Kenneth L. Leathers

X HT 3f^ ,^î\y United States '" ' '" Department of

Agriculture

Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service

Rural Development Research Report No. 19

6?

Costs of Strip Mine Reclamation in the West Kenneth L. Leathers

COSTS OF STRIP MINE RECLAMATION IN THE WEST. By Kenneth L. Leathers. Natural Resource Economics Division; Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural Development Research Report No. 19.

ABSTRACT

Estimated costs of mined land reclamation averaged $3,500 per acre in 1976 for western coal regions, an average of 5 cents per ton of coal produced and less than 1 percent of mine-mouth coal prices. Improvements in reclamation practices as a result of 1977 Federal legislation, as well as inflation, will boost these costs. Earthmoving and reshaping account for about 70 to 80 percent of total reclamation costs at a mine.

Key words; Reclamation, cost of reclamation, strip mining, coal, western mining

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful to Linley Juers for assistance during this investigation. John Green and Mel Skold deserve a special note of appreciation for asking important questions and providing useful criticism along the way. The contribution of Joseph R. Barse, who wrote the summary and the section on the new Federal surface mine reclamation law, is gratefully acknowledged. The author also wishes to acknowledge the generous assistance extended by many people in the various State and Federal agencies involved with mined land reclamation.

A special note of thanks goes to Cheryl Tyler, Linda Stallard, and Linda Turner for their excellent work in typing the manuscript.

This study is part of a continuing research program of the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service. It is being conducted in cooperation with the Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Agreement lAG—D6—E766. Paul Schwengels is the EPA project officer.

Washington, D.C. 20250 February 1980

CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY. iii

WESTERN REGION COAL PRODUCTION ÁREAS: STATES AND COUNTIES Iv

INTRODUCTION. 1 Public Issues • » • 2 Policy Options. 2 Study Objectives • • • 3 Approach. « • 3

RECLAMATION AND THE INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONtlENT 4 State Laws and Programs. •• ••.••..... • • 4 The Federal Surface Mine Reclamation Act of 1977. 7 Other Regulatory Agencies and Provisions. 9 Implications. •. • • • •••..•••... • 9

ENGINEERING COMPONENT OF SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION. 10 The Sensitivity of Earthwork Requirements

to Mining Method and Technology 10 Estimating the Costs of Materials Handling..... 15 Study Limitations. 18

REVEGETATION COMPONENT OF SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION. 18 The Regional Environments. 18 Estimating Requirements and Costs. 24 Study Limitations. 27

OTHER COMPONENTS AND ESTIMATES OF SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION COSTS 28 Mining Impacts on Surface and Ground Waters 28 Other Reclamation Components •. • • • • • • 32 Cost Estimates. • • 35

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND FUTURE STUDY. 36

REFERENCES. 37

APPENDIX TABLES 43

ii

SUMMARY

The estimated cost of reclaiming land strip-mined for coal in the West averaged $3,500 per acre in 1976, This was equivalent to 5 cents per ton of coal produced, or less than 1 percent of mine-mouth coal prices that year.

The cost of reclamation in Montana and North Dakota averaged $4,700 and $4,200 per acre, respectively. Cost per acre in Wyoming was $3,400, while costs in Arizona, Colo- rado, and New Mexico ranged between $2,900 and $2,600. These costs were based on the reclamation activities actually being carried out through 1976 and do not reflect costs of reclamation to either a uniform or an ideal standard.

Prior to the Federal Surface Mine Reclamation Act of 1977, legal standards for reclamation differed somewhat among the Western States. But different standards cannot account for the wide variation among States in estimated average cost of reclamation. Because 70 to 80 percent of total reclamation cost at a mine is typically attributable to earthmoving, differences in the amount of earth to be moved account for most of this per acre variation from mine to mine and from State to State.

Strippable coal seams in the Northern Great Plains (NGP) States tend to be more deeply buried than in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. Therefore, earthmoving costs, and hence total reclamation costs, tend to be higher in the northern areas. This is despite the greater difficulties and cost of revegetating land in the arid Southwest than in the NGP.

Revegetation has much less influence on total reclamation cost than earthmoving. As a result, total costs average higher per acre in the NGP. Nevertheless, reclamation costs per ton of coal produced are lower in Montana and Wyoming than in the Rocky Mountains/Southwest or North Dakota because Montana/Wyoming coal seams tend to be much thicker, leading to greater coal output per acre. Estimated 1976 reclamation cost per ton in the West ranged between 3 cents for Wyoming and 25 cents for North Dakota.

An estimated $15.6 million was spent on mined land reclamation in the West in 1976. By 1980, that amount is projected to rise to at least $54.9 million, based on announced increases in production schedules and an 8-percent rate of inflation. That projection, however, does not allow for any cost increases attributable to improved and more costly reclamation practices required by the 1977 Federal Surface Mine Reclamation Act.

Ill

WESTERN REGION COAL PRODUCTION AREAS: STATES AND COUNTIES

Northern Great Plains region:

Montana:

MTl Sheridan

MT2 Dawson Fallón Richland Roosevelt Wibaux

MT3 McCone Prairie

MT4 Bighorn Garfield Musselshell Rosebud Treasure

MT5 Custer Powder River

South Dakota:

SDl Carson Dewey Harding Perkins

North Dakota:

NDl Burke Divide McHenry McKenzie McLean Mountrail Ward Williams

ND2 Billings Burleigh Dunn Golden Valley Mercer Morton Oliver

North Dakota, continued:

ND3 Adams Bowman Grant Hettinger Slope Stark

Wyoming:

WYl Sheridan

WY2 Campbell Johnson

WY3 Carbon Converse

WY4 Lincoln Sweetwater

Rocky Mountain region;

Colorado:

COI Moffat Routt

C02 Jackson

G03 Montrose

New Mexico:

NMl San Juan

NM2 McKinley

Arizona:

ARl Apache Coconino Navajo

Utah:

UTl Emery Sevier

UT2 Wayne

UT3 Garfield Kane

Pacific region:

Washington:

Lewis

Alaska:

(near Healy)

Source: (91)

iv

Costs of Strip Mine Reclamation

in the West

Kenneth L. Leathers'

INTRODUCTION

Surface-mined coal accounts for about 60 percent of the Nation's annual coal supply. At current levels of coal production, at least 55,000 acres of land are disturbed annually by such mining. Increasing demand for energy resources, coupled with significant technological innovations in recovery and processing of coal, provide an incentive to stepped-up surface mining, especially in the coal-rich Western United States.

Approximately 1.3 million acres, nearly 2,000 square miles of land located primarily in the East, have been disturbed to date by surface mining (59). Ij The level of development necessary to achieve 1985 projections of coal production from the western region would disturb as much as 90,000 acres (140 square miles) (61). Orphaned land (previously mined, unreclaimed lands not covered under any pre-1977 Federal or State reclamation law) is estimated at 40 percent of the national total of land previously mined by surface methods. That is, only 60 percent of mined land has been reclaimed.

This study makes a comprehensive economic analysis of surface-mined land reclamation in the West. The western region referred to by this study includes Montana, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming (the Northern Great Plains subregion); Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona (the Rocky Mountain subregion); and Washington and Alaska (the Pacific subregion). The investigation focuses on land actually mined. Land suffers significant disturbance from operations associated with mining (exploration, hauling, coal storage, equipment maintenance), but careful examination of these operations would have exceeded the scope of this study.

Reclamation efforts in the West are affected by: (1) Chemical, hydrologie, and physical characteristics of spoils materials as they affect fertility and erodability, (2) the amounts and seasonal distribution of precipitation, length of the growing season, and évapotranspiration, (3) availability of plant species suitable to the area and post-mining land uses, and (4) form of technology and mining techniques employed in extracting and reclaiming the site. Successful revegetation is a slow process in certain areas of the West and could involve centuries (59).

^Assistant professor. Department of Economics, Colorado State University.

1/ Underscored numbers in parentheses refer to literature listed in the references section at the end of this report.

Accurate estimates of monetary losses to the Nation stemming from unreclaimed lands do not exist. If it is assumed, for example, that annual Income foregone and/or off-site pollution abatement costs (assumed reclamation benefits) amount to $25 per acre of unreclaimed land, an estimate of present total direct damages would be about $13 million annually« Public cost of a comprehensive, national reclamation program for orphaned lands has been estimated at $385 million in 1976 dollars (28). In annual terms (discounted at 8 percent for 100 years), the direct costs amount to approximately $60 per acre, or more than double the assumed benefits of $25 per acre. Although the accuracy of these assumed program benefits is not known, it can be inferred from the existence of some 500,000 acres of orphaned land that actual benefits are perceived as low. The belief that mined land reclamation is not justifiable on economic grounds has been a major disincentive to systematic reclamation (48).

Public Issues

Early mining in the West has left some areas of land barren and unsightly, a testa- ment to the fragility of the ecosystems. In the East, strip mining has left polluted surface and ground waters, drastically altered topography, and glaring examples of ugly landscape.

Unreclaimed land suffers permanent loss of Its value for agriculture, recreation, and other commercial uses. The impact of unreclaimed mine sites reaches beyond the direct effects on the land: (1) Erosion and related water quality degradation arising from steep slopes, uncompacted soils, and toxic substances; (2) danger from collapse of highwalls and the subsidence of overburden materials; (3) disruption of natural drainage networks at mine sites and the interference with groundwater aquifers and downstream water rights; and (4) disruption of wildlife habitat including that of migratory and endangered species.

In Appalachia, the reclamation problem is one of returning the land to its original contour to combat harmful environmental and health effects of acid drainage, soil erosion, and water runoff. Revegetation is the most severe problem in the semiarid West.

Not long before the Federal reclamation legislation of 1977, many Western States began to develop their own reclamation laws and enforcement policies to deal with such harmful impacts of unreclaimed land. Because all these State and Federal laws are relatively new and basically untested, there is considerable public interest in the extent to which they will help reclamation efforts.

Policy Options

Reclamation can be defined broadly as a transitional phase in the continuing economic use of a natural resource^ Most reclamation concepts imply that the land will be returned as nearly as possible to its original use and condition. But post-mining land uses different from premining uses can be considered. For example, valleys and hills can be created from the mine spoils to simulate a natural beauty and variety that was absent at the original site. In arid locales, irrigation might aid revegetation and add substantially to the value of reclaimed land. Dryland cropping might replace rangeland in areas of ample rainfall and thus transform monocultures to a mixed land use base. Sanitary landfills, wildlife habitat, and residential uses are other alternatives.

Three post-mining options are generally available: (1) Restore land and related water resources to approximate premining use and value; (2) reclaim land to a level of

use and value exceeding premining history; and (3) sacrifice all or part of the land's future use and value. Various feasibility criteria aid in the economic evaluation of each option, including: (1) Technical feasibility (What are the alternatives and cost?); (2) efficiency criterion (How do costs compare with benefits?); and (3) equity and distributional effects (What can be accomplished, most efficiently, for whom?).

Criteria and guidelines for predicting reclamation potentials and limitations and cost for land subject to surface mining are needed for a careful analysis of the problem and alternative approaches. Institutional arrangements and reclamation laws, which can either enhance or inhibit reclamation efforts, also require careful examination.

Study Objectives

Specific objectives of this study are:

(1) Identify and evaluate various institutional controls, laws, and regulations currently applied by State, Federal, and local governments to guide and control private industry reclamation;

(2) Identify appropriate technological and economic variables which, with coal and overburden characteristics and other engineering parameters, provide the basis for estimating the earthwork (recontouring and topsoiling) component of reclamation cost;

(3) Identify appropriate physical variables (such as geologic, hydrologie, climatic, biotic, and topographic aspects influencing revegetation) for use in formulating response potentials and costs for revegetation;

(4) Identify and estimate other components and costs, including offsite degradation abatement and unallocated overhead requirements; and

(5) Evaluate the estimated cost and annual reclamation requirements within different geographic and time frame considerations.

Approach

The basic reclamation process involves several component activities: Reshaping the spoils, topsoiling, and backfilling and burying toxic substances where necessary; seedbed preparation, planting, and management of newly revegetated surfaces; and premining planning, supervision, onsite diversion and runoff control structures, and environmental monitoring. Variations on this basic engineering-revegetation-monitoring process depend on the different end uses of reclaimed land.

Offsite externalities (that is, deleterious impacts, which are direct consequences of surface mining) require corrective action under present reclamation law. Costs of abatement, then, must also be considered an integral part of reclamation program costs. This study further distinguishes between direct and indirect costs, adopting the indirect measure which excludes the subsequent effects of changes in market price (39).

A general mine-site evaluation technique, recently developed by the U.S. Forest Service, was a major element in analyzing revegetation response potential at relevant coal development sites. The method uses descriptive data and the important physical characteristics at each site to estimate revegetation potential and costs.

The assessment of institutional controls (rules and regulations) currently used in the West was based on secondary sources of information. Pertinent data on the technological and biological aspects of reclamation were also obtained largely from secondary information• In addition to these secondary sources, data were taken from a random survey of mine operators• Nine personal interviews were conducted, and although not comprehensive in scope, the responses taken from them were very useful as corroborative evidence.

REaAMATION AND THE INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Recent emphasis on the Nation's capacity to become energy self-sufficient has raised concern about potential impacts that would accompany rapid development of the West's strippable coal supply. Faced with uncertainties about the timing of coal development, most Western States have adopted surface mining reclamation laws. Some of these laws or changes in them came well in advance of Federal legislation on surface mine reclamation, some not much in advance and in anticipation of the Federal action.

State Laws and Programs

All Western States except Arizona and Alaska have newly enacted reclamation laws. The laws as written and interpreted, however, are not without problems. Because they are new and untested. State laws have been criticized for being inconsistent, ambigu- ous, and falling short of their stated objectives.

The number of State programs designed specifically for strip mine reclamation in the United States has grown from 1 in 1939 to 39 in 1976, 33 of which became effective just in the past decade. The remaining 11 States are expected to pass some form of reclamation legislation by 1980. Comprehensive Federal legislation was also passed in mid-1977.

Evolution of Reclamation Law

The first documented attempts to reclaim surface-mined lands in the United States date back some 50 years to the experimental programs of several midwestern coal mining firms (11). In Indiana, spoil banks were reclaimed to productive cropland at Meadow- lark Farms near Terre Haute. Reforestation proved successful in West Virginia. The technical and economic feasibility to reclaim and growing public concern over the damaging side-effects of surface mining together provided the impetus for enactment of reclamation laws. The first States to set compliance rules and standards were West Virginia (1939), Indiana (1941), Illinois (1943), Pennsylvania (1945), Ohio (1947), and Kentucky (1954).

Early State laws specifically addressed coal mining. In most cases, only revegetation and erosion control were required. State programs were expanded in scope and con- tent in the late fifties and early sixties. In response to the new State and Federal pollution control laws of the late sixties, State reclamation laws were extended to other minerals and new standards were adopted to monitor all major activities occurring at a mine site. Environmental impacts of surface mining consequently receive special attention in most current State reclamation legislation.

Perhaps the most significant developments in reclamation law of the seventies are new programs that treat mining as an interim land use. Successful reclamation of mining disturbance to an approved end-use is of paramount importance in some recent State legislation. The State laws of the Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain

regions, as well as State laws in the Midwest and Appalachia, employ this interim use concept. Since interim use is only understood within the context of long-term planning, the concept implies the increasing involvement of all concerned parties—private firms, the local community, State and Federal governments, and the tax-paying public—• in the decisionmaking process.

Since the Federal government owns the surface and mineral rights to a large portion of the Nation's lands, some of which are underlain by strippable coal deposits, it is understandable that Federal laws have been passed to regulate coal development and reclamation on land subject to Federal coal leases.

However, some provisions of State law could prohibit coal development on certain sites where reclamation is not possible, or perhaps delay or discourage coal development altogether. Accordingly, Federal legislation has procedures for resolving potential conflicts between State and Federal law on both Federal and non-Federal land, based on the principle that the more stringent of the two laws shall prevail.

Recent State Programs

Surface mining reclamation laws are relatively new to the western region. The first laws were enacted by North Dakota (1969), Washington (1970), and Montana and South Dakota (1971). Utah did not have a reclamation act until 1975, and Arizona and Alaska still do not have reclamation laws. Different State agencies administer the laws in each State, disseminating information, processing applications, issuing permits, and monitoring performance. With the exceptions of North Dakota and New Mexico, where surface-mined land reclamation only applies to coal, these State laws cover all mineral mining.

The normal progression of State legislation and followup administrative action runs from "Act(s)" to "rules and regulations" to "technical guidelines" (app. table 1). Act(s) refers to the enabling legislation whereas rules and regulations refers to providing specific direction and setting minimum levels of performance. With ample experience, rules and regulations can be extended to establish technical guidelines to be followed by the mine operators. Montana and Wyoming are the only States in the West which have gone this far in their program development.

Mining methods are generally determined by economics and natural factors related to mineral extraction. In special cases, however, the mining method is significantly influenced by reclamation requirements (68). These cases are generally limited to the East where the topography is more varied and mineral extraction often involves a combi- nation of mining techniques. Kentucky and West Virginia, for example, have different rules governing different mining techniques depending on the particular natural features of a mine site. In the western region, only Washington and Wyoming have rules which vary by mining method, but these are usually limited to minerals other than coal.

Specific standards and requirements— State reclamation requirements have become fairly complex and comprehensive in a relatively short time, as demonstrated by the required actions and standards of laws in the western region (app. table 2). Within the general provisions of the acts themselves, State enforcement agencies issue orders, regulations, and guidelines, and conduct licensing activities in the absence of specific rules and regulations (11). Nonetheless, recent legislation tends to be more specific about what is required of the mine operator, in some cases stating how the operator is to carry out the requirements (34).

All States with reclamation laws follow a similar procedure in examining a mine operator's credentials and plans, and in requiring a surety bond before a permit is issued. However, differences do exist in such specifics as time periods for renewal.

number and amount of bonds, and information required for licensing. The applicant is normally licensed to mine and reclaim according to an agreed-upon schedule of specifically located activities subject to inspection and periodic relicensing. As a safe- guard against forfeiture, some State agencies (in Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Colorado) set bonding fees at a level that will cover expected reclamation costs. Typically, these rates are renegotiated annually and the minimum release time is about 5 years. In the other States, (excluding Arizona and Alaska) bonding amounts and release times are not specified by law but are left to the discretion of the enforcement agencies. Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming also apply bonding requirements to exploration disturbance.

Most States have detailed specifications for handling and conserving topsoil, backfilling and grading spoils, meeting slope requirements, and handling toxic or waste materials (18). The abatement of deleterious onsite and offsite effects of mining is fundamental in all State law. In the early programs such measures were enacted prior to more general State and Federal pollution control legislation. State reclamation acts normally cover most sources of air and water pollution, noise, and esthetic degradation of the landscape.

Administrators are flexible in interpreting and enforcing the law with respect to revegetation and other reclamation standards. In arid and semiarid climates, little is currently known about the time required to establish a permanent plant cover of suitable species mix. Accordingly, State standards in the West are generally more flexible in this regard than similar standards elsewhere in the Nation. Montana^s requirement of establishing "primarily native species" is an exception, and serves as a good illustration of why strict standards are controversial: The native species rule does not encourage consideration of alternative land uses.

Requirements for land use planning—The information typically required of the mine operator before operations commence has forced mining companies to develop considerable expertise in reclamation practices and planning (app. table 3). However, only three States (Colorado, Utah, and North Dakota) currently require careful consideration of alternative end-uses of the reclaimed land. Procedures for identifying appropriate land use objectives vary from State to State, but the recent trend in western legislation requires the mine operator to consider "alternative" and "multiple" uses. Under Montana law, the operator has essentially no opportunity to suggest an alternative to •the specified uses, whereas an operator in the State of Colorado is encouraged to make suggestions of his own in cooperation with the landowner.

Special provisions'—Most States have a number of special provisions in the amendments which enhance or modify coverage of the general law. Such provisions may include mineral protection, exclusion of certain areas from mining, and provisions for long- term planning. One of the more important provisions is the planning period. Because of the semiarid conditions in the West, the time frame for reclamation planning is much longer in contrast to the Midwestern and Eastern States. Time frames have been extended from the customary 5 years after the initial reclamation effort to 10 years or more for "extended mining plans" (North Dakota) and to the life of the mine (Montana and Colorado) (25).

Substitution of previously mined but unreclaimed (orphan) lands for lands disturbed in present mining is expressly prohibited in Montana and South Dakota only. In effect, this means that mining will be allowed in these States only where reclamation has a reasonable chance to succeed. The Montana Act leaves no doubt that neither prospecting nor mining permits will be approved on lands that have "special, exceptional, critical, or unique characteristics." Broadly interpreted, Wyoming^s law says that disturbed lands incapable of sustained grazing by wildlife and livestock at a level at least comparable with its undisturbed condition should not be mined.

In general, most States require some form of economic feasibility study of mining Impact abatement and reclamation costs. Typically, these analyses are submitted annually to the administrative agency for review« Data are used by State agencies as a guide to setting bond limits and as a condition to granting permits for future mining.

State enforcement powers—All States require permits for surface mining operators (app. table 4). However, the period of validity varies widely—from 1 year in Montana to 5 years in Colorado, and to the life of the operation in Wyoming and New Mexico. Permits can be revoked for noncompliance, but few States specify the conditions and actual circumstances under which mining privileges would be revoked. Only Wyoming has a provision for placing the burden of proof on the operator.

Most States have provisions for inspecting mine sites although very few require inspections on a regularly scheduled basis. Only North Dakota uses both civil and criminal penalties for infractions of the law. By contrast, stiff fines and imprison- ment are common practice in nonwestern coal States. This should not, however, be construed as a weakness in western law, since the principal deterrent to violations in the West is the permanent revocation of the right to continue mining.

Citizen participation—In general, no State law offers sufficient opportunity for citizen participation. Public notice is given in the case of permit review processes, but provisions for public nomination of unsuitable lands and participation in bond release and enforcement are almost nonexistent in western reclamation law.

Only Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota have nondiscretionary provisions which clearly require public notice and opportunity for a public hearing before permit approval. Montana requires public notice and hearing prior to bond release. No laws examined provide for citizen request of mine-site inspections, and only Montana laws open the possibility for citizen suits.

Operators' release from liability—Montana apparently has the most stringent requirements for release from liability, although no specific provisions are given for the control of surface erosion. Most States have and enforce requirements for backfilling and recontouring, revegetation, and control of erosion, but these, required actions generally take the form of rules and regulations rather than provisions of law. Accordingly, it could be argued that for this reason (that is, the possibility that such rules and regulations might not be enforceable in the courts), western reclamation standards are actually weaker than they appear.

One of the more controversial issues in the West stems from a disagreement over what constitutes "successful" reclamation. To assure that reclamation is successful over time, as specified in Montana law (and in the "intent of the law" of other Western States), it is important that the operator be held accountable for a period of time following revegetation. In Montana, the waiting period may be indefinite, while in other States the period of liability may extend beyond 5 years as in Wyoming, be limited by special conditions such as drought as in North Dakota, or be left to the discretion of the administrator who can extend the period for as long as appropriate as is the case in New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado.

The Federal Surface Mine Reclamation Act of 1977

Two major objectives of the 1977 P.L. 95-87 are to reclaim abandoned mine lands and control the environmental impacts of potential or ongoing surface coal mining, primarily through Titles IV and V of the act, respectively.

Title IV establishes a trust fund and procedures for surface reclamation of abandoned mine sites and abatement of certain adverse offsite effects. Abandoned surface and underground mines are both covered, the latter through requiring abatement of adverse surface effects. Revenues for the fund are to come from a Federal reclamation fee of 35 cents a ton of coal produced by surface mining, and 15 cents a ton by underground mining (or 10 percent of the value of the coal at minemouth, whichever is less), although for lignite the amount is the lesser of 10 cents or 2 percent of the value. This trust fund is used for special programs: Approximately 50 percent to States and Indian reservations; 20 percent to the Secretary of Interior; 20 percent to the Secretary of Agriculture; and 10 percent to operators of small coal mines ($10 million maximum funding) for certain expenses associated with Title V mining permits.

The act also authorizes several programs to achieve reclamation of abandoned mine lands based on the distribution of the fund's revenues. Among them are programs prepared by the States, Rural Lands Program (cost sharing and technical assistance for private landowners) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Filling Voids and Sealing Tunnels Program administered by Department of Interior, and the Abandoned Mine Land Acquisition and Reclamation Program administered by the States or Department of the Interior,

Title V, the heart of the act, authorizes Federal surface mining controls. This section requires mining permits for surface coal mine operation, along with procedures to apply for, grant, deny, and revise these permits. Bonding, hearings, and appeals are also covered. Any permit issued requires that the mine operator meet the new statutory reclamation and environmental performance standards and comply with any other regulations made. These performance standards cover, among other items, restoration of original land use capability and original land contour, stabilization of surface areas, replacement of topsoil, restoration of mined prime farmlands, water impoundments, augering operations, hydrologie balance, mine spoil and waste disposal, blasting, access roads, revegetation, slide or erosion barriers, surface mining on steep slopes, and proximity to underground mines. Inspections, monitoring, enforcement, and penalties are also authorized, as well as procedures for releasing performance bonds.

Title V authorizes the designation of certain areas as unsuitable for surface coal mining, as well as the methods of designation and the criteria. This section also authorizes denial of mining permits for areas designated unsuitable or if the regulatory authority rules that: (1) There would be "material damage to hydrologie balance outside (the potential) permit area"; (2) the proposed mining operation, if west of the 100th meridian (slightly east of Bismarck, North Dakota) would interrupt, discon- tinue, or preclude farming on alluvial valley floors that are irrigated or naturally subirrigated or would damage the quantity or quality of water in surface or underground systems which supply these floors; (3) prime farmland which would be included in proposed mining areas could not be restored within a reasonable time "to equivalent or higher levels of yield as nonmined prime farmlands in the surrounding areas under equivalent levels of management" or could not be restored to meet the post-mined soil reconstruction standards specified in the act.

The act also requires that mine operators obtain permits to conduct surface operations accompanying underground mining. This permit requirement aims to control specific surface effects of underground mining, such as subsidence and acid mine drainage. Sealing of unneeded openings, runoff controls, regrading, and revegetation of mine tailings are among the control measures necessary to qualify for surface operations permits. In effect, regulating the surface aspects of underground mining brings all deep mines of significant scale, as well as surface mines, under some degree of control.

In addition, the act mandates the Secretary of Interior to implement a program for reclamation of surface-mined areas of leased Federal lands. The performance standards of the act and all subsequent reclamation programs for mining on Federal land will be incorporated into the leases.

Title V also addresses the relationship between State laws and regulations on mined land reclamation and the new Federal law. A State law will prevail over the Federal law only if it "provides for more stringent land use and environmental controls and regulations of surface coal mining and reclamation operation than do the provisions of the Act.." The Secretary of Interior must specify which State laws and regulations are deemed inconsistent with or less stringent than the Federal act and which are thus superseded by the act and the Federal regulations.

In general, the performance standards of the Federal act are similar to those of many State reclamation laws. However, the performance standards of Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado could well be deemed more stringent than those of the Federal act, and thus might prevail. By contrast, reclamation laws and standards of other Western States seem less stringent than the new Federal law and could well be superseded by it.

Other Regulatory Agencies and Provisions

Four major Federal laws—the Clean Air Act Amendments, the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, the 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act Amendments, and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920—all provide for regulatory authority which extends to all parts of the country (23^) • Unlike other Federal laws, the reclamation regulations, embodied in the Mineral Leasing Act, do not apply to all mining operations; rather they apply only to reclamation of lands under Federal coal leases, including leased land on Indian reservations.

Numerous local laws and ordinances may also apply to the integrated set of mining activities over time (_9, _50 ). Mining operators are typically asked to comply with a wide array of local regulations and ordinances which can influence reclamation and mining practices as well as other land use activities at the mine site (app. table 5). The nature and extent of such "controls" will vary by locale, but the trend in recent years suggests more rather than less influence on the mining industry in the future.

Implications

Recent changes in the institutional setting^—the social environment within which modern surface mining and reclamation must take place—have created a considerable amount of uncertainty and mistrust among the mining industry. State and Federal agencies, and other interested groups.

Several general observations can be made concerning the nature and effectiveness of western reclamation laws and institutions. First, two interrelated objectives serve as the fundamental basis for all State mined area reclamation programs: (1) the successful transformation of surface-mined lands to productive, long-term use and (2) the control (and/or avoidance) of deleterious side effects stemming from mining activity. Although there is some disagreement over how these objectives can best be achieved, the Western States as a whole have adopted a "learn-by-doing" philos- ophy in writing law. Further, program administrators evidently exercise considerable discretion in enforcing particular standards. Often it is the interpretation of the act rather than the act itself that becomes the basis for reclamation standards and

procedures. However, there is little evidence to suggest that "liberal interpreta- tions" of law will ever purposefully comproinise these objectives.

Second, some standards common to most State programs appear contradictory in terms of post-mining land use options. Restoring land to its original contour, replacing topsoil, or restoring native species, can limit alternative uses—recreational, residential, wildlife habitat, landfill, or badlands—of the disturbed site. Only a few States specifically require that alternative end-uses (uses other than the premining use) be considered in the planning phase. This is an especially critical constraint to local land-use planning in that opportunities for diversified and creative development of the land and related resources are not encouraged within the context of local

needs.

A third point to note regarding western reclamation laws is the extent of community involvement in premining planning. This involvement currently ranges from passive to active participation in the licensing and bonding processes and review of activities underway. South Dakota law is perhaps illustrative of the trend toward more local input in premining planning: "No permit shall be issued ...(where) surface mining would be incompatible with...local plans for land development..." (37).

Fourth, as long as there is sufficient economic incentive to mine coal, rock, and other minerals in the arid western region, mining operators will comply with the State reclamation legislation. Failure to do so would mean forfeiting all future rights to mine. Inasmuch as renewals of mining permits are tied to successful reclamation efforts, mine operators must plan reclamation just as carefully as other mining procedures. Waiver of this liability is very limited at the State level.

Lastly, there is some- concern that many State regulations need bolstering, although some State laws are strict in all areas except mine safety provisions and therefore would supersede the Federal standards. However, some State regulations might prove too tough, making legally acceptable reclamation of lands in certain areas (primarily the Rocky Southwest) highly precarious and unlikely. Then, timely development of federally owned coal in a time of critical national need might be judged too slow, leading to a réévaluation of the relationship between State and Federal legisla-

tion.

ENGINEERING CO^ÍPONENT OF SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION

Surface mining, in contrast to underground mining, involves removal of all earth materials that overlie the mineral or ore body to be mined. Consequently, the potential for massive disturbance of land surfaces is much greater with surface mining than with conventional underground mining methods. Because of advances made in earth-moving technology in recent years, surface mining in general and strip mining in particular account for an increasing proportion of the Nation's mined mineral resources. A recent report by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (64), points out that 86 percent of all crude ore (sand and gravel, phosphate, clay, stone, iron, copper, coal) mined in 1971 was obtained with surface methods.

The Sensitivity of Earthwork Requirements to Mining Method and Technology

Earthworks—the stripping, recontouring, and hauling operations—are formidable engineering tasks in surface mining and land reclamation. In large-scale surface mining of coal, the earthwork procedures comprise the overwhelming proportion of operating costs (43). Similarly, overburden contouring and topsoiling (hauling, grading, and leveling) also contribute substantially to the cost of reclaiming surface-

10

mined land (68)» This is true because, to a large degree, the stripping technology used determines the physical configuration and condition of the spoil piles to be reclaimed. Depending on the extraction method and the type and size of equipment used to create the spoils, overburden handling costs in the reclamation effort can be greatly affected (24),

Overview of the Surface Mining Process

Surface mining refers to any process of removing earth, rock, and other strata in recovering the underlying mineral or fossil fuel. The first operational phase in coal mine development is exploration. In surface mining, this usually entails drilling core samples to establish the extent of the coal deposit, its quality and accessibility, and the mining sequence to be followed at the site. Improperly plugged drill holes may allow water under artesian pressure to escape to the surface, or if unreclaimed, the holes may create a moonscape appearance (58). Although the drilling may cause considerable surface disturbance, extensive off-road vehicular travel can cause even greater disturbance and probably accounts for the worst damage to land in the exploration phase.

Under present reclamation law, the first major earthmoving activity at a surface mine involves the removal and stockpiling of topsoil. In the western region, this is typically done with heavy-duty tractors, scrapers, or other conventional earthmoving equipment. Where diversion dams and ditches are required to keep surface runoff from reaching the pit area, they are built prior to earthwork activity.

All overlying soil and rock is removed next to expose the coal deposit. If this "overburden" material is highly consolidated, blasting will facilitate its removal. The drill hole pattern and blasting charges (ammonium nitrate and fuel oil) are gauged according to the hardness of the material and the degree of fragmentation desired. Highly fragmented material or powder is usually avoided, since it can often lead to problems with spoil bank subsidence, can sometimes be more difficult to revegetate, and can contribute to severe soil erosion (17). Where overburden is relatively soft and does not require blasting, conventional scapers and dozers are used for removal. However, at most mines in the West, large shovels and draglines are used almost exclu- sively for overburden stripping.

Coal is typically removed with smaller electric shovels, loaded into large trucks, and hauled to a central storage point for preparation and/or loading on unit trains for transportation to steam-electric power plants. Front-end loaders are also used to load coal, and are perhaps the best method of handling some soft western coals which cannot support the weight of heavy shovels.

The remaining earthwork operations comprise the major engineering phases of strip mine reclamation: Backfilling, recontouring, and replacement of topsoil. Depending on the surface mining method used (whether contour or area stripping techniques), the types and sizes of earthmoving equipment, and the physical conditions of the site itself, the earthwork handling requirements will vary widely. In the West, backfilling also includes reduction of the highwall left by the final mining cut, whereas in some Midwestern States the final cut remains as a catchment or water impoundment (37). Seeding is usually done with conventional agricultural equipment, and revegetated areas are fenced to limit grazing for 1 or 2 years.

This sequence of activities is repeated many times throughout the life of the mine. Typically, reclamation operations are phased with regular mining activities to aid reseeding at appropriate times during the year. Selected environmental factors such as air, water, wildlife, and vegetation are carefully monitored throughout the life of the mine and even for a period after actual mine closing.

11

Western Surface Mining Methods

Several different surface mining methods are used in western region coal fields, the most common of which are strip and open pit mining. Each method presents a different type of materials handling problem for the miñe operator.

Strip mining—The two general types of strip mining are area mining and contour mining. Area mining, the most widely used recovery method in the western region, is practiced in relatively flat terrain (slopes of lA degrees or less), and Involves a series of narrow, parallel cuts. Once the operation has begun, overburden from the new cut is placed in an adjacent previous cut which has already had the coal removed. The series of parallel cuts progresses across the site until the depth of overburden or coal quality makes mining uneconomic. If left ungraded, the mined area resembles a large plowed field.

Leveling the spoil banks usually takes place at the same time as coal extraction, and involves heavy earthmoving equipment such as dozers and blades to level the banks to grades prescribed by State law (fig# 1). In Instances where overburden materials are less consolidated (such as soft sandstones and shales as opposed to bedrock), blasting would not be used to reduce the slope of highwalls, since it is too expensive. Small draglines when available have also been used to level spoilbanks at considerably lower per unit costs than bulldozers (fig. 2).

Contour mining, typically required on steeper terrain, is more common to such areas as Appalachia, although contour methods are currently used at several large mines in southwestern Wyoming (Sorenson and Elkol mines) and in northwestern Colorado (Energy, Edna, and Williams Fork mines). This method is used to extract coal that crops out along the sides of steep hills, following the coal seam around the hillside. The operation generally involves cutting a bench into the mountain, often creating a highwall several hundred feet high.

Handling overburden in contour stripping is a more challenging engineering task than in area stripping, primarily because of the limited working space. Contour stripping historically involved casting the overburden down the hill. Under present reclamation requirements, such practices are prohibited in the Western States. Mining a steep contour in the West usually requires the shovel-and-truck method of overburden removal and backfilling. Depending on the amount of backfilling required, the overburden can be replaced and the spoils regraded to approximately the original contour—contour backfilling. Alternatively, only the highwall may be covered (at considerably lower cost) leaving a narrow terrace on the mountainside as in terrace backfilling. Modern practice emphasizes replacing overburden immediately after coal removal. In one such practice known as modified box cut, spoils from successive contour cuts are used to fill the previous cuts as in area stripping.

Area and contour methods, used together, are sometimes referred to as mountaintop mining. In this case, the entire top or a portion of the mountain is removed in se- quential cuts and replaced after the coal seam is removed. Grading the spoil typically creates a flatter appearance than the original topography. For this reason, mountaintop mining is discouraged in several Eastern States.

The conservation of topsoil in area and contour stripping proceeds in essentially the same sequence. Topsoil or a particular stratum of overburden material deemed most appropriate for plant growth, ranging in depth from several inches to several feet, is stripped off with self-powered scrapers and is stockpiled adjacent to the open cut. Recontouring and redistributing of topsoil generally occur concurrently in both types of strip mining.

12

Figure 1

Area Stripping with Concurrent Reclamation

Redaimed land

Undisturbed Land

Source: {33).

Figure 2

Spoil Bank Recontouring with a Pull-Back Djragline

Reclaimed land

Undisturbed Land

13

Open pit mining—Used primarily in the extraction of metals and mineral ore bodies, open pit mining is economically feasible where huge quantities of the extractable resource are available. Open pit mines 1,000 feet deep and a "mile wide" can be found in several Rocky Mountain States. Mining coal by this method is limited to very thick, level seams under fairly shallow overburden material (fig. 3). Examples of such operations can be found in the Gillette area .(Wyodak and Amax mines) and north of Sheridan (Big Horn mine) in Wyoming.

Open pit mining usually continues uninterrupted for many years, producing large amounts of waste material and requiring vast acreages of land for overburden and topsoil stockpiling. Because of the expense of moving such large quantities of soil and rock, it is unlikely that some of the larger pits will ever be refilled. Accordingly, most operators use the overburden to backfill lowlying areas or build terraces adjacent to the mined area. These are graded and revegetated concurrently with mining, in some cases in lieu of reclaiming the pit itself.

Alternative Technologies

Howland (36) has shown that the trend in the mining industry to adopt larger earthmoving equipment, specifically draglines, has had a marked effect on spoil leveling requirements. Draglines tend to pile overburden in long, steep banks with ridge lines 200 or more feet apart (fig. 1). Leveling such banks with conventional tractor-dozers is very costly, and improved equipment (larger, pull-type bladers) will not be readily available for some time. An alternative procedure, the shovel and truck method, allows removal and replacement of overburden in one operation. Although being a less capital intensive means, truck and shovel operations require additional labor and overhead. Both methods are comparable on a cost-effectiveness basis (68, 71).

Figure 3

Open Pit Coal Mining Procedures

Source: {68).

14

Marcus (53) suggests that the evolution of technology in the mining industry may turn away from larger machines to longer-lasting, less expensive, and more versatile machinery. Changes which reduce operating costs by decreasing maintenance requirements, down time, and supply bottlenecks are expected. Because the present lead time for delivery of draglines is 5 years or more, the recent trend to truck and shovel methods should continue in the western strip mining industry.

Conceptual Difficulties in Cost Separation

Earthwork procedures, which tend to be mine specific, present a problem in separating reclamation from normal mining practice. Depending on the mining method, the types and sizes of stripping equipment used, and the particular engineering requirements of a given site, production and reclamation procedures and costs are often jointly determined and difficult to identify as separate activities.

This is clearly the case for backfilling. For example, when a dragline is used in stripping the overburden, material is replaced in the mined-out area as mining continues across the site. Thus, with the exception of the first and last mining passes, the backfilling operation occurs simultaneously with stripping. A large proportion of the backfilling cost then is actually production rather than reclamation cost. Con- versely, with shovel and truck methods, the backfilling operation is a genuine reclamation activity, since the overburden material is deliberately returned to the pit area rather than an adjacent dump site.

Further, with the shovel and truck method, overburden is replaced in a leveled configuration; thus, recontouring and backfilling are accomplished jointly. In contrast, draglines and large shovels produce steep spoil banks that require extensive leveling and a definite recontour phase.

Separating premining planning activities into production and reclamation components and reclamation's share of overhead and unallocated costs also pose this type of problem.

Estimating The Costs of ^faterials Handling

A sound, comparative analysis of the engineering requirements and costs of reclamation requires a considerable amount of empirical data. Such information might include the types and sizes of equipment, operating efficiencies and costs, physical characteristics of the overburden materials and coal seams, beginning and ending slopes, size and configuration of area to be mined, and average depth of topsoil.

Watts (89) has shown, for example, that differences in the depth of overburden and the percent slope of the recontoured spoil banks and highwall have marked effects on per acre reclamation costs. Flat slopes (0-5 percent gradient), with less erosion potential and thus better prospects for revegetation, can be achieved at relatively nominal increases in per acre costs when overburden is comparatively shallow. As the depth increases beyond about 50 feet, the handling costs increase more than proportion- ately. Even for relatively shallow overburdens, the cost of recontouring the spoils can be the most expensive operation in the reclamation process. The most reliable source of such information would be the mining companies themselves, but due to the competitive nature of the industry, accurate characterizations of overburden depths, coal thickness, and mining costs are not routinely disclosed to the public. Often, the only available information comes from "synthetic" budgeting models which simulate mining practices (62, 10).

15

The principal sources of information used in estimating reclamation costs include: (1) Annually updated mining plans submitted by the mining companies in compliance with State law which are maintained in open files by various State agencies; (2) published and open file reports of other concerned State agencies (Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources) involved with coal development planning, enforcement, monitoring, and research; (3) data published by the mining industry; (4) several publicly funded studies and surveys; and (5) consultations with a number of mining, geology, and reclamation experts. Some corroborative evidence

was also obtained through personal interviews with nine mining operators in the study area (52), For the most part, the limited data collected from direct sampling was not sufficient to warrant generalizations at the regional level.

Description of Mines

In 1976, some 52 individual mines were operated commercially in the western region, accounting for an annual output of approximately 104 million tons (app. table 6). Assuming the announced mining plans through 1980 are implemented on schedule, approximately 87 mines will produce 360 million tons annually by the end of that time frame. During this period, average annual output per mine will increase from 2 million to over 4 million tons per year.

On a regional basis, the specific coal production areas likely to experience the greatest increase in surface mining are in Wyoming (WY2, a 24-fold increase), North Dakota (ND2), Montana (MT4), and New Mexico (Nl^). However, nearly all coal production areas can expect significant increases in activity and impacts as the entire region's output more than triples by 1980.

Mine-site descriptions of coal deposits, overburden characteristics, and representative stripping ratios for most operations were obtained from the operators* mining plans (app. table 7). The values in parentheses for recoverable seam thickness and overburden depth represent operating conditions that will prevail through 1980, and are not necessarily mean values of those production parameters. This information was derived from stratigraphie maps of actual mine sites developed by the operators. Where such data were not available, the information was taken from geologic cross-sectional analyses of the coal field, representative portions of individual seams, and overlying soil and rock formations in the vicinity of the mining tract.

The wide variability in mineable seams and overburden depths, generally greater among regions than within a given production area or set of areas, would suggest that the regional characterizations are perhaps less subject to measurement error. Noting two mines in Montana as possible exceptions (Decker #1 and Absaloka), both the individual and aggregated results compare favorably with most estimates reported by Whetzel (92).

Approximately 70 percent of the operators use draglines for overburden stripping, while the most common methods of recontouring and topsoiling involve tractor-dozers and self-powered scrapers, respectively.

Assumptions and Procedure

Earlier studies used rather rigorous budgeting techniques to establish representative cost functions by type and size of machine, operation, workload, and other factors (68, 71). Other standard cost schedules for a wide range of equipment options and operating conditions are also available (12) . The estimating procedures developed by Watts (89) were considered most appropriate for this study. These procedures are

16

limited to a single mining method and stripping with draglines used for overburden removal« Accordingly, all surface coal mines in the western region are treated as area strip-dragline type operations for purposes of cost estimation.

The approach used to generate cost estimates was fairly simple and straightfor- ward. Two cost functions were formulated—one each for the contouring and topsoiling operations. These cost functions, under those conditions specified in figure 4, were applied to all mines in the study area.

As a consequence of this approach, several individual mining operations, namely those that employ open pit or contour strip mining methods or operations using shovel and truck methods, are not appropriately specified in the analysis. Thus, for a number of specific mines, some estimated costs for earthwork handling will be biased either upward or downward. The individual mines most likely affected are located in coal production areas WY2, WY4, COI, and possibly NM2 (app. table 7).

Cost Comparisons

Mines in Montana, North Dakota, and northern Wyoming have the greatest earthmoving requirements in the western region, with per acre costs ranging upward from $3,500. For the majority of these mines, topsoiling (the combined operations of stripping, stockpiling and redistributing) accounts for the largest proportion of total earthwork costs.

In the balance of the region, earthwork handling requirements are more variable and generally less costly; average costs range from $1,700 per acre in New Mexico and Arizona to about $2,600 per acre in most areas of Wyoming. The variability in cost

Figure 4

Summary of Assumptions Used to Estimate Topsoiling and Recontouring Costs

Topsoiling Topsoil thickness = uniform over mined area:

Range Average

State Depth/Inches

North Dakota 6-60" 24" Montana 6-24" 20" Colorado 6-14" 10" Wyoming 2- 8" 6" Utah 2- 8" 6" New Mexico 2- 8" 6" Arizona 2- 8" 6" Washington 6-30" 6" Alaska 2.24" 4"

Average handling cost = $123 per acre inch (including stripping, stockpiling and replacement)

Recontouring Mined area - 100 acres—i,452' x 300'

Length of highwall = 1,452' Width of pit - 120'

Ramp roads = 4 on site, 30' wide Overburden = Uniform thickness over area—swell factor 25%

Surface slopes = premining 10%, (average area), spoil bank .8:1, post mining—highwall 15% all others 10%

Recontouring equipment =. Tractor-dozers

Dollars per unit

50-1

40-

30-

20

lOH

X Average Cost Function

I 20 40 60 80 100 120

Overburden depth,in feet

17

estimates among mines in the same coal production area is explained by different recon- tourlng requirements, since the same topsoil requirement is assumed for an entire State- In terms of broad regional comparisons, the Northern Great Plains has the highest overall average cost, roughly $3,000 per acre, the Rocky Mountain States the lowest—less than $1,900 per acre.

Study Limitations

The mine characteristics and estimated costs reviewed in this study compare favorably with previously published reports. The earlier studies do not provide mine-by-mine summaries, however; the findings reported here should therefore be regarded as preliminary until further evidence is available.

Several limitations should be considered. In any empirical analysis in which standard assumptions are uniformly applied, the "uniqueness" of individual cases is sacrificed for consistency and generality. In the present case, the uniqueness of each mining situation can involve vast differences in operating conditions at the same site over time, as well as between mines operated in the same general area. Accordingly, the insights gained in generalizing situations for comparative purposes must be weighed against the overgeneralization of actual situations.

Other limitations deal with the simplicity of the approach and method of analysis. More rigorous estimating procedures might generate different results. However, available evidence supports the contention that more rigorous engineering analyses would not yield significantly different conclusions.

The reported results are based on the assumption that in the short term (such as through 1980), significant changes will not occur in reclamation law pertaining to topsoiling and recontouring requirements. Such changes would significantly alter the cost estimates. Further, the estimated costs were derived on the assumption that all mines in the study area are strip-type operations that use draglines or large shovels for overburden removal. Accordingly, the procedures followed allow comparisons of mining conditions rather than comparisons of mining methods and technological alternatives. The vast majority of western strip mines currently use the procedures specifically examined in this study.

REVEGETÂTI0N COMPONENT OF SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION

Extensive strip mining of coal in the Western United States has stimulated public concern over the potential for these disturbed lands to be reclaimed. A careful review of literature on mining reclamation suggests that the majority of work in the past 5 years has focused on the problem of revegetation. This is explained in part by the problematic nature of the natural environments where strippable coal resources have been identifed. In the semiarid West, an Intimate relationship between sparse rainfall, shallow, erodable soils, and a cold desert biome gives rise to diverse and often fragile ecosystems. If disturbed on a massive scale, it is unlikely that some of these natural systems can ever be restored to their present state or even to a useful alternative condition without careful attention (59).

The Regional Environments

Numerous environmental factors determine to a large degree the success or failure of reclamation efforts. As previously discussed, revegetation can be the most critical phase in the sequence of reclamation activities. The natural factors that largely

18

Influence the probability for successful revegetation in the Western region are the amount and distribution of seasonal precipitation, the physiography of the area, especially soil productivity and stability, and the availability of suitable plant species for reestablishment*

Moisture Regimes

The vast intermountain area between the Great Plains and the Pacific coast is a region where atmospheric forces produce many kinds of climates. Weather patterns in the Western United States are strongly influenced by climatic conditions in Canada, Mexico, and the Gulf coastal region. These forces and conditions, together with the broad expanse and varied topography of the West, result in extreme variations in climate.

Climate is not always accurately characterized by a single element such as precipitation, however; numerous other characteristics—air and soil temperature, humidity, wind velocity and duration, atmospheric pressure, solar radiation, and snow cover— may also be important.

Northern Great Plains region—The climate of the Northern Great Plains varies from arid in the southwest to subhumid in the northeastern extremes (fig. 5). Annual precipitation is relatively light, with large year-to-year and seasonal variability. Much of the area lacks moisture, but this varies with location and season. In one study, based on the precipitation-evaporation index for 37 years, Thornthwaite (73) classified the area climate as: Arid (5 years), semiarid (25 years), dry subhumid (5 years), and moist subhumid and humid (1 year each). Seasonal precipitation is the most significant physical determinant to the success or failure of the regiones agriculture.

Average annual precipitation ranges upward from 8 inches in the interior and southern parts of Wyoming to over 20 inches in the mountains and eastern parts of North and South Dakota (app. table 11). The location of known coal deposits indicates that areas of potential coal production would average between 12-16 inches of moisture annually. As much as 75 percent of this typically occurs during the growing season, May to October. What constitutes normal precipitation for the Northern Great Plains is difficult to determine, however, since mean rainfall may occur only once every 8 or 10 years. The index of rainfall variation (the standard deviation divided by the average X 100) ranges between 20 and 30 percent for most of those sub-areas producing coal

(fig. 6).

Drought conditions, or prolonged periods of abnormal moisture deficiency, are infrequent but severe in the Northern Great Plains. One of the worst droughts of this century took place during the summer of 1936. The Palmer Index, which measures the soil moisture situation during periods of abnormally dry weather, showed that the Northern Great Plains was hardest hit during this period.

The distribution of rainfall during the growing season is usually favorable for vegetative growth. In the fall months, declining precipitation and abundant sunshine are favorable for maturing native grasses and planted crops. On the one hand, a deficiency of even a few inches of moisture during the critical stages of growth (usually June and July) can mean the difference between success or failure for either dryland farming or revegetated surface-mined lands. On the other hand, above normal precipitation can cause severe soil erosion, especially in areas of sparsely vegetated surfaces and uneven topography.

19

Figure 5

Thornthwaite Classifications of General U.S. Climatic Regions

(A) General Climatic Classifications

Rocky Mountain I Region

Nortliern Great Plains Region

□ Super- humid

(B) General Variability of Rainfall

Inadequate, highly variable rainfall

Often inadequate rainfall, wide variability

Transitional as to A adequacy and inadequacy

H Generally adequate rainfall

Source: (73).

20

Figure 6

Indices of Rainfall Variation,^ Roclcy (Mountain and Great Plains Regions

Crop Growing Season Annual

Shaded areas indicate more stable, less variable rainfall. ^This is the coefficient of variation x =100; the larger the index, the greater the variation.

Source: (90).

Rocky Mountain region—Variations in temperature and seasonal precipitation in the Central Rockies are even more extreme than for the Great Plains to the north and east. The northwestern portion of Colorado is semlarld to htraild, while the southern portions of Utah and Colorado and the northwestern portion of New Mexico are arid (73), With the exception of a very few Isolated areas in the northern part of the region, agriculture is not feasible without irrigation.

The annual mean precipitation for areas of strippable coal deposits ranges from 7 Inches in Arizona and New Mexico to 20 Inches in northwestern Colorado (app. table 11). Differences in temperature are less extreme, with a general trend to warmer climates and longer growing seasons in a southerly direction. The seasonal distribution of moisture is similar to but more variable than that of the Northern Great Plains. Soil erosion is common throughout the region due to Infrequent but severe thundershowers over sparsely vegetated, sloping soil surfaces.

Pacific region—The climate in the northern coastal zone contrasts markedly with the dry, semlarld regions of the western Interior. The area encompassing Washington's strippable coal is generally humid; mean annual precipitation at Centralla is 54 inches, most of which occurs November through February. Although the amount of rainfall and the mild, humid conditions are normally adequate for good plant growth during the summer months, the soil can often be depleted of moisture during this time. When drought conditions occur in the Northwest, it clearly demonstrates that seasonal distribution of moisture'can be critical to plant survival, even in a humid environment.

The strippable coal deposits of Alaska cover a broad expanse of differing topography and thus are subject to tremendous climatic extremes. Temperature generally plays a greater role than does precipitation, with the most notable effect being a very short growing season (app. table 11). Freezing temperatures prevail approximately 6 months of the year nearly everywhere, from October or November to March or April.

21

January is usually the coldest month, with mean temperatures generally below zero« At the Usibelli strip mine in the Nenana Coal Field near Healy, the frost-free growing period averages only 34 days per year«

The southern coastal area near Anchorage is typically humid, averaging 20 inches of precipitation annually. In contrast to the southern and interior regions, the northern coastal zone near Point Barrow, an area of extensive coal reserves as well as oil and gas, averages less than 4 inches annually—slightly more than Death Valley, California.

Physiography and Soils

The Western United States contains many abruptly divergent landforms with different environmental conditions for the development of soils (81). This heterogeneity of form is associated with differences in precipitation, natural vegetation, and sources of weathered rock from which soils have developed. Differences in soil erosion and drainage are also related to variability among these landforms. Owing to the evolutionary origin of many western soils (such as weathering of sedimentary material and minerals deposited during the evaporation of ancient inland seas) infertility and natural salts in subsurface soil horizons can pose serious problems to revegetation once they are disturbed.

Northern Great Plains region—This region is the northwestern, higher elevation portion of the Great Plains. It extends eastward from the foothills of the Rocky Mountains for approximately 600 miles and varies in elevation from 50Ó to 9,000 feet above sea level. Much of the region is rolling prairie, but in the western portions of Montana and Wyoming, mountain terrain is common. Natural washes, gullies, and small intermittent streams are also prevalent.

Forty-two major soil associations have been identified within the region (_1). Of these, only 17 actually occupy surface mineable areas (63_); the majority are classified as Borolls and Ustorthents. Borolls are soils with clay horizons and often contain large amounts of sodium; Ustorthents are better drained, lighter soils, but lack sufficient moisture to sustain plant growth during hot, dry periods. These two soils are mainly found in the Dakotas (app. table 11). Other main soil groups—the Torrior- thents (dry), Natrargids (sodium on clays), Ustlcs (alternately moist and dry), Aridisols (low in organic matter), and Camborthids-Haplargids (little soluble salts or sodium clays)—are more common to Montana and Wyoming.

The soils all differ in terms of texture, productivity, mineral toxicity, stability, and distribution. Accordingly, it is difficult to identify different soil conditions or characteristics with respect to certain locales. In general, the soils of Montana and Wyoming and west of the Missouri River in North Dakota are deficient in soil nutrients, notably phosphorus. Nitrogen is more noticeably deficient in the moister areas of North Dakota. Erosion is a serious problem in some localities where lighter, coarser,soils predominate. Sandy soils are highly erodable due to an absence of silt or clay, and the repeated freezing and thawing processes promote wind and water movement of nearly all soil types.

Land subsidence or piping is also a problem for some prairie soils, particularly in the sodium areas of western North Dakota and eastern Montana. Piping, or the formation of depressions in reclaimed surfaces, usually does not show up until several years after the overburden materials are replaced and have had time to settle. The action of water percolating through unconsolidated material containing pockets of highly sodic soils can cause uneven settling. The problem can be avoided in most cases by properly mixing soil strata during backfilling.

22

Rocky Mountain region—Rugged mountains dominate this region, but there are some broad valleys and remnants of high plateaus as well. Elevations range from over 14,000 feet in the northeastern front range of Colorado to about 4,500 feet in the four-cor- ners area. Soil classifications vary extensively by location, and in some cases they are not well mapped. Beginning in the northwestern portion of Colorado, the principal soil groups are of the Borolls and Camborthids types; the principal groups in the coal regions of Utah are Torriorthents and Argixerolls (subsurface clay horizons); and in Arizona and New Mexico, Natrargids and Torriorthents predominate. In general, few of these soils pose toxiclty problems similar to those of eastern Montana and North Da- kota, but most are low in organic matter, have poorly developed A and B horizons, and in the case of the Natrargids, have very poor structure.

Pacific region—The northwest coastal region is characterized by a contrast of ^mountains and narrow to broad, gently sloping valleys and plains. The predominant soil classification of interest in Washington is the Naplohumults, a soil high in organic matter with a very thin subsurface clay horizon. Few problems have been en- countered in revegetating soils of this group (55) • Alaskan soils are generally cold- zone types, glacial and alluvial in origin (Cryoborolfs). These soils tend to be rich in organic matter but are often shallow. Where developed in place from weathered par- ent material such as granite, they are prone to rapid water erosion when disturbed. In the northern tundra regions, the soils are classified as bog and may be only a few inches thick above permafrost.

Natural Vegetation

The gradual north-south trend in climate in the Eastern and Central United States, has a conspicuous effect on the pattern of vegetation. In the western region, the situation is more complex, with variable oceanic climate and physiography giving rise to more diverse ecosystems (4_7).

In the nonforested plains along the east flank of the Rockies, the principal native vegetation Is steppe. To the north, Western Wheatgrass is the dominant species, with Blue Grama grass on overgrazed areas. The lowest belt of woody vegetation is savanna or woodland comprised of Pinyon or Juniper. At higher elevations. Ponderosa pine forests are common, and above this, Douglas fir. The transition zone between grass prairie and woodland has considerably diverse vegetation with sagebrush dominant in the dryer areas.

Northern Great Plains region—Sixteen vegetation types have been delineated in the Northern Great Plains on lands overlying recoverable coal deposits (63). The more prominent plant species, in order of relative proportion of the surface area are: (1) Midgrass Prairie, which occupies rolling plains on loam to clay loam soils in eastern Montana and North and South Dakota (needle grasses, wheatgrasses, and blue stem grasses); (2) Grassland-Sagebrush occupying open grassland on silty clay loam soils in southeastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming (mid and short grass species with scat- tered sagebrush); (3) Mid-Short Grass Prairie, which occurs on rolling plains on loam to clay soils also in eastern Montana (Western Wheatgrass, Needle-and-Thread grass and Blue Grama grass); (4) Ponderosa Pine forest, which occurs mainly in eastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming on uplands, ridges, and north slopes with shallow loam soils (Ponderosa pine, Snowberry, Blue grasses, and fescues); and (5) Short Grass Prairie, which occupies dry, shallow soils in southeastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming (Blue Grama grass. Western Wheatgrass, and various needle grasses).

Except for rehabilitating disturbed agricultural lands (largely in North Dakota), most revegetation efforts that focus on native species will involve these five basic vegetation classifications.

23

Rocky Mountain region—In addition to these five broad species classifications, which are also common to the Rocky Mountain region, Juniper-pinyon woodland. Grama- galleta steppe, and Saltbrush-greasewood are found in the more arid southwestern portion of the region (Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico). With the exception of several sites in northwestern Colorado, there are no significant croplands in the region's strippable coal areas.

Pacific region—Overlying the strippable coal deposits in Washington and most of Alaska are Cedar-Hemlock-Douglas fir forests. The tundra of the northern and western coastal areas of Alaska are transition zones between the frostbound, barren polar ice cap and the wooded extensions of the boreal forest to the south. It is a region of subtly varied landscapes, a rolling, nearly level terrain almost completely devoid of trees. Only a very shallow layer of surface soil on the treeless tundra loses the win- ter frost during the brief summer growing season. Roots of growing plants cannot pene- trate the permafrost; hence tundra foliage is limited to grasses, moss, lichens, and small woody shrubs.

Estimating Requirements and Costs

The first comprehensive examination of revegetation requirements in the Western region was undertaken in the early seventies (58). In a followup study, the U.S. Forest Service conducted a more intensive investigation of potentials and limitations of current mining sites in the Northern Great Plains (63). Other detailed analyses have been performed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management {JJO and government agencies and universities, but in most cases the results of this work are area-specific and not easily generalized to the entire region. For the present study, the evaluations technique used by Packer and his colleagues (^) was extended to other important coal development areas in the West.

The Evaluation Methodology

The approach suggested by Packer requires a detailed description of each potential coal development site with respect to productivity and stability of surface soil materials, suitability of native plant species for plant cover establishment and repro- duction, and distribution and amount of normal precipitation. The Forest Service study made site visitations and used overlay maps of coal operations as of 1972 and all known strippable deposit sites. The detailed site descriptions attained in the Northern Great Plains region were not always possible for the Rocky Mountain and Pacific regions, however. Also, careful onsite evaluations of revegetation efforts at the mines were not within the scope or budget of the present study.

The surface mineable lands in the Northern Great Plains were classified into 17 soil associations, 9 general vegetation types, and 7 annual precipitation zones ranging from less than 12*inches to more than 16 inches by 1-inch increments. Some 146 individual "revegetation (rehabilitation) response units" were also identified. Re- sponse units (mine sites) having similar soil-vegetation-precipitation characteristics in the other regions were assumed to exhibit essentially the same response to revegetation efforts. However, new response units had to be constructed for the majority of mines situated outside the Northern Great Plains region.

The evaluation procedure involved ranking mine sites according to a standard set of qualitative criteria. A composite ranking number for each response unit was obtained by giving an equal weight to the separate evaluations: (1) The productivity, toxicity, stability (texture and slope) of soils; (2) the suitability of vegetation for the declared end use of the reclaimed land and the availability of seed; and (3) the annual amount and seasonal distribution of mean precipitation. To be consistent

24

with Packer's procedure, a numerical scale of +8 for very good to -8 for very poor was used. These numbers indicate..."the relative degree of ease or difficulty [potential] that should be anticipated in attempting to rehabilitate a unit area of surface-mined land of given soil, native vegetation and precipitation characteristics" (63).

Results of the Analyses

The present analysis also emphasizes the input requirements for successfully establishing a permanent plant cover consistent with State and/or Federal reclamation laws (such as introduced and native species), once the overburden has been replaced and graded and an appropriate topsoil redistributed. Since these results depend on natural influences, the calculation of revegetation potential assumes standard cultural practices, soil amendments, seeding rates, and range management.

Revegetation potentials—Throughout the western region, the potential for successfully revegetating surface-mined lands in a normal weather year is highly variable (app. table 8). In the Northern Great Plains, for example, revegetation efforts in Montana and North Dakota should be fairly good, while Wyoming is ranked fairly poor. In the Rocky Mountain region, Colorado receives a good rating, but Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico are ranked considerably lower, from poor to very poor. In the Pacific region, Washington is rated very good while Alaska, in the absence of better information, may be regarded as having fairly poor revegetation potential. On the whole, the entire western region is given only a fair chance for revegetation under given conditions of soil and vegetation, normal patterns of precipitation, and current mining activity.

Abnormal weather conditions may have biased the findings. Recurring drought conditions, which seem to follow about a 20-year cycle in the West, for example, can have a marked effect on revegetation efforts in any region. Since the evaluations procedure uses mean values, year-to-year variations in seasonal precipitation could yield substantially different conclusions. Thus it is important that the findings are understood as long-term probable consequences that do not necessarily hold for any specific future period.

Since these results depend on the regional distribution of mining activity and levels of output, any major change in either of these variables could also change regional assessments. In fact, one of the important questions about revegetation in the diverse western region is whether the present assessment will improve or worsen with future coal development. Using one 1980 forecast of stripping coal output, the analysis indicates that on the average, change at the subregional level is of little consequence (app. table 8). However, significant impacts at the regional level can occur if mining activity increases relatively more in one area than another.

In the Rocky Mountain region, for example, coal output in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah (States with lower revegetation potentials) is projected to increase relative to Colorado (having a better ranking), causing the regional ranking to fall from -1.7 to -2.4. Over a longer time horizon (such as the years 1990 or 2000), such trends could become more meaningful.

Since increase and decrease in the response ranking corresponds to the ease or difficulty in revegetating disturbed lands, placing lands of higher potential ahead of poorer ones in the mining schedule is an apparent public policy option. Such comparisons might be used to restructure development forecasts or to select sites with a more uniform rehabilitation prospect over time.

25

Revegetation costs—No comprehensive analysis of the cost of revegetatlon on an area-by-area basis in the Western United States has yet been made. In general, the range in costs from secondary "Sources of information is quite large for all regions. For the midwestern and eastern regions, where moisture and soils are not so limiting. Grim and Hill (33) report the costs of numerous earlier studies which range from a low of $50 per acre to more than $200 for native grass establishment. The costs of planting trees and shrubs typically run higher, averaging perhaps $600 to $1,000 per acre, A number of recent western studies (7_, 16^, 35_, _89) report estimates from less than $100 to over $800, depending on the levels of soil amendments and treatments required to meet current State laws and specified end uses of the reclaimed lands. Cost estimates obtained from interviews with nine operators in the study area range from $85 to $600 per acre for land to be used for grazing (52).

Following application of topsoil or selected overburden material, revegetation procedures usually include the incorporation of soil amendments (gypsum, sulfur or other trace elements, or fertilizer), seed bed and surface preparation (ridging, gouging, or other methods to improve moisture retention), planting (in the case of broadcast methods this may also include harrowing), and in some cases mulching with straw or other crop residues to inhibit evaporation at the soil surface. In some instances, a side dressing of fertilizer may be applied in the spring following the first season of plant growth. Under normal circumstances, the expected direct costs of such operations in the western region should not exceed about $150 per acre in 1976 dollars for native grass establishment (89). Reseeding in years of abnormally low rainfall—sometimes as often as every third year—could increase this base estimate by one-third or more.

Sprinkler irrigation methods during the first year of revegetation have been suggested to aid establishment of native grasses where ample water supplies of sufficient quality are available (59). However, the cost effectiveness of this technology has not been examined. Only one operation in the study area, Utah International's Navajo mine, routinely uses sprinkler irrigation for first-year establishment.

Available literature and conversations with specialists in the field of reclamation suggest that direct costs per acre of $100 to $400 would likely bracket 90 percent of all western mines' revegetation costs. Using this range, site-specific costs were derived with an indexing procedure. The revegetation cost of each response unit (mine site) was determined by monotonie transformation of the revegetation potentials, with the rank of +8 = $100 and -8 = $400 per acre as the two end points. Although response potentials are probably not a reliable indicator of actual revegetation expenditures within a given area or subregion, they provide an opportunity for systematic comparisons on a regional basis which may be more reliable (app. table 8). Because of the procedure used, regional variations in cost are precisely the same as for response potentials.

Current and future disturbance—Because of substantial differences in the quality and thickness of the coal seams mined, the amount of surface disturbance in a particular region is influenced much more by per acre tonnages than total output. The estimated mined acreage for each production site and subregion and each time period (app. table 8) varies proportionally with the seam characteristics and annual output (app. tables 6 and 7). It should be noted that the above estimates reflect mined area disturbances, and do not include related surface disruptions caused by exploration, access roads, equipment storage and repair facilities, rail and pipe lines, and drainage catchment basins and dams. These are important sources in that they can account for as much as two to three times the area actually mined. Accurate estimates of such disturbances would involve a case-by-case study of each mine site on a continuing basis; hence it was not feasible to estimate total disturbance under the time and resource constraints of this study.

26

The estimates, based on current levels of coal recovery and production, indicate that some 4,500 acres were mined in 1976. With the assumption of constant technology and production efficiency over the next 4 years, one can expect about 11,500 acres to be mined annually by 1980. Annual mining disturbance will increase three-fold in the Northern Great Plains and double in the Rocky Mountain region during this period. Re- calling that the anticipated change in total output over the same time period was a more than three-fold increase (app. table 6), it follows that the improved production efficiencies of new mines coming into production by 1980, especially in the Gillette area of Wyoming, will have a less than proportional effect on mined area disturbance.

A comparison of annual production efficiencies for each subregion, based on mined acreage estimates per 100,000 tons of coal mined, suggests a drop in mined area reclamation requirements per 100,000 tons of coal produced from about 4-1/2 to less than 3-1/2 acres per given unit of coal mined. It is unlikely, however, that such a trend will continue much beyond 1980 as the thinner portions of coal seams become more prominent in the production mix. It is more likely that the reverse will hold beyond 1980, significantly increasing reclamation requirements both in the absolute number of acres disturbed and per unit of coal recovered.

Study Limitations

The primary advantage to using response-unit methodology to describe revegetation potential is that individual sites can be compared qualitatively by regional environmental factors and classification criteria. Specific problem areas can thus be identified before actual mining takes place; and such information might prove useful to policymakers in long-term planning of coal developments.

This approach has several shortcomings, however. The reliability of the environmental ranking scheme can be questioned, as well as the method used in estimating mining disturbance. As a test of the appropriateness of the response unit methodology, Packer (63) performed onsite evaluations of actual reclamation efforts at all surface mines then operating in the Northern Great Plains. In general, the revegetation potentials derived from the response unit classifications seem well correlated with actual onsite evaluations, although somewhat more conservative. However, this does not corroborate the validity of the rankings for the Rocky Mountain and Pacific regions.

The procedure used to develop estimates of mining disturbance should yield fairly reliable results, to the extent that technical mining coefficients are representative of current conditions. A major shortcoming is the fact that related disturbances (apart from actual mined acreage) were identified but not estimated. The costs of reclaiming such disturbances may not be as significant as mined land on a comparative per acre basis, but these are probably greater in absolute terms.

Clearly, a more appropriate method of estimating revegetation costs would be to survey representative practices and costs, assess revegetation response by careful onsite study, and then relate the two using rigorous correlation-regression analyses or similar statistical techniques to establish more reliable associations. If it can be demonstrated that mining sites with lower response potentials require more time and resources to achieve a standard level of revegetative performance, then the usefulness of the response unit methodology would be evident.

27

OTHER COMPONENTS AND ESTIMATES OF SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION COSTS

Other aspects of reclamation activity are less easily measured than engineering or revegetation but are also important• All the separate elements must be considered, however, when estimating the full costs of mined-area reclamation.

One of the more critical phases in the reclamation of surface-mined land concerns the abatement of side-effects—namely, environmental impacts which extend beyond the disturbed site. Disrupting wildlife habitat, polluting surface streams, and the dewatering of aquifers are problems which receive specific treatment in western reclamation law. One major impact in the semiarid western region is the potential disruption of scarce water supplies.

Mining Impacts on Surface and Ground Waters

Coal surface mining always involves some alterations in surface topography and major disruption of subsurface structures. In the semiarid West, surface and ground waters are typically limited in both quantity and quality. The impact that extensive mining activity will have on local supplies is unknown and controversial.

A Case Study of Gillette, Wyoming

Although development in the Gillette area of Wyoming (WY2) is already substantial, current proposals call for the opening of still more large strip mines in the next few years (44). The rate of disturbance in Campbell County is estimated at about 1,600 acres annually by 1980 (app. table 8). Because the anticipated increase in activity has the potential of causing a variety of major environmental changes, many Federal, State, and local government agencies as well as private organizations have become interested in the area.

The greatest portion of the vast coal resources in Campbell County is buried too deeply to be extracted with surface mining methods. However, one bed—the Wyodak- Anderson seam contained in the Fort Union and Wasatch formation—^averages 50 to 100 feet thick over large areas close to the surface (fig. 7). The strippable portions of the seam extend nearly 100 miles in a north-south direction and average 3 miles wide.

Land in the Gillette area is used principally for agriculture. Although rangeland predominates, land is also used for dryland farming and urban and industrial development. For this reason the Gillette area may be considered atypical of the coal production areas in the western region.

Most surface water in the area is ephemeral, flowing only during the spring runoff period. Surface water is mostly used for irrigating hay grown on flood plains and for livestock watering. These supplies are usually kept in small reservoirs in the lower reaches of tributary basins. Surface water, however, accounts for only a small part of total available supplies; the balance is derived from ground water sources. Two aquifer systems are of major importance: One, at a depth of less than 500 feet, is used mainly for domestic and livestock purposes; the other, deeper system supplies municipal and industrial users.

Findings and Implications

The degree to which the topography is altered by strip mining depends primarily on the depth and thickness of the coal being mined, the composition of the overburden material before and after blasting, and the replacement of the material in the mined- out pit. The bulking or swell factor of the overburden material means more is replaced than removed. In certain instances, the bulking factor (normally about 20 to 25 percent) may compensate for coal removal, leaving about the same topographical relief as

28

Figure 7

Combined Thicknesses of All Coal Beds In the Fort Union and Wasatch Formations, Gillette, Wyoming Study Area

'Approximate east limit of Wyodak-Anderson coat

^ Wyodak-Anderson coal deposits covered by less than 200 feet of overburden

Wyodak Mine

Belle Ayr Mine

10

Miles

15 I

20 _j

East margin of coal beds in Fort Union and Wasatch Formations

Approximate east limit of Wyodak-Anderson Coal

Source: {44).

before mining. Thus, for stripping ratios of 1:4 or 1:5, surface topographies of relatively flat lands are modified only slightly. This is not the case for many mining operations in the Western region, however, especially in the Gillette area, where Stripping ratios are currently less than 1:1 (fig. 8).

Where coal seams are thick, close to the surface, and underlie large areas of land, the potential for intercepting or diverting surface waters becomes a relevant reclamation problem. Fig. 8 shows areas where specific thicknesses of the Wyodak-Anderson bed lie less than 200 feet below the surface; fig. 9 is a cross-sectional view of changes in topography that could result where the seam exceeds 100 feet in depth

29

Figures

Strippable Zones, Wyodak-Anderson Coal Deposit, and Main Surface Drainage

To Powder River

Airport psci

East margin of coal deposit

River Basins Divide

To Belle Fourche River

Source: (44).

30

Figure 9

Possible Changes in Surface Topography Due to Surface Mining In Gillette, Wyoming

(A) Cross Section Showing Potential Changes in Surface Topography

4600 -I 1400

- 1300

meters Present

/land surface ^ 1400

1300

Vertical Exaggeration x 5

(B) Exposed Portion of Thick Coai Beds in Eastern Wyoming

5000 Feet

1500 Meters

Source: {44)

31

over a large area. Subsidence over the years will also add to the depression of the mined area. Unless surface flows are carefully diverted around such extensive closed depressions, or compensated for on the mining site, impoundment of waters will take place with downstream surfaœ supplies possibly lost to deep percolation and evaporation. Other problems may result from gullying along stream courses and from increased erosion both inside and outside the mined area. Accordingly, potential water course disruptions must be recognized and planned for on a site-specific basis.

Because of the importance of groundwaters in most dry regions, the implications of mining disturbance on aquifers are potentially greater. Surface mining in the Gillette area may have several different effects on ground water levels (fig. 10). Nearly everywhere along the strippable zone, highwall depths intersect the water table (the shallow aquifers). Premlning conditions are represented by cross-section A. Water wells 1 through 6 illustrate the range in pumping depth found in the Gillette area. In cross-section B, a surface mine is superimposed on the ground water system, showing probable impact on the water table. As a consequence of mining, the water table drops in the immediate vicinity of the pit area, and wells #4 and 5 and a shallow well located above the site (#1) are dewatered. Water levels in wells which bottom in the coal aquifer itself (well #2) are affected also, since this aquifer is recharged by the tributary stream which runs below and to the east of the mined area. Well #6, east of the outcrop and #3, a deep well, will probably be unaffected.

The duration of these impacts is not known. Presumably, shallow well dewatering will continue for as long as mining operations are underway. Post-mining conditions (cross-section C) suggest that the overburden will eventually become saturated, allow- ing the water table to return to its previous level. This is, however, only conjec- ture. The permeability of certain overburden materials (such as heavy clays with high sodium adsorption ratios) may prohibit redevelopment of subsurface flows. In such cases, a suitable surrogate for the original aquifer material, the mined coal, must be used as a transfer medium. If appropriate materials such as gravel, overburden aggregates, or clinker are not readily available, a portion of the coal seam may have to be left for this purpose.

It is too early to know the actual dimensions of the problem in the Gillette area, what abatement measures will be required, and at what costs. Other areas in the Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions face similar problems, especially where significant surface mining is proposed on alluvial fans or within natural drainage basins. However, under the new Federal law, surface mining on alluvial floors is sharply restricted.

Other Reclamation Components

In addition to direct expenditures for the engineering and revegetation phases, there are indirect costs for supporting these activities. Such costs include premining reclamation planning (fig. 11); unallocated overhead (including the salaries of legal and reclamation specialists); monitoring, research, and consultant fees; and in some cases, mine closure activities involving specific post-mining environmental standards,

Premining Planning

Planning for reclamation prior to the initiation of mining activities is required by law in all States in the Western region. Activities in the planning phase include studies of the site's drainage pattern and development of appropriate baseline data on all important natural features of the site; actual construction costs of various pollu-

32

Figúrelo

Possible Impacts of Surface Mining on Shallow Aquifers

Premining conditions

Mining conditions

feet 4800

meters 1500

Potential post-mining conditions

Source: (44).

33

Figure 11

Simplified Scheme of Planning Activities in the Development and Operation of a Surface Coal Mine

Lane l-use plan

Baseline data

IVIining plan Mining Reclamation Long-term

land use

. I " "

Reclamation ■I«.»:J.^.:».

plan iviuiiiiuf iiiy

tlon abatement structures (dams, diversions, channels, sediment impoundments); and non- refundable fees for licenses, permits, applications, bonds, and fines collected by the State.

The costs of premining planning were very difficult to measure. The mining operations samples in this survey reported costs ranging from a few dollars to over $800 per acre, with the higher estimates being reported by the larger, newer operations. In a recent U.S. Bureau of Mines study, Evans and Bitler (26) reported estimates of $190 to $380 per acre for operations in the midwest and eastern regions. In the absence of sound information for western operations. Bureau of Mines data were used in this study to establish the lower bound on these costs.

Operating Overhead

Most mining operations in the West maintain a staff of reclamation specialists— those with professional training in agronomy, wildlife biology, soil chemistry, or range management—who are responsible for planning and supervising reclamation'activities. All companies also have a legal staff whose time is partly allocated to review- ing reclamation law and enforcement standards and policies that the operator must comply with as a condition of his right to continue mining. These support staffs can be of considerable size, accounting for annual expenditure as high as $1,000 per acre in one case, and averaging about $400 per acre generally.

Other unallocated (overhead) costs include expenditures for funding research programs, consultant fees for baseline monitoring and advisory assistance, staff training and participation in workshops, and public relations.

34

Cost Estimates

The estimated costs of premining planning by Evans and Bitler (26) were used as a lower bound for both the planning phase and unallocated costs in this study. On the presumption that overhead costs might be better correlated with the difficulty or ease in reestablishing vegetation (such as the response potentials) than with the engineering aspects of reclamation, mine-specific overhead expenditures were determined using the indexing procedure. Individual estimates were obtained over the range +8 = $200 and -8 = $800 per acre, with an average of $400 reflecting the results obtained in the sample of western operators (app, table 9). The total per acre cost (app. table 9) is considerably larger than previous estimates for the western region. Average per acre costs in Montana and North Dakota fall between $4,000 and $5,000. In Wyoming, per acre costs average $3,300, while estimates for New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona are slightly less than $3,000. The weighted average for the entire western region is $3,500 per acre.

Most state enforcement agencies require the mining companies to submit brief reports of annual reclamation activities and estimated costs. These data are used by the agencies to set the amount of surety bonds which cover the full costs of reclamation in the event that the State should have to reclaim the area by forfeiture. In general, the cost estimates submitted by the operators during the 1976 production year compare fairly well with those reported above. Differences between the computed and reported estimates were basically random (that is, there was no discernible trend in the discrepancies), except for the Colorado data (41). The bonding levels set by the State of Colorado in 1977 averaged about $1,000 per acre higher than the computed estimates for most mines.

In comparing component costs, the data clearly indicate the singular importance of the engineering requirements which account for 70 to 90 percent of total costs. The other reclamation components—revegetation, overhead, and planning—typically account for only 15 to 20 percent of total costs.

Converting per acre cost to cost per ton of coal recovered is perhaps a more meaningful measure of the magnitude of reclamation costs in the western region. In the nonwestern coal producing States, reclamation costs on a per ton basis range from about one dollar to several dollars per ton (26). Compared on a similar basis, western reclamation costs are considerably less: Montana, $.07; North Dakota, $.25; Wyoming, $.04; Colorado, $.18; New Mexico, $.09; Arizona, $.07; Washington, $.05; and Alaska, $.11.

The sensitivity of production costs to alternative reclamation practices was not rigorously examined. However, several general observations can be made regarding the relative importance of reclamation in relation to other considerations, including mining costs. One such comparison is with the various State taxes levied against the mine operators. Although the estimates of State taxes are preliminary, it is apparent from the data (app. table 9) that severance and other State taxes have a more significant financial impact on the mining Industry than the States* reclamation requirements. In most Western States, such tax levies exceed the costs of reclamation by as much as 5 to 10 times.

Perhaps of more importance is the relationship between reclamation cost and the market value of coal. Mined area reclamation in most Western States accounts for no more than one percent of mine-mouth coal values (f.o.b. prices at the railhead). The only State with reclamation costs that are a significant part of the production costs of coal is North Dakota (app. table 10). There, reclamation requirements and procedures account for about 5 percent of total mining costs. For the western region as a whole, however, reclamation costs have little practical impact on the market price of coal.

35

Finally, it is important to point out that these estimates do not include the abatement costs of various environmental impacts. Depending on the specific circumstances, such costs could add substantially to the total cost of reclamation. For this reason, the above estimated costs possibly represent a lower bound on the actual direct costs incurred by the mining companies•

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND FUTURE STUDY

Mined-land reclamation is necessary according to both law and esthetics. Beyond these legal and esthetic imperatives, however, the economist must inquire: Is reclamation an economic burden or a boon to society?

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not clear. While the costs of reclamation can be estimated, much more information is needed to evaluate the economic benefits of reclamation.

Even without sufficient evidence on benefits, hypotheses and opinions have arisen. One view is that reclamation costs per acre far exceed prospective per acre returns to an individual landowner from post-reclamation farming, ranching, or forestry over any payback period reasonably related to a human lifespan. In this view, reclamation is an economic burden to be borne out of duty.

Restoration of land to its premining use fulfills this duty, and is the first step toward the abatement of offsite degradation and pollution caused by mining. In this view, offsite benefits can be defined by the extent to which this abatement is achieved.

Another opinion acknowledges that relatively little is known about the potential for both onsite and offsite benefits from reclamation. In this view, a longer time- horizon for onsite benefits and a broader definition of offsite benefits to include, for example, recreation and tourism where appropriate, could lead to benefits which substantially exceed costs.

If the focus of the reclamation process were not limited as much to restoring land to its premining use and were focused much more on alternative land use opportunities, the value of the land and hence the benefits might be substantially increased. Yet one must then consider if society and the landowner should both have options to use reclaimed land in ways which differ from the premining use.

The economic issue is: What would be the alternative benefits and their incidence of using reclaimed land in alternative ways? Related public policy issues are numerous : Under what circumstances, if any, would added reclamation costs be justifiable in order to achieve a different land use? Which alternative land use should be per- mitted or favored? The economic issue, of course, is researchable; the policy issues are for the public to consider and decide.

36

REFERENCES

1. Aandal, A. R. "Soils of the Great Plains: A Detailed Map of the Soil Associa- tions, " P. 0. Box 81242, Lincoln, Neb., 1972.

2. Ackerman, W. Administrator, Div. Land Quality, Dept. of Evironmental Quality, State of Wyoming, Cheyenne. Personal communication, 1977.

3. Anderson, S. Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality, Regional Office, Lander. Personal communication, 1977.

4. Austin, M. "Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States (Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii)," AH-296, Soil Conservation Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., 1965.

5. Averitt, P. "Coal Resources of the United States, January 1, 1974." Geological Survey Bull. 1412, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975.

6. Bassett, D. L. and M. C. Jensen. "Extreme Maximum Values of Evaporation at Selected Stations in Eleven Western States and Texas." Bull. 761, Washington Agr. Expt. Stn, , Washington State Univ., Pullman, 1972.

7. Berg, W. Dept. Agronomy, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. Personal communication, 1977.

8. Bettwy, A. Commissioner, Arizona Department of State Lands, Phoenix. Personal communication, 1977.

9. Bisselle, A. and others. "An Approach to Environmental Assessment with Applica- tion to Western Coal Development." MITRE Corp. Rpt. No. 6988, U.S.' Geological Survey, 1975.

10. Bitler, J. and R. Evans. "Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Costs: Appalachian and Midwestern Coal Supply Districts." U.S. Bureau of Mines, Eastern Field Operations Center, Pittsburgh, Penn., 1975.

11. Carter, R. P. and others. "Surface Mined Land in the Midwest: A Regional Per- spective for Reclamation Planning." Argonne National Laboratory Rpt. to U.S. Bur. of Mines, 1974.

12. Caterpillar Tractor Company. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, seventh edition, Peoria, 111., 1977.

13. Coal Age. "New Coal Mine Development and Expansion Survey, 1976-1985." February issue, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977.

14. Coal Week. "Current Contract and Spot Market Steam Coal Prices." Vol. 3, No. 8, February 28, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977.

15. Colorado Bureau of Mines. Various open file reports. Denver, 1977.

16. Cook, C., R. Hyde, and P. Sims. "Revegetation Guidelines for Surface Mined Area." Dept. Range Science, Science Series No. 16, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, 1974.

37

17. Dalsted, N. and L» Lelstritz. "Á Selected Bibliography on Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation of Particular Interest to the Great Plains States." Dept« Agri- cultural Economics, Agr. Expt. Stn., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, 1973.

18. Dames and Moore. "Development of Pre-Minlng and Reclamation Plan Rationale for Surface Coal Miness Volume III, Legal Controls of Surface Mining." U.S. Bureau of Mines, final Contract Report No. J0255002, Dept. Interior, 1976.

19. Daniels, R. Coordinator, Mined Land Dept., Div. of Oil, Gas and Mining, Utah Dept. Natural Resources, Salt Lake City. Personal communication, 1976.

20. Dials, G. and E. Moore. "The Cost of Coal," Environment. McGraw-Hill, New York, Sept. 1974.

21. Doelling, H. "Future of the Coal Industry in Utah." AIME Pacific Southwest Minerals Conference, March 22, Salt Lake City, 1976.

22. Ecology Consultants, Inc. "Reclamation of Western Surface Mined Lands." Work- shop Proceedings, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, 1976.

23. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. "Laws and Regulations Affecting Coal with Summaries of Federal, State and Local Laws and Regulations Pertaining to Air and Water Pollution Control, Reclamation, Diligence and Health and Safety." U.S. .Dept. Commerce Report PB-255 927, U.S. Dept. Interior, Off. Minerals Policy and Res. Analysis, 1976.

24. Engineering Mining Journal. "Surface Mining Guide book," 1973.

25. Englerth, E. Director, Reclamation and Siting Division Public Service Commission Bismarck, N. Dak. Personal communication, 1977.

26. Evans, R. and J. Bitler. "Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Costs: Appalachian and Midwestern Coal Supply Districts." U.S. Bur. Mines Information Circular 8695, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976.

27. Federation of Rocky Mountain States, Inc* "Summary of Surface Mining Reclamation Laws in the Mountain-Plains States." Environmental Committee of the Federation's Natural Resources Council, Denver, Colo., 1976.

28. Fortune, M. "Environmental Consequences of Extracting Coal," Energy and Human Welfare—A Critical Analysis, Volume I: The Social Costs of Power Production. Commoner, Baksenbaum and Corr (editors), Macmlllan Publishing Co., New York, 1975.

29. Gifford, R. 0., G. L. Ashcroft, and M. D. Magnuson. "Probability of Selected Pre- cipitation Amounts in the Western Region of the United States." Western Regional Research Publication T-8, Agr. Expt. Stn., Univ. of Nevada, Reno, 1967.

30. Glass, G. B. Geologist, The Geological Survey of Wyoming, Univ. Stn., Laramie. Personal communication, 1977.

31. . "Wyoming Coal Directory." Publication Information Circular No. 5, Geological Survey of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1976.

32. Goodier, J. and others. Wyoming Mineral Yearbook. State Dept. Economic Planning and Development, Cheyenne, 1976.

38

33. Grim, E. C. and R. D. Hill. Environmental Protection in the Surface Mining of Coal. EPA-670/2-74-093, National Environmental Res. Ctr. Off. Res. and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974.

34. Hansen, R. "Statutory and Regulatory Aspects of Mined Land Reclamation," Reclamation of Western Surface Mined Lands. Ed. K. Vories. Ecology Consultants, Inc., Fort Collins, Colo., 1976.

35. Hodder, R. L. Dept. Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State Univ., Bozeman. Personal communication, 1976.

36. Howland, J. W. Reclamation Planning and Economics Section, Reclamation of Western Surface Mined Lands Workshop, March 1, Colorado State Univ. 1976. Proceedings available through Ecology Consultants, Inc., Fort Collins.

37. Imhoff, E. A., T. 0. Fritz, and J. R. La Fevers. "A Guide to State Programs for the Reclamation of Surface Mined Lands." Geological Survey Circular No. 731, Resource and Land Investigations (RALI) Program, U.S. Geological Survey, 1976.

38. Jacobs, M. One Time Harvest: Reflections on Coal and Our Future. North Dakota. Farmers Union Press, Jamestown, 1975.

39. James and Lee. Economics of Water Resources Planning. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.

40. Johnston, R., R. Brown, and J. Cravens. "Acid Mine Rehabilitation Problems at High Elevations." Watershed Management Symposium, ASCE Irrigation and Drainage Div., Logan, Utah, 1975.

41. Jory, J. Reclamation Engineer, Colorado Dept. Natural Resources, Denver. Per- sonal communication, 1977.

42. Kandalin, J. Reclamation Specialist, Dept. Environmental Quality, regional office, Lander, Wyo. Personal communication, 1977.

43. Katell, S., E. Hemingway and L. Berkshire. "Basic Estimated Capital Investment and Operating Costs for Coal Strip Mines." U.S. Bur. Mines Information Circular 8703, U.S. Government Printing Office.

44. . Keefer, W. and R. Hadley. "Land and Natural Resource Information and Some Poten- tial Environmental Effects of Surface Mining of Coal in the Gillette Area, Wyoming." U.S. Geological Survey Circular 743, Eastern Region, Alexandria, Va., 1976.

45. Keystone Coal Industry Manual. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.

46. Kottlowski, F. Director, New Mexico Bur. Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mex. Personal communication, 1976.

47. Kuchler, A. W. "The Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States." Special publication No. 36, American Geographic Society, 1964.

48. Landy, M. The Politics of Environmental Reform: Controlling Kentucky Strip Mining. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1976.

49. Lang, R., F. Rauzi, W. Seamands, and G. Howard. "Guidelines for Seeding Dry- land Range, Pasture, and Disturbed Lands." Agr. Exp. Stn. B-621, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo., 1975.

39

50. Leathers, K. L. and L. Juers. "The Economics of Surface Mined Land Reclama- tion: Part I, The Northern Great Plains Subregion." U.S. Dept. Agr. 1976.

51. Leathers, K. L. "Reclamation As a Problem in the Economists/ View." Reclama- tion Planning and Economics Section, Reclamation of Western Surface Mined Lands Workshop, invited paper, Colorado State University. Sponsored by Ecology Consultants, Inc. Fort Collins, 1976.

52. Leathers, K. L. Open file report on results of an interview survey with selected surface coal mining operators in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona, Dept. Economics, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, 1977.

53. Marcus, J. J. "The Development of Western Surface Coal Deposits and a Review of Current Mining Equipment." Fluor Utah, Inc., AIME Pacific Southwest Minerals Conference, San Francisco, Calif., 1976.

54. McCall, C. Administrator, Reclamation Div., Montana Dept. of State Lands, Helena. Personal communication, 1976,

55. McCarthy, R. "Land Reclamation, Water Quality Control, and Environmental Con- cern at Centralia Washington Coal Mine," Practices and Problems of Land Reclama- tion in Western North America. Univ. of North Dakota Press, Grand Forks, 1975.

56. Melvin, P. Reclamation Div., Dept. State Lands, State of Montana, Helena. Personal communication, 1976.

57. Hooney, G. Environmental Specialist, Dept. Environmental Quality, Land Quality Div., State of Wyoming, Cheyenne. Personal communication, 1976.

58. National Academy of Sciences. "Mineral Resources and the Environment." Com- mittee on Mineral Resources and the Environment (COMRATE), Commission on Natural Resources, National Res. Council, Washington, D.C., 1975.

59. . Rehabilitation Potential of Western Coal Lands. A Report to the Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation. Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, Mass., 1974,

60. National Research and Appraisal Company, Construction Equipment and Cost Reference Guide. Palo Alto, Calif., 1974.

61. Northern Great Plains Resources Program. "Draft Interim Report." Coordinated by the Northern Great Plains Resources Program Staff, in cooperation with the States of Montana, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming, the Environ- mental Protection Agency, and the Dept. of Interior, 1974.

62. Otte, J. A. and M. Beohlje, "A Model to Analyze the Costs of Strip Mining and Reclamation." Third Symposium on Surface Mining and Reclamation. Sponsored by the National Coal Assn. and Bituminous Coal Res. Inc., Louis- ville, Ky., 1975.

63. Packer, P. E. "Rehabilitation Potentials and Limitations of Surface-Mined Land in the Northern Great Plains." General Technical Report INT-14, Intermountain Forest and Range Expt. Stn., U.S. Dept. Agr., Ogden, Utah, 1974.

64. Paone, J., J. L. Moring, and L. Giorgetti. "Land Utilization and Reclamation in the Mining Industry: 1930-1971." U.S. Bur. of Mines, IC-8642, Washington, D.C., 1974.

40

65. Pierce, H. and J. Wilt. "Coal," Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Helium and Uranium in Arizona. Arizona Bur. Mines Bull. 182, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, 1970.

66. Roberts, A. "Geology and Coal Resources of the Toledo-Castle Rock District, Cowlitz and Lewis Counties, Washington." U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 1062, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1958.

67. Shand, A. "The Basic Principles of Equipment Selection for Surface Mining." Consulting Engineers of Anglo-American Cooperation of South Africa, Ltd., Pretoria, Republic of South Africa, 1970.

68. Skelly and Loy, Engineering Consultants. "Economic Engineering Analysis of U.S. Surface Coal Mines and Effective Land Reclamation." 50-241049, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1975.

69. Smith, J. "Strippable Coal Reserves of Wyoming: Location, Tonnage, and Characteristics of Coal and Overburden." U.S. Bur* of Mines Information Circular 8538, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1972.

70. Spore, R., E. Nephew and W. Lin. "The Costs of Coal Surface Mining and Reclamation: A Process Analysis Approach." Systems Studies of Coal Production. Program Analysis and Evaluation Dept., Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Labor- atory, Oak Ridge, Tenn, 1975.

71. Stefanko, R., R. Romani, and M. Ferko. "An Analysis of Strip Mining Methods and Equipment Selection." Contract Rpt. No. 14-01-0001-390, Off. of Coal Research, U.S. Dept. of Interior.

72. Stinson, T. "State Taxation of Mineral Deposits and Production." Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.

73. Thornthwaite, C. W. "Climate and Settlement of the Great Plains." Yearbook of Agriculture, U.S. Dept. of Agr., 1941.

74. U.S. Bur. of Land Management, Dept. of Interior. "Resource and Potential Re- clamation Evaluation Series." Reports No. 1-4, EMRIA: Energy Mineral Rehabi- litation Inventory and Analysis Program, 1975.

75. U.S. Bur. of Mines, Dept. of Interior. "Strippable Resources of Bituminous Coal and Lignite in the United States." Information Circular 8531, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971.

76. _* "Strippable Lignite Reserves of North Dakota: Location, Tonnage and Characteristics of Lignite Overburden." Bur. of Mines Information Circular 8537, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972.

77. . "Strippable Coal Reserves of Wyoming: Location, Tonnage and Characteristics of Coal and Overburden. " Bur. of Mines Information Circular 8538, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972.

78. . "Land Utilization and Reclamation in the Mining Industry, 1931- 1971." Bur. of Mines Information Circular No. IC-8642, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974,

79. . "Basic Estimated Capital Investment and Operating Costs for Coal Strip Mines." Information Circular No. IC-8661, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974.

41

80. . "Coal—Bituminous and Lignite in 1974." U.S. Govt. Print. Off. Preliminary release of information pending publication of the Bur. of Mines Minerals Yearbook, 1976.

81. U.S. Dept. Agriculture. "Soils of, the Western United States." Agr. Exp. Stn. of the Western Land-Grant Universities and Colleges and the Soil Conservation Service. Published at Washington State Univ., Pullman, 1964.

82. __. "Northern Great Plains Resources and Coal Development." NRED Working Paper Series No. 29, Natural Resource Economics Div. and Economic Development Div., Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., 1977.

83. U.S. Dept. Agr. and North Dakota Agr. Expt. Stn. "North Dakota Progress Report on Research on Reclamation of Strip-Mined Lands." North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, 1977.

84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Criteria for Developing Pollution Abate- ment Programs for Inactive and Abandoned Mine Sites." Off. of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C., 1975.

85. . "Surface Coal Mining in the Northern Great Plains of the Western United States: An Introduction and Inventory Utilizing Aerial Photography Collected in 1974-75." Region VIII, Denver, Colo., 1976.

86. Voelker, S. Econ. Res. Service, U.S. Dept. Agriculture and Dept. Agr. Econ., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo. Personal communication, 1977.

87. Waling, J. Reclamation Div., Montana Dept. State Lands, Helena. Personal communication, 1977.

88. Walsh, R. G. "Some Benefits and Costs of Strip Mining Western Coal Resources." Great Plains Agr. Council, Publication No. 65, Dept. Agr. Econ. and the Agricul- tural Expt. Stn., New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces, 1974.

89. Watts, M. J* "Estimated Costs of Spoil Bank Reclamation Alternatives." M.S. thesis (and staff paper 75-24), Dept. Econ., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, 1975.

90. Whiteman, C. D. "Variability of High Plains Precipitation." NOAA Technical Report, ERL 287-APCL 31, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colo., 1973.

91. Whetzel, V. L. "Coal Resources and the Mining Industry of the Northern Great Plains." Review draft. Natural Resource Economics Div. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. and Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, 1976.

92. . "Coal Resources and the Mining Industry of the Rocky Moun- tain Region." Review draft, Natural Resource Economics Div., Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. and Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, 1976.

42

Appendix table 1--State mined land reclamation programs in the West

Subregion : Stage of program development State law and

State . Act(s) : Rules and : Technical : regulations : guidelines

: Title of act(s) (year effective)

: Administering : agency(ies)

: Mineral or : : cojiuiiodity covered :

Rules vary by mining method

Northern Great Plains

Montana X X X (Partial)

(1) Montana Strip ^ Under- ground Mine Reclamation Act (1973), (2) Open Cut Mining Act (1973), and (3) Montana Hard-Rock Mining Reclamation Act (1971); amended 1974-75

Dept. of State Lands

Act (1) Coal and uranium Act (2) bentonite, clay, phosphate rock, scoria, and sand and gravel; Act (3) other minerals

North Dakota X X North Dakota Century Code; Reclaination of Strip-Mined Land (1969); amended 1971, 1973, 1975

Public Service Commission

Coal

South Dakota X X Surface Mining Land Reclamation Act (1971), as amended 1973-76

Dept. of Agriculture

All minerals --

Wyoming X X X (Partial)

Wyoming Environmental Quality Act (1973); amended 1974-75

Dept. of Environmental Quality

All minerals Rules vary by soft rock mining or hard rock mining

Rocky Mountain

Colorado X X Colorado Mined Land Recla- mation Act (1973) as amended (1976)

Mined Land Reclamation Board, Dept. of Natural Resources

All minerals excluding oil, gas and geothermal

New Mexico X X New Mexico Coal Surface Mining Act (1972)

Bureau of Mines and Minerals

Coal --

Utah X X Utah Mined Land Réclama- tion Act (1975)

Board and Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Dept. of Natural Resources

All minerals excluding geothermal, oil, and gas

Continued--

Appendix table 1--State mined land reclamation programs in the West--Continued

Subregion and

State

Stage of program development

Act(s) Rules and : Technical regulations : guidelines

State law Title of act(s) Cyear effective)

Administering agency ties)

Mineral or commodity covered

Rules vary by mining method

Rocky Mountain continued

Arizona

Pacific

Washington

Alaska

The State of Arizona applies standard reclamation requirements to State lands as a condition of mineral leases. Arizona also contains Federal lands where reclamation requirements are a condition of mineral leases. Some local units of government use land-use controls (such as zoning) and activity permits (such as minerals proceeding) to encourage reclamation. In the absence of State law. Federal lands are subject to Federal regulations.

Surface-Mined Land Reclama- tion Act (1970)

Dept. of Natural Resources

All minerals Quarries are handled as special cases

Mining in the State of Alaska is on Indian, Federal and/or State lands; case-by-case State regulatory decisions and/or Federal coal leasing regulations apply.

Sources: (18; 23; 27; 33; 37).

Note: -- = no specific treatment of the topic in the acts, although the subject may be addressed in regulations, administrative orders, or in extant professional practices of that State.

X = a requirement or program element exists.

i^pendix table 2--Actions required and standards set in State mined reclamation programs, July 1977

Subregion and State

Reclamation bonding 1/ Reclamation of

exploration

: Control :water flow : and

Conserve and

replace

• Backfill and

grade

Reduce highwail

or

Bury or neutralize

toxic

Revegetate for

beneficial

Other rules

Amount : Release or : time disturbance : quality topsoil pitwall wastes use remarks

Northern : Great Plains:

Montana : Not less Partial re- As soon as Act (1) Removal and Act (1) Slope of Act (1), Suitable, Effluent than $200 lease upon possible. specific stockpiling grade to face will backfill permanent, standards per acre approval of Topsoil re- criteria. precede each < 20"^, be < 20 with 8 feet diverse conform with department ; moval re- e.g.--pH step of within 90 percent. of over- and with

$2,000 remaining quired for range of operation. days after burden. primarily criteria minimum. bond will prospecting 6. to 9. Topsoil re- department Soil and native of State Based on not be re- activities. moval re- has de- overburden species. Dept. of estimate leased May require quired for termined analyses Environ- of Recla- prior to planting of prospecting the op- required. mental mation 5 years annual crop activities. eration Sciences, costs. from

initial planting.

to control erosion.

completed.

North Dakota $1,500 5 years X X Replace all Approximate Slope of Requires pH, X Remedy any

for each after available original face will sodium ad- impairment

acre termina- plant growth contour. be < sorption to domes- affected. tion of material, ip or serve 35 ratio tic or

: (Minimum) permit; partial release may be affected for separate tasks

to 5 feet of thickness.

approved end use.

percent. electrical conductivity texture (by feel).

livestock water siç>ply.

South Dakota :An amount H)on X X X "Achieve Slope With 8 feet To create Noxious

rsuffi- approval contour will be of topsoil self- weeds must :cient to of de- most < 14^ or suitable regen- be con- : cover the partment. beneficial overburden. erative trolled. : costs of to the pro- growth with- : reclama- posed land out irriga- : tion. use." tion.

See footnote at end of table. Continued- -

Appendix table 2--Actioiis required and standards set in State mined land reclamation programs, July 1977—Continued

Subregion and

State

Northern Great Plains continued

Wyoming

Rocky Mountain

Colorado

D«^T 4--^« T.««^.-„„ 1/ • Reclamation : Gontrol : Conserve Reclamation bonding 1/ _. ^^ .-water flow: and

Amount Release time

Amount equal to estimated cost of reclaiming affected land. In no event will bond be less than $10,000 issued annually.

Depends iç)on type, costs and extent of reclamation activities, posted before prospecting; maximum $2,000 per acre, $25,000 for State- wide pros - pecting.

75% may be released ipon com- pletion. Minimum balance of $10,000 held for an additional 5 years.

H)on approval of board.

exploration disturbance

and quality

replace topsoil

Backfill and

grade

Reduce highwall

or pitwall

Bury or neutralize

toxic wastes

Revegetate for

beneficial use

Must meet with approval of adininistra- tor.

Topsoil unless nonexistent; protect from erosion and toxic i ty; use most suitable plant growth minerals.

Approximate original contour; terrace; or serve approved end use.

Stabilize slope; minimize effect on landscape.

Upon approval of board. Bonding required.

Final con- tout appropriate to selected land use.

Diverse, pennanent vegetative cover capable of revegetation, and at least equal in extent as surrounding area.

Other rules or remarks

Delay mining for archeol- ogical or paleontol- ogical surveys ; reclaim according to approved plans.

Exenptions are Ob- tained for areas unsuitable (infeasi- ble) for corrective actions ; each phcLse must be conpleted 5 years after initiation.

See footnote at end of table. Continued-

i^pendix table 2--Actions required and standards set in State mined land reclamation programs, July 1977--Continued

Subregion and

State

• Reclamation bonding 1/* Reclamation : Control Conserve Backfill and grade

Reduce : Bury or Revegetate : Other of : water flow

exploration : and and

replace highwall : neutralize

or -: toxic for

beneficial : rules

■ Amount : Release : : or : time : disturbance .: quality topsoil pitwall : wastes use : remarks

Rocky Mountain, continued

New Mexico : Required

at the discretion of the Coimiission.

Upon approval of the Coimiission.

X Topography will be "gently undulating" or consistent with proposed end use.

To serve selected end use.

Utah Depends Upon X X X X X Program tpon approval CWhere (Priority implemen- type, of depart- practical) . to non- tation extent ment. noxious , recognizes and native site costs species). specific per se (unique) not conditions. required; no maximum or minimum.

Arizona No State law (Federal regulations apply).

Pacific

Washington Required l^on X _- Conform to Grade of With 2 feet X Other at the approval surrounding well < of clean State discre- of depart- land area. 66 per- fill. regula- tion of ment. cent (un- tions depart- consoli- apply to ment; no dated) and water maximum < 45 percent rights, or (rock). flood minimum. plains,

and fish and wildlife.

See footnote at end of table. Continued-

Appendix table 2--Actions required and standards set in State mined land reclaiïîation programs, July 1977—Continued

~ ' ; ' 7^ , : Reclamation : Control Reclamation bondxng 1/ . of iwater flow

Release : exploration : and time : disturbance : quality

Reduce highwall

or pitwall

Subregion and

State Amount

Conserve and

replace topsoil

Backfill and

grade

Bury or neutralize

toxic wastes

Revegetate for

beneficial use

Other rules or remarks

Pacific, continued

Alaska No State law (Federal regulations apply),

Sources: (18; 23; 27; 33; 37).

Note: -- = no specific treatment of the topic in the acts, although the subject may be addressed in regulations, administrative orders, or in extant professional practices of that State.


1/ In addition to bonding, various fees for licensing and mining permits are levied on the mine operator. Since the fees are nominal, they are omitted.

i^pendix table 3--Requirements and special provisions for land-use planning in the West

: Requirements for land-use planning Special provisions

Subregion and

State

: Resources : information : required

: Alternative ruses will be : considered

End use will be declared

Role of local public planning

Minerals protected

from nonmining development

Exclusion of areas from

consideration for mining

Long-range or regional

mine planning

Substitute lands

allowed

Financial or economic analyses required


Montana : Environmental areas, geology, •soils, minerals, topo-

X IMreclaim- able or where posing hazard to

Intended mining and reclamation plans are developed to

Prohibited Reclamation costs re- quested of applicant-

graphy (U.S. water sys- apply to life Geological tems. of operation. Simrey), "unique" vegetation. lands. water resources (use plan and monitoring system), and wildlife.

North Dakota Geology,

land-use preference, minerals, soils, topography, vegetation, and water resource.

X X Act conveys authority to delete certain lands from surface mining.

Extended mining plans cover 10-year period.

Agency may request estimate of costs of reclamation.

South : Dakota Land use,

soil, minerals, topography, wildlife, vegetation, and water resources .

X Incompati- bility with local land plans can be basis for re- jection of mining request by

Uhreclaim- able or where con- flicting with local planning, "unique" sites.

Applicant provides detailed estimate of reclamation costs.

agency.

Continued- -

o

Pppend: LX table 3--Requirements and special provisions for land -use planning : in the West—Continued

: Requirements for land-use planning Special provisions Minerals

Siibregion : Resources Alternative End use Role of protected '.Exclusion of Long-range Substitute Financial and : information uses will be will be local public from ; areas from or regional lands or economic

State : required considered declared planning noranining development

•consideration . for mining ;

mine planning

allowed analyses required

Northern Great Plains, continued

Wyoming 1 Geology land •use, soils, • topography ^(U.S. Geolog- ical Survey), •vegetation, water resources (use

• and rights), ■and wildlife.

Must be > highest previous use of site (as declared by agency).

County involvement in administration of act.

X Socioeco- nomic analyses may be needed by agency to set use.

Rocky Mountain

Colorado Climate, Operator, X Act on State may Permits may Requirements Under cer- X •geology. in consul- permits designate be denied apply to the tain con- land use. tation and recla- areas re- for lands life of the ditions population. with land mation served within State operation. operator minerals, owner and plans. for parks, recre- is released topography, with and es- mining. ation areas, from current and water approval tablish unreclaimable mining plan resources. of board,

will select end use.

mining policy in general plans.

areas, or Federal lands T^ere mining is prohibited by law.

if equal acreage of previously mined land (owned by the operator) can be reclaimed.

Continued-

Appendix table 3--Requirements and special provisions for land use planning in the West—Continued

: Requirements for land-use planning Special provisions

Subregion and

State

: Resources : information : required

: Alternative ruses will be : considered

End use will be declared

Role of local public planning

Minerals protected

from nonmining development

; Exclus ion of ] areas from ; consideration .' for mining

Long-range or regional

mine planning

• Substitute lands

allowed

Financial or economic analyses required

Rocky^ Mountain, continued

New Mexico Climate, soils, topography, vegetation, land use, water resources , and wildlife.

X X Consultation required with soil and water conservation districts.

Utah Land use, soils, vegetation and water resources.

Explore capability of land to siç>port a variety of end uses.

X Notified, and comments taken into advisement.


Pacific :

Washington . Land use, minerals, topography, and water resources.

X Applicant must show legality of actions with regard to local zoning.

Alaska : No State law (Federal régulât ions apply).

Sources: (18; 23; 27; 33; 37).

Note: -- = no specific treatment of the topic in the acts, although the subject may be addressed in regulations, adninistrative orders, or in extant professional practices of that State.


Appendix table 4--State enforcement powers, citizen participation and operators' release from liability to land reclamation programs in thé West

: State enforcement powers Citizen participation Operators' release from liability Subregion

and State

: Minimum . frequency : of . inspections

:Sxjspension, :revocation

[ Penalties, ". civil and ! criminal

Unsuitable lands review process

Permit review process

: Bond : release ; Enforcement

Conçleted earthwork

: Successful :revegetation

Erosion controlled

: Extended liability


Montana No specific provision.

Yes Yes No specific provision.

Public hearings.

Public hearings, solicita- tion of comment.

Citizen law- suits.

Yes Yes No specific provision.

Yes

North Dakota No specific

provision. Yes Yes

Cijiç)rison-' ment)

No specific provision.

Public hearings, only with good cause.



Does not restore to approximate original contour.

No capability standards.

No provision.

Limited to special cases.

South Dakota No minimum. Grounds

not specified.

Yes No sperific provision





No specific provision.



Wyoming Once a year.

Yes Yes No speri fi c provision.

Public hearings, solicita- tion of comment.





No specific provision

5-year minimum. (Vari- ance)

Rocky Mountain

Colo- rado No minimum. Yes Yes No specified

provision Public hearings, for "good cause shown."

At land reclamation board public meetings.



Variance and substitution allowed.


No minimum.

New Mexico No mindjïïum. Yes Yes "Aggrieved persons" may appeal decisions of regula-

tory authority and request public hearings. No specific provision.




Continued-

Appendix table 4--State enforcement powers, citizen participation and operators' release from liability to land reclamation programs in the West—Continued

State enforcement powers Citizen participation Operators' release from liability Subregion

and State

Minimum frequenc>^

of inspections

•Suspension,*: Penalties, ¡revocation : civil and : ; criminal

Unsuitable lands review process

Permit review process

Bond release Enforcement

Conpleted earthwork

Successful revegetation

Erosion controlled

Extended liability

Utah No minimum. Yes Yes No specific provision.

Public hearings, for "written objections of sub- stance."


Citizen law- suits (limited standing).






Pacific

Washing- ton Annually, or

after operator's report.

Yes No No specific provision.








Alaska No State law (Federal regulations apply).

Sources: (18; 23; 27; 33; 37).

Appendix table 5—State and local controls that could apply to a typical surface mine, western region

Time period and activity Possible required controls

Local : State land Îreclamation use 'requirements

Water, air, noise pollution

Others

Pre-mining (years 0-4):

Existing land use • Prospecting the area Mineral and economic evaluations- Acquisition of rights Surveying & design of mine — Natural resources studies ■ Reclamation planning • End land-use planning^ • Costs analyses

Obtaining mine permit Ij

Constructing roads and buildings TJ

Obtaining utilities ■

Drainage and erosion control lj~ Fencing and screening 2_/ —— Environmental monitoring 2_/——-

Removal and segregation of soils-

Disposal of debris ■ Drilling and blasting Extracting and hauling minerals- Filling and grading Reducing pitwalls or highwalls— Burying toxic materials —■— Revegetation

Post-mining (years 5-36):

Vegetation survival studies IJ- Pest and weed control Ij Land capability studies Divesting ownership or rights—

Water quality performance— Decommissioning mine (dismantling,

demolishing, etc) Established end use — Recovery of bonds

X X

X

X

Joint mining and reclamation (years 4-30): Ij

X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X X X X X X X

X

X

X X X

X X X X X X X

X

X

X X X X X X

State water rights

State and local environmental controls

Waste discharge permits

State location of development

State utilities regu- lation

State water board State fish and game

Local soil and water conservation

Sanitary land fills State permit State severance taxes

State agriculture State agriculture State agriculture Official acceptance

of lakes and roads State agriculture State mine abandon- ment laws

— = not applicable. X = applicable. _!/ Does not include controls pertaining to mine safety. Ij A process that tends to be maintained or repeated, as necessary, throughout much of the

life of the mine. Source: (37).

54

j^pendix table 6--Selected characteristics o£ major surface coal mining operations. Western Region

State and coal Mine ": County : Coal field : Seam(s) mined :

Annual pre CMTY)

ïduction production

area 1/ Name : Year : open

; Operator 2/

1976 : 1980

Northern Great Plains Region

Montana:

MTl (No strip mine operations scheduled through 1980).

Mr2 Savage 1/ Knife River Coal Co. Richland Breezy Flat Pust 1.2 2.2

mz Circle West 1978 Dryer Bros. McCone Weldon-Timber Cr. "S" 0 3.0

Mr4 Decker #1 1/ Decker Coal Co. 4/ Bighorn Decker Dietz #1, 2 10.2 7.5

Nfr4 Absaloka y Westmoreland § Co. 5/ do. Sarpy Cr. Stray #1, 2 4.0 10.0

Mr4 Big Sky 1/ Peabody Coal Co. Rosebud Colstrip Rosebud; McKay 2.8 5.5

Mr4 Rosebud 1' Western Energy 6/ do. do. Rosebud 13.1 19.1

Mr4 Decker N. 1979 Decker Coal Co. Bighorn Decker Dietz 0 2.0

Mr4 Decker W. 1980 do. do. do. do. 0 5.0

Mr4 Youngs Cr. 1978 Shell Oil Co. do. NA NA 0 4.0

1^4 Tanner Cr. 1980 do. do. NA NA 0 6.0

Total, Montana 31.3 64.3

North Dakota:

NDl Velva 3/ Consolidated Coal Co. 7/ Ward-McHenry Lignite Coteau 1,1 2.5

NDl Noonan V Baukol-Noonan, Inc. Burke do. Noonan 1.5 2.0

ND2 Center ¥ do. Oliver do. Hagel 3.0 5.0

ND2 Glenharold 3/ Consolidated Coal Co. Oliver-Mercer do. Lignite #2, 3 3.8 3.8

ND2 Beulah 1' Knife River Coal Co, Mercer do. Beulah-Zap 1.8 3.8

ND2 Indian Head U North American Coal, Inc. do. do. do. 1.3

Contii

1.5

See footnoti >s at end of table. lued--

Appendix table 6--Selected characteristics of major surface coal miniag operations, Western Regions-continued

State and coal Mine : County : Coal field : Seam(s) mined :

Annual CMT

production production

\ Name Year open

Operator 0 2/ 1976 : 1980

North Dakota, continued

ND2 rFalkirk (NAC, Inc.) 1978 North American Goal, Inc. Mercer Lignite Beulah- Zap 0 5.0

ND2 : (Name unknown] 1980 do. do. do. do. 0 5.0

ND2 :Falkirk 1978 Falkirk Mining Co. do. do. do. 0 5.5

ND3 : Gascoyne y Knife River Coal Co. Bowman do. "No. 1" 2.7 6.0

ND3 :Lehigh 3/ Husky Industries Stark do. Lehigh .2 .5

ND3 :Heart Butte 1980 Peabody Coal Co. Grant do. NA 0 2.0

Total, North Dakota 15.4 42.6

South Dakota

SDl No strip mine operations scheduled through 1980.

Wyoming

WYl Bighorn 1/ Bighorn Coal Co. 8/ Sheridan Sheridan Monarch, Dietz #2, 3 1.0 1.5

WYl PSO #1 V Public Service of Okla. do. do. Anderson, Dietz .3 .5

WY2 Belle Ayr S. V Amax Coal Co, Cajipbell Powder R. Wyodak-Anderson 5.0 12.5

WY2 Wyodak NS. y Wyodak Resources Dev., Inc. 9/ do. do. do. .7 5.0

WY2 N. Rawhide 1977 Carter Mining Co. 10/ do. do. do. 0 8.5

WY2 : Coballo 1977 do do. do. do. 0 3.5

WY2 Unknown 1977 Falcon Coal, Inc. do. do. Felix 0 1.0

WY2 Cordero 1977 Sunco Energy Dev. Co. do. do. Wyodak-Anderson 0

a

12.0

See footnote ÎS at end of table. mtinued- -

Appendix table 6--Selected characteristics of major surface coal mining operations, Western Regionr-Continued

State and coal Mine : County : Coal field : Seajn(s) mined :

Annual p CMIY)

roduction

production : area i/ : Name

. Year : open

; Operator 2/

1976 : 1980

Wyoming, ] continued .

WY2 Eagle Butte 1977 Amax Coal Co. CajïÇ)bell Powder R. Wyodak-Anderson 0 12.0

WY2 : Black Thunder 1978 Atlantic Richfield •do. do. do. 0 10.0

WY2 Coal Cr. 1978 do. do. do. do. 0 7.5

WY2 ; Thunderbird 1978 El Paso Nat. Gas Campbell- Johnson

do. Felix, Ulm 0 4.0

IVY2 E. Gillette #16 1978 Kerr-McGee Coal Co. Cairpbell do. Wyodak-Anderson 0 4.0

WY2 Jacobs Ranch 1978 do. do. do. do. 0 12,5

WY2 Unknown 1978 Texaco, Inc. Johnson Buffalo Healy 0 8.5

WY2 E. Gillette 1979 do. Caiiç>bell Powder R. Wyodak-Anderson 0 4.5

WY2 UnknoMi 1979 Mobile Oil Co. do. do. do. 0 5.0

WY2 Rochelle 1978 Rochelle Coal Co. 11/ do. do. do. 0 8.0

WY2 Buckskin 1979 Shell Oil Co. do. do. do. 0 4.0

WY2 Powder River 1980 Pittsburg-Midway do. do. do. 0 15.0

WY3 Seminoe #1 y Arch Mineral, Inc. Carbon Hanna Bedo #24, 25 3.0 3.0

mz 'Seminoe #2 y do. do. do. Hanna #2 2.5 2.2

WY3 ;Jijn Bridger y Bridger Coal Co. 12/ Sweetwater Rock Springs Deadman 1.8 7.5

WY3 , Rim Rock y Energy Development Co. 13/ Carbon Hanna Brooks .7 1.0

WY3 ..Medicine Bow y Medicine Bow Coal Co. do. do. Beds #62-66 3.0 3.3

WY3 • Dave Johnson y Pacific Power § Light Converse Glenrock School, Badger 2.8 2.8

WY3 ;Rosebud Pits 4^5 2/ Rosebud Coal Sales 14/ Carbon Hanna Beds #80, 82 1.9 1.5

WY3 ; Black Butte 1978 Black Butte Coal Co. 15/ Sweetwater Rock Springs Deadman 0

Con

4.5

See footnot( ds at end of table. tinued- -

state and coail production

area If

Wyoming, continued

WY3

WY3

mi

WY4

WY4

WÏ4

WY4

WY4

Total, looming

Total Great Plains Region

Rodcy Mountain Region

Colorado

GOl

COI

COI

COI

œi

Appendix table 6--Selected characteristics of major surface coal mining operations. Western Region—Continued

Annual production

Name

China Butte

Red Rim

Atlantic Rim

Skull Point

Elkol

Sorenson

Twin Cr.

North Block

Edna

Energy #1

Energy #2

Energy #3

Seneca #2

Mine Year T" open : Operator County Coal field : Seam(s) mined

1976 : 1980

1979 Arch Mineral, Inc. 16/ Carbon

1979 Enei-gy Development Co. do.

1979 Rocky Mountain Energy Co. 17/ do.

1/ FMC Coal Co. 18/ Lincoln

1/ Kemmerer Coal Co. do.

ii do. do.

1977 Rocky Mountain Energy Co. do.

1979 Kenmerer Coal Co. do.

3/ Pittsburg-Midway

3/ Energy Fuels Corp.

y do.

3/ do.

3/ do.

Routt

do.

do.

do.

do.

L. Snake R,

do.

do.

Kemmerer

do.

do.

do.

do.

Green R

Ft. Union A-G 0 2.5

do 0 2.5

Mesa Verde A-D 0 2.0

Adaville #1 .6 1.5

do. .9 1.0

Beds #2-11 2.5 4.0

Adaville 0 3.0

Beds #2-11 0 2.4

26.7

73.4

185.2

292.1

See footnotes at end of table.

Lennox, Wadge 1.2 1.4

do. Wadge .5 .5

do. Fish Cr. 1.2 2.0

do. Lennox, Wadge 1.5 2.0

do. Wolf Cr., Wadge 1.4 1.4

Continued--

Appendix table 6-- -Selected characteristics of major surface coal mining operations. Western region— -Continued

State and coal : Mine : Seams(s)

: Annual production mined : (MTY) U production :

area V : Name : Year : open ! Operators

: County : Coal field - : 1976 : 1980

Colorado, : continued :

GOl Williams Fork #1 1/ Enpire Energy, Inc. Moffat Green R. NA 0.2 0.7

COI : Williams Fork 1977 Utah International do. do. NA 0 2.7

COI : Unknown 1980 American Electric Power Routt do. K[A 0 .5

COI Marr #1 3/ Kerr Coal Co. Jackson N. Park NA .2 .4

COI Canadian 1/ Sigma Mining Co. do. do. NA .2 .2

COI : Nucla 1/ Peabody Coal Co. Montrose San Juan Wadge .1 .1

(Other mines) 19/ ' 1/ .3 4.9

Total, : Colorado 6.8 16.8

New México

N^a Navajo 1/ Utah International San Juan Navajo Beds #6-8 8.3 9.6

^ML :San Juan 3/ Western Coal Co. do. Fruitland (Various) 2.8 4.4

NM2 ¡McKinley 3/ Pittsburg-Midway McKinley Galluç do. .8 5.0

mi :Star Lake 1979 Peabody Coal Co. do, Fruitland do. 0 3.0

(Other mines) 20/ .4 1.5

Total New México 12.3 23.5

Utah

UTl :No strip mine operations scheduled through 1980.

UT2 :No strip mine operations scheduled through 1980.

urr3 :Unknown 1980 Nevada Power Co. Kane Alton NA 0 9.5

UT3 : Unknown 1980 Utah International do. do. NA 0 Cont

2.5

See footnotes at end of table. inued--

Appendix table 6--Selected characteristics o£ major surface coal mining operations. Western region—Continued

State and coal Mine : County : Coal field : Seam(s) mined

Annual pr • (MTYl

oduction production [ Name

■ YGa.r

; open ; op«^^*°^ 2/

area V : 1976 : 1980

Arizona

ARl Black Mesa _3/ Peabody Coal Co. Navajo Black Mesa Wepo, Toreva 4.5 5.0

ARl Kayenta V do. do. do. do. 2.5 4.0

Total, Rocky Mountain - Region 261.1 61.3

Pacific Region

Washington Centralia Washington Irrig, and Dev. Co.

Lewis Centralia- Chehalis

Big, Little, Smith

4.0 4.5

Alaska Osibelli Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. (near Healy) Nenana Beds, F, 1-3 .7 1.0

Total, Pacific Region 4.7 5.5

Total, Western Region 104.2 358.9

Note: NA - not available. Sources: (¿; 13; U; 30; j¿; 65; 66; 75; 76; 80; 91; 92).

1/ A coal production area such as "MT-l" is defined as one or more contiguous counties within a State with essentially the same quality of surface mineable coal (BTU's, ash, sulfur, and moisture) with a minimum strippable reserve of 10 million tons.

V Annual production levels are measured in millions of short tons (2,000 lbs.) per year (MTY). 5/ Open (if not operating) by 1976.

Mine owner-operator: 4/ Nytana, Inc., a joint venture between Peter Kiewit and Sons and Pacific Power and Light; 5/--in partnership with Morrison-Knudson

(Kewanee Oil) and Pennsylvania Virginia, Inc. ; 6/--with Montana Power; 7/--joint venture with IVfoFil Oil Corporation; 8/--subsidiary of Peter Kiewit and Sons; 9/--subsidiary of Black Hills Power; 10/--subsidiary oï Exxon Corporation; 11/--joint venture with Powder River Coal Co.; 12/--joint venture of Pacific Power and Light and Idaho Power; IS/--subsidiary of Iowa Public Service; 14/--owned by Peter Kiewit and Sons; 15/--joint venture with Peter Kiewit and Sons and Rocky Mountain Energy; 16/--joint venture of Hunt Enteiprises and Ashland Oil Co.; 17/--subsidiary of Union Pacific Corporation; and 18/--subsidiary of Morrison-Khudson (Kewanee Oil).

19/ Black Diamond Mine (GEC Minerals, Inc.), Watkins Mine (Mintech Corp.) Station Creek Mine (Cameron Engineers), Mel Martinez Mine (Milton Fuller, Inc.) and three unnamed mines (Sun Coal Co., Consolidated Coal Co. and Midland Coal Co.)-

20/ Carnereo Mine (Carbon Coal Co.) McKinley county; West York Canyon Mine (Kaiser Steel Corp.), Coif ax county; Mcoal #1 (Amcoal Inc.), McKinley county; Con Paso Mine (Consolidated Coal Co.), San Juan county; and Gallo Wash Mine (Chaco Energy Co.), San Juan county.

Appendix table 7--Production efficiency parameters, earthmoving technologies, and estimated costs of the engineering component, western surface mines

Coal production

area


Nrr2

Mr4

^f^4

^f^4

MT4

NDl

NDl

ND2

ND2

ND2

ND2

Mine 1/

Mined coals

: Seam Rank : thickness

¡(average) 2/

Depth, of overburden

(average) _2/

Average ." Earthmoving technologies strip- :-g—:

P^g .: burden ratio 3/: ^^^^^

Recontour- ing

Topsoil- ing

Estimated costs of earth- vTorks handling (per acre^ ii^ 4/

Re contouring

Topsoil- ing

Savage Lig•

Decker #1 Sub.

Absaloka do.

Big Sky do.

Rosebud do.

Weighted average, MT4 5/

Weighted average, Montana

Velva Lig.

Noonan do.

Weighted average, NDl

Center do.

Glenharold do.

Beulah do.

Indian Head do.

Weighted average, ND2

8-27' (20') 50-85' (70')

NA (67') <150' (70')

25-55' (40') 20-200' (80')

25-36' (26') 50-90' (58')

23-27' (25') 30-160' (65')

41.3'

39.7'

NA (12')

7-10' (8')

9.7'

8-22' (11')

8-14' (11')

68.0'

12.5' 37.8'

1.6

68.7' 1.7

60-80' (68') 5.7 do.

25-60' (40') 5.0 do.

51.8' 5.3

30-75' (45') 4.1 do.

<80' (50') 4.6 do.

10-90' (18') 1.1 do.

20-65' (33') 2.8 do.

3.0

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

$1,625

$ 860

$2,952

$2,952

Total

3.5 Dragline Dozer Scraper $1,680 $2,460 $4,140

1.0 do. do. do. 1,680 2,460 4,140

2.0 do. do. do. 2,200 2,460 4,660

2.2 do. do. do. 1,276 2,460 3,736

2.6 do. do. do. $1,466 $2,460 $3,926

$4,038

$4,171

$4,577

$3,812

$4,040

do. $ 945 $2,952 $3,897

do. .1,050 2,952 4,002

do. 497 2,952 3,449

do. $ 742 $2,952 $3,694


$3,761

Continued- -

Appendix table 7--Production efficiency paraineters, earthmoving technologies, and estimated costs of the engiaeering conponent, western surface mines—Continued

Coal : Mine 1/

Mined coals Depth of overburden

(average) 2/

.Average stripping

.ratio 3/

; Earthmoving technologies Estimated costs of

works handling (per earth- acre) A/

production : area . Rank

: Seam : thickness :(average)±/

: Over- : burden : removal

'. Re contouring

[Topsoil- ! ing

'Recontour- ing

ÍTopsoii ; ; ing ;

Total

ND3 Gascoyne Lig. 8-24' (12») 10-30' (20') 1.7 Dragline Dozer Scraper $ 550 $2,952 $3,502

ND3 Lehigh

Weighted average, ND3

Weighted average. North Dakota

do. NA (10')

11.8»

12.0'

50-75' (58')

23.0'

38.2*

5.8

1.9

3.2

do. do. do. 1,276 2,952 4,228

$3,538

$3,747

WYl Bighorn Sub. 53-62' (57') 15-250' (100') 1.8 Sqpr., Shvl.

Scraper do. $3,800 $ 738 $4,538

WYl PSO #1

: Weighted average, .WYl

do. NA (65')

59'

^40' (95')

98.7'

1.5

1.7

Dgln.- Shovel

Dozer do. $3,278 $ 738 $4,016

$4,459

WY2 :Belle Ayr S. do. NA (70') 15-200 (30') .4 Shovel- Truck

do. do. $ 705 $ 738 $1,443

WY2 iWyodak N, S. do. 80-110' (80') 20-110' (30') .4 Scpr., F.E.Ldr.

Scraper do. 705 738 1,443

WY2 :N. Rawhide do. NA (107') 20-240' (80') .8 Shovel- Truck

Dozer do. 2,200 738 2,738

WY2 :Coballo do. NA (70') 20-200' (85') 1.2 do. do. do. 2,465 738 3,203

WY2 : Cordero do. NA (60') <200' (85') 1.4 do. do. do. 2,465 738 3,203

WY2 : Eagle Butte do. 65-200' (125')

<200' (100') .8 do. do. do. 3,800 738 4,538

WY2 ¡Black Thunder do 60-73' (66') 15-240' (70') 1.1 do. do. do. 1,680 738 2,418

WY2 :Thunderbird do. 12-15' (13') <150' (45') 3.5 NA NA NA 990 738 1,728

WY2 :E. Gillette #16 do. 50-75' (68') <200' (74') 1.1 Shovel- Truck

Dozer Scraper 1,850 738

Con

2,588

See footnot( BS at end of table. tinued- -

Appendix table 7--Production efficiency paraineters, earthmoving technologies, and estimated costs of the engineering component, western surface mines—Continued

Cc )al iction 'ea

Mine 1/

Mined coals Depth of overburden

(average) 21

Average stripping

ratio 3/

; Earthmoving technologies Estimated costs of works handling (per

earth- acre) A/

prodi ai Rank

: Seam : thickness . : (average) 2^/


*. Re con tour- '.Topsoil- : ing

Re contouring

.'Topsoil-; ! ing

Total

1VY2 .Jacobs Ranch Sub. NA (57') 10-150' (47') .8 Shovel- Truck

Dozer Scraper $1,034 $ 738 $1,772

WY2 E. Gillette do. 50-75' (65*) <200' (78') 1.2 do. do. do. 2,067 738 2,805

mz Rochelle do. NA (52') 20-150' (80') 1.5 Dragline do. do. 2,200 738 2,938

mi Buckskin do. NA (100') <100' (90') .9 do. do. do. 2,880 738 3,618

WY2 .(Texaco, Inc.)

Weighted average, WY2

do. 50-220' C125')

82.5'

<200' (89')

77.2'

.7

.9

NA NA NA $2,840 $ 738 $3,578

$2,784

WY3 Seminoe #1 do. 23-29' (26') 400-200' (47'; ) 1.8 Dragline Dozer Scraper $1,034 $ 738 $1,772

IVÏ3 Seminoe #2 do. NA (35') 40-250' (52') 1.5 do. do. do. 1,149 738 1,887

WY3 Jijn Bridger do. 15-30' (27') 40-150' (45') 1.7 do. do. do. 990 738 . 1,728

WY3 Rim Rock do. NA (7.5') 40-80' (50') 6.7 do. do. do. 1,100 738 1,838

WY5 Medicine Bow do. 3-10' (9') 20-200' (32') 3.6 do. do. do. 723 738 1,461

WÏ3 Dave Johnson do. NA (48') 60-110' (85') 1.8 do. do. do. 2,465 738 3,203

WY3 Rosebud Pits 4 ^ 5 do. NA (18') NA (70') 3.9 do. do. do. 1,680 738 2,418

WY3 Black Butte do. 5-26' (24') 40-150' (57') 2.4 do. do. do. 1,274 738 2,012

WY3 China Butte do. 4-26' (22') <150'(60') 2.7 do. do* do. 1,344 738 2,082

WY3 Red Rim do. 4-24' (20') <150' (55') 2.8 NA NA NA 1,221 738 1,959

WY3 Atlantic Rim

Weighted average, WY3

do. 3-9.5* (20')

22.3'

<200' (40')

53.9'

4.7

2.4

Shovel- Truck

Dozer Scraper 852 738

Co

$1.590

$1,891

See footnoti ÎS at end of table. ntinued--

^pendix table 7--Production efficiency parameters, earthinoving technologies, and estimated costs of the engineering œnponent, western surface niines--Continued

Coal : Minç 1/

Mined coals Depth of

overburden (average) 2/

"Average stripping

.ratio 3/

; Earthmoving technologies Estimated costs of works handling (per

earth- . acre) ±f

production area Rank

: Seam : : thickness. : : (average)^./ ;


iRecontour- *. ing

:Topsoil- Recontour- ing

iTopsoil-;

: ^g : Total

WÍA Skull Point Sub. 40-60* (50*) 40-120** (55*) 1.1 NA NA NA $1,221 $ 738 $1,959

WY4 Elkol do. 50-120* (87*) 130-160* (140*)

1.6 Scpr., Shvl.

Scraper Scraper 7,700 738 8,438

WY4 Sorenson do. 4-35* (30*) 25-140* (65*) 2.2 Sq)r., Dgm.

Dozer do. 1,469 738 2,207

WY4 Twin Cr. do. 5-60* (40*) 40-710* (65») 1.6 Shovel- Truck

do. do. 1,469 738 2,207

WY4 North Block

Weighted average, WÏ4

Weighted average, Wyoming

Weighted average, NGP Region

do. 25-38* (29*)

39.5*

68.8*

53*

40-240* (52*)

67.1*

72.6*

67.2*

1.8

1.7

1.1

1.3

Dragline do. do. $1,149 $ 738 $1,887

$2,281

$2,610

$3,040

Rocky Mountain Region

(JOI Edna Bit. NA (6*) 5-60* (35*) 5.8 Dragline Dozer Scraper $ 748 $1,230 $2,014

COI Energy #1 do. NA (10*) 20-60* (28*) 2.8 do. do. do. 644 1,230 1,874

COI Energy #2 do. NA (4.5*) 5-80* (15*) 3.3 Shovel- Dozer

do. do. 450 1,230 1,680

001 Energy #3 do. NA (7.5*) 25-60* (52*) 7.0 Dragline do. do. 1,113 1,230 2,343

COI Seneca #2 do. 9-20* (10*) 20-70* (45*) 4.5 do. do. do. 945 1,230 2,175

COI Williams Fork

Weighted average, COI Colorado)

do. NA (25*)

8.7*

NA (100*)

41.8"

4.0

4.8

do. do. do. $3,750 $1,230 $4,980

$2,120

See footnotes at end of table. Continued-

Appendix table 7--Production efficiency parameters, earthmoving technologies, and estimated costs of the engineering conponent, western surface mines—Continued

Coal production

area

NMl

NMI

NM2

Mine 1/

Mined coals

Rank Seam

thickness ( average ^j.^

Depth of overburden (average) _2/

Average strip- : Over- pmg . burden

ratio 3/: ^-emoval

Earthmoviag technologies

Recontour- ing

Topsoil- ing

Estimated costs of earthworks handling (per acre'^ — 4/

Re contouring

Topsoil- ing

Navajo

San Juan

Weighted average, NMl

McKinley

NM2 :Star Lake 6/

: Weighted average, :NM2

•Weighted average. New Mexico

UT3 NA

ARl Black Mesa

ARl Kayenta

Weighted average, ARl (Arizona)

Weighted average Rocky Mountain Region

Pacific : Region :

Washington : Centralia

See footnoes at end of table.

Sub. 4-30^ (24') NA (55')

Bit, NA (16») 5-65' (35')

21.5' 48.8'

Sub. 8-24' (20») 20-70' (45')

do. <^16' (15') 22-80' (50')

18.2'

20.3'

46.8'

48.0'

Bit. 5-28' (25') <130' (45')

do. NA (25') <140' (49')

25*

17.2'

46.6'

45.6*

Sub. 25-40' (38') NA (65')

2.6

2.4

1.8 Dragline do.

2.0 do. do.

1.9

2.7

Total

2.3 Dragline Dozer Scraper $1,199 $ 738 $1,937

2.2 do, do. do. $ 782 $ 738 $1,520

2.3 $1,763

2,2 Shovel- Truck

do. do. $ 945 $ 738 $1,683

3.3 bgln.- ShovBl

do. do. $1,050 $ 738 $1,788

1.7 do. do.

$1,721

$1,746

do. $ 945 $ 738 $1,683

do. $1,034 $ 738 $1,772

$1,717

$1,869

do. $1,469 $ 738 $2,207

Continued-

Appendix table 7--Production efficiency parameters, earthmoving technologies, and estimated costs of the engineering conponent, western surface mines—Continued

Coal Mine 1/

Mined coals Depth of

overburden : (average) 2/

Average stripping ratio V

Earthmoving technologies Estimated costs of works handlinR (per

earth- acre) A/

production area

: Seam Rank : thickness .

: (average) 2./

^^l~ -Recontour- burden : ^

• removal :

;Topsoil- ; ing

Recontour- ing

;Topsoil ; Total

Alaska Usibelli Sub. 15-60' (2V) <150' C85') 3.9 Shovel Dozer Scraper $2,465 $ 492 Í2,957

Weighted average, Pacific region 35.6' 68.0' 1.9 $2,320

'Weighted average. Western region 46.5' 63.6' 1.4 $2,826

Note: NA = not available; Lig. = lignite; Sub. = subbituminous; Bit. = bituminous

Sources: (2; 3; 5^; 8; 13; 15; 19; 30; 41; 42; 45; 46; 54; 56; 57; 65; 66; 75; 76; 80; 91 ; 92).

1/ Because of insufficient information on some mining operations (such as specific data on seam thickness and overbuïden depth), several mines identified in app. table 5 were omitted.

2/ Estimates of average seam thickness and overburden depth apply only to current (1976) conditions. 3/ Defined as feet of overburden per foot of seam thickness (average values used). 4/ Standard engineering cost schedules were applied uniformly to all mines (1¿; S2; 89). The cost estimates for spoil recontouring were

determined from an average cost function with a range of $20.80 to $45 per vertical foot of overburden depth. Topsoiling costs were estimated from a linear function with an average cost (including stripping, stockpiling, and replacement) of $123 per acre inch of final topsoil depth. The following topsoil rer-uirements for the various States were assumed: Montana, 18 to 24 inches (averaging 20 inches); North Dakota, 12 to 60 inches (24 indies); Wyoming, 4 to 8 inches (6 inches); Colorado, 6 to 12 inches (10 inches); Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington, 4 to 8 inches (6 inches); and Alaska, 2 to 24 inches (4 inches).

5/ The weighting scheme is based on annual output in 1980. 6/ This mine has now been closed, and is not likely to recommence operations for several years (46).

Appendix table 8--Revegetation potentials, annual mined acreage, and estimated costs of the revegetation conç)onent, western surface mines

Coal production

area


MT2

MT3

Nfr4

^f^4

m4

MVA

Mr4

Nfr4

Mr4

1^4

NDl

NDl

ND2

ND2

ND2

ND2

Mine Revegetation potential 1/

Qnsite evaluation ip , . Descriptive : Numericiï^: ^^^"^^

Acreage mined annually 2/

1976 1980

Mined acreage per 10^ tons of coal mined

1976 1980

Acreage weighted ranking 3/

SaA^ge

Circle West

Decker #1

Absaloka

Big Sky

Rosebud

Decker N.

Decker W.

Younger Cr.

Tanner Cr.

Total, Mr4

Total or average, Montana

Velva

Noonan

Total, NDl

Center

Glenharold

Beulah

Indian Head

Good

NA

Fairly good

Fairly poor

Fairly good

do.

NA

NA

NA

NA

Very good

do, 5/

Fairly good

do. 5/

Good

Fairly good

+6

NA

+ 3

-3

+3

+3

NA

NA

NA

NA

+9

+9

+3

+3

+6

+3

+2 56 103 4.7

+3 0 62* 0

+2 130 95 -

-2 85 212 -

+2 92 180 -

+2 445 633 -

+2 0 41* -

+2 0 103* -

+1 0 82* -

-1 0 123* -

752 1,469 2.5

808 1,634 2.6

+8 85 194 -

+7 175 233 -

260 427 10.0

+1 254 424 -

+1 322 322 -

+5 105 221 -

+1 101 116 _

4.7

2.1

2.5

2,5

9.5

1976 1980

+2

+3

+1.5

+1.6

+ 7.3

+2

+ 3

+1.4

+1.5

+7.5

Estimated revegetation

costs fdol./acre) A/


$175

162

175

250

175

175

175

175

188

225

$181

$183

$100

112

$108

$188

188

138

188

Continued--

Appendix table 8--Revegetation potentials, annual mined acreage, and estimated costs of the revegetation conponent, western surface mines—Continued

Coal production

area Mine

Revegetation potential 1/ Acreage mined annually 2/

_Mined acreage per IQS ^Qns of coal mined



0ns ite evaluation •[Ranking costs Descriptive : Numerical 1976 : 1980 1976 : 1980 1976 : 1980 (dol./acre)^./

ND2 Falkirk (NAG, Inc.) NA NA +3 0 373* - - $162

ND2 (North American) NA NA +2 0 373* - - 175

ND2 Falkirk NA NA + 3 0 410* - - 162

Total or average, ND2 782 2,239 7.9 7.6 +1.5 +2.3 $181

ND3 Gascoyne Good +6 + 5 210 466 - - $138

ND3 Lehigh NA NA +4 19 47 . . - 150

ND3 Heart Butte NA NA + 3 0 158* - - 162

Total or average, ND3 229 671 7.9 7.9 +4.9 +4.5 $136

Total or average. North Dakota 1,271 3,337 8.3 7.8 +3.3 +3.4 $158

WYl Bighorn Good +6 +5 14 21 - - $138

WYl PSO #1 NA NA +4 4 7 - - 150

Total, WYl 18 28 1.4 1.4 +4.8 +4.8 $142

WY2 :Belle Ayr S. Fairly good +3 0 58 146 - - $200

WY2 Wyodak N, S. Good +6 +1 7 51 - - 188

WY2 .N. Rawhide NA NA +1 0 65 - - 188

WY2 Coballo NA NA +1 0 41 - - 188

WY2 .(Falcon Coal) NA NA +1 0 10* - - 188

WY2 .Cordero NA NA +1 0 163 - - 188

1VY2 Eagle Butte NA NA 0 0 78 - - 200

See footnote ÎS at end of table. Continued--

Appendix table 8--Revegetation potentials, annual mined acreage, and estimated costs of the revegetation component, western surface mines—Continued

Cc prodi

a'

}al jction rea

Mine Revegetation potential 1/ Acreage ;

mined annually 2/'10 Mined acreage per [Acreage weighted S tons of coal mined; ranking 3/


0nsite evaluation -; Ranking costs ,

Descriptive : Numerical 1976 : 1980 •• 1976 : 1980 : 1976 : 1980 Cdol./acre)-^

WY2 Black Thunder NA NA -1 0 124 - $225

WY2 Coal Cr. NA NA +1 0 74* - 188

WY2 Thunderbird NA NA 0 0 251 - 200

WY2 E. Gillette #16 NA NA +1 0 48 - 188

WY2 Jacobs Ranch NA NA +1 0 179 - - - 188

WY2 (Texaco, Inc.) NA NA 0 0 55 - 200

WY2 E. Gillette NA NA +1 0 56 - 188

WY2 (Mobile Oil) NA NA 0 0 49* - 200

WY2 Rochelle NA NA -2 0 126 - 250

WY2 Buckskin NA NA +1 0 33 - 188

WY2 Powder River NA NA +1 Jl 148* - 188

Total or average, WY2 65 1,697 1.1 1.2 +.1 +.4 $198

WY3 Seminoe #1 NA NA -2 94 94 - $250

WY3 Seminoe #2 NA NA -2 58 51 - 250

WY3 Jim Bridger NA NA -3 54 227 - - - 275

WÏ3 Rim Rock NA NA -2 76 109 - 250

WY3 Medicine Bow NA NA -2 272 299 - - - 250

WY3 •Dave Johnson Fairly good + 3 -1 48 48 - 225

WY3 Rosebud Pits 4^5 NA NA -2 86 68 - 250

WY3 Black Butte NA NA -3 0 153 - 275

WY3 China Butte NA NA -2 0 93 - 250

See footnotí ÎS at end of table. Continued--

Appendix table 8- ■Revegetation potentials, annual mined acreage, and estimated costs of the revegetation conçjonent, western surface mines—Continued

Coal production

area

WY3

WY3

WY4

WY4

WY4

WY4

1VY4

Rocky Mountain Region

COI

COI

COI

COI

COI

COI

Mine Revegetation potential 1/

Qnsite evaluation r^ .. Descriptive : Numericä]^:^^^^^


'WTë 1980

Mined acreage per 10^ tons of coal mined

1976 1980


1976 : 198Q

Red Rim NA

Atlantic Rim NA

Total or average, WY3

Skull Point NA

Elkol NA

Sorenson NA

Twin Cr. NA

North Block NA

Total or average, WY4

Total or average, IVyoming

Total or average, Northern Great Plains Region

Edna NA

Energy #1 NA

Energy #2 NA

Energy #3 NA

Seneca #2 NA

Williams Fork #1 NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-2

-2

-2

-2

-2

-2

-2

0

0

688

10

8

68

0

0

86

2,936

102

192

1,436

24

9

109

61

68

271

8,403

+4 159 185

+4 40 40

+4 211 352

+4 159 211

+4 111 111

+3 18* 64*

4.4

2.2

857 3,432 3.2

4.0

4.4 -2.0 -2.2

2.3 -2,0 '2.0

1.9

2.9

-1.7

+1.4 +1.3


costs .. (dol./acre)-^

$250

.250

$250

$250

250

250

250

250

$250

.8 $243


$182

$150

150

150

150

ISO

162

Continued- ~

Appendix table 8- -Revegetation potentials, annual rained acreage, and estimated costs o£ the revegetation coitponent, western surface mines—Continued

Coal production Mine

Revegetation potential 1/ Acreage mined annually 2/

Mined acreage per ! Acreage weighted 10^ tons of coal mined. ranking 3/


0nsite evaluation -'Ranking

costs Descriptive : Numerical 197ñ : ig^n 1976 : lQ8n - 1976 : 19«n (del./acre) A/

COI Williams Fork NA NA +3 0 86 $162

COI (American Electric) NA NA +4 0 46* - 150

Total or average, COI 698 1,095 11.5 9,8 +4.0 +3.9 $150

G02 Marr #1 NA NA +1 18* 36* - $188

C02 Canadian NA NA +1 18* 18* - 188

: Total or average, 002 36* 54* 9.0 9.0 +1.0 +1.0 $188

G03 Nucla NA NA +3 9* 9* 9.0 9.0 +3.0 +3.0 $162

Total or average, Colorado 743 1,158 10.9 6.9 +3,8 +3.8 $153

NMl .Navajo NA NA -8 282 326 - $400

NMl San Juan NA NA -8 139 218 - 400

'Total or average, NMl 421 544 3.8 3.9 -8.0 -8.0 $400

NM2 McKinley NA NA -4 33 204 - $300

NM2 Star Lake 6/ NA NA -5 0 163 - 325

Total or average, .NM2 33 367 4.1 4.Ö -4.0 -4.5 $300

•Total or average. New Mexico 454 2/ 911 3.7 3.9 -7.7 -6.6 $391

UT3 : (Nevada Power) NA NA -5 0 502* - $325

UT3 (Utah Inter- :national)

:Total or average, .UTS (Utah)

NA NA -5 0 132*

634* 0 5.3 -5.0 -5.0

325

$325 See footnotes at end of table. Continued--

^pendix table 8--Revegetation potentials, aimual mined acreage, and estimated costs of the revegetation conponent, western surface mines—Continued

Coal production

area Mine

Revegetation potential 1/

Onsite evaluation : , . Descriptive : Numerical ": ^^^^^^^


1976 1980

Mined acreage per 10^ tons of coal miaed

1976 1980

A • T_^ j* Estimated Acreage weighted. ,,e^eeetation

ranking 3/ *. ^^^^^g^ tat ion ^ — : costs

1980 : (dol./acre)A/ 1976

ARl

ARl

Black Mesa

Kayenta

Total or average, ARl (Arizona)

m NA

NA

NA

143

79

222

159

127

286 3.2

Total or average, Rocky Mountain Region 1,419 2,989 5.4

Pacific Region

Washington Centralia NA NA + 8 86 97 NA

Alaska Usibelli NA NA -2 27 39 NA

Total or average, Pacific Region 113 136 2.4

3.2

4.9

$400

400

-8.0 -8.0 $400

-1.7 -2.4 $243

NA +8.0 +8.0 $100

NA -2.0 -2.0 250

Total or average. Western Region 4,468 11,528 4.5

2.7

3.4

+6.5 +6.0 $130

-0.4 -0.3 $198 Note : * = based on coal production area weighted averages,

for coal areas. Sources: (9; 16; ^; 40; 44; 49; 63}. 1/ Conpleted rows are~3ata reproduced from an earlier U.S. Forest Service study (63)

following conputational formulas and assumptions: y - (5".W)R and A = rX)K

where: y = net coal yield in tons per acre.

'S" = average seam thickness in feet (appendix table 7), W = specific weight of coal in tons per acre foot, R = recovery factor (90 percent), Y = annual production in tons (appendix table 6), and K = a sealer to allow for an additional 25 percent disturbance to contiguous lands

Recovery rates for specific coal qualities (i.e., W-R in tons per acre foot) were: lignite, 1,395 1,530 (Montana, Washington and Alaska); and 1,593 (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming); and bituminous, 1,640 (Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico). 3/ A coiiç>osite ranking based on the acreage proportions and relative potentials of individual mine sites in each coal production area, 4/ Values are determined from the scale of revegetation potential rankings, assuming +8 = $100 per acre, and increasing in equal increments through -8 = $400 per acre. 5/ Experience since 1974 has shown that the numerical rankings for the Noonan and Glenharold sites were considerably over optimistic (25). _6/ lliis mine has now been closed, and is not likely to recommence operations for several years (46). 7/ Actual disturbance was reported at 579 acres (46).

NA = Not available. - - All entries in these columns are weighted averages

2/ Mined acreage (A) was estimated with the

(K = 1.3). (North Dakota and Montana; subituminous,

Appendix table -9—Estimated costs of mined area reclamation. State taxes on coal production, and f.o.b. steam coal prices, Western United States.

Coal

Mine

F.stiînated cost of mined area reclamation V Severance; other state taxes ($T.) 3/

Coal price production By operation (dol./acre) : Per ton coal f.o.b. mine

area Earthworks : Revegetation : Overhead 2/ : Total : mined (dol,/ton) (dol./ton) 4/


MT2

^^4

Mr4

^f^4

Mr4

NDl

NDl

ND2

ND2

ND2

ND2

ND5

ND3

Savage $4,140

Decker #1 4,140

Absaloka 4,660

Big Sky 3,736

Rosebud Weighted average, îyrr4:

5,926 $4,038

;d average, Montana: $4,171

Velva $4,577

Noónan Weighted average, NDl:

5,812 $4,040

Center $5,897

Glenharold 4,002

Beulah 5,449

Indian Head Weighted average, ND2:

5,694 $3,761*

Gascoyne $3,502

Lehigh Weighted average, ND3:

4,228 $3,538

Weighted average. North Dakota: $3,747


$175

175

250

175

175 $T^

$185

$100

112 $108

$188

188

158

188 $181

$158

150 $I5F

$158

$550

550

500

350

550 $575

$580

$200

225 $120

$575

575

275

575 $565

$275

500 %7M

$518

$4,700

4,700

5,400

4,500

4,500

$4,700

$4,900

4,100 $4;iEÜÖ

$4,500

4,600

5,900

4,500 $4,500

$4,000

4,700 $47ÜÜÖ"

$4,200

$0.17

.05

.09

.11

.12 $TOT

$ .08

$ .29

.37 $ .53

$ .29

.50

.17

.26 $ .25

$ ,24

.54

$ .25

$0.90 $ 5,00

.90 NA

.90 NA

.90 NA

.90 $ .90

NA $ 6.00

$ .90 $ 6.00

$ .60 NA

.60 $ .60"

NA $ 5.00

$ .60 NA

.60 NA

.60 NA

.60

.60 NA

$ 5.00

$ .60 NA

.60

.60 NA

$ 5.00

$ .60 $ 5.00

continued

/ppendix table 9--EstÍjnated costs of mined area reclamation. State taxes on coal production, and f.o.b. steam coal prices Western United States--Continued '

Coal

: ' Mine

Estijnated cost of mined area reclamation U Severance; other State

Taxes (dol./ton)V

• Coal price f.o.b. mine

production By operation Cdol./acre) •' : Per ton coal Mined (dol./ton) area Earthworks : Kévegetation : Overhead ^/ : Total : (dol./ton) £/

mi : Big Horn $4,538 $138 $275 $5,000 $0.06

.04 $ .05

$0.50 NA mi :' PSO n

: Weighted average, WYl : 4,016

$4,459 150 $TÎI

300 $75Ü"

4,500 $4,900"

.50

.50 m

$7.00

WÏ2 ': Belle Ayr S. $1,443 $200 $400 $2,000 $ .02 .50 NA WÏ2 ': Vfyodak N,S. 1,443 188 375 2,000 .02 .50 NA WY2 ': N. Rawhide 2,738 188 375 3,300 .02 .50 NA mi ': Coballo 3,203 188 375 3,800 .03 .50 NA WY2 : Cordero 3,203 188 375 3,800 .04 .50 NA mi ': Eagle Butte 4,538 200 400 5,100 .03 .50 NA mi : Black Thunder 2,418 225 450 3,100 .05 .50 NA mi . Thunderbird 1,728 200 400 2,300 .11 .50 NA mi E. Gillette #16 2,588 188 375 5,200 .05 .50 NA mi Jacobs Ranch 1,772 188 375 2,300 .03 .50 NA mi E. Gillette 2,805 188 375 3,400 .05 .50 NA mi ': Rochelle 2,938 250 500 5,700 .04 .50 NA mi ; Buckskin 3,618 188 375 4,200 .05 .50 NA WY2 I (Texaco, Inc.)

Weighted average, WY2 : 3,578

$2,784 200

$I9ÏÏ" 400 $353

4,200 $3,400

.02 $755

.50 NA $9.00

WY3 :" Seminoe #1 $1,772 • $250 $500 $2,500 $.06 .50 NA WY3 ;. Saninoe #2 1,887 250 500 2,600 .05 .50 NA WY3 ; Jim Bridger 1,728 275 550 2,600 .06 ,50 NA WY3 ; Rim Rock 1,838 250 500 2,600 .22 .50 NA WY3 :' Medicine Bow 1,461 250 500 2,200 .15 .50

coi

NA See footnote es at end of table. itinued- -

Appendix table 9--Estimated costs of mined area reclamation, State taxes on coal production, and f.o.b. steam coal prices. Western United States--Continued

Coal

Mine

Estimated cost of mined area reclamation y Severance ; other State taxes (dol./ton)3/

Coal price production By operation (dol./acre) : Per ton coal

mined (dol./ton) f.o.b. mine (dol./ton) £/ area Earthworks : Revegetation Overhead 2J : Total :

WY3 Dave Johnson $3,203 $225 $450 $3,900 $0.05 $0.50 NA

WY3 Rosebud Pits 4 ^ 5 2,418 250 500 3,200 .11 .50 NA

WY3 Black Butte 2,012 275 550 2,800 .07 .50 NA

WY3 China Butte 2,082 250 500 2,800 0.08 0.50 NA

WY3 Red Rim 1,959 250 500 2,700 .08 .50 NA

WY3 Atlantic Rim Weighted average. WY3:

1,590 $1,891

250 $I5Ü"

500 $ÏÏUU"

2,300 $2,600

.17 $.07

.50 $750

NA $9.00

WY4 Skull Point $1,959 $250 $500 $2,700 $.03 .50 NA

WY4 • Elkol 8,438 250 500 9,200 .07 .50 NA

WY4 . Sorenson 2,207 250 500 3,000 .06 .50 NA

WY4 : Twin Cr. 2,207 250 500 3,000 .05 .50 NA

WY4 : North Block : Weighted average, WY4:

1,887 $2,281

250 $I5ÏÏ

500 $■5011

2,600 $:5,oöo

.06 .50 $.50

NA $12.00

We] Lghted average, Wyoming: $2,610 $243 $486 $3,300 $.03 $.50 $ 9.00

Weii yhted average. NGP region $3,040 $182 $470 $3,700 $.04 $.60 $ 8.00

Rocky Mountaii 1 region:

COI : Edna $2,014 $150 $300 $2,500 $.25 $.60 NA

COI . Energy #1 1,874 150 300 2,300 .14 .60 NA

COI : Energy #2 1,680 150 300 2,100 .28 .60 NA

COI : Energy #3 2,343 150 300 2,800 .23 .60 NA

COI : Seneca #2 2,175 150 300 2,600 .16 .60 NA

COI Weightec

: Williams Fork 1 average, COI, (Colorado;

4,980 ):$2,120

162 $153

325 $305

5,500 $2,600

.13 $.18-

.60 $.60

NA $13.00

continued-- See footnotes at end of table

Appendix table 9--Estimated costs o£ mined area reclamation, State taxes on coal production, and f.o.b. steam coal prices, Western United States--Continued

Coal production

area Mine

Estimated cost of mined area reclamation U By operation (doX./acreJ

Severance ; other State ______^ , , I'er ton coal _ , _... __ ,, ,

Earthworks ; Revegetation : Overhead ¿7: Total : mined (dol./ton) : taxes (dol./ton)j/:

Coal price f.o.b. mine (dol7ton) y

NMl

NMl

NM2

NM2

Navajo

San Juan Weighted average, MMl:

McKinley-

Star Lake Weighted average, NM2:

Weighted average. New Mexico:

A21

AZI

Black Mesa

Kayenta Weighted average, AZI,

(Arizona): Weighted average. Rocky

Mountaiji Region:

Pacific Region:

Washington

Alaska

Centralia

Usibelli Weighted average. Pacific

region: Weighted average. Western

region:

$1,937

1,520 $177^3

1,683

1,738 $1,721

$1,746

$1,683

1,772 $1,717

$1,869

$400 5/

400 $?ÜU

$300

325 $3ÜÜ"

$391

$400

400

$243

$800 $3,100

800 $000

2,700 $3,000

$600 $2,600

650 $600

2,800 $2,600

$785 $2,900

$800 $2,900

800 $800

3,000 $2,900

$485 $2,600

$0.08

.10 $TW

$ ,08

.12 $ 70^

$ .09

$ .07

.07 $ T^

$ .09

$0.40

.40 %~~M

.40

.40 T4Ö"

$.40

.30

.30 $30"

.40

$2,207 $100 5/ $400 $2,700 $ .05 NA

$2,957 $250 $500 $3,700 $ .11 $.40

$2,320 $130 $484 $2,900 $.06 NA

$3,500 $ .05 $.60

NA

$13.00

NA

NA $11.00

$12.00

NA

NA $11.00

$12.00

$ 7.00

$ 9.00

$ 7.00

$ 9.00

1/ Costs tor earthwork and revegetation are reproduced from appendix tables 7 and 8, respectively. "If Values determined from the scale of revegetation potential rankings, assuming +8 = $200 per acre, and increasing all equal increments

through -8 = $800 per acre, 3/ Total State taxes, including revenues from property tax, license fees, severance taxes and other charges levied on coal operators, were

estimated from a narrative summary of taxing policies (72). Values rounded to the nearest ten cents. 4/ Based on October 1976 term contract quotations {2\ 14; 86). Values rounded to the nearest dollar. 5/ Actual costs are probably considerably higher since at tEe Navajo mine sprinkler irrigation is used for first-year establishment of

range grasses, and at the Centralia mine trees are reestablished on most mined lands. NA= not available

Appendix table 10—State and subregional estimates of mined area disturbance and reclamation costs Ij

Annual (mined) Mined acreage Estimated Reclamation cost

Subregion and State Acreage Disturbed per 100,000 tons reclamation cost as percentage of

1976 : 1980 of coal recovered Per acre : Per ton coal price (per ton)

_ _ -Acres - Dollars - Northern Great Plains:

Montana 808 1,634 2.5 4,700 0.08 1.3

North Dakota 1,271 3,337 7.8 4,200 .25 5.0

South Dakota (No raining through 1980) Wyoming 857 3,432 1.9 3,300 .03 .3

Total/average 2,936 8,403 2.9 3,700 .04 .5

Rocky Mountain: Colorado 743 1,158 6.9 2,600 .18 1.4

Utah 0 634 5.3 New Mexico 454 911 3.9 2,900 .09 .8

Arizona 222 286 3.2 2,900 .07 .6

Total/average 1,419 2,989 4.9 2,600 ,09 .8

Pacific: Washington 86 97 2.2 2,700 .05 .7

Alaska 27 39 3.9 3,700 .11 1.2

Total/average 113 136 2.9 2,900 .06 .9

Western region: 4,468 11,528 3.4 3,500 .05 .6

1/ Summarized from app. table 9.

Appendix table 11--Selected environmental parameters for the strippable coal areas o£ the Western Uhited States

: County : Weather station Precipiti ition Temperature (''F) : Soils : Vegetation

Coal area

Annual mean (inches)

Month o£ : max./min.

Jan. mean

: July : mean

-•Frost-free; Major Percentage: : Percentage : days : group : of area : Prominent species : of area


1^1 Sheridan Coal Ridge 13.0 June/Dec. 8.6 69.8 105 Argiborolls 100 IVheatgrass-Needlegrass 100

^f^2 Roosevelt Culbertson 13.0 June/Feb. 9.5 70.7 111 Argiborolls 100 N. Floodplain forest Wheatgrass-Needlegrass

50 + 15 50 + 15

MT2 Dawson Savage 12.4 June/Dec. 24.8 69.8 130 Argiborolls Ustorthents

50 + 10 Grama-Wheatgrass 50 + 10 Needlegrass 100

^f^2 Richland Crane 13.0 June/Dec. 10.4 69.8 130 Ustorthents Argiborolls

75 + 10 Wheatgrass-Needlegrass 25 + 10

100

Mr2 Fallón Plevna 11.8 June/Dec. 14.0 71.6 116 Ustorthents Argiborolls

40 + 10 Wheatgrass-Needlegrass 60 + 10

100

MZ Wibaux Wibaux 11.8 June/Dec. 12.2 68.0 138 Haploborolls 100 Wheatgrass-Needlegrass 100

MT3 ^4cCone-Prairie Circle 11.4 June/Feb. 11.2 69.8 110 Argiborolls Ustorthents

80 + 10 Grania-Needlegrass 20 + 10 Wheatgrass 100

Mr4 Musselshell Melstone 11.8 June/Feb. 21.2 73.4 130 Ustorthents 100 E. Ponderosa forest Wheatgrass-Needlegrass

60 + 15 40 + 15

^f^4 Bighorn Decker 15.7 June/Jan. 21.2 71.6 118 Ustorthents Paleargids

50 + 10 Gramma-Needlegrass 25 + 10

90 + 10

Nfr4 Bighorn Hardin 12.2 June/Feb. 20.1 71.6 123 Ustorthents 80 + 10 E. Ponderosa forest Grama-Wheatgras s

50 + 15 50 + 15

^f^4 Rosebud Colstrip 15.0 June/Dec. 21.2 71.6 130 Ustorthents 100 E. Ponderosa forest Gr ama-Wheatgr as s

70 + 15 30 + 15

MT5 Caster Miles City 11.8 June/Dec. 15.9 75.2 149 Ustorthents 100 Wheatgrass-Needlegrass 90 + 15

^í^5 Powder River Broadus 13.6 June/Jan. 20.1 71.6 125 Arguistolls 90 +^ 10 Grama-Needlegrass 90+5

ms Powder River Sonnetta 11.4 June/Dec. 20.1 72.0 125 Arguistolls Ustorthents

50 + 10 E. Ponderosa forest 50 ^^ 10 Grama-Wheatgrass

90 + 10 10 + 10

NDl Burke Columbus 14.2 June/Feb. 6.8 71.6 114 Arguistolls Haplustolls

75 Wheatgrass-Bluestem 25

100

Continued-

Appendix table 11--Selected environmental parameters for the strippable coal areas of the Western United States--Continued

Coal area

County Weather station Precipitation

Annual : Month of mean (inches) : max./min.

Temperature (°F) Jan. : July : Frost-free mean : mean : days

Süils Major :Percentage group : of area

Vegetation : Percentage

Prominent species : of areas

NDl Ward Kenmore 15.6 June/Jan. 6.8 68.0 100 Arguistolls Haploborolls

80 20

NDl Williams Williston 14.6 June/Feb. 8.6 72.0 128 Haplustolls 70 + 15

NDl Mountrail- McKenzie

Stanley 13.4 June/Dec. 6.8 68.0 104 Ustorthents Haplustolls

55 45 •

NDl McHenry Velva 14.5 June/Feb. 8.6 69.8 116 Arguistolls 100

ND2 Golden Valley Beach 14.6 June/Dec. 12.2 69.8 116 Haplustolls Arguistolls

35 + 10 35 + 10

ND2 Billings Bellfield 16.9 June/Dec. 10.4 70.0 113 Natrustolls Arguistolls

50 + 10 40 + 10

ND2 Dunn Dickenson 17.3 June/Dec. 10.4 70.0 112 Natrustolls Haplustolls

50 + 10 30 + 10

ND2 Norton New Salem 18.1 June/Dec. 8.6 69.0 122 Arguistolls Ustorthents

70 + 10 50 + 10

ND3 Stark-Mercer Beulah 15.0 June/Dec. 6.8 69.8 112 Arguistolls Haplustolls

45 + 15 35 + 15

ND3 Mercer Washbum 15.0 June/Dec. 10.4 71.6 113 Ustipsamments Arguistolls

60 + 10 15 + 10

ND3 Oliver Center 18.1 June/Dec. 8.6 69.0 113 Arguistolls Ustorthents

70 + 10 20 + 10

ND3 Slope Bowman 15.0 June/Dec. 15.2 77.0 127 Arguistolls Ustorthents

60 + 10 25 + 10

ND3 Bowman-Adams Reader 13.0 June/Dec. 15.2 71.6 127 Arguistolls Haplustolls

60 40

SDl Harding Ludlow 13.4 June/Dec. 17.6 71.6 116 Ustorthents Natrustolls

65 35

WYl Sheridan Sheridan 15.7 June/Jan. 19.4 72.0 120 Ustorthids Haplargids

70 + 10 15 + 10

Wheatgrass'Bluestem 100

Wheatgrass-Needlegrass 100

Wheatgrass-Needlegrass 65 N. Floodplain forest 35

Wheatgrass-Bluestem 100











E. Ponderosa forest 80 + 10 Grama-Sagebrush Steppe 10 j»^ 10

continued--

Appendix table 11--Selected environmental parameters for the strippable coal areas of the Western Uaited States--Continued

Coal area

County * Weather station Precipitation

Annual : Month of mean (inches) : max. /min,

Tenperature (°F> Jan. : July : :trost - free mean : mean: days

Soils Vegetation Major :Percentage: : Percentage group : of area : Prominent species : of area

WY2 Johnson Buffalo 12.6 May/Jan. 24.8 68.0 120 Paleargids Haplargids

50 50

WY2 Campbell Billette 13.0 May/Feb. 21.2 72.0 128 Haplargids 100

WY3 Converse Glenrock 14.2 May/Feb. 23 71.6 125 Paleargids 100

WY3 Carbon Hanna 9.4 May/Feb. 23 64.4 105 Haplargids 100

WY4 Lincoln Kemmer 9.1 May/Sep. 17.6 62.6 65 Argiborolls 100

WY4 Sweetwater Rock Springs 8.3 Apr./Dec. 18.5 68.0 78 Haplargids 100

Rocky Mountain region:

GOl 00 o

Moffat Craig 15.7 May/Feb. 15.2 66.2 150 Paleborolls Cryoborolls

35 + 10 25 + 10

COI Routt Hayden 20.7 May/Nov. 15.2 62.6 68 Paleborolls Cryoborolls

55 + 10 30 + 10

C02 Jackson Waiden 9.1 Aug./Jan. 15.1 59.0 61 Haplargids 100

C03 Montrose Uravan 15.7 Aug./June 23.2 66.2 112 Torriorthents 60 + 10 Haplargids 30 + 10

NMl San Juan Fruitland 7.1 Aug./Nov. 27.8 77.0 161 Torriorthents 100

NM2 McKinley Gallup 11.4 Aug./June 27.8 69.8 170 Torriorthents 75 + 10 Arguistolls 20 + 10

NM2 McKinley Crown Point 8.7 Aug./Nov. 30 71.6 175 Haplargids 95+5

ml McKinley Thoreau 9.4 July/Aug. 30 69.8 170 Torriorthents 95 + 5

UTI Emery Emery 7.5 July/Nov. 21.2 68.0 153 Argixerolls 60 + 1( Torrifluvents 25 + 10

Grama-Needlegrass 100

Wheatgrass-Needlegrass 55 +_ 10 Gramagras s-Sagebrush

Steppe 45 + 10

Grama-Needlegrass 100

Sagebrush Steppe 50 + 10 Grama-Wheatgrass 50 +_ 10

Sagebrush Steppe 100

Sagebrush Steppe 90 Salthrush-Greasewood 10

Mountain-Mahogany-Oak 85 ^^^ 10 Western Spruce-fir forest 10 +_ 10

Sagebrush Steppe 85 +_ 10 Ntountain-Mahogany-Oak 10 +_ 10

Sagebrush-Steppe 90 ^^ 5 Western Spruce-fir forest 10 + 5 Great Basin Sagebrush 20 + 10 Juniper-Pinyon woodland 40 + 10 Pine-Spruce-fir forest 40 +_ 10

Grama-Galleta Steppe 100

Juniper-Pinyon woodland 80 +_^ 10 Grama-Galleta Steppe 10 +^ 10

Juniper-Pinyon woodland 50 Grama-Galleta Steppe 50

Juniper-Pinyon woodland 60 Grama-Galleta Steppe 40

Juniper-Pinyon- 35 + 10 Sagebrush-Greasewood-Säge 50 +^ 10

continued- -

Appendix table 11--Selected environmental parameters for the strippable coal areas of the Western United States--Continued

Area County Weather station

Precipitation Annual : Month of

mean (inches) : max./min/

Temperature C°F) Jaïï^ : July :frost-free mean : mean : days

Soils Major group

Percentage : of area

Vegetation : Percentage

Prominent species : of area

UT2 Wayne

UT3

AZI Navaj o

Pacific Region:

Washing- Lewis ton

Hanksville

Garfield- Escalante Kane

Kayenta

Centralia

Alaska Matanuska Anchorage

Fort Yukon Fairbanks

Point Barrow

5.1

13.0

9.8

59.0

15.6

7.1

4.3

Aug./Feb. 24.8 70.8

Aug./June 22.8 69.8

Aug./May 30 69.8

157 Torriorthents 45 ^^ 10 Juniper-Pinyon 40 + 15 Cryoborolls 25 +^ 10 Ricegrass, dropseed 40 +_ 15

152 Torriorthents 50 + 10 Juniper-Pinyon-fir 70 + 15 Cryoborolls 25 +_ 10 Shadscale-Wheatgrass 20 + 15

120 Natrargids 100 Grama-Galleta Steppe 60 Juniper-Pinyon woodland 40

Nov./July 39.2 64.4 210 Haplohumults 100 Cedar-Hemlock-fir Silver Douglas-fir

95 5

Aug./Apr. -13 55.0 55 Haplohumults 100 Boreal Forest Biome 100

July/Nov. -22 61.0 38 Haplohumults 100 Boreal Forest Biome 100

July/Apr. -16 40.0 18 Haplohumults 100 Tundra 100

Sources: (1; 4; 29; 47; 59; 63; 73; 74; 90).

Appendix table 12—Effect of seam thickness on reclamation revenues generated per surface mine area

Coal characteristic 1/ Cost in dollars per

(Réclamation revenues

ton of coal mined

generated per acre) Seam s

Recovery per acre thicknes : $1.000 : $2,000 : $3,000 : $4,000 : $5,000 : $10,000

(Feet) (Tons) Dollars per ton

3 4,590 ' 0.218 0.436 0.654 0.871 1.089 2.179

4 6,120 .163 .327 .490 .654 .817 1.634

5 7,650 .131 .261 .392 .523 .654 1.307

10 15,300 .065 .131 .196 .261 .327 .654

15 22,950 .044 .087 .131 .174 .218 .436

20 30,600 .033 .065 .098 .131 .163 .327

25 38,250 .026 .052 .078 .105 .131 .261

30 45,900 : .022 .044 .065 .087 .109 .218

40 61,200 .016 .033 .049 .065 .082 .163

50 76,500 .013 .026 .039 .052 .065 .131

75 114,750 : .009 .017 . 026 .035 .044 .087

100 153,000 \ .006 .013 .020 .026 .033 .065

150 229,500 \

•

.004 .009 .013 .017 .022 .044

1/ Assumes heating value at 8,000 Btu per pound, recovery factor at 90 percent, and volumetric weight at 1,700 tons per acre foot.

Source: (88).

*U.S. GOVERNMEKPT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980 0-310-945/ESCS-55

82

Kenneth L. Leathers

Documents

Transcript of Kenneth L. Leathers