential development, or pasture. However, the
gob and slurry areas, which are relatively small in acreage and nearly barren,
present a challenge to any positive form of land use.
Reclamation in the Future
Pursuant to implementation of the Permanent Regulatory Program of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) both regrading
and revegetation practices throughout the ORBES region will become more uni-
form than they were in the past. The following discussion outlines what
variation will remain and what variation formerly characteristic of surface-
mined areas will be excluded.
Slope and parent soil conditions will insure that differences remain
between reclaimed lands in the Appalachian Basin and the Eastern Interior
Basin. Most reclaimed lands in the Appalachian Basin will have sloping sur-
faces graded to meet the contours of the original hilly lands. The soils are
shallow and will provide only a thin layer of material to spread over the
graded spoils. Premining conditions in the Eastern Interior Basin tend to
provide deep soils and a level landscape. Mountaintop removal can create iso-
lated areas of level land in the Appalachian Basin; however,the cover of top-
soil will still be formed from the shallow forest soils of the region.
111
-------
During the first few years of reclamation, vegetation of surface-mined
lands throughout the ORBES region will be more uniform than later on. Opera-
tors are required to plant quick cover species for the first few growing
seasons. The mixture of seeds used in this planting usually includes grasses
and legumes. An annual grass, such as wheat, dominates the ground cover
during the first growing season. By winter an understory of clover, birds-
foot treefoil, orchard grass and fescue commonly replaces the wheat, which
has died back. Some operators favor planting seed mixtures including numerous,
possibly dozens, of species. The operators assume that some seeds will be
more adaptive than others to minor differences in soils, and that as a whole
the best species for each local soil condition will have its chance for
growth (Hillis Everldge, personal communication). Long term vegetation on
many lands, which will be used for pasture and hay,can develop from this
initial planting with additional fertilization, or with a later broadcast
of seed and fertilizer as enhancement. In the Eastern Interior Basin large
acreages will be returned to row crop production during the third to fifth
arowlng season following mining. In the Appalachian Basin surface owners
(such as the Wayne National Forest, Ohio) may plant trees. Other lands may
experience natural replacement of the planted grasses and legumes with
native brush and young trees. No lands reclaimed between 1976 and 2000 will
be producing saw timber by the year 2000, and only the most prosperous plant-
ings of hybrid poplars may be producing pulpwood.
Federal Regulations expect regional differences in final land use, de-
fined as that land use which will release surface mine operators from further
responsibility for a given tract of land. Without attempting exact quanti-
fication, the following post-mining land uses should be important in the
following states and regions:
Prime Farmland row crop: Illinois, Indiana
Other agricultural land, row crop and pasture/hay: Ohio, Kentucky-
West, Indiana, Illinois
Pasture/hay, commercial forestry: Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia
Mountalntop Removal agricultural land, pasture/hay: Kentucky-East,
West Virginia
Steep Slope commercial/forest and recreational wildlife woodlands:
Kentucky-East, West Virginia
These land use categories and locations reflect existing land uses and
options to institute higher categories of land use as permitted by law.
112
-------
Given the economic pressures discussed in Chapter 4, the following net
or directional shifts in land use are probable:
Illinois: forest and pasture to row crop,
forest to pasture and hay meadow;
Indiana: forest to pasture and hay meadow,
pasture and hay meadow to row crop;
Kentucky-West: forest to pasture and hay meadow;
Kentucky-East: commercial forest to recreational lands,
pasture and hay meadow;
Ohio: commercial forest to pasture and hay
meadow;
Pennsylvania: commercial forest to pasture and hay
meadow;
West Virginia: commercial forest to recreational wildlife
lands, pasture and hay meadow
In this list, commercial forest may occur on very steep slopes prior to
mining. After mining these lands may be recommended for wildlife on the basis
of SCS standards for Class 8 soils (e.g., West Virginia State Conservation
Needs Inventory Committee, 1970).
Christy et al. (1979) have provided evidence that surface mining and re-
clamation is converting forest land into row crop and pasture in Illinois. We
have observed where open fields have replaced forest following mountaintop
removal.
We can argue that some of the unnatural features of old mined lands have
enhanced land use locally, or at least have permitted local variation in land
use which has improved local quality of life. Clear benefits can develop from
the end cut lakes, ponds and wetlands. These areas can provide recreational
and even residential use where lakes are scarce (Ashby et al., 1978). Wild-
life utilization of surface mine lakes and ponds is well documented (Ashby
et al., 1978; Samuel et al., 1978). For example, in mountainous Appalachia,
contour cut ponds can provide still water habitat for fish and semi-aquatic
animals and drinking water for upland wildlife. The ridge and valley aspects
of ungraded area mined lands have recreational value in regions where the land
is flat and monotonous. Illinois has developed two state parks (Kickapoo,
Pyramid) from these lands. Although seldom mentioned, high walls can become
habitat for rock-crevice wildlife which normally depends on natural outcrops.
Grading to original .topography will prevent development of end cut lakes,
ridge and valley topography, and rock outcrops.
113
-------
SUMMARY
A. In the ORBES region, more than 1,600,000 acres (2,500 square miles)
have been affected by surface mining for coal. About 400,000 of
these acres are at least 16 years old or only partially reclaimed,
or both. In the Eastern Interior Basin the tonnage yield per acre
of disturbed land is twice or nearly twice that of the Appalachian
Basin.
B. Strippable reserves constitute about 17 percent of the total reserve
base In the ORBES region. The tonnage produced by surface mining to
date is only 18 percent of the total strippable reserves. Historic-
ally, surface mine production grew gradually until the 1940's, when it
increased rapidly, then leveled off at a higher volume of production.
Rapid growth again occurred during the 1960's and 1970's. Today, ex-
tensive surface-mine production is occurring throughout the ORBES
coal fields, although intensity of the activities in relation to
availability of coal varies greatly between counties and states.
C. 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 agricultural and surface mining occurs in Illinois.
For forestry, the potential for conflict is greatest in central and
southern West Virginia.
D. The influences of legislation on post-mining land use are relatively
recent, because stringent laws regulating reclamation are less than 20
years old. The long history of need for strong legislation is evident
from the status of reclamation. The Soil Conservation Service has
indicated that 60 percent of all acreage ever mined still needs recla-
mation. However, certain states show a good record of reclamation within
the existing state law.
E. The current round of political negotiations by companies, states, and
environmental groups clearly indicates that the regulations are not
yet settled. The ORBES states differ in their attitudes toward regu-
lation; each will probably elect to regulate its own surface mining
industry within the federal guidelines.
114
-------
F. Old surface-mined lands have rough topography, barren areas, and diverse
vegetation where plants survive. The topography is a result of histor-
ical patterns of spoils placement during mining and the absence of
regrading afterward. Lack of planning concerning toxic spoils, lack
of knowledge about hardy species of plants, and natural invasion of
indigenous species have contributed to irregular patterns of vegeta-
tion. In the ORBES region, trees and other woody plants predominate.
Contemporary mining operations grade spoil to nearly original contour
and extensively replant the mined area (with varying degrees of success).
Forage species are most commonly sown. Post-mining land use has changed,
as is reflected in planted species, from forest-related uses to pasture.
G. A compilation of observed post-mining land use was available for Illinois
only. Much of this land is being used for pasture and range of live-
stock, but even more is not being used for anything. Recreational use
of forested lands with water areas may be the highest intensity both in
terms of population density and investment in real estate. We have ob-
served on declarations of intended land use that reclamation to tillable
cropland has become increasingly important in Illinois and Indiana during
the 1970's. Judging from records on bonded lands, reclamation to any
form of enduring land use probably takes more than two years following
mining.
H. Contrasting the two ORBLS Coal Basins, surface mining in the Appalachian
Basin causes greater environmental disruption because of higher acreage
to tonnage relationships required for production, the longer time re-
quired for regrowth of forests in contrast to meadow, or the abandonment
of native forest for meadow/pasture as an endpoint of reclamation. These
changes are not equated to socioeconomic gains or losses.
I. The ORBES scenarios predict that surface mining of coal for all purposes
will disturb more land between 1976 and 2000 than has been disturbed
since surface mining began. Local power plant demand will account for
over a thira of this disturbance. Individual scenarios do not vary
appreciably in their impacts for two reasons: 1) the difference between
high and low coal demands is only 15% of the average demand for ORBES
power plant needs and 25% of total production needs and 2) the coal
supply, though widely dispersed in ORBES geographically, is relatively
stationary in terms of exploitation. Thus, the variation in demand
becomes a small increment spread over a large area.
115
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Note: Documentations of legal analyses are located with Tables 3-3
and 3-4, and at the end of Chapter 4.
Agricultural and Industrial Development Board of Kentucky. 1953. Land
areas of Kentucky and their potential for use. Map.
Anonymous. 1963. Reclaiming land for profit. Coal Age 68(1): 94-101.
Anonymous. 1968. Land reclamation—methods and results. Coal Age
73(10): 140-143.
Anonymous. 1974. Chicago reclaiming strip mines with sludge. Civil
Engineering ASCE (June): 43-48.
Arata, A. A. 1959. Ecology of muskrats 1n strip-mine ponds in southern
Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 23: 177-187.
Ashby, W. C., C. Kolar, M. L. Guerke, C. F. Pursell, and J. Ashby. 1978.
Our reclamation future with trees. Coal Extraction and Utilization Re-
search Center, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. 99 pp.
Bakeis, W. 1969. Surface mine reclamation progress in Indiana. Outdoor
Indiana 34(2): 35-37.
Brant, R. A. 1956. Coal resources of the upper part of the Allegheny
formation in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Geological
Survey Report of Investigations 29: 1-68.
Bureau, M. F. and K. L. Powell. 1974. A general soil map of Jefferson
County. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil.
Map.
Callahan, J. C. and J. G. Callahan. 1971. Effects of strip mining and
technological change on communities and natural resources in Indiana's
coal mining region. Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin,
Purdue University. 43 pp.
Cardi, V. 1979. West Virginia Baseline. Ohio River Basin Energy Study
Phase II, Urbana, Illinois. 477 pp.
Carter, R, P., R. E. Zimmerman, and A. S. Kennedy. 1973. Strip Mine
Reclamation in Illinois. Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality.
101 pp.
116
-------
Carter, R. P., J. R. LaFevers, E. J. Croke, A. S. Kennedy, and S. D.
Zelmer. 1974. Surface Mined Land in the Midwest: A Regional Perspec-
tive for Reclamation Planning. Argonne National Laboratory ANL/ES-43.
Charton, P., and E. A. Carr, Jr. 1977. A stock answer to reclamation
of surface mined lands. Appalachia 10(4): 10-13.
Christman, R. L., D. D. Waters, and J. R. Bauder. 1971. Soil Survey of
Stark County, Ohio. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. 157 pp.
Christy, P. L., W. E. Smith, E. E. Filer. 1979. New land uses created
by surface mining. Mining Congress Journal 65(5): 40-45.
Conservation Needs Inventory Data Bank. 1967. Estimated acres classified
by slope class: Kentucky. Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory,
Ames.
Conservation Needs Inventory Data Bank. 1967. Estimated acres classified
by slope class: Ohio. Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory, Ames.
Conservation Needs Inventory Data Bank. 1967. Estimated acres classified
by slope class: Pennsylvania. Iowa State University, Statistical Labora-
tory, Ames.
Couchot, M. L. 1978. Resources of the Pittsburgh (no. 8) Coal in the
Belmont field, Ohio. Oftio Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 105. 12 pp.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1973. Coal surface mining and reclama-
tion. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 143 pp.
Cox, F. R. 1974. Soil Survey of Daviess and Hancock Counties, Kentucky.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 108 pp.
Currens, J. C., and G. E. Smith. 1977. Coal Production in Kentucky,
1790-1975. Kentucky Geological Survey Information Circular 23. 66 pp.
Davis, G., J. E. Ibberson, W. H. Wheeler, E. G. Musser, R. D. Shipman, and
W. G. Jones (eds.). 1971. A Guide for Revegetating Bituminous Stripnvine
Spoils in Pennsylvania. Research Committee on Coal Mine Spoil Revegetation
in Pennsylvania. 46 pp.
DeLong, R. M. 1955. Pittsburgh No. 8 and Redstone No. 8A Coal Beds in
Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Report of Investigations
26: 1-49.
UeLong, R. M. 1978. Structure on the Pittsburgh (No. 8) Coal in the
Belmont field, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 106. 2 Maps.
117
-------
DeLong, R. M. and G. M. White. 1963. Geology of Stark County. Ohio De-
partment of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bulletin 61.
Doyle, J. C. 1976. Strip Mining in the Corn Belt. Environmental Policy
Institute, Washington, D. C. 30 pp.
Drnevich, V. P., G. P. Williams, R. J. Ebelhar. 1976. Soil mechanics
tests on coal mine spoils, pp 47-59 In^ Proceedings Second Kentucky Coal
Refuse Disposal and Utilization Seminar. Institute for Mining and
Minerals Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Eastern Kentucky University Cartographic Laboratory. 1975. Inventory of
Surface Mined Lands in Eastern Kentucky. Eastern Kentucky University,
Richmond, Kentucky. Map.
Grandt, A. F. 1971. Agricultural crops on mined lands. Pages 21-24 In,
Mined-Land Redevelopment Workshop, Pittsburg, Kansas, 26-27 May 1971.
Kansas Geological Survey Special Distribution Publication 58.
Grandt, A. F. 1978. Reclaiming mined land in Illinois for row crop pro-
duction. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33: 242-244.
Guernsey, J. L. 1960. Land-use changes caused by a quarter century of
strip coal mining in Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of
Science 69: 210-220.
Hayhurst, E. N., T. N. Rubel, G. E. Kelley, and P. Beining. 1974. Soil
survey of Monroe County, Ohio. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service and Forest Service. 123 pp.
Haynes, R. J., and W. D. Klimstra. 1975. Illinois Lands Surface Mined
for Coal. Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory. Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale. 201 pp.
Heard, T. A. 1979. Prime farmlands of Kentucky. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Unpublished Map.
Hutchins, J. C. 1978. Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation in Appalachia.
pp. 53-75 In D. E. Samuel et al. Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife Needs in
the EasterrTUnited States. U. S. Department of Interior Biological Ser-
vices Program FWS/OBS-78/81.
Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals. 1955. A Compilation of the
Reports of the Mining Industry of Illinois. Springfield, Illinois. 263
pp.
Indiana University, Ohio State University, and Purdue. 1977. Preliminary
Technology Report, Vol. II-A, Part 1. Ohio River Basin Energy Study
Phase I.
118
-------
Jansen, S. C. 1978. Electrical Generating Unit Inventory, 1976-1986, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Ohio River Basin
Energy Study Phase II, Urbana, Illinois. 85 pp.
Karr, J. R. 1968. Habitat and avlan diversity on strip-mined land in east-
central Illinois. Condor 70: 348-357.
Kay, G. P., J. L. Sykora, and M. P. Shapiro. 1979. Pennsylvania Baseline,
Part 2, Section 4. Ohio River Basin Energy Study Phase II, Urbana, Illinois.
66 pp.
Kelley, G. E. 1974. A General Soil Map of Harrison County, Ohio. Ohio Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil, Columbus.
Kelley, G. E. 1975. A General Soil Map of Coshocton County, Ohio. Ohio De-
partment of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil, Columbus.
Kentucky Department of Commerce, Division of Research and Planning. 1975.
Natural Resources of Kentucky. 42 pp.
KHmstra, W. D., and S. R. Jewell. 1974. Strip mining: resources in conflict:
impacts and reclamation efforts in Illinois. Transactions North American Wild-
life Natural Resources Conference 28: 121-131.
Klimstra, W. D., and V. Terpenlng. 1974. Problem Sites: Surface-mined Lands
in Illinois. Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale. 256 pp.
Lamborn, R. E. 1956. Geology of Tuscarawas County. Ohio Geological Survey
Fourth Series Bulletin 55.
Lee, R. M., M. Chang and S. C. Hill. 1976. Land Slope in West Virginia.
West Virginia Agriculture and Forestry 6(3): 10-16.
Lessig, H. D., W. F. Hale, and J. L. Yohn. 1968. Soil Survey of Columbiana
County, Ohio. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
132 pp.
Lessig, H. D., T. N. Rubel, D. L. Brown, and T. J. F. Hole. 1977. Soil Survey
of Washington County, Ohio. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service and Forest Service. 206 pp.
Lynam, B. T., C. Lue-Hing, R. R. Rimkus, and F. C. Neil. 1978. Sewage Sludge
Utilization In Agriculture: Chicago's Prairie Plan. Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago, Department of Research and Development Report
78-1. 26 pp.
Mausel, P. W., E. C. A. Runge, and S. C. Carmer. 1975. Soil productivity
indexes for Illinois counties and soil associations. University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champalgn Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 752: 1-49.
119
-------
Montgomery, R. 1965. Strip Mining In Kentucky. Kentucky Department of
Natural Resources, Strip Mining and Reclamation Commission. 55 pp.
Montgomery, R. H. 1974. Soil Survey of Vigo County, Indiana. U. S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 121 pp.
Mull ins, A. T., D. L. Hodgson and G. G. Avery. 1963. Coal Reserves 1n
Portions of Butler, Edmonson, Grayson, Muhlerberg, Ohio, and Warren
Counties, Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey Information Circular 11.
29 pp.
Mullins, A. T., R. E. Lounsbury, and D. L. Hodgson. 1965. Coal reserves
of Northwestern Kentucky. Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Power,
Fuels Planning Staff. 3 Maps.
Mullins, A. T., R. E. Lounsburry, and D. L. Hodgson. 1969. Coal reserves
of western Kentucky. Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Power, Fuels
Planning Staff. 28 pp.
Musser, J. J. 1963. Description of Physical Environment and of Strip-
mining Operations in Parts of Beaver Creek Basin, Kentucky. U.S.G.S.
Professional Paper 427-A. 25 pp.
Nawrot, J. R., R. J. Haynes, P. L. Pursell, J. R. D'Antuono, R. L. Sullivan,
and W. D. Klimstra. 1977. Illinois Lands Affected by Underground Mining
for Coal. Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale. 195 pp.
Nawrot, J. R., P. L. Pursell, W. D. Klimstra, and B. N. Jacobson. 1977.
Problem Sites: Lands Affected by Underground Mining for Coal in Illinois.
Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale. 556 pp.
Noble, A. G., and A. J. Korsok. 1975. Ohio - an American Heartland. Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Bulletin 65.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1978. National Coal Utilization Assessment.
ORNL/TM-6122. Oak Ridge Tennessee.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Reclamation.
1973. Licenses Issued, Acres Affected, Acres Reclaimed. 1 p.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. 1956.
Bituminous Coal Production in Ohio by County, 1800-1955. Chart.
Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee. 1971. Ohio soil and
water conservation needs inventory. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 131
PP.
120
-------
Page0 W0 P0 1979. Energy consumption in the Ohio River Basin Energy Study
Regions 19740 fey end user and fuel type,, Ohio River Basin Energy Study Phase
Us, Urbana0 Illinois. 57 pp«
Paone0 Jos J. U Morning,, and L0 Giorgetti0 1974. Land Utilization and Re-
clamation in the Mining Industry„ 1930=71. U0 S« Departmsnt of the Interior9
Bureau of Mines Information Circular 1C 86420 61 pp.
D
A0 Ho,, J. Go Steel@0 F0 G0 Loughry0 and G. W. Conrey0 1938. Soil
Survey of Athens Coynty0 Ohio. U0 S0 Department of Agriculture0 Bureau of
Chemistry and Soils0 Series 19320 No. 32„ 39 pp,
Paschall0 A. H.D 0. C. Steele0 F0 G0 LoughryD and G. W0 Conrey» 1938. Soil
Survey of Vinton County0 Ohio. U. S. Department of Agricultures, Bureau of
Chemistry and Soils0 Series 19330 No0 21. 28 pp.
Pennsylvania Conservation Needs Inventory Committee. 19680 The Pennsylvania
soil and water conservation needs inventory0 U0 S0 Department of Agricultures,
Soil Conservation 'Service,, 257 pp0
Powens R. L. 19720 Coal Strip°Mined Land in Indiana. Indiana Department
of Natural Resources„ Geological Survey Special Report 60 18 pp»
Powell0 Ro Wo 1976. Map of Southwestern Indiana Showing Areas Strip Mined
for Coal. Indiana Department of Natural Resources,, Geological Survey Mis-
cellaneous Map No. 150
Purdue University0 Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural Experiment
Station,, and U» S0 Department of Agricultures, Soil Conservation Service,, 1971 „
General soils maps and interpretation tables for the counties of Indiana, Pur-
due Extension Publication AY~500
Reiss0 I0 Ho 1974, We are farmers not miners. Coal Mining Process 11(5);
50=51D 63.
Research Committee on Coal Mine Spoil Revegetation in Pennsylvania,, 1965. A
Guide for Revegetating Bituminous Strip=Mine Spoils in Pennsylvania,, 46 pp0
To NoD P. Co Jenny„ and M0 K0 Plunkett. 19790 An inventory of Ohio
soils: Belmont County. Ohio Department of Natural Resources,, Division of
Lands and Soil Progress Report No. 560 59 pp.
Runge0 £„ C. A.0 L0 E0 Ty1er0 and S. G0 Carmar0 1969. Soil type acreages for
Illinois. Agricultural Experiment Station,, University of Illinois,, Urbana=
Champaign and U0 S0 Department of Agriculture,, Soil Conservation Service. 80
pp.
Samuel0 D0 E00 J0 R. Stauffer0 C0 H0 HocuttD and W0 T0 Mason (eds0)0 1978.
Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife Needs in the Eastern United States. U. S.
Department of the Interiors, Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services
Program. FWS/OBS-78/81. 386 pp.
-------
Schmidt, R. A., and W. C. Stoneman. 1972. A Study of Surface Coal
Mining In West Virginia. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park,
California. 180 pp.
Sholes, M. A. and V. W. Skema. 1974. Bituminous coal resources 1n
western Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey Mineral Resources Report 68.
6 Maps.
Shumate, W. H. and H. 0. Lessig. 1976. A General Soil Map of Perry County,
Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil,
Columbus.
Smith, W. H., R. A. Brant, F. Amos, and P. 0. Krumin. 1952. The Melgs
Creek No. 9 Coal Bed in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 17 and En-
gineering Experiment Station Bulletin No. 151. 163 pp.
Smith, W. H., and J. B. Stall. 1975. Coal and water resources for coal
conversion in Illinois. Illinois Geological Survey and Illinois Water
Survey, Cooperative Resources Report 4.
Spencer, F. D. 1953. Coal resources of Indiana. U. S. Department of
Interior, Geological Survey Circular 266. 42 pp.
Steward, B. A., D. A. Woolhiser, W. H. Wischmeier, J. H. Caro, and M. H.
Frere. 1975. Control of Water Pollution from Cropland. Volume 1. U. S.
Department of Agriculture and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ill
pp.
Taylor, T. W. 1978. Surface mining reclamation progress. Outdoor
Indiana 43(9): 18.
Thomson, R. D., and H. F. York. 1975. The Reserve Base of U. S. Coals
by Sulfur Content. 1: The Easter States. U. S. Bureau of Mines Informa-
tion Circular 8680. 537 pp.
Treworthy, C. G., L. E. Bengal, and A. G. Dingwell. 1978. Reserves and
resources of surface-minable coal in Illinois. Illinois State Geological
Survey Circular 504. 44 pp.
Trumbull, J. 1960. Coal Fields of the United States. U. S. Department
of Interior, Geological Survey MR-2651. Map.
U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1979. The Direct Use
of Coal. OTA-E-86, U. S. Government Printing Office. 411 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Prime
farmland of Indiana. Map.
122
-------
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1979. The
status of Land Disturbed by Surface Mining in the United States. SCS-TP-
158. U. S. Government Printing Office.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Im-
portant Farmlands, St. Clair County, Illinois. Map.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Economic Re-
search Service, and Forest Service. 1975. Muskingum River Basin Type IV
Survey Report, Ohio. Columbus, Ohio.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1967. Census of Agri-
culture, 1964, Volume 1, Part 12: Illinois.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1972. Census of Agri-
culture, 1969, Volume 1, Part 12: Illinois.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1972. Census of Agri-
culture, 1969, Volume 1, Part 11, Section 2: Indiana.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1977. Census of Agri-
culture, 1974, Volume 1, Part 13: Illinois.
U. S. Department of Congress, Bureau of Census. 1977. Census of Agri-
culture, 1974, Volume 1, Part 14: Indiana.
U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1969. 1:250,000 topo-
graphic map: Canton, Ohio.
U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1969. 1:250,000 topo-
graphic map: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1969. 1:250,000 topo-
graphic map: Warren, Pennsylvania.
U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1972 1:250,000 topo-
graphic mapL Cleveland, Ohio.
U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1972. Columbus, Ohio,
1:250,000 series, Clinometric Map (Experimental Series).
U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1976. Land use and land
cover, 1973: Canton, Ohio. Open File 76-041-1 Land Use Series. Map.
U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1977. Land use and land
cover, 1970-72: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Open File 77-110-1 Land Use
Series. Map.
123
-------
U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 1977. Land use and land
cover, 1973: Warren, Pennsylvania. Open File 77-106-1 Land Use Series. Map.
U. S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining. 1979. Surface coal
mining and reclamation operations, permanent regulatory program. Federal
Register (44(50): 14902-15309.
U. S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining. 1979. Final En-
vironmental Statement, Permanent Regulatory Program Implementing Section
501(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. OSM-EIS-1.
University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station. 1977. Prime farm-
land 1n Illinois. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation. Map.
Walls, D. S., D. B. Billings, M. P. Payne and J. F. Childers. 1979. A Base-
line Assessment of Coal Industry Structure 1n the Ohio River Basin Energy
Study Region. Ohio River Basin Energy Study Phase II, Urbana, Illinois.
269 pp.
Weir, C. E. 1953. Distribution, structure and mined areas of coals in
Sullivan County, Indiana. Indiana Department of Conservation, Geological
Survey. Preliminary Coal Map No. 2.
Weir, C. E. and H. L. Deane. 1958. Distribution, structure, and mined
areas in Warrick County, Indiana. Indiana Department of Conservation,
Geological Survey. Preliminary Coal Map No. 7.
Weir, C. E. and J. T. Stanley. 1953. Distribution, structure, and mined
areas of coals in Pike County, Indiana. Indiana Department of Conservation,
Geological Survey. Preliminary Coal Map No. 3.
West Virginia State Conservation Needs Inventory Committee. 1970. West
Virginia soil and water conservation needs inventory. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 189 pp.
Whitmore, C. C. No date. Pennsylvania prime farmland soils. U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Unpublished List.
124
-------
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Aliff, L. G., Jr. Westmoreland Coal Company, Tarns, West Virginia.
Brooks, K. Consolidation Coal Company, Morris, Illinois.
Casey, C. Illinois Police Association, Rock Island, Illinois.
Christy, P. Midland Coal, Trivoli, Illinois.
Dulley, T. J. Southwestern Illinois Coal Corporation, Percy, Illinois.
Elisar, R. F. Athens Ranger District, Wayne National Forest, Athens, Ohio.
Everidge, H. Falcon Coal Company, Jackson, Kentucky.
Filer, E. E. Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, Division of Land
Reclamation. Springfield, Illinois.
Frund, E. Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Hall, R. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, Charleston, West Virginia.
Helmick, C. L. Pocahontas Land Corporation, Bluefield, West Virginia.
Kelly, D. Ice, Miller, Donadio and Ryan, Attorneys, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Klindworth, L. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Prairie
Plan Field Office, Cuba, Illinois.
Manley, H. R. Monongahela National Forest, Elkins, West Virginia.
Martin, D. Big Creek Church, Hazard, Kentucky.
McMillan, H. H. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Chicago,
Illinois.
Mollish, A. P. Timberlands Division, Westvaco, Rupert, West Virginia.
Parr, D. E. AMAX Coal Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Peters, C. F. Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection, Frankfort, Kentucky.
125
-------
Perrine, H. G., Jr. Real Estate Service, AMAX Coal Company, Indianapolis,
Indiana.
Rainey, W. West Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association,
Charleston, West Virginia.
Reinertsen, D. L. Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois.
Reiss, I. Meadowlark Farms, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Sarver, R. Mac Energy Division, Valley Coal, Coonvilie, Ohio.
Siebe, A. Lynnville Park Board, Lynnville, Indiana.
league, R. N. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Re-
clamation, Jasonville, Indiana.
Testa, T. Goose Lake Prairie State Park; Coal City Area Club, Coal City,
Illinois.
Thompson, R. R. Bureau of Surface Mine Reclamation, Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Vogel, W. G. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U. S,
Department of Agriculture, Berea, Kentucky.
126
------- |