Western Surface Mine Permitting and

Reclamation

June 1986

NTIS order #PB87-100350
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Western Surface Mine Permitting and

Reclamation, OTA-E-279 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1986).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 86-600506

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Foreword

This report responds to a request from the House Committee on interior and InsuIar Affairs to assess the ability of current mining and reclamation technologies and methodologies, and of Federal programs and policies, to meet the statutory mandates for

environmental protection in reclaiming the surface of Western coal mined lands.

OTA examined the state of development of Western reclamation technologies and

methodologies, the adequacy and uses of baseline and monitoring data on mined land

reclamation, the reliabiIity of analytical techniques used to predict the impacts of m ining and evaluate the success of reclamation practices, and the encouragement given

to research and to the development and use of innovative permitting and reclamation

technologies. The study also examines the role and effectiveness of lease stipuIations

and permit conditions as means of imposing technological or methodological requirements for environmental protection and resolving uncertainties in mining and reclamation situations. Technical and policy options for resolving uncertainties about, and

for improving the prospects for, successful reclamation on Western Federal lands, including research and development needs, are discussed.

OTA received substantial help from many organizations and individuals in the course

of this study. We wouId like to thank the project’s contractors, who prepared the technical background analyses; the project’s advisory panel, who provided guidance and

extensive critical reviews; and the many additional reviewers who gave their time to

ensure the accuracy and objectivity of this report.

Director

.,. ///
Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation Advisory Panel

James j. Stukel, Chairman

Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate

University of Illinois at Chicago

Dean

George Davis

Hydrogeologist

Silver Spring, MD

Robert Flagg*

Manager, Technical and Research Services

Mining and Reclamation Council of America

Tim Gallagher

Assistant Administrator

Montana Department of Natural Resources

and Conservation

L. Thomas Galloway

Attorney

Galloway & Greenberg

Washington, DC

Sheridan Glen

Assistant Vice President

Arch Mineral Corp.

Nick Golder

Rancher

Forsyth, MT

Pat Holderness

Rancher

Hayden, CO

Carolyn Johnson

Environmental Consultant

Denver, CO

Frank Kottlowski

Director

New Mexico Bureau of Mines and

Mineral Resources

George Land

Director, Technology Assessment

AMAX Coal Co.

Cyrus McKell

Vice President, Research

Native Plants, Inc.

Lyle Randen

Environmental Manager

Thunder Basin Coal Co.

Roger Shaffer

Administrator, Land Quality Division

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Patrick Sweeney

Regional Director

Western Organization of Resource Councils

Lauri M. Zell**

Director, Government Affairs

Mining and Reclamation Council of America

Ex officio:

Marlene Berg

Fish and Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dan Kimball

Environmental Protection Specialist

National Park Service

Al Klein

Administrator, Western Technical Center

Office of Surface Mining

*Served as a panelist after August 1985.

**Served as a panelist until August 1985.

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel

members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes

full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
OTA Project Staff

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager

Richard E. Rowberg, Energy and Materiak Program Manager (until December 1985)

Jenifer Robison, Project Director

Martha G. Finnemore, Baseline and Monitoring Data

Standards for Reclamation Success

Lease Stipulations

Linda K. Wackwitz, Senior Technical Analyst

Administrative Staff

Lillian Chapman Edna Saunders Sharon Scott

Contractors

Jane Bunin

Cedar Creek Associates

James P. Walsh & Associates

Western Resource Development Corp.

Western Water Consultants

Other OTA contributors

Steven E. Plotkin
Acknowledgments

OTA thanks the following groups who provided information or reviewed part or all of this report or the

background reports:

Agricultural Research Service, Northern Great

Plains Research Center

American Mining Congress

Anaconda Minerals Co.

Atlantic Richfield Co.

Brigham Young University, Department of Botany

and Range Science

Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Mined

Land Reclamation Division

Colorado Division of Wildlife

Colorado State University, Department of Range

Science

Colorado Yampa Coal Co.

Colowyo Coal Co.

Consolidation Coal

Cordero Mine

Dakota Resource Council

Environmental Policy Institute

Fort Union Mine Partnership

Getty Oil Co.

High Plains Grassland Research Station

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station

Kaiser Coal Co.

Kerr Coal Co.

Kiewit Mining & Engineering Co.

Knife River Coal Co.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Montana Department of State Lands

National Wildlife Federation

NERCO, Inc.

New Mexico Department of Energy and Minerals,

Mining and Minerals Division

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

North American Coal Corp.

North Dakota Game and Fish Department

North Dakota Public Service Commission

North Dakota State University, Land Reclamation

Research Center

Northern Plains Resource Council

Peabody Coal Co.

Plant Materials Center, Bridger, Montana

Powder River Basin Resource Council

Sierra Club

Soil Conservation Service

Sunbelt Mining Co.

Trapper Mining Co.

University of Wyoming, Range Management

Department

Upper Colorado Environmental Plant Center

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

U.S. Department of the Interior:

Bureau of Land Management

Fish and Wildlife Service

Office of Surface Mining

U.S. Geological Survey

Utah International, Inc.

Utah State University, Institute for Land

Rehabilitation

Western Energy Co.

Western Interstate Energy Board

Western Regional Council

Western Soil and Overburden Task Force

W.R. Grace & Co.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

vi
Related OTA Reports

●

●

●

●

●

●

c

●

●

Technologies To Benefit Agriculture and Wildlife

OTA-BP-F-34; May 1985. GPO stock #052-003-00996-O.

Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater From Contamination

OTA-O-233; October 1984. GPO stock #052-003-00966-8.

Environment/ Protection in the Federal Coal Leasing Program

OTA-E-237; May 1984. GPO stock #052 -O03-O0954-4.

Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation

OTA-O-206; March 1984. GPO stock #052 -O03-O0944-7.

Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in U.S. Arid and Semiarid Lands

OTA-F-212; October 1983. GPO stock #052 -O03-O0930-7.

U.S. Crop/and and Rangeland Productivity

OTA-F-166; August 1982. NTIS order #PB 83-125013.

Development and Production Potential of Federal Coal Leases

OTA-M-1 50; December 1981. NTIS order #PB 82-149378.

The Direct Use of Coal

OTA-E-86; April 1979. NTIS order #PB 295797.

Management of Fuel and Non-Fue/ Minerals on Federal Lands

OTA-M-88; April 1979. NTIS order #PB 295788.

vii
Contents

Chapter Page

l.lntroduction, Findings, and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Z. Technical Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3. Western Surface Mining and Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4. Western Surface Mine Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5. Baseline and Monitoring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

6. Analytical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

7. Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation . . . . . . . . 207

8. Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation. . . . . 231

9. Technological Innovation and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Appendix

A. Keyto Case Study Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

B. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

C, Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295

Vlll
Chapter 1

Introduction, Findings,

and Options
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings and Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resolving Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evaluating Reclamation Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Post-Bond Release Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Innovation and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regulatory Authority Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Fate of Lease Stipulations During Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 1 Re

Table No.

ferences . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

7

7

11

12

12

13

15

16

16

17

Table

Page

l-1. Summary of Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure No. Page

l-1. Five Western Coal Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chapter 1

Introduction, Findings, and Options

INTRODUCTION

Surface mining is the oldest method of mining

coal, from the days of pick and shovel and horsedrawn plows and scrapers, to today’s huge operations, each covering thousands of acres and producing as much as 15 million tons per year. With

the development of technologies for efficiently

mining large amounts of coal by surface methods, however, came concern about the environmental impacts of surface mining. While stream

pollution and unstable mountainsides have long

been a source of concern in Appalachia, the effects of surface mining in the Western United

States did not receive a great deal of attention

until the early 1970s. At that time, when the Western industry was beginning to expand greatly, a

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study cast

doubt on the ability to develop reclamation technologies and methods suited to the West’s vastly

different climate, topography, geology, soils, hydrology, and ecology (2).

As far back as the late 1930s, a few States had

enacted legislation requiring some form of reclamation of surface mined lands, yet serious abuses

continued in many areas. I n the early 1970s, the

Federal Government’s commitment to the development and utilization of coal as a vital part of

our national energy future, coupled with the NAS

study and the growth of the environmental movement, led to congressional interest in uniform national standards for surface mine reclamation.

The 93rd and 94th Congresses passed legislation

containing such standards, but both met a Presidential veto (4). In 1977, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA, Public Law 95-

87) was approved by Congress and signed by

President Carter.

SMCRA established minimum national environmental performance standards for surface mining and reclamation. These standards require,

among other things, restoration of disturbed land

to original or better conditions and to the approximate original contour, and minimization of disturbances to the existing hydrological balance.

The standards are implemented through a permit program, and enforced through inspections

and the requirement that mine operators post a

performance bond. In its permit application, a

coal company must submit a detailed mining and

reclamation plan that provides a detailed baseline characterization of all premining aspects of

the physical and biological environment, predicts

the impacts of mining and reclamation on that

environment, demonstrates the ability to meet the

performance standards during and after mining,

and sets forth a detailed proposal for postmining land use and management,

While SMCRA established a nationwide program for regulating surface coal mining and reclamation, it also recognized that because of the

diversity in terrain, climate, biological, chemical,

and physical conditions in coal resource areas,

the primary governmental responsibility for reguIating surface mining shouId rest with the States.

Therefore, provision was made for State regulatory programs consistent with SMCRA, with Federal oversight.

With the advent of SMCRA, the Federal and

State regulatory authorities, coal operators, and

public interest groups shifted their attention to

the ability of mining and reclamation technologies to meet the performance standards, to the

reliability of analytical techniques for predicting

the impacts of mining and reclamation, and to

the adequacy of data to support permitting and

leasing decisions.

Moreover, because approximately 70 percent

of Western surface mines incorporate Federal

coal, the public concern and debate in the 197os

that focused on the Federal coal leasing program

became inextricably linked with the concerns

about the environmental impacts of surface mining. Thus SMCRA requires that Federal lands be

reviewed to determine their acceptability for all

or certain types of mining, and provides specific

unsuitability criteria that define categories of land

3
4 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

that must be protected from, or during mining.

These provisions supplemented those of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act (FCLAA, Public Law 94-377) and the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act (FLPMA, Public Law 94-579),

which require the preparation of a comprehensive land use plan before coal lease sales.

In mid-1983, economic and environmental

concerns about the implementation of the Federal coal leasing program led Congress to suspend

leasing until completion of reports on the economic aspects of leasing by a newly appointed

Commission to Review Fair Market Value for Federal Coal Leasing, and by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) on the program’s ability

to ensure the development of coal leases in a

manner compatible with current environmental

laws and regulations, including SMCRA and the

land use planning provisions of FCLAA and

FLPMA (3).

The OTA report, Environmental Protection in

the Federal Coal Leasing Program, found that the

basic framework of the program–the legislative

mandates and the use of increasingly stringent

analyses from land use planning to mine permitting—is workable and capable of ensuring

environmental protection upon development of

leased tracts (1). The report concluded, however,

that the 1982 changes in the program regulations

reduced the effectiveness of the statutory requirements and increased the risk of adverse environmental impacts from the development of some

leased tracts.

[n particular, OTA found that the increase in

the number of tracts to be evaluated for leasing,

combined with the rotation and attrition of field

personnel, taxed the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) planning and assessment capability beyond the point where BLM could adequately

assess the suitability of the tracts proposed to be

offered for lease. OTA also found that, in many

cases, BLM’s presale data and analyses were inadequate to support a decision on whether recently leased tracts and those proposed for future

leases could be developed in an environmentally

compatible manner. Consequently, decisions

about acceptability of tracts for mining had been

deferred beyond lease planning, when they are

supposed to be made, to the Secretarial decision

or mine permitting stage. Decision deferrals also

led to overuse of lease stipulations (conditions

placed on a lease) to address gaps in the data and

analyses and the resulting uncertainties about impact mitigation requirements. These stipulations

would then have to be addressed during permitting. While OTA recognized the importance of

ensuring environmental protection during permitting, mining, and reclamation, it was unable to

evaluate those aspects of the Federal coal management program within the confines of that

earlier assessment.

As a result, the House Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs asked OTA to do a follow-on

assessment to assist the committee in its authorization and oversight responsibilities for the

implementation of SMCRA. Recognizing “the increasingly important role of mining and reclamation methods in ensuring environmental protection during and after mine development, ” the

Committee asked OTA to assess “the ability of

current mining and reclamation technologies and

methodologies, and of Federal programs and policies, to meet the statutory mandates. ” I n addition, the Committee requested “guidance about

methods for evaluating the success of reclamation practices, including an analysis of the levels

and kinds of uncertainty. ” Due to the Committee’s dual oversight responsibilities for Federal

lands and for the reclamation program, they restricted the scope of the request to Federal surface mined lands in the Western United States.

In response to this request, OTA designed this

assessment to examine six aspects of the implementation of SMCRA in the West:

1.

2.

3.

the state of development of technologies and

methodologies to reclaim Western surface

mined lands;

the encouragement given to research and to

the development and use of innovative and

emerging permitting and reclamation techniques;

the reliability of methods, or analytical techniques, for predicting and evaluating the success of reclamation practices, including an

analysis of the levels and kinds of uncertainty;
Ch. I—Introduction, Findings, and Options ● 5

4.

5.

6.

the adequacy of baseline and monitoring

data on mined land reclamation in the Western United States, and how those data are

being used to support 1 through 3, above;

the effectiveness of lease stipulations and

permit conditions as means of imposing

technological or methodological requirements for environmental protection and resolving uncertainties in mining and reclamation situations; and

technical and policy options for resolving uncertainties about, and for improving- the

prospects for, successful reclamation on

Western Federal lands, including research

and development needs.

It should be noted that this study does not attempt to assess the short- or long-term success

of reclamation under SMCRA in the Western

United States. While significant reclamation experience has been gained in the 8 years since approval of SMCRA, no Western lands will be eligible for bond release until 1989 at the very earliest.

Any such assessment would therefore be premature. Rather, this assessment is limited to analyzing the criteria that may be used to judge the success of reclamation, evaluating the reliability of

techniques for predicting the success of reclamation, and defining the remaining uncertainties that

need to be resolved before judgments can be

made about the long-term success of Western

surface mine reclamation.

In response to the Interior Committee’s restriction of the scope of the study to Western Federal lands, OTA focused on the four Western

leasing regions where there is significant development of Federal coal resources by surface

mining methods: the Fort Union, Powder River,

Green River-Hams Fork, and San Juan River Coal

regions (see fig. 1-1 ). Although there are substantial amounts of Federal coal in the Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region, all of it is being mined

by underground methods. Similarly, while there

are a number of surface mines in Oklahoma and

Texas that encompass interesting reclamation situations, there is little Federal coal in those areas,

Also, mines in Washington and Alaska were excluded because of their limited extent. Surface

mine reclamation on Tribal lands was not evaluated due to the ongoing development of a permanent legislative and regulatory program for

those lands.

Finally, OTA limited its analysis to those issues

related to the physical and biological environment that are specifically addressed by SMCRA:

surface and groundwater hydrology, soils and

overburden, revegetation, and wildlife. While

OTA recognizes that issues related to air quality

and to social and economic impacts and surface

owner consent may be of equal or even greater

concern in some areas, these issues are sufficiently complex that it would not have been

possible to address them adequately in this assessment. Although the physical and biological disciplines usually are discussed separately in this

report, it is important to keep in mind that surface mine reclamation involves the reconstruction of the surface and subsurface components

of a total ecosystem, and all of the aspects of that

system are interrelated.

To assist in the formulation of OTA’S response

to the letter of request, background papers were

prepared that evaluate items 1 through 5, above,

for the four disciplines (hydrology, soils, vegetation, and wildlife). These reports are appended

as volume 2 to this assessment. In addition, the

study was assisted by an advisory panel composed

of experts on Western surface mine reclamation

drawn from the coal industry, environmental organizations, State and local governments, ranchers,

academics, and independent research organizations. Interested Federal agencies participated in

advisory panel meetings as ex officio members.

The panel gave OTA guidance on its study plan

and on technical and policy options, and reviewed and commented on drafts of the background papers and this report. While the panel

provided advice and comment throughout the

course of the assessment, the members do not

necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse the

findings of this report, which are the sole responsibility of OTA.

Volume 1 of the report is organized as follows:

●

●

chapter 2 presents OTA’S technical findings

on the major issues identified in this assessment;

chapter 3 describes the context for Western

surface mine reclamation, including the four
6 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Figure l-l.– Five Western Coal Regions

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

coal regions, and the methods used in Western surface mining and reclamation;

● chapter 4 outlines the legislative and regulatory context for Western reclamation, including SMCRA and relevant portions of the

leasing program, and identifies the Federal

and State agencies that implement them;

● chapter 5 discusses the data requirements

and collection methods for surface mine

planning and permitting and assesses the

availability and adequacy of baseline and

monitoring data;

●

●

●

●

chapter 6 evaluates the analytical techniques

used to predict the impacts of mining and

to design reclamation strategies;

chapter 7 reviews the criteria and methods

that have been developed to evaluate the

success of reclamation;

chapter 8 examines a variety of specific technical issues related to the long-term success

of Western surface mine reclamation; and

chapter 9 discusses ongoing research and innovation in reclamation, outlines research

needs, and identifies the constraints on re-
Ch. I—Introduction, Findings, and Options Ž 7

search and options for removing those constraints.

The following section briefly reviews OTA’S

findings and lists technical and policy options that

Congress might consider in its oversight of SMCRA

and the regulatory programs. The options, the

congressional and Federal agency actions they

may entail, and their potential costs and benefits are summarized in table 1-1 and discussed

in greater detail in chapters 2 through 9. Some

of these options would be relatively easy to implement, while others would be more difficult or

controversial. Potential problems with their implementation are noted in the discussion in the

main body of the report.

FINDINGS AND POLICY OPTIONS

Surface coal mining in the Western United

States is a relatively new activity compared to

Eastern mining, and its operational and regulatory characteristics are different from those in the

East. Most Western mines have been developed

since the early 1970s, and, unlike Eastern mines,

many operate on public lands with Federal coal.

The technical uncertainties related to the expansion of surface coal mining in the West, arising

from the West’s vastly different–and highly

variable—climate, topography, geology, soils, hydrology, and ecology, were studied prior to

enactment of SMCRA, and the legislative requirements for mining and reclamation permits, performance standards, and bonds recognized certain risks associated with those uncertainties.

Knowledge gained about Western mining and

reclamation situations in the intervening years has

resolved many of the technical issues, and the

prognosis for the long-term success of reclamation in the West has brightened considerably.

Some technical uncertainties still exist about several aspects of reclamation, particularly about

methods for delineating overburden material

that may be detrimental to revegetation and

water quality, and about the success of hydrologic restoration. These uncertainties were recognized at the time SMCRA was debated and

approved. The coal industry and the regulatory

authorities have learned a lot more about these

problems in the intervening years, and, while

much work remains to be done, in OTA’S view

the risks these uncertainties may pose to the

long-term success of Western reclamation have

been reduced significantly. Further resolution of

these uncertainties and other outstanding technical issues wou Id increase the probability of success as well as the quality of Western reclamation, make permitting and designing Western

surface mines easier, and reduce the costs of regulation and reclamation.

Resolving Uncertainties

The remaining uncertainties about the reclamation of surface mined lands in the West arise

primarily from inadequate or unverified analytical techniques for accurately predicting the impacts of mining and planning reclamation. In

particular, the geology of some Western coal regions is so variable and/or complex that the occurrence of overburden material detrimental to

postmining water quality or revegetation is very

difficult to predict. Similarly, the slow recharge

rate of some Western aquifers makes it difficult

to judge the effectiveness of current plans for

restoration of the hydrologic balance until years

after final bond release. Accurate quantitative

methods for predicting and evaluating impacts

to wildlife also are lacking.

Current regulatory requirements may not provide sufficient latitude to industry in choosing

predictive and other analytical techniques that

may compensate for these uncertainties. Rather,

reclamation designs based on worst-case impact

assessments must be used, which increases the

cost of mining and reclamation.

Options for resolving these and other technical uncertainties include:

1. Increase and improve the analysis of monitoring data from ongoing mining and reclamation in order to improve the accuracy of
Table 1-1 .—Summary of Policy Options

Possible ranges of

congressional action Federal agency actions Potential costs and benefits — Option

Resolving uncertainties:

to improve Formal rulemaking to specify types of

analyses required

High for industry, oversight for RAs

High for RAs or OSM, rulemaking and

oversight for OSM

1.

2.

3.

4.

Analyze monitoring data

analytical techniques

None for voluntary industry analysis

Directive in appropriations for OSM

analysis or revision of regulations to

require industry or RA analysis

Amendment of SMCRA needed to mandate RA analysis plus oversight and

budget authorization

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Directive in appropriations

Rulemaking and oversight for OSM

high for RAs or industry

Define goals of analysis

resolving uncertainty

to focus on Rulemaking to define goals Rulemaking and oversight; improved

cost-efficiency

Research and development on analytical techniques and physical and biological systems

Provide regulatory latitude on selection

Government or industry allocation of

research funds

Agency oversight

Supervision of analysis

Rulemaking/oversight for OSM

More flexibility and lower costs for industry, but also potentially greater

risk of reclamation problems

Budget reallocation

Continuing supervision or implementation

Analysis of available techniques

Formal or informal rulemaking

Oversight of State programs

of analytical techniques

Data adequacy and management:

Oversight and authorization

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Amend SMCRA to mandate standardization

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Amend SMCRA to mandate process

Hearings

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Mandate development in legislation

Hearings

Analysis of available methodologies

Formal or informal rulemaking

Oversight of State programs

Supervision of analysis

Rulemaking/oversight for OSM

Less flexibility but also possibly lower

costs for industry

Rulemaking/oversight for OSM

Lower costs and increased efficiency

for industry and agency data collection and analysis

Initial cost very high

Continued commitment to database

management

Long-term reduction in data collection

costs for all affected Federal and

State agencies and permit applicants

Potential long-term savings for agencies and industry

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Standardize data collection methodologies and data formats in regulations

Develop a scoping process for baseline

and monitoring data collection

Develop integrated databases from permitting and other information

Formal or informal rulemaking

Oversight of State programs

Budget reallocation

Supervision or implementation of database development

Continued supervision or maintenance

of databases

Continue to develop multidisciplinary

approach to data collection/analysis

Develop valid methods for generating

Oversight and authorization Commitment to the continual integration of all available information to

continually refine understanding of

reclamation

Formal or informal rulemaking

Coordination of industry efforts

Oversight of State programs

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Rulemaking/oversight for OSM

and interpreting overburden chemical

data

Evaluating reclamation success:

10. Evaluate phase II and Ill bond release

criteria

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Amend SMCRA to mandate criteria for

specific disciplines

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Amend SMCRA to mandate procedure

for specific disciplines

Analysis of existing and possible

criteria

Formal rulemaking

Oversight of State programs

Supervision of analysis

Ruiemaking/oversight for OSM

Greater certainty for industry and

agencies

11. Establish procedure for periodic reexamination of bond release criteria

Analysis of possible procedures

Formal rulemaking

Implementation in Federal program

Oversight of State programs

Supervision of analysis

Continued implementation

Rulemaking/oversight
Table I-l.—Summary of Policy Options—Continued

Possible ranges of

Option congressional action Federal agency actions Potential costs and benefits

Post-bond release liability:

12. Research the identification and handling of deleterious overburden

13. Examine need for congressional policy

on post-bond release reclamation

failure

Technical Issues:

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Budget reallocation

Supervision or conduct of research

Eventual Incorporation of research

results in regulatory programs

None

Initial cost high but potential long-term

benefits great for agencies and/or

industry

Hearings Greater certainty for all parties

Supervision of research

Formal or informal rulemaking

Research cost moderate

Potential long-term benefits

Data collection costs high

Potential long-term benefits

Rulemaking/oversight

Lower reclamation costs

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Develop valid test for ABP in Western

overburden and incorporate in

regulatory programs

Collect data on sedimentation and con

trol methods

Promote optimization of the soil

resource

Directive in appropriations

Oversight great

great

Hearings

Directive in appropriates

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Oversight and authorization

Supervise data collection

Formal rulemaking

Oversight of State programs

Formal or informal rulemaking

Oversight of State programs

Improved prospects for revegetation

success

Rulemaking/oversight

Lower reclamation costs

Improved prospects for revegetation

success and landscape diversity

Fewer postmining land use conflicts

Initial costs slightly higher but potential long-term benefits great

Reexamine woody plant density

standards

Hearings

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Formal or informal rulemaking

Oversight of State programs

Ensure OSM and BLM coordination on

postmining land use characterization

and implementation

Enforce requirements for quantitative

characterization of pre- and postmining land uses

Research the costs and benefits of

Oversight and authorization Commitment to coordination on part of

both agencies

Oversight Increase BLM scrutiny of permit

applications

Stricter OSM enforcement of SMCRA

Oversight of State programs

Supervise research

Analysis of results

Formal or informal rulemaking

Adoption of integrated approach to

reclamation planning

Slightly higher permit review costs

Greater certainty in reclamation requirements

Directive In appropriations Potential for long-term benefits in

landscape diversity ecosystem function and viability

Innovation and research:

Oversight and authorization

21.

22.

23.

Clarify regulatory policy on experimental practices vs. alternate reclamation

techniques

Establish strict schedules for approval

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Amend SMCRA to mandate schedules

Formal or informal rulemaking

Change in OSM approach to both

Rulemaking/oversight

Lower reclamation costs

Greater regulatory efficiency

Lower review costs

Greater efficiency in permitting

Increased use of experimental practice

option

Less strict review

Initial adjustment likely to be difficult

Major benefits for public confidence in

regulation

Strict definition of mandate and review

schedules could ease adjustment

process

Oversight of State programs

Formal rulemaking

of experimental practices

Establish local advisory committees

review applications for alternate

techniques

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Legislation mandating committees

Implementation of legislation

rulemaking

Appointment of committees

Oversight of committees

to or
Table l.1.-Summary of Policy Options—Continued

Possible ranges of

Option congressional action Federal agency actions Potential costs and benefits

24.

25.

26.

Increase appropriations for and/or

develop new avenues for funding

research

Establish cooperative Western reclamation research organization

Establish mechanism for disseminating

research results

Regulatory authority personnel:

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Provide greater career incentives for

technical personnel

Reduce frequency of personnel transfers and rotations

Ensure adequacy of State program

funding for technical personnel

Evaluate Federal and State roles in

permit review

Establish computerized databases on

leasing and permitting decisions

Lease Stipulations:

32. Evaluate the need for and role of lease

stipulations

33. Require BLM to establish uniform permit review procedure and require coordination in development and

documentation of compliance review

for lease stipulations

“RA” means Regulatory Authority.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Reallocation of revenue

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Oversight and authorization

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Legislation mandating establishment

Directive in appropriations

Hearings

Directive in appropriations

Oversight

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Hearings

Directive in appropriations

Oversight and authorization

Improve management of research

revenues

Assist in determination of resarch priorities

Manage publication and distribution

Oversight of State publication and distribution

Changes in management and personnel

policies

Oversight of State programs

Changes in management and personnel

policies

Oversight of State programs

Changes in management and personnel

policies

Develop database format

Set up and maintain database

BLM/OSM coordination on analysis

BLM (or USFS) coordination with OSM

in developing lease stipulations

Establish BLM procedure for documenting review of compliance with stipuLower administrative costs

Higher research costs

Voluntary industry funding

Potentially high, depending on subscription price

Greater regulatory efficiency

Greater regulatory efficiency

Greater regulatory efficiency

Potentially higher State program costs

Greater regulatory efficiency

Lower permit review costs

Relatively low initial and maintenance

costs

Supervision of analysis

Increased efficiency in leasing and

permit review

Relatively low initial and maintenance

costs

Increased efficiency in leasing and

permit review

Iations
2.

3.

4.

predictive and design techniques (see also

the separate discussion of data, below).

Clearly define, in the Federal and State regulatory programs, the goals of pre- and postmining analyses of the potential and actual

impacts of mining and reclamation in order

to ensure that such analyses focus on remaining areas of uncertainty and are integrated with reclamation goals in order to

increase the efficiency of reclamation planning and permitting (also see option 6).

Devote additional Federal, State, and industry research and development resources to

improving the quantitative techniques for

predicting the impacts of mining and designing successful reclamation, and to improving

our understanding of the physical and biological systems to be reestablished (see separate discussion of research, below, for more

specific means of achieving this).

Examine the Federal and State regulatory

programs to determine whether they provide sufficient latitude in the selection of

analytical techniques for predicting the impacts of mining and designing reclamation

appropriate to site-specific reclamation conditions in the Western United States, and incorporate such latitude where it currently

is insufficient.

Data Adequacy and Management

Although the quantity and quality of data on

Western reclamation have increased dramatically since the passage of SMCRA, data-related

problems still limit the accuracy and efficiency

of reclamation planning and evaluation. First,

the large quantity of data being collected has

raised serious data management problems for

both mine operators and regulatory authorities.

In some disciplines, especially hydrology, the

quantity of monitoring data is so large that regulatory authority personnel and resources rarely

are available to review it. The lack of a standardized or computer-accessible format for baseline

and monitoring data also makes it difficult and/or

very expensive for regulatory authorities to review the data, complicates the integration of data

into regional analyses (particularly cumulative

Ch. I—Introduction, Findings, and Options ● 1 1

hydrologic impact assessments), and constrains

the efficient use of available data by other groups.

Moreover, despite recent improvements, collection of reliable data still is difficult for some

parameters, either because standardized data

collection methodologies are lacking, or laboratory techniques for generating data need to be

refined, or there are natural obstacles to collecting the data. The lack of reliable methods for interpreting the results of laboratory techniques that

generate chemical data about overburden pose

potential risks to postmining water quality and

revegetation. Repairs are very difficult and costly

if unanticipated overburden problems are found

during reclamation monitoring and evaluation.

Standardized methods for collecting data on flow

and water quality in ephemeral streams and on

wildlife habitat quality also are lacking, increasing the difficulty of industry planning and regulatory review of reclamation in these areas. The

lack of monitoring data on spoils recharge from

pump tests contributes to the uncertainty about

the long-term success of hydrologic restoration.

Options for improving data collection and

management include:

5. Incorporate guidelines for standardized data

6

7.

collection methodologies and formats for

data presentation in the regulatory programs

in order to increase the efficiency and accuracy of industry planning for reclamation,

facilitate regulatory authority review of that

planning, and facilitate the use of baseline

and monitoring data in regional analyses.

Develop a scoping process similar to that

used for environmental impact statements

to optimize the quantity and format of baseline and monitoring data in order to eliminate unnecessary data collection and to facilitate data review and analysis by operators

and regulatory authorities.

 Develop integrated databases from permit

applications and other sources to facilitate

regional impact assessments and to ensure

that baseline and monitoring data are accessible to other organizations to which such

data could be useful.
72 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

8.

9.

Continue to develop a multidisciplinary approach to data collection and analysis that

integrates actual on-the-ground conditions

with reclamation planning and evaluation

for all of the disciplines addressed.

Encourage coordinated research efforts to

develop-valid methods for generating and

interpreting overburden chemical data.

Evaluating Reclamation Success

Criteria for bond release on reclaimed areas

have not yet been formulated beyond the first

phase of release (backfilling the pit) in the five

Western States studied. Furthermore, most existing evaluation methods and standards have

serious limitations, especially those for evaluating postmining hydrology and revegetation—

the two areas emphasized in the SMCRA performance and design standards. Most past experience in judging the success of reclamation

has concentrated on revegetation success, yet no

method has been developed that adequately accounts for both temporal variations in environmental conditions and the spatial diversity in

vegetation that occurs over large areas. The tens

to thousands of years that may be required to

resaturate spoil aquifers, and the infrequent peak

flow events in Western drainages mean that

evaluations of reclamation success in these areas

must be made with incomplete knowledge and

predictive techniques. Despite these limitations,

“successful” revegetation and hydrologic restoration are used as the primary indicators of success for the other disciplines—soils, overburden,

and wildlife.

Establishing criteria for the second and third

phases of bond release on a statewide or regional basis may be difficult because of the wide

variability among Western mining and reclamation situations. In addition, knowledge about

reclamation in the West is increasing rapidly,

and bond release criteria should be reviewed

periodically or be sufficiently flexible to incorporate research and monitoring results. Yet, if

regulators do develop Phase II and Ill bond release criteria, they may find their flexibility to

establish detailed criteria limited by previously

approved reclamation plans that establish de

facto criteria on a case-by-case basis. A decision

about the appropriate type and level of criteria

best suited to Western mining conditions requires

further study.

Options for increasing the certainty in the success evaluation process include:

10.

11.

Evaluate the relative expediency of statewide versus areal versus mine-specific criteria for all disciplines for the second and

third phases of bond release, and establish

such criteria based on the results of that

evaluation.

Establish a procedure for periodic reexamination of bond release criteria that incorporates advances in reclamation technology

based on research results and monitoring

data but considers the effects of any change

in criteria on existing permits.

Post-Bond Release Liability

Evaluation of the first phase of bond release

(backfilling) may be inadequate in some areas

to ensure that deleterious spoil material has not

inadvertently been placed in the water table or

in the root zone. While vegetation monitoring

ultimately could reveal the presence of deleterious spoil in the root zone, subsequent reconstruction of the affected areas would be very expensive. Furthermore, the long-term results of

placement of such spoils in groundwater may not

become evident until the spoil has resaturated.

This may not occur for decades or even centuries—long after final bond release—creating

both technological and legal uncertainties about

how such water quality problems would be corrected. While OTA was unable to quantify the

potential for or scope of impacts from this problem, we believe it to be sufficiently serious that

it should be given high priority in reclamation research and planning. Until judicial decisions on

the issue become available, it is unclear who will

be liable for reclamation problems that arise after final bond release has been obtained.

Options for clarifying post-bond release liability include:

12. Support and expand research on ways to

identify and handle deleterious overburden
Ch. l—Introduction, Findings, and Options ● 1 3

13.

prior to and during mining in order to minimize the possibility of such material becoming an environmental hazard by being

placed in the water table or root zone.

Examine the need for a congressional policy for accommodating post-bond release

reclamation failures in lieu of judicial decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Technical Issues

Technical issues highlighted in this assessment

encompass the technologies, data, and analytical methods related to the acid-base potential of

Western overburden, the impacts of sediment

control methods, the effects of soil handling on

revegetation, the ability to meet uniform high

woody plant revegetation standards, the characterization and implementation of postmining land

uses, and the potential value of restoring landscape diversity.

Acid Potential in Western Mine Spoils

There are conditions under which acid formation will occur in Western postmining spoils, primarily in portions of the powder River Basin and

in New Mexico. If acid-forming materials are

placed in the postmining root zone, they can be

detrimental to revegetation. But, available techniques for estimating the acid-base potential of

overburden, and thus the possible magnitude

of its adverse impacts, have produced unreliable results in the West. As a result, some operators have failed to identify materials that need

special handling, while others have been required to special handle some materials unnecessarily. Research currently being funded by

Western mine operators is making progress in

solving this problem.

Sediment Control

Sedimentation ponds—the current design

standard for controlling the sedimentation in

streams that is caused by soil and overburden

disturbance in mining and reclamation—are expensive to build and maintain and increase the

amount of land that must be disturbed in mining. Their storage and release of water also can

have adverse impacts on downstream surface

water quantity and quality. Alternate means of

maintaining sediment production at or below

the level produced from undisturbed Western

terrain are considered proven technology in

agriculture, highway construction, and other

land-disturbing activities. To support a proposal

that the design standards for sediment control be

revised, operators need to demonstrate that alternate means of control are as effective as sedimentation ponds in Western surface mining. Such a

demonstration will require empirical data on sediment yields and on natural sediment concentrations in streams, plus monitoring data from areas

where alternate controls are in use.

Soil Handling and Revegetation

In the Western coal regions, where natural soils

in many areas are thin and marginally productive, optimization of the soil resource is essential to the success of revegetation. Cumulative

Western mining experience suggests that hauling topsoil directly to a reclamation site, rather

than stockpiling it, preserves the biologically active component of the soil and thus improves

the establishment of planted and volunteer species, and can produce superior Iifeform and species diversity within a relatively short time. Research in deep soils and the limited monitoring

data available suggest that combining direct hauling with two lifts (separate handling of surface and

subsoils) may produce the best results in reestablishing rangeland diversity. However, State programs that require salvage of all suitable soil materials and redressing in uniform thickness may

not promote optimization of the soil resource

in all mining and reclamation situations, and

may add unnecessarily to reclamation costs.

Revegetation of Woody Plants

Because woody plants–trees, shrubs, and subshrubs—are ecologically important in the West,

the revegetation performance and success standards are tied in part to the reestablishment of native woody plant species of the same type and

density that existed on the site before mining. This

raises several concerns, especially in areas where

the premining density may be artificially high due

to overgrazing or other factors (primarily Wyo-
14 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

ming, Colorado, and New Mexico). First, even

with the most advanced shrub establishment

technology, there is little field evidence that high

densities can be reestablished over an entire reclamation site during the lo-year liability period,

with sagebrush being among the most difficult to

reestablish.

Second, while groupings of shrubs in moderate to high densities improve habitat quality for

a variety of animal species, high uniform woody

plant densities detract from the quality of the

land for livestock grazing. As a result, ranchers

have undertaken large-scale programs to thin or

kill sagebrush and other woody species, frequently under the auspices of BLM’s rangeland

management program. Lower woody plant densities, if accomplished as groupings based on

premining habitat mapping, could mitigate this

conflict between revegetation requirements and

postmining range management, yet still provide

wildlife habitat as valuable as high uniform premining densities.

Postmining Land Use

The conflict between shrub density standards

and range management, as well as other reclamation-land use conflicts, can in part be traced to

lack of specificity in designation of the postmining land use during permitting. Despite legislative

and regulatory requirements for the quantitative characterization of the pre- and postmining land capability and productivity, the land

use characterizations in most permit applications reviewed for this assessment are at best

perfunctory. A number of the applications contained land use discussions with little more information than the statement “The premining

land use is grazing and the postmining land use

will be grazing. ” In some cases, this lack of specificity can be attributed to inadequate baseline

data in the permit application; in others it is the

fault of the Federal surface management agency,

which is required to determine, or at least consent to, the postmining land use.

Landscape Diversity

Requiring full restoration of “landscape diversity” —the mosaic nature of Western landscapes resulting from localized differences in the

physical environment, plant communities, wildlife populations, and land uses—would go beyond the premises of SMCRA and might be too

inflexible for adaptation to changing technology and to climatic and other uncontrollable

variables. Yet some attention to the various components of landscape diversity is needed to ensure long-term ecosystem function. Surface features typically eliminated in mining include

rimrock and escarpments, ridges, bad land topography, and “microsites” (small premining surface

features important to hydrology or wildlife

habitat).

Some Iandforms (e.g., hogback ridges and

badlands) are impossible to reestablish, and

others may be too costly or difficult for all but

the most elaborate reclamation plans. Many

others can, however, be mimicked in the postmining topography (e.g., a section of unreduced

highwall creates an artificial cliff that simulates

rimrock). Regulatory authorities have required

the restoration of landscape diversity at specific

mines on a case-by-case basis, primarily for vegetative communities such as ponderosa pine woodlands, woody draws, and wetlands. On the other

hand, regulatory requirements for uniform topsoil depth and full highwall reduction tend to

homogenize postmining site conditions, and may

discourage diversity in some mining and reclamation situations.

Attention to landscape diversity would require

a reclamation plan with integrated analyses of the

relations among the postmining topography, surface and groundwater hydrology, revegetation

communities, land use, and the geomorphology

of the contiguous areas. Long-term research efforts are needed to demonstrate whether the potential benefits of such an approach for ecosystem function and viability would outweigh the

costs.

Options for resolving these technical issues

include:

14. Continue industry and regulatory authority efforts to develop a valid, reliable test

for acid-base potential in Western mine

spoils, and then incorporate the results in
Ch. l—Introduction, Findings, and Options ● 1 5

15

16.

17.

18.

19

20

State guidelines for analytical techniques

and overburden suitability.

Increase data collection efforts on the relative effectiveness of sediment control

ponds versus alternate controls to determine whether the design standard for sediment control couId be implemented more

flexibly on a case-by-case basis.

Implement the regulations on soil salvage

and redressing thickness more flexibly to

promote optimization of the soil resource

and improve revegetation success.

Reexamine woody plant density standards

to determine whether lower overall densities accomplished in high-density groupings would resolve the postmining conflicts

between wildlife habitat and range management.

Ensure coordination between OSM’S reclamation programs and BLM’s range management programs in the specification and

management of postmining land uses.

Enforce the requirements for the detailed

quantitative characterization of pre- and

postmining land uses, productivity, and capabilities more strictly to provide greater

guidance to operators in reclamation planning and to land use management agencies in permit application and reclamation

review (see also option 33).

Institute a research program to examine the

costs and benefits of a landscape diversity

approach to reclamation.

Innovation and Research

Cutbacks in funding have significantly reduced reclamation research. Also, there are few

vehicles for dissemination of research results,

leading to delays in the adoption and regulatory

approval of improved reclamation techniques.

In addition, OSM’S inflexible application of

some design and performance standards for

reclamation, and strict interpretation of the experimental practice provision of SMCRA can stifle innovation in reclamation. Although greater

regulatory flexibility might increase the probability of challenges to permitting decisions, it also

could increase the long-term quality and reduce

the costs of reclamation, particularly in the areas

of replacement of uniform topsoil depth, technological design standards for sediment control,

and high uniform shrub density standards.

Options for increasing innovation and research include:

21.

22.

23.

24.

25

26.

Develop a Federal regulatory policy that

distinguishes between formal experimental

practices and site-specific variances or

alternative reclamation techniques in Western mining and reclamation situations, and

provide greater regulatory flexibility in approving the latter when the operator demonstrates they will be at least as effective

in meeting reclamation standards as traditional methods or technologies.

Establish strict schedules for regulatory authority approval of experimental practices

to ensure that they can be implemented effectively within the context of the mining

and reclamation schedule.

Establish local advisory committees to review permit applications that propose sitespecific variances or alternative reclamation

techniques to ensure that local concerns

about their potential impacts are considered fully and to facilitate their approval by

the regulatory authority.

Increase appropriations for reclamation research and/or develop new avenues for

funding research within existing Federal

(and State) revenues (e.g., from existing

permit fees, royalties and bonus payments

on coal leases, the abandoned mine reclamation fund, severance taxes).

Establish a cooperative Western reclamation research organization with industry

and government funding to encourage

research on resolving uncertainties, and

promote innovation and information exchange.

Establish a mechanism for disseminating the

results of research projects and analyses of

monitoring data, such as reguIar publication of a newsletter or journal by the OSM

Western Technical Center (or the State regulatory authorities).
16 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Regulatory Authority Personnel

Personnel cutbacks, rotations, and turnover

in Federal and State regulatory and land use

management agencies impair retention of an institutional memory about lease tracts and reclamation plans, contribute to regulatory inconsistency and inefficiency, increase the cost of

permit and reclamation review, and impair

OSM’S ability to provide technical assistance to

State regulatory authorities. Two continuing

problems are: 1 ) the wide disparity among salaries for State employees (at the low end of the

scale), Federal agencies, and industry (at the high

end); and 2) the tendency in government agencies to promote competent technical personnel

to management positions. Both of these encourage technical specialists to begin their careers in

the State regulatory authorities but to leave for

government management or industry positions

as soon as they have gained some experience.

Options for preserving technical expertise in

Federal (and State) agencies and improving the

quality and consistency of leasing and permitting decisions include:

27.

28.

29.

30.

provide greater career incentives for experienced technical personnel to remain in

Federal (and State) government service, and

to remain in technical positions, through

such means as expanding the grade levels

available to technical and field personnel,

or placing more emphasis on technical expertise in career advancement.

Reduce the frequency of personnel transfers and rotations, and of reorganizations

in Federal agencies.

Pay greater attention, in Federal oversight

of State programs, to the adequacy of State

funding for ensuring sufficient technical expertise, and the adequacy of Federal technical assistance to the States (e.g., through

personnel details).

Reevaluate the respective roles of State and

Federal regulatory authorities in technical

review of permit applications, in order to

eliminate duplication and improve the efficiency of permit review, and to promote

State primacy.

31. Establish computerized databases on Federal coal leasing decisions and on mining

and reclamation permit decisions to aid

new personnel in becoming familiar with

past actions and their rationale.

The Fate of Lease Stipulations

During Permitting

Determining the fate of lease stipulations during permitting is difficuIt because BLM does not

have an established uniform permit review process, and neither BLM nor OSM makes a written

finding that lease stipulations have been complied with in approving a reclamation plan and

permit. The absence of a formal process and any

documentation of its completion is compounded

by the rapid turnover and rotation of BLM personnel in district and resource area offices, leading to a lack of institutional memory on the

treatment of lease stipulations during permit review. Based on OTA interviews with BLM personnel, it is clear that the primary emphasis in

their permit review process is on full and efficient

recovery of the Federal coal resources, and environmental review is secondary. Further, the environmental review focuses on compatibility with

the approved postmining land use and with the

resource area land use management plan, not on

compliance with lease stipulations.

In examining the BLM lease stipulations themselves, OTA found that they are too vague and

general to provide meaningful guidance to lessees or permitting agencies on long-term Federal land use objectives or to fulfill their intended purpose of alerting these groups to

potential reclaimability problems on Federal

lease tracts. The vagueness of lease stipulations

also contributes to the potential for increased

environmental risk in the leasing process due to

inadequate preleasing data and analysis, as reported in OTA’S 1984 assessment of Environmental Protection in the Federal Coal Leasing Program, especially in light of the fact that there is

little or no probability that a negative finding of

reclaimability will be made on a tract once it has

been leased.
Ch. l—introduction, Findings, and Options . 17

Options for clarifying the need for and im- 33,

proving the effectiveness of lease stipulations

are:

32. Require the Bureau of Land Management

to evaluate the need for and role of lease

stipulations in light of the detailed analysis during permitting of all potential environmental impacts of mining and reclamation, and in light of OTA’S 1984 findings

on the value of lease stipulations.

Require BLM to establish a uniform permit

application review procedure that includes

documentation of their review of permit

applications for compliance with lease stipulations, and require coordination among

all agencies involved in leasing and permitting on the development of such stipulations to ensure they provide meaningful

guidance on potential reclamation problems.

CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES

1. National Academy of Sciences, Rehabilitation Potential of Western Coal Lands: A Report to the

Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation (Cam- 3.

bridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1974); see

also Surface Mining: Soil, Coal and Society (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981 ), and

Coal Mining and Ground-Water Resources in the

United States (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1981). 4.

2. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Environmental Protection in the Federal Coal Leasing Program, OTA-E-237 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, May 1984).

U.S. House of Representatives, Making Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1983, Conference Report to accompany

H.R. 3363 (H. R. Rep. No. 98-399, 98th Cong., 1st

sess. 22).

U.S. House of Representatives, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, H.R. Report No. 95-218,

95th Cong., 1st sess. 1977.
Chapter 2

Technical Summary
Contents

Page

Introduction. . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baseline and Monitoring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analytical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Predicting the impacts of Mining and Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analytical Techniques Used in the Design of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evaluating the Success of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation . . . . . . .

Acid Potential in Western Mine Spoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sediment Control.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soil Handling and Revegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Revegetation of Woody Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Postmining Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Landscape Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technological Innovation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table

21

21

21

23

25

25

30

32

33

33

34

35

35

37

38

4 0

44

Table No. Page

2-l. Summary of Ongoing Research and Innovation at Case Study Mines . . . . . 42
Chapter 2

Technical Summary

INTRODUCTION

A comprehensive national program for the regulation of surface coal m ine reclamation was instituted in the late 1970s with the enactment of

the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act

of 1977 (SMCRA; Public Law 95-87) and the prom u Igation of the permanent reguIatory program

in 1979. In the 8 years since SMCRA, substantial improvements have been made in reclamation technologies and methodologies, and the

prognosis for the long-term success of surface

mine reclamation in the western United States

has brightened considerably. Yet recent analyses of surface mine reclamation have raised concerns about the adequacy and use of baseline and

monitoring data; the accuracy of methodologies

for predicting the impacts of mining and the success of reclamation practices; the use of lease

stipuIations and permit conditions to accommodate uncertainty; the development and introduction of new reclamation techniques; and the status of research on mined land reclamation in the

Western United States (2,3,4,5).

This report discusses these issues in the context of permitting and reclamation for the Federal coal surface mining regions of North Dakota,

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, The report evaluates the quantity, quality,

and management of baseline data used to support premining permitting in the context of the

SMCRA performance standards, as well as the

uses of monitoring data collected during mining

and reclamation; the adequacy and reliability of

analytical techniques used to predict the impacts

of surface coal mining, and to design and evaluate reclamation; and the scope and adequacy of

criteria used to judge the success of reclamation

in the West. The report also examines a variety

of technical issues related to the performance and

design standards for reclamation, identifies research needs, and discusses the remaining uncertainties that need to be resolved before predictions can be made about the long-term success

of Western reclamation.

BASELINE AND MONITORING DATA

Coal operators collect baseline data–the thorough premining characterization of all surface

and subsurface resources on the mine site—to formulate a mining and reclamation plan and permit application. Baseline data provide the basis

for predicting the impacts of mining and reclamation and for defining the postmining land use.

Monitoring data are collected during and after

mining and reclamation to track the impacts of

mining and to refine the reclamation plan, if necessary. Together, these two sets of data enable

the operator to compare premining and postmining conditions to evaluate the success of reclamation.

OTA found that baseline data generally are

adequate for making informed decisions, during

permitting, about an individual mine’s ability

to meet the SMCRA performance standards.

However, the limited ability to manage large

amounts of baseline and monitoring data and,

in a few instances, unreliability of or inconsistencies in data sets, still place limitations on both

reclamation in the field and the advancement of

reclamation science.

Data Collection

Collection of reliable data for some parameters

can be difficult, either because there are natural

obstacles to collecting the data, or standardized

data collection methodologies are lacking, or laboratory techniques for generating data need to

be refined. Many data inadequacies could be

overcome quickly. For example, the unreliabil21
ity of some laboratory analysis techniques for

generating chemical data about overburden is a

serious limitation on the extremely important

problem of delineating overburden strata that

may be detrimental to revegetation or postmining water quality. It is rapidly becoming apparent that techniques borrowed from soil science

are inadequate because of the physical and

chemical differences between soil and overburden, and that new tests must be devised. Work

on developing new sampling, sample preparation, and laboratory analysis techniques could

produce results rapidly.

Lack of coordination in data collection and

of standardization in collection methods pose

an obstacle to meaningful regional data compilation and analysis that also could be overcome. These are particularly a limitation on the

predictive accuracy of cumulative hydrologic

impact assessments (CHIAS) of all existing and

anticipated mining within an area. To be valid

in the quantitative models used for such mandatory assessments of regional impacts, hydrologic

data must be collected throughout the entire region over the same time periods and with the

same methods. Statistical techniques currently are

used to accommodate differences among data

sets, with the magnitude of the predictive error

increasing with the magnitude of the differences

and the number of assumptions that must be

made.

Operators and regulatory authorities are beginning to move toward the necessary standardization. The Wyoming regulatory authority, for
Ch. 2—Technical Summary Ž 23

example, requires operators in the vicinity of

Gillette, Wyoming, to coordinate their groundwater data collection efforts. These operators

formed the Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization (GAGMO), and they collect

data on or around October 1 of every year and

subsequently publish it for interested parties.

Such coordination of data collection is rare,

however, and the operators and regulatory authorities should consider extending it to other

areas and disciplines.

The lack of standardized methodologies for

collection of some data seriously limits their usefulness. Standardized surface water quality data

collection methods do not exist for ephemeral

streams, which comprise the majority of streams

in the Western mining regions. Because such

streams flow only in response to runoff events,

their infrequent and unpredictable flows will continue to limit the availability of data. As a result,

the usefulness of ephemeral stream data is severely limited in predictions of the probable

hydrologic consequences (PHC) of mining and

reclamation and in CHIAS, and it is difficult for

regulatory authorities to assess compliance with

hydrologic performance standards.

Standardized data collection methodologies

also are lacking for wildlife. The mobility and

adaptability of wildlife make it unlikely that accurate animal population data suitable for quantitative impact assessments ever will be available.

The difficulty in collecting accurate population

data has prompted a shift in focus in the wildlife

baseline studies required in most States from collection and analysis of population data to the

description and delineation of habitat extent and

quality. But the development of standard methodologies for quantitative measurement of the

various physical and floral features of wildlife

habitats has not kept pace. Such standardized collection methods are necessary for the reliable

prediction and analysis of wildlife impacts, and

for the development of design criteria for impact

mitigation measures such as rock piles and nest

boxes, Standardization is particularly important

when wildlife data are of regional concern, as

large mammal, raptor, and game bird data are,

because such data have many potential users. At

present, impact analyses and mitigation design

are based on the professional judgment of wildlife biologists, which has proven accurate in the

few attempts at statistical verification based on

available population data.

While these data collection problems introduce some uncertainties in the reliability of

methods for predicting and evaluating mining

impacts and reclamation success, OTA did not

find them to to be a large problem in the permitting or monitoring of Western surface coal

mines. Their primary effect has been to increase

the cost of reclamation due to the need to design

for worst-case impacts. It also might be more difficult for regulatory authorities to review permit

applications because of the need to verify statistical analyses.

Data Management

The large quantity of data being collected has

caused serious data management problems for

both mine operators and regulatory authorities.

First, data collection has outpaced analysis. OTA

found that it is not uncommon for the Office of

Surface Mining (OSM) or the State regulatory authorities to require operators to collect data that

are never analyzed or reviewed. This problem

is most apparent in monitoring data for disciplines

that tend to be data intensive (overburden and

hydrology), although OTA also found a few instances of lack of analysis of baseline data.

SMCRA requires extensive hydrologic monitoring, but the amount of hydrologic monitoring

data operators submit to regulatory authorities

is so large that personnel and resources rarely

are available to review it. Only in Wyoming has

the regular review of monitoring data become a

standard part of the State’s annual review of mining operations; even there, available personnel

are unable to analyze all of the monitoring data

that have been submitted. In many areas, the operators’ collection and submission of monitoring

data has become perfunctory. “Scoping” processes to examine which baseline and monitoring data actually are needed for permit compliance and reclamation success evaluations, and

subsequent revision of data collection requirements, could facilitate data management and

analysis.
24 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

The lack of review or analysis of monitoring

data also means that an important opportunity

is being lost to validate the analytical techniques

used to predict the impacts of mining and to design and evaluate reclamation. Optimizing the

quantity and format of such data would facilitate

its use in confirming the validity of the predictions based on it.

The problems with data quantity and management are compounded by the format in which

data are submitted to the regulatory authorities.

The permit applications themselves are a prime

example of costly data collection whose utility

is circumscribed by an inaccessible format. Western surface mining permit applications typically

consist of 25 to 30 3-inch thick 3-ring binders of

data (and analysis), all in hard copy, which reside on shelves in regional OSM and State regulatory authority offices. The data generally are not

reduced or made computer accessible and, with

the exception of more recent permit applications

in Wyoming and Colorado, there is no standard

format for the applications. As a result, only the

preparer of the application and the regulatory

agency staff who review it can find information

in the numerous volumes without an extraordinary commitment of time and effort. Although

the data in permit applications could be useful

to parties other than the permittee and the regulatory authority (for instance, the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Federal coal leasing program), the sheer volume and inaccessible format of the data at best discourage, and at worst

prohibit, such uses.

Data collection and management for permit

applicants and regulatory authorities also could

be more efficient if the data in the general literature were of uniform quality and format. Data

on the soils, geology, hydrology, vegetation, and

wildlife of the Western coal provinces are collected by Federal and State agencies, universities, and independent research organizations, but

their usefulness in preparing a permit application

varies. Most regional data collected by government agencies are too few over too large an area

to fulfill permitting requirements, while data from

academic and independent research usually have

the opposite problem. Much of this information

also has quality control problems due to the lack

of standardization in the data collection techniques used. In many cases, the data have not

been made accessible by computer or published.

Although such data rarely meet all the regulatory requirements for baseline or monitoring

data, they may serve as a good starting point.

U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic and geologic

data and U.S. Soil Conservation Service soils data

frequently are incorporated in permit applications

but must be augmented with more detailed, sitespecific information to meet reguIatory requirements. Most of the available vegetation and wildlife information, however, is useful only to provide a preliminary profile of the mine site and to

highlight potential reclamation problems or other

factors to guide the applicant’s data collection

efforts.

The large amounts of data in permit applications and the general literature about the resources of Western mining regions have led operators and regulatory authorities to question

whether there is significant duplication of data

collection efforts that could be eliminated through

the compilation of comprehensive, computerized

disciplinary databases, Because the data requirements for permit applications are highly sitespecific, OTA did not find redundancy in data

collection to be a significant problem within the

mine permitting process. However, the development of comprehensive databases from permit applications and other sources would improve the background information available to

permit applicants and regulatory authorities.

Because of the data management problems

outlined above, OTA did find redundancy between permit application and monitoring data

and the data collection efforts of other groups.

Comprehensive disciplinary databases could

eliminate this redundancy. Such databases

would be especially useful to Federal and State

agencies and research groups working in the

areas of hydrology, soils and geology, and wildlife. As mining in the West expands and the

amount of permit data collected grows, these

groups will continue to repeat permit applicants’

data collection efforts if the data in the applications are not made more accessible and useful.
Ch. 2—Technical Summary ● 2 5

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

Operators and regulatory authorities use a wide

range of methods to interpret and analyze data

when predicting the impacts of mining and reclamation and in designing reclamation, and the ultimate success of reclamation may depend on the

validity of those methods. Some analytical techniques in use, however, do not consistently produce realistic predictions or valid interpretations

with available data, or must rely heavily on assumptions to compensate for data inadequacies.

Predicting the Impacts of

Mining and Reclamation

In predicting the impacts of mining and reclamation, assessments of the quality and quantity

of surface and groundwater resources and of the

soil resource and the material within the postmining root zone are of major concern because they

are critical to the postmining ecology, yet they

are subject to a high degree of uncertainty. Impacts on vegetation, and to a limited extent wildlife, are determined indirectly from the predicted

characterization of the postmining soil and water

resources.

Hydrologic Impacts

SMCRA requires mine operators to conduct

assessments of the probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) of mining and reclamation both

on and off the mine site, and requires regulatory

authorities to perform the CHIAs.1 The PHC determination covers all potential impacts to surface and groundwater from a single mine, and,

historically, has addressed the 5-year term-ofpermit mining area. The CHIA expands on PHC

determinations to encompass offsite components

of the hydrologic system that are likely to be adversely affected by the cumulative effects of all

existing and anticipated mines for the proposed

life of the mines. PHC determinations and CHIAS

use combinations of analytical techniques for pre-

‘The discussion of PHCS and CH I As reflects the typical practices

In the mine permit applications reviewed for this assessment. Recent court decisions require the regulations governing hydrologic

assessments to be revised, and the scope of these assessments may

change In the future (see ch, 4),

dieting impacts on surface and groundwater

quantity and quality.

Groundwater Quantity .—The development

and use of quantitative methods for predicting

impacts to groundwater quantity during mining—pit inflows and associated drawdowns—

has tended to lag behind other quantitative developments in groundwater science. The effects

of this are evident in the wide range of analytical techniques used in the mine permit applications reviewed for this assessment, which varied

from simple linear extrapolations based on historical trends to sophisticated computer models.

State regulations and guidelines for analysis provide essentially no assistance in selecting the appropriate technique for site-specific conditions.

Where substantial amounts of accurate and

consistent data are available, simple linear extensions of historical trends can predict groundwater quantity impacts during mining with reasonable accuracy, provided that no changes are

made in mining rates or methods, and no unforeseen boundary effects are encountered. The impact assessments in earlier (roughly pre-1 980) permit applications generally are based on one or

more of the basic methods available for such linear extensions of historical trends.

The more recent permit applications show an

evolution toward the use of more sophisticated

mathematical models for predicting pit inflow

rates and drawdowns. These techniques usually

involve the repetitious solution of several groundwater equations, each suited to a particuIar aspect

of the local hydrogeology or the pit progression,

or to both. Because the premining understanding of the groundwater hydrology of the area is

incomplete, simplifying assumptions about the

hydrologic system and about initial and boundary conditions have to be made.

Relatively simple analytical models are widely

known among industry and regulatory personnel and can be duplicated easily, which facilitates

regulatory review. However, they cannot account

for the wide variations in aquifer hydraulic characteristics and boundary conditions normally encountered in mining, and their results can only
26 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

reflect a limited range of possible pit configurations and “worst-case” predictions. Their accuracy can be improved by using monitoring data

to continually refine the predictions.

More complicated numerical flow models are

becoming more common among large operators

in the West, who have the personnel and resources to use them. Such models are better able

to represent the wide range of physical and temporal variations in a system, can incorporate more

sophisticated sensitivity analyses, and are not limited by some of the restrictive assumptions necessary for simpler analytical models. However,

numerical flow models are time-consuming to set

up initially in that they require extensive input

data and substantial calibration and verification.

They also can be more difficult for the regulatory

authority to review without proper documentation. Of 138 numerical models surveyed in 1980,

only 20 were fully documented, were not proprietary, and had been applied in the field, and

thus met all the requirements for a “usable”

model (1).

A continuing problem in most mine permit applications is the applicant’s failure to justify,

based on its suitability for mine-site hydrogeoIogic conditions, the selection of a particular

analytical technique for predicting groundwater

quantity impacts during mining, and to describe

the assumptions inherent in the analysis. In

many instances, the lack of this information

renders the analysis difficult to evaluate even for

an experienced hydrologist, and hinders the regulatory authorities’ evaluation of the mining and

reclamation plan until the necessary documentation is prepared by the permit applicant.

After mining, the geology, geochemistry, and

hydrology of the site have been altered, and it

is necessary to predict: 1) the nature and sources

of spoils recharge, including postmining spoils

aquifer characteristics; 2) the time of spoil

resaturation and reestablishment of hydraulic

equilibrium; and 3) postmining spoils water

quality. Groundwater recharge to the spoils is difficult to quantify without monitoring data because

it is a function of the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation, topography-runoff relationships, and the unsaturated and saturated hydraulic properties of a spatially heterogeneous

geologic environment.

Where field data on spoil hydraulics and

groundwater recharge are available—primarily

the older mines in Montana and North Dakota—spoil-aquifer hydraulic characteristics and

spoils recharge can be measured directly. Unfortunately, few field data have been collected

due to the youth of the Western surface mining

industry. As a result, most operators must estimate recharge from surface sources using a water

budget approach that calculates soil moisture

storage and infiltration. They also must predict

postmining spoils aquifer flow characteristics

using groundwater modeling techniques similar

to those outlined above. The regulatory authorities use similar predictive techniques in order to

set recharge parameters.

The time required for spoil resaturation and

reestablishment of hydraulic equilibrium is a function of both the spoils aquifer characteristics and

the sources and amount of recharge. Estimates

in the Western mining regions range from as few

as 10 to as many as 2,900 years for the replaced

spoil aquifers to reach a steady-state condition

whereby groundwater flow patterns are fuIly reestablished. While this introduces uncertainty

about the long-term success of hydrologic restoration in some areas, that uncertainty was recognized in SMCRA and not considered so great

that mining should be foreclosed in such areas.

Continued analysis of field data on spoils recharge

would reduce the level of uncertainty.

Groundwater Quality .—The validity and accuracy of predictions of groundwater quality

impacts—primarily levels of total dissolved

solids (TDS)-are critical because, given the long

period of time some spoils may require to become fully saturated and groundwater flow patterns to be reestablished, there may be no way

to verify predictions with actual results. Analysis and prediction of postmining groundwater

quality impacts are very difficult, however, because the magnitude of such impacts is highly

variable, the processes governing water-quality

changes are poorly understood, and the processes controlling recharge rates are unknown. As

a result, there is little agreement as to the best

method for producing consistent, valid predictions.
Ch. 2—Technical Summary . 27

Most operators in the West measure watersoluble constituents i n the spoils and relate those

values to observed spoi I water quality at the mine

site, However, the samples of water and overburden selected for testing and the mixing ratios

and contact times may not be representative of

postmining conditions. Deterministic models of

the chemical processes responsible for the evolution of spoil water quality are under development.

Monitoring programs can be used to verify assumptions made about the trends of spoilswater quality over time. Monitoring will not necessarily provide information on the final postmining groundwater quality, however, because

it cannot be assumed that the predictive model

itself was valid or that monitoring will be continued throughout the tens to hundreds of years

it may take for groundwater systems to establish a postmining equilibrium.

Surface Water.–Surface mining can reduce or

augment streamflows, but these impacts generally are not significant in relation to the normal

flows in ephemeral and perennial streams in the

West (except for the cumulative impacts of sediment control ponds; see discussion of technical

issues, below), and the primary concern is the

effect of any change in flow on surface water

quality. Surface water quantity and quality impacts are more readily observable than groundwater. Therefore, the analytical techniques for

predicting these impacts are less hypothetical

and more reliable than groundwater impact predictions. An exception is the difficulty gathering

Photo credit; Jenifer Robison, OTA staff

Surface water is more readily observable than groundwater. Therefore, premining estimates of impacts on surface

water quantity and quality usually are less hypothetical and more reliable than groundwater impact assessments, which

are based on predictive techniques that rely heavily on assumptions about groundwater conditions.
28 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

data about ephemeral streams, mentioned previously, due to their infrequent and unpredictable flow events.

The greatest potential impact to surface water

quality from mining and reclamation is an increase in sediment loads, measured as total suspended solids (TSS). In the absence of sitespecific data (the usual case for ephemeral streams),

a well-accepted method is available to estimate

the amount of sediment that will erode from the

mine site and be subject to transport downstream

during a precipitation event.

Surface water quantity impacts are estimated

primarily to support surface water engineering design, and valid statistical techniques are available

for computing runoff volumes and peak flows.

Deterministic models also are available, but require that assumptions be made about the hydrologic regime of the site; these influence the input

parameters and therefore the results, However,

there appears to be no consensus among regulatory authorities on preferred methods for estimating or verifying increases and decreases in

streamflows, and selection of a particular method

depends on the capabilities or preferences of the

person performing the calculations. As a result,

conflicts can arise over the validity of such estimates and the adequacy of the resulting engineering designs, To avoid these conflicts and the potential for expensive redesign, most operators are

intentionally conservative in their calculations.

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessments.

—A reasonable assessment of impacts to the

various components of the hydrologic system

can be made at most Western surface coal mines

over the life-of-mine area using some combination of available analytical techniques. The predictive accuracy of PHC determinations should

improve with time as data become more abundant and more reliable within each permit area

due to monitoring as mine development progresses. In areas farther from existing operations,

however, fewer data are available about the physical system, and impact assessments are less reliable. Because of the absence of data from areas

in which there is no active mining, and because

of the lack of coordination and standardization

in data collection mentioned above, the uncertainties are greater in CHIAS than in PHC determinations.

Regulatory authorities generally require worstcase analyses to compensate for these uncertainties. As uncertainty about the system increases,

assumptions made for input to the various analytical techniques become more conservative. Although this strategy avoids errors from underestimating the potential environmental impacts, it

may entail other consequences from overstatements of those impacts, including higher reclamation costs.

The uncertainty in CHIAS could be minimized

if regulatory authorities used monitoring and

repermitting data to check and recalibrate the

models used in CHIAS and to assess the validity and sensitivity of the various input assumptions. Periodic sensitivity analyses of the variables would provide valuable information about

data inadequacies and could be used in the scoping process mentioned above to focus data collection.

Wildlife Impacts

Among the resources subject to impacts from

mining and reclamation, wildlife have certain

unique characteristics that make their response

to environmental change difficult to predict.

Most species are highly mobile, and may move

to a new locale for any number of reasons unrelated to mining activity. Wildlife species also

are capable of unpredictable responses and varying degrees of adaptation to change, and it is extremely difficult to identify and isolate those responses or adaptations that are directly caused

by mining and reclamation from all the other possible environmental factors present. As a result,

quantitative techniques for predicting the impacts of surface coal mining and reclamation

activities on wildlife populations are essentially

lacking. Instead, as noted above, these assessments generally are made by intuitive professional judgment based on a knowledge of the

operational aspects of the mine and of the ecological resources of the mine site and surrounding area.

Statistical analyses of the effectiveness of wildlife mitigation measures are possible but very
Ch. 2—Technical Summary ● 2 9

costly. Where such analyses have been undertaken, their results are consistent with these intuitive professional judgments, indicating that a

subjective approach to wildlife impact assessment based on measures of habitat quality from

key ecological parameters appears to be a satisfactory way to predict impacts on wildlife resources.

Revegetation

Revegetation analyses focus on predicting the

success of revegetation. While OTA found little

emphasis on the development or use of analytical techniques for predicting long-term revegetation success, the lack of quantitative models

does not appear to diminish the potential for

accurate predictions. The most common, and

probably most valid available technique for predicting revegetation success is to consider results

of the most recent technology at other mining

operations in the region with similar soil, overburden, and climatic characteristics, under the

usually valid assumption that, given similar environmental factors, the results of particular revegetation and other reclamation methods will be

simiIar.

There are two problems with this approach,

however. First, there are few vehicles for disseminating information on the results of different

revegetation techniques. Indeed, some companies may be reluctant to share such information

for competitive reasons. Second, some techniques may show initial promise but poor results

over the long term, and vice versa. The former

may be adopted at several mines before their

long-term problems are fully understood, while

the latter may be rejected prematurely. A continuing commitment to research on the long-term

success of various revegetation techniques for

different ecological regimes in the West, and
30 ● Western surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

means of disseminating the results of that research, are needed to resolve these problems.

Analytical Techniques Used in

the Design of Reclamation

Accurate characterization of the overburden

and delineation of potentially deleterious overburden material, design of an optimum soilsalvage plan, design of well-stabilized stream

channels, and design of efficient sedimentation

control measures are important factors in the

ultimate success of reclamation. When design

rather than performance standards are used to

determine reclamation success, the importance

of the reliability of the techniques used to design

reclamation is heightened.

Overburden Characterization

Overburden–all material between the soil and

the coal resource, including bedrock or other

rock material—forms the basic material for the

reclamation process. Therefore, the chemical and

physical character of the overburden are key factors in determining impacts on postmining spoils

hydraulics and water quality, as well as revegetation success. However, the geology of the overburden in many of the mining regions of the West

is highly variable and/or complex, the science of

overburden characterization is neither old nor

well-established, and the overburden is not easily observed.

As a result, analysis of the physical and chemical properties of overburden is difficult. Even

with a low drilling density and vertical sampling

intensity, thousands of overburden data points

will be generated at the average Western surface mine. There are no well-established procedures for interpreting these data to determine

the chemical suitability of the overburden materials. Most available laboratory methods for

generating chemical suitability data were developed for soil characterization and have proven

unreliable when applied to overburden. Also,

while acid formation is recognized as a possible

problem in some areas of the West, available tests

have proven inaccurate in determining the acidbase potential of Western overburden (see below).

The State regulatory programs exhibit wide

variation in their requirements for chemical

analyses. The methods for characterizing overburden and for handling potentially deleterious

materials generally are determined on a case-bycase basis. The primary risk is the cost of reconstructing an area if such materials are not identified prior to backfilling.

Soil Characterization

The redressed soil serves as a chemical and

physical buffer between the disturbed mine

spoil and surface water, vegetation, and wildlife resources, and also is a critical element for

successful reclamation. Most undisturbed soils

are in relative chemical and physical equilibrium

with the surface environment, and thus are less

likely to be sources of exceptional release of sediments or toxic elements than disturbed soils.

Ideally, the restored soil material also will be in

approximate equilibrium with the surface so that

unforeseen and undesirable chemical and physical changes will not occur. Therefore, the operator must determine the premining physical and

chemical character of the soil and the amount

of suitable soil available for redressing, and must

design a redressing plan to ensure physical and

chemical suitability and stabiIity of the postmining soil.

Soils are relatively easy to observe and the science of soil characterization is well-established.

Each State regulatory authority has developed unsuitability criteria for soils that generally accommodate the differences in reclamation objectives

or emphasis that occur from site to site. A low

sampling density can result in significant errors

in estimating the volume of salvageable soil material, however.

In the Western coal regions, where natural

soils in many areas are typically thin and marginally productive, optimization of the soil resource is essential. Most State soil inventory and

handling requirements make it more likely that

the best available soil will be used to provide an

adequate root zone and to minimize impacts

from potentially deleterious overburden materials occurring in that zone. However, State programs that require salvage of all suitable soil ma-
Ch. 2—Technical Summary ● 31

terials and redressing in uniform thickness may

not promote optimization of the soil resource

in all mining and reclamation situations, and

may add unnecessarily to reclamation costs. Lack

of consideration of the soil’s organic and biological suitability—especially in deep soils—can detract from optimization of soil quality for revegetation unless the topsoil and subsoil are hand Ied

separately (two-lift topsoiling).

The regulatory requirement for uniform topsoil

thickness in redressing at each mine facilitates inspection and enforcement, but ignores the fact

that topsoil depth varies naturally as a function

of topography and vegetation types. Thus landform position may be as important as depth for

some vegetation species. The soil thickness required to reach maximum plant production also

varies with average effective precipitation, depending on the soil and vegetation type. Furthermore, redressing uniform topsoil thickness can

discourage direct-haul topsoiling in areas where

premining soil depths vary naturally. Although

non-uniform thickness is common over an entire site postmining, each parcel or reclaimed unit

generally has uniform thickness. Additional regulatory flexibility in this matter, on a case-by-case

basis, could facilitate achievement of vegetative

diversity in many areas (see below).

Design of Restored

Surface Drainage Systems

Replacement of an erosionally stable surface

drainage system is critical to the long-term success of surface mine reclamation. A number of

valid approaches to design are available, from direct field measurement of channel cross-sections

and profiles with duplication of the undisturbed

channel, to computer-assisted, detailed hydraulic analyses. In the case study mines reviewed

for this assessment, the amount of detail in such
32 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

designs ranged from virtually none to very

elaborate geomorphic and hydraulic studies,

although an encouraging trend toward a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to design of surface drainage systems was observed.

Greater attention to design in permitting could

reduce the potential for costly repairs of erosion

damage during reclamation.

Mines that cover large areas or contain watersheds must be concerned not with just the design of restored channels but with the reconstruction of entire drainage basins. The goal in this case

is to attempt to create a new steady-state by

manipulating the surface, slope, and channel

configuration so that the newly formed system

will be in approximate equilibrium with the surrounding area with respect to erosion and sediment transport processes. The premining geomorphic analysis generally is modeled after

classical concepts, and the relationships developed in that analysis are applied to the design

of the postmining drainage system. However, improper applications of even the most well-understood analytical techniques have resulted in

incomplete or incorrect designs. Furthermore,

when the overburden-to-coal ratio is very large

or very small, the postmining drainage basin characteristics may differ substantially from the premining characteristics, further complicating the

design problem.

Hydrologic and Sediment

Control Structures

Techniques for the design of hydrologic and

sediment control facilities have changed very little since SMCRA, although there has been an

increasing use of computers in design, and a

gradual standardization of estimating techniques for runoff and sediment. The techniques

in use accommodate the lack of site-specific data

for sediment erosion and transport rates by providing relative estimates for comparison of alternative designs, Use of a computer allows faster

and more accurate analysis than hand calculations, so larger areas can be simulated in greater

detail and over shorter time steps. Monitoring

data could be used to calibrate the models used,

but OTA found lit-de indication that this is occurring. Issues related to the use of sediment control ponds are discussed under “Technical issues,” below.

Designing Reclamation of

Alluvial Valley Floors

SMCRA allows mining in alluvial valley floors

(AVFS) only if they are not significant to farming.

Because only 7 years have elapsed since the implementation of the permanent Federal regulatory program, however, no AVFS not significant

to farming have yet been completely mined and

finally reclaimed under the SMCRA standards, although several plans for the restoration of such

AVFS have been approved by the regulatory authorities.

The premining hydrologic studies required for

AVF areas under SMCRA are unique in the surface mine permitting process in that they must

include an analysis of the relationships between

surface and groundwaters and land use, soil characteristics, and vegetative productivity. Thus AVF

restoration combines some of the more rigorous

design aspects of surface and groundwater restoration discussed previously. The criteria for

premining analysis of the essential hydrologic

functions of AVFS and postmining evaluation of

AVF reclamation are relatively standardized

among the regulatory authorities of the Western States. These criteria are based on accepted

engineering and hydrogeologic principles, and

the probable success of reclaiming AVFS is

viewed by the industry and the regulatory authorities with confidence. As with hydrologic restoration in non-AVF areas, however, it may be

decades or centuries after mining and reclamation before the success of hydrologic reclamation

in AVFS can be assessed completely.

EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF RECLAMATION

Few aspects of the process for final evalua- tor programs. The five States studied in this

tion of reclamation success have been firmly assessment have established criteria for evaluatestablished under the Federal or State regula- ing reclamation for Phase I of bond release (back-
Ch. 2—Technical Summary ● 3 3

filling the pit, and in some cases, redressing soil),

but not for Phases II and Ill (preliminary revegetation and full release). Furthermore, most existing evaluation techniques and standards have

serious limitations, especially for hydrology and

revegetation—the two areas emphasized in the

SMCRA performance standards.

To date, no method for evaluating revegetation has been developed that adequately addresses both temporal variations in environmental conditions (i. e., seasonal and annual

climatic variations) and the spatial diversity that

occurs over large areas. There is general agreement that revegetation standards should incorporate, or be able to be adjusted for, climatic and

temporal variations. The most practical method

for achieving such adjustment has been to use

standards based on reference areas, but such

standards are based on the assumption that the

vegetation on a few acres can adequately represent revegetation over hundreds or thousands of

acres. Furthermore, although the predominant

postmining land use in the study area is native

range land, little test grazing has occurred on

revegetated areas as yet. Of the five States, only

Montana has established guidelines for test grazing plans and data collection.

The methods for evaluating hydrologic restoration are even more unclear. Although the

SMCRA performance standards emphasize hydrology, most past experience in judging reclamation has concentrated on revegetation success. The tens to thousands of years that may be

required to resaturate spoil aquifers in some parts

of the study area make it impractical to measure

either spoil water quantity or quality directly.

Thus evaluations will have to be made with incomplete knowledge and available predictive

tools. Similarly, because surface drainage systems

are designed to accommodate peak flows that

may occur only once every 10 to 100 years, many

channels are unlikely to experience peak flow

events during the bond liability period, necessitating the use of predictive techniques and design criteria for evaluation.

It is unclear whether successful revegetation

and hydrologic restoration are sufficiently reliable indicators of success for the other disciplines—soils, overburden, and wildlife. Of particular concern is the potential for materials

adverse to vegetation to appear in the root zone

long after the regraded spoil is sampled, and the

topsoil redressed and revegetated. If the presence

of such material becomes evident before bond

release, it may require expensive rehandling or

total reconstruction of the reclaimed soil and

overburden, and repetition of the revegetation

process. if it appears after bond release, it is unclear how it would be mitigated and by whom.

A similar concern is raised by the potential for

unsuitable material to be inadvertently placed in

the recharge zone, with the water quality impacts

not becoming manifest until after final bond

release.

TECHNICAL ISSUES IN WESTERN SURFACE MINE

PERMITTING AND RECLAMATION

OTA’S assessment of surface mine permitting

and reclamation in the West highlighted several

technical issues that are affected by many of the

data and analysis concerns summarized above,

and that have significant implications for the longterm success of Western reclamation. These issues encompass the technologies, data, and analytical methods for determining the potential for

acid formation in overburden, the impacts of sediment control methods, the effects of soil handling

methods on revegetation, the potential for meeting woody plant revegetation standards, the designation and implementation of postmining land

uses, and the value of landscape diversity.

Acid Potential in Western Mine Spoils

In characterizing overburden for the planning

of reclamation, one objective is to identify potentially acid-forming materials that could become detrimental to revegetation. Acid formation in mine spoils is a common problem in the
34 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

East, where the climate is relatively humid and

recharge rates for groundwater systems are relatively large, which accelerates the oxidation of

sulfur compounds in the spoils and the formation of sulfuric acid. Moreover, in the East, there

is little lime in the overburden to serve as a buffer.

A test based on leaching of overburden samples

with hydrogen peroxide to extract sulfur forms

is used to predict the acid-base potential (ABP)

of overburden material in the East.

The potential for acid formation is much lower

in the West because the climate generally is arid

or semiarid, and because Western overburden

typically has a high buffering capacity. There are

conditions, however, under which acid formation will occur in the West, primarily in portions

of the Powder River Basin and in New Mexico.

The Eastern method for determining ABP has

produced unreliable results in the West because

it assumes that all sulfur forms will be completely

oxidized—an assumption that may not be valid

in the West where a large fraction of the sulfur

occurs in less reactive, organic forms. An alternative test used in Wyoming allows isolation of

the reactive inorganic sulfur compounds, but still

assumes that all reactions go to completion. As

a result, estimates of ABP in the West may be

inaccurate and can result either in a failure to

identify materials that need special handling, or

in operators being required to special handle

some overburden materials unnecessarily.

Research currently being funded by the Western mine operators, both jointly and individually, is making progress in resolving this problem, and the regulatory authority in at least one

State, Wyoming, is prepared to rewrite State

guidelines to reflect any changes in analytical

techniques or overburden suitability criteria that

may result from this research.

Sediment Control

Sedimentation in streams results from accelerated erosion caused by removal of the vegetative cover; topsoil stripping; and construction of

stockpiles, roads, and other mine facilities. The

Office of Surface Mining has taken the position

that the best currently available technology to

control sedimentation is a properly designed and

constructed sedimentation pond. Construction of

sedimentation ponds is governed by both design

and performance standards adopted by each

State, which generally require that the pond be

designed to meet effluent standards established

under the Clean Water Act.

Sedimentation ponds are expensive to build

and maintain, and they increase the amount of

land that must be disturbed during mining and

reclamation. The water discharged from sedimentation ponds also is unnaturally clear and

therefore can result in erosion and channel

degradation downstream in ephemeral streams,

which have a naturally high sediment content.

Moreover, the cumulative effect of water storage in sediment control ponds at multiple mines

in one area can be a significant loss of water—

the West’s most scarce resource—to downstream

users.

Alternate means of maintaining sediment production at or below the level produced from undisturbed terrain are available, including preventive measures that retard the velocity and reduce

the quantity of runoff, thus reducing erosion rates,

and remedial designs that reduce erosion by

avoiding sensitive areas and increased sediment

deposition. In addition to mitigating the impacts

Photo credit: Office of Surface Mining

Erosion and associated sediment production are

natural processes in the Western United States,

but few data are available on natural erosion and

sedimentation rates from undisturbed areas. These

data are needed to demonstrate that alternate means

of sediment control are as effective as

sedimentation ponds.
of sedimentation ponds noted above, the alternate control methods can aid revegetation by reducing runoff and thus increasing soil moisture,

and by reducing erosion. They also eliminate the

risk of sediment pond dam failure. Such alternate sediment control techniques are considered

proven technology and have been implemented

successfully in agriculture, highway construction, and other land-disturbing activities.

Two sets of data are needed in order to demonstrate that alternate means of sediment control are as effective as sedimentation ponds: empirical data on sediment yields (the total amount

of eroded material that reaches a control point)

and on natural sediment concentrations in

streams, and monitoring data from areas where

alternate means are in use. The data on sediment

yields and concentrations could be obtained during baseline and monitoring studies, but OTA

found little evidence that anyone is gathering

such data. Two m i nes i n Wyoming currently are

collecting data from experimental practices undertaken to demonstrate that alternate control

measures are equally effective in controlling sedimentation as ponds and thus are adequate to protect water quality in ephemeral streams.

As the needed data become available, regulatory authorities could become more flexible

in interpreting design and performance standards for sediment control in discharges to ephemeral streams where a permit applicant is able to

demonstrate that proposed controls will be at

least as effective as sedimentation ponds. Discharges to perennial streams, however, still will

require sedimentation control ponds to protect

their naturally high quality water.

Soil Handling and Revegetation

Recognition of the relationship between soil

quality and revegetation success—the primary criterion for reclamation success—has produced

substantial innovation in soil handling methods.

The results of long-term studies of the effects

of topsoil stockpiling indicate that it adversely

affects the success of revegetation efforts. Direct haul topsoil, on the other hand, preserves

the biologically active component of the soil and

enhances maintenance of nutrient cycles. This

Ch. 2—Technical Summary • 35

improves the establishment of planted and

volunteer species and can produce superior lifeform and species diversity within a relatively

short time. Recent research indicates that, under certain conditions, combining direct haul

topsoil with other innovative reclamation techniques can further enhance revegetation success. Because the direct haul technique eliminates the middle step i n the process of stripping,

stockpiling and respreading topsoil, it can be less

expensive depending on haul distances.

Research in deep soils in Montana and North

Dakota also has shown that careful identification

and separate handling of the biologically most active surface soil layers, without dilution by underlying subsoil–’’two Iifts’’-can improve revegetation sufficiently to justify the cost. The limited

monitoring data available suggest that the combination of two lifts with direct hauling may produce the best results in reestablishing rangeland

diversity, and in some areas may be enhanced

even further by the use of mulch produced from

native vegetation. No research data comparing

these and other methods for different geographical areas are available to verify these hypotheses, however. As noted previously, greater flexibility in the Federal and State regulations on

topsoil salvage and redressing thickness could

promote optimization of the soil resource in

permitting and implementing soil handling for

revegetation.

The Revegetation of Woody Plants

Woody plants—shrubs—are ecologically important in the Western United States as forage

and cover for livestock and wildlife, and for improving soil moisture conditions and protecting

herbaceous plant species. In some combinations

of slope and substrate, woody plants also may

improve slope stability because their more extensive root systems can anchor a greater volume

of material than many herbaceous species. Because of these considerations, the revegetation

requirements i n SMCRA, the reguIatory program

performance standards, and the standards for revegetation success are tied, in part, to the reestablishment of native woody plant species of the

same type and density that existed on the site

before mining.
36 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Tying woody plant density standards to the

premining density raises several concerns, especially in areas where the premining density is

relatively high (primarily Wyoming, Colorado,

and New Mexico). First, even with the most advanced shrub establishment technology, there

is little field evidence that high densities can be

reestablished over an entire reclamation site

during the lo-year liability period. In the sagebrush-steppe ecosystems which occur in the northern part of the study area, operators have found

it difficuIt to establish any shrubs other than fourwing saltbush, with big sagebrush being especially difficult. In these ecosystems, the prospects of

meeting the proposed Wyoming regulatory standard of one stem per square meter on 10 percent

of the area may depend on which plant species

are counted as shrubs for density purposes.

Second, while shrubs in moderate to high densities improve habitat quality for a variety of animal species, uniformly high woody plant density can detract from the quality of land for

livestock grazing. Woody plants provide critical
Ch. 2—Technical Summary ● 3 7

winter food and cover for wildlife species with

a high recreational and economic value in the

West (particularly pronghorn antelope, deer, elk,

and sage grouse). But cattle, and to a lesser extent sheep, prefer herbaceous vegetation to shrubs.

As a result, ranchers have undertaken large-scale

programs to thin or kill sagebrush and other

woody species on range lands, frequently with financial or physical support from BLM’s rangeland

management programs. If a postmining landowner undertakes such range management, it negates

the purpose and expense of reestablishing woody

plant density. For the most part, this conflict can

be traced to the lack of specificity in designation

of the postmining land use (see below) and to inadequate coordination among Federal and State

regulatory authorities and land management

agencies.

Many State regulatory and mining industry

personnel feel that lower overall shrub densities, if accomplished in high-density groupings

based on premining habitat mapping, provide

as valuable wildlife habitat as uniform densities

at high premining levels. In this context, rangeIand management programs also can benefit wildlife if done selectively. For example, thinning big

sagebrush to increase herbaceous production can

improve the forage for pronghorn as long as

shrubs remain avaiIable i n critical winter browse

areas and are not totally removed from summer

range. This approach to mitigating the conflicts

between the forage and cover needs of different livestock and wildlife species has begun to

be recognized in the West (e.g., the proposed

Wyoming standard). However, uniform high shrub

density standards still are the norm in most areas.

Postmining Land Use

SMCRA and the regulatory programs require

detailed characterizations of the premining and

postmining land uses in the permit application

and reclamation plan. These characterizations

must include quantification of the capability of

the land prior to any mining to support a variety

of uses considering soil and foundation characteristics, topography, and vegetative cover; and

of the premining productivity of the land, including the average yield of food, fiber, forage, or

wood products obtained under high levels of

management.

Despite these requirements, the characterization of pre- and postmining land uses is at best

perfunctory in most of the permit applications

reviewed for this assessment. A number of the

applications contained land use characterizations

with little more information than the statement:

“The premining land use is grazing and the postmining land use is grazing, ” In some cases, this

lack of specificity can be attributed to inadequate

baseline information in the permit application.

In other cases, it is the fault of the Federal surface management agency (e.g., BLM, U.S. Forest Service), which is required to determine, or

at least consent to, the postmining land use.

Lack of specificity and quantification in describing pre- and postmining land uses can adversely affect postmining vegetative and landscape diversity, the implementation of surface

owners’ or management agencies’ land use recommendations, and the difficulty and cost of

reclamation. Moreover, at mines where reclaimability is an issue during permitting, a much more

rigorous approach to characterizing premining

land uses and to predicting the capability and

productivity of the reclaimed surface is necessary

before findings of reclaimability can be made

objectivel y.

Regulatory authorities should enforce the requirements for pre- and postmining land use

characterization more strictly. For privately

owned lands, the land use description and the

quantification of capability and productivity must

remain the responsibiIity of the permit applicant,

with the cooperation and concurrence of the

landowner. For public lands, BLM and the Forest Service currently are preparing land use plans

that should provide the basis for quantitative

characterizations of pre- and postmining land

uses. Until these documents are completed, Federal surface management agencies should ensure, during their review of permit applications

and reclamation plans, that careful attention is

paid to the applicants’ quantitative characterization of pre- and postmining land use, productivity, and capability.

Implementation and management of the postmining land use after bond release raises issues

about changes in land use and conflicts among

land uses. At some mines, conflicts arise between

land uses—particularly between agricultural
38 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

uses and wildlife habitat—because the surface

owners, usually farmers or ranchers, desire that

all land be returned to cropland, pastureland, or

grazingland. This conflict is common in States

where reclamation standards for native rangeland

and wildlife habitat (e.g., woody plant density

standards and overall vegetative diversity) are

more difficult to attain than those for other land

uses, such as pastureland.

Another concern is the lack of incentives for

post-reclamation landowner or manager compliance with land management plans. Even the

best reclamation methods can be negated quickly

by postmining land management decisions or

techniques (e.g., overgrazing, range mismanagement), leaving the operator open to allegations

of reclamation “fail ure.” This underscores the importance of restoring the Iand’s capability, rather

than a narrowly defined “use.” Moreover, there

are no regulatory mechanisms to ensure that the

surface owner will not convert lands reclaimed

for one use (especially wildlife habitat) to other

uses after bond release.

Landscape Diversity

The concept of “landscape diversity,” which

encompasses the entire ecosystem, recognizes

the mosaic nature of Western landscapes resulting from localized differences in the physical

environment, plant communities, wildlife populations, and land uses. Strict application of a

full restoration concept might be inflexible in its

ability to adapt to changing technology and to

climatic and other uncontrollable variables.

Moreover, full restoration of landscape diversity

would go beyond the premises of SMCRA in

focusing on the long-term quality of reclamation,

rather than rehabilitation of the land to a particular level of viability specified in the permit or in

the criteria for reclamation success. Somewhere

in between is an approach that ensures long-term

ecosystem function and viability, and that requires restoration of features that were critical to

the premining ecosystem, but allows flexibility in

the means of achieving such restoration. Implicit

i n this approach is an understanding that ecosystem dynamics change over time, and a reclaimed

site cannot achieve a natural level of equilibrium

with the surrounding area in the 10-year bond

liability period.

No statewide requirements for full restoration

of landscape diversity currently exist in the

Western States studied, although requirements

for specific mines have been established on a

case-by-case basis, primarily in relation to vegetative communities. The restoration of ponderosa pine woodlands in Montana, woody

draws in Montana and North Dakota, sage grouse

strutting grounds in Montana, and wetlands in

North Dakota are examples of reclamation that

attempts to preserve features that contribute to

landscape diversity.

Surface features that have been eliminated include rim rock and escarpments, ridges, bad land

topography, and “microsites” (small premining

surface features important to premining hydrology or wildlife habitat). In some cases, it is impossible to reestablish a particular Iandform. For

example, hogback ridges and badlands are supported by strata that would be removed during

mining, precluding their reestablishment on the

reclaimed surface. Moreover, disturbance of

some badland strata can result in physical and

chemical changes that significantly affect erosivity. In other cases, restoration of Iandforms may

be too costly or difficult for all but the most

elaborate reclamation plans. Microsites, for instance, often are dependent on hydrologic, soil,

or overburden characteristics that are very expensive to duplicate with available mining and reclamation equipment.

Finally, some regulatory requirements may actually discourage diversity in some mining and

reclamation situations. The SMCRA requirement

to return mined areas to their approximate original contour typically has resulted in gently undulating land with little topographic variety, because

the features that provide diversity frequently are

the most difficult to design and reestablish. Requirements for uniform topsoil depths over the

regraded surface and for uniformly high revegetation density further homogenize site conditions

and limit the ability to restore full vegetative community diversity.

However, the postmining topography can be

designed to mimic premining features such as

rimrock and microsites. Variances have been

granted at a few mines for sections of unreduced

highwall as a means of leaving artificial cliffs or

bluff extensions that simulate the original premin-
Ch. 2—Technical Summary ● 3 9

Photo credit Jenifer Robison, OTA staff

The regulatory requirements to return mined areas to their approximate original contours and to reduce all highwalls

typically have resulted in gently undulating land with little topographic variety (foreground). Surface features that are

eliminated by mining include rimrock (background), which provide nesting sites for eagles and other raptors, habitat

for small animals, and aid in moisture retention near the base.

ing features and aid in the accumulation of additional surface moisture near the highwall base.

The restoration of microsites and features such

as playas and prairie potholes may be expensive,

but some mines are restoring them to preserve

or enhance wildlife habitat.

If attention is to be paid to landscape diversity, it needs to begin with the reclamation plan

and permit application. A full consideration of

geomorphology would require integrated analyses of the consistency among the postmining topography, the hydrologic characteristics of the

reconstructed soils, the revegetation commu ni -

ties, the reconstructed drainage systems, the proposed postmining land use, and the geomorphology of the contiguous areas. Thus baseline data

collection wouId provide an interdisciplinary ecological characterization of the proposed mine

area that could be used in the design of a diverse

postmining landscape, as well as a set of numbers to demonstrate that the performance standards will be met. Promoting such an interdisciplinary approach to design and implementation of

landscape diversity would require some additional effort, and thus cost, both in premining

baseline studies and specification of the postmining land use, and in implementing the reclamation design. Long-term research efforts are

needed to demonstrate whether the potential

benefits of such an approach for the quality of

reclamation would outweigh the costs.
40 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Photo crecdit: Office of Surface Mining

The postmining topography can be designed to mimic premining features. For example, portions of unreduced highwall

have been used at some sites to substitute for rimrock lost to mining.

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND RESEARCH

Since the first State reclamation laws were

enacted in the early 1970s, mining companies,

a wide range of Federal and State agencies,

universities, and other organizations have undertaken a significant amount of research and developed a variety of new techniques for reclaiming surface mined lands in the arid and semiarid

regions of the West. Historically, revegetation has

been the principal subject of research at Western surface mines, primarily because the regulatory standards for reclamation success focus on

revegetation success. This emphasis is now shifting toward hydrology, soils, and overburden as

the complexities in these systems are recognized.

Most of the reclamation-related research programs sponsored by Federal agencies were discontinued in the late 1970s or early 1980s, primarily for budget reasons, but also because the

responsibility for the majority of such research

was consolidated within OSM. Of the discontinued programs, the most extensive were conducted by the U.S. Forest Service’s Surface Environment and Mining Program (SEAM) and the

Bureau of Land Management’s Energy Minerals

Rehabilitation Inventory and Analysis (EMRIA).

The failure to transfer funding for these programs

to OSM meant not only the loss of over 150 research and development projects, but the discontinuation of valuable data sources: SEAM

compiled a quarterly computerized listing of

reclamation studies related to the Rocky Mountain West (the only bibliographic reference of its

kind), while EMRIA gathered information about

the reclamation potential on coal lease tracts and

developed lease stipulations to assure the achievement of reclamation goals for Federal coal lands.

OSM has only two basic vehicles for research

under SMCRA: the State mining and mineral re-
Ch. 2—Technical Summary ● 41

sources and research institutes, and the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) reclamation program.

The Federal share of AML funds has yet to be allocated, and co-funding for the mineral and resources research institutes was discontinued in

fiscal year 1982, although specific applied research projects continue to be funded by OSM,

either alone or in cooperation with other agencies. The OSM budget for such projects has declined from a peak of around $1.47 million in

1981-82 to a request for $970,000 for fiscal year

1986, of which almost half was allocated to subsidence control and coal wastes (primarily Eastern or abandoned mine reclamation problems),

and one-fourth to staff and administrative support. Attention should be paid to the allocation

of available funds and priorities for research

among Eastern, Midwestern, and Western reclamation problems.

To compensate for inadequate Federal research funding, OSM treats experimental practices and permit conditions at active reclamation sites as substitutes for research. Under

SMCRA, experimental practices were intended

to encourage advances in mining and reclamation, or to allow special postmining land uses, if

they potentially provide as much environmental

protection as the performance standards and are

no larger or more numerous than necessary to

determine the effectiveness and economic feasibility of the practice. Of the five experimental

practices approved for the Rocky Mountain West

since 1979, two (ongoing) address alternative

sediment control; one (completed in 1982) was

a court-ordered compromise on a variance for

an excess spoil disposal area; one (still undergoing monitoring) involves a variance from approximate original contour in order to leave a portion of a highwall to preserve eagle nests; and

one (ongoing) allows the disposal of mine spoil

offsite to suppress an underground fire at an

abandoned mine.

OSM personnel have indicated that they

would like to see more applications for experimental practices. The permitting and monitoring requirements are so difficult and expensive

to meet, however, that few companies are willing to undertake an “experiment” that can only

be implemented on a portion of the mine site

unless the potential long-term economic benefits of demonstrating the effectiveness of the

practice are substantial. Moreover, OSM approval of an experimental practice takes so long

that the mine usually proceeds beyond the area

where the practice might have been effective

long before it can be permitted. Establishing

strict schedules for OSM approval of experimental practices could alleviate this problem.

Under a more flexible regulatory system, the

experimental practices listed above might have

been handled through site-specific variances or

permitting of alternative reclamation techniques,

or under the AML program. If applications for

such variances or techniques are not approved,

however, additional time and money is required

to revise the permit application and reclamation

plan. Moreover, permit applications requesting

such variances still must be approved by OSM,

which can require that the proposed reclamation

method be permitted as an experimental practice or not allowed. These possibilities pose major constraints on innovation in reclamation

methods.

Mine operators also have conducted applied

research on specific reclamation situations, either to aid in the design of reclamation, or to meet

or develop bond release criteria. Frequently, such

applied research projects are the result of permit stipulations that require the collection and

analysis of monitoring data or the development

of criteria for judging the success of particuIar

types of reclamation. Ongoing research at Western mines from all sources of funding is shown

in table 2-1.

While significant advances have been made

in Western reclamation technologies, and the

prospects for the long-term success of reclamation in the West have brightened considerably,

OTA identified a number of areas in which

additional research or analysis still is needed.

These include:

1. development or improvement of techniques

for the collection of baseline and monitoring data, especially improved laboratory

techniques for generating data about overburden chemistry, and standardized methods for collecting hydrologic and wildlife

data;
42 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 2-1.—Summary of Ongoing Research and Innovation at Case Study Minesa

Soil and overburden Surface and groundwater Revegetation Wildlife

North Dakota:

ND-A: Special handling of

clayey soils for wetlands

ND-D: Landform position and

mixing of soil types to aid

moisture retention in prime

farmland

—Effect of soil type on soil/

spoil interface for optimum

moisture-holding capacity

Montana:

MT-B: Retention of highwall

portion as bluff extension

—Use of scoria and similar soil

over compacted overburden for

ponderosa pine substrate

—Monitoring vegetation trace

metals contents to judge the

success of soil reconstruction

—100 percent two-lift directhaul topsoiling

MT-D: Sodium migration from

sodic and clayey overburden

—Topsoil erosion runoff plots

Wyoming:

WY-A: Detailed highwall map

from stratigraphicalgeochemical correlation

—Intensive overburden sampling

to delineate acid-forming and

other deleterious strata as well

as wet areas, defining highwall

stability, planning shovel

moves, etc.

WY-B: Composite sampling of

regraded spoils

—Watershed erosion

monitoring

WY-D: Nonuniform topsoil

thickness

—Acidic spoil treatments

—Erosion monitoring

—Reclaimed geomorphology

—Monitoring swell and settling

WY-G: Two-lift direct-haul topsoil in desert ecosystem

—Use of boron-tolerant species

WY-K: Nonuniform topsoil

thickness

North Dakota:

ND-A: Restoration of

wetlands

Montana:

MT-B: Extensive sitespecific and regional

groundwater database

—Special handling of

overburden to protect

water quality

MT-C: State-of-the-art

PHC and CHIA analyses

for proposed mine adjacent to perennial stream

classified as an AVF

MT-E: Management and

use of very large hydrologic database

—Spoil aquifer hydraulic

analyses

Wyoming:

WY-C: Potentially acidforming overburden

WY-E: Computer modeling to predict groundwater impacts

WY-G: Alternative sediment control experimental practice

—State-of-the-art streamflow sampling

WY-H: Restoration of essential hydrologic functions of an AVF

WY-K: Formation of surface drainage channels

through erosion and

deposition

North Dakota:

ND-A: Transplanting native

vegetation plugs for

reestablishing wetlands

ND-D: Restoration of woody

draws

—Planting, cultural and

management practices for

achieving grassland

diversity

—Irrigation, grazing, mulch,

seed mixes, and topsoil

handling and depth studies

Montana:

MT-A: Ponderosa pine

reestablishment

MT-E: Reestablishment of

ponderosa pine

—Coulee bottom restoration

—Sodding of native

grassland

—Special soil handling for

landscape diversity

—Topsoil depth, surface

manipulation, native species, legumes, phased

seeding, shrub reestablishment, native hay mulch,

temporary stabilizer crop,

and fertilizer studies

Wyoming:

WY-A: Effects of nurse crop

on establishment of

perennials

—Effects of grazing on species composition

—Mulching

—Use of sagebrush

“potlings”

WY-C: Annual grains grown

as source of soil organic

matter

WY-D: Methods to reduce

competition between vegetation species

—Planting cottonwoods in

drainages

WY-G: Need for irrigation in

arid area

WY-K: Annual rotation of

experimental species

WY-1: Reconstruction of a

playa

North Dakota:

ND-A: Reconstruction of

wetlands

—Developing criteria for

the success of wetland

habitat restoration

—Restoration of woody

draws and native prairie on

an “acre-for-acre” basis

ND-D: Reconstruction of

woody draws for wildlife

habitat

Montana:

MT-D: Relocation of sage

grouse strutting ground

—Nest box program for

American kestrels

—Use of radio-telemetry

and other methods to develop monitoring data to

determine when impacts

are due to mining versus

natural variation in popuI at ions

—Landscape diversity

through replacement of

microsites

—Identification of preferred

forage plants through fecal

analyses to develop seed

mix

Wyoming:

WY-J: Experimental practice

to leave a highwall portion

for raptor habitat
Ch. 2—Technical Summary ● 4 3

Table 2-1.—Summary of Ongoing Research and Innovation at Case Study Minesa—Continued

Soil and overburden Surface and groundwater Revegetation Wildlife

Colorado:

CO-B: Aerial and field surveys

to monitor swell factors for

postmining topography

CO-D: Shredded mountain

shrub vegetation as mulch in

direct-haul topsoiling

—Erosion monitoring

New Mexico:

NM-B: Use of overburden as

topsoil substitute

—Use of topsoil quality evaluation system

NM-D: Nonuniform topsoil

thickness over spoil of varying

quality

—Sodium migration in a very

low precipitation regime

—Burial of fly ash with elevated

selenium levels

Colorado:

CO-C: Experimental practice for valley fill for excess spoil disposal

CO-F: Burial of powerplant wastes in backfill

New Mexico:

NM-C: Comprehensive

erosion monitoring

program

NM-D: Burial of powerplant wastes in backfill

Colorado:

CO-A: Reclamation of

pinon-juniper on massive

sandstone

CO-D: Live mulch for woody

plant reestablishment and

complete topsoil removal

—Direct transplanting of

tree and shrub pads using

modified bucket

—Omitting seeding of

direct haul topsoil

CO-E: Use of snowfences

for water harvesting

—Mulch studies

CO-F: Direct transplanting

of mature native shrub pads

New Mexico:

NM-B: Use of overburden

strata as topsoil substitute

growth medium

NM-D: Irrigation

Colorado:

CO-D: Detailed characterization and delineation of

physical and floral features

of elk calving habitat

CO-F: Reestablishing

premining land uses on

postmining topography to

facilitate best management

practices

New Mexico:

NM-D: Annual monitoring to

provide data on wildlife use

of reclaimed areas

NM-E: Computer analysis of

mapping and telemetry data

to determine effects of mining on wildlife

aFor the key to case study mines, see appendix A in this volume

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

2.

3.

4.

5.

development of a “scoping” process to determine which baseline and monitoring data

actually are needed for permit compliance

and reclamation success evaluations;

the refinement and validation of analytical

techniques for predicting the impacts of

mining and for designing reclamation, including better predictive techniques for

groundwater quantity and quality impact

assessments in cases where there are few

field data, and methods for determining the

acid-base potential of overburden;

the development of methods and criteria for

evaluating reclamation success for Phases I I

and III of bond release; and

comparative analyses of the long-term effectiveness of various reclamation methods in

different types of mining situations.

In many cases, these research needs cut across

disciplines. For example, the ability to delineate

and characterize deleterious overburden material clearly affects groundwater quality, but problems with such overburden also wouId affect the

quality of revegetation and, therefore, the land

capability.

Although work is ongoing at Western mines

that addresses most of these needs, it frequently

is limited to site-specific conditions. Without

comprehensive comparative analyses of the full

range of Western mining environments, research

at individual mines will do little to improve the

cost-effectiveness of reclamation techniques or to

advance the science of reclamation in the West.

The most critical constraint on such research

is the lack of available funding. OTA recognizes
44 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

the realities of Federal budget cuts in the face

of massive deficits, yet other sources of reclamation research funding could be found at the

Federal level, in State governments, and in the

private sector. These might include, at the Federal level, existing permit fees (which cover the

administrative cost of permitting), royalty and bonus payments for Federal coal leases (which go

into the general fund), and AML funds (yet to be

distributed). It should be noted that the reallocation of these revenues to reclamation research

would be controversial.

These same sources of funding are available at

the State level, plus the States collect substantial

revenues from severance taxes. Among the State

regulatory authorities, however, only North Dakota considers reclamation research within its

purview.

The surface mining industry also should consider investing in cooperative research efforts that

would improve the prospects for the long-term

success of reclamation and reduce the costs of

that reclamation. This is the approach taken by

five companies operating on prime farmlands in

Illinois (6).

A second constraint is raised by legislation and

regulations that impose inflexible design standCHAPTER 2

1.

2,

3.

Bachmat, Yehuda, et al., “Groundwater Management: The Use of Numerical Model?” American

Geophysical Union, Water Resources Monograph

5, 1980.

Narten, Perry F., et al., Reclamation of Mirwd Lands

in the Western Coa/ Region, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 872 (1 983).

National Research Council, Coal Mining and

Ground-Water Resources in the United States

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981).

ards that can discourage innovation and do not

take into account the tremendous variability

among sites. The difficulty and cost of demonstrating alternatives to strict design standards

through experimental practices or by obtaining

a variance pose a significant obstacle to the extension of these research substitutes to other mining areas, and, in some cases, can unnecessarily

increase the cost of reclamation. On the other

hand, design standards may be the only available

means of ensuring protection of public health and

safety in some mining and reclamation situations.

Finally, the commitment to reclamation in the

West that has emerged among coal companies

and Federal and State regulatory authorities

since 1977 must continue to grow to encompass

needed research. While all parties agree that it

is time to “move off of square one” i n the implementation of SMCRA, each group tends to

downplay the need for continued advancements

in baseline and monitoring data, analytical techniques, and reclamation methods because of

their potentially high costs. Yet efforts in these

areas could result in substantial increases in the

quality of, and the likelihood of the long-term success of, reclamation, and could yield significant

economic benefits in terms of reduced operating, reclamation, or regulatory costs.

4. National Research Council, Soi/, Coal and Society

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981 ).

5. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

6

Environmental Protection in the Federal Coal Leasing Program, OTA-E-237 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, May 1984).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

“Reclaiming Prime Farmlands and Other HighQuality Croplands After Surface Coal Mining,” staff

memorandum, December 1985.
Chapter 3

Western Surface Mining

and Reclamation
Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Western Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Fort Union Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Powder River Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Green River-Hams Fork Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The San Juan River Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Western Surface Mining Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface Mining Impacts and Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soil and Overburden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface Water.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alluvial Valley Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Revegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables

47

48

51

53

55

55

58

59

62

67

71

73

76

79

85

Table No. Page

3-1. 1982 Production from Western Coal Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3-2. ownership of Surface and Coal Resources in Five

Western Coal Management Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3-3. Selected Mitigation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3-4. Plant Species and Performance Standards for Woody Draw

Restoration at a Mine North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

3-1. Generalized Coal Provinces of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3-2. Mean Annual Precipitation for the Western Coal Region States . . . . . . . .

3-3. Fort Union Coal Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3-4. Powder River Coal Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3-5. General and Tectonic Maps of Green River-Hams Fort Coal Region . . . .

3-6. San Juan River Coal Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3-7. Area or Open-pit Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3-8. How to Help Draglines Reach Deeper Seams... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3-9. Typical Contour Stripping Plus Auger Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3-10. Stylized Diagram of an Alluvial Valley Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3-11. Designs for Raptor-safe Powerlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

49

52

54

56

57

60

61

62

75

84
Chapter 3

Western Surface Mining and Reclamation

INTRODUCTION

Slightly over half of U.S. coal reserves are located in the Northern Great Plains and Rocky

Mountain Coal Provinces of the Western United

States (see fig. 3-1 ) (4). The Federal Government

owns between 50 and 60 percent of the coal reserves in the six major Federal coal States (Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota,

Utah, and Wyoming) (6). In 1983, these States

produced 208.9 million tons of coal, or approximately 27 percent of total U.S. production (3).

With the exception of mines in Utah and portions

of Colorado, most Western coal is produced by

surface mining methods (see table 3-1 ).

The coal-bearing areas in the Western United

States are notably distinct from the rest of the

country for their relatively small amount of

available water, their shallow soils and high erosion rates, and their patterns of land and mineral ownership. Furthermore, within the West,

coal mining operations differ greatly from one

another due to the diversity of terrain, climate,

and land use. The terrain varies from the rolling

plains of the Fort Union region of western North

Dakota and eastern Montana, to the high rugged

mountains of Colorado, to the arid deserts of

southwestern Wyoming and northern New MexFigure 3-1 .—Generalized Coal Provinces of the United States

\,

Dominion of Canada

-. /..

New , 

Rocky Mountain

Pacific Ocean “ .

\

\ 1 - Atlantic Ocean

SOURCE U S Bureau of Mines, adapted from USGS Coal Map of the United States, 1960

47
48 • western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 3-1.—1982 Production From Western Coal Mines (thousands of tons)

Number of Surface Percent Number of Underground Percent Total

State surface mines a production of total underground mines a

production of total production

Arizona 2 12,364 100%0 o 0 0% 12,364

Colorado 19 11,696 64 30 6,621 36 18,317

Montana 6 27,890 100 0 0 0 27,890

New Mexico 9 19,233 96 3 711 4 19,944

North Dakota 10 17,855 100 0 0 0 17,855

Utah o 0 0 21 17,029 100 17,029

Wyoming 29 107,085 99 3 1,276 1 108,361

Total 73 196,123 88 57 25,637 12 221,760

alncludes Some temporarily inactive mines as well as new mines that have not yet reached full production.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, from 1984 Keystone Coal Industry Manual.

ice. The climate ranges from cold and subhumid

in the north, to hot and dry in the San Juan region of New Mexico. Annual precipitation can

vary by as much as 50 percent among mines

within a region, and by as much as 10 percent

even between mines located within 2 or 3 miles

of each other (see fig. 3-2).

The nature of the coal resource contributes

to the differences among Western surface

mines, and between Western mines and those

in other parts of the United States. Western coal

varies from the lignite of western North Dakota

and eastern Montana, with seams from 2 to 50

feet thick, to the bituminous and sub-bituminous

coals of Wyoming with seams up to 150 feet

thick. Stripping ratios may be as high as 12:1

(cover/coal) or as lOW as 1:2 (16).

Finally, in the Western United States the Federal Government owns a substantial portion of

THE WESTERN

In general, Western surface mined lands must

be reclaimed with less than one-third as much

rainfall as mined lands in Appalachia and the

Midwest. Droughts are common in the West, and

precipitation frequently occurs in short, intense

storms with the potential to cause severe erosion.

Temperatures fluctuate widely, and high summer

daytime temperatures can dry out soil and seeds

quickly.

In all the Western coal lands, evaporation exceeds precipitation. The ratio of evapotranspiration to precipitation ranges from 2:1 in the Fort

Union region to 6: 1 in the San Juan River region.

the surface overlying coal resources as well as

the majority of the mineral rights (see table 3-2).

As a result, much Western coal must be leased

from the Department of the Interior before it can

be mined (see ch. 4). In areas where the government owns the coal but not the surface (split

estate lands) and where ownership is in a “checkerboard” pattern, coal leasing and development

can become complicated. ’

This chapter describes the environmental and

technical context for Western surface mining and

reclamation, including the regional ecology and

mining and reclamation methods. Chapter 4 outlines the institutional and regulatory context.

‘A detailed discussion of leasing in split estate and checkerboard

areas may be found in reference 5, pp. 124-129.

ENVIRONMENT

The evaporation rates in the region vary from 48

to 64 inches per year in the northern coal regions,

and generally increase to a high of 80 to 96 inches

in the southern reaches of the San Juan River region (9). Low rainfall and high evaporation create moisture stress throughout the Federal coal

areas.

Furthermore, organic matter accumulates

slowly in arid and semiarid Western soils, and

the resulting soil profiles have limited capacity

for holding moisture, although the moisture

content usually is sufficient to sustain plant

growth for 3 months of the year (9). In much
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation . 49

Figure 3-2.— Mean Annual Precipitation for the Western Coal Region States

,ity

—

SOURCE U S Department of Commerce, Climatic At/as of the United States, 1988
Table 3.2.—Ownership of Surface and coal Resources in Five Western Coal Management Regionsn (in acres)

Federal surface/ Percent Federal surface/ Percent USFS surface/ Percent USFS surface/ Percent State surface/ Percent

Region Federal coalb

of total non-Federal coalb of total Federal coal of total non-Federal coal of total Federal coal of total

Fort Union:

North Dakota .

Montan a

Power River:

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Green River-Hams Fork:

Wyoming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31,680

800

30,880

584,331

193,430

390,901

1,179,740

1,124,370

55,370

765,630

230,730

534,900

1.0 %

– d

2.5%

9.5%

10.3%

9.8%

43.9%

51 .8%

10.8%

2,260

0

2,260

1,891

60

1,831

4,840

960

3,880

2,890

2,890

0

490,501

434,515

55,986

2,220

160

2,060

0

0

0

—

—

14,320

3,640

10,680

45,608

21,190

24,418

6,012

2,732

3,280

4,680

0

4,680

—

. —

1.0%

1.0%

1.1%

1.O%

—

7.9%

23.1%

1 ,4%

8,160

3,120

5,040

640

0

640

—

—

—

— —

—

—

—

—

1.0%

—

1 .0%

—

—

Uinta-Southwestern Utah:

Colorado . . . . . . .

Utah . .

San Juan River:

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico ... .,

45.5%

40.8%

47.9%

6,640

2,680

3,960

384,270

94,980

289,290

22.9%

16.8%

25.9%

1,040

0

1,040

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1,219,770

34,470

1,185,300

48.4%

12.6%

52.8%

27,040

120

26,920

1.1%

—

1 .2%

62,650

55,620

7,040

2.5%

20,3%

—

3,140

3,140

0

27,190

2,910

24,280

1.1%

1.1%

1.1%

—

—

—

Table 3.2.—Ownership of Surface and Coal Resources in Five Western Coal Management Regionsa (in acres) —Continued

State surface/ Percent Private surface/ Percent Private surface/ Percent Other surface/ Percent Other surface/c Percent Total coal

Region non-Federal coal of total Federal coal of total non-Federal coal of total Federal coalcof total non-Federal coal of total resource

Fort Union:

North Dakota ...

Montana . . . . .

Powder River:

Montana ... . . . . . . .

Wyoming .

Green River-Hams Fork:

Wyoming, ., ., ...

Colorado ., ., .,

Uinta-Southwestern Utah:

Colorad o

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Juan River:

Colorad o

New Mexico .. .

111,080

44,600

66,480

473,099

107,980

365,119

102,764

57,134

45,630

3.0%

1.8%

5.4%

7.7%

5.8%

9.2%

3.8%

2.6%

8.9%

1,205,740

711,160

494,580

3,814,722

1,046,895

2,767,827

32.2%

28.3%

40.0%

61 .7%

55.8%

69.5%

2,263,470

1,643,250

620,220

720,166

443,560

276,606

60.4%

65.4%

50.1 %

11 .6%

23.6%

6.9%

91,580

79,860

11,720

70,837

2,470

68,367

29,648

17,883

11,765

2.4%

3.2%

1 .0%

1 .2%

.

1 .7%

1 .1%

1 .0%

2.3%

27,450

26,170

1,280

32,203

2,960

29,243

1 .0%

1 .0%

3,750,470

2,512,370

1,238,100

6,185,532

1,877,651

3,985,338

—

—

—

—

330,575

56,235

274,340

12.3%

2.6%

53.3%

1,029,655

912,860

116,795

38.3%

42.0?40

22.7%

160

40

120

2,686,254

2,172,374

513,880

—

—

—

74,590

8,190

66,400

4.4%

1 .5%

6.0%

285,410

180,070

105,340

273,570

68,950

204,620

1 7.0%

31 .9%

9.4%

10.9%

25.2%

9.1 %

143,290

44,360

98,930

183,220

84,840

98,380

8.5%

7.9%

8.9%

7.3%

31 .0%

4.4%

15,320

4,160

11,160

1 .0%

1 .0%

1 .0%

400

0

400

133,500

1,120

132,380

1,681,270

565,170

1,116,100

—

—

—

160,620

22,220

138,400

6.4%

8.1 %

6.2%

430,080

680

429,400

17,1 % 5.3’YO—

5.9%

2,520,780

274,060

2,246,720

—

19.1 %

alnclude5 Known Recoverable Coal Resource Areas (KRCRAS) defined as of March 1978

blnclu~s BLM-administered and other public domam lands, excluding National forest lands

clnclu~es Bankhead.Jones acquired lands, Federal withdrawn lands (e g mlhtary reSeWatlOnS), and Indian lands

d-”Inrjlcates less than 1 percent

SOURCE Bureau of Land Management, Fma/ Errwrormrerrfa/ Sfatemerrf Federal Cod Lfarragermeflt Program, 1979
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 5 1

of the West, rates of natural erosion are among

the highest in the country, and soil frequently

is lost to flash flooding and hillslope erosion.

Vegetative succession also is a slow process in

the West due to climatic severity. A disturbed

site in the Eastern United States may revegetate

itself naturally in 5 to 10 years, but decades or

centuries may be needed for natural revegetation

in the West (9).

The Fort Union Region*

The Fort Union Coal Region in northeastern

Montana and western North Dakota (see fig. 3-

3) lies in the Missouri Plateau of the Great Plains

Coal Province, which extends from the Missouri

Coteau westward to the Rocky Mountains. The

‘Unless indicated, the material in this section is adapted

from references 9 and 10.

land consists of rolling prairie and grasslands with

isolated coniferous forests and badlands, and occasional buttes and mesas. The region has relatively deep fertile soils formed from glacial till,

and the primary land uses are grazing and agricuIture, including hay, feed grains, and various

types of wheat. In 1983, there were 11 operating surface mines in the North Dakota portion

of Fort Union (seven of which incorporate Federal coal), and one in Montana, These mines

produced a total of approximately 18.7 million

tons of lignite (1 6). All of the coal is used locally

for electricity generation or synthetic fuels production.

The Fort Union region is characterized by a

semiarid continental climate, with an average of

about 15 inches annual precipitation, most of

which occurs in late spring and early summer.

Snowfall averages about 33 inches per year. This

is a region of climatic extremes, and temperatures

Photo credit: Office of Surface Mining

Due to the relatively harsh climate, soils, and other conditions in the Western coal regions, it may take decades for

a disturbed site to revegetate naturally.
52 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation Ž 53

vary widely on an annual, seasonal, and daily basis. The Rocky Mountains modify the prevailing

westerly flow of air masses from the North Pacific, but there are no topographical barriers to

modify the cold, dry air masses from the polar

regions, or the warm, moist air masses from the

tropical areas to the south.

Most of the usable surface water in the region

occurs i n the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers

and the Missouri’s reservoir system. Both agricuIture and livestock grazing rely heavily on irrigation from these rivers. Surface water also is

used for m u nicipal and industrial water supplies.

Groundwater is distributed more evenly over

the region in deep aquifers, but is not as readily

avaiIable in as much quantity as surface water.

Groundwater is used for domestic, livestock, municipal, and some irrigation water supplies.

Native prairie areas, wetlands (prairie potholes),

and woody draws popuIated with native trees

and shrubs are the primary wildlife habitats. The

prairie potholes, on the Central Flyway, are part

of the primary waterfowl production area of

North America.

The Powder River Region3

In many respects, the Powder River region (see

fig. 3-4) in southeastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming is similar to the adjacent Fort

Union region. As with Fort Union, the Powder

River region belongs to the Great Plains physiographic province and is part of a broad basin between the Black Hills on the east, the Laramie

Mountains to the South, the Bighorn Mountains

on the West, and the Cedar Creek anticline in

Montana on the North. The region is within the

drainage basin for the Missouri River and its tributaries, including the Powder and Yellowstone

Rivers.

In 1983, there were 18 active surface mines in

the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Coal

Region (16 incorporating Federal coal) with 6 under development, and 7 active mines in the Montana portion (6 with Federal coal), and 4 under

development. In that year, these mines produced

3Unless otherwise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from references 4, 9, and 11.

about 121.3 million tons of coal (1 6). The region

also contains valuable oil and gas and uranium

deposits, as well as other minerals such as iron

and trona.

The topography of the powder River region

varies from relatively steep high open hills with

heavily wooded escarpments in the northern

part; to gently sloping plains and tablelands in

the central area, with badlands breaking the steep

slopes adjacent to major drainages; to rolling

grass-covered prairie in the southern portion, with

conspicuous scoria knobs and erosion escarpments separated and dissected by broad stream

valleys. The predominant vegetation types are

those typical of rangeland, characterized by lowgrowing shrubs and herbaceous plants adapted

to the semiarid condition of the region. The sagebrush and grassland are broken by patches of

coniferous forest (primarily ponde rosa pine) i n

the northern portions of the region, and by deciduous trees (mainly cottonwoods) in riparian areas.

As in Fort Union, big game, smaller mammals,

raptors, and game birds abound, with the region

being part of the Central Flyway for migrating

waterfowl.

The area is semiarid with wide annual temperature variations between summer and winter. The

region is particularly subject to cold air invasions

from the north, although during the winter warm

chinook winds blow from the south and west.

Maximum precipitation usually occurs in the

spring and early summer, with frequent but very

light rain showers and occasional heavy cloudbursts that cause flooding. Droughts are common. Even when annual precipitation is higher

than average, it may not occur during the critical period of the growing season.

Streams originating in the plains areas tend to

be ephemeral (flow only as a result of direct runoff), while streams rising in the Bighorn Mountains and Black Hills usually are perennial, with

sustained base flows from groundwater inflow.

The numerous stock-water reservoirs and spreader systems on many of the small tributaries result in appreciable depletion of water through

evaporation and seepage. The major uses of the

surface waters include storage for consumption

by livestock, irrigation of hay crops along the base

of the Bighorn Mountains and in the North Platte
54 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Miles

city ●

\

State Boundaries

Coal Region

Boundaries

Indian

Reservations

Special Management Areas

/ - /

r

/ National Forest

I Thunder Basin 1

I

I

I I

I

I

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 5 5

River drainage, and for municipal water supply

systems. Groundwater from shallow aquifers is

the principal source of domestic and livestock

supplies, and is used extensively for waterflooding in secondary oil recovery. Many of the aquifers have too high dissolved solids or sodium content for use for irrigation or human consumption.

Green River= Hams Fork Region4

The Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region is in

northern Colorado and southern Wyoming and

includes the Green and Yam pa River basins, as

well as the Hanna basin, Great Divide basin, Red

Desert, and portions of the geologically complex

Overth rust Belt (see fig. 3-5). In 1983, there were

14 active surface mines (1 O with Federal coal) and

2 under development in the Wyoming portion

of the region, and 12 active surface operations

(6 Federal coal) and 2 under development in the

Colorado portion, producing approximately 7 to

8 million tons and 18 million tons, respectively.

There also are a number of underground mines

in the region. The coals range from sub-bituminous to high volatile bituminous, with seam thicknesses varying from 1 foot to over 30 feet (1 6).

The Green River-Hams Fork region is topographically diverse, ranging from the low mountain ranges, rolling hills, and broad alluvial valleys

of the Yam pa coal field; to the sagebrush-covered

high plains and rimrock of the Hanna Basin; to

the mountains and valleys formed by linear folds

and faults in the Overthrust Belt. The predominant vegetation type is sagebrush and associated

shrubs such as greasewood and saltbush. Evergreen and aspen forests may be found in the

higher elevations, and deciduous trees along the

river drainages, with some stretches of open

grassland. Livestock grazing is the most extensive

land use in the Green River-Hams Fork region,

with some cropland (primarily hay) along river

bottoms where irrigation water is available.

The region has a semiarid continental climate

characterized by dry air, clear skies, little precipitation, high evaporation, and large diurnal temperature changes. Annual precipitation in surface

mining areas varies from about 7 inches per year

in southwestern Wyoming to around 26 i riches

in the high plateaus of Colorado. Thunderstorms

can occur almost daily in the summer, and blizzards or extremely frigid conditions are not uncommon during the winter months.

The region contains the upper parts of seven

river basins and a portion of the Great Divide basin, which has no drainage to either ocean. The

North Platte River drains areas east of the Continental Divide, while the Colorado, Green, Little Snake, White, and Yampa Rivers drain west

of the divide. Surface water is used for irrigation

of cropland, for livestock and wildlife, and to

meet industrial and municipal demands. Groundwater may be found at varying depths throughout

the area, and many of the coal beds are potential aquifers. The predominant uses of groundwater are for livestock and ranch wells, with some

wells supplying oil drilling operations.

In general, the Green River-Hams Fork region

provides excellent habitat for big game animals,

which summer i n the aspen and conifer habitats

of the higher elevations and winter at lower elevations in mountain shrub and sagebrush areas.

In some areas, winter density of elk is 50 per

square mile. Game birds, especially grouse, are

common, as are eagles and other raptors. Wild

horses also may be seen throughout the region.

The San Juan River Region5

The San Juan River Coal Region is in the Colorado plateau, encompassing northwestern New

Mexico and part of southwestern Colorado, including the Four Corners area (see fig. 3-6). It is

essentially a high plateau, with low mesas, buttes,

and badlands, occasionally cut by deep canyons

formed by streams. The basin is surrounded by

mountain ranges: the San Juans to the north, San

Pedro Mountain and the Naciementos to the east,

the Zunis on the south, and the Chuska Mountains to the west, with altitudes ranging from

5,000 to 7,500 feet. The Federal Government

owns or manages much of the surface, including National Forest, Bureau of Land Management (

4Unless otherwise indicated, the material in this section is adapted

from references 8 and 9.

5Unless otherwise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from references 4, 7, and 9.
56 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

●
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 5 7

Figure 3-6.—San Juan River Coal Region

I I

I I

I

I

I

State boundaries

Coal region

boundaries

1 I National forest

Indian reservations:

A-Acoma

B-Alarmo Navajo

C-Canoncita

D-Cochiti

E-lsleta

F-Jemez

G-Jicarilla Apache

H-Laguna

I-Navajo

J- Ramah Navajo

K-San Felipe

L-San Juan

M-Santa Ana

N-Santo Domingo

O-Southern Ute

P-Ute Mountain

Q-Zia

R-Zuni

Colorado . )

A Special management areas:

1 -Abo at Salinas

National Monument

2-Aztec Ruins

National Monument

3- Bandelier National

Monument

4- Bisti Wilderness

5- Bosque del Apache

Nat’l. Wildllfe Refuge

6-Chaco Culture National

Historical Park

7- De- Na-Zin Wilderness

8-EI Morro National

Monument

9-Gila Cliff Dwellings

National Monument

10-Gran Qulvira at Sallnas

National Monument

11 -Hovenweep National

Monument

12-Mesa Verde National Park

13- Pecos National Monument

14-Sevilleta National

Wildlife Refuge

15-Yucca House National

Monument

Cibola

National

Forest

i Forest

1’

I Apache

I National

I

Forest

Cibola

National

I

I

Forest

0
58 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

and Tribal lands. In 1983, there were 10 active

surface mines in the New Mexico portion of the

region (5 incorporating Federal coal, including

Tribal coal), with 4 under development. The

Colorado portion of the region has one active surface mine with Federal coal and four with private coal. The region’s surface mines produced

approximately 20.3 million tons of coal in 1983

(1 6).

The region lies south of the major storm belt

from the Pacific across the Rockies, and has a

semiarid to arid climate. Annual precipitation

averages less than 10 inches, although the higher

elevations may receive as much as 20 inches due

to greater snowfall. Summer rainfall is primarily

from intense local thunderstorms that frequently

cause flash flooding. Daily high-low temperatures

show a large variation, and potential evaporation

exceeds normal precipitation by a factor of 6 or

more.

The San Juan is the major river draining the region. Surface waters in the region generally have

high concentrations of suspended sediment, especially during the floods associated with spring

snowmelt and summer thunderstorms, The primary use of surface water is for irrigation.

Groundwater generally is of good quality where

it is available, and is used for livestock and domestic consumption, as well as in support of coal

and uranium mining. The heaviest groundwater

pumping occurs around Gallup, New Mexico,

where withdrawals for coal and uranium mining

and for municipal use exceed the natural replacement to the aquifers.

The principal vegetation types include grassland and grassland-shrub at the lower elevations,

pinon-juni per up to 7,OOO feet, and conifer forest above 7,000 feet. Livestock, dryland farming

(primarily in Colorado), and irrigated farming

along water courses are important land uses,

along with energy development (coal, oil and gas,

uranium). Many of the grassland-shrub areas in

the region have been severely overgrazed by

livestock.

WESTERN SURFACE MINING TECHNIQUES

Surface mining is the oldest and least expensive method of mining coal in the United States

and currently is used to obtain about half of total U.S. coal production. Due to the nature of

the Western coal resource, which has a relatively

low Btu value and generally is near the surface,

surface mining is the predominant method in

that part of the United States, accounting for

around 80 percent of regional production (see

table 3-1 ). The techniques now practiced in Western surface mining operations have been developed to maximize recovery of the coal (which

often occurs in multiple seams) with machinery

that ranges from simple tractors equipped with

backhoes, to very large electric shovels and

draglines.

In general, surface mining involves exposure

of the coal seam by removal of the overlying soil

and rock material (overburden). The overburden

is stored in spoil piles until needed to backfill the

pit after the coal has been extracted. Due to the

size of Western surface mining operations,

where mines producing 5 to 10 million tons per

year are typical, and mines producing 10 to 20

million tons per year are not uncommon, the

scale of the equipment is correspondingly larger

than that in the East and Midwest. Shovel and

dragline bucket capacities range from 40 to 115

cubic yards, and haul trucks have gross weights

up to 220 tons. The larger scale of mining and

operational considerations resulting from the topography and other factors also necessitate the

use of mining methods different from those in the

East.

Area or open-pit mining is the method most

commonly used to extract Western coal. Large

open pits are developed to expose the coal, using

a variety of equipment. The pit advances as coal

is extracted, and the mined-out portions are backfilled. The size and shape of the pits, and the way

in which the overburden is stored temporarily

(“spoiled”) and the pit backfilled, are a function
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 5 9

Photo credit: Jenifer Robison, OTA staff

Photo credit: Jenifer Robison, OTA staff

Due to the large size of Western surface coal mines,

where annual production may be as high as 15 to 20

million tons per year, the scale of the equipment

is correspondingly larger than that used in the

East and Midwest.

of the attitude, thickness, and number of the coal

seams, and of the equipment selected (see fig.

3-7). Longer dragline booms and the development of multiple-bench operations enable Western mines to reach coal buried under overburden 200 feet thick or more, and methods have

been proposed for mining to stripping depths of

over 500 feet (see fig. 3-8).

In contrast, common Eastern mining methodologies include contour and auger mining. Contour mining is used in hilly areas, as in much of

Appalachia, where a coal seam outcrops on the

Auger mining is used in some Western coal areas to

recover additional coal when the overburden becomes

too thick for exposure of the entire seam

to be economical.

side of a hill. The mine begins at the outcrop and

proceeds along the contour of the bed in the hillside, until the ratio of overburden to coal becomes too great for surface mining to be feasible. At that point auger mining, where huge drills

are driven horizontally up to 200 feet into the coal

seam, is used to recover additional coal (see fig.

3-9). These mining methods are not useful on the

broad, flat plains that overlie most Western coal.

They are, however, used to a limited extent at

some of the small mines in hilly terrain in

Colorado and New Mexico, and to recover some

of the steeply dipping coal in Wyoming.

SURFACE MINE IMPACTS AND RECLAMATION

Surface mine reclamation may proceed in parallel with or independently of excavation. With

parallel reclamation, the overburden from an active area is placed in the area of the previous cut,

and then backfilled, graded, and compacted (if

necessary). At the same time, topsoil is hauled

from a newly disturbed area and applied directly

to the recontoured overburden without stockpiling. This method avoids expensive double

handling of the overburden, and is the general

practice (after the initial cut) at larger Western

operations. Where parallel reclamation is not feasible, the topsoil from an active area is stockpiled

and the overburden accumulated in spoil piles

until these materials are needed to fill a minedout pit. At that time, the overburden is backfilled

and graded to postmining contour, and then the

topsoil is hauled to the recontoured area, graded,

and prepared for seeding and planting. While

Western surface mine reclamation can be rela-
60 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Figure 3.7.—Area or Open-Pit Mining

Pit floor

tively straightforward, the wide range of hydrologic, soils, vegetation and other conditions that

may be encountered, and the extensive regulatory requirements imposed under Federal and

State reclamation laws, also can make it an extremely complicated process.

This section reviews the reclamation methods

or techniques currently in use at mines in the

Western United States. Special reclamation situations are illustrated with examples, highlighted

in boxes, from Western mines whose permit applications were reviewed for this assessment. The

permitting process and the data and analyses

used to develop a mining and reclamation pIan

are discussed in detail in chapters 4 through 6.

Subsequent chapters address the the criteria and

analytical techniques used to evaluate the success of reclamation, special reclamation techReclaimed area
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 6 1

Figure 3-8.— How To Help Draglines Reach Deeper Seams

SOURCE Nicholas P Chironis, “Improved Mining Methods and Larger Equipment Reach Deeper Seams,” Coal Age, July 1984
62 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Drill bench

Overburden

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

niques and issues, and technological innovation

and research in reclamation methods.

Soil and Overburden

The methods used to salvage and redress

topsoil and to handle overburden vary widely

among mines, depending on the physical and

chemical characteristics of the soil/overburden

and the configuration of the mine. For soil handling, a system is developed for each mine, using

the baseline soil inventory in the permit application as a guide, in order to salvage the right

amount of topsoil from the appropriate areas (see

 noted, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 12.

chs. 5 and 6 for further discussion of soil inventories and salvage plans). The topsoil usually is

salvaged with large machines called scrapers, but

deep soils may be salvaged with truck and shovel

equipment. Similarly, each mine will handle overburden differently, depending on its physical and

chemical characteristics. After the overburden is

drilled and blasted, it is removed either with a

dragline or electric shovel and truck.

Characterization

Soil is ranked as suitable or unsuitable for salvage according to chemical or physical criteria

that affect revegetation success. These criteria

are established by the State regulatory authority

and reflect characteristics of climate, vegetation,
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation Ž 63

and geology of the mining regions in that State

(see ch. 6, table 6-4). These criteria, methods of

data collection, and suitability determination are

discussed in chapters 5 and 6. All suitable materials normally are salvaged for use in reclamation

(unless the suitable soil is very deep), and unsuitable materials are spoiled with the overburden

(see “Overburden Handling, ” below). As discussed in chapter 8, salvaging very deep soils

without special handling (e. g., two lifts; see below) and without regard to the biological viability of the soil can make revegetation more difficult. If sufficient topsoil is not available, a suitable

topsoil layer must be reconstructed from overburden or interburden materials (see examples

from Western mining situations illustrated in

boxes 3-A and 3-B).

Overburden also is ranked as suitable or unsuitable, the goal being to ensure that overburden material in contact with redressed soil and

within the root zone will not be deleterious to

soil development and plant growth. The delineation of deleterious overburden is governed by

criteria (shown i n table 6-3) often referred to

as “suspect level s.” Overburden material that

tests above those levels is considered potentially

“toxic” (defined as “chemically or physically

detrimental to biota” in the Federal regulations)

and must be specially handled to protect groundwater and/or covered with sufficient benign material to protect vegetation (see box 3-B). The

methods for identifying and handling unsuitable

and toxic materials are discussed in chapters 6

and 8.

Overburden Handling

The overburden on a site usually has both

deleterious and benign zones, although the

overburden on some sites may be all benign or

even all deleterious. If all of the overburden is

benign, the spoil can be backfilled without special handling. Where some or all of the overburden has deleterious qualities, the mine plan

must ensure that revegetation and postmining

surface and groundwater quality will not be adversely affected (see box 3-H, below). This requirement often is satisfied with a permit stipulation that the top 4 to 8 feet of the recontoured

spoil must be tested for unsuitable characteristics prior to replacement of the topsoil. Otherwise, the unsuitable material must be rehandled

and buried in the pit or spoil piles (see box 3-C),

covered with suitable spoil (usually 4 feet or more

in thickness) from an adjacent area, or treated

(e.g., liming acid spoil).

Special handling of overburden can be accomplished much more easily in a truck and shovel
64 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Box 3-B.Obtaining Sufficient Topdressing for Unsiutable Overburdenl

Overburden characterization at a mine in New Mexico indicated that essentially all of the overburden

is deleterious due to high SAR and clay content. The Federal regulations require “appropriate depth of

cover” over toxic materials, but at the time of permitting, the State progam did not have a definition of

“toxic.” The operator contended that non-saline, sodic spoils (materials with high sodium relative to calcium and magnesuim, but low total sodium and other salts) are not toxic to adapted species. During permitting, the operator argued that 4 feet of cover are not available onsite that native species are adapted

to the conditions, and that codification of the topdressing was not a concern. Subsequent research conducted by the operator supported the latter contention, but it was challenged by the regulatory authority,

which imposed a permit stipulation that required a soil monitoring plan. To enable the operator to obtain

additional volumes of cover, the regulatory authority relaxed the suitability criteria, based on the natural

soil chemistry, to allow use of saltier, more sodic materials. Based on the relaxed criteria, subsequent vOIume calculations showed 11.2 inches of topdressing to be available. The regulatory authority contended

that 11.2 inches would be insufficient due to the high SAR, and required 18 inches. A regolith (weathered

bedrock) study also was required by the regulatory authority to delineate additional suitable material. The

study found two isolated bodies of regolith that could provide about 6 inches more cover, for a total of

almost 18 inches. Over most of the mined area, topsoil and subsoil wiII be redressed to a depth of 18

inches in two lifts of 4 inches and 14 inches, respectively. In areas of benign spoil, two 4-inch lifts will

redress topsoil to a depth of 8 inches.

%% case study mine L in reference 12.

Box 3-C.-Special Handling of Unsuitable Material 1
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 6 5

operation than with a dragline. The top bench

(40 to 50 feet), which is less likely to have deleterious qualities because it is at least partially

weathered, usually is placed on top of the spoil

during recontou ring in a truck and shovel operation. With a dragline, however, overburden material closer to the bottom of the stripping depth

is more likely to end up on top of the recontoured

spoiI where it wiII be subject to oxidation. An inefficient modified dragline swing that increases

the likelihood of undesirable material being buried, or expensive double handling may be required to prevent this occurring. With either type

of equipment, the situation can become more

complex if strata exhibit parameters that are deleterious both to revegetation and to groundwater

quality (e.g., selenium), or exhibit multiple deleterious parameters (e.g., overburden exhibiting

both a high SAR and high nitrates; see “Groundwater, ” below).

Under SMCRA and the State programs, the

overburden must be backfilled and graded to the

approximate original (premining) contour unless

specifically exempted due to excess or thin overburden. The design of the recontou red surface

must have slopes that will provide a stable postmining landscape that is subject to neither excessive erosion nor deposition, and is compatible

Photo credit: Office of Surface Mining

Special handling of potentially deleterious overburden

material can be accomplished more easily with a

shovel, because the benign upper bench is more

likely to be spoiled on top during

backfilling and recontouring.

Photo credit: Jenifer Robison, OTA staff

With a dragline, overburden material closer to the

bottom of the stripping depth is more likely to end up

on top of the recontoured spoil, where it will be subject

to oxidation, enhancing its potential for deleterious

effects on revegetation.

with the postmining land use. As discussed in

chapter 8, however, recontou ring to the approximate original contour may be impossible in some

instances (e. g., removal of bedrock outcrops).

Some subsidence has occurred on recontoured surfaces in Colorado, Montana, North

Dakota, and Wyoming. For example, at one

mine in Montana, a depression about 4 feet deep,

50 feet wide, and 200 feet long has formed; a long

area parallel to dragline spoils has subsided leaving a 1-foot high scarp; and a few cracks several

hundred feet long have appeared. Over the long

term, there is a potential for subsidence in

dragline operations, where the mine floor becomes covered with thin strata of coarse rubble

composed of wasted coal and bouIders that collect at the bottoms of spoil ridges. These rubble

zones can become confined aquifers postmining,

and there is a possibility that, over the long term,

the rubble will break down in the water, leaving

a void that could cause subsidence (14).

After final grading, the recontoured spoil is prepared for topsoiling, typically by ripping with a

chisel plow to alleviate compaction, prevent a

spoil/soil barrier from forming, and prevent the

soil from slipping on the spoil surface.
66 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Soil Handling

Salvaged soil may be stockpiled until it is

needed for reclamation, or it may be hauled

directly to an area being reclaimed, depending

on the timing of the mining and reclamation.

Rehandling stockpiled topsoil is expensive, and

the combined haul distance from salvage to

stockpile and then to reclamation area may be

farther than directly from salvage area to reclamation area. Moreover, soils that have been

stockpiled for more than about 2 years deteriorate biologically due to decreases in the viability of seeds, roots, and microbiota, increasing the difficulty of revegetation (see ch. 8).

Soil is handled in either one or two lifts. The

latter requires that surface materials (usually A

and B horizons) be segregated from subsurface

(usually C horizon), and then redressed with the

topsoil (A and B) over the subsoil (C). As a result, the more organically rich and biologically

active materials are concentrated on the surface

of the reconstructed soil, rather than being mixed

with the less rich subsoil. This is an especially important consideration for very deep soils. The

Montana and North Dakota programs both require two lifts, as does the Colorado program in

some instances. Even in areas of thin soils, however, operators are beginning to appreciate the

benefits derived from a two-lift system, and the

procedure is being adopted more and more

when the potential reclamation advantages outweigh the additional operational cost.

As an area or open-pit mine progresses, two

lifts may be combined with direct hauling. In this

case, topsoil from a small strip of land is first salvaged and stockpiled temporarily. Subsoil from

that strip is picked up and applied to a backfilled

area in the process of being reclaimed. Topsoil

from the next strip is then picked up and applied

over the redressed subsoil. This continues to the

end of the salvage area, when the temporarily

stockpiled topsoil is placed over the last band of

redressed subsoil. The combination of two lifts

with direct hauling methods may provide the

best species diversity in revegetation at mines

with deep soils because it simultaneously preserves the biologically active materials and replaces them on the surface. Where topsoil operations are contracted out, or where there is a

dedicated fleet of reclamation equipment, this

method is implemented more easily than at operations where scrapers are shared between topsoil operations and pit operations.
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 6 7

Federal regulations require that topsoil be redressed in a uniform thickness, consistent with

the postmining land use. During premine planning, the volume of available soil is calculated

and divided by the area to be redressed to get

the average thickness of topsoil (see ch. 6). As

discussed in chapter 8, however, allowing nonuniform topsoil replacement may facilitate direct hauling and may provide greater vegetative

diversity. In the Western States, only the Montana legislation specifically mentions special

reconstruction of soils with non-uniform depths

as an alternative reclamation technique, although

this method has been or will be permitted on a

case-by-case basis at several mines in other parts

of the study region (see boxes 3-B, and 3-O).

There are numerous methods of preparing the

redressed topsoil for seeding and planting, and

of preventing erosion. These include contour furrowing, ripping on the contour, surface pitting,

disking, terracing, and mulching. For particular

postmining land uses or unusual revegetation

problems, special soil reconstruction methods are

employed (see boxes 3-D, 3-G and 3-K). The redressed surface soil may be tested for fertilizer

requirements prior to seeding (see “Revegetation, ” below).

Surface Water7

Surface water reclamation may involve both

mitigation of impacts to water quantity and quality during mining, and restoration of the surface

water hydrologic regime after mining is completed. Discharges from active mining or reclaimed areas to local streams may increase levels

of total suspended solids (TSS) and total dissolved

solids (TDS). Changes in postmining groundwater

quality also can affect surface water quality where

groundwater systems discharge to surface streams.

Moreover, surface mining can either increase the

water quantity in local streams due to discharges

from the mine, or decrease flow due to impoundments and drawdowns.

Water Quality

Although current mining regulations do not

specifically distinguish between perennial and

ephemeral streams when establishing effluent

limitations from point sources, the potential impacts from surface mining are very different for

the two types of streams. The potential for increasing sediment loads in ephemeral streams

is slight, due to their naturally high sediment

levels during runoff events. Impacts on perennial

streams can be significant, however, including increases in TSS due to accelerated erosion resulting from removal of the vegetative cover, stripping of topsoil, and construction of stockpiles,

tipples, roads, and other facilities. I n addition, increases in TDS levels in perennial streams may

be caused by discharges of pit water or by the

movement of groundwater through replaced spoils

to discharge areas in perennial stream channels

(see “Groundwater,” below).

Effluent limitations for TSS are established under the Clean Water Act and SMCRA (see ch. 4).

As discussed in chapter 8, sediment control

ponds generally are considered the best available control technology for meeting the TSS

standards, although the effectiveness of alternative controls currently is being investigated.

Where sediment control ponds are used, they are

classified as point sources and must be designed

to meet effluent standards for runoff equal to or

less than that resulting from a lo-year 24-hour

precipitation event. B The effluent standards for

point sources include limitations for pH, total

iron, and total manganese, as well as TSS. To ensure that these standards are met, ponds are designed to store the entire 10-year 24-hour runoff

volume. The water stored in such ponds is released gradually after it has been detained long

enough to meet the effluent standards for point

sources.

The principal control for TDS in Western surface mining is to ensure that soil and overburden materials containing soluble ions (primarily

salts) are buried in such a manner that they will

7Unless otherwise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 14.

6A I ()-year 24-hour precipitation event is the maximum amount

of rain that could fall within 24 hours with a probable recurrence

interval of once in 10 years, as determined by the National Weather

Service.
68 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

not reach surface receiving waters (or groundwater) in concentrations in excess of the applicable standards.

A 1981 assessment of the cumulative TDS impacts from all anticipated mining and agricultural

development on the Tongue River of southeastern Montana indicated that, even with intensive

mining, the dissolved solids concentrations in the

study area would not increase substantially, nor

wouId they reach levels unfit for irrigation water

(1 5). That assessment found that the Tongue River

tributaries could experience significant increases

in TDS, but the major tributaries already have dissolved solids concentrations considered unsuitable for irrigation. A similar cumulative impact

assessment of the Yampa River and its tributaries found that the effects of mining are greatest

during periods of low flow when high TDS loads

due to groundwater discharge are not diluted by

surface runoff. As in the Tongue River study area,

impacts to the smaller perennial streams in the

Yampa basin are expected to be the greatest, and

could adversely affect the suitability of these

waters for irrigation during average-to-low flows.9

Water Quantity

Individual mines have little impact on the

quantity of surface water supplies in the Western States. The water that is used at a mine for

dust control, coal preparation, etc., generally is

drawn from aquifers below the coal being mined,

and supplemented by water interrupted by the

pit and water stored in sediment ponds. The

drawdowns created by an individual mine seldom substantially impair the yields of nearby

wells or flows in perennial streams. The disruption in surface-water supplies caused by the

cumuIative drawdown of several mines concentrated in one area is discussed in chapter 6. Additionally, water storage in sediment control

ponds can decrease streamflows when the cumulative impacts of several mines within a drainage

basin are considered (see ch. 8).

Unlike experiences in the East, mine discharges

are seldom a problem in Western mining operations. In the semiarid Western environment, shalgThe data and methodologies for these cumuIative assessments

are discussed in chs. 5 and 6.

low aquifers likely to be intersected by the mine

pit often are of limited extent, or are seasonal.

Thus the volume of continuous or seasonal discharges from surface mines is small and easily

borne by local stream channels capable of holding flows from much larger volume precipitation

events. The low volume of these discharges also

relieves the potential for impacts to water quality of the receiving streams.

Occasionally, some of the large mines in the

Powder River basin have temporarily produced

very large discharges from scoria bodies (cindery

rock strata) breached during faciIities construction or mining. For example, in 1976, a mine in

this area pumped 6,000 gpm for several days from

a saturated scoria pod encountered during excavation for a coal preparation plant. Discharge

of this water into the Little powder River, an intermittent stream, significantly altered the flow

until the scoria was dewatered.

Restoration of Surface Drainage Systems

Replacement of an erosionally stable surface

drainage system is critical to the long-term success of surface mine reclamation. Although not

specifically addressed in SMCRA, regulatory authorities use the general legislative provisions for

water quality protection, minimum disturbance

to the hydrologic balance, and erosion control

to require operators to include designs for the restoration of surface drainage systems in their perm it applications (see ch. 6). A detailed hydrauIic

analysis of each restored channel also is required

to ensure that postmining runoff velocities will

not cause erosion. If the velocities are erosive,

engineered controls such as riprap may be used,

but States discourage the long-term use of engineered structures in permanent reclamation designs because they require maintenance after runoff events (see boxes 3-E and 3-F).

The extent to which mining affects surface

drainage characteristics depends on factors such

as stripping ratio, areal extent of mining, and mining methods. Mines that cover large areas or contain relatively small watersheds often must reconstruct entire drainage basins. The ultimate goal

is to develop topographic characteristics that produce a system in equilibrium with respect to erosion and sediment transport (see ch. 6). Where
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 6 9

Box 3-E.—Reconstruction of a Surface Drainage on an Excess Spoil Disposal Areal

A mine permitted pre-SMCXA is constructing a fill area for excess spoil disposal within a surface drainage. Incised valleys in the area of the mine generally are narrow, V-shaped, and about 250 to 500 feet

deep, with valley wall gradients of 40 to 100 percent. When completed, the valley fill will contain approximately 54 million cubic yards of overburden with an average slope of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). The face

will be topsoiled and revegetated, and mulching and contour furrows in conjunction with benches will

be used to control erosion. The drainage being filled with spoil contained an ephemeral stream that drained

to perennial streams downstream of the permit area. The stream channel has been relocated on the north

side of the fill, with drainage from the face of the fill collected by ditches that slope gradually in the direction of the restored stream channel. The channel empties into a sedimentation pond at the bottom of the

fill. The restored channel was designed to accommodate the 100-year runoff event based on the ultimate

maximum drainage area when reclamation is complete+ The restored channel will be completely lined

with riprap due to potentially erosive velocities (6 feet per second) during the design event.

 case study mine Q in reference 14.

Photo credit: Colowyo Coal 00.

This excess spoil disposal area oocupies a former stream valley. Note the cross-slope channels draining into

the reconstructed drainage (right center), which is lined with riprap and drains into

a sedimentation control pond (lower right).
70 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

the stripping ratio is high, the postmining topography often will very nearly duplicate premining

topography, and it may be possible to restore the

premining surface drainage system to its approximate original configuration. Provided that the

premining erosional stability of the drainage system was not dependent on geologic features that

are removed during mining, such as bedrock outcrops, restoration of stream channels may simply be a matter of restoring premining channel

slopes, cross sections, and bed form.10

In other areas, such as the Powder River basin, low stripping ratios may preclude restoration

of a drainage system to its original configuration.

In these areas, entire drainage systems must be

built on the restored surface, based on a complete quantitative analysis of the geomorphology

of the premining and postmining drainage basins.

Where the overburden is extremely thin (relative

to the coal seam thickness), it may be difficult to

IOBed form includes channel bed characteristics such as particle

size gradation for alluvial channels, or the presence of perennial

sod-forming grasses for stabilized channels.

establish any surface drainages, and permanent

topographic depressions may remain.

In cases where mining removes only a segment of a stream channel, restoration involves

duplication of the undisturbed channel with no

abrupt changes in slope as well as nonerosive

slopes (see box 3-F). If necessary to achieve

acceptable slopes, channels and flood plains are

reconstructed in a winding configuration (“sin uosity”) to spread the change in elevation over a

longer distance. If the channel is alluvial, special

attention must be paid to the size and gradation

(size composition) of the bed material in order

to maintain the sediment transport rate and ensure channel stability. For channels stabilized

with vegetation, the ability of the bed and bank

to support a viable vegetation community is the

critical factor.

Special surface water restoration techniques

may be used in innovative or unique reclamation situations. These include channel reconstruction through natural scouring and deposition

processes, engineered reconstruction of winding
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation . 71

Photo credit: Jenifer Rob/son, OTA staff

At this Wyoming mine, a small drainage basin was

reconstructed with a winding drainage proceeding from

the upper center of this picture to the lower left. Millet

was planted to stabilize the topsoil until the appropriate

season for applying the permanent seed mix.

drainages, and restoration of wetlands (box 3-G).

in these situations, the criteria for evaluating the

success of the reclamation become extremely important (see ch. 7).

Groundwater11

Surface coal mining affects groundwater resources both during and after mining in ways that

vary with the mining method, the extent and

scale of mining, and the characteristics of the

hydrogeological system. Mining activities can

lower water tables and reduce groundwater

quality, either of which could result in impacts

to the existing ecological system (ch. 6 discusses

the analytical techniques used to predict these

impacts). Surface mining regulations require the

operator to monitor groundwater characteristics

for at least 1 year prior to the start of mining, in

order to establish a baseline against which the

impacts of mining can be measured (see chs. 4

and 5).

Groundwater Quantity

Shallow aquifers in coal seams and overburden

strata in the Western States provide water for both

stock and domestic uses from wells that typically

11 unless otheWiSe noted, tl-re material in this section is adapted

from reference 14.
72 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

yield 5 to 10 gpm, a flow rate insufficient for irrigation. Exceptions are wells developed in the

alluvial aquifers of major streams, such as the

Tongue and Missouri Rivers, where much larger

yields are possible. In any case, State water laws

and the Federal and State regulatory programs

require the mine operator to replace the water

supply or to otherwise compensate the owner for

the water lost if mining activities dewater any

nearby wells to the extent that they are no longer

usable.

During and after mining, aquifers in the overburden and coal are destroyed and replaced by

mine spoils. Usually the coal seam itself would

have been the only shallow aquifer of any significance. Tests conducted on wells developed

in postmine spoils in several Western mining

areas suggest that the spoils will be at least as

capable of transmitting water as were the coal

seam aquifers that have been removed.

Mining method, which together with Iithology

determines the swell factor (the ratio between the

volume of postmining spoils and premining overburden) in the replaced spoils, partially influences

the degree to which an aquifer’s premining hydraulic characteristics are restored postmining.

Swell factors range from 5 to 10 percent for small

scraper mines, 10 to 15 percent for truck-andshovel mines, and 20 to 30 percent for dragline

operations. There is a general correlation between increase in postmining volume and an increase in porosity and hydraulic conductivity. For

permit approval, the operator is required to evaluate both the sources and the rate of recharge

to the postmine spoil aquifer (see ch. 6).

Spoils aquifer recharge and groundwater discharge to surface waters are affected by postmining surface topography. At thin overburden

mines, for example, postmining topography may

be lower than the premining surface, and unless

the backfill is sealed to create a confined aquifer,

a lake or swamp could form on the surface. At

a mine in Wyoming, where modeling showed the

potential for the postmining water table to be approximately 10 feet below the surface, the postmining topography will be designed with small

stream channels at least 10 feet deep to drain surface water, intercept the water table, and keep

the majority of the surface from being saturated

(see also box 3-H).

Groundwater Quality

Mining breaks up shales and sandstones and

exposes fresh mineral surfaces for leaching,

which will affect the quality of the water that

flows through these materials. Because groundwater flows toward the pit during mining, there

is little opportunity for any contaminants introduced by mining to affect offsite areas, and impacts to groundwater quality during mining are

minimal (see ch. 6, figs. 6-1A, B).

The greatest potential for groundwater quality

impacts occurs after mining, when groundwater

saturates the spoil and returns to a steady-state

groundwater flow pattern (fig. 6-1 C). Water quality is expected to be degraded in the resatu rated

spoils untiI they have been leached by sufficient

volumes of water to establish a chemical equi-
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 7 3

Iibrium between incoming water and soluble

constituents in the spoil material. Over the long

term, however, groundwater quality is still predicted to be suitable for the majority of postmining land uses.

The soluble constituents primarily responsible

for elevated TDS levels are the salts of sodium,

calcium, and magnesium, as well as sulfate and

bicarbonate. The worst impacts on postmining

groundwater quality could result from placement

of unoxidized sodic and sulfide-rich sediments

near the surface—above the water table—where

water from surface infiltration could contact these

sediments en route to the groundwater table. In

this situation, surface infiltration must be limited

to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater quality (box 3-H). While acid-mine drainage has long

been a problem in the Eastern united States, it

is just beginning to be recognized in Western

mines (see box 3-l), where the overburden is

much more likely to be high in carbonate minerals (calcite and dolomite) with a high buffering

capacity (see ch. 8).

The principal reclamation technique to control

TDS and other groundwater contamination is special handling of the overburden (i. e., selective

placement or mixing). At present, however, researchers are divided in their opinions on the

technique for the burial of overburden in mine

spoils in order to minimize impacts to groundwater systems.

When wastes (e.g., fly ash or scrubber waste

from powerplants) are buried in the pit, concerns about groundwater quality increase. Soluble metals in the coal can be concentrated in the

ash and, under certain conditions, mobilized by

groundwater. As with other chemically unsuitable spoil materials, special handling is required

in burial of utility wastes. A mine in New Mexico buries fly ash, bottom ash, and scrubber

sludge in low permeability mine spoils below the

postmining water table (see box 6-F), while a

mine in northwestern Colorado is required to dispose of utility wastes in dry mine spoils above

the postmining water table (see box 3-J).

At the Wyodak Mine near Gillette, Wyoming,

thin overburden conditions necessitate disposal

of fly ash beneath the postmining water table.

Box 34.-Handling of Acid-Forming Material1

The overburden and coal seam at a Powder

River basin mine have layers of carbonaceous

material containing pyritic and organic sulfur

that can produce acids when oxidized. The regulatory authority was concerned about incorporating this material in spoil below the postmining

water table because of the possibility of producing acidic groundwater. Analysis of the acid-base

potential of the carbonaceous materials (see ch.

8) indicated that the materials would pose no

hazards to groundwater quality. The carbonaceous material will be mixed with highly basic

spoils to dilute the acid-producing potential of

the backfill. The top of the regraded backfill must

consist of suitable material, as demonstrated by

sampling and analysis of the top 4 feet, which

can include carbonaceous materials in low concentrations.

See case study mine M in reference 14.

Due to concerns about the permeability of the

spoils, the Wyoming DEQ requires that the ash

material be encapsulated in compacted clay cells

to minimize impacts to groundwater quality.

Chemical analysis of the ash, column-leaching

studies of the ash and ash-overburden mixtures,

and accelerated-aging studies of the compacted

clay liners were required to document that this

disposal method would minimize groundwater

quality degradation (see ch. 6 for further discussion of these analytical techniques).

Alluvial Valley Floors12

Alluvial valley floors (AVFS), as defined in

SMCRA, are “the unconsolidated stream-laid deposits holding streams where water availability

is sufficient for subirrigation or flood irrigation

agricultural activities” (sec. 701 ). I n the Western

United States, SMCRA prohibits surface coal mine

operations that would interrupt, discontinue, or

preclude farming on AVFS significant to agriculture, unless the acreage to be disturbed is so small

as to have a negligible impact on farming. The

Act also prohibits mining that would materially

IzUnleSs Othemise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 14.
74 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

damage the quantity or quality of surface or

groundwater systems that supply AVFS significant

to farming. Where mining is allowed, either because the AVF is not significant to agriculture or

because the area to be disturbed is very small,

SMCRA imposes special reclamation standards to

preserve or restore the essential hydrologic functions of the AVF. A special monitoring system also

is required for all AVFS from the onset of mining

until all bonds have been released. Figure 3-10

presents a stylized diagram of an AVF.

The hydrologic functions unique to AVFS include the collection, storage, and regulation of

flow that results in water being usefully available from the stream or alluvial aquifer in quantities sufficient for agricultural purposes. As yet,

no AVFS have been mined and finally reclaimed

under SMCRA. However, several plans for AVF

restoration have been approved by the regulatory authorities. These plans focus on channel

and floodplain geometry and erosional stability,

and on alluvial aquifer depth, thickness, and

water storage and transmitting capabiIities. Thus

AVF restoration combines some of the more rigorous design aspects of surface and groundwater

restoration discussed previously (see box 3-K),

Design of the restored channel and floodplain

is essentially the same as described under “Surface Water,” above, except that the drainage basin must be of sufficient size to sustain the premining surface water irrigation capability. This usually

is not a problem, because drainage basins large

enough to contain an AVF in the semiarid West

normally are much larger than a mine area. Moreover, topography adjacent to the AVF typically

is flatter after mining, increasing its value for irrigation.

The simplest plan for restoration of an alluvial aquifer is to salvage and replace alluvial materials present in the undisturbed valley. These

materials ordinarily range from very fine-grained

deposits near the surface to coarser-grained sands

and gravels at the base of the deposit. Often there

are fine-grained sequences mixed within other

layers. Due to mixing, salvage and replacement

of these materials may not restore the premining hydraulic properties of the material. There-
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 7 5

Figure 3-10.—Stylized Diagram of an Alluvial Valley Floor

Subirrigated

alluvium

SOURCE Dollhopf, Wendy, Goering, and Hedsberg, “Hydrology of a Watershed With Subirrigated Alluvial Materials in Crop Product ion,” Montana Agricultural Experiment Stat Ion Bulletin 715, 1979.

Box 3-K.—Techniques for Restoring the Essential Hydrologic Functions of an AVF1

&e case study mine in reference 14.
76 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

fore alternate materials, such as sandy overburden, may be used in AVF reconstruction. Most

AVF restoration plans include a compacted layer

beneath the replaced alluvium to minimize loss

of streamflow into the spoils. In addition, this

layer should help speed up restoration of the essential hydrologic functions of the alluvial system

by making its restoration relatively independent

of that of the adjacent spoils (see box 3-K).

Revegetationl 3

The goal of revegetation at Western surface

coal mines is to reestablish plant communities

similar to the premining vegetation (as determined by baseline vegetation maps and quantitative data for all land-use categories), except

where the postmining land use is different from

the premining use, or where the premining vegetation was of poor quality and thus represents

an unacceptably low standard for revegetation.

The range of natural vegetation within the study

region is broad, with a concomitant variation in

the permitting process and subsequent approaches

to revegetation. The desert grasslands of northwestern New Mexico, for example, present significantly different revegetation problems from

the mountain brush in northwestern Colorado,

the mixed prairie in northeastern Wyoming, the

ponderosa pine woodlands of southeastern Montana, and the woody draws along drainages in

North Dakota. Plant communities along drainages are especially important in much of the region, because the moister conditions frequently

support greater vegetation densities and diversities than drier uplands, and may foster plant and

animal species not found elsewhere.

Once the redressed topsoil has been graded

and prepared for revegetation (see discussion of

“Topsoil Handling, ” above), the area is seeded

and planted with species appropriate for the postmining land uses—primarily native species for

rangeland and wildlife habitat. The timing of

seeding and planting is determined by site-specific moisture and climatic conditions, as well as

vegetation types (see below). The seed mixes generally are chosen by the operator i n consuItation

IJUnlesSotheWise indicat~, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 13.

with the regulatory authority, and are specified

in the approved permit. The seeds may be applied through broadcast or drill methods. Shrubs

and trees can be established from nursery stock,

including bare-root and containerized stock; from

planted or in-situ seeds; or from onsite transplants. In some areas, special management practices may be used to promote revegetation success (see discussion below and in ch. 8).

The site-specific factors that affect revegetation include soil texture, depth, and alkalinity;

site elevation, slope, aspect, and wind exposure;

and precipitation and temperature patterns and

ranges. Plant-available moisture, as determined

by the amount, form, and seasonal distribution

of precipitation, is usually the primary limiting

factor for plant growth and successful revegetation. As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, seasonal precipitation varies widely in the

study area, with annual averages at most mine

sites ranging from approximately 7 or 8 inches

to 16 or 18 inches (fig. 3-2). Plant-available moisture usually is at a maximum in late spring to early

summer for most of the study area, but peaks in

mid to late summer in the San Juan River region.

The combined patterns of plant-available

moisture and temperature determine whether

cool season plants, which carry out most of their

growth before or after the heat of summer, or

warm season plants, which start and accomplish

their growth at warmer temperatures, are dominant. In either case, the maximum period of

growth coincides with the maximum precipitation. In general, cool season species are dominant in the central and northern portions of the

study region, and warm season species prevail

in the southern reaches.

Special Management Practices

A variety of special management practices

may be used to promote revegetation success

and meet performance standards. These may

range from relatively common agricultural practices adapted for mined land reclamation, such

as mulching, irrigation, and fertilization; to directhaul topsoiling; to innovative techniques to reduce interspecies competition, enhance woody

plant density, improve grassland quality, and pro-
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation . 77

mote landscape diversity. The use of any of these

practices will depend on site-specific conditions

and the postmining land use, as well as on mining methods.

As discussed above, direct haul topsoil provides an organically rich and biologically active

medium for revegetation, which dramatically

improves the establishment of planted and volunteer species. As a result, superior Iifeform (i.e.,

shrubs, forbs, grasses) and species diversity can

be obtained within a relatively short time. In areas

with deep soils of suitable chemical and physical parameters, the benefits of direct haul topsoil may be enhanced with the use of two lifts

(see ch. 8).

Mulch conserves soil moisture and aids erosion control, and has long been an integral part

of surface mine revegetation. Historically, the

most common mulching materials have been

straw or hay. Although these materials are effective in erosion control, they often are difficult to

anchor i n windy areas, and the usual anchoring

technique of crimping the straw into the soil may

cause more soil moisture to be lost through wicking than it conserves. Considerable nitrogen also

is tied up i n the decomposition of the muIch. Furthermore, straw or hay mulches tend to include

seeds of undesirable species, and the resulting

weed infestations can cause serious competition

Photo credit: Office of Surface Mining

Straw or hay mulch can conserve soil moisture and aid

in erosion control until revegetation is established.

Here, grass may be seen coming up through the mulch.

with the planted species. Those native hay mulches

that have proven to be relatively weed-free can

include desirable native seeds that otherwise may

be hard to obtain. Reliable sources of native hay

are scarce at many mines, however.

Alternative approaches include the use of

mulch created onsite and “stubble” mulch.

Mulch derived from shredded native vegetation

(“live mulch”) has shown good results in promoting woody plant density and diversity at one mine

in northwestern Colorado, where the climatic and

other conditions for revegetation are the most

favorable in the study region (see box 3-L). This

promising technique is now being tried in the

more arid conditions of northwestern New

Mexico.

For stubble mulch, a cover of small grain (e.g.,

wheat, barley, millet) is drill-seeded in the spring

to retard wind and water erosion. The following

Box 3-L.—Creating Mulch

From Native Vegetation

A mine in northwestern Colorado “creates”

mulch before topsoil removal by treating woody

areas with a tractor-mounted shredder that

leaves a residue of finely chopped woody biomass on the soil surface. The shredder can operate in the aspen woodlands, producing as much

as 77 tons of mulch per acre. This technique allows complete topsoil salvage in areas where

woody plants formerly were uprooted and removed by bulldozers. The uprooted plants had

substantial amounts of the uppermost (and most

valuable) soil layers Ieft attached to the root system. This rich soil and accompanying root material were lost as the plants were hauled away

for disposal. Areas treated by this mulching technique have shown substantial woody-plant regeneration by root sprouting, resulting in far better densities than previously achieved through

seeding and planting. Moreover, after topsoil

removal and replacement on the reclaimed surface, sufficient organic debris remains on the surface to function as a mulch, and the regulatory

authority has approved this innovative “live”

mulching in lieu of other traditional mulching

methods at this mine (see also box 8-B).

See case study mine CO-1 in reference 13.
78 ● western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

fall, the grain “nurse” crop, which may be

mowed to prevent seed production, is present

as standing dead straw, and the perennial seed

mix is interseeded between the rows of remaining stubble. During the winter, the stubble enhances snow retention, and as a result, the perennial seed mix germinates and grows in a more

favorable environment than if the stubble were

not there. On at least one mine, grain crops have

been grown for several years, and the stubble

disked into the soil in hopes of enhancing

organic-matter content prior to seeding the

perennial mix.

Early concern about revegetation success in

areas with less than 10 inches of annual precipitation led to the imposition of irrigation require

ments in a number of mine permits. Irrigation

can ensure consistent and predictable plant establishment, especially in the Southwest where precipitation is less effective in promoting plant

growth because it occurs later in the year and

under warmer conditions, resulting in more precipitation loss by evaporation. However, vegetation growth developed under irrigation normally experiences a substantial dieback when the

irrigation is withdrawn. Moreover, in such lowprecipitation areas, irrigation water of acceptable

quality is likely to be difficult to obtain (see box

3-M).

Vegetation developing slowly under dryland

conditions may reach the same level of cover

and production in the long run as irrigated

areas. A mine in northwestern New Mexico that

receives as little as 6 to 8 inches average annual

precipitation uses irrigation for 2 years after seeding as part of its standard reclamation practice.

On part of another mine in the same area owned

by the same company, an experimental area

without irrigation has been initiated and will be

monitored to determine the relative success of

revegetation with and without irrigation.

Fertization of revegetated areas has diminished steadily because pasture species dependent on high fertilizer rates have been removed

from seed mixes, and because experience has

indicated that nitrogen fertilizers encourage vigorous growth of weeds and the more aggressive

native grasses, to the detriment of less aggressive natives, including woody plants. At most

sites, performance standards can be met through

other management practices, and the enhanced

short-term production and cover resulting from

fertilization are not needed for long-term revegetation success.

A number of steps maybe taken to reduce interspecies competition between aggressive cool

season grasses and the various shrubs, forbs,

and warm season grasses that frequently are

unable to survive beyond germination. Two

commonly used planting remedies are to reduce

the relative proportion of cool season grasses in

the seed mix in order to offset their competitive

advantage, and to use two-staged or two-phased

planting for temporal separation in the establish-
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 7 9

ment of aggressive and less aggressive species.

Two-staged or two-phased planting was first practiced at a mine in southeastern Montana, where

warm season grasses plus forbs and shrubs are

planted in prepared topsoil, and then given one

to three growing seasons to become established

before interseeding with cool season grass species. Alternatively, sequential drill-seedings at an

angle to one another provide a slight—but apparently effective-spatial separation of aggressive

and less aggressive species. Another successful

approach is to plant both cool and warm season

species during the warm season to reduce the

competitive advantage of cool season grasses,

and then use supplemental irrigation to maximize

the growth of warm season species. Also, lower

total planting rates associated with direct haul

topsoiling typically have improved the establishment of less aggressive species.

Revegetation of woody plants in sufficient

density and diversity to meet performance standards is a continuing concern in the West, especially in areas where woody plants are important winter browse for big game. Loss of newly

established shrubs to wildlife is a continuing problem, However, monitoring and other revegetation data at a number of mines in Wyoming suggest that shrub densities of one stem per square

meter over 10 percent of the area (the proposed

standard in Wyoming) can be realized in the early

years of reclamation using direct seeding combined with one of the methods for reducing competition discussed above. In general, the greatest success has been achieved with four-wing

saltbush. Other shrubs valuable as browse have

had variable success, and big sagebrush has

proven especially difficult to establish at many

sites (see ch. 8). Planting of nursery stock and onsite transplants of mature shrubs may be too expensive and results too poor at some mines for

large-scale use of these techniques, unless supplemented with direct haul topsoiling, which can

provide a valuable source of seeds or rootstock

(“propagul es”) for shrub volunteers. In addition,

as noted above, mulch created from shredded

native woody vegetation has shown promise as

a propagule source in northwestern Colorado, although its effectiveness in other parts of the study

regions has yet to be demonstrated. Several mines

in northwestern Colorado also are transplanting

shrub and tree pads directly with a front-end

loader, which may provide volunteer growth later

in the liability period.

Several special management techniques are

being used on upland grasslands in the Northern Great Plains to improve Iifeform and species diversity, seasonality (particularly warm

season grass establishment), and vigor. In the

Northern Plains, grasslands comprised of highly

productive species may become stagnant and less

productive if excess litter (decayed organic matter) accumulates, because litter ties up nutrients

and can promote disease. Grazing is one technique for breaking up the litter and incorporating seeds and organic matter into the soil. Burning

also can increase nutrient availability temporarily and hasten breakdown of the litter. Grazing,

burning, haying, and application of herbicides

may improve diversity (including seasonality)

when the timing and intensity of these practices

decrease the advantage of cool season grasses

and “weeds. ”

Wildlife14

Techniques or practices to alleviate surface

coal mining impacts to wildlife include mitigation techniques during mining as well as habitat restoration postmining. A mine operator will

select a set of techniques in consultation with

the regulatory authority and relevant wildlife

agencies (e. g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—

FWS, State Fish and Game agencies), given the

baseline data on species occurrence, distribution, and abundance, habitat preference, and

reproductive success, and on habitat or habitat features considered limiting or critical to the

survival or maintenance of a particular species

population (see ch. 5). Important terrestrial habitats in the study region include raptor nest sites,

critical big game winter range, sharp-tailed and

sage grouse breeding grounds, bald eagle winter concentration areas, and sand hill-crane nesting habitat, as well as habitat for threatened and

endangered species. Aquatic habitat potentially

TqUnless Othewise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 1.
80 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 3.3.—Selected Mitigation Techniques Listed by General Categorya

Avoidance Operational Habitat replacement/enhancement Offsite enhancement

–Preserve vegetation patchesb

–Preserve important habitatb

–Buffer zones

–Temporal avoidance during

critical periods or times

–Visual barriers

–Protect migration corridors

–Stagger operations to avoid

disturbing large tracts of

habitat concurrently

–Restrict speed limits on access

and haul roads

–Compatible location of roads

–Underpasses/overpasses for

roads and conveyors

–Raptor-safe powerlines

–Compatible fence design or

lay-down fence for big game

–Employee wildlife awareness

programs

–Hunting and fishing allowed/

not allowed

–Prohibit firearms in vehicle

–Monitoring

–Topographic manipulation

● undulating surface

● surface depressions

● drainage reconstruction

● microtopographic features

–Establish/enhance impoundments

–Rock piles/boulders

–Transplant shrubs/trees

–Establish shrub patches

–Establish interspersion/edge concept with vegetation reestablishment

–Establish shelterbelts/riparian

vegetation

–Direct application of topsoil

–Attain shrub density standards

–Brush pilesc

–Implant dead trees for snagsc

–Stream habitat reconstruction

–Improve land management

practices

–Nesting structures

–Leave/modify highwallsb

–Relocate raptor nestsb

–Relocate sage grouse strutting

grounds

–Special studies/research

–Perch sitesc

–Gallinaceous guzzlersc

–Vegetation species selection

–Controlled burning

–Fertilizingc

–Seeding

–Shrub thinning or crushing

–Elimination or reduction in

livestock grazing

–Impoundmentsb

–Strutting ground relocation

–Relocate raptor nestsb

aFor detailed descriptions anrj discussions of these techniques, please refer to the list of selected references in reference 1.

bLegal, teChflOIOgl@, andlor economic constraints limit the extent to which these Practices maY be employed.

cTemporaV techniques that require maintenance beyond installation.

SOURCE: Cedar Creek Associates, “Wildlife Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985,

affected by surface coal mining consists mostly

of small wetlands, stockponds, perennial streams,

and ephemeral drainages.

Under SMCRA, operators must, to the extent

possible using the best technology currently available,l5 minimize adverse wiId life and habitat impacts. The Federal regulations add provisions related to endangered species, bald and golden

eagles, wetlands and habitats of unusually high

value, and specify design standards for features

such as powerlines, haul roads, and fences.

Mitigation Techniques

There are four general categories of techniques for mitigating wildlife impacts from

‘Sin this context, “best technology currently available” is defined

in the Federal regulations as “equipment, devices, systems, methods, or techniques which will minimize, to the extent possible, disturbances [of] and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and related

environmental values, and achieve enhancement of those resources

where practicable. ”

surface coal mining: habitat replacement/enhancement, avoidance techniques, operational

techniques, and off site enhancement. Table 3-

3 summarizes he measures more commonly employed at Western surface coal mines for each

of these categories.

Habitat replacement and enhancement during reclamation comprise the greatest number

of wildlife mitigation measures. All mining operations give some consideration to wildlife in

planning revegetation and other reclamation

activities. Where wildlife habitat is the primary

postmining land use, or where sensitive or protected species will be disturbed, wildlife habitat

replacement or enhancement may be complex

and extensive (see box 3-N). For those portions

of the mine site where the primary postmining

land use is wildlife habitat, SMCRA requires that

plant species for revegetation be selected based

on their proven nutritional value, their use as

cover, and their ability to support and enhance
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 8 1

Box 3-N.—Habitat Replacement and Enhancement Techniques

The premining surface at a mine in northeastern New Mexico was managed specifically for big game,

primarily elk and mule deer. The primary postmining land use will be wildlife habitat, as specified by the

surface owner, who maintains a strong economic interest in resident big game herds. Other big game animals present include black bear and mountain lion. Several years ago, the operator entered into a cooperative agreement with the surface owner for extensive monitoring of the big game herds, in order to determine the effects of mining on game populations, and to design appropriate mitigation efforts. Subsequently,

this monitoring has been expanded to include nongame animals and fish in order to obtain an overall

picture of the wildlife ecology of the area. The operator has collected extensive telemetry and mapping

information from radio-collared big game animals, and has analyzed the quality of nearby habitats, presence or absence of suitable habitat for given species, animal distance from the operation, and wildlife’s

ability to adapt to mining. To date, these efforts indicate use by mule deer and elk of reclaimed areas

adjacent to the active mining operation. Wildlife mitigation measures implemented at the mine comprise

specifically designed techniques and alternate reclamation practices to improve habitat components beneficial to wildlife. The site-specific designs include: 1) construction of rock piles placed randomly within

reclaimed areas as shelter and escape cover for small animals and as perch sites for birds and raptors;

2) formation of brush piles to provide habitat analogous to rock piles; 3) fencing of the permit area to

exclude livestock that could compete for forage, trample riparian vegetation, and compact streamside soils;

4) replacement of tree-cavity nesting habitat (nest boxes) for kestrels; 5) fertilization of offsite habitats to

improve forage production for big game; 6) education of mine personnel about the effect of wildlife harassment; and 7) introduction of stocked fish in mine-area ponds as a “barometer” of water quality and to

provide prey for fish-eating predators. Alternate reclamation practices involve: 1) leaving a short stable

highwall that resembles natural rock outcrops and bluffs and adds topographic diversity, 2) redistribution

of soils to place thin rocky soils on slopes and thicker soils on ridgetops and valley bottoms to encourage

plant diversity, 3) targeting earlier successional plant communities in the seed mix to promote habitat diversity

and forage production, and 4) reestablishment of shrubs and trees in configurations beneficial to wildlife,

such as travel lanes and mixing of types for edge effects.

We case study mine G in reference 1.

habitat. In addition, the selected plants must be

grouped and distributed in a manner that optimizes edge effect, cover, and other benefits to

w i Id Iife.

Operators also must avoid disturbing, enhance

where practicable, restore, or replace wetlands

and vegetation along rivers, streams, and ponds,

as well as other habitats of unusually high value

for fish and wildlife (e.g., cliffs supporting raptor

nests, wintering and nursery areas, breeding

areas, etc.). At some mines, this may involve

manipuIating the postmining topography to obtain landscape diversity (see ch. 8), or recreating special wildlife habitat areas such as sage

grouse strutting grounds (see box 3-Q, below),

woody draws (box 3-O), and wetlands (box 3-G).

For other land uses, however, mitigation efforts

often are limited to measures such as planting

groups of trees or shrubs to break up blocks of

land and to diversify habitat types for birds and

other animals. Rockpiles and other surface features beneficial to wildlife often are replaced postm ining.

Avoidance techniques range from disallowing

mining to preserving small patches of important

habitat, to maintaining or establishing visual

barriers or buffer zones between mining operations and sensitive wildlife habitat. Avoidance

measures also can be temporal—for example,

prohibiting blasting or mining near breeding areas

during the breeding season. In areas where habitat removal is imminent, temporal avoidance

only postpones removal during important wildlife seasonal activities, and therefore the benefits usually are short-term unless the habitat is restored following mining. Avoidance requirements

may be imposed prior to leasing as a result of application of the unsuitability criteria (see ch. 4),
82 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

or during permitting based on the wildlife impact

assessments included in the permit application

package.

Avoidance of important habitats or patches

of vegetation can be important for maintaining

natural sources of wildlife and vegetation for

reinvasion into reclaimed areas. However, the

importance of these areas as wildlife habitat during mining may be limited if the areas are small

or isolated by large tracts of disturbed land. Moreover, operational, cost, and full coal recovery

considerations often limit an operator’s ability to

avoid important habitats.

As experience is gained with wildlife responses

to mining in the West, less emphasis has been

placed on avoidance measures. For example,

during the late 1970s and early 1980s, wildlife biologists believed that all eagles were extremely

sensitive to human activity, especially during

breeding or fledging seasons. As a result, it was

standard practice for coal leasing and permitting

agencies to require an undisturbed buffer zone

around active eagle nests. Recent research has

shown, however, that some eagles may be much

more tolerant of nearby disturbances from mining than expected, and that in some cases nests

can be moved without adverse impacts on the

eagle population (see box 3-P; see also ch. 9, box

9-A).

Operational mitigation techniques may involve the education or regulation of mine personnel, as well as modifications in mine operations or mine pIan structures designed to reduce

the potential for adverse impacts. Specific techniques include lowering speed limits on access

and haul roads to reduce the potential for roadkills, designing and locating roads and other structures so as not to interfere with wildlife movement, conducting employee wiIdlife awareness

programs, or making powerlines raptor-safe (see

fig. 3-1 1).

Offsite enhancement measures usually focus

on modifying habitats to increase their value to

targeted species, or constructing new habitats

offsite to replace those to be disturbed by mining (see box 3-Q), and are used to mitigate projected wildlife impacts resulting from disturbance

or removal of mine-area habitats. Providing

alternate raptor nest sites (e.g., rockpiles), improving surface-water resources, eliminating live-
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation ● 8 3

stock grazing, and thinning of overly dense shrub land use practices on, adjacent areas are the pristands are examples of offsite enhancement tech- mary factors (other than cost) determining the exniques. In other instances, these practices may tent to which offsite enhancement measures are

be undertaken to protect newly established vege- implemented.

tation from wildlife. Surface ownership of, and

Box 3-P.-Relocating Golden Eagle Nests1

We case study mine D in reference 1.

Box 3-Q.-Creationreation of a Sage Grouse Strutting Ground1

%ee case study mine C in reference 1.
84 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Figure 3-il.—Designs for Powerlines

Vertical separation of the center and two outside conductors

precludes the electrocution hazard on one type of pole

Straight perch

Protective conductor insulation cover for installation on poles used

by raptors as an alternative to pole reconstruction

“T” perch

Typical perch applications 30cm

5 x 10x 183cm (2 x 4 x 72

x 10 x 122cm (2 x 4 x 48 In

Artificial perches mounted above existing poles as an alternative to Pole modification (suitable primarily for treeless areas) and perch assembly details.

5 x IOcm (2 x 4 In ) post

(length determined

by pole framing

construction)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Practices for PrOteCtfn9 and Enhancing Fish and Wildlife on Coal Surface-Mined Land.
Ch. 3—Western Surface Mining and Reclamation . 85

1.

2.

3.

5.

6.

Photo credit: Colowyo Coal Co.

Thinning dense shrub stands on an undisturbed portion of the mine site during the winter stimulates new spring growth

attractive to browsers such as elk, thus reducing wildlife use of revegetated areas.

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES

Cedar Creek Associates, “Wildlife Technologies

for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor 

 to OTA, August 1985. 7.

 Nicholas P., “Improved Mining Methods and Larger Equipment Reach Deeper Seams,”

 Age, July 1984.

National Coal Association, About 

1984-1985. 8.

 Robert (cd.), Resources, 

 and Ownership the U.S.A. (Park Ridge,

NJ: Data Corp., 1978).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Environment/ Protection in the Federal Coal Leas- 9.

ing Program, OTA-E-237 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, May 1984).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

An Assessment of Development and Production

 of Federal Leases, OTA-M-150 10.

(Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, December 1981).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, San Juan River Regional Coal Environmental Impact Statement, Second Draft (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1983).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Green River-Hams Fork, Round II (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1983),

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Federal Coal Management Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1983).

 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
86 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

11

12.

13.

Management, Drafi Fort Union Coa/ Regional

Environment/ /mpact Statement (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1982).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Fina/ Environrnenta/ /rnpact Statement, Eastern Powder River (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).

Walsh, James P., & Associates, “Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal Mine

Reclamation,” contractor report to OTA, August

1985.

Western Resource Development Corp., and Jane

Bunin, “Revegetation Technology and Issues at

Western Surface Coal Mines,” contractor report

to OTA, September 1985.

14. Western Water Consultants, “Hydrologic Evaluation and Reclamation Technologies for Western

Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA,

August 1985.

15. Woods, P. F., Modeled Impacts of Sutiace Coal

Mining on Dissolved Solids in the Tongue River,

Southeastern Montana, U.S. Geological Survey,

Water Res. Inv. 81-64 (1981), as cited in reference

13.

16. 1984 Keystone Coal /ndustry Manual (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1984).
Chapter 4

Western Surface Mine Regulation
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

The Coal Leasing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Activity Planning and Lease Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Surface Mine Permitting and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Clean Water Act...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

National Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Other Federal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Federal Agency Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

State Programs for the Regulation of Surface Mining and Reclamation . . . . . . . 109

Chapter4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

List of Tables

Table No. Page

4-1. Planning and Regulation of Western Federal Coal Development . . . . . . . . 90

4-2. The Unsuitability Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4-3. Colorado Legislation Affecting Coal Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

4-4. Montana Legislation Affecting Coal Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

4-5. New Mexico Legislation Affecting Coal Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

4-6. North Dakota Legislation Affecting Coal Development, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

4-7. Wyoming Legislation Affecting Coal Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

List of Figures

Figure No. PJge

4-1. Proposed Coal Leasing Program Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

4-2. Flowchart of Alluvial Valley Floor Regulatory Process , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter 4

Western Surface Mine Regulation

INTRODUCTION

Western surface coal mining is a highly regulated activity, especially when the surface or coal

is federally owned. From a company’s exploration for coal reserves, through securing the rights

to develop those reserves, to mining and reclamation, the company must obtain a wide variety of permits and must ensure that its activities

comply with the conditions of those permits as

well as with a host of other Federal, State, and

local laws and regulations. Moreover, many of

the Federal laws governing coal development

provide for State permitting programs consistent

with the Federal program, resulting in permit application review at both the Federal and State

level, The scope of Federal agency involvement

in this process is much broader in the Western

United States than in other parts of the country

because of the Federal Government’s extensive

ownership of both surface and mineral resources.

At each step in Western coal development and

its regulation, existing data are analyzed in increasing detail and supplemented by more directed data-gathering efforts. This is possible because the amount of land being evaluated at each

successive stage in the process becomes progressively smaller as the land moves closer to leasing and development. Prior to development, the

ultimate level of detail in data collection and analysis is in support of a mining and reclamation plan

and permit application under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

After development, emphasis shifts to the gathering and analysis of monitoring data to ensure

compliance with the plan and permit, and to

demonstrate reclamation success.

This chapter describes the Federal and State

regulatory process for Western coal development, from leasing through reclamation and bond

release (see table 4-1 ). in describing that process, the chapter focuses on data and analysis requirements as an introduction to chapters 5 and

6, and on performance and design standards as

an introduction to chapters 7 and 8. While the

greatest emphasis is placed on the coal leasing

program and on the provisions of SMCRA, other

related programs are described, including the National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA), and the

Clean Air and Water Acts. A wide range of other

Federal laws that could affect surface coal mining and reclamation in the West are listed at the

end of the section on permitting and regulation;

State laws are summarized in tables 4-3 through

4-7 at the end of the chapter.

THE COAL LEASING PROGRAM’

Because the Federal Government owns 50 to

60 percent of the coal reserves in the six major

Federal coal States, much Western coal must be

leased from the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM; or, in a few cases, the U.S. Forest Service)

before it can be mined. Of the 76 active surface

coal mines in the five State study region in 1983,

52 (roughly 70 percent) incorporated Federal

coal. Under the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (FCLAA), BLM holds competi-

‘ U n less otherwise noted, the text i n this section is adapted from

reference 3.

tive lease sales for new production tracts on a

schedule and in amounts determined by the market demand for coal. Companies also may request lease sales to be scheduled for bypass tracts

(a lease needed to prevent leaving “islands” of

unmined coal) and maintenance tracts (needed

to continue operations at an existing mine).

A company begins planning for coal leasing

long before the sale actually is held by gathering

data about the coal and other resources in a particular area under an exploration permit. Coal resource data gathered u rider such a permit is pro89
90 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 4-1 .—Planning and Regulation of Western Federal Coal Development

Bureau of Land Managementa OSM/Regulatory authority Coal company

Leasing:

Permit and supervise coal exploration

on Federal lands

Evaluate coal resources

Planning for management of ail

resources based on inhouse and

published data

Apply unsuitability criteria

Planning for coal lease sale based on

above plus some field data

Prepare regional lease sale EIS

Prepare lease stipulations

Determine lease bond

Hold lease sale

Permitting:

Delineation of permit area

Responsible for all nonlessee activity

on leased land prior to onset of

mining

Approve designation of postmining

land use in permit application

package

Review permit application package

for efficient extraction of the

mineral resource, consistency with

the resource area management

plan, and compliance with lease

stipulations

Concur in approval of permit application and issuance of permit

Mining:

Oversee production of the coal

resource

Oversee uses of Federal surface outside the permit area including

rights-of-way and activities ancillary

to mining

Evaluation of reclamation success:

Inspect for compliance with any special requirements for protection of

surface resources and postmining

land use

Concur in reclamation bond release

Release lease bond

Delineation of permit area

Review permit application package

and make recommendations on

mining and reclamation plan

Prepare EA and/or EIS for permit

Determine performance bond

Prepare permit stipulations

Issue permit

Conduct inspections of the mine site

to ensure compliance with the

permit

Review monitoring data submitted in

accordance with the permit to ensure compliance

Act to correct violations, if necessary

Enforce and collect penalties for violations, if necessary

Review and approve applications for

permit modifications

Review and approve applications for

permit renewals

Develop criteria for evaluating success of reclamation (if not specified in the permit) for all three

phases of bond release

Review applications for bond release

and conduct onsite inspections

and evaluations

Release reclamation bond

Collect and analyze coal resource data

Prepare formal expressions of interest

for specific lease tracts

Prepare bids for lease tracts

Compile existing data on all mineral

and ecological resources on mine

site from inhouse, BLM, USGS, SCS,

FWS, etc. sources

Formulate first approximation of mining and reclamation plan

Complete baseline data collection on

all aspects of mine site

Analyze data to predict impacts of mining and demonstrate success of proposed reclamation

Prepare permit application package

Collect and analyze additional data and

revise permit application package, if

necessary

Collect high-intensity geologic and

hydrologic data as pit moves across

mine site

Collect monitoring data on hydrologic

and wildlife impacts as mining

proceeds

Continually refine mining and reclamation plan based on new data collected

Prepare applications for modifications

to permit, if necessary

Prepare application package for permit

renewal every 5 years, if not initially

issued for life-of-mine

Reclaim mined areas as contemporaneously as possible with mining

Monitor revegetation and hydrologic

restoration

After backfilling and grading, prepare

application for Phase I bond release

(Up to 60%)

After surface stabilization and initial

revegetation, prepare application for

Phase II bond release (15 to 25°/0)

Ten years after last seeding, fertilizing,

irrigating, or other work, prepare application for final bond release

%r other surface management agency (e.g., US. Forest Service).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation ● 9 1

prietary, but must be made available to BLM on

a confidential basis in support of an expression

of interest in a particular lease tract (see below)

to assist BLM in identifying areas with high coal

development potential that should be considered

for coal leasing. Data on noncoal resources may

be gathered during exploration to enable the

company to estimate the potential costs of development and exploration; such data also are

proprietary but do not have to be shared with

DOI preleasing. BLM and the companies also

may use coal resource data collected by Federal

agencies in earlier minerals surveys (e.g, by the

U.S. Geological Survey or the Bureau of Mines).

Most of the required preleasing data collection

and analysis is carried out by BLM field personnel consistent with section 3(a) of FCLAA, which

requires that lands considered for leasing shall

have been included in a comprehensive land use

plan and that lease sales be compatible with that

plan. The comprehensive land use planning procedures developed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) to implement section 3(a) of FCLAA

are based on the mandates in the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

FLPMA requires a multidisciplinary and comprehensive Federal land use planning process that

maintains an up-to-date inventory of public land

resources, giving priority to the designation and

protection of areas of critical environmental concern (ACECS); projects all potential future uses

of public lands and resources (not just coal development); and identifies opportunities for the

development or conservation of particular resources, considering the relative scarcity of the

resource values involved and the availability of

alternative means for realizing those values. This

land use planning is to be guided by the principles of multiple use of lands and resources, sustained yield of renewable resources, and conservation of depletable resources. The land use plan

must protect the quality of scenic, historical, environmental, air and water, and archeological values, including ACECS; preserve certain lands in

their natural conditions; provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and

provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use (1 8). Planning activities must be

coordinated with those of other Federal, State,

and local agencies; and must afford the public

adequate opportunity to comment on the management of public lands.

Based on these general planning mandates,

DOI structured the Federal coal leasing program

around an initial comprehensive land use planning process which applies to all Federal lands

and all resources on those lands, followed by

“activity” planning for the development of specific resources or uses, such as coal leasing (see

fig. 4-1 ). As noted above, a decision to offer a tract

for lease is made in the context of a “tiered” system of planning and analysis, in which the level

of analytical detail increases over time, while the

size of the area being evaluated decreases. Thus,

early in the process when few data are available,

large land areas are classified according to their

relative value for development of all possible resources. Lands that are identified as potentially

suitable for coal leasing at this stage are then subjected to increasingly detailed analyses as the

lands move closer to actual coal development,

with the most comprehensive analyses occurring

after leasing with the development of a mining

and reclamation plan and permit application under SMCRA.

Land Use Planning

The principal objective of the land use planning process is to establish a multiple resource

use management strategy for each of the “planning units” set up by BLM for the admi nitration

of public Iands.2 This is accomplished through

identification of all potential land uses and or opportunities for the development of particular resources based on their relative values. Coal development is one possible land use, and, during

land use planning, four screens are used to identify the acceptability of public lands for further

consideration for leasing. The screens focus on

coal development potential, the environmental

acceptability of lands for mining, multiple use

management, and surface owner preferences

Zlt shou Id be noted that many of the land use planning fequ~fements described below also apply to other agencies that manage

Federal lands overlying coal deposits (e.g., the U.S. Forest Service). The land use planning schedules and priorities within these

agencies need to be coordinated closely with BLM’s planning for

lease sales.
92 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation • 93

about mining (where the Federal Government

does not own the surface) (see box 4-A). Based

on the results of the application of these screens,

lands determined to be acceptable for further

consideration for coal development are carried

forward into activity planning for leasing.

For past lease sales, BLM applied these screens

based on data available in-house as well as the

published literature. This included earlier BLM

land use planning documents, any environmental

impact statements (EISS) prepared for earlier

projects in the planning area, and the data from

previous coal Iease sales. These documents were

updated through techniques such as areal mapping or limited field surveys. Under FLPMA, however, land use planning also must include a full

EIS on resource management alternatives, and future planning efforts probably will involve additional field surveys to accumulate data at a sufficient level of detail to satisfy the requirements of

NE PA.

Activity Planning and Lease Sales

After general resource planning for a management area is complete, subsequent planning focuses on a specific activity—in this case, coal leasing. Like land use planning, activity planning is

predicated on a tiered system of increasingly

detailed reviews of smaller and smaller areas until

specific lease tracts are delineated. Activity planning culminates in a Secretarial decision on the

tracts and tonnages to be offered for lease and

the schedule for lease sales in that region.

Information from land use planning about areas’

acceptability for mining, plus coal resource data

from formal industry expressions of interest in

particular areas, are used to develop initial draft

leasing levels and to delineate tracts. After tract

delineation, BLM field staff conduct a site-specific

analysis (SSA) of the full range of environmental,

social, economic, and other resource values on

each tract. The SSAS provide the basis for detailed

tract profiles, which are used to select combinations of tracts for analysis in the EIS for the lease

sale (see below).

The SSA generates the greatest level of detail

of information about a tract available to BLM before a lease sale. According to the programmatic

EIS for leasing,

. . . the information . . . must be sufficiently

detailed so that the Department would be reasonably certain that the lease would be economically and environmentally acceptable, but

in less detail than would be required of a lessee

at the time a mining plan would be approved (s).

Following preparation of the tract profiles, the Regional Coal Team (RCT) 3 ranks tracts according

to their acceptability for leasing after considering factors such as coal economics, impacts on

the natural environment, and socioeconomic impacts (1 5). Tract rankings and SSAS do not necessarily affect tract delineation, although tract

boundaries can be adjusted as the results of SSAS

or tract rankings, or tracts may be dropped altogether at this stage.

The RCT uses these rankings to select combinations of tracts that meet the regional and alternative leasing levels. These must include a “preferred alternative” that optimizes the economic

and resource benefits of leasing and minimizes

the social and environmental costs. The environmental impacts of the leasing alternatives are then

assessed in detail in an EIS for the lease sale. As

a part of the tiered system, the data and analyses for the EIS expand on the information in the

SSAS and tract profiles, but focus on particular

combinations of tracts. Lease stipulations may be

proposed in the EIS to protect environmentally

sensitive areas (see box 4-B).

Following publication of the final EIS, written

surface owner consent is confirmed, and the Secretary consults with the affected State Governors

and the surface management agency prior to approving a combination of tracts and tonnages to

meet a regional leasing level and establishing final

dates for maintenance, bypass, and new production tract lease sales, Then DOI issues a notice

of Iease sale, performs the economic evaluation,

and holds the sale.

3

The Regional Coal Team is a DO1/State organization made up

of a representative of the Governor from each State in the region

and the BLM State Director from each State involved. Each RCT

is chaired by the BLM State Director from the State with the greatest direct concern.
[page omitted]

This page was originally printed on a dark gray background.

The scanned version of the page was almost entirely black and not usable.
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation ● 9 5

SURFACE MINE PERMITTING AND REGULATION

Once a company has leased or purchased coal

resources, it must prepare a comprehensive plan

for the development and reclamation of the coal

and obtain a variety of permits under Federal and

State laws. The most extensive Federal regulations

related to surface mining arise under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA), which establishes performance standards for mining and reclamation and requires

mine operators to obtain a permit to ensure that

those standards will be met. Other significant permitting and regulatory requirements arise under

the Clean Air and Water Acts, and the National

Environmental Policy Act. A listing of other Federal laws potentially affecting western coal development may be found at the end of this section. Tables 4-3 through 4-7 at the end of the

chapter list the State laws affecting surface mining.

SMCRA is implemented by the Office of Surface

Mining (OSM), within the Department of the interior, and by State agencies under approved regulatory programs consistent with SMCRA. Most

Federal environmental legislation is implemented

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

with permitting and enforcement also delegated

to States with approved programs. While the discussion in this section will emphasize the Federal regulatory programs, it should be kept in

mind that in all of the Western States studied, the

State regulatory authorities have the primary responsibility for surface mining permitting and enforcement, with OSM (and EPA) providing oversight and technical assistance.

Surface Mining Control

and Reclamation Act

In regulating surface mining, the purposes of

SMCRA are to:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

establish a nationwide program to deal with

adverse impacts of surface mining;

assure that the rights of surface landowners

are fully protected from surface mining operations;

assure that surface mining does not occur

where reclamation is not technologically and

economically feasible;

assure that surface mining is conducted so

as to protect the environment;

assure that reclamation occurs as contemporaneously as possible with mining;

assure vital coal supply is provided and strike

a balance between environmental protection

and agricultural productivity on one hand,

and coal supply on the other;

assist the States in developing and implementing a program to achieve the purposes

of SMCRA;

assure appropriate procedures for public participation in development, revisions, and enforcement of regulations, standards, reclamation plans, or programs established by the

Secretary or any State under SMCRA; and

provide for research and development, training of mining specialists, and State research

centers (1 6).
96 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation ● 9 7

to satisfy stipulations. This is particularly true of the stipulations in older leases but also, to some extent,

of the “boilerplate” stipulations such as the standard cultural and paleontoiogical stipulations. Moreover,

due to the high turnover in BLM field staff, the personnel reviewing a permit application usually are not

the same as those who performed the preleasing analysis and developed the stipulations, and may have

little or no prior experience with permit application review to guide them.

Based on OTA’S analysis of this process, it is clear that BLM's primary concern during the permit review is whether the mine plan will ensure full and efficient recovery of the Federal coal resources. In most

instances, permit review is overseen by the Solid Minerals Branch and review of environmental considerations is secondary. Even within the environmental review, however, OTA found that lease stipulations

are given little attention. Rather, that review primarily emphasizes compatibility with the designated postmining land use and with the resource area management plan. Lease stipulations are often not even mentioned by BLM officials as a consideration.

BLM officials contacted by OTA emphasized that permitting and reclamation are the responsibilities

of the States and OSM, and that the Bureau followed the State or OSM’S lead in reclamation-related matters. On the other hand, State and OSM officials argue that ensuring compliance with lease stipulations

is BLM’s responsibility as the Federal surface management agency. Because stipulations are so vague and

general in comparison to the extensive and detailed regulatory requirements for a mining and reclamation

plan and permit application, OSM and State regulatory authorities rarely find the stipulations relevant to

permitting.

To accomplish these objectives, Congress

charged the Secretary of the Interior, acting

through OSM, to develop and issue a Federal regulatory program to carry out the provisions of

SMCRA, to assist the States technically and financially in developing programs that both meet the

goals and minimum standards of SMCRA and reflect local requirements and conditions, to review

and approve or disapprove State programs, and

to enter into cooperative agreements with States

with approved programs for the regulation of surface mining on Federal lands within the State.

The basic elements of the Federal regulatory

program, as established in SMCRA, are performance and design standards that cover most aspects of surface mine reclamation, and the requirements for a detailed mining and reclamation

plan to be submitted in support of a permit application. Special provision is made for experimental practices to encourage advances in mining and reclamation techniques. To ensure that

the performance and design standards are met,

and that a mine remains in compliance with the

plan and permit, SMCRA requires regular monitoring and inspections of surface mining operations, with a range of enforcement penalties for

violations. The act further requires permittees to

file a performance bond in an amount sufficient

to assure the completion of the reclamation plan

if the work had to be completed by the regulatory authority (see ch. 7).

This section briefly reviews the general data and

analysis requirements for the permit application

package and for demonstrating that the performance standards and design standards will be met.

The specific data requirements for the various

disciplines–hydrology, soils and overburden, revegetation, and wildlife—are discussed in chapter 5, and the analytical techniques for predicting

the impacts of mining and the success of reclamation in chapter 6. It should be noted that many

of the provisions of the Federal regulatory program were ruled invalid in court decisions between July 1984 and July 1985, and it may be several years before the new rules are issued in their

final form (see box 4-C). Where the court rulings

substantially affect data or analysis requirements,

this is noted in the text.

Permit Application Package:

Legal and Regulatory Requirements

The permit application and the supporting mining and reclamation plan are the primary means

Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation . 99

of implementing SMCRA. Therefore, the data and

analysis requirements are extensive. The application and plan are used to predict the impacts

of mining and reclamation on all aspects of the

environment, ensure that the performance standards will be met, establish standards for judging

the success of reclamation, and provide the

basis for determining postmining land uses. The

SMCRA requirements for a permit application

package, including the detailed mining and reclamation plan, essentially are divided into three segments: the baseline description of the mine site,

the plan for recovery of the coal resource, and

the reclamation plan and demonstration that

reclamation is economically and technologically

feasible.

The baseline description of the mine site provides the basis for estimating the impacts of mining on the natural and human environment, for

comparing the premining and postmining conditions, and for establishing the postmining land

use. Thus, the permit application package must

include accurate maps or plans, to appropriate

scale, clearly showing the land to be affected and

its boundaries, as well as owners of all surface

areas abutting the permit area and other on- and

offsite features (for instance, gas and oil wells,

buildings, parks, cemeteries, transmission lines,

pipelines). Additional data requirements for environmental resources include the significant

known archaeological sites as well as cultural and

historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

The plan must specify how impacts on parks or

historic places will be minimized.

The plan for recovery of the coa/ resource

must describe: 1 ) the type and method of coal

mining operation that exists or is proposed; 2) the

anticipated annual and total production of coal

by tonnage; 3) the engineering techniques proposed to be used in mining and reclamation, and

a description of the major equipment; 4) the anticipated or actual starting and ending dates of

each phase of the mining operation and the acreage affected; 5) a detailed estimated timetable for

accomplishment of each major step in the reclamation plan; and 6) an estimate of the cost per

acre of reclamation. Maps of the permit and adjacent areas also must show the existing and proposed facilities related to the mining and reclamation operations (e.g, coal loading, topsoil

stockpiles, sedimentation ponds), and the plan

must specify how these facilities will be built,

maintained, and removed.

The demonstration of reclaimability must take

into consideration the physical, climatological,

and other characteristics of the site. Therefore,

the regulatory authority may require that the permit application describe the climatological factors peculiar to the locality, including average seasonal precipitation, average direction and velocity

of prevailing winds, and seasonal temperature

ranges. The reclamation plan also must describe

how the permittee plans to comply with the performance standards and with applicable air and

water quality laws and regulations and any health

and safety standards.

The postmining land use provisions of SMCRA

require that all affected land be restored to a condition capable of supporting the uses that it could

support prior to any mining, or higher or better

uses of which there is a reasonable likelihood (see

ch. 8). The reclamation plan must describe the

premining condition of the land to be covered

by the permit, including: 1) existing land uses;

2) the capability of the land prior to mining to

support a variety of uses, giving consideration to

soil and foundation characteristics, topography,

and vegetative cover; and 3) the productivity of

the land prior to mining, as well as the average

yield of food, fiber, forage, or wood products under high levels of management.4

4“Capability” and “productivity” are not defined In the Federal

regulations implementing SMCRA. For the purposes of BLM management of Federal lands, “capability” is defined as “the ability

or potential of a unit of land to produce resources, supply goods

and services or allow resource uses under a set of management

practices at a given level of management intensity without permanently impairing the resource involved, Capability depends upon

a fixed set of conditions which are relatively stable over time, including, but not limited to, climate, slope, Iandform, SOIIS, and geology. Most land has an inherent capability to produce one or more

resources, or goods and services, under natural conditions. Capability analyses shall permit identification of specific uses or management practices that cannot be allowed on specific land areas

due to physical conditions, ”
100 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

In describing the use proposed to be made of

the land following reclamation, the applicant

must discuss the utility and capacity of the

reclaimed land to support a variety of alternative

uses, and the relationship of the proposed postmining land use to existing land use policies and

plans, including the consideration given to consistency with surface owner plans and applicable State and local land use plans. The application package must explain in detail how the

proposed postmining land use is to be achieved,

what support activities may be needed to achieve

it, and the detailed management plans to be implemented for range or grazing lands.

Permit Application Package:

Preparation and Approval Process

In meeting the data and analysis requirements

for a permit application package, the company

usually begins by reviewing the existing data on

the mine site and its mineral and other resources.

The sources of data that may be reviewed in this

process include in-house data gathered during

exploration; BLM management plans, site-specific

analyses for leasing, and EISS; and data available

from other agencies on specific disciplines (e.g.,

wildlife surveys from State Game and Fish Departments, soil surveys from the Soil Conservation Service; see ch. 5). Based on the available

data, the company prepares a first approximation

of the mining and reclamation plan and defines

specific data and analysis needs more clearly. The

company will then collect and analyze the baseline data and put together the full permit application package, which is submitted to the State

regulatory authority.

The State reviews the full package in detail, frequently performing some analysis in order to verify the results of the company’s analysis. If the

State finds the package deficient or has further

questions (e.g., about the validity of assumptions

used, or of data generated by statistical techniques), the company works with the regulatory

authority and performs additional data collection

and/or analysis until the permit application package is approved at the State level. It is then submitted to OSM, and the review process repeated

until the permit is granted. If uncertainties about

the reclamation plan remain (e.g., the potential

for deleterious overburden strata, ability of a proposed reclamation technique to meet the performance standards), stipulations may be imposed on the permit to require special monitoring

or research. Finally, the regulatory authority sets

the amount of the reclamation bond. Once that

bond has been filed, the company may begin

mining.

Before issuing a permit, the regulatory authority must find that the application is complete and

accurate; that all of the legislative and regulatory

requirements for permit applications and reclamation plans have been met and all fees paid;

and that the applicant has demonstrated the following:

●

●

●

●

●

●

reclamation can be accomplished under the

reclamation plan;

the regulatory authority has assessed the

probable cumulative impact on the hydrologic balance of all anticipated mining in the

area (see below) and the proposed operation has been designed to prevent material

damage to the hydrologic balance outside

the permit area;

the area proposed to be mined is not included in an area classified as unsuitable under SMCRA or is not under study for such

classification;

mining, if undertaken west of the 100th meridian, would not interrupt, discontinue, or

preclude farming on alluvial valley floors

(AVF S) that are irrigated or naturally subirrigated, and would not materially damage

the quantity or quality of water in surface or

underground water systems that supply AVFS

(see fig. 4-2);5

in split estate areas (where the Federal Government owns the coal but not the surface),

the applicant has submitted written consent

of the surface owner to mining; and

the application includes a schedule listing

any and all notices of violations of SMCRA

or any other law or regulation related to air

or water environmental protection incurred

by the applicant in connection with any surSThe AVF provisions exclude undeveloped rangelands which are

not significant to farming and AVFS of such small acreage as to be

of negligible impact on a farm’s agricultural production.
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation ● 101

I AVFs proposed for mining

I

is AVF significant

to farming?

No

Printing Office, 1983).
102 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

face mining operation during the 3 years

prior to the date of the application, including the final resolution of such notices, and,

if the applicant’s ongoing operations are in

violation of SMCRA, a declaration that the

violation has been or is being corrected to

the satisfaction of the regulatory authority.

Performance Standards

Section 515 of SMCRA establishes both general

performance standards, and those specific to a

particular discipline (e.g., hydrology), that cover

virtually all aspects of surface mining, These are

minimum standards, and the Federal or State reguIatory programs may impose standards that are

more stringent. SMCRA or the regulations often

specify the mining and reclamation techniques

that may be used to meet the performance standards, unless the operator demonstrates in the permit application that an alternative technique will

beat least as effective. Such a demonstration may

be expensive to prepare, however, especially

given the risk that the alternative technique will

not be permitted. Therefore, most operators rely

on proven techniques unless there is a decided

cost advantage to the alternative method due to

site-specific considerations.

During the course of mining and reclamation,

a company continually collects additional data

and monitors the impacts of mining in order to

demonstrate compliance with the permit and the

performance standards. Thus, very detailed geologic data, as well as hydrologic and wildlife

monitoring data are collected as the pit advances.

The company refines the reclamation plan based

on these data. If the term of the initial permit was
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation ● 103

not for the life-of-the-mine, the additional data

collection and analysis performed after the onset of mining also is used to support the application for permit renewal.

General Performance Standards.–SMCRA requires that all surface coal mining operations be

conducted so as to maximize utilization and conservation of the fuel resource in order to avoid

reaffecting the land in the future. Under the regulations related to coal recovery, surface mining

activities also must use the best appropriate technology currently available to maintain environmental integrity. I n addition, operators must ensure that all reclamation efforts proceed in an

environmentally sound manner and as contemporaneously as practicable with mining, and the

regulatory authority may establish schedules that

define contemporaneous reclamation.

Surface and Groundwater Systems.–All surface coal mining operations must be conducted

so as to minimize disturbances to the prevailing

hydrologic balance at the mine-site and in associated offsite areas, and to the quality and quantity of water in surface and groundwater systems

both during and after mining and reclamation.

Three basic hydrologic analyses are required under SMCRA to demonstrate that these standards

will be met: 1 ) a determination of the probable

hydrologic consequences (PHC) of mining and

reclamation, on- and offsite, on the quantity and

quality of surface and groundwater systems (including dissolved and suspended solids) under

seasonal flow conditions; 2) an assessment of the

probable cumulative hydrologic impacts (CHIA)

of all anticipated mining in the area, particularly

with regard to water availability; and 3) a hydrologic restoration plan that addresses the impacts

predicted in the PHC determination and the

CHIA, as well as the means to be used to meet

the performance standards. In addition, the regbThe Federal regulations define 1‘best technology currently available’ as ‘‘equipment, devices, systems, methods, or techniques

which are currently available anywhere as determined by the

Director, even if they are not in routine use. The term includes,

but is not limited to, construction practices, siting requirements,

vegetative selection and planting requirements, animal stocking requirements, scheduling of activities . . Within the constraints of

the permanent program, the regulatory authormy shall have the discretion to determine the best technology currently available on a

case-by-case basis .“(9).

ulations impose specific design standards related

to surface features such as siltation structures,

diversions, impoundments, stream buffer zones,

etc.

The PHC determination generally is based on

baseline hydrologic, geologic, and other information, but an operator may use modeling techniques, interpolation, or other methods to generate data statistically representative of the site.

The Federal regulations list four required sets of

findings for the PHC determination. It must determine, first, whether adverse impacts may affect the hydrologic balance, and second, whether

acid-, alkaline-, or toxic-forming7 materials are

present that could result in postmining surface

or groundwater contamination. If adverse impacts

or deleterious materials are found, supplemental data and analyses are needed to evaluate them

and to plan remedial and reclamation activities

(see chs. 5 and 6). Third, the PHiC determination

must address the potential for contamination,

diminution, or interruption of surface or groundwater used for domestic, agricultural, industrial

or other purposes. if any of these effects is predicted to occur, the reclamation plan must contain information on water availability and alternative water sources, including the suitability of

such sources for the pre- and postmining land

uses. Fourth, the PHC analysis must estimate the

potential impacts on sediment yield from the disturbed area; acidity, total suspended solids (TSS),

total dissolved solids (TDS), and other important

water quality parameters of local impact; flooding or streamflow alteration; surface and groundwater availability; and other characteristics required by the regulatory authority. Standard

methodologies for water quality sampling and

analyses are listed in the Federal regulations.

The cumulative hydrologic impact assessment

(CHIA) usually is performed by the regulatory authority based on hydrologic and geologic information provided (when available) by appropriate Federal or State agencies. If not available from

such agencies, however, the permit applicant

must collect sufficient data for the mine-site and

“’Toxic” is defined in the Federal regulations as “chemically or

physically detrimental to biota”; it refers to the potential need for

special handling of overburden strata and not to the disposal of

toxic waste.
104 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

surrounding areas so that the regulatory authority can perform this assessment, as the permit cannot be approved until this information is made

available and incorporated into the application. a

For purposes of permit approval, the CH 1A must

be sufficient to determine whether the proposed

operation has been designed to prevent material

damage to the hydrologic balance outside the

permit area.

The hydrologic reclamation plan, including

relevant maps and descriptions, indicates how the

performance standards related to protection and

restoration of water quality and the hydrologic

balance will be met. This plan must be specific

to local hydrologic conditions, and must describe

the steps to be taken during mining and reclamation through bond release to minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance; prevent material damage outside the permit area; meet

applicable Federal and State water quality laws

and regulations; and protect the rights of present

water users or provide alternative sources of

water where such protection cannot be assured,

The pIan must specifically address adverse hydrologic consequences identified in the PHC determination and the CHIA, and appropriate preventive and remedial measures.

The regulations specify that, in meeting the performance standards, mining and reclamation

practices that minimize water pollution and

changes in flow shall be used i n preference to

water treatment.

Overburden Handling.–Operators must backfill the pit, compact the backfilled overburden

(where advisable to ensure stability or to prevent

leaching of toxic materials), and grade it in order to restore the approximate original contour

(AOC) of the land with all highwalls, spoil piles,

and depressions eliminated. Small depressions

may be left if they are needed in order to retain

moisture, create and enhance wildlife habitat, or

assist revegetation. Mines with very thick or very

thin overburden may be exempted from the AOC

elf the annual production from the mine will be less than 100,000

tons, the determination of probable hydrologic consequences and

the results of test borings or core samplings shall, upon written request of the operator, be performed by a qualified public or private laboratory designated and paid by the permit agency.

requirement if the operator demonstrates that the

thickness prevents attaining AOC.

Additional backfilling and grading requirements

in SMCRA specify that operators stabilize and protect all surface areas, including spoil piles, to effectively control erosion and attendant air and

water pollution, stabilize all waste piles in designated areas through construction in compacted

layers, including the use of incombustible and impervious materials if necessary, and assure that

the final contours of waste piles will be compatible with the natural surroundings.

Topsoil Handling.–After backfilling and grading of the overburden, the topsoil, or the best material available to support vegetation, must be restored to the mined area in a manner that will

achieve an approximately uniform, stable thickness consistent with the approved postmining

land use, contours, and surface water drainage

systems. When the topsoil has to be stockpiled,

the operator must protect it from wind and water

erosion and keep it free of contamination by acid

or toxic material by providing a temporary cover

of quick growing plants (or other means). If the

natural topsoil is too poor to sustain vegetation,

or if other strata can be shown to be more suitable, these strata must be removed, segregated,

and protected in the same manner. The data requirements for demonstrating the suitability of

topsoil (or of selected overburden materials proposed to be used as a topsoil supplement or substitute) are discussed in chapter 5. The regulatory

authority may require that the topsoil and subsoil be removed, stockpiled, and replaced separately (“two lifts”) if necessary to meet the revegetation requirements. Two-lift topsoiling is required

in North Dakota and Montana (sometimes Colorado), and practiced at several mines in other

States in the study region (see chs. 3 and 8).

While the surface is exposed (i.e., prior to

establishment of a permanent, stabilizing vegetative cover), erosion must be controlled. If rills and

gullies form in regraded and topsoiled areas that

disrupt either the postmining land use or revegetation, or that cause or contribute to violation of

water quality standards, they must be filled, regraded, or otherwise stabilized, retopsoiled, and

revegetated. The regulations also require, if nec-
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation ● 105

essary to promote successful revegetation, treatment (e.g., disking, ripping) of the regraded land,

and application of nutrients and soil amendments.

Revegetation.—SMCRA requires the operator

to establish on regraded areas (and all other affected land) a diverse, effective, and permanent

vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety native to the area, capable of self-regeneration and

plant succession, and at least equal in extent of

cover to the natural vegetation of the area.g The

vegetative cover also must be capable of stabilizing the soil surface from erosion. The reclamation plan must describe existing vegetative types

and plant communities with sufficient detail to

predict the potential for reestablishing vegetation

and to allow evaluation of the vegetation as important fish and wildlife habitat.

Specific provisions related to the timing of

revegetation, and the use of mulching and other

soil stabilizing practices are included in the

regulations, as are standards for the success of

revegetation (see ch. 7). Disturbed areas must be

planted during the first normal period of favorable planting conditions—that planting time generally accepted locally for the type of plant materials used—after replacement of the topsoil (or

other plant growth medium). Suitable mulch or

other soil stabilization practices must be used on

all areas that have been regraded and topsoiled,

unless seasonal, soil, or slope factors make such

stabilization unnecessary. In areas with less than

26 inches of annual precipitation (most of the

study area), operators must assume responsibility for successful revegetation for 10 years after

the last year of augmented seeding, fertilizing,

irrigation, or other work (see ch. 7).

Wildlife.–Operators must, to the extent possible using the best technology currently available,lo minimize disturbances and adverse imgThe regulatory authority may approve the use of introduced species only where desirable and necessary to achieve the approved

postmining land use, although the use of such species may be approved on a temporary basis when necessary to achieve a quickgrowing, stabilizing cover, and the permit and reclamation plan

include measures to establish permanent native vegetation.

‘Oln this context, “best technology currently available” is defined

in the Federal regulations as “equipment, devices, systems, methods, or techniques which will minimize, to the extent possible, disturbances [ofl and adverse impacts on fish, wildlife and related environmental values, and achieve enhancement of those resources

where practicable. ”

pacts of mining and reclamation on fish, wildlife,

and related environmental values, and achieve

enhancement of such resources where practicable. Each permit application must include a

detailed fish and wildlife plan that indicates how

the performance standards will be met, including specific information on impact control measures, management techniques, and monitoring

methods. if enhancement of wildlife resources

and habitat is not practicable, this also must be

demonstrated in the mining and reclamation

plan. The Federal regulations add special provisions related to endangered species, bald and

golden eagles, and wetlands and habitats of unusually high value, and they specify design standards for certain aspects of operations.

Operators must avoid disturbing, enhance

where practicable, or restore wetlands and vegetation along rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes, as

well as other habitats of unusually high value for

fish and wildlife (e.g., cliffs supporting raptor

nests, wintering and nursery areas, breeding

areas, etc.; see ch. 3). Operators also must ensure that electric powerlines and other transmission facilities are designed and constructed to

minimize electrocution hazards to raptors (fig. 3-

11); that haul and access roads are located and

operated so as to avoid or minimize impacts on

important fish and wildlife species; and that

fences, conveyers, and other potential barriers

are designed to permit passage for large mammals.

No surface mining activity may be conducted

that will jeopardize endangered or threatened

species, or will destroy or adversely modify their

designated critical habitats. Similarly, mining may

not result in the unlawful taking of a bald or

golden eagle, and its nest or eggs. If an operator

becomes aware of endangered or threatened species or eagles within the permit area, he must report them promptly to the regulatory authority,

which then consults with fish and wildlife agencies to identify whether, and under what conditions, mining may proceed (see ch. 3, box 3-P

and related text).

Experimental Practices

SMCRA allows experimental departures from

the environmental protection performance standards when the operator can demonstrate that
106 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

such departures: 1 ) will encourage advances in

mining and reclamation or will allow special postmining land uses; 2) are potentially more, or at

least as, environmentally protective, during and

after mining, as practices under the performance

standards; 3) do not encompass a larger area or

are not more numerous than necessary to determine the effectiveness and economic feasibility

of the experimental practice; and 4) do not reduce the protection afforded public health and

safety. Requests for experimental practices are

subject to special public notice requirements and

must be approved by the Director of OSM.

An application for an experimental practice

must describe the nature of the practice (including supporting maps, plans, and data); the performance standards for which variances are requested; and the duration of the practice. The

application also must include a monitoring plan

to ensure the collection, analysis, and reporting

of sufficient data to enable the regulatory authority to evaluate the practice’s effectiveness and to

identify, at the earliest possible time, potential

risks to the environment and public health and

safety. As discussed in chapter 9, experimental

practices are difficult to obtain and expensive to

conduct. As a result, few companies propose

them unless there are clear cost advantages to

doing so.

Experimental practices are reviewed by the regulatory authority every 21/2 years. After review,

the regulatory authority may require reasonable

modifications of the practice necessary to ensure

that the activities fully protect the environment

and public health and safety.

Monitoring Requirements

SMCRA specifies that the regulatory authority

may require monitoring or other data collection

relative to surface mining and reclamation, in

general, and to disruption of aquifers, in particular, to assist in the development, administration,

and enforcement of programs and permits. Special monitoring requirements relate to alluvial valley floors and to air quality control (see discussion of Clean Air Act, below). The regulatory

authority is responsible for establishing standards

and procedures for ensuring the reliability and

validity of monitoring data collection and

analysis.

Surface and groundwater monitoring plans are

based on the results of the PHC determination,

and on the analysis of all baseline hydrologic, geologic, and other data. Operators must monitor

parameters affecting the suitability of surface and

groundwater for pre- and postmining land uses

as well as those related to compliance with the

performance standards. The surface water monitoring plan also must address the effluent limitations established under the Clean Water Act

(see below).

A special monitoring system is required to be

installed, maintained, and operated on all AVFS

during surface coal mining and reclamation operations and continued until all bonds are released.

It must provide sufficient information to allow the

regulatory authority to determine that the essential hydrologic functions of AVFS are being preserved outside the permit area or reestablished

within the permit area throughout the mining and

reclamation process; that farming on AVFS significant to agriculture is not being interrupted,

discontinued, or precluded; and that the operation is not causing material damage to the

quantity or quality of water in the surface or underground systems that supply protected AVFS.

Monitoring must be conducted at adequate frequencies to indicate long-term trends that could

affect compliance with the special AVF performance standards. The operator must make all monitoring data collected and analyses thereof available to the regulatory authority on a routine basis.

Inspections and Enforcement

SMCRA requires the regulatory authority to

conduct regular inspections of surface mining and

reclamation operations to ensure that they are

in compliance with the performance standards

and the mining and reclamation plan and permit. The regulatory authority must conduct an

average of at least one partial inspection (onsite

or aerial review of some of the permit conditions

and program requirements) per month for active

operations (as necessary for inactive), and an

average of at least one complete onsite inspection every 3 months. Any potential violation ob-
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation ● 107

served during a partial inspection must be investigated in detail within 3 days, unless it poses an

imminent danger to public health and safety or

the environment, in which case it must be inspected immediately.

An immediate order to cease all mining and

reclamation operations is issued for violations that

create such an imminent danger, or when an

operator has failed to abate a lesser violation

within the prescribed period. A cessation order

remains in effect until the violation is abated. Notices of violation (NOVS) are issued for conditions

that do not create an imminent danger or harm.

Civil monetary penalties are assessed for cessation orders and NOVS based on a “point” system that takes into account the operator’s history of previous violations; the seriousness of the

violation based on the probability of occurrence

of the event which the violated standard was intended to prevent; the extent of potential or actual damage; the operator’s degree of negligence;

and good faith attempts to comply. The maximum penalty (70 points or more) is $5,000 per

day. For operations that show a willful pattern

of violations, the OSM Director may suspend or

revoke the permit.

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act establishes national water

quality goals to be achieved through State management plans that include water quality standards. These standards consist of the designated

uses of the waters involved, including their use

and value for public water supplies; propagation

of fish and wildlife; recreational, agricuItural, industrial, and other purposes; and navigation. In

addition, the standards include water quality criteria for receiving waters based on these uses.

The water quality standards generally are to be

achieved through effluent limitations on discharges from point sources. Effluent limitations

are restrictions established by the State or EPA

on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents

that are discharged from point sources. Effluent

limitations for surface coal mines regulate discharges of iron, manganese, and TSS, as well as

the pH. In general, the act requires all categories of point sources to apply the best practicable

control technology currently available in order

to meet the effluent limitations.

Effluent limitations and water quality standards

are implemented through State certification programs and through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N PDES). All point

sources must obtain State certification that the

discharge will not violate any effluent limitations,

water quality standards, or New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Under NPDES, a facility

may be issued a permit for a discharge on the

condition that the discharge will meet all applicable water quality requirements. NPDES permits

are issued under EPA-approved State programs,

or where a State program has not been approved,

by EPA.

Effluent limitations have been established for

mining operations, broken down into those applicable to acid and alkaline discharges. Under the

Clean Water Act, mining operations must obtain

NPDES permits and must use the best available

control technology to comply with EPA or State

effluent limitations. As discussed in chapter 8,

sedimentation control ponds historically have

been considered the best technology to control

discharges of TSS to surface streams.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act establishes a national system

of air quality regulation in which EPA is responsible for developing Federal regulations and

standards, and the States must implement plans

consistent with the Federal program. The central

feature of the Clean Air Act is the requirement

that EPA promulgate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in terms of ambient concentrations of pollutants. Primary standards are

designed to protect human health, and secondary standards are intended to safeguard public

welfare. EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for sulfur oxides, particulate matter,

nitrogen dioxide, hydrocarbons, photochemical

oxidants, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead.

Every new major source of emissions is required to undergo a preconstruction review. Air

quality control regions that are in violation of any
108 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

NAAQS or, at the opposite extreme, those where

the air is already much cleaner than the standards require, are subject to more stringent requirements under the act with respect to the permitting of new point sources.

Air quality concerns regarding surface coal mining activities focus on fugitive dust and its effect

on total suspended particulate. Thus far, air quality concerns have had only a minor effect on

Western coal development. In some areas of the

Powder River Coal Region of Wyoming fugitive

dust emissions from surface mining have exceeded

the NAAQS. Other Western coal operations are

within pristine areas subject to the more stringent

new source performance and prevention of significant deterioration standards. Mining operations in these areas have had to adopt better dust

control measures or reduce the scope of their

operations.

All Western surface mining activities with projected production exceeding 1 million tons per

year (tpy) must include in their permit application package an air pollution control plan for fugitive dust. In addition, operators must devise a

monitoring program that will provide sufficient

data to demonstrate that the control practices are

effective enough to comply with applicable Federal and State air quality standards.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) restructured Federal agency decisionmaking in favor of a systematic, interdisciplinary approach that would ensure that environmental

amenities and values would receive appropriate

consideration along with traditional economic

and technical factors. NEPA was the first major

environmental legislation approved by Congress,

and it has remained the most far-reaching in

scope.

NEPA requires all Federal agencies to include

a detailed statement in every recommendation

or report on proposals for legislation and other

“major Federal actions significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment” that describes:

● possible environmental impacts of the proposed Federal action,

●

●

●

●

any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed action

be implemented,

alternatives to the proposed action and their

environmental impacts,

the relationship between local short-term

uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity as it applies to proposed Federal

actions, and

any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would result from

implementation of the proposed action,

In order to determine whether a proposed action is “major” and will “significantly” affect the

environment, Federal agencies prepare a preliminary environmental assessment (EA). The EA provides a brief examination and analysis of the proposed action and alternatives to it, a discussion

of the need for the action, and an examination

of potential environmental impacts. If an EA indicates that an action is not “major” or that it

will not “significantly” affect the environment,

the agency may publish a “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI), and then will not have to

prepare a detailed EIS.

All coal-related activities that would have a significant impact on the environment and that need

Federal authorization require a full environmental

impact statement (EIS). This includes Federal land

use planning and regional Federal coal lease

sales, and, in some cases, permits to conduct surface mining operations under SMCRA.

Federal regulations may also require the preparation of an EIS when rulemaking is initiated by

significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. The initiation

of the new Federal coal management program

in 1979 was accompanied by a detailed programmatic EIS prepared in accordance with NEPA.

That EIS was revised in 1985 to reflect changes

proposed to be made in the leasing program, as

well as more up-to-date coal resource and demand data (4).

Other Federal Legislation

In addition to the specific requirements of the

Federal acts discussed above and the State pro-
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation ● 109

grams implementing them, as well as the State

legislation listed in tables 4-3 through 4-7, a wide

range of other laws affect surface mining in the

Western United States. These are listed below:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

A

Act of September 28, 1976: Provides for the

regulation of mining activity within, and

repeals the application of mining laws to,

areas of the National park System.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of

1978: Mitigates potential harm to American

Indian religious sites.

Antiquities Act of 1906: Regulates antiquities excavation and collection, including fossil remains.

Archaeological and Historical Preservation

Act of 1974; Archaeological Salvage Act:

Provides for recovery of data from areas to

be affected by Federal actions; provides for

preservation of data, including relics and

specimens, at every Federal construction

project.

Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1969: Protects

bald and golden eagles.

Endangered Species Act of 1973: Protects

endangered and threatened species and critical habitat affected by Federal actions; requires prior consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934:

Requires consultation about water resource

development actions that might affect fish or

associated wildlife resources.

Forest and Rangeland Resources Planning

Act of 1974: provides for a comprehensive

system of land and resource management

planning for National Forest System lands.

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as

amended): Establishes systems of classifying

properties on or eligible for inclusion on National Register of Historic Places; mandates

Federal agency consultation with Advisory

Council and State historic preservation

officers.

FEDERAL AGENCY

number of Federal agencies are involved in

the administration of the laws and regulations described in this chapter. Most environmental leg-

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918: Requires

enhancement of, and prevention of loss of,

migratory bird habitats.

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970:

provides broad principles for mineral resource development.

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960:

Requires management of National Forests

under principles of multiple use so as to

produce a sustained yield of products and

services.

National Forests Management Act of 1976:

Provides for a comprehensive system of land

and resource management planning for National Forest System lands.

National Trails System Act: Provides for

establishment and protection of trails.

Noise Control Act of 1976: Requires publication of information on limits of noise required to protect public health and welfare;

preempts local control of railroad equipment

and yard noise emissions.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:

Establishes guidelines for collection, transport, separation, recovery, and disposal of

solid waste.

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974: Establishes

mechanism for National Primary Drinking

Water Standards.

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act

of 1977: Requires appraisal by Secretary of

Agriculture of information and expertise on

conservation and use of soils, plants, woodlands, etc.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Provides for

preservation of certain rivers or portions

thereof in their natural state.

Wilderness Act of 1964: Provides for establishment of wilderness reserves; requires

preservation of wilderness areas in an unimpaired condition.

RESPONSIBILITIES

islation (e. g., Clean Air and Water Acts, Noise

Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Safe Drinking Water Act) is administered
110 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA

also approves EISS prepared under NEPA, although the Council on Environmental Quality is

responsible for promulgating regulations to implement NEPA. Federal land management agencies include the Bureau of Land Management and

Fish and Wildlife Service within DOI, and the

U.S. Forest Service within USDA. This section will

focus on management responsibilities for Federal

coal and surface mining regulation, which rest

primarily with the Department of the Interior and

its various agencies.

Until January 1982, DOI’S functions and responsibilities for managing Federal coal were

divided among the Office of Surface Mining, the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau

of Land Management. BLM was responsible for

administering the provisions of FLPMA and

FCLAA related to land use planning and the leasing of Federal coal. Regulation of coal development on Federal leases was shared by OSM and

USGS, with OSM administering SMCRA, and the

USGS determining coal reserves present on Federal lease tracts, developing coal resource economic evaluations for leases (recommendations

for bonus bids and royalty rates), and preparing

development and mineral resource recovery requirements for Federal leases. USGS also was

responsible for overseeing coal exploration operations, and for reviewing mine plans and inspecting mines for compliance with resource, conservation, and recovery requirements (4).

In 1982, the Secretary of the Interior created,

on an experimental basis, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), which assumed all major

coal-related functions of the USGS Conservation

Division. This organizational structure remained

in place until late in 1982, when the Secretary

consolidated the primary onshore mineral operations and leasing functions of the MMS into

BLM, and made permanent the creation of the

MMS. Thus, all aspects of leasing and production

of coal resources are now within the purview of

BLM, which, in addition to its overall responsibilities under FCLAA and FLPMA, enforces diligent development of leases, assures maximum

economic recovery and conservation of mineral

resources, and evaluates the economics of mining. BLM also must review permit applications

and reclamation plans for proposed mines on federally leased coal for the resource considerations

listed above, as well as for compliance with any

lease stipulations for environmental protection or

other purposes, and must concur in OSM’S approval or disapproval of a permit. MMS retains

responsibilities for auditing leases and collecting

rents, royalties, and bonuses due the Federal

Government on the sale and production of onshore minerals. (4)

Other DOI agencies with coal-related responsibilities are the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

USGS, Bureau of Mines, and Bureau of Reclamation. The FWS conducts surface mining studies

to assess and predict the impacts of coal-related

activities on fish, wildlife, and their habitats. FWS

also monitors work related to impacts on wildlife in general and on endangered species in particular, and consults with BLM and OSM on fish

and wildlife issues related to land use planning,

coal leasing, and surface mine reclamation.

The Bureau of Mines conducts advanced coal

mine health and safety research and demonstration projects on backfilling and subsidence. USGS

provides technical assistance (including extensive

databases; see ch, 5) for hydrologic studies, and

administers a coal exploration program that provides maps, local and regional stratigraphy and

correlation networks, and coal resource assessments (4).

The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for land

use and activity planning on National Forest System lands. They apply the unsuitability criteria

for coal leasing on these lands and, although BLM

retains the responsibility for activity planning and

for lease sales and administration, the Forest Service must consent to leases and may add terms

and conditions to a lease to protect environmental values. The Forest Service also must concur with OSM on surface mining permits and reclamation plans for mining operations on National

Forest lands (4).
Ch 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation ● 111

STATE PROGRAMS FOR THE REGULATION OF

SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION

While SMCRA established a nationwide program for regulating surface coal mining and reclamation, it also recognized that, because of the

diversity in terrain, climate, biologic, chemical,

and other physical conditions in areas subject to

mining, the primary governmental responsibility

for regulation should rest with the States. To assume exclusive jurisdiction over such reguIation,

States were required by SMCRA to develop and

submit to DOI a State program which demonstrates that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the act and achieving

its objectives.

Under SMCRA, the minimum requirements for

a State regulatory program are:

●

●

●

●

●

a State law that provides for regulation in

accordance with SMCRA, including effective

implementation and enforcement of a permit system, and sanctions for violations of

State laws, regulations, or permit conditions;

rules and regulations consistent with those

established by DOI under SMCRA;

a State regulatory authority with sufficient

administrative and technical personnel and

funding to ensure the requirements of

SMCRA can be met;

a process for designation of areas as unsuitable for surface mining in accordance with

SMCRA, provided that designation of Federal lands as unsuitable shall be performed

exclusively by DOI after consultation with

the States; and

a process for coordinating the review and

issuance of permits with any other State or

Federal permit process applicable to proposed operations.

State laws or regulations may be more stringent

than, or may relate to areas not covered by,

SMCRA and the Federal regulations, but they may

not be less stringent or less comprehensive. if a

State fails to submit a program, submits one that

is unacceptable, or fails to implement, enforce,

or maintain an approved program, then DOI prepares and implements a Federal program for the

State. In developing and implementing a Federal

program for a State, DOI must consider the nature of that State’s terrain, climate, biological,

chemical, and other relevant local physical conditions. SMCRA also provides for Federal enforcement of a State program if the State is not enforcing it adequately.

Each of the five States in the study area has an

approved regulatory program under SMCRA, as

well as permitting authority under the Clean Air

and Water Acts. Tables 4-3 through 4-7 list the

State laws that may affect mining and reclamation. These laws are implemented through regulations and other interpretive documents such as

guidelines, technical memoranda, field manuals,

etc. Discussions of the State programs as they relate to baseline and monitoring data and analytical methods may be found in chapters 5 and 6.

Detailed discussions of the State provisions related to surface and groundwater hydrology, soils

and overburden, revegetation, and wildlife are

included in the technical reports appended as

volume 2 of this assessment.
112 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 4.3.—Colorado Legislation Affecting Coal Development

Lead State agency Legislation Purpose Major relevance

Department of Health:

—Water Quality Control

Commission

—Air Pollution Control

Commission

State Land Use Commission

Department of Natural

Resources

—Division of Mines

—Mined Land Reclamation Board

Water Quality Control Act

Air Pollution Control Act

Land Use Act of 1974

Antiquities Act of 1973

Mining Employees

Safety Act

Mined Land Reclamation

Act of 1976

Mined Land Reclamation

Act of 1979

Establishes and administers water quality

standards in State

waters; requires NPDES

permits

Establishes and administers air quality

standards

Protects the utility, value,

and future of all lands

within the State, including the public domain

and privately owned land

Provides for the protection

of historical, natural, or

archeological values and

for data recovery

Provides for mine safety

Provides for the reclamation of land subjected to

surface disturbance by

mining; to conserve

natural resources; protect wildlife and aquatic

resources; and establish

recreation, home, and industrial sites to protect

and perpetuate the taxable value of property

Mitigates impacts, assures

reclamation, perpetuates

existing regulations, and

ensures that CO can

carry out the purposes

of SMCRA

Requires site review and

permitting for projects involving water, sewage,

and waste disposal; establishes critera for erosion

control dams

Requires mines to use dust

preventive measures in all

mining procedures, including construction

Local governments have the

duty to identify, designate, and administer areas

and activities of State interest, including mineral

resource areas and mining

Establishes areas containing

or having significant

historical, natural, or archeological resources as

being of State interest;

BLM must coordinate with

State Historic Preservation Officer before approving mine plans or

rights-of-way

Monitors mine safety

practices

Mine operation must obtain

a permit, based on a plan

of operations that includes a reclamation section; Board must hold

public hearings and the

applicable county must

approve permit issuance

Provides strict timeframe for

issuing permits; permit requirements and performance standards similar

to SMCRA; apply to surface operations and surface impacts incident to

underaround coal mines

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Federal Coal Management Program, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sum/ernent (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985). -

,.
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation • 113

Table 4-4.—Montana Legislation Affecting Coal Development

Lead State agency Legislation Purpose Major relevance

Department of Natural

Resources and Conservation

Environmental Quality

Council

Department of Health and

Environmental Sciences

Depar ment of State Lands

—Board of Land Commissioners

Major Facility Siting Act

Environmental Policy Act

Water Pollution Control

Law

Solid Waste Management

Act

Clean Air Act

Strip and Underground

Mine Reclamation Act

Strip Mined Coal Conservation Act

Antiquities Act

Provides for review and

regulation of major faciIities

To promote efforts to prevent or eliminate

damage to the environment, to enrich the understanding of the

ecological systems and

natural resources important to the State

Protect the environment

and reduce pollution

Protects resources and the

environment

Prevents waste of marketable coal

Protects historic, prehistoric, archeological, paleontological, scientific, or

cultural sites and objects on State lands

Grants authority to require

and review long range

planning by certain utilities, to give approval to

generation and conversion

plant sites and associated

facilities, and to require

preconstruction certification of such facilities

Requires EIS for all coal

mine permit applications

Establish standards and

minimum amounts of deviation of pollutant substances

Detailed standards for the

method of mining, blasting, subsidence, stabilization, water control,

backfilling, grading, highwall reduction, topsoiling,

and revegetation for lands

affected by mining

Requires registration and

protection of sites

SOURCE: U S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Federal Coal Management Program, Draft Enwrorrrrrenfa/ Impact Statement Supplement (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Prlntlng Office, 1985)
714 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 4-5.-New Mexico Legislation Affecting Coai Development

Lead State agency Legislation Purpose Major relevance

Environmental lmprove- Environmental lmprove- Establishes responsibiliment Division ment Act of 1971

Air Quality Control Act

ties for environmental

management and consumer protection

programs

Establishes and enforces

regulations to prevent or

abate air pollution

Coal Surface Mining Com- Surface Mining Act of 1979 Issues surface mining

mission regulations

Energy and Minerals

Department

—Mining and Minerals Surface Mining Act of 1979

Division

Natural History Museum Mining and Minerals Division Regulations

State Game Commission

Historic Preservation

Officer

Water Quality Control

Commission

State Engineer

Regulation 563

Cultural Properties Act of

1969

Water Quality Control Act

N.M. State Annotation

72-2-1 (1953 Compil.)

Enforces surface mining

regulations

Provides for the recovery

of paleontological data

Protects State endangered

species and subspecies

Protects historical values

Protects surface and

ground water

Provides for the general

supervision, measurement, appropriation, and

distribution of State

waters

Programs include water supply and pollution; liquid

and solid wastes; air quality management; noise

control; occupational

health and safety

Requires submission of

plans, specifications, and

other information before

issuing a permit for the

building or modification

of any new source of air

pollution; requires that

coal-handling machinery

be equipped and haul

roads be sprayed to prevent fugitive dust

Requires permits for full

range of protection on affected areas; reclamation

plans and performance

standards consistent with

SMCRA

Reviews and issues permits

Requires mines on State

lands to notify the State

Department of Finance

and Administration, Office

of Cultural Affairs, if important fossils are found

May make certain lands off

limits to coal development

Regulates antiquities excavation and collection; requires data collection

Establishes and administers

a comprehensive water

quality program and develops a continuing planning process, adopts

water quality standards,

certifies permits, issues

groundwater regulations

for surface and underground mines

Reporting requirements for

any person drilling to a

depth of 10 feet or more

and finding a water body

or water-bearing stratum;

permitting requirements

for mine dewatering in a

declared underground

water basin

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Federal Coal Management Program, Draft Errvirorrmerrtal Impact Statement Supplement (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Off Ice, 1985).
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation Ž 115

Table 4-6.—North Dakota Legislation Affecting Coal Development

Lead State agency Legislation Purpose Major relevance

Department of Health

Environmental Health and

Engineering Services

Environmental Control

Water Commission

—State Engineer

State Geologist

Land Commission

Public Service Commission

Air Pollution Control Act

Solid Waste Management

and Land Protection Act

Water Pollution Control

Act

Century Code (NDCC

23-25)

NDCC 23-29

NDCC 61-28

NDCC 61-04

NDCC 61-02, 61-16

NDCC 61-01

NDCC 38-121

NDCC 15-05

Surface Owners Protection

Act

NDCC 38-14

Facility Siting Act

Establishes and administers air quality

standards

Establishes solid waste

disposal standards

Establishes and administers water quality

standards

Protects air quality

Manages solid waste

disposal

Protects water quality

Administers water use

Administers water use

Administers water use

Provides for data recovery

Protects and administers

coal resources

Protects surface owner

rights

Regulates surface mining

Regulates facility siting

Requires a permit for any

plans to build, install,

modify, or use any air

contaminant source

Required to approve or disapprove permits for solid

waste disposal plans; enforces ND NSPS

Facilities must meet

standards

Provides means of preventing significant deterioration of air quality from

energy development; involves review of application for permit for new

facilities and monitoring

of operating facilities

Requires permits for solid

waste disposal facilities

Requires permit to discharge mine water

Permits must be secured for

all water appropriations

greater than 5,000 acrefeet for industrial uses

Permits must be secured

with the approval of the

local water management

district for building dikes

or dams for water storage

greater than 12.5 acre-feet

Permits must be obtained,

with approval of local

water management district, for drainage

Requires a permit for coal

exploration and the filing

of exploration data

Responsible for leasing

State coal; coordinates

with Federal leasing to

prevent speculation

Requires approval by surface owners before permitting mining plans

Requires a permit for coal

surface mining and reclamation under regulatory

program consistent with

SMCRA

Requires certification of site

and corridor compatibility;

requires route permit for

transmission facility

within the corridor

SOURCE: US. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Federa/ Coal Management Program, Draft Environment/ Impact Statement Supplement (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985).
116 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 4-7.—Wyoming Legislation Affecting Coal Development

Lead State agency Legislation Purpose Major relevance

Department of Environmen- Environmental Quality Act of

tal Quality 1973

—Land Quality Division —Land quality regulations

—Water Quality Division —Water quality standards

—Air Quality Division —Ambient air quality

regulations

—Solid waste

management regulations

Industrial Siting Adminis- Industrial Development lntration formation and Siting Act

of 1975

Commissioner of Public Title 36

Lands

Land Use Administration Land Use Planning Act

State Engineer Industrial Development information and Siting Act

Protects land, air, and

water quality

Protects environment

socioeconomic

Protects and manages

State lands

Protects and manages

State lands

Administers and

State waters

and

protects

Requires permits and

licenses to mine upon approval of mining and

reclamation plan under

regulations consistent

with SMCRA; permits for

coal mines after approval

of plans for monitoring

and controlling air pollution; permits to build

settling ponds and waste

water systems; NPDES

permits for mine discharge; construction fill

permits and industrial

waste facility permits for

solid waste disposal for

coal mines

Requires extensive information and permit before

powerplants and other

energy facilities can be

built

Responsible for administering, leasing, and managing State lands

Requires county land use

plans, which could conflict with or require

modification of some

energy development

proposals

Any storage, impoundment,

pipeline, diversion, or use

of surface or groundwater

for mining and coal

processing requires a

permit

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Federal Coa/ Management Program, Draft Envlronmenta/ Impact Statement Supplement (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 19S5).
Ch. 4—Western Surface Mine Regulation • 117

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES

1. Bureau of Land Management District Office,

Casper, WY, personal communication, 1985.

2. Office of Management and Budget, Budget Ana/-

yses for Fiscal Years 1979 Through 1986.

3. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Environmental Protection in the Federal Coal Leasing Program, OTA-E-237 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, May 1984).

4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Federal Coal Management Program,

Drail Environmental Impact Statement Supplement (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985).

5. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Final Environmental Statement, Federal Coal Management Program (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).

6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Holdings and Development of Fed7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

era/ Coa/ Leases (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1 970).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface

Mining, Annual Report of the Office of Surface

Mining (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface

Mining, BudgetJustifications for Fiscal Years 1979

Through 1986.

30

43

43

43

43

43

43

30

30

43

CFR 701.5.

CFR 1725.3-3

CFR 3420.1-2(a).

CFR 3420.1-4(e)(l).

CFR 3420.1-4(e)(3)

CFR 3420.1-4(e)(4).

CFR 3420.3-4.

U.s.c. 1202.

U.S.C. 1278.

U.S,C. 1701 (a)(8).
Chapter 5

Baseline and Monitoring Data
Contents

Page

Chapter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Baseline and Monitoring Data: Uses and Collection Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 122

Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Data Collected Outside of the Permitting Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Collection of Site-Specific Data by Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Soils and Overburden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Sources of Previously Collected Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Data Collection by Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Important Sources of previously Collected Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Data Collection by Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Revegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Important Sources of Previously Collected Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Data Collection by Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Important Sources of Previously Collected Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Data Collection by Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Chapter 5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

List of Tables

Table No, Page

5-1.

5-2.

5-3.

5-4.

5-5.

5-6.

5-7.

5-8.

5-9.

5-1o.

5-11.

Figure

Selected Regulatory Requirements for Baseline Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Key for Identifying Kinds of Soil Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Summary of State Hydrologic Baseline Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Primary Sources of Existing Hydrologic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Summary of Major USGS Water Data Management

and Acquisition Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 144

Selected State Requirements for Vegetation Baseline Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Native Range land and Wildlife Habitat Vegetation Data in

Permit Applications Reviewed by OVA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

State Wildlife Baseline Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Accepted Wildlife Data Collection Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Wildlife Baseline Data and Survey Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Survey Techniques and Associated Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

List of Figures

No. Page

5-1. A Conceptual Approach to Hydrogeologic Investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

5-2.

5-3.

5-4.

5-5.

5-6.

5-7.

5-8.

Soil Map Legend and Portion of a Soil Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Example of aSoil Map Unit Description . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Example of a Soil Pedon Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Plot of Lead Concentration versus Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Example of a Geologic Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Geologic Cross-Section Showing Stratigraphic Correlations . . . . .....136

Location Map of Hydrologic Areas for Which the USGS is

Preparing Regional Hydrologic Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Chapter 5

Baseline and Monitoring Data

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Overall, the quantity and quality of data collected for reclamation planning have improved

dramatically since the passage of the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA). However, data-related problems still

place important limitations on both reclamation

in the field and the advancement of reclamation science. First, data inadequacies still exist

for some aspects of reclamation. These usually

are the result of limitations in current state-ofthe-art data collection methodologies, rather

than operators’ failure to carry out the necessary data collection.

In some cases, natural obstacles limit operators’ ability to collect reliable data on some parameters. The mobility and adaptability of wildlife make it unlikely that highly reliable data

suitable for quantitative species population analyses ever will be available. Similarly, infrequent

and unpredictable flow events in ephemeral

streams and extremely long spoil-aquifer recharge

times will limit the availability of these hydrologic

data in the West. These obstacles are unlikely

to be overcome soon and reclamation planning

will have to continue to adjust its methods to

the uncertainties in these areas.

We can reasonably expect other data inadequacies to be overcome soon. The lack of techniques for generating chemical data about overburden is a serious limitation on the ability to

delineate overburden materials that may be

detrimental to revegetation or postmining water

quality. Operators are developing new sampling,

sample preparation, and laboratory techniques

so that they can identify unsuitable materials and

keep them out of reconstructed root zones and

postmining water tables as much as possible.

Second, the lack of coordination in data collection is a serious obstacle to regional data

compilation and analysis. This is particularly

true in hydrology, for regional cumulative hydrologic impact assessments (CHIAS). The three

CHIAS completed to date on Western mining

areas uncovered serious, but not prohibitive, data

inadequacies. To be valid in the quantitative

models used for these mandatory assessments of

regional impacts, hydrologic data must be collected at the same time and with the same methods. Initial steps are being made toward the necessary standardization, but coordination of data

collection efforts remains the exception rather

than the rule.

The lack of standardized methodologies for

collection of some data seriously limits their usefulness. The lack of standardized surface water

quality collection methods, especially for ephemeral streams, limits the usefulness of these data

in determinations of the probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) of mining, as well as in CHIAs.

As discussed in chapter 7, this data gap also

makes it difficult to apply hydrologic performance

standards.

Wildlife is another discipline for which standardized data-collection methodologies are lacking. Wildlife baseline studies now emphasize the

description and delineation of habitats, rather

than data collection about animal populations.

But standard methodologies for the quantitative

characterization of the various physical and floral features of wildlife habitat are not available.

Development of such methodologies is necessary

for assessing wildlife impacts and designing mitigation measures. Standardization is particularly

important for wildlife data of regional concern—

as large mammal, raptor, and bird data are—

because such data have many potential users.

A third, and equally important, concern is that

the quantity of data being collected has created

serious data management problems for both

regulatory authorities and operators. Data collection often outpaces analysis in the current

reclamation permitting and monitoring process.

It is not uncommon for regulatory authorities to

require data to be collected and submitted, but

121
122 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

to have insufficient time and other resources to

analyze or review it. Also, data frequently are

presented in a format that contributes to data

management problems. Except for more recent

permits in Wyoming and Colorado, there is no

standard format for the applications. This makes

it difficult for potential outside users to find information.

In part due to these data management problems, and in part due to limited regulatory authority resources, monitoring data are not used

consistently or effectively. These data must be

collected so that both operators and regulators

will know how reclamation is progressing and

what changes are needed in the mining and reclamation plan. In many areas, however, the collection of monitoring data has become perfunctory. Only in Wyoming has the regular review

of monitoring data become part of the State’s annual permit review process. Even there, personnel are not available to analyze all monitoring

data the operators submit. In addition, monitoring data are rarely accessible by computer, or

even indexed, and therefore are very difficult to

review.

OTA was unable to determine whether all

baseline and monitoring data collected are necessary, or whether all necessary data are being

collected. We did find, however, that data collection requirements usually are not derived

from any systematic examination of data uses

in the reclamation planning and evaluation

processes. Except for wildlife data, there is no

“scoping” process (similar to the process used

to support an environmental impact statement)

to identify necessary data. Furthermore, in some

disciplines or jurisdictions, these requirements

have not been reviewed or updated since approval of the initial regulatory programs. Since

that time, operators and regulators have learned

a great deal about what data are actually needed

and used to plan and evaluate reclamation—

lessons that may not be reflected in data requirements.

OTA did not find redundancy in data collection to be a significant problem within the mine

permitting process. Data needed for permit applications are site-specific. Thus, data collected

for other mine sites rarely provide more than

background information for permit applicants

and regulatory authorities. As mining in the West

expands and the amount of permit data available grows, however, Federal agencies and research groups may find themselves repeating the

data collection efforts of permit applicants if the

data in permit applications are not made more

accessible and useful.

BASELINE AND MONITORING DATA:

USES AND COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS

Data on surface and groundwater hydrology,

geology, soils, overburden, vegetation, wildlife,

and other mine-site features and resources form

the foundation of all reclamation planning and

evaluation. These data may be divided into two

broad categories. Operators collect baseline data

before mining to aid in the formulation of the

mining and reclamation plan that is submitted as

part of the permit application package. Baseline

data enable the operator to predict the impacts

of mining and to define the postmining land use. ’

I If mining began before implementation of the Federal and state

regulatory programs under SMCRA, mines had to be repermitted

under those programs, and operators usually undertook baseline

Operators collect monitoring data during and after mining and reclamation to track the impacts

of mining and judge the success of reclamation,

and to refine the mining and reclamation plan

if necessary. Without enough valid baseline data,

the techniques used to analyze the data will produce unreliable and misleading results. Without

sufficient valid monitoring data, the success of

reclamation cannot be evaluated.

studies soon after SMCRA was approved to support repermitting.

Many of the case studies presented in vol. 2 describe older mines

where baseline studies postdate the beginning of mining. See, for

example wildlife case studies D and H, soils case D. But also note

hydrology cases 3.7 and 3.18, where monitoring began before

SMCRA.
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data • 123

This chapter surveys data collected for or used

in reclamation planning and evaluation, with emphasis on data management, and data gaps or the

collection of unnecessary data. The chapter reviews and compares regulatory requirements for

data collection, both at the Federal level and

within the five States in the study area. It identifies methods used to collect the required data and

discusses the relative merits of and limitations of

the various methods. Special attention is paid to

disciplines in which good data are not being collected, either because current collection methods are inadequate or are not standardized, or

because there are natural obstacles to the development of collection methods. Because this study

was prompted in part by a criticism that much

of the data collected at great expense are not

used, or are not used optimally, special attention

is also given to more efficient use and better accessibility of data.

Data collection methods and data-related

problems are radically different in each of the

reclamation disciplines. Hydrology is a highly

quantitative discipline in which vast amounts of

numerical data are collected and managed. Large

quantities of numerical overburden data also are

collected, but their analysis is a very young science and not all of the necessary techniques have

been fully developed. Wildlife biology is a less

quantitative discipline in which the mobility and

natural variability of wildlife populations limits the

ability to collect valid numerical data. Therefore,

relatively few quantitative wildlife data are collected and their meaning is subject to varying

professional interpretations. Vegetation science

and data collection techniques are, by contrast,

well established. Operators (and others) use so

many different techniques for collecting each

type of vegetation data, however, that aggregation of data for regional analyses is almost impossible.

Data collection requirements for each discipline are almost entirely State requirements,

based on the general guidelines established in

SMCRA and the Federal regulations (see ch. 4).

Thus, baseline and monitoring data requirements

vary with the different environments, prevalent

postmining land uses, and other concerns peculiar to each State. Some State requirements for

some disciplines have changed since the Federal

permanent regulatory program was first promulgated in 1979, and they are still changing. At the

time of this writing, Montana and Colorado are

revising their regulations and guidelines (7). The

Montana and Colorado requirements discussed

here are those in force as of April 1985. It should

also be noted that a number of these regulations,

including requirements for the scope of hydrologic data for PHC determinations and CHIAS,

were challenged successfully in Federal court and

must be rewritten by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and the States (see ch. 4, box 4-C).

SOURCES OF DATA

The surface mining and reclamation permitting

and evaluation processes outlined in chapters 4

and 7 are very data intensive, and permit applicants and regulatory authorities turn to a wide

range of data sources to meet SMCRA’S data collection requirements. As companies first begin

to prepare a mining and reclamation plan, they

compile data available in the published literature

or in the files of various Federal and State agencies. These data are then supplemented with sitespecific field data collected to support the permit application package. Data collected by the

operators during mining and reclamation monitor the progress of reclamation and serve as the

basis for evaluating reclamation success.

Data Collected Outside of

the Permitting Process

in fulfilling data requirements for surface mining permits, operators naturally turn first to existing sources of data. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Bureau of Land Management

(B LM),2 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fws),

the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), State fish and

game and other agencies, university researchers,

and many other groups collect data on the soils,

geology, hydrology, vegetation, wildlife, and

ZBLM’5 Energy Mineral Rehabilitation Inventory and Analysis

(EMRIA) reports maybe particularly helpful as general compendia

of data on all resources on a particular lease tract; see ch. 9.
724 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

other resources of the Western coal regions for

their own purposes. These data may also be useful in planning surface mine reclamation. in addition, the data in the permit application for one

surface mine may be helpful in permitting at

nearby mine sites. Making maximum use of such

sources of data is in everyone’s interest. It saves

time and money for operators and contributes

to the efficiency of the permitting process.

However, data collected outside the permitting process will not meet all of the requirements

for the permit application package, and their

usefulness to applicants varies. Sometimes data

may be directly useful and operators may even

include them in permit applications. These include USGS geologic and hydrologic data and

SCS soils data, although even these usually must

be augmented to meet State requirements for sitespecific data. Other data, such as most of the

available vegetation and wildlife data, are helpful only as the most general background information, but may provide a starting point and

guide for an operator’s own data collection

efforts.

There are several reasons that data collected

for other purposes are of limited usefulness to

permit applicants. First, the intensity and areal

extent of the data rarely are compatible with

permit requirements. Most regional data are too

few over too large an area to fulfill permitting requirements. They can, however, give a preliminary profile of the mine site and surrounding area,

and thus may highlight potential reclamation

problems or other factors that need special attention in site-specific data collection and analysis. Conversely, data from academic or independent research projects are often too intense

over too small an area to be directly useful as permitting data.

Second, quality control problems exist with

many of these data. They may have been collected improperly or with techniques not approved by the regulatory authority. Third, the

data may be inaccessible. Some data are proprietary (e.g., exploration data on coal resources

submitted to BLM and OSM). Other data are simply in unmanageable formats. Accessibility limits

the usefulness of most available data to at least

some degree. Few of the existing data related to

surface mining are accessible by computer; most

have not been published. Perhaps the best example of valuable but relatively inaccessible data

are the permit applications, themselves (see box

5-A).

Collection of Site-Specific Data

by Operators

Despite their limitations, data collected outside

the permitting process often allow permit applicants to make a preliminary outline of a mining

and reclamation plan. Using this first, very rough

plan, an applicant can identify data needs for permitting and reclamation planning more precisely,

and thus can design more intensive, site-specific,
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 125

Figure 5-1 .-A Conceptual Approach to Hydrogeologic Investigations

Compilation of existing data

Geology (Groundwater Groundwater

quality levels

I

First approximation

(conceptual model stage)

Maps, report and monitoring program

SOURCE: National Research Council, Coal Mining and Ground-Water Resources in the United States (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981) p. 153,

data collection programs. As these site-specific

data are collected for permitting, the mining and

reclamation plan is continually refined. This

refinement continues after the onset of mining,

as monitoring data yield additional information

that is incorporated into the plan. Figure 5-1 illustrates this refinement process for hydrogeology; the process in other disciplines is similar.

A common, and sometimes unavoidable,

shortcoming of baseline studies is that they provide only a snapshot of premining conditions

over a narrow period of time. The narrow temporal focus of baseline data can be particularly

problematic in assessing hydrology, vegetation,

and wildlife, which may vary greatly over time

with climatic and other conditions or natural succession processes. Mining impacts and reclamation success can only be evaluated if some idea

of the range of natural variation in these disciplines has been established in the baseline

surveys.

In some instances, data collection over the time

required to document the full range of this natural variation is impractical. For example, for

obvious statistical reasons, baseline studies are

unlikely to document a 25-year, 24-hour flow

event in an ephemeral stream. Similarly, baseline studies are unlikely to document either the

natural vegetative succession on the site or the

effects of long-term climatic cycles, Other significant variations over shorter periods of time, particularly seasonal variations, can and should be
126 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

documented with baseline data, however. Ways by regulatory authorities in permit approvals.

of compensating for lack of actual data on long- Also, operators often undertake monitoring proterm variations are discussed in chapter 6. grams on their own initiative to help them plan

As with baseline data, monitoring data must be their operations and identify any reclamation

collected over sufficient periods of time to ac- problems early, when correction of those problems may still be relatively simple and inex- count for the range of natural and seasonal variations. Some amount of monitoring is mandated pensive.

under the regulatory programs and/or stipulated

SOILS AND OVERBURDEN

Data Requirements

State and Federal data collection requirements

for soils and overburden are summarized in table S-I. All five States require a soil map at about

the same scale, and Montana, New Mexico, and

Wyoming describe the level of detail of required

mapping in their guidelines. The minimum size

of soil units that must be mapped varies from O.5

to 2 acres. Soil sampling, which is important in

the characterization of soil chemistry, varies from

one to six profiles required per mapped unit. Requirements for chemical and other analyses of

samples differ somewhat, but all States require

analyses for pH, electrical conductivity (EC),

moisture content saturation (Sat percent), sodium

adsorption ratio (SAR), and texture.

Four of the five States require geologic maps

showing both coal croplines and dip. All five require cross-sections showing the seam(s) to be

mined, any thin seams above or below the coal

to be mined (“rider” seams), and the underburden (see fig. 5-7, below). All five States also require Iithologic logs of overburden drilling, but

only North Dakota requires geophysical logs.

All of the States studied except North Dakota

have guideline suggestions for chemical analyses of selenium, boron, and acid-base potential.4

Each of these four States also defines, in rules or

guidelines, required trace element tests. Wyoming did require quality assurance samples for

3unleSS othe~i~ indicated, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 13.

4Mines in the Fort Union region of North Dakota may have highly

sodic clays in the overburden, but the requirement for 4 feet of

suitable cover over all spoils in that State is considered sufficient

to protect the root zone.

overburden analytical work so that analyses could

be spot-checked and verified by another lab, but

recently rescinded this requirement.

All five States require the identification of potentially acid-, alkaline-, and toxic-forming zones

of overburden that may adversely affect revegetation or postmining water quality, but only in

Wyoming do the cross-sections have to show

these zones. These cross-sections can be difficult

to prepare because the zones may not occur in

predictable, mappable units. Also, the scale of

cross-sections is so large relative to the scope of

potentially deleterious zones that the zones do

not appear (see ch. 6).

Overburden drilling is the method used to characterize overburden and to determine the location and extent of deleterious strata. Required intensity for overburden drill holes ranges from one

hole per 40 acres in Montana, North Dakota, and

Wyoming, to one hole per 640 acres in Colorado.

The changes in Iithology and geochemistry over

short distances in many of the Western coal regions, particularly the Powder River basin, have

spurred considerable debate about whether

higher intensity drilling results in more accurate

overburden characterization. Available data

suggest that the accuracy of unsuitability characterization is not much better at one hole per 40

acres than at one hole per 640 acres. One study

found that an extremely high (and very expensive) intensity of 195-foot spacing between drill

holes (or slightly over one hole per acre) would

be required to predict the occurrence of deleterious strata in overburden with 80 to 90 percent accuracy (4). Not all mine sites are so geologically variable, however, and, at those that are,
II,B) (recently omitted)
Federal Colorado Montana New Mexico North Dakota Wyoming

(30 CFR 700.1 (MLRD 1981 and (DSL 1980 and (MMD 1980 and (NDPSC 1983 and (WDEQ 1980 and

Item 1984) MLRD 1983) DSL 1983) MMD 7984) NDPSC 1984) WDEQ 1984)

Lithologic logs yes (R-780.22) yes (R-2.04.6) yes (G-I II, C.31) yes (R-8-14) yes (R-69-05.2-08-05) yes (G-11)

Geophysical logs not specified not specified not specified not specified yes (R-69-05.2-08-05) 1 geophysical log/1,000

ft (G-II,B)

Identify acid and tox- yes (R-780.22) yes (R-2.04.6) yes (R-26.4.304) yes (R-8-14)

ic forming strata

ESP, SAR not addressed SAR (G-table 3.A) ESP, SAR SAR (G) SAR (R-69-05.2-08-05) SAR (G-appendix 1)

Se, B not addressed Se, B (G-table 3.A) Se, B (G-111 D.5) Se, B (G) not addressed Se, B (G-appendix 1)

ABP, sulfur forms not addressed pyritic, sulfate, or- ABP may be re- ABP (for some sam- ABP (G-appendix 1) organic, total (G- quested (G-111, pies) G SO, (R-8-14) not addressed ganic carbon

table 3. A.) D.5)

Trace elements not addressed Mo, Pb, As, Cd, Mo (G-111, D.5) Al, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, not addressed As, Mo (G-appendix 1)

Fe, Mn, Cu, Hg, Co, Cu, Cn, Fe, Pb,

Zn (G-table 3.A.) Hg, No, Ni, Ag, So-4,

U, V, Zn, Ra-226,

Ra-228 (R-8-14) Mo,

Cu, (G)

aR—denote~ topic addmgsed in regulations and the numbers following designate where it is discussed.

bG—denotes topic addressed in guidelines and the numbers following designate where it is discussed. The Montana Guideline h= recently been r=cinded.

SOURCE: James P. Walsh & Associates, “Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal Mine Reclamation,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 129

economically realistic drilling intensities can at

least identify parameters of concern and indicate

areas where more intensive drilling might be

appropriate.

The sampling densities needed for adequate

postmining spoils monitoring also are in dispute.

The Wyoming Department of Environmental

Quality has recently begun to investigate the statistical basis for required sampling densities (both

vertical and horizontal) on regraded spoils to ensure the adequate delineation of unsuitable material (18). An analysis of regraded spoil data from

one mine concluded that, to distinguish adequately between 6-acre parcels with 95 percent

confidence, approximately three to five samples

were needed for an adequate description of their

differences in pH, salinity, and Sat percent (two

samples at 80 percent confidence). Six-acre parcels could not be distinguished from one another

when analyzing for acid-base potential. Similar

analyses may be required for the parameters of

concern at every mine to determine adequate

sample densities for regraded spoils.

Sources of Previously Collected Data

Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Reports

are available for most of the coal fields and are

used almost universally as the starting point for

more intensive soil inventories on the mine site.

The SCS data are collected according to a uniform National Cooperative Soil Surveys methodology. The reports include soil maps, descriptions

of map units, soil series descriptions, typical

pedon descriptions, s soil classifications, and

limited chemical and physical data and interpretations. SCS soil surveys can be of five different

orders, with first order surveys being the most

detailed. Table 5-2 shows the criteria used for the

different orders of surveys. Surveys available for

potential mining sites are usually order two for

cropland and order three for rangeland.

The U.S. Geological Survey is probably the

most common source of background geologic

data on regional geology, stratigraphy, and lithology, Data are readily available for virtually all coal

5 A pedon is a three-dimensional body of soil with lateral dimensions large enough to permit the study of soil horizon shapes and

relations; its area ranges from 1 to 10 square meters.

regions. The quality of the published information

is very high but the compilation and publication

process is extremely slow. Open-file reports are

available for projects in progress.

Data Collection by Operators

Because soils and overburden do not vary with

seasonal and climatic changes, the data are not

time-dependent and could be collected all at

once. As a practical matter, however, both sets

of data are collected in stages to optimize information gathering at reasonable cost. After examining the available SCS and USGS data, operators formulate a baseline data-collection program

in consultation with the regulatory authority, and

then collect the data according to methods described below. Using the baseline data, operators identify potentially unsuitable areas on their

site. These areas receive special attention in subsequent sampling and sample analysis.

Unsuitability is more of a concern with overburden than with soil because the disturbance

and consequent exposure of overburden to the

surface environment causes physical changes as

well as chemical reactions from oxidation and

leaching. Yet data on the potential for such reactions are difficuIt to collect because the overburden is buried and because unsuitable materials may only occur in very isolated pockets.

Soils, on the other hand, usually are more nearly

i n chemical equilibrium with the surface environment. While disturbance of soils prompts new

chemical reactions, soil material has already been

oxidized and leached. Therefore, such reactions

in soils are unlikely to pose as much of a potential threat to the success of reclamation as, for

example, oxidation of pyrites in overburden.

Moreover, soils are easily observable and accessible, so unsuitable materials are relatively easy

to delineate.

Soil baseline studies begin with a site-specific

soil inventory, usually more detailed than the

available SCS soil surveys. The intensity of inventories varies among States and mines, but most

are detailed order two or general order one (see

table 5-2). Scales for soil maps range from 1 inch

equals 400 feet (1:4800) to 1 inch equals 800 feet

(1:9600), as per State guidelines. The inventories

typically include soil maps (fig. 5-2), map unit
Table 5-2.—Key for Identifying Kinds of Soil Surveys

Minimum Appropriate

Level of size Typical

data

scales for Kind of

delineation components field mapping soil

needed Field procedures hectares a

of map units Kinds of map unitsband publication survey

Very intensive

(i.e., experimental plots,

individual

building sites)

Intensive (i.e.,

general agriculture, urban

planning)

Extensive (i.e.,

rangeland,

forestland,

community

planning)

Extensive (i.e.,

regional

planning)

Very extensive

(i.e., selections

of areas for

more intensive

study)

The soils in each delineation are

identified by transecting or traversing. Soil boundaries are observed

throughout their length. Remotely

sensed data is used as an aid in

boundary delineation.

The soils in each delineation are

identified by transecting or traversing. Soil boundaries are plotted by

observation and interpretation of remotely sensed data. Boundaries are

verified at closely spaced intervals.

The soils are identified by transecting representative areas with some

additional observations. Boundaries

are plotted mostly by interpretation

of remotely sensed data and verified with some observations.

The soils are identified by transecting representative areas to determine soil patterns and composition

of map units. Boundaries are plotted by interpretation of remotely

sensed data.

The soil patterns and composition

of map units are determined by

mapping representative areas and

applying the information to like

areas by interpretation of remotely

sensed ‘data. Soils are verified byoccasional onsite investigation or

bv traversing.

1 or less

0.6 to 4

1.6 to 256

40 to 4,000

1,ooo to

4,000

Phases of soil

series, miscellaneous areas

Phases of soil

series; miscellaneous areas; few

named at a level

above the series

Phases of soil

series and levels

above the series;

miscellaneous

areas

Phases of levels

above the series;

miscellaneous

areas; phases

Phases of levels

above the series;

miscellaneous

areas

Mostly consociations,

some complexes

Consociations and complexes; some undifferentiated and

associated

Mostly associations or

complexes; some consociations and undifferentiated groups

Mostly associations;

some consociations,

complexes, and undifferentiated groups

Associations; some

consociations and undifferentiated groups

1:15,640 or larger

1:12,000 to

1:31 ,660

1:20,000 to

1:250,000

1:1 OO,OOO to

1:1,000,000

1:500,000 to

1:1,000,000 or

smaller

1st order

2nd order

3rd order

4th order

5th order

.

aThig is ebout the gm~legt delineation allowmle for readable soil maps. In practice, the minimum size delineations are generaily larger than the minimum Size shown.

%/here applicable, all kinds of map units (coneociations, complex, association, undifferentiated) can be used in any order of soil survey, end they are not identified as a particular order of map unit.

SOURCE: Soil Conservation Service.
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data • 131

22

22s

22N

32

41

55

65

75

82

107

107N

117N

121

146

205

217

217C

225

237

247

247N

257

257C

265

267

267N

295

297

307N

315

315C

317

325

405

405P

407

415

415N

417

505

505P

515

100

200

SL

CUT

Figure 5-2.–Soil Map Legend and Portion of Soil Map

Soil classification legend

Kim clay loam

Kimsal clay loam

Nonkim clay loam

Limon clay loam

Samsil-Louviers complex

Single-shake complex

Thedalund loam

Wibaux channery loam

Reno clay loam

Tassle fine sandy loam

Lessat fine sandy loam

Embry fine sandy loam

Nomil clay

Dillingson very fine sandy loam

Cushman loam

Donkey fine sandy loam

Donkman fine sandy loam

Fort Collins loam

Maysdorf fine sandy loam

Olney fine sandy loam

Yenlo fine sandy loam

Pugsley fine sandy loam

Pugman fine sandy loam

Renohill loam

Renohill fine sandy loam

Rencalson fine sandy loam

Ulm loam

Ulm fine sandy loam

Vonson fine sandy loam

Thunder loam

Worfka loam

Thunder fine sandy loam

Worf loam

Abstinate loam

Abstinate loam, ponded phase

Abstinate fine sandy loam

Absted loam

Abman loam

Absted fine sandy loam

Bidman loam

Bidman loam, ponded phase

Briggsdale loam

Shallow entisols

Porcelinite outcrops and

very shallow soils

Rockland, sedimentary rock

Structural cuts and fills

● Sampling locations

soil profile description locations

Reservoir

Scale 1“ = 1000’

SOURCE: ELM District Office, Casper, WY, personal communication
132 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

descriptions (fig. 5-3), series descriptions, pedon

descriptions (fig. 5-4), and a map legend.

One minor shortcoming was common in the

soil surveys included in the permit applications

OTA reviewed. Typically up to three soil phases

made up most of each map unit with one or two

other phases being minor inclusions. However,

rarely did the application include an estimate

of the percentage of the unit constituted by each

major component and each inclusion. This

omission would affect the accuracy of any volume calculation made from the soil survey because the various inclusions have different stripping depths.

Following the survey, soils are sampled for laboratory analysis of their chemical composition.

Sampling intensity varies and in several States is

specified by guidelines or regulations. Most often

Figure 5-3.—Example of a Soil Map Unit Description

125—Armolls channery sandy loam, 20 to 35 percent slopes

These are deep, welldrained soils on ridges and sideslopes

throughout the permit area at elevations of 3,200 to 3,450 feet.

They developed in residuum weathered from fractured Fort

Union sandstone. Average annual precipitation ranges from

13 to 19 inches, and the frost-free season is typically 110 to

125 days. Mean annual soil temperature ranges from 42 to

46° F. Slopes are moderately steep to steep.

Typically the surface layer is brown or reddish brown calcareous channery sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The upper

part of the substratum is brown or reddish brown calcareous very channery sandy loam about 8 inches thick. The lower

part of the substratum is reddish yellow calcareous very channery sandy loam to depths of 60 inches or more. In some profiles the surface layer is leached of calcium carbonates.

Coarse fragments comprise 35 to 75 percent of the soil, by

volume. The unit is typical of the series.

Permeability is moderately rapid. The available water holding capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or

more. Surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is

slight from wind and water. The unit is in pine woodland with

an understory of native range.

Land Capability Classification: Vlls

Topsoil Suitability

This unit is unsuited to use as a source of topsoil because

of its high content of coarse fragments.

Prime Farmland Considerations

The Armolls soil falls outside the scope of prime farmland

criteria on the basis of its steep slopes, arid moisture regime,

and stoniness.

Post-Mining Erosion Hazards

Depending on the size and amount of coarse fragments,

this soil may be spread over a wide area, which would essentially eliminate the hazard of erosion from this material.

More probably, the material should be buried during grading.

SOURCE: James P. Walsh & Associates, “Soil and Overburden Management in

Western Surface Coal Mine Reclamation, ” contractor report to OTA,

August 1985,

Figure 5-4.—Example of a Soil Pedon Description

NELAR SERIES

Classification: Entic Haplustoll-coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic

family.

Location: Sec. 11 T9S R40E 400 feet north and 150 feet east

of W1/4 corner in road cut.

Profile Description: Nelar loam.

A1 Reddish brown (5yr4/4 when dry) light loam; dark reddish brown (5yr3/4 when moist); moderate fine and

very fine granular structure; soft when dry; very friable when moist; nonsticky and nonplastic when wet;

few flat fragments.

C1 ca 8-36” Light reddish brown (5yr6/3 when dry) light

loam; reddish brown (5yr4/3 when moist); weak

coarse prismatic structure; slightly hard when dry;

very friable when moist; nonsticky and nonplastic

when wet; very strong effervescence with a few

threads of lime; few lime coated angular fragments.

C2 36-80” Reddish brown (5yr5/4 when dry) light loam

and fine sandy loam; reddish brown (5yr4/4 when

moist); massive; soft when dry; very friable when

moist; nonsticky and nonplastic when wet; strong effervescence; few lime coated angular fragments.

Range in Characteristics: The texture of control section

is loam or sandy loam with less than 12 percent clay and less

than 15 percent by volume of angular fragments. Bedrock is

typically deeper than 5 feet but can occur above this depth

in some profiles. The sandy loam substratum can occur at

any depth below 30 inches. In places a very weakly expressed

B2 horizon is present.

Colors are in hues redder than 7.5yr.

SOURCE: James P. Walsh & Associates, ‘(Soil and Overburden Management in

Western Surface Coal Mine Reclamation,” contractor report to OTA,

August 1985.

between one and three vertical profiles of the soil

are taken in each type of mapped unit. The profiles are then sampled by horizon, usually with

more detailed sampling in the upper horizons.

Samples are tested for a fairly standard set of agronomic properties that typically includes pH; EC;

SAR; Sat percent; percent organic matter (OM);

and percent sand, silt, and clay. Tests for trace

elements, boron (B) and selenium (Se), are often

run on salty soils. Tests for nutrient elements such

as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (N, P,

and K) also may be run during baseline studies,

although they are more useful if run prior to

reseeding. Standard procedures for all of these

tests have been published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1 1). Even using

standard techniques, however, variations in the

results of the same test on the same sample run

by different labs can be significant for some

chemical parameters. b

6See reference 13, table 4.2-1 which summarizes SOnle resultS

of round-robin soils tests conducted by the Montana DSL; see also

reference 2. The USGS has conducted similar tests recently with

similar results (10).
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 133

Additional soils data are collected to plan soil

handling in order to optimize stripping depths

and maximize soil recovery. In rare instances,

such additional data are superfluous (e.g., in parts

of New Mexico there is no suitable topsoil). However, in much of the West, 100 percent topsoil

recovery is a major concern. In these areas, following baseline studies but before the onset of

mining, transects (narrow belts) are used to refine soil classifications and stripping depths. The

soil is then staked at close spacings (every 200

feet is common) with markings on each stake indicating the stripping depth at that particular spot.

At larger operations, a soil scientist may assist the

scraper operator to ensure maximum topsoil recovery. Many mines (particularly in Wyoming)

are required to maintain “budgets” of their total soil volume. In Wyoming and North Dakota,

operators commonly demonstrate full topsoil recovery to the regulatory authority by leaving pillars of topsoil at specified intervals.

Overburden baseline studies center around

the overburden drilling and sampling requirements in the five States. Required spacing of drillholes ranges from one hole per 40 acres to one

hole per 640 acres. Holes generally must be sampled at 5- to 10-foot intervals through the overburden. Samples may be collected either from

the cuttings from rotary drill holes or from continuous core samples. Rotary drilling is a somewhat crude method of collecting samples as there

is some mixing of cuttings as they rise in the hole.

The alternative, coring, is much more expensive.

Therefore, it is rarely used for overburden characterization beyond the initial baseline study, for

which some core samples may be required (e.g.,

in Wyoming). Overburden samples collected at

later stages, during developmental and blasthole

drilling, are all from rotary drill holes,

For overburden, these additional samples are

first collected during developmental drilling,

which usually precedes the path of mining by

about 5 years. Developmental drill holes are more

closely spaced than baseline holes; operators use

them to refine coal seam maps. If an initial baseline drillhole indicates the potential for unsuitable material, developmental drill holes may be

sampled around the baseline hole. if the extent

of the material is still not clear or if further information is needed, additional overburden samples

may be taken during the drilling of closely spaced

blastholes (used to loosen the overburden immediately before mining). Even this progressively

more intensive data collection may onIy satisfactorily delineate deleterious material that occurs

in contiguous, mappable strata, usually of carbonaceous shales or pyritic sandstones. The occurrence of isolated pods of undesirable material,

usually containing high levels of trace metals such

as arsenic or boron, cannot be mapped with any

economically reasonable density of drill holes (see

ch. 6).

Sample contamination from pipe grease and

drilling fluids has been a problem in both coring

and rotary drilling. Depending on the nature of

the contamination, it may be easy to spot (as in

fig. 5-s, where high lead concentrations were reported at regular 20-foot intervals over the length

of the drill stem). In other cases, contamination

is more difficult to detect (see box 5-B). Oxidation of overburden samples also can affect the

lab test results, but is usually only a problem

when samples have been stored for long periods,

for example when samples taken before 1977 are

tested for the parameters now required under

SMCRA regulations.

A geologist compiles a lithologic log for each

drill hole either from the core, from cuttings collected onsite, or from the driller’s logs. Figure

5-6 is an example of a page from a typical lithoIogic log. Western Iithologic descriptions are not

standardized, and in some of the permit applications reviewed by OTA, Iithologic descriptions

were sketchy, with one word descriptions of rock

types such as “shale” or “sandstone.” The developers of a standardized rocktype key for the

Eastern United States (6) recently published a similar Iithologic key for Western coal overburden

(5). This key standardizes Iithologic descriptions

and reduces each standard type to a numerical

code. This facilitates compilation of overburden

databases and use of the growing variety of overburden software programs.

After a hole has been drilled, a variety of probes

are lowered down into it to develop a geophysical log. These probes measure parameters such

as electrical conductivity and resistivity, natural
[page omitted]

This page was originally printed on a dark gray background.

The scanned version of the page was almost entirely black and not usable.
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data • 135

Figure 5-6.—Example of a Geologic Log

MINE NAME: BED: HOLE NO:

COUNTY: STATE: SEC. TWP. RG.

DRILLER: DATE: EL.

Page of

Total Thickness Sub- Composite

Ft. & I0ths Ft. & I0ths sample sample

0

10

15

22

25

29

29

34

40

41

45

48

48

60

81

83

96

126

130

132

133

147

153

154

156

160

160

163

163

164

164

165

165

179

179

180

o

6

7

6

5

7

6

2

4

8

5

7

0

8

6

9

5

5

5

5

7

1

7

6

6

9

0

2

3

5

6

7

4

6

5

Siltstone, light gray, sandy

Sandstone, very fine grained, yellow, silty,

< IOO

\O carbonaceous

Shale, light gray-yellow, sandy, Iimonite stained,

< 10°/0 carbonaceous

Sandstone, very fine-fine grained, buff, slightly

calcareous

Shale, buff-gray, Iimonite stained, gypsum, c 10°/0

carbonaceous

Sandstone, very fine-fine grained tan

Shale, gray, < 10% carbonaceous, Iimonite stained

Sandstone, very fine grained, tan, slightly calcareous,

shaley

Limestone, light gray, < 10% carbonaceous

Sandstone, very fine grained, tan, calcareous, < IO%

carbonaceous, shaley

Shale, gray, sandy, > IO% carbonaceous

Carbonaceous shale, w/coal, pyritic

Shale, gray, sandy, < 10°/0 carbonaceous

Sandstone, very fine grained, gray, slightly calcareous,

shaley, c 10°/0 carbonaceous

Shale, gray, > 10°/0 carbonaceous

Sandstone, very fine grained, light gray, shaley,

calcareous, < IO% carbonaceous

Shale, gray, sandy, < 10°/0 carbonaceous

Sandstone, very fine-fine grained, light gray, < 10°/0

carbonaceous, w/shale stringers

Shale, gray, sandy

Sandstone, very fine-fine grained, salt & pepper, shaley,

< 10% carbonaceous

Shale, gray, sandy, < IO% carbonaceous

Sandstone, very fine-reed. grained, salt & pepper,

< IO% carbonaceous, shaley

Shale, gray, < 10% carbonaceous

Coal, pyritic

Coal

Bone coal

Coal, pyritic

Carbonaceous shale, w/coal strands

Coal

Carbonaceous shale

Coal, pyritic

Carbonaceous shale

Coal, pyritic

Carbonaceous shale, w/coal, pyritic

Coal

Carbonaceous shale

10

5

7

2

3

4

5

1

4

2

11

21

1

13

29

4

2

1

14

5

1

1

4

2

1

1

13

SOURCE: James P. Walsh & Associates, “soil arlcj OV@Urderr Management in Western Surface Coal Mine Reclamation,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.
136 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

gamma radiation, and density as determined from

induced neutron radiation. A geologist then attempts to correlate data from the Iithologic and

geophysical logs across the distance between

drillholes and so draw the geologic maps and

cross-sections required by most States. The level

of detail in these maps is highly variable. Geologic cross-sections usually show topography,

coal seam(s) to be mined, easily recognizable

overlying strata (e.g., coaly or carbonaceous

zones and large sand bodies), and the underlying

stratum. Figure 5-7 shows one of the better geologic cross-sections from the permit applications

reviewed by OTA.

Samples taken from drillholes are also tested

for d variety of geochemical parameters that may

adversely effect revegetation and postmining

water quality. Typically these include pH, salinity, SAR and/or exchangeable sodium percent,

texture, Sat percent, and concentrations of a variety of trace elements such as selenium and

boron. Where acid formation in overburden is

considered a potential problem, these samples

also might be tested for acid-base potential (see

ch. 8). Many of the lab tests currently used for

these purposes were borrowed directly from soil

science, and experience in recent years is cailing into question the validity of these tests when

applied to overburden. Unlike soils, overburden

typically is not oxidized (except in near-surface

strata) and so is not in chemical equilibrium with

the surface environment. Furthermore, soils are

soft and friable and extracts for analysis can be

taken readily. Overburden, however, generally

is in the form of rock that must be ground before testing, and the amount of grinding affects

the test results. Tests designed to extract trace metals from oxidized soil material often do not perform in the same manner when applied to unoxidized overburden. Tests used for nitrates and

selenium are particularly suspect as of this writing (see box 5-C). Methods used to test for acidbase potential in overburden are also controversial (see ch. 8).

Soil and overburden monitoring on regraded

surfaces is done indirectly, through monitoring

I

1

I I I
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 137

Box S-C.--Detecting Selenium in Overburden Samples

The current procedure used to detect selenium in overburden samples is a hot-water extraction developed for agricultural soils. in surficial materials, such as soils, selenium is in an oxidized state, readily

soluble, and thus easily extracted by this method. Baseline overburden samples, of km obtained at considerable depths, are in a reduced condition and the unoxidized selenium compounds are not readily

soluble. Therefore, hot-water extraction does not work, The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

has noted the limitations of this procedure. In one instance, a sample from the Shirley basin known to

contain a total selenium value of 410 ppm yielded only 1 ppm in the standard extraction procedure. This

appears to explain why selenium has rarely been detected above trace-level concentrations in baseline

overburden analyses. While hot-water extraction may not be a valid test for baseline studies, it may still

be useful for testing regraded spoils, During the mining and reclamation process, most overburden materials are exposed to the air long enough to become oxidized, particularly its dragline operations where spoils

may be unburied for up to a year. Once oxidized, the selenium becomes more soluble, and the hot-water

method will work (l).

of water quality and vegetation. None of the five

States routinely requires long-term monitoring of

normal backfilled spoils or redressed soils, but

the regulatory authorities often impose monitoring programs in cases where soil or overburden

conditions have been identified as a problem (see

the case studies in vol. 2). Types of programs

commonly required include: one-time sampling

of regraded spoils for unsuitable material in the

root zone; one-time or periodic sampling of soils,

most often for sodium migration; and monitoring for erosion.

Most monitoring programs require sampling of

the surficial spoils (those immediately beneath the

soil) only once, immediately prior to topsoiling.

If there is little or no change in spoil character

over time, one-time sampling may be adequate.

However, the extent to which chemical reactions

will occur in overburden and the time required

for their completion are not well understood.

Similarly, the speed and ultimate extent of sodium

migration through spoils is difficult to predict.

Where sodium has been identified as a potential problem, periodic spoil sampling programs

are being carried out. Without more research on

spoil chemistry, the adequacy of current monitoring programs is difficult to assess.

Moreover, as noted previously, the horizontal and vertical sampling densities for collecting

spoils monitoring data are not standardized. At

mines reviewed by OTA, data on recontoured

spoils were most often based on a grid with samples collected at horizontal intervals varying from

400 to 660 feet (4 to 11 acres/sample).7 Depth

of sampling varied: at two mines, spoil was sampled to 8 feet; at two others, spoil was sampled

to 4 feet but at 2-foot intervals. One Wyoming

operator proposes to sample on a 625-foot grid

(9 acres/sample); if unsuitable material is found

in any sample, the surrounding area would be

sampled on a 200 foot grid (1 acre/sample). The

regulatory authority has not yet acted on this proposal. Another mine is sampling on a 500-foot

grid (6 acres/sample). An innovative sampling

program is described in box 5-D.

Soil sampling and erosion monitoring programs

also vary because they are designed for each individual mine (see box 5-E). At one North Dakota

mine, sodium migration and salinity of soils were

monitored on a limited basis using research

plots.8 At another mine in Montana, sodium in

redressed topsoil over sodic and clayey overburden is being monitored from 20 different sampling locations on the mine-site.9

Sampling of spoil in reconstructed aquifers is

extremely difficult and so is much less common

than sampling of surficial spoil. If there is reason

to suspect that deleterious material may be

present in the water table, operators may be required to produce samples, but such sampling

7See reference 13, case studies C, E, F, G, H and 1.

Ssee reference 13, case study B.

9See reference 13, case study D.

Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 139

HYDROLOGY10

Data Requirements

Requirements for hydrologic data collection are

summarized in table 5-3. Wyoming has the most

specific guidelines and regulations, followed in

order by Montana, Colorado, North Dakota, and

New Mexico. The latter two States have not published guidelines, relying on regulations and personal contacts between operators and regulatory

personnel to develop hydrologic data collection

programs on a mine-specific basis.

Under the Federal and State programs, surface

water baseline studies must include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

detailed location of all surface water features;

streamflow quantity data, including seasonal

and annual variations, floods, and low flows;

streamflow quality data, including both physical and chemical characteristics and the relationship between discharge and quality;

relationship between discharge and quality;

quantification of physical watershed parameters, including topographic features, surficial geology, hydrologic soil types, vegetative cover, and channel and flood plain

geometry;

a description of climatic characteristics that

affect surface water hydrology, such as mean

annual precipitation, precipitation frequency

versus duration relationships, and seasonal

and annual variations in precipitation; and

a description of surface water uses.

Some of this information is in or can be compiled from existing sources of data. For example,

information on climatic characteristics may be

obtained from the National Weather Service.

Groundwater baseline studies must include:

● location of all groundwater features in the

area, including existing wells and springs

which may be affected by mining;

‘“Unless otherwise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 15; see also reference 9.

●

●

●

●

●

geologic data, such as surficial geologic maps

and geologic cross-sections that show: depth

and extent of aquifers, confining layers, and

hydrologic barriers and boundaries, including any faults or folds;

static water level data, including seasonal

and annual variations, for all affected aquifers

sufficient for the construction of potentiometric surface maps to determine flow directions and locate recharge and discharge

areas;

water quality data for all affected aquifers

sufficient to determine seasonal and annual

variations and suitability of the water for domestic, irrigation, or livestock uses;

geochemical data for the overburden materials for use in predicting postmining chemical quality of the spoils aquifers;

results of pump tests to determine: permeability, transmissivity, and storage coefficients

for all affected aquifers; effects of hydrologic

barriers and boundaries; interaction between

aquifers; and interactions between the groundwater and surface water systems.

Alluvial valley floor (AVF) baseline studies must

determine whether there are AVFS in or near the

proposed permit area, whether an AVF cannot

be mined because it is significant to farming, the

potential impacts of mining on the AVF, and the

prospects for restoring the essential hydrologic

functions (EHFs) of the AVF (see chs. 3 and 4).

Federal regulations require that surface and

groundwater monitoring data be submitted to

the regulatory authority every 3 months (19,20).

While quarterly monitoring might be a valuable

safeguard of hydrologic resources in the East,

it is inappropriate and unnecessary in the West.

In the East, there are many small operators mining in close proximity to one another and the hydrology is highly variable. There, hydrologic impacts may occur rapidly and unpredictably. In

a large Western operation, however, a pit may

be 4,OOO feet long and may only move at a rate

of 1,000 ft/yr. Thus, water levels and quality in
Table 5-3.—Summary of Hydrologic Baseline Data Collection Requirements by State

Colorado Montana Wyoming

(guidelines and (guidelines and New Mexico North Dakota (guidelines and

Type of data reguIations) regulations) (regulations) (regulations) regulations)

Surface water quantity data:

Perennial Continuous recording

gages. Report max,

rein, and mean flow.

Continuous recording

gages.

Min, max, and avg discharge conditions

identifying low flow

and peak discharge

rates.

Min, max, and avg discharge conditions

identifying low flow

and peak discharge

rates.

Min, max, and avg discharge conditions

identifying low flow

and peak discharge

rates.

Not stated.

Max, rein, and avg discharge conditions

which identify low

flow and peak rates.

Continuous recording

gages.

Intermittent Sample frequency will

be dealt with on an individual basis. Determine duration of flow

season and peak flow.

Install crest stage

recorders. Flow measurement frequency

will be dealt with on

an individual basis.

Duration Not stated.

Continuous recording

gages.

Max, rein, and avg discharge conditions

which identify low

flow and peak rates.

Continuous recording

gages.

Ephemeral Crest stage gages. Max, rein, and avg discharge conditions

which identify low

flow and peak rates.

Monthly reading of

crest gages.

Not stated. Not stated. Submit

quarterly reports.

Min. of one year of

data (see above).

Surface water quality data:

Parameters Field: pH, EC, temp,

DO

Lab: TDS, TSS, Oil and

Grease, SAR, HC03,

Ca, Cl, Mg, N03, N02,

P04, Na, S04, Al, As,

Cd, Cu, Pb, Mn, Hg,

Mo, Se, Zn.

EC, pH, Alk, SAR,

TDS, Al, As, Ba, HC03,

B, Cd, Ca, C03, Cl, Cr,

F, Fe, Pb, Mg, Ni,

N03, P04, K, Se, Ag,

Na, S04, V, Zn.

TDS, TSS, cidity, pH,

total and dissolved Fe,

total Mn, others as required by the regulatory authority.

TDS, TSS, EC, pH, total

Fe, others as required.

Field: pH, temp, EC,

chloride, Aik, discharge, turbidity, DO

Lab: NH3, N03, N02,

Al, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu,

Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo,

Ni, Se, Zn, HC03,

C03, Ca, Cl, B, F, Mg,

K, Na, S04, TDS.

Perennial Field: measure water

quality parameters

monthly. Complete

chemical analysis

quarterly.

Sample frequency will

be dealt with on an individual basis.

Quarterly. Discuss with regulatory authority. Submit

quarterly reports.

Discuss with regulatory authority.

Sufficient to characterize quality—discuss

with regulato~

authority.

Intermittent Quarterly. Discuss with regulatory authority. Submit

quarterly reports.

Discuss with regulatory authority.Sufficient to characterize quality—discuss

with regulatory

authority.

Sufficient to characterize quality—discuss

with regulatory

authority.

Ephemeral Sample water for complete chemical analysis twice a year, once

during snowmelt, and

once during a storm

event.

When possible. Discuss with regulatory authority. Submit

quarterly reports.

Discuss with regulatory authority.
Table 5-3.—Summary of Hydrologic Baseline Data-Collection Requirements by State—Continued

Colorado Montana Wyoming

(guidelines and (guidelines and New Mexico North Dakota (guidelines and

Type of data regulations) regulations) (regulations) (regulations) regulations)

Sufficient to characterize quality—discuss

with regulatory

authority.

Springs and seeps Measure field water

quality parameters

monthly. Sample water

for complete chemical

analysis quarterly.

Not stated. Discuss with regulatory authority.Discuss with regulatory authority. Submit

quarterly reports.

Groundwater quantity data:

Well Density None specified.

Pump Tests Not stated.

Methodology Speci- No.

fied? YIN

Static Water Level See water quality

Frequency pling frequency.

Potentiometric Not stated.

Groundwater quality data:

Min. 1 data point per

aquifer per 4 sq. mi.

Min. 3 data points per

affected aquifer per

sq. mi.

Within each affected

aquifer (2-3 may be

adequate).

No, but some recommendations are made.

Quarterly.

None specified. None specified.

Within each affected

aquifer.

Not stated. Not stated.

No. No.

Discuss with the

regulatory authority.

No.

Discuss with regulatory authority.

Monthly for at least

one year, one well in

each aquifer continuously monitored.

For each affected

aquifer and next aquifer beneath coal if

deemed necessary.

samNot stated. For each affected

aquifer and next aquifer beneath coal.

For each affected

aquifer.

TDS, HC03, Na, Fe,

hardness, N03, S04,

Cl, pH, SAR, Ca, Mg,

EC, others as requested.

Discuss with the

regulatory authority.

Field: pH, temp, EC,

chlorine, Alk, turbidity

Lab: NH3, N03, N02,

Al, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu,

Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo,

Ni, Se, Az, HC03,

C03, Ca, Cl, B, F, Mg,

K, Na, S04, TDS.

Sufficient to characterize quality in potentially affected

aquifers.

Parameters - - Field: pH, EC, Temp

Lab: TDS, HC03, Ca,

C03, Cl, Mg, NH3,

N03, N02, P04, Na,

S04, As, Cd, Fe, Mn,

Hg, Se, Zn.

EC, pH, Alk, SAR,

TDS, Al, As, Ba,

HC03, B, Cd, Ca, C03,

Cl, Cr, F, Fe, Pb, Mg,

Ni, N03, P04, K, Se,

Ag, Na, S04, V, Zn.

Discuss with regulatory authority.

Discuss with the

regulatory authority.

Frequency Bedrock Aquifers:

Field parameters

monthly. Complete

chemical analysis

semiannually.

Alluvial Aquifers: Field

water quality parameters monhtly. Complete chemical

analysis quacterly.

Min. of quarterly.
142 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 143

monitoring wells offsite are not likely to change

rapidly. In addition, as is noted elsewhere in this

report, Western regulatory authorities already receive more data than they can review on a regular basis. Instead, they review hydrologic monitoring data when they have to make a decision

based on those data (e.g., permit renewal, bond

release, or, in Wyoming, annual bond adjustment) or when there is reason to believe some

problem exists at a site. As a result, monitoring

programs in the West often require semi-annual

rather than quarterly monitoring, and operators

generally submit these data to the regulatory authorities annually.

Important Sources of

Previously Collected Data

The USGS, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), and the State water offices compile the

most commonly used sources of existing hydrologic data available to permit applicants and regulatory authorities in the West (see table 5-4). The

USGS’s Water Resources Division maintains several excellent data collection networks, including the National Water-Data Exchange (NAWDEX),

the National Water-Data Storage and Retrieval

System (WATSTORE), and the Index to WaterData Activities in the Coal Provinces of the United

States. NAWDEX indexes data from a nationwide

confederation of water-oriented organizations

and assists users in identifying and locating water

data. WATSTORE digitizes a variety of types of

surface and groundwater data collected by USGS

at their monitoring stations, including daily values

of sediment concentration, stream flow, and

reservoir levels; water quality; peak flows; chemical analyses; and geologic data for groundwater

stations. The Index to Water-Data Activities indexes available data sources by data type (e.g.,

streamflow, surface water quality, groundwater

quality) for five geographic regions. All of these

Table 5-4.—Primary Sources of Existing Hydrologic Data

Agency Program Summary description

Us.

Us.

Geological Survey

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Bureau of Land

Management

Us.

Us.

tion

Dept. of Agriculture

Environmental ProtecAgency

National Water Well Association (as part of National Center for Ground

Water Research established by EPA through Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

and Rice Universities)

Annual Water-Data Reports

Water and Power

Management

Energy Mineral Rehabilitation Inventory and Analysis

(EMRIA), discontinued

Various Programs of the

Agricultural Research Service, Forest Service, and

Soil Conservation Service

STORET

National Ground Water information Center (NGWIC)

Records of stage, discharge and quality of streams, stage

and contents of lakes and reservoirs, and water levels and

quality of groundwater, Published annually by State. Reports

available for purchase from NTIS.

Reservoir water levels and discharge of streams, rivers and

canals. Reports available on request from respective regional office.

Intended to be a coordinated approach to field data collection, analyses, and interpretation of overburden, water, vegetation and energy resource data in the Western coal field.

Data compiled in various EMRIA reports available from U.S.

Dept. of the Interior.

Each agency conducts limited monitoring for specific program needs. Data are available from the respective agency

on request,

Computerized database system for storage and retrieval of

data relating to water quality, water quality standards, point

sources of pollution, pollution-caused fish-kills, wasteabatement needs, implementation schedules, and other

water-quality related information. Any government agency

can become a STORET user. The system is accessed by the

EPA or by a government agency or university that uses

STORET.

Computer retrieval system that searches hydrogeology and

water well technology database that resides on a computer

at Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Database available to

any individual or group upon request or through time-sharing account. Costs assessed for computer time, Geographical coverage is worldwide.

SOURCE: Western Water Consultants, “Hydrologic Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA, Aug. 1, 1985.
144 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 5-5.—Summary of Major USGS Water-Data Management and Acquisition Programs

Geographical

Program Description Accessibility y coverage

National Water-Data National confederation of water-oriented orExchange (NAWDEX) ganizations aimed at making their data more

accessible, Services include assistance in identifying and locating needed water data and

referring the requester to the organization that

retains the data.

Master Water-Data Index (MWDI) identifies

sites for which water data are available, type of

data available, and information necessary to

obtain the data.

WATSTORE

Water Data Sources Directory (WDSD) identifies organizations that are sources of water

data and locations within these organizations

from which data may be obtained.

Computerized system for processing water

data and managing data-releasing activities. includes the following files:

Station-Header File (WRD.STAHDR)-an index

of sites for which data are stored in DVFILE,

PKFIL, QWFILE, and WRD.UNIT (see below).

Daily Value File (DVFILE)—daily values for

streamflow, reservoir levels, water-quality

parameters, and groundwater levels.

Peak Flow File (PKFIL)—annual maximum discharge and gage height values at surface

water sites.

Water Quality Data File (QWFILE)—results of

surface water and groundwater quality

analyses.

Unit Values File (WRD.UNIT)-water parameters measured more frequently than daily.

National Water Use Data System (NWUDS)—a

national Federal-State cooperative system

designed to collect, store, and disseminate

water-use data.

Office of Water Data Index to Water-Data Activities in Coal

Coordination (OWDC) Provinces of the United States. Five-volume

index to availability of streamflow, surface

water and groundwater quality data and

hydrologic investigations in the five major

coal provinces. Index was derived from the

Catalog of Information on Water Data, a

computerized information file about waterdata activities in the United States.

Services available to anyone Nationwide

through USGS National

Center and Assistance

Centers in 45 states and

Puerto Rico. Charges for

computer and personnel

time and duplicating

services.

Information available to any- Nationwide

one through any of USGS

Water Resources Division’s 46 district offices.

Individual volumes available Five major coal

for purchase from USGS. provinces of

Additional information the United

available from NAWDEX States

Assistance Centers.

SOURCE: Western Water Consultants, “Hydrologic Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA, Aug. 1, 1985.

data are available to any individual or organization through the USGS district or national office.

Table 5-5 contains additional information on

these USGS data management programs.

In addition, the USGS has been compiling a series of reports that describe existing hydrologic

conditions and identify sources of hydrologic data

in the Nation’s coal provinces. These reports are

intended to fulfill SMCRA’S requirement that an

“appropriate Federal or State agency” make

“hydrologic information on the general mine area

prior to mining” available to permit applicants.

The reports also help regulatory authorities judge

whether a proposed mining plan adequately

“minimizes the disturbances to the prevailing

hydrologic balance.” Figure 5-8 shows the areas

covered by these reports as of February 1985,

EPA maintains a database called STORET that

includes water quality data, water quality standards, and point sources of pollution. All govern-
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 145

Figure 5.8.—Location Map of Hydrologic Areas for Which USGS Is Preparing

Regional Hydrologic Reports

I

I

I

I

Utah

I

I

I

I

I

SOURCE: Western Water Consultants, “Hydrologic Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor repoti

to OTA, Aug. 1, 1985.

ment agencies can become STORET users. EPA

also funds and oversees the National Ground

Water Information Center (NGWIC), a computerized database of groundwater references operated by the National Well Water Association.

Geographical coverage of the database is worldwide. Any individual or group may use the database. Charges are assessed on the basis of computer time used.

Each State in the study region has an office (usually in the State Engineer’s office or the State natural resources department) responsible for water

appropriation. These offices maintain a centralized system of information on locations of diversion points, names of appropriators, and types

of water use. The Montana and New Mexico Bureaus of Mines also have some water quality information. In addition, under the Clean Water

Act, each State must maintain a system for classifying streams on the basis of water quality and

quantity and suitability for various uses (see ch. 4).

The Wyoming Water Research Center (WWRC)

maintains a computerized database of all regularly reported streamflow, groundwater quality,

climatological, water well level, and snow course

data. The data may be accessed by any individ-
146 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

ual or organization who contacts the WWRC office in Laramie. Charges for computer and personnel time are assessed.

The Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring organization (GAGMO) is an organization of

mine operators in the Powder River basin around

Gillette, Wyoming, who measure static water

levels in their monitor wells around October 1

of each year and publish the data in annual

reports.

Data Collection by Operators

Hydrologic data collection methods and data

formats are more standardized than in other disciplines because the methods of hydrologic analysis are more quantitative and increasingly are

computerized (see ch. 6). Although this means

that the hydrologic data available from outside

sources are more extensive and of better quality

than is the case in other disciplines, more and

better data still are necessary to perform the sophisticated analyses required for permitting. Thus,

as in other disciplines, existing data sources may

be helpful for initial planning but the vast majority

of data still must be collected onsite by the

operator.

Moreover, hydrology changes constantly at any

given mine site. The mobility of water through

the ecosystem makes it impossible to consider

hydrology and hydrologic data in the static, sitespecific fashion in which soils and overburden

data are considered. Consequently, hydrologic

data collection that begins as part of baseline

analyses usually continues through the life of a

mine and becomes part of the hydrologic monitoring of the mine (see fig. 5-1, above). This is

true, not just for surface mine reclamation, but

for all types of hydrologic work. As a result,

hydrologists traditionally have maintained and exchanged data more than in other disciplines. It

is worth noting that hydrology is the one area

where operators routinely consult previously filed

permit applications and occasionally even coordinate and pool monitoring data (e.g., GAGMO).

The bulk of the surface water baseline data

collection effort goes into streamflow quantity

and quality data. Because streamflow characteristics change constantly, data should be collected

over sufficient time to delineate the range of natural flows, although additional research may be

needed to determine what period of data collection is adequate. Without such long-term streamflow data from several locations along the stream

channel, the sophisticated analytical tools described in chapter 6 may not be usable or may

yield invalid results.

Compiling flow data for perennial streams is not

difficult. Because perennial streams are relatively

uncommon in the West, they already are monitored closely, often by the USGS. Depending on

the positions of these monitoring stations relative

to the mine site, these data may be useful to permit applicants. If no preexisting data are available on a perennial stream at a particular site,

gaging technology to collect flow data is well developed and standardized. Operators usually install water level recorders at selected points along

perennial streams; these provide continuous data

on both water levels and flow rates. Water sampling for water quality analyses, particularly of

sediment levels, also can be done at any time.

However, most streams in the West are ephemeral or intermittent and flow only occasionally—

after precipitation or spring snowmek events and,

in the case of intermittent streams, when the

water table is high. Opportunities for collecting

data and samples may be few and far between

for these streams, and they are less likely to be

the objects of previous data collection efforts.

Moreover, compiling reliable flow data for ephemeral and intermittent streams in the West is difficult because the crest-stage gages usually used

to measure flows in these channels only record

the highest water surface elevations reached since

the last gage reading; they do not indicate flow

rate or how fast water levels rose or receded

when the flow event occurred. Flume gages

equipped with water level recorders are more sophisticated methods of collecting flow data. They

record how fast water rises in the channel and

how fast it recedes using automatic recording devices activated by water flow. They are also about

100 times as expensive as crest-stage gages and

are likely to be washed out or damaged during

major runoff events.

Obtaining water quality samples from ephemeral and intermittent streams also is difficult. First,
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 147

having personnel at each channel at the time of

peak flow during each flow event is impracticable and sometimes dangerous. Second, and also

a problem at perennial streams, the methodology to be used for taking samples has not been

standardized, and different sampling methods

can add significant variability to water quality

data. Even the USGS has not formulated a standard procedure for how and where in the flow

water quality samples should be taken. Third,

water quality data are meaningful only if accompanied by data on flow rate and volume at the

time of sampling. As noted above, simple creststage gages do not provide these data.

Obstacles to collecting reliable surface water

data for ephemeral and intermittent streams often

leave Western operators with insufficient data for

detailed reclamation planning. At one Wyoming

mine, only 33 data points were available on

which to base the reclamation plan. At another,

only three samples from seven sampling sites

were collected. A third Wyoming mine installed

five crest-gages in 1978, but oniy one fiow event

has been recorded at three of the gages; none

at the other two. A Colorado operator had no

data available on flow or quality of ephemeral

streams despite two gages on the site. No New

Mexico mine reviewed was able to collect enough

data on ephemeral streams to plan reclamation

adequately. To compensate for this lack of surface water data, operators have turned to other

methods of calculating peak and low flows based

on the topography, soils, vegetation, precipitation and land use of the drainage (see ch. 6).

Necessary geologic and geochemical data for

groundwater baseline studies usually are obtained from the overburden baseline studies described above. Permit applications from adjacent

mines also may be a good source of geologic information for a permit applicant. All other data

are collected with a series of observation wells

drilled by the operator for this purpose. These

wells are drilled with an imperfect knowledge of

the subsurface hydrogeology and therefore rarely

yield complete data for hydrologic modeling and

construction of potentiometric surface maps.

Wells must be drilled carefully so that only pertinent aquifers are open to them and all other

water sources sealed off. Since 1980, both well

drilling and sampling techniques have improved

and the quality of groundwater data has improved correspondingly. Efforts to coordinate

data collection, such as the GAGMO agreement,

could add to the utility of groundwater data.

A variety of data are taken from these wells.

Water levels are monitored regularly and are used

to prepare potentiometric surface maps showing

the static water level of an aquifer at a given point

in time. Data on the storage and transmission

properties of pertinent aquifers also are collected,

usually with a pump test. By pumping water from

the aquifer at a constant rate or in a series of

stepped rates and measuring the change in water

level, data on transmissivity and storativity of an

aquifer can be calculated. 11 The calculation requires assumptions, however, about both the

homogeneity, the extent, and the thickness of the

aquifer, and it is accurate only to the extent that

the assumptions are valid.

Water quality data also are collected from samples taken from observation wells. Standard or

recommended practices exist for taking most of

these types of samples, as well as for the handling

and preservation of water quality samples. Some

parameters such as acidity/alkalinity, specific conductivity, and pH change rapidly and should be

measured in the field; other measures can be

taken from laboratory samples. EPA and others

have published guidelines for preservation and

laboratory analysis of samples for suspended and

dissolved solids, minerals, and other tests that

may be prescribed in the regulatory programs.

Temporal and areal distribution is an important

consideration in groundwater data collection.

Ideally, baseline data are collected from enough

wells and over a sufficient time period to allow

determination of the natural spatial variations in

aquifer permeability (saturated hydraulic conductivity), and of the spatial and temporal variations

in static water levels and water quality. Spatial

distribution of data is usually not a problem for

Western operators, but some problems have

arisen regarding temporal distributional* For ex11 /Tr~n~~i~~iviW/, is the rate at which water is transmitted through

a unit width of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. “Storativity” is the volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into

storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit change in head.

12Note, however, that State requirements for spatial distribution

of groundwater data vary considerably; see table 5-2.
148 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

ample, data for a potentiometric surface map

must be taken as close to simultaneously as possible. This is particularly important in active mining areas where water levels may change substantially over time, and in shallow, unconfined

aquifers where water levels change significantly

with season and with precipitation and runoff

events.

identification of an AVF requires an integration of geologic, hydrologic, and agricultural land

use data. Identification usually begins with a preliminary surficial geologic map, if available from

the USGS, from which a rough estimate of the

areal extent of stream laid deposits—the geologic

sign of an AVF—can be made. This estimate is

then refined using surficiai geologic maps prepared by the operator from topographic maps,

stereo-paired aerial photos, and site inspection.

After the areal extent of the AVF is delineated,

land use is determined from county land offices

and land owners to see if the prohibition against

mining AVFS significant to agriculture would

apply.

If the area can be mined, detailed studies are

conducted to identify the essential hydrologic

functions of the AVF and provide a plan for their

restoration. Many of these studies are similar to

those described previously for surface water and

groundwater baseline studies. Data collected

include:

●

●

●

●

site geomorphology and watershed characteristics, including drainage basin parameters, streamflow characteristics and channel

and flood plain geometry;

hydrogeological characteristics of the AVF,

including thickness, Iithology and areal extent of the alluvial deposits; aquifer hydraulic characteristics including saturated thickness, transmissivity, storativity, flow rates,

and directions of flow in the alluvial aquifer

and in hydraulically connected bedrock

aquifers;

water quality characteristics of the surface

water and alluvial and bedrock aquifers; and

presence and extent of subirrigation, including installation of water level recorders on

alluvial wells to determine diurnal water level

fluctuations (this information, together with

information on porosity and areal extent of

the alluvial aquifer, can be used to quantify

the amount of groundwater transpired by

plants during daylight hours).

Hydrologic monitoring data are collected as

a continuation of baseline studies with the same

methods and equipment. The many dynamic features of a mine site’s hydrologic regime mean that

operators must collect data continually throughout the life of the mine. Therefore, a vast quantity of hydrologic data, particularly groundwater

data, is being amassed. Regulatory authorities receive so much hydrologic monitoring data that

often their personnel cannot review and analyze

all, or even most, of it. None of the regulatory

authorities has the time or the resources to evaluate hydrologic data from a regional perspective

to test for anomalies or inconsistencies, and erroneous data could remain undetected for years.

At one mine reviewed by OTA, improperly reduced crest-stage data were submitted to the regulatory authority for 2 years before the errors

were detected.ls

Ideally, operators analyze and use hydrologic

monitoring data during reclamation and in evaluating reclamation success. In at least one case reviewed by OTA, an operator has organized and

uses a very large amount of hydrologic data (see

box 5-F). Often, however, hydrologic monitoring is perfunctory. Operators collect large amounts

of data at considerable expense and submit them

to the regulatory authority to satisfy monitoring

requirements, and the data are not used again

unless questions or problems arise. One obstacle is format. There are no uniform procedures

for filing monitoring data, and most such data reside in boxes in regulatory authority offices, They

rarely are published, or even indexed, and accessing them is extremely difficult and timeconsuming. From the standpoint of hydrologic

data, and particularly groundwater data, the ability to access and manage the vast amount of data

available is much more of an issue than any gap

in the data.

Steps are being taken in some areas to improve

the accessibility and reporting of hydrologic monljsee reference 1.5, case Study 3.13.
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 149

Box 5-F.—Managing a large Hydrologic Databasel

All Western mines are collecting a great deal of hydrologic data. For large operations that have been

monitoring for many years, however, the size of the accumulated hydrologic database can be very large.

At one such mine in the Powder River basin, the operator has created a hydrologic resource library to

manage all of the hydrologic baseline and monitoring data, In addition, the library incorporates data collected by the various agencies that have investigated hydrologic facets of the mine operation over the

years. In the library, hydrologic data are sorted into volumes on: streamffow quality and quantity; groundaquifer test results for monitoring wells; lithologic logs of observation wells; and well development data.

Hydrologic resource reports compile annual and interim reports of monitoring data submitted to the State

regulatory authority, and correspondence relating to hydrologic issues. The hydrologic resource reports

also include copies of published and unpublished hydrologic studies pertinent to the mine operation, usually

conducted outside routine monitoring and analysis. These studies cover such topics as AVF characteristics, selective placement of overburden, waters impounded on mine spoils, and postmining spoil water

quality. The library is updated periodically and updated copies are maintained in the State regulatory authority’s office.

The operator’s purpose in developing this library was to facilitate both in-house and regulatory use

and review of a very large database. Inhouse, the library is valuable to the operator’s in preparing permit

applications for mine expansion; it reduces duplication of data in those applications by referencing data

previously submitted to the regulatory authority. This referencing, however, means that the permit application cannot stand on its own, but must be reviewed in conjunction with the hydrologic library. Mine

company personnel report that the regulatory authority has on occasion expressed confusion about these

references. However, as the regulatory authority becomes more familiar with the use and periodic revision of the library, it is likely that much of this confusion will cease.

%M case study mine G in reference 15.

itoring data. One excellent example is GAGMO. project will be funded. The State of Wyoming rein addition, the Montana Bureau of Mines and cently announced plans to place all the groundGeology has submitted a proposal to the State water data from the DEQ files into the State’s

to collect all the available hydrologic data sub- computerized information search and retrieval

mitted by mining companies, evaluate it, and pre- system (1 6). This project is expected to take 2

pare a computerized database to make the data years or more due to the vast amount of data on

manageable and readily available to interested file (1 7).

persons (8). It is not known when and if this

REVEGETATION’ 4

Data Requirements

Requirements for collection of baseline vegetation data vary with land use. Most State regulations and guidelines focus on data collection

on rangeland (by far the most extensive land use

in the study area), but include alternate data collqunless othe~ise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 14.

Iection requirements for other land uses such as

wildlife habitat or pastureland. Table 5-6 summarizes requirements and accepted procedures for

baseline data collection in each of the five States.

All five States require vegetation maps for all

land uses. Scales for vegetation maps range from

1 inch equals 400 feet in Montana and North

Dakota, to 1 inch equals 2,000 feet in Colorado.

Most permit applications reviewed for this assess-
150 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 5-6.–Selected Current Requirements for Vegetation Baseline Data by State

Colorado Montana New Mexico North Dakota Wyoming

Vegetation mapping

Range sites

Vegetation types

Scale

Cover data

Absolute cover

Relative cover

Quadrat estimation

cover classes

by percent

Line intercept

Point intercept

Production

Herbaceous

Woody

Clipping

Quadrat size

Doubling sampling

Shrub density

Shrubs

Subshrubs

Quadrats & belt transects

Plotless samples

Diversity

Required in all States

R z R’

R R R R

g

R

R,l “=2000‘ R,l “=400‘ X,l “=500 ‘ R,l ‘=400‘ X,l “=400 ‘-700‘

X,l “=500’ for veg for both

type map maps

Required in all States for native rangeland and wildlife habitat and

in ND for tame pastureland

R R R R R

z x z x

z x x x

z z z Z

g

z

z x z z

Z

a

x

c

z Xa

z z z x

Required in all States for native rangeland, cropland, and pastureland

R

d R R R

R X

e

x R x x x

variable X,O.5 m2variable Z,often 0.25 m2

Z,O.5 m2

z z z

Required in all States for wildlife habitat and in CO, MT, NM and WY

for native rangeland

R R R R

g

R

R R R

g

x

x x x Z

g

x

z

All States require collection of data that can be used to calculate species/lifeform

diversity for native rangeland and wildlife habitat.

Key to sysbols and superscripts

Symbols

R, written requirement by State regulatory authority, i.e., law, rule or regulation.

X, preferred or recommended by State regulatory authority, i.e., written guideline or unwritten but clear preference. In the case of written guidelines (MT and WY), the

guidelines are usually treated as requirements by the coal companies.

Z, not specified but in fact accepted by the State regulatory authority.

SOURCE: Western Resource Development Corp. and Dr. Jane Bunin, “Revegetation Technology and Issues at Western Surface Coal Mines,” contractor report to OTA,

September 1985.

ment used the more detailed scales of 1 inch max” vegetation rather than existing conditions.

equals 400 feet or 1 inch equals 500 feet. In each On poorly managed or overgrazed lands, actual

State except North Dakota, vegetation maps must vegetation communities may bear little resemshow actual premining vegetation types; North blance to the potential vegetation of range site

Dakota requires such maps for woodland and descriptions. Table 5-7 shows that only the northwildlife habitat only. ern two States commonly use range sites, and

Montana, New Mexico, and North Dakota also only North Dakota relies on them exclusively.ls

require “range site” maps as part of baseline All five States require baseline data on annual

vegetation studies. These are based on SCS range production of above-ground biomass on the

site descriptions of the species composition and mine site for at least some land uses. Baseline proproduction of vegetation that could develop for duction data are broken down according to plant

a given soil type and climatic regime, free of dis- 15Range site &ta also tend to be best on agricultural lands, which turbances such as fires and heavy grazing pres- are more common in North Dakota than in any of the other four

sure. Thus, range sites describe potential or “cli - States.
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 151

Table 5-7.—Native Rangeland and Wildlife Habitat Vegetation Data Present in

Permit Applications Reviewed by OTA

Data shown were present in permit applications on file at OSM and do not necessarily reflect correspondence between the

coal company and regulatory authority (RA) that followed submission of the application; that is, whether the RA required additions or changes, and whether the proposed performance standard was acceptable to the RA.

Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico North Dakota Total

Number of permit

applications reviewed . . . .

Study datesa 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Work by

consultants. . . . . . . . . . . . .

company personnel . . . . . .

combination . . . . . . . . . . . .

SCS data only . . . . . . . . . .

unspecified . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Veg map units

range site . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

veg types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ecological response unit .

Map scales

1 “=400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 “=500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cover sampling method

quadrat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

point transect. . . . . . . . . . .

point frame . . . . . . . . . . . . .

line intercept . . . . . . . . . . .

none. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cover reported as

absolute cover . . . . . . . . . .

relative cover . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequency data . . . . . . . . . . .

Production

by clipping . . . . . . . . . . . . .

by double sampling. . . . . .

SCS data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

none. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Woody plantsc

density reported. . . . . . . . .

shrub heights (inches) . . .

Species diversity calculated

species richness . . . . . . . .

numerical index . . . . . . . . .

both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Success standardd

reference area . . . . . . . . . .

control area . . . . . . . . . . . .

unspecified comparison

area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

unadjusted baseline . . . . .

historical record. . . . . . . . .

technical standard . . . . . . .

ambiguous or

unspecified . . . . . . . . . . .

7

77-81, one 74

4

2

1—

—

7

7

—

6

1

7

—

1 (& quadt)

7

—

7

7—

—

—

6

1

—

1—

5

—

1—

—

—

1

36

most 78-82

29

6

—

1 —

7

e

29

—

Most 400,500

up to 2,000

17

16

2

7

b

l f

35

13

18

35

3b

l

f

—

28

24

7

10

2

5

24

2

—

—

—

5

ausually I year of data excem for NM

21

most 79-83

19

1 —

1 —

2

18

1

Most 400,500

up to 2,000

5

7

6

5b

2 & herbs

l f

20

5

9

20

—

l f

—

17

5

2

13

—

15

2

—

1 —

—

3

10 7 81

most 80 & later 79-81

4 2

3 1

2 2

—

1 2

1 7

9 19

— —

7

200-2,000

3 1

g

2 1 — 5

l

b

5 & herbs

10 7

2 3

8 7

9 6

— 2

— —

1 19

10 l

h

— —

— 1

1 —

— —

5 4 — —

— —

— —

3 —

— 3’

2 —

b

for sh;ubs only

cas reported in permit application; not shown here are data submitted subsequently and found in correspondence files

‘acceptability to regulatory authority not shown

emostly coal companies

fonly SCS data uged; premlne V8getatkm no longer present

gfor woody draws

honly one permit application included vegetation that has a measurable number of woodY Plants

iin one case, the standard was for postmine land uses of hayland/pastureland for property that Was prer’?line rlathe rangeland

SOURCE: Western Resource Development Corp. and Dr. Jane Bun in, “Revegetation Technology and Issues at Western Surface Coal Mines,” contractor report to OTA,

September 1985.
152 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

species morphology. Montana requires production data for both herbaceous and woody species; Colorado and New Mexico require data on

herbaceous species and recommend collection

of woody species data; North Dakota and Wyoming require production data for herbaceous species only. In New Mexico and North Dakota,

operators need not collect production data for

land whose primary use is wildlife habitat, and

production data for croplands usually are based

on yields reported by the rancher or farmer. All

five States require or recommend at least some

production data by direct clipping and weighing

rather than by the “double sampling” method,

which is faster but the results are of variable accuracy (see below).

Cover data describe the area of ground covered by the aerial parts of plants. Because cover

indicates the probability that a falling raindrop

will hit something besides bare soil, these data

are closely tied to erosion control. “Absolute

cover” is the actual percentage of ground shielded

by each plant species and may be greater than

100 percent where plant canopies overlap. “Relative cover” is the percentage of the total vegetative cover contributed by each species and must

total 100 percent by definition. All five States require absolute cover data and Montana and Wyoming both recommend submission of relative

cover data. Cover data are required for all native vegetation types (i.e., native rangeland and

wildlife habitat), but are not required for cropland

in any of the five States, and are required for

pastureland only in North Dakota.

Woody plants are particularly important as

cover and forage for wildlife habitat; for this reason data on woody shrub density are required

for all wildlife habitat lands, and on native rangeIand in four of the five States. The lack of shrub

density requirements in North Dakota reflects the

paucity of upland shrubs in that State. Woody

plant data are obviously not pertinent to pastureland or cropland and are not required for these

land uses. Woody plant density baseline data

have become less important as more operators

negotiate standards independent of precise premining levels. As discussed in chapter 8, this practice recognizes that the premining shrub densities may be either artificially high or low.

Vegetation diversity may be calculated by species, Iifeform (the particular morphologic category of a species such as tree, shrub, grass, or

subdivisions of these categories), or seasonality

(the time of year when a plant accomplishes most

of its growth), and may be based on either cover

or production data. Differences among plant species or Iifeforms over a landscape provide another

measure of diversity.16

Four States in the study area currently require

revegetation monitoring, but the data usually do

not have to be submitted to the regulatory authority until final evaluation of revegetation success. Colorado, the only State currently without

a revegetation monitoring requirement, is now

in the process of revising its regulations to require

periodic submittal of quantitative monitoring

data. This will make Colorado’s requirements the

most stringent, because the other four States do

not specify that the revegetation monitoring data

must be quantitative.

Important Sources of Previously

Collected Data

Fewer site-specific sources of data exist for

vegetation (and wildlife) than for soils, overburden and hydrology. Where vegetation data are

available, they often are of limited use to operators. The areal extent, intensity, and quality of

existing data usually are not adequate for permit

application requirements. In addition, as discussed below, the variation in data collection

methods used by vegetation specialists makes

data from different sources difficult to integrate.

SCS compiles maps of vegetation classified by

range site. These maps are useful to land management agencies such as BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in establishing the carrying capacity of land, and can give a permit applicant

a preliminary idea of the types of vegetation on

the site. Their usefulness for permitting is limited,

however, because: I) they describe composition

and production only of the best vegetation available in the area; 2) the specific data used to compile the general description of the range site prob16See reference 14 for a more detailed discussion of the various

ways diversity may be calculated.
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 153

ably came not from the mine site but from some

vegetatively similar area, so that while the species composition and species dominance of the

mine-site may be similar to that of the range site

description, cover and production values may be

very different; 3) the map scales typically are not

detailed enough to meet the requirements for

permit applications; and 4) range site data may

not be available for areas without agricultural importance, such as woody draws. In addition, as

noted earlier, vegetation at mine sites is rarely of

the high quality described in SCS range sites because of the ubiquitous disturbance from livestock grazing and other sources in the West.

The SCS data are now being entered into a

computerized database in Fort Worth, Texas,

called the National Range Database. Besides SCS,

the principal users of the data are other Federal

range management agencies, and range science

faculty and students at State universities.

BLM and USFS both collect vegetation data that

are more representative of actual conditions than

the range sites described by SCS data. BLM data

use production and frequency of occurrence as

indices of cover and species composition. However, the vegetation being sampled usually has

been grazed, and production data typically represent only some fraction of the total possible production. Moreover, the BLM and USFS data are

not always collected by experienced personnel,

as SCS data are. Nevertheless, because BLM lands

often coincide with potential coal development

areas, these data can be useful to operators.

All of these federally collected data, while useful for large-scale range management, generally

are neither intensive nor objective enough for

permit application packages. Researchers in plant

ecology and range science also have collected

vegetation data using more sophisticated methods that are both more objective (repeatable) and

more statistically reliable. These data are not welldistributed geographically, but are concentrated

in areas near major universities or their research

facilities, or sites of some special interest. Furthermore, the quantitative techniques used, although

generally more intensive and objective than range

management methods, are far from uniform and

thus of limited value for comparing and combining with other data.

Data Collection by Operators

Because vegetation data sources are of limited

usefulness, virtually all baseline vegetation data

must be collected onsite. Since about 1979, vegetation data have been collected under strict statistical constraints and, to a lesser extent, narrow

methodological guidelines established by State

or Federal regulatory authorities. The statistical

and methodological requirements vary among

jurisdictions and have varied over time within

jurisdictions since 1979. In the study area, there

is more than one accepted methodology for collecting data for almost every required vegetation

parameter.

Production is almost always determined by clipping, except on agricultural lands, when it is determined by crop yield. All above-ground plant

material is clipped within circular or rectangular

plots and sorted by species or Iifeform. The

clipped materials usually are oven-dried and

weighed. These values are then used to estimate

production per unit area of each mapping unit

for each species or Iifeform group. This may be

expressed in pounds per acre, grams per square

meter, or some other unit.

Double sampling also can be used to measure

production. In double sampling, vegetation production is estimated visually in all plots, with clipping conducted in a few of the plots to calibrate

the visual estimates. Although the accuracy of this

method is highly dependent on the sampler, it

is faster than the harvest method. It is accepted

by all regulatory authorities in various carefully

prescribed forms, but rarely has been used in

baseline studies.

Two variables affect production data. First, inclusion of shrubs or annual plants affects the production values. Second, variations arise from the

seasonality of plant species because production

is usually estimated at a single time—presumably

the time of maximum standing crop. In much of

the study area, the differing times of peak production of the dominant species will cause measured production to be low by an unknown and

variable amount.

Cover can be measured in three ways. It can

be estimated visually in quadrats (small plots),

which are usually on the order of one square me-
154 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

ter or less. Subdivisions within the quadrat aid

in making the visual estimates. The estimate of

cover is then expressed by percent or by cover

classes representing a specified range of percentage values. This method may be fairly consistent

if the same observer makes all estimates, but

variability between observers is to be expected

and may be quite large. Second, cover can be

estimated by line intercepts, which are somewhat

more objective than quadrats. In this method, the

portion of a tape (often 30 meters in length) intersected by the aerial parts of each species is

recorded. Cover also may be estimated by a point

intercept method in which plants are recorded

when “hit” by the downward projection of a

point, either defined by cross-hairs in a viewing

device or by pins suspended in a rectangular

frame. Although objectivity and repeatability are

theoretically greater in point-intercept sampling,

in practice these advantages commonly are reduced substantially by nonrigid point placement

or projection and by the slowness of the method.

Table 5-7, above, shows that use of the line intercept method is mostly confined to shrub cover

data, and that there is a fairly equal spread of use

among the quad rat and point intercept methods.

Woody plant density may be measured either

by counting all individuals by species within large

quad rats or narrow belts, or by plotless methods

such as measuring the distance from a number

of points to the nearest shrub or tree. Methods

may or may not include subshrubs or semishrubs

(which are smaller and/or woody only at their

bases), depending on the States’ regulations or

guidelines. Direct counts of all woody plants, including semi- and subshrubs, within large quadrats or belt transects provide the most reliable

data. Unfortunately, over 25 percent of approximately 60 mines surveyed by OTA have used

very small quadrats or dimensionless samples.

Revegetation monitoring data generally are

collected with the same procedures and for the

same parameters as baseline data, and are intended to demonstrate compliance with the

SMCRA performance standards (see ch. 7). Most

coal companies collect at least some revegetation monitoring data, illustrating wide acceptance

of the need for tracking the progress of revegetation, Careful monitoring can help operators to

recognize problems and modify methods to improve revegetation results. Monitoring data also

can be used to adjust livestock stocking rates and

to evaluate the successional progress of postmining plant communities.

The States do not require submittal of revegetation monitoring data prior to the 2 years preceding final bond release, although some operators

do so voluntarily, As a result, few revegetation

monitoring data are available publicly beyond the

individual mines. Thus, unlike hydrology and

other disciplines, there is not a rapidly growing

pool of revegetation data in the public domain,

and there is little communication among operators and regulatory authorities about the relative

success of various revegetation techniques. The

regulatory authorities are concerned that they will

not know whether the revegetation standards can

be met until the bond release period nears its end

on a number of mines. If operators did file their

revegetation monitoring data in a specified format with the State regulatory authority, the advance warning of potential revegetation problems

might increase the chance of finding mutually

acceptable solutions at an early stage and so prevent larger problems in the long run.

WILDLIFE17

Requirements in the area of the mine site or that are likely to

All five States require wildlife studies for spe- occur due to available habitat on the site. Table

5-8 provides a comparative summary of State cies that are known from existing information baseline data requirements for each of these spe- (e.g., an EIS or other regional studies) to occur cies studies. For each type of study, a State may

17unleSS othe~ise indicated, the material in this section is based list a range of acceptable data collection techon reference 3. niques (see table 5-9). All States except New
Table 5-8.-State Wildlife Baseline Data Requirements

North Dakota Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico

Guidelines:

State legislature does not

allow use of formal written

guidelines. All formal requirements must go

through formal rulemaking

process. PSC uses technical memoranda instead.

Has formal written guidelines, but these are currently being revised. These

provide general info on objective, intensity, duration

of baseline studies, but no

detail info about methodologies.

Emphasis of required studies:

Limited extent of habitat Species occurence,

means that greatest em- seasonal occurence, relaphasis is on woody draws, tive population densities of

wetlands, and native ecologically important speprairie. State stresses need cies. Also classification,

for habitat descriptions delineation, and species

and mapping. utilization of habitats.

Required studies: Required on a case-by-case

Fairly standard for each basis, with attention to old

different species present. guidelines. DSL must apMines must complete site- prove all study designs.

specific studies; data from

adjacent areas cannot be

substituted.

Duration, intensity & regionality of data collection:

One year (four seasons) of One year (four seasons) of

data collection required. data collection required

Studies must cover site (two winter seasons

plus one-mile buffer zone preferred). DSL requires

around site. minimum of one field biologist on-site for 1 year for

large operations not previously studied. Studies

usually must cover site

plus two-mile buffer zone.

If unique habitats found,

must assess extent of

these on adjacent lands.

Has formal written guidelines

which provide general info on

baseline data collection requirements, and specific info

on required and acceptable

methodologies. Stress that

guidelines not mandatory, but

deviations must be approved

by Dept, if Game and Fish.

Also stress that not all requirements are necessary for

all operations and that operators can use existing data collected on adjacent sites.

There are also separate guidelines for raptor nest surveys.

Distribution, relative abundance and habitat affinity of

game species, State sensitive

species, raptors, and T&E

species stressed. Habitat

classification, delineation and

mapping (both veg and physical characteristics) also emphasized.

Studies required on case-bycase basis in consultation

with DEQ and Dept. of Game

and Fish. A list of acceptable

data collection techniques by

species group is published.

One year (four seasons) data

collection required. Seasonal

studies vary depending on

species group. Studies must

cover site plus two-mile

buffer. PRB pronghorn study

is an exception, a regional

study. Some raptor studies

also extend outside area

boundaries.

Has draft, informal guidelines available on request.

These identify pertinent

data sources and contain

general info on baseline

data collection. Specific

data collection techniques

are not discussed.

Delineation and mapping

of habitat including special

habitat features. Also,

mapping of species use of

habitats by game, species

with stenotopic habitat requirements, State sensitive

and T&E species.

Studies required on caseby-case basis in consultation with MLRD and DOW.

A list of acceptable data

collection techniques has

been published.

One year (four seasons)

data collection required.

Seasonal studies vary depending on species group.

Studies must cover site

plus 0.25 miles beyond

permit boundary. Only two

instances of required

studies beyond permit

area: elk telemetry study

and sage grouse study in

North Park.

Has no formal written

guidelines but intends to

develop these in the

future.

Characterization of premine habitat conditions

and quantitative data for

all species groups, particularly those felt to be in

greatest jeopardy from disturbance.

Studies required on caseby-case basis in consultation with MMD and State

Game and Fish. A list of

acceptable data collection

techniques has been published.

One year (four seasons)

data collection required.

Seasonal studies vary depending on species group.

Requirement of studies beyond site-specific depend

on potential impacts and

species to be impacted.
Table 5-8.—State Wildlife Baseline Data Requirements—Continued

North Dakota Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico

Data format and avaliability:

Data are submitted in per- Baseline data submitted in

mit applications, on file permit applications to DSL

with PSC and OSM. PSC and OSM. Annual monitorhas compiled some data in ing reports also submitted

their files. to DSL and OSM. Dept. of

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

occasionally incorporates

some data into its reports.

FWS maintains limited

compilation of raptor data.

Otherwise, no systematic

compilation or clearinghouse for data.

Users of data.

Beyond PSC, there is little In addition to DSL, and ocreview or use by others. casionally DFWP and FWS,

some consultants may use

data from adjacent mines

to develop wildlife info for

their clients’ mines.

Required monitoring:

Monitoring is not uniformly Monitoring using methods

required. Currently formu- similar to baseline data

Iated on caseby-case collection methods is rebasis. quired until reclamation

considered complete. Aerial surveys once a month

and 100 days per year are

required.

Evolution of data requirements since 1977:

State has moved away More organized and confrom strictly counting spe- sistent, more tailored

cies and numbers, and has toward individual cases

placed more emphasis on and unique info needs.

habitat descriptions, map- More emphasis on preminping, and eventual habitat ing data collection to dereplacement. velop success criteria.

Data are submitted in permit

applications and annual

monitoring reports to DEQ

and OSM. Dept. of Game and

Fish was compiling game, forbearing, State sensitive and

T&E species data into regional wildlife resource maps for

State, but these not updated

since 1981. Game and Fish

encourages use of its standard observation form so wildlife info can be easily entered

into Game and Fish computers, but forms not always

used.

Occasionally, operators from

adjacent mines will use data,

but not often. FWS compiles

all raptor data available in

FWS files.

None specifically required.

When it is done, is usually initiated by operator, in consultation with Game and Fish, to

address specific concerns

and help demonstrate

success.

Less species inventories,

population estimates. More

habitat description and delineation. Fewer data required on

nongame and nonlegal species, especially where data

available from adjacent mines

with similar habitats.

Data are submitted in permit applications and annual monitoring reports to

OSM and MLRD. DOW occasionally uses data to update its Wildlife Habitat

Inventory System, a computerized data bank of

wildlife habitat and geographic info.

Aside from OSM, MLRD

and DOW review, data rarely used. Colorado Nature

Conservancy has reviewed

some data on T&E and

State sensitive species.

Also, a State, Federal and

university project to model

shale oil development effects on wildlife using

some of these data.

None specifically required,

except on case-by-case

basis.

State has always emphasized habitat delineation

and mapping. Has de-emphasized collection of nongame and other info not

used for impact assessment.

Data available only in permit applications filed with

MMD and OSM. MMD

hopes to compile a database in future.

Aside from MMD, Game

and Fish and FWS, who

review data for permit issuance, data used only occasionally by environmental

groups.

None specifically required,

except on case-by-case basis in consultation with

MMD and Game and Fish.

Used to be concerned with

only those species with

“consumptive” value. Now

view all species as important, as reflected in data

collection requirements.

SOURCE: Cedar Creek Associates, “Wildlife Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.
Table 5.9.-Accepted Data Collection Techniquesa

Study category North Dakota Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico

Big game Aerial survey-late

winter

Aerial surveys—

2 per month

Browse transects

Scat and stomach

amination

Incidental observations

Aerial and ground

surveys-late

winter, summer, late

fall

Aerial and ground

surveys-winter,

late spring

Pellet group and

browse surveys

Incidental observations

Aerial surveys (2)–

spring and fall

exFurbearers Trapping only in

wood lands-falI

Incidental observations

Spotlight surveys-all

seasons

Systematic observation of scat and

tracks—all seasons

Live and snap trapping

in all habitats—

spring and fall

Voucher specimens

required

Small mammals Trapping only in

woodlands-fall

Live and snap Live and snap Live and snap trapping—late spring or

summer (transects)

trapping—spring

and fall [grid trapping preferred in all

habitats including

reclaimed and undisturbed (control)

habitats]

Ground and aerial

nest surveys—

spring

t rapping— iate

spring or summer

(transects, grids, or

clusters depending

on habitat)

Raptors On-foot nest searches

—spring

If extensive woodlands are present,

aerial nest surveys

prior to leaf-out

For all wetlands:

—breeding pair

counts —May-June

—brood counts—July

—migration counts—

April, October

Ground and/or aerial

nest surveys—

spring

Ground and/or aerial

nest surveys—

spring

Aerial and/or ground

nest surveys—

spring

For all surface water:

—routine counts— 1

For all surface water:

—seasonal counts including breeding

pair and brood

counts

Incidental observationsFor all surface water:

—breeding bird

surveys-spring/

summer

—migratory surveys

may also be

required—fall,

winter

Breeding bird

surveys—

spring/summer

Waterbirds

per month

—no migratory or

brood surveys

Upland game birds Pheasant crowing call

counts—April, June

Aerial and ground Iek

location surveys—

spring

Breeding bird Iek

counts—spring

Pheasant crowing

counts—spring

Aerial and ground

call

Iek

Aerial and/or ground

Iek location surveys

—spring

Breeding bird Iek

counts—spring

Vehicle or on-foot

production surveys

Aerial and/or ground

Iek locations

surveys-spring

Breeding bird Iek

counts—spring

location surveys—

spring

Breeding bird Iek

counts—2 per

spring

Where Ieks will be disturbed, intensive

telemetry studies

are required to determine habitat

needs

Crop examination
Table 5-9.—Accepted Data Collection Techniquesa—Continued

Study category North Dakota Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico

Songbirds and others

Reptiles and

amphibians

Aquatic vertebrates

and invertebrates

Threatened and endangered species

All wildlife species

Habitat

Variable width belt

transects only in

woodlands—spring

Road survey-winter

Incidental observations

No T&E critical

habitats affected by

mining

Notification of obserVariable width belt

transects in all

habitats—spring

Incidental observations

Electro-shocking, seining, bottom sampling, dredging, etc.

as appropriate (only

for waters potentially affected by

mining)

Black-footed ferret;

full FWS guideline

search of prairie dog

towns

vations required Bald eagle (Tongue R.

only): aerial and

ground surveys for

roost or concentration areas—winter

only

Incidental obser- Incidental observat ions vat ions

Habitat mapping at Delineation and

1:4800 scale mapping

Distinct communities

within a wetland

must also be

mapped

Variable width belt or

point transects in all

habitats and some

habitat edge areas—

spring

Incidental observations

Trapping and call surveys in appropriate

habitats—spring,

early summer

Stream quality classification

Electro-shocking, seining, bottom sampling, dredging, etc.

as appropriate

Black-footed ferret:

density estimation

and mapping prairie

dog towns; full FWS

guideline search of

all towns

Bald Eagle: aerial surveys for winter concentration areas

Incidental observations

Classification, delineation, and mapping

Variable width belt

transect or variable

circular plot in all

habitats—spring

Incidental observations

Stream habitat classification

Electro-shocking, seining, bottom sampling, dredging, etc.

as appropriate

Black-footed ferret:

full FWS guideline

search of all prairie

dog towns

Bald eagle: aerial or

ground surveys for

roost sites or winter

concentration areas

Incidental observations

Delineation and mapping of all habitats

and habitat features

Variable width belt

transect —spring/

summer

Systematic surveys—

spring, fail

Electro-shocking, seining, bottom sampling, dredging, etc.

as appropriate—

seasonally

Black-footed ferret:

full FWS guideline

search of all prairie

dog towns

Incidental observat ions

Characterization,

delineation and

mapping of all

habitats

aThis table is not intended to represent a listing of methods or techniques required by the States for all operations. All study-area States derive baseline data requirements on a case-by-case basis. Some

of the studies listed may not be required, depending on the ecological characteristics of the permit area and/or the availability of existing information.

SOURCE: Cedar Creek Associates, “Wildlife Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.

I
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data ● 159

Mexico now emphasize habitat delineation and

mapping rather than population inventories for

reasons discussed below.

FWS and the State fish and game agencies both

play important roles in requiring and designing

wildlife data collection studies. The State agency

is particularly important and usually is the principal regulatory consuItant in operators’ formulation of both baseline and monitoring data collection programs.

As in other disciplines, all States require sitespecific studies; applicants may not substitute regional data and data from adjacent areas. Four

of the States require studies to include buffer

zones ranging from 0.25 to 2 miles around the

proposed mine site. All States require 1 year (four

seasons) of data collection and Montana prefers

inclusion of two winter seasons. Montana also

requires large operations not previously studied

to have at least one full-time field biologist onsite for 1 year. None of the States routinely requires regional impact assessments, but only in

cases of special concern. In Wyoming, a pronghorn study is being conducted by several mines

in the powder River basin. In Colorado, two different mines are conducting elk telemetry and

sage grouse studies that extend outside the minesite boundaries.

Important Sources of Previously

Collected Data

Wildlife data collected outside the permitting

process tend to be general or regional. They are

therefore useful only as background information

rather than as a substitute for baseline data. Data

on species’ life histories and requirements are

available from literature published by government agencies and researchers. BLM has compiled wildlife baseline information in published

reports for several Known Recoverable Coal Resource Areas (KRCRAS), and regional mapping of

wildlife habitats and distributions is included on

BLM’s Unit Resource Analysis maps. Both the

Colorado Department of Wildlife and the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game have computerized databases and mapping systems for the

States’ wildlife resources. FWS compiles sitespecific data on raptors in areas where they may

be affected by mining, and both regional and sitespecific data on federally listed threatened and

endangered species.

Data Collection by Operators

Collecting quantitative data on wildlife populations and impacts to those populations is particularly difficult for two reasons. First, as with

vegetation, there is significant natural temporal

and spatial variation in populations due to environmental factors unrelated to mining. Second,

the mobility of wildlife makes species inventories, population estimates, and other measurements very difficult.

One result of these difficulties has been a shift

of emphasis in quantitative wildlife data collection in recent years. Instead of collecting intensive data on population size and number of species present, regulatory authorities and operators

are now concentrating their efforts on determining habitat characteristics and quality, the assumption being that if habitats are restored,

wildlife will follow. This does not mean that population counts and species inventories have been

abandoned. They are valuable for delineating the

extent of habitats and are considered important

indicators of habitat quality, but, because of the

above-mentioned characteristics of wildlife, methodologies for measuring populations and number of species present are not considered sufficiently reliable to be the basis for wildlife

reclamation.

Wildlife baseline studies usually collect the following types of data:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

species occurrence, including seasonal information;

species distribution;

relative species abundance or population

estimates, including population size indices

and species diversity values;

reproductive success;

food preferences;

habitat preference;

delineation of habitats; and

habitat quality.

Table 5-10 shows the different techniques used

to collect this information for different species.
160 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 5-11 gives brief descriptions of the ways

in which these different techniques are carried

out.

Wildlife monitoring studies use the same data

collection techniques as baseline studies, but

1

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9,

10,

CHAPTER 5

Boon, David, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality in-house memo, “Selenium in

Roll-front Uranium Deposits in Wyoming: Occurrence, Analytical Techniques and Considerations

on Reclaimed Lands, ” May 2, 1984.

Carlstrom, M., and Barrington, N., Montana Department of State Lands Memorandum to RoundRobin Participants, June 10, 1983.

Cedar Creek Associates, “wildlife Technologies

for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor rePOti to OTA, August 1985.

Doll hopf, D.J., et al., Se/ective P/acernent of Strip

Mine Overburden in Montana, summary report,

U.S. Bureau of Mines, contract H0262032.

Ferm, J. C., Smith, G. C., and Weisenfluh, G. A.,

Cored Rock in the Rocky Mountain and High

P/ains Coa/ Fie/ds (Lexington, KY: Department of

Geology, University of Kentucky, June 1985).

Ferm, J. C., and Weisenfluh, G. A., Cored Rocks of

the Southern Appalachian Coal Fields (Lexington,

KY: Department of Geology, University of Kentucky, 1981).

Montana Department of State Lands and Colorado

Mined Land Reclamation Division, personal communications, 1985.

Montana Department of State Lands, personal

communication to Western Water Consultants,

Jan. 2, 1985.

National Research Council, Coa/ Mining and

Ground-Water Resources in the United States

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981).

Severson, R. C., and Fisher, S., Resuks of the First

Western Task Force Round-Robin Soil and Overtend to be much less intense, if they are conducted at all. They are not used to measure reclamation success directly,

of the use of reclaimed

ch. 7).

REFERENCES

but indirectly as a gauge

acreage by wildlife (see

burden Ana/ysis Program, USGS Open-File Report

85-220, 1985.

11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

12<

13.

Service, “Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline

and Alkali Soils” Agricultural Handbook No, 60,

1969.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Watershed Conservation and Development System, manual 7322, Mar. 20, 1972.

Walsh, James P., & Associates, “Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal Mine

Reclamation,” contractor repott to OTA, August

1985.

14. Western Resource Development Corp. and Jane

Bunin, “Revegetation Technology and Issues at

Western Surface Coal Mines,” contractor report

to OTA, September 1985.

15. Western Water Consultants, “Hydrologic Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mini rig,” contractor report to OTA, Aug. 1, 1985.

16. Wyoming Department of Administration and Fiscal Control, request for proposals, 1985.

17. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,

personal communication to Western Water Consukants, Mar. 25, 1985.

18. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,

in-house memo re: application of nested analysis

of variance when determining sampling intensities on regraded spoils for balanced data, June 6,

1984.

19.30 CFR 816.41 (c)(2).

20.30 CFR 816.41 (e)(2).
Ch. 5—Baseline and Monitoring Data • 161

Table 5.10.—Wildlife Baseline Data and Survey Techniques

Survey technique: data collected or derived Survey technique: data collected or derived

Big game:

Aerial surveys:

—Animal distribution, relative abundance, seasonal occurrence, population size estimates, reproductive success (fawn/doe or calf/cow ratios), concentration areas,

habitat preference

Vehicle and on-foot surveys:

—Animal distribution, relative abundance, seasonal occurrence, reproductive success, habitat preference

Pellet group surveys:

—Habitat utilization, population size indices and trends

Browse evaluation:

—Habitat utilization, food preferences, habitat condition

Stomach contents or pellet analysis:

—Food preferences

Tagging/radio-tracking telemetry studies.’

—Home range, animal movement, population size estimates, habitat utilization

Medium-sized mammals:

Aerial survey:

—Species occurrence, relative abundance

Scent station visitation survey:

—Species occurrence, population size indices and trends

Live trapping:

—Species occurrence

Night spotlight survey:

—Species occurrence, population density estimates

Strip transects:

—Population density estimates, habitat preference

Small mammals:

Live or snap-trap traplines or grids;

—Species occurrence, relative abundance, population

size estimates, habitat preference, species diversity

Prairie dog town surveys:

—Burrow density, colony acreage

Raptors:

Aerial surveys:

—Species occurrence, nest locations, concentration

areas

On-foot and vehicle surveys:

—Species occurrence, nest locations

Nest surveys:

—Species occupancy, nesting success and production

Waterfowl and other waterbirds:

Ground counts for wetlands and surface water:

—Species occurrence, animal distribution, relative abundance, seasonal occurrence, habitat preference

Breeding pair counts:

—Relative abundance of breeding birds

Nesting surveys:

—Nesting habitat

Brood surveys:

—Brood rearing habitat, nesting success, production

Wetland mapping and evaluation:

—Wetland habitat classification and locations

Upland gamebirds:

Aerial or ground surveys for Ieks (sage grouse or

sharptailed grouse breeding grounds):

—Lek locations

Lek breeding bird counts:

—Lek attendance, indices of population size

Nesting surveys:

—Location and extent of nesting habitat

Brood surveys:

—Brood rearing habitat, production

Tagging/radio tracking studies:

—Animal movement, home range, habitat utilization

Crowing call counts (ring-necked pheasant):

—Indices of population size

Crop analysis:

—Food preferences, species occurrence

Roadside surveys:

—Indices of population size, habitat utilization

Songbirds and others:

Variable strip or circular plot surveys:

—Species occurrence, relative abundance, population

size indices or estimates, habitat preference, species

diversity

Roadside surveys:

—Species occurrence, relative abundance, population

size indices, habitat preference, seasonal occurrence

Reptiles and amphibians:

Spring night call surveys:

—Species occurrence, relative abundance

Miscellaneous capture techniques:

—Species occurrence, relative abundance

Wetland searches and seining:

—Species occurrence, relative abundance

Fish:

Seining:

—Species occurrence, relative abundance,

size indices

Electroshocking:

—Species occurrence, relative abundance,

size indices

Aquatic habitat description:

—Habitat quality, classification

Aquatic invertebrates:

population

population

Artificial or natural substrate sampling, bottom sampling

(Eckman dredge or surber sampler):

—Species occurrence, relative abundance, species

diversity

Threatened and endangered species:

Aerial or ground winter concentration or roost surveys

(bald eagle):

—Locations of roosts or winter concentration areas

Winter track or sign surveys (black-footed ferret):

—Species occurrence

Night spotlight surveys (black-footed ferret):

—Species occurrence

State sensitive species or species of “high Federal interest”

(see applicable techniques by animal group listed above):

—Generally—species occurrence, habitat utilization, relative abundance

All species:

Incidental or opportunistic observations:

—Species occurrence, distribution, habitat utilization,

relative abundance

SOURCE: Cedar Creek Associates, “Wildlife Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.
162 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table S-Il.—Table of Survey Techniques and Associated Methodologies

Survey technique: methodology Survey technique.’ methodology

Terrestrial

Aerial survey:

—Slow fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter low level flights

usually along standardized transects or conforming to

specific habitats or topographic features. Record observations by species, numbers, and habitat.

Vehicle/on-foot surveys:

—Slow travel by vehicle or on foot along standardized

survey routes. Record observations by species, number, and habitat.

Pellet group surveys:

—Record number of big game pellet groups intercepted

by standardized transect or contained within standardized plots within different habitats.

Browse evaluation:

—Determine by standardized evaluation methods the

degree of hedging of shrub and tree species by big

game.

Stomach or crop contents or fecal material analysis:

—Laboratory analysis of contents to determine plant and

animal material ingested.

Tagging/radio-tracking telemetry studies:

—Trap and distinctly tag or attach radio transmitter to a

sample number of animals. Record tagged animals by

location and habitat when observed during other surveys. Locate radio transmitter animals on a regular basis through use of two or more receivers and

triangulation. Plot locations by habitat and individual

located.

Scent station visitation survey:

—Establish standardized number of scent stations along

standard (FWS) route. Stations consist of scent attractant in the middle of a circle of soft, smooth soil.

Tracks of predator visitor recorded by species, station,

and habitat.

Trapping:

—Set live “Sherman” or “Havahart” type traps or snap

traps in random patterns, clusters, line transects, or

grids in suitable habitats. Captures recorded by species, number, and habitat. Various statistical techniques or models used to estimate population size of

small mammals.

Night spotlight survey:

—Slowly drive a predetermined route at night. With use

of headlights and/or spotlight, record observations by

species, number and habitat. Population indices calculated by dividing species numbers by acreage of corridor sampled by spotlight.

Strip transects:

—Slowly walk standardized transect in specific habitats

and record species and numbers. Population indices

calculated by dividing species numbers by acreage of

corridor visually sampled.

Prairie dog town surveys:

—Estimated density of prairie dog burrows by various

analytical techniques. Estimate acreage of town and

plot extent and location of town on topographic maps.

Nest survey:

—Search all suitable habitat on foot with aid of binoculars or spotting scope. For inaccessible areas, search

for nests by aerial survey,

Waterbird surveys:

—Make seasonal counts of all species and numbers occurring in all or a representative number of wetland or

aquatic habitats. Record observations by survey area.

For nest and brood surveys, search suitable habitat adjacent to wetlands or aquatic habitat and record nests

and broods by location, species, and number.

Wetland mapping and evaluation:

—Classify all wetlands by standard FWS system. Map extent and location of all wetlands on topographic maps.

Lek breeding bird counts:

—Visit all known Ieks at least twice in early morning during spring breeding season. Record number of displaying males and females.

Crowing call counts:

—Count and record number of pheasant crow calls in

early morning for a set time period at standardized

stops along a standardized vehicle route.

Variable strip or circular plot surveys:

—Record species and numbers of birds by distance from

observer along standardized transects or at predetermined points in all habitats. Population indices calculated for each species based on area sampled for that

species.

Spring night call surveys:

—In appropriate habitats, record amphibian calls by species and number for a standard time period in the

evening.

Black-footed ferret surveys.’

—Use current FWS guidelines to search prairie dog

towns for ferret track or sign. Use same guidelines for

conducting night spotlight surveys.

Incidental observations:

—During all field activities, record all wildlife observations by species, number, location, and habitat.

Aquatic:

Seining and electro-shocking:

—Sample aquatic habitats using seine or electroshocking equipment. Record fish species captured by

number and size.

Aquatic habitat description:

—Measure various standardized physical parameters and

classify habitat using established classification

systems.

Bottom sampling:

—Using standardized sampling equipment, take sample

of bottom substrate. Using sieves and washing,

separate out aquatic invertebrates. Classify by species

and number.

Artificial or natural substrate sampling:

—Scrape or sample by other means representative samples from surface of natural bottom substrate.

Separate out aquatic invertebrates and classify by species and number. For artificial substrate, secure standardized plates beneath water surface. Leave for

standard time period and then scrape surface and

separate out aquatic invertebrates. Classify by species

and number.

SOURCE: Cedar Creek Associates, “Wildlife Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.
Chapter 6

Analytical Techniques
Contents

Page

Chapter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Predicting the Impacts of Mining and Reclamation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Analytical Techniques Used in the Design of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Uses of and Requirements for Analytical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Analytical Techniques Used To Predict the impacts of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Predicting Groundwater Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Predicting Surface Water Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Prediction of Cumulative Hydrologic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Predicting lmpacts to Wildlife .,....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Predicting Revegetation Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Analytical Techniques Used in the Design of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Overburden Characterization and Reclamation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Soil Characterization and Reclamation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Designing Hydrologic Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Design and Reclamation of Alluvial Valley Floors ., . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Chapter6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

List of Tables

Table No. Page

6-1. Summary of Analytical Methods Typically Used for Computation of

6-2.

6-3.

6-4.

6-5.

6-6.

Pit-Water Inflows and Resultant Drawdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Possible Data Requirements for Groundwater Flow and Solute

Transport Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Overburden Unsuitability Criteria by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Topsoil Unsuitability Criteria by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Topsoil Volume Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Summary of Some Topsoil Depth Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

6-1.

6-2.

6-3.

6-4.

6-5.

6-60

6-7.

6-8.

Possible impacts of Mining Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Flow Diagram of Model Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Generalized Model Development by Finite-Difference and

Finite-Element Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Application of Finite-Difference and Finite-Element Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Overburden Bench Suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Example of a Weighted Topsoil Quality Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Example of a Soil and Spoil Quality and Topsoil Thickness Model . . . . . . . 199

Example of lnput and Output for TRIHYDRO Rainfall-Runoff Model . . . . . 200
Chapter 6

Analytical Techniques

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Operators and regulatory authorities use a wide

range of techniques to interpret and analyze data

when predicting the impacts of mining and reclamation and designing reclamation, and the ultimate success of reclamation may depend on the

validity of those techniques. Some analytical techniques in use, however, may not consistently

produce realistic predictions or valid interpretations with available data, or must rely heavily on assumptions to compensate for data inadequacies.

Predicting the Impacts of

Mining and Reclamation

A reasonable assessment of the impacts of

mining and reclamation on surface and groundwafer hydrology, over the life-of-mine area, can

be made at most Western surface coal mines.

Data will become more abundant and more reliable within each permit area due to monitoring

as mine development progresses. In areas farther

from the center of current operations, the knowledge of the physical system is less certain, and

predictions of hydrologic impacts are less reliable. Regulatory authorities require worst-case

analyses to compensate for this built-in error. So,

as uncertainty about the system increases, assumptions made for input to the various analytical

techniques become more conservative. Although

this strategy avoids errors from underestimating

potential impacts, it may entail other consequences from overstatements of impacts, including increased reclamation costs.

The development and use of quantitative

methods for predicting impacts to groundwater

quantity during mining—pit inflows and associated drawdowns—have tended to lag behind

other quantitative developments in groundwater

science. The effects of this are evident in the wide

range of analytical techniques used in the mine

permit applications reviewed for this assessment,

which varied from simple linear extrapolations

based on historical trends, to relatively simple

analytical models, to sophisticated numerical

computer models. A continuing problem in most

mine permit applications is the lack of justification for selecting a particular analytical technique

and description of the assumptions inherent in

the analysis.

After mining, it is necessary to predict the nature and sources of spoils recharge, including

postmining spoils aquifer characteristics; the

time required for spoils resaturation and reestablishment of hydraulic equilibrium; and postmining spoils water quality. The nature and

sources of recharge to the spoils are difficult to

quantify without monitoring data. Most mines

must use a water budget approach for calculating soil moisture storage and infiltration in order

to estimate recharge from surface sources, and

groundwater modeling techniques to predict

postmining spoils aquifer flow characteristics.

Estimates of the time required for spoils

resaturation and reestablishment of hydraulic

equilibrium in the Western mining regions range

from as few as 10 to as many as 2,900 years.

While this introduces uncertainty about the longterm success of hydrologic restoration in some

areas, that uncertainty was recognized during the

formulation of the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and not considered so

great that mining should be foreclosed in such

areas. Continued analysis of field data on spoils

recharge would reduce the level of uncertainty.

The validity of predictions of groundwater

quality impacts-primarily levels of total dissolved solids (TDS)-is critical because, given the

time required for spoils to become fully saturated and groundwater flow patterns to be reestablished, there may be no way to verify the

predictions by comparison with actual results.

Analysis and prediction of postmining groundwater quality impacts are very difficult, however, because the magnitude of such impacts is

165
166 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

highly variable, the processes governing water

quality changes are poorly understood, and the

processes controlling recharge rates are unknown. As a result, there is little agreement as

to the best technique for producing consistent,

valid predictions. Monitoring programs can be

used to verify assumptions made about the

trends of spoils-water quality over time, but will

not necessarily provide information on the final postmining groundwater quality.

Impacts on surface water quantity and quality are more readily observable than for groundwater, and the analytical techniques used to

predict these impacts are more often based on

actual conditions than on assumptions. The

greatest potential impact to surface water quality from mining and reclamation is an increase

in total suspended solids (TSS). When site-specific

data are not available (the usual case for ephemeral streams), a well-accepted method is available

to estimate the amount of sediment that will

erode from the mine site and be subject to transport downstream during a precipitation event.

Surface water quantity impacts are estimated primarily to support surface water engineering design, and valid statistical techniques are available

for computing runoff volumes and peak flows.

Deterministic models also are available, but their

results are only as valid as the assumptions used

about the hydrologic regime of the site.

The uncertainties in cumulative hydrologic impacts assessments (CHIAS) are greater than in

determinations of the probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) of mining because of the absence of data from areas in which there is no

active mining, and because of the lack of coordination and standardization in data collection (see ch. 5). The uncertainty could be minimized if regulatory authorities used monitoring

and repermitting data to recalibrate the models

used in CHIAS and to assess the validity and sensitivity of the various input assumptions. periodic sensitivity analyses of the variables would

provide valuable information about data inadequacies and could be used to focus data collection.

Wildlife are mobile, unpredictable, and

adaptable, all of which make their responses to

environmental change difficult to predict. It also

is extremely difficult to identify and isolate those

unpredictable responses or adaptations that are

attributable to mining and reclamation from those

caused by any of the other environmental factors present. As a result, quantitative techniques

for predicting the impacts of surface coal mining and reclamation activities on wildlife populations have not been found to be effective and

are attempted infrequently. Instead, these assessments generally are made by intuitive professional judgment based on a knowledge of the

operational aspects of the mine and of the ecological resources of the mine site and surrounding area.

Statistical analyses of the effectiveness of wildlife mitigation measures are possible but very

costly. Where such analyses have been undertaken, their results generally are consistent with

these intuitive professional judgments, indicating

that a subjective approach to wildlife impact

assessment based on measures of habitat quality from key ecological parameters, probably is

the most satisfactory method of predicting impacts on wildlife resources.

Revegetation analyses focus on predicting the

success of revegetation. While OTA found little

emphasis on the development or use of analytical techniques for predicting long-term revegetation success, the lack of quantitative models

does not appear to diminish the potential for

accurate predictions. The most common, and

probably most valid technique for predicting revegetation success is to consider results of the

most recent technology at other mining operations in the region with similar soil, overburden,

and climatic characteristics.

However, there are few vehicles for disseminating the results of different revegetation techniques. Indeed, some companies may be reluctant to share such information for competitive

reasons. Moreover, some techniques may show

initial promise, but poor long-term results, or vice

versa. With a qualitative comparative analysis for

revegetation planning, the former may be adopted,

and the latter rejected, prematurely.
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques . 167

Analytical Techniques Used in the

Design of Reclamation

Accurate characterization of the overburden

and delineation of potentially deleterious overburden material, design of an optimum soilsalvage plan, design of well-stabilized stream

channels, and design of efficient sedimentation

control measures are important factors in the ultimate success of reclamation.

Overburden forms the basic material for the

reclamation process, and the chemical and

physical character of the overburden are key

factors in determining impacts on postmining

spoils hydraulics and water quality, as well as

revegetation success. However, overburden is

not easily observed premining, the geology of the

overburden in many of the mining regions of the

West is highly variable, and the science of overburden characterization is neither old nor wellestablished. As a result, analysis of the physical

and chemical properties of overburden is difficult. Thousands of overburden data points will

be generated at the average Western surface

mine and there are no well-established procedures for interpreting these data to determine the

chemical suitability of overburden materials. Operators and regulatory authorities generally agree

on the methods for characterizing overburden

and for handling potentially deleterious materials on a case-by-case basis. The primary risk of

not identifying such materials before backfilling

is that problems may not become evident until

after bond release, yet may require costly reconstruction.

The redressed soil serves as a chemical and

physical buffer between the disturbed mine

spoils and surface water, vegetation, and wildlife resources, and also is a critical element for

successful reclamation. Soils are relatively easy

to observe and the science of soil characterization is well established. A low sampling density

can result in significant errors in estimating the

volume of salvageable soil material, however.

Valid approaches to design of an erosionally

stable surface drainage system are available,

ranging from direct field measurement of channel cross-sections and profiles that duplicate the

undisturbed channel, to computer-assisted, detailed hydraulic analyses. In the case study mines

reviewed for this assessment, however, the

amount of detail in such designs ranged from

virtually none to very elaborate geomorphic

and hydraulic studies, although an encouraging trend toward a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to design of surface drainage systems was observed. Greater attention to drainage

system design in permitting could reduce the potential for costly repairs of erosion damage during reclamation.

Techniques for the design of hydrologic and

sediment control facilities have changed very little since SMCRA, although there has been an

increasing use of computers, and a gradual

standardization of runoff- and sediment-estimating techniques. The techniques in use accommodate the lack of site-specific data for sediment erosion and transport rates by providing

relative estimates for comparison of alternative

designs. Use of a computer allows rapid, accurate

analysis so that larger areas can be simulated in

greater detail and over shorter time steps than

with hand calculations. Monitoring data could

be used to calibrate the models used, but OTA

found little indication that this is occurring.

Restoration of alluvial valley floors (AVFS)

combines some of the more rigorous design aspects of surface and groundwater restoration.

SMCRA only allows mining in AVF areas that are

not significant to agriculture. There is little experience with mining in these areas under the SMCRA

design and performance standards, although several plans for AVF restoration have been approved by the regulatory authorities. Premining

analysis of the essential hydrologic functions of

AVFS and postmining evaluation of AVF reclamation are based on accepted engineering and hy -

drogeologic principles, and operators and regulatory authorities view the probable success of

reclaiming AVFS with confidence. As with hydrologic restoration in non-AVF areas, however, if

AVF areas are mined it may be decades or centuries after mining and reclamation before the

success of their hydrologic reclamation can be

assessed completely.
168 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

USES OF AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

The term “analytical techniques,” as used in

this report, refers to all methods used to interpret and analyze baseline and monitoring data

in order to make them useful in reclamation planning, permitting, and evaluation. The use of analytical techniques for data interpretation is an

integral part of the process of planning and

evaluating reclamation, and the applicability

and accuracy of the techniques used will, to

some extent, determine the validity of that planning and evaluation, and therefore the ultimate

success of reclamation. The analytical techniques

used in the permit applications reviewed for this

assessment ranged from qualitative techniques in

which the conclusions are dependent on professional judgment, to objective, quantitative modeling that requires sophisticated computer software

to analyze the data plus technical competence

to interpret the computer analysis. Some analytical techniques in use, however, may not consistently produce realistic predictions or valid interpretations with available data.

In this chapter, analytical techniques are

divided into two broad groups: those used to predict the impacts of mining, and those used to plan

and design reclamation. Techniques used to evaluate the success of reclamation are discussed in

chapter 7. To the extent possible, individual analytical techniques are described and their applications, merits, and limitations discussed. Examples of their use, taken from case studies of

Western mines (see vol. 2), are illustrated in

boxes.

SMCRA’S requirement for a detailed reclamation plan that demonstrates an operation’s ability to meet the performance standards implicitly

requires the development and use of analytical

techniques for designing and reviewing reclamation practices.1 SMCRA includes few explicit requirements for the development and use of such

techniques, 2 however, beyond the PHC determination and the CHIA (see ch. 4).

There are, however, informal requirements in

the State regulatory programs. For example, the

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) expects data in permit applications to be

interpreted to some degree and would likely

reject an application that included raw data or

conclusions not supported by data analysis. At

a recently permitted mine in Wyoming, the techniques used to analyze premining data and to

estimate impacts to the surface and groundwater

systems were chosen to meet guidelines prepared

by DEQ.3 On the other hand, at least one permit application in New Mexico contained raw,

uninterpreted data. d

‘The distinction is made between laboratory techniques used to

derive data from samples of soil, water, vegetation, etc., and analytical techniques used to interpret those data. The former often

are required explicitly in State regulations or guidelines and are required to be performed in a prescribed manner (see ch. 5).

ZThe recent challenges to the Federal regulations implementing

SMCRA (see ch. 4, box 4-C) will affect the applicability of various

analytical techniques for predicting both the impacts of mining and

the success of reclamation, including the techniques used for PHC

determinations and CHIAS, as well as those used to predict mineinduced changes in streamflow sediment load and to design sediment controls.

3See case study mine N in reference 30.

4See case study mine L in reference 27.

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQES USED TO PREDICT THE IMPACTS OF MINING

Introduction and enable the regulatory authority to make the

finding of reclaimability required by SMCRA bePredictions of the impacts of mining on the vari- fore a permit can be issued. The resulting reclaous components of the ecosystem support the mation practices in turn affect both the profitabildemonstration, in the permit application pack- ity of the mining operation and the ultimate

age, that the performance standards will be met, success of the reclamation. It is therefore in the
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques ● 169

best interests of all parties that the most reliable

and efficient methods be used to predict the impacts of mining.

The ease and accuracy of predictions of the

environmental impacts of mining varies widely

among disciplines. For example, extracting coal

by surface mining methods obviously will destroy

the premine vegetation resource temporarily. It

is less obvious whether overburden strata will

have detrimental effects on the postmining vegetation. The less obvious the impact of mining on

the environment, the greater the need for careful interpretation and analysis of sufficient data

to predict the potential extent of adverse impacts

in order to design reclamation properly.

Impacts to the quality and quantity of the surface and groundwater resources, and to the quality and quantity of the soil resource and the material within the postmining root zone are two

major areas of concern because because they are

critical to the postmining ecology, yet they embody a high degree of uncertainty. Impacts to

vegetation, and to a limited extent wildlife, are

determined indirectly from the predicted characterization of the postmining soil and water resource.

Although in this chapter the discussions of analytical techniques are categorized by discipline

(i.e., groundwater hydraulics, overburden chemistry), it is important to keep in mind the concept

that reclamation planning involves predicting the

impacts of mining on a complex, integrated ecological system. Overburden stratigraphy and geochemistry determine groundwater hydraulics and

water quality; soil volume and quality contribute to vegetative productivity. None of the components of the system is independent or isolated.

As reclamation planning becomes more interdisciplinary, so do the more advanced analytical

techniques, which are beginning to utilize the full

range of modern computing technologies to

simulate reclamation problems.

Predicting Groundwater lmpacts5

Surface coal mining can affect groundwater resources in two ways. During mining, the pit acts

‘Unless otherwise noted, material in this section is adapted from

reference 30.

like a large well, creating a low-pressure zone

(“cone of depression”) that draws water from the

surrounding aquifers. This can cause local springs

to fail, or wells located close to the disturbed area

to be dewatered to the extent that they are no

longer usable (fig. 6-l A, B). After mining, the shallow aquifers in the mine area are replaced with

spoils materials that may have hydrologic characteristics substantially different from premining

conditions (fig. 6-1 C).

Impacts to groundwater quality during mining are minimal. Because the groundwater flow

is in the direction of the pit, there is little opportunity for any contaminants introduced by mining

to affect offsite areas. The greatest potential for

groundwater quality impacts arises after mining,

when groundwater saturates the spoils and returns to a steady-state flow pattern. This section

describes the analytical techniques used by mine

operators and regulatory authorities to predict the

magnitude of the impacts to the groundwater system during mining (which, it must be remembered, can last 40 or more years), and the methodologies used to predict or design postmining

aquifer characteristics.

These impacts, as well as those to surface water

quantity and quality, are predicted in the PHC

determination. The geographic extent of this impact analysis is not defined in SMCRA, and the

size of the area covered by a PHC determination

varies from permit to permit. In areas of concentrated mining activity, the PHC determination

may encompass one or more adjacent mines. At

a mine in Montana, for example, the Department

of State Lands required the PHC to include hydrologic impacts associated with another company’s

proposed surface coal mine operation immediately adjacent to the applicant’s mine area.b

The PHC determination must assess the potential for: 1 ) groundwater contamination; 2) contamination, diminution, or disruption of surface

or groundwater supplies already in use; and 3)

impacts to the surface water hydrologic balance.

Some permit applications reviewed for this assessment used the 5-year term-of-permit area and

others the life-of-mine area, depending on the

regulatory authorities’ needs for CHIAs (see ch.

4, box 4-C).

6See case study mine E in reference 30.
170 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Figure 6-l.— Possible Impacts of Mining Aquifers

permeable

backfill Dry

SOURCE: F.E. Roybal, et al., Hydrology of Area 60, Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Coal Provinces, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona; USGS WaterResources Investigations, OFR S3-203, p. 7,
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques ● 171

Groundwater Impacts During Mining

To predict the impacts on groundwater resources during mining, it is important to define

the aquifers in a mine area, determine the premine level of the water table, and determine to

what extent the proposed pit will intersect the

water table and disrupt the aquifer(s). The a real

extent of impacts on groundwater levels depends

largely on the geologic and hydrologic setting of

the mine and the duration of mine dewatering.

Aquifer boundaries generally coincide with geologic-unit boundaries, and the geology of the

overburden and coal must be characterized in

order to assess the potential impacts of mining.

Once drawdowns and affected areas are defined,

their impact must be determined by examining

existing groundwater uses within the cones of depression.

In the coal regions of North Dakota, Montana

and eastern Wyoming, for example, the sandstone, siltstone, and shale strata are complex and

can change abruptly. The numerous aquifers in

these strata tend to be small and to have limited

communication with each other. As a result,

water-level changes resulting from mining usually are relatively localized in the overburden. In

these areas, however, the coal itself is a regional

aquifer.

In the coal mining regions of northwestern

Colorado, and western and southern Wyoming,

geologic units are more continuous, aquifers may

or may not be confined, and the potential for

mining to cause changes in water levels over a

large area is greater. In New Mexico, for the most

part, the water levels are quite deep and below

the level of mining except for very local perched

water tables.

Prediction of pit inflows and associated drawdowns requires determination of the hydraulic

properties of affected aquifers and knowledge of

the mining methods and the mining schedule.

Aquifer hydraulic characteristics that must be described include transmissivity, saturated thickness, storage coefficients, locations of hydrologic

barriers or boundaries, and areal extent of aquifers. Long-duration pump tests are conducted to

define aquifer hydraulic parameters. The pump

tests must be analyzed with full consideration of

boundary conditions determined from geologic

maps and cross-sections in order to provide valid

resuIts. Selection of the technique for such analysis depends on many factors, including site-specific hydrogeologic conditions, pit configuration,

and the experience and capability of the i nvestigator. The available techniques are summarized

in table 6-1 and described below; additional details may be found in the technical report on hydrology in volume 2.

For existing mines, where substantial amounts

of data are available, pit inflows and drawdowns

often are predicted from historical data on adjacent and hydrogeologically similar areas. This

method is illustrated in boxes 6-A and 6-B for

mines in North Dakota and Montana, which both

used simple linear extensions of historical trends

but with different amounts of data and demonstrations of premining conditions. 1 n cases like

the North Dakota example, where sufficient data

on inflows and drawdowns are available and they

demonstrate that the impacts of mining are minimal, the estimates should be valid provided that

no changes are made in mining rates or methods and no unforeseen boundary effects are encountered. Thus, there would be no reason to

conduct a more sophisticated analysis than the

one used in that example.

When historical data are not available for estimating the impacts of mining, mathematical modeling must be used. The first step in developing

a mathematical model is to translate the physics

of the hydrologic process into mathematical

terms. This requires an understanding of the process of groundwater flow and its relationship to

the various hydraulic parameters. Certain simplifying assumptions about the hydrologic system,

as well as assumptions about initial and boundary conditions, have to be made. Partial differential equations can then be derived that describe

the physical process and form the basis of the

mathematical model (1 3).

The mathematical model can be solved in one

of two ways, thus dividing the models into two

groups: analytical models use some additional

assumptions for the groundwater flow equation,

such as radial flow and infinite aquifer extent, and

can be solved by hand calculation or using pro-
172 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 6-1.—Summary of Analytical Methods Typically Used for Computation

of Pit-Water Inflows and Resultant Drawdowns

Method Data requirements Advantages Disadvantages

Extrapolation of

existing data.

Simple application

of Darcy’s Law.

Theis nonequilibrium radial-flow

equations.

One-dimensional

flow equation for

fully penetrating

excavation.

Combined radial

and linear

storage-release

equations.

Finite-difference

digital computer

model (FDM).

Historic records Of pit

inflows and resulting

drawdowns.

Potentiometric surface gradient, aquifer transmissivity. 

Potentiometric heads,

er transmissivity and

storage coefficient.

Potentiometric heads,

aquif -

aquif -

er transmissivity, location(s)

of aquifer recharge sources.

Potentiometric heads,

er transmissivity and

storage coefficient.

Potentiometric heads,

aquif -

boundary conditions, aquifer transmissivity and

storage coefficient,

recharge; all must be input

for respective nodes.

Finite-element Same as FDM.

digital computer

model (FEM).

Easiest method to use.

Proven for given site conditions.

Simple to use.

Simple to use.

Better simulation in most

cases than simple Darcy.

Can simulate barriers and

boundaries with image

wells.

Simple to use.

Good simulation

cases.

in certain

Simple to use.

Better simulation of actual

pit configuration than previous methods.

More accurate than previous methods.

Better simulation of moving

pit than previous methods.

Facilitates accommodation

of changes once data input

is complete.

Capable of handling larger

problems, such as cumulative impacts of several

mines, than previous

methods.

More flexible data input

than FDM.

More precise results than

FDM.

Handles irregularly shaped

areas and complex boundary conditions better than

FDM.

Not applicable for new mine. Not applicable to changing aquifer conditions or mining methods or

schedules.

Limited predictive tool because either

gradient or flow must be assumed.

Basic assumptions of aquifer

homogeneity and parallelism between

base of aquifer and water table seldom met.

Hydrologic barriers and boundaries

difficult to address.

Limited predictive tool because drawdown or pit inflow must be assumed.

Basic assumptions of aquifer

homogeneity, instantaneous release

of water with change in head, and infinite aquifer extent seldom met.

Radial flow may not occur.

Difficult to simulate movement of pit

and reduction of aquifer transmissivity in time.

Assumption that source of recharge

and mine pit are infinite in length and

parallel not met.

Assumption that recharge equals pit

inflow not always met.

Requires assumption of drawdown or

flow.

Same basic assumptions as Theis

equation.

Does not consider downgradient flow

of water—only storage release.

More difficult to use than previous

methods.

Requires access to computer.

Requires substantial calibration and

verification.

Difficult to check results without independent model study.

Need to estimate recharge.

More difficult to use than FDM.

Requires substantial calibration and

verification.

Difficult to check results without independent model study.

SOURCE: Western Water Consultants, “Hydrologic Evaluation and Reclamation Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.

174 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

grammable calculators or personal computers;

and numerical models, in which the partial

differential equations are approximated numerically by computer, and the continuous variables

are replaced with discrete variables that are defined at points (grid nodes) in the area being

modeled to generate a system of algebraic equations that are solved by matrix mathematics.

Analytical Models. –The available analytical

models include the Darcy Equation, Theis NonEquilibrium Equations, and various one-dimensional flow equations (see table 6-1 ).7 All these

methods use data readily available from standard aquifer tests, geologic investigations, and

mine-plan maps and figures. Any of these analytical flow models can be used to provide reasonably accurate predictions of pit inflows and

drawdowns, provided that the investigator performing the calculations does so in full recognition of the assumptions on which the equations

are based, the applicability of the individual

methods to the site-specific hydrogeologic conditions, and the mining methods and schedules

(see box 6-C). The most common mistake made

in this type of analysis is the use of an equation

that is familiar or convenient but is not valid for

the conditions that have been or that will be encountered. For example, two of the assumptions

on which the Darcy Equation is based are invalid

for most surface mining situations, and this equation can provide unreliable estimates of pit inflow if not used properly.

In addition, these analytical flow modeling

techniques cannot account for the wide variations in aquifer hydraulic characteristics and

boundary conditions normally encountered at

mine sites. The simpler analytical techniques are,

however, widely known to both industry and regulatory personnel, do not involve the use of proprietary analytical methods, and can be duplicated easily, all of which facilitate regulatory

review and permit approval.

In employing any of these analytical flow modeling techniques to predict pit inflows or drawdowns over the life of a mine, the number of

calculations required can become large. Many

7Detailed descriptions of these analytical flow models may be

found in reference 30 in vol. 2 of this report.

investigators solve the equations using programmable calculators or personal computers, which

improve both computational accuracy and speed,

and a large amount of software has been developed to facilitate the analysis. Due to the enormous number of calculations required to calculate inflow and drawdown for each configuration
Ch. 6–Analytical Techniques . 175

of a moving pit (theoretically, there are infinite

configurations), the investigator generally will select a limited number of pit configurations and

perform a few “worst-case” predictions. Although this usually results in the overstatement

of predicted drawdowns, worst-case studies are

required by regulatory authorities to compensate

for the built-in errors in the analysis methods.

A common means of overcoming the limitations of analytical flow models is to use a combination of mathematical prediction and direct observation via monitoring wells. This was the

approach at one mine in Montana, which has

been in operation since 1972.8 The Darcy equation was used in conjunction with a flow net to

estimate pit inflows and interactions between

aquifers, and groundwater system monitoring was

used to show development of the cone of depression. This combination of methodologies generally is not practicable at a new mine where sufficient monitoring data have not been amassed.

Numerical Flow Models.–Numerical flow

models are used for systems that are more complex in terms of spatial variability or boundary

conditions; because of the extensive computations required, they are only practical when

solved by computer (1 3). These models can be

used to predict the response of groundwater systems to mining as a function of aquifer parameters (transmissivity and storage coefficient), hydrologic and geologic boundary conditions, and the

positioning of the pit within the system being

modeled. The goal is to predict the value of an

unknown variable (e.g., potentiometric head or

discharge rate) at one or more specific locations,

by solving a system of algebraic equations for

each discrete time-step or region within the

system.

Numerical flow models are gaining in use

among large operators, even though they are

time-consuming to set up initially and can be

more difficult for the regulatory authority to review even with proper documentation. The primary value of numerical models is as a qualitative guide to the behavior of an aquifer under

various simulated stresses; more often, however,

they are used as predictive tools.

6A ~aw study mine D in reference 30$

Numerical models are more flexible than analytical models. Thus they can better represent the

physical and temporal variations in a system.

Moreover, the same model can be used to analyze a variety of problems. Numerical models also

are not limited by some of the restrictive assumptions necessary for analytical models, and they

can perform more sophisticated sensitivity analyses. These models, and the concepts on which

they are based, are well accepted by hydrologists.

However, the accuracy of the predictive results

of numerical computer models is variable and depends on model limitations, accuracy of calibration, reliability of input data, and individual

aquifer characteristics (9).

The application of a numerical groundwater

model involves four primary activities: 1 ) data collection, 2) data preparation for input to the

model, 3) trial-and-error calibration, and 4) simulation (see fig. 6-2) (6). Numerical models can be

run with any amount of available data, but the

quantity and quality of input data will determine

Figure 6=2.—Flow Diagram of Model Use

m model

Results \ Good comparison / Poor compar i so n

J I

SOURCE: C.R. Faust and J.W. Mercer, “Ground-water Modeling: An Overview,”

Ground Water, vol. 18, No. 2, 1980, pp. 108-115.
176 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

the validity of the results (“garbage in, garbage

out”). Special attention must be given to the collection, preparation, calibration, and verification

of data input to the model. As shown in table 6-2,

the two numerical models currently in use require

extensive input data and substantial calibration

and verification, and their results are difficult to

check.

Numerical models also require an understanding of the behavior of the hydrologic system. Flow

of groundwater and declines in water level can

be described and analyzed mathematically, provided adequate hydrologic and geologic information is available (see table 6-2) (1 3). Thus, the

model is not simply a predictive tool, but also an

aid in conceptualizing aquifer behavior.

A numerical model is useful only if it is documented (i.e., there is a model description, a listing of its code, and a user’s manual), is available

at no cost in the public domain (this includes

models developed by Federal and State agencies,

or by universities under Federal grants), and has

been applied once or more in the field. Out of

138 flow models examined in one survey, 39

were fully documented, 57 were available to the

public, and 106 had been applied in the field;

only 20 met all three criteria and were considered useful (l).

There are two mathematical flow modeling

techniques in general use: finite-difference models (FDMs), and finite-element models (FEMs).

The important components and steps of model

development for the two alternative methods and

their application are shown in figures 6-3 and 6-4;

detailed descriptions may be found in volume 2.

Although selection of the modeling technique

should be made to correspond with the physical

system being modeled (a tenet which holds for all

analytical techniques), it is more commonly made

to fit the user’s experience or computer system

(8).

Figure 6-3.–Generaiized Model Development by

Finite. Difference and Finite= Element Methods

Table 6-2.—Possible Data Requirements for

Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport Models

Requirements for grvundwater flow models:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

hydrologic information on areal extent, boundaries, and

boundary conditions of ail aquifers;

locations of major surface-water bodies;

water table, bedrock elevation, and saturated thickness

information;

confining layer information;

transmissivity information for the study area, derived

from pump tests or maps;

permeability information on the relations of saturated

thickness to transmissivity;

the extent of aquifer and stream hydraulic connection;

type and extent of recharge areas;

groundwater pumping information;

streamflow information; and

precipitation information.

Requirements for solute transport models (in addition to

above data):

● estimates of hydrodynamic dispersion;

● effective porosity information;

● natural water quality information for the aquifer;

Ž hydraulic head distribution in the aquifer;

● water quality distribution in the aquifer;

● stream water quality;

● understanding of chemical reactions going on in the

groundwater system; and

• sources and concentrations of pollutant.

SOURCE: K. Kirk and G. McIntosh, Ground Water Modeling by Use of OSM Modified Prickett Lonnquist Ground Water Model, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Office of Surface Mining, training seminar, 1984.

Subdivide region

into a grid and

apply finitedifference approximations to space and

time derivatives

te-element

roach

\

Transform to

Subdivide region

into elements

and integrate I

SOURCE: C.R. Faust and J.W. Mercer, “Ground-water Modeling: Numerical

Models,” Ground Water, vol. 18, No. 4, 1980, pp. 395-409.
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques •“ 177

Figure 6-4.-Appiication of Mathematical Flow

Modeling Techniques

Map view of aquifer showing well field and boundaries.

ence

~. Block-center node

I

. .

● Source/sink node

Finite-difference grid for aquifer study, where Ax, is the spacing in

aquifer thickness.

● Nodal point

o Source/sink node

Finite-element configuration for aquifer study where b is the aquifer

thickness.

SOURCE: C.R. Faust and J.W. Mercer, “Ground-water Modeling: Mathematical

Models,” Ground Water, vol. 18, No. 2, 1980, pp. 212-227,

At present, two finite-difference models are

used frequently in Western surface coal mining.

The Prickett-Lonnquist model, developed by the

Illinois State Water Survey (box 6-D), has been

used by mine operators and the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) to determine both site-specific

and cumulative groundwater drawdown impacts

for permit applications and CHIAS (see below)

(1 3,19). The model is available in the public domain for mainframe computers and can be purchased for a modest sum for use on mini- and

microcomputers. The U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) uses another model developed by Trescott and others in 1976 (box 6-E).

Although the FDM currently is more widely

used, there is a consensus among computer modelers that the newer FEM is a superior analytical

technique and eventually will be the predominant

type of model used for the analysis of groundwater flow (30). Overall, the FEM is more flexible

than the FDM because it has a more advanced

mathematical basis and can provide higher levels

of accuracy, but data input and programming are

more difficult. Using the FDM, data input and

customized changes to the program are accomplished more easily, but the relatively low accuracy of predictive results is unacceptable for

some applications. However, when the typical

low precision and sparse quantity of available

data for large areas are considered, the distinction between the accuracy of the two methods

is probably insignificant.

Digital computer models are not an appropriate analytical technique in every instance. For

example, the USGS was unable to produce a verifiable, calibrated groundwater flow model of the

Powder River basin coal mining region, covering some 4,500 square miles and 21 mines in

northeastern Wyoming. This model was requested, and partially funded, by the Wyoming

regulatory authority as part of their obligation to

perform a CHIA for this area. Due to time and

budget constraints, USGS simplified the groundwater system, assuming it consisted of only three

separate, unrelated aquifers: overburden, coal,

and underburden. Because of the considerable

discharge or recharge from the vast bodies of

burned-out coal (“scoria”) in the area, and the

significant interaction between aquifers, the simplifying assumption of separate and unrelated

aquifers produced unreliable results. While part

of the reason for lack of success may have been

the inadequate time and money, the unsuccessful study caused USGS to question whether such

a large area could be modeled (28).

Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques Ž 179

If onsite data are available, recharge is determined relatively easily. For example, the Montana Department of State Lands studied spoils

recharge at the West Decker and Rosebud Mines

based on data from the mine permit applications

plus data collected by the Montana Bureau of

Mines and Geology. Representative monitoring

wells in the coal and spoils aquifers for each mine

were selected, and hydrography utilizing all available water level data were plotted and analyzed

to correlate water level changes with seasonal

fluctuations and mining operations. From these

data, it was determined that spoils recharge at

the West Decker Mine comes mainly from adjacent, unmined coal beds that occasionally break

the bed surface beneath the Tongue River Reservoir. Secondary sources are the underlying, unmined coal beds. Surface infiltration is considered

insignificant due to the thickness and fine-grained

texture of the spoils. At the Rosebud Mine, recharge is predominantly from adjacent unmined

coals, but in localized areas, surface recharge is

enhanced by thin spoils, coarse-textured spoils,

and surface water bodies (30).

Without field data, groundwater recharge is

difficult to quantify because it is a function of

the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation, topography-runoff relationships, and the unsaturated and saturated hydraulic properties of

a spatially heterogeneous geologic environment.

Where onsite data are not available, a water budget approach can be used to calculate recharge

from surface infiltration. Box 6-F illustrates the use

of this approach to predict spoils recharge for the

purpose of permitting subgrade disposal of utility wastes in mine spoils (see also ch. 3, box 3-J).

Most mines have devised monitoring programs

that may help quantify recharge to the spoils (see

ch. 5). At a mine in Montana, where well data

from resaturated spoils are available, the reestablishment of groundwater flow was predicted by

comparin g the hydraulic conductivity values from

tests of spoils wells with those from tests conducted with wells in bedrock aquifers.9 From the

comparison, the operator was able to demon9See case study mine F in reference 30.
strate that the spoils were approximately as transmissive as the coal aquifers they replaced, and

that the reclaimed mine area would not cause

obstruction of regional groundwater flow.

Some research is being conducted to validate

methods for identifying specific sources of recharge. One study at the Center Mine in North

Dakota was successful in isolating the various

sources of spoils recharge by analysis of stable

isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen in the water

(1 1). However, this is not a technique that can

be applied readily to other mining situations, because the isotope data indicated that the source

of the water in the lower spoils at this mine was

vertical infiltration from nonevaporative sites,

predominantly during the period of spring snowmelt. Lateral inflow from adjacent mine pits or

unmined areas is much more common.

Spoils Resaturation.–Spoils hydraulic characteristics, primarily permeability and porosity, determine the capacity of the spoils materials to

store and transmit water. Unfortunately, few field

data on spoils hydraulics are available due to

the youth of the Western surface mining industry (see ch. 5). Therefore, permeability and porosity must be estimated analytically to predict

the ability to restore premining storage and transmissivity.

Spoils aquifer characteristics are primarily a

function of overburden Iithology, especially the

sand content of the rock, and mining method.

Very fine-grained materials tend to have the highest porosity, but their permeability is very low due

to the small particle size and the lack of interconnections between pores. The presence of a

rubble zone at the base of the spoils also can increase hydraulic conductivity. When overburden

aquifers occur chiefly as small, discontinuous

sand lenses within a large matrix of clays and

shales, the postmining spoils probably will have

low permeability. The equipment selected and

the mining configuration determine the degrees

of swell, mixing, and compaction of the spoils

that will occur (see ch. 3). The increase in volume due to swell factor increases porosity, which
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques Ž 181

in turn increases permeability if the pores are

sufficiently large and interconnected.

Where pump tests have been conducted in resaturated postmining spoils, hydraulic conductivities and storage coefficients of the spoils can

be measured directly. Otherwise, the time required for recharge is predicted with estimates

of spoils hydraulics and groundwater modeling

studies. Due to the low permeability of spoils material throughout the Eastern Powder River basin, operators there have estimated that it could

take from 70 to 2,900 years, depending on the

recharge rate, for replaced spoils aquifers to reach

a steady-state condition in which groundwater

flow patterns are reestablished (34).

Postmining Spoils-Aquifer Water Quality.–

One of the potential impacts after surface coal

mining is a change in the quality of groundwater

because the backfilling of overburden material

results in the exposure of fresh mineral surfaces

and provides an opportunity for chemical reactions. In the Western United States, the primary

groundwater contamination problem resulting

from these reactions is the elevation of total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in spoils groundwaters

–primarily dissolved sodium, calcium, magnesium, and sulfate. It has not yet been determined

whether acidity will be a problem for revegetation in postmining spoils (see ch. 8).

The magnitude of postmining groundwater

quality impacts is highly variable, depending on

the quality of groundwater entering the spoils,

the amount of recharge from precipitation that

has reached the water table, and the type, distribution, and leachability of spoils materials

through which groundwater or precipitation percolates. The length of time required for spoils to

become fully resaturated and groundwater flow

patterns to be reestablished also will affect the

timing and magnitude of impacts, but also will

mean that there may be no way to verify the predictions by comparison with actual results. As a

result, the validity of the predictions takes on a

greater importance. Unfortunately, there is little

agreement as to the best method for producing

consistent, valid predictions. Furthermore, generalizations are not readily made from one mine

to another, because geochemistry is highly sitespecific.

Two general approaches are used today to predict spoils water quality. One involves measuring water-soluble constituents in the spoils and

relating those values to observed spoils water

quality at the mine site. The second is based on

deterministic modeling of the chemical processes

responsible for the evolution of spoils water quality, which is the basis for calculating the ultimate

water quality.

The measurement and extrapolation method

assumes that spoils water quality is largely a function of readily soluble constituents in the spoils

that may be leached easily by groundwater. BatchIeach tests, saturated-paste extract analyses, or

column-leach tests are the methods used most

frequently in the West.10 All three require sampling and chemical analysis of overburden and

interburden materials from the mine area. Tests

comparing the data from these methods indicate

that their results are very similar. Column-leach

tests are the most expensive, however (see box

6-G),

Predictions based on batch leaching of overburden samples can be made in the absence of

any field data from resaturated spoils. However,

the samples of water and overburden selected

for the test may not be entirely representative

of postmining spoils conditions—at best a few

pounds of material are being tested to make

predictions about hundreds of millions of tons

of spoils—and the mixing ratios and contact times

used for the test may not represent actual conditions. The samples of overburden selected for

the test usually represent a worst case of material potentially detrimental to water quality; then,

for comparison, the test also is run on samples

of “suitable” or average overburden material.

Therefore, the predictions of postmine spoils

water quality from this test will be conservative.

Batch-leach tests were used by the USGS to simulate changes in groundwater quality that may occur as a result of mining operations in the West

Decker area in Montana (4).

Saturated-paste extract tests are especially useful where spoils water data are available because

a statistical correlation can be derived between

losee reference so for a detailed description of these techniques

and their application.
182 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

the predicted water quality and actual analyses

of spoils water. For this reason, this method was

used in a 1982 study of cumulative impacts for

mines in the Tongue River basin of Montana and

Wyoming, which estimated that dissolved solids

contents in postmining groundwater would increase between 63 and 300 percent. Sodium, sulfate, and bicarbonate concentrations were predicted to increase the most (25).

Typically, when any of these three methods is

used to predict postmining spoils water quality,

spoils recharge subsequently is monitored, and

the spoils water quality sampled as resaturation

occurs. Such monitoring programs should contribute information to allow the verification of

assumptions made about the trend of spoils water

quality over time (and the time frame in which

recharge will occur). Monitoring will not always

provide direct information on postmining groundwater quality, however, because it cannot be assumed that the monitoring will be continued for

the centuries predicted to be required for groundwater systems to establish a postmining equilibrium.

Predictive modeling methods are under development that could estimate changes in groundwater quality based on statistical analyses of geochemical trends. The USGS currently is working

with three process-oriented deterministic models

of the chemical processes occurring in and downslope from the spoils, of recharge to the spoils,

and of water movement through the spoils (28).

The three models are: WATEQF, BALANCE, and

PHREEQE. 11 Data from coal mines in Wyoming

are being used to test the modeling concepts, and

one of the large mining companies currently is

using these models to try to understand the geochemical reactions that are resulting in undesirable spoils-water chemical characteristics at a

mine in the Powder River basin of Wyoming.

It must be kept in mind, however, that as with

the groundwater models discussed previously,

the results of these predictive water quality

models will only be as good as the input data and

assumptions.

Researchers at the North Dakota Geological

Survey are using computer methods to develop

a comprehensive hydrogeochemical approach to

the prediction of spoils water quality, because

they believe that the saturated-paste extract

method estimates only the short-term spoils water

quality, and ignores the long-term salt generation

capacity. The researchers concluded that, in order to assess the chemical conditions on a longterm basis, it will be necessary to develop analytical techniques to determine calcite content

at very low levels of concentration, abundance

of potentially oxidizable pyrite, and actual ionexchange characteristics under field conditions

(1 5). The work probably is only applicable within

the Fort Union mining region (see box 6-H).

Predicting the Impacts of Powerplant Waste

Disposal.–At some mines in the West, ash and

sludge from mine-mouth powerplants are disposed of in the mine backfill. The analytical techI Isee vol. 2 for detailed descriptions of these models.
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques ● 183

BOX 6+.-tk&rnkitic Mu&l t3ew@xnet@ k F&irth tkkotal .7

The term “engineered cast overburden” (ECO] was coinwi ●ki$Wth’-i3akota to refer to an approach

to reconstruction of the entire landscape rather than just ks MM This approach to postndriifig groundwater chemistry requires a thorough mde~nd@g ~fseverd geoche rnical and mining processes as well as the development of a number of Soil mappin~ geologic mapping,

d~v~loprnent of a three-dimensiona lfok@c@ stqdies, and geochemical studies

are conducted to define the properties of overburden the form and internal structure of material deposited by various typ@f minf~ ~u~p~~t and t~r@@es also is necessa~

to determine which equipment and procedures Qroduce $@’&d ph~ical.and chemical characteristics at

appropriate locations within the cast overburden. -: ~ ~ ,, , .,

The anal~isassum~that a model that a~uately reP,. . ‘ ~&rchem*~ in the premining

overburden will be reliable for predcting postrnining ?#e’model miu~acemmt for several variables, including the predominant ions In the g ‘ *~~a @-l of the waler, v~rhtions in th e

concentration of TDS of the groundwater, and the partial carbon dbdde In the water.

It also must account for water chemistry changes that water infiltrates and $r@rates through

the underlying unsaturated zcme Into the @Jm%ckvaw~ ‘-: 4 . ~ ECO studies resulted in the development of a hodel that accounts for the observed

chemical characteristics of subsurface water in both and wwkturlxci settings. Critical hydrogeochemical processes were determined to be sulfide gypsum precipitation and dissolution,

carbonate mineral dissolution, and cation exchange. M@M-@ec%s of concern are sodium and sulfate.

Sulfides are the major source of sulfates, and the in rounciwater was determined to

be largely controlled by the sodiumlcalcium ratio. dy*ng in the near-surface land- c?

scape was found to be a key mechanism inl@@ution. The worst impacts on postmining groundwater quality were predicted to result hof tmoxldized sodic and sulfide-rich sediments near the surface and above the water table where surface infiltration could contact them

en route to the groundwater table. Placement of these Mvv the postmining water table can

result in short- degradation of groundwater, but over teth will prevent oxidation of the sodic

and sulfide-rich sediments and water quality will improve a&r ?nitid flushing of soluble saits. This modeling technique allowed the investigators to predict both sINM- aM king-term dkcts of mining on the groundwater quality, and if the modeling and input awumptkmb &e @rrect,the predictions should be vaiid (input assumptions can be tested as monitoring data are CX#kwt~ mwi WA to verify the model).

:.

1% reference 30474 PP. 414-417, ad mtmes C&d @weh

*

niques used tc evaluate potential impacts to

groundwater quality at these sites utilize the various methods described above. The techniques

used at one New Mexico case study mine are described in box 6-1 (see also box 6-F, and ch. 3,

box 3-J).

Predicting Surface Water lmpacts12

Surface mining can affect surface water in several ways. During mining, streamflows can be reduced by the local lowering of the water table

in the vicinity of the mine or by disruption of the

aquifer (see fig. 6-1 B). Natural flow also can be

I Z(-jnless othe~lse noted, material in this section is adapted from

reference 30.

augmented by mine-discharge water, but usually

the discharge is not significant in relation to the

mean annual runoff volume of streams in the

Western United States. More important in the

West is the impact of mining-related augmented

or diminished flows on surface water quality. in

addition, both suspended and dissolved solid

levels are often elevated, reflecting the higher

rates of erosion and the higher availability of soluble cations often associated with any large earthmoving operation. After mining, as the hydrologic

equilibrium is reestablished, few residual impacts

on surface water quantity or quality are likely,

although not enough time has elapsed at most

Western mines to verify this assumption with

monitoring data.
184 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Surface water impacts are readily observable,

and analytical techniques for predicting these impacts are less hypothetical than those used for

groundwater analysis. As with any analytical technique, however, the quality of the input data will

determine the validity of the analytical results. As

discussed in chapter 5, there are few reliable data

on streamflow quality and quantity for ephemeral

streams in the coal mining areas of the Western

States. Because most of the surface water affected

by Western mining activities is in ephemeral

drainages, this lack of data is a constraint on the

use of analytical techniques to design reclamation measures for the surface water resource.

Surface Water Quantity Impacts

Peak flows and low flows of streams are important characteristics in describing the hydrology

of the general mine area, and thus in predicting

the impacts of mining and designing reclamation

(see below). Streamflow is derived from two components: base flow and direct runoff. Base flow

is supplied by groundwater aquifers, while runoff is supplied by precipitation, snowmelt, and,

in the case of surface mining, by mine discharges.

Peak flows generally coincide with periods of

peak runoff. Low flows coincide with periods of

little or no runoff, when perennial streamflow is

maintained by groundwater inflows.

The primary potential effect of mining on

water levels in streams is a reduction in base

flow in response to drawdowns in the water table caused by the cone of depression created

around the mine pit. Because most of the streams

directly affected by mining are ephemeral and

thus have no base flow component, they are not

affected by mining-related drawdowns, and individual mines have relatively little impact on the

quantity of surface water supplies. Intermittent

streams (which have seasonal flows) may be impacted to the extent of their base-flow component.

During seasons of high runoff or when groundwater intercepted by the pit exceeds onsite

needs, water also will be discharged from a mine

into area streams. The discharge may be temporary, intermittent, or continuous, and usually will

be small in relation to the mean annual runoff
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques • 185

volume of the receiving streams except when

saturated scoria is intercepted. Short-duration,

high-volume discharges are difficult to predict

during mine planning, but in a water-short area

no adverse impacts result provided the water

quality of the discharge is within the range of the

water quality of the receiving stream.

When mine discharges can be predicted, estimation of the resulting impacts on water quantity generally involves comparing the estimated

rate of flow of the discharge to the range of

natural flows typical for the receiving stream. If

these are relatively equal, the discharge will not

exceed the hydraulic capacity of the stream, and

thus will not cause erosion downstream from the

discharge point. This analysis can be done either

using actual gage data, or with statistical or deterministic models.

The Log-Pearson Type Ill distribution method

uses gage data to estimate the frequency (2 to

100 years) at which designated peak flows will

be exceeded. Data collected over at least a 20-

year period are required for meaningful results

using this method. Although these data are available at some locations for all major perennial

streams that may be affected by Western surface

coal mining, they are rarely available for intermittent and ephemeral streams, unless mining has

been conducted in the area for a long period of

time.

Statistical Models.–USGS hydrologists, in the

course of studying the hydrology of various drainage basins in the West, have developed multipleregression equations for estimating flood peaks

at ungaged stream sites. In general, the equations

are a means of extrapolating, over a large area,

correlations derived from data collected at a

limited number of sites. Individual sets of equations are specific to a particular hydrologic region,

and to drainage basins of a certain size. Application of statistical models generally requires only

the use of a topographic map to determine drainage area, basin slope, maximum basin relief, and

main-channel slope.

Deterministic Models.–Most rainfall-runoff

models used by mine operators are based on the

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method of estimating direct runoff from storm rainfall, which

in turn is based on the widely accepted unithydrograph theory (14). Input data on the vegetation and watershed characteristics of the drainage area, and on channel slope, relief, and soils

are readily obtained from topographic maps, soils

maps, and field observation. Data on precipitation frequency-duration relationships are available from published U.S. Weather Bureau and

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports.

This method is calculation-intensive, and not

easily used without a computer. Moreover, estimation of runoff volumes and peak discharge by

these various deterministic methods can be considered more of an art than a science. Even using

the same method, it is probable that two independent investigators will achieve different results

because the assumptions that must be made

about the hydrologic regime of the site will influence the input parameters and therefore the

resu Its.

Surface Water Quality Impacts

Both direct runoff and groundwater discharges

to surface streams can have high TDS and/or TSS

levels, depending on the medium the discharge

is flowing over or through and the rate of flow,

among other variables. Elevated TDS concentrations usually result from groundwater discharges,

but normally are not included as limiting parameters in discharge permits because of the difficulty

of controlling them. Increases in TSS levels are

more likely to result from runoff and subsequent

erosion, and are controlled with sediment control structures (see below). Peak flows typically

coincide with low TSS levels due to dilution,

while low flows coincide with high TSS. Low-flow

values usually are used to quantify the worst-case

stream water quality degradation that may occur

in perennial streams.

In the absence of site-specific data (the usual

case), the amount of sediment that will erode

from a watershed and be subject to transport

downstream during a precipitation event generally is estimated using the Universal Soil Loss

Equation (USLE), developed and calibrated by the

Agricultural Research Service. With limited data,

the strength of USLE lies in its ability to provide
186 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

relative estimates for comparison of alternative

projects, rather than absolute determinations.

Prediction of Cumulative

Hydrologic Impacts

CHIAS of all ongoing and anticipated mining

in a permit area are mandated in section 507 of

SMCRA. CHIAS are conducted by the regulatory

authority based on the PHC determinations submitted in permit applications and other data available from Federal and State agencies. A CHIA

must be for the proposed life of a mine, including

the time needed to achieve permanent steadystate after mining. It is intended primarily to demonstrate that the proposed mining activity, when

added to all other mining activity in the region,

will not materially damage the hydrologic system

outside the mine permit area.

Depending on the availability of data and the

impacts of concern, a CHIA may emphasize either the full range of potential hydrologic impacts

or only specific sets of impacts. For example,

while each operator in the powder River basin

of Wyoming is required to submit a comprehensive PHC determination to address all components of surface and groundwater hydrology, the

CHIAS that have been conducted in this region

were concerned primarily with cumulative

impacts to groundwater flow, cumulative drawdowns from mine dewatering (see box 6-D), and

the cumulative impacts of sedimentation control

(see ch. 8).

The interpretation and implementation of the

Federal law as it pertains to PHCS and CHIAS is

the subject of considerable controversy. As discussed in chapter 4, recent Federal court decisions remanded to the Department of the Interior

regulations on whether a PHC determination

should cover the 5-year permit area or the lifeof-mine area. The court also found DOI’S definition of “anticipated mining” for CHIAS to be inconsistent with SMCRA.

A reasonable cumulative assessment of impacts to the various components of the hydrologic system over the life-of-mine area can be

made at most Western surface coal mines using

some combination of the available analytical

techniques already described for surface and

groundwater systems. As discussed above, however, none of these techniques is a perfect indicator of hydrologic impacts.

The principal limiting factor to the predictive

capability of all of the techniques is the availability of reliable data. In the case of certain

techniques, the lack of site-specific data can be

accommodated (e.g., techniques that predict

hydrologic responses based on assumptions derived from widespread but relatively sparse data,

such as the flow-estimating techniques based on

statistical models). In other instances, the data required to perform one analysis of impacts over

the life of the mine must be obtained using many

other techniques, sometimes at prohibitive expense. For some analytical techniques, however,

the data often are not obtainable for term-ofpermit assessments, much less for a life-of-mine

assessment (e. g., spoils water quality determinations in areas where recharge is predicted to take

centuries).

The built-in errors associated with inadequate

data or with the need to make assumptions are

accommodated through regulatory requirements

for worst-case analyses. So, as uncertainty about

the system increases, assumptions made for input to the various analytical techniques become

more conservative. Although this strategy avoids

errors from underestimating the potential hydrologic impacts, it may entail other consequences

resulting from overstatements of those impacts,

including increased reclamation costs.

Another important limiting factor is the incomplete knowledge of some of the geochemical

processes occurring in the postmining spoil,

which makes it difficult to express these processes

mathematically. This problem is exemplified by

the current controversy over the correct methodology for predicting the potential for acidformation in Western mine spoils (see ch. 8).

One possible approach to the problem of conducting CHIAS is to use repermitting data–the

data submitted by active mines every 5 years to

support applications for permit renewal—to recalibrate the models used for the CHIAS and to

assess the validity and sensitivity of the various

input assumptions. Periodic sensitivity analyses
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques ● 187

of the variables wou Id provide valuable information about data inadequacies and could be used

to focus industry and Federal and State agency

data collection efforts (see ch. 5).

PHCS and CHIAS can be accomplished with

or without a computer, but the use of computer

modeling appears to be a more efficient way of

assessing the complex hydrologic problems that

must be addressed in a cumulative analysis. Examples of both methods of analysis are discussed

in box 6-J. More detailed information about specific data requirements and the analytical techniques used in these examples can be found in

volume 2.

Predicting Impacts to Wildlife13

Quantitative techniques for predicting the impacts of surface coal mining on wildlife populations have not been found to be effective and

are used infrequently. One constraint on such

techniques is data inadequacy (see ch. 5). Moreover, while the basic responses of wildlife to environmental factors are often easy to analyze and

predict intuitively, it is difficult to quantify this sort

of analysis. It is even more difficult to segregate

sources of influence on the populations or variation in the environment to determine which factors have caused what percentage of the observed effect. Consequently, wildlife impact

assessments generally are made by intuitive professional judgment, based on a knowledge of

the mining operation and the ecology of the affected area.

Although numerous baseline and monitoring

data are collected on wildlife populations to determine patterns of wildlife use of the mine site

and adjacent areas, these data generally are perceived as unreliable and typically are not analyzed statistically (see ch. 5). Instead, the data are

reviewed by industry and agency biologists who

look for trends from which they can interpret

habitat affinity and predict the impacts of habitat disruption. These qualitative or intuitive impact assessments involve comparing available

data with the characterization and analysis (often

quantitative) of wildlife habitats. Such indirect

I JU nless otheWiSe noted, material in this section is adapted from

reference 2.

Box 6-J.-A CHIA of the Yampa River

Basin*

The coal mining areas of the Yampa River basin in northwestern Colorado contain several important perennial streams, and the water quality of those streams is subject to degradation as

the overburden and coal aquifers that contribute to base flows are replaced with mine spoils.

Eventually, these mine spoils will leach water

with elevated TDS relative to the undisturbed

aquifers. A 1982 CHIA of this region did not use

computer modeling methods, and so was only

able to estimate mining-related changes in TDS

concentrations for two cases, as opposed to the

infinite number of cases that can be computer

simulated. The two cases chosen were the historic low flow [representing the worst case) and

the mean flow. Other limitations of the method

were the difficutty in using available data because of nonstandard collection methodologies

and reporting procedures, and the lack of flexibility and complexity in the mathematical basis

of the model. In 1983, a computer model for a

portion of this same basin was developed by

USGS for use by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD) in evaluating potential cumulative surface water impacts of proposed mines. The model is based on a more

complex algorithm that enhances its flexibility

with respect to simulating various mining scenarios. As with most computer techniques, the

limiting factor is availability of reliable input data.

Analytical results are only as valid as the various methods for estimating, interpolating, and

extrapolating input data where measured data

are lacking.

‘Adapted from retkrence 30.

assessments of impacts to habitat quality may be

more meaningful in terms of predicting the ultimate impacts of mining to wildlife (box 6-K; see

also ch. 3, box 3-G).

OSM recently funded a study to evaluate quantitatively the effectiveness of mitigation measures

practiced at coal mining operations in the Western States (20). This study, using multiple linear

regression analyses, assessed the relationship between various wildlife populations (mammals and

birds, both large and small) and the biological and
188 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

sis. This is true even in the field of wildlife biology, where valid data are not easily obtained. At

one mine, Los Alamos National Laboratory was

contracted to perform computer-analyses of wildlife data.14 The extent of the computer assistance

was to expedite the plotting of big game movement information on maps, which usually is done

by hand. Another computer application attempted

to choose an appropriate population estimation

model for the small mammals and then estimate

population sizes. This attempt was unsuccessful

due to insufficient data, and exemplifies the inherent problems involved with accurate prediction of many wildlife populations.

Another use of computers to evaluate wildlife

data is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) program. HEP

was developed to provide a standardized approach to evaluating wildlife impacts based on

changes in habitat quality values. Habitat quality for selected species is evaluated with an index value obtained for individual species from

habitat suitability models (over 80 published) employing measurable key habitat variables. Index

values are multiplied by area of available habitat to obtain Habitat Units for individual species.

Index and habitat unit values derived for land

prior to and after disturbance are used to provide a quantitative measure of the impact to wildlife habitat. The more that is known about habitat requirements of the various indicator species,

the more accurate is the rating scale developed

to measure habitat quality.

As with any impact prediction methodology,

HEP’s ability to provide accurate projections of

the magnitude of future impacts can be no better than the user’s ability to predict habitat conditions subsequent to disturbance. However, HEP

does provide a quantitative mechanism for performing projections of the severity of impacts resulting from habitat disturbance. HEP has been

used extensively for water development projects

where the extent of temporal and spatial habitat

loss can be documented. As yet, however, only

a few attempts have been made to use HEP for

projecting wildlife impacts related to Western surface coal mining disturbances.

Idsee case study mine G in reference 2.
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques • 189

Predicting Revegetation Success15

The impact of surface mining on plant life is

immediate and predictable: with few exceptions,

once the soil is removed from a mine site the

original vegetation has been destroyed. Therefore the primary emphasis is on devising methods

to predict the long-term impacts, or revegetation

success. The success of a given revegetation technology or method is assessed qualitatively based

on a comparison of data from different reclaimed

areas.

This qualitative method for predicting revegetation success at a particular location considers

the results of the most recent revegetation methods at other mining operations in the region

which have similar soil, overburden and climatic

characteristics. In the comparison, it is assumed

that given similar environmental factors, the results of particular reclamation technologies also

will be similar. This case-by-case approach is essentially the technique used by State regulatory

personnel when making their technical evaluation and analysis of permit applications. It also

is the basic technique available to agencies such

as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for imI sunless othe~ise noted, material in this section is adapted from

reference 28.

pact prediction in environmental impact statements. Although this type of analysis does not

lend itself to a rigorous mathematical treatment,

the lack of a quantitative model for predicting

reclaimability does not appear to diminish the potential for accurate prediction.

One quantitative model for predicting revegetation success was developed in the study region.

It used data collected in 1976 and 1977 on sites

revegetated under pre-SMCRA requirements as

well as from unmined areas (18). This model assumed three factors to be driving (independent)

variables: annual precipitation, growing season

length, and the age of revegetation. The dependent variables were cover and production.

Woody plant density and Iifeform or species

diversity were not addressed. Because the baseline data were collected from areas revegetated

pre-SMCRA with what is now considered somewhat primitive technology, they form a poor basis for predicting success with current technology. The authors of the model acknowledge that

the baseline data are weak in many respects, and

that variations in cultural treatments and the

young age of most of the revegetation samples

confound potential conclusions from the data.

Without further development of the model and

improved data inputs, it is doubtful it could be

useful in current revegetation analyses.

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES USED IN THE DESIGN OF RECLAMATION

Because techniques for predicting the various

impacts of mining are imperfect, and because i n

many instances reclamation results cannot be observed directly (e.g., groundwater aquifer restoration where recharge is measured in centuries),

the analytical techniques used to design reclamation are critical to reclamation success. The reliability of these techniques is especially important

when the evaluation of reclamation success is

based on design, rather than performance, standards, given the uncertainty about who is responsible for design failure. The most important design elements for the ultimate success of the

reclamation plan are: 1 ) accurate characterization of the overburden and delineation of overburden material potentially detrimental to groundwater quality or revegetation, 2) optimization of

soil salvage, 3) well-stabilized stream channels,

and 4) efficient sedimentation control. This section discusses the analytical techniques used to

design these components of the reclamation plan,

plus the design and reclamation of alluvial valley floors.

Overburden Characterization and

Reclamation Planning

After the coal has been extracted, the overburden and interburden form the basic material

for reclamation, and the chemical and physical

character of these materials are major factors in

determining the impacts of mining on postmin-
190 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

ing spoils hydraulics and water quality (16). In

actuality, the geology of the overburden in many

of the mining regions of the West is so complex

that it is usually not practical (and often infeasible) to define the overburden in great detail. As

a result, gross characterization of the overburden

is the basis for the design of the earth-moving portion of the reclamation plan of many surface coal

mines in the West (see ch. s).

The objectives of methods used in characterizing the overburden are to determine its physical and chemical character in order to evaluate

reclaimability; to estimate the volume and location of different types of overburden material; and

to design a backfill plan that achieves chemical

and physical stability and approximate original

contour. Table 6-3 shows the current criteria for

overburden unsuitability for three of the five

States (Colorado and New Mexico have no formal

unsuitability criteria for overburden). These criteria are referred to as “suspect levels.” If prescribed laboratory techniques show overburden

components to be above these suspect levels, the

components may be considered unsuitable if

Table 6-3.–Overburden Unsuitability Criteria by State

Montana New Mexico Wyoming

Parameter (DSL 1983) (MMD 1984) (DEQ 1984)

“

PH aci d <5. 5

pH alkaline . >8.5

EC (mmhos/cm) >4.0-8.0

Texture . excessively

clayey, silty

or sandy

Sat % ., < 250/o

> 85%

SAR . . . . . . . . none given

ESP ., >15.0

>18.0

depending

on texture

B >5.0 ppm

Se >0.1 ppm

Mo . . . . . ., ., >0.5-1.0 ppm

Organic

carbon . . . . . . . none given

<b. U

>9.0

>16.0

none given

none given

>12.0

>15.0

>20.0

depending

on texture

none given

>5.0 ppm

>0.5 ppm

O tons CaCO3

equivalent/

1,000 tons

none given

none given

< 5.0

>9.0

>12.0

none given

none given

>12.0

>15.0

depending

on texture

none given

>5.0 ppm

none given

< –5 tons CaCO3

equivalent/

1,000 tons

none given

> 10’%0

SOURCE: James P. Walsh & Associates, “Soil and Overburden Management in

Western Surface Coal Mine Reclamation,” contractor report to OTA,

August 1985.

replaced in reconstructed root zones or where

they might contaminate surface water or groundwater supplies.

Unsuitable overburden can be categorized in

one of two ways, depending on the mode of

occurrence:

●

●

Type 1: Mappable strata (e.g., carbonaceous

shales, pyritic sands) that occur over more

than 25 percent of the mine site, are predictable in occurrence, and generally are

regarded as uniformly deleterious to root

growth and/or groundwater; or

Type 2: Unmappable pods of unsuitable material, usually exhibiting elevated levels of

trace metals (e.g., arsenic, boron) that are

not readily predictable in occurrence. While

they may occur only in one particular strata

or lithotype, the occurrence is not uniform

or the associated rock units are not mappable with the density of drill holes which can

be reasonably required (17).

While there are no standardized methods for

the interpretation of overburden data, there are

several methods that seem to be commonly used

to characterize the geochemistry of the overburden and define volumes of potentially deleterious

material. These techniques usually are repeated

and refined as additional data are collected in potentially unsuitable areas. The methods described

below are illustrative of the varying degrees of

qualitative versus quantitative analysis possible,

and are not intended to be a comprehensive listing of methodologies.

One approach is the use of classical statistical

analysis to determine a thickness-weighted mean,

standard deviation, and range for each parameter in the overburden database. However, a statistical analysis may not be valid for some parameters (e.g., pH, which is a logarithmic function).

Moreover, this approach does not include the

correlation of geochemical values (laboratory

data) to individual rock strata in the overburden,

nor does it provide a way of determining either

the total volume of potentially deleterious material or the position of that material within the

overburden. Rather, this technique assumes that

perfect mixing of the overburden is achieved with

whatever mining and backfilling techniques are
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques • 191

proposed. Therefore, the technique seems to be

valid only for the broad characterization of overburden over the mine-site. Under certain conditions, such as when all of the overburden is considered suitable or unsuitable, this level of analysis

is adequate.

Other methods of characterizing overburden

must be employed in the more common situation of overburden that is only partially unsuitable. With such overburden, it becomes important to determine both the volume and location

of the unsuitable material (given the modes of

occurrence listed above). The same classical statistical analysis can be used if the overburden data

are segregated into data sets representing individual mining benches. The underlying assumption for this technique is that, during mining, perfect mixing of the overburden will occur within

each bench. In general, this approach is valid for

demonstrating that an individual bench is either

entirely suitable or unsuitable. This approach also

can be used reliably if the unsuitability is specific

to either the vegetation or the groundwater resource, and it can be demonstrated in the mining plan that the unsuitable bench will be placed

in the backfill such that it will not be in contact

with the resource to which it is deleterious.

It is unusual, however, for all of the material

in a bench to be of uniform suitability, Many regulatory authorities have adopted a working assumption that if the unsuitable overburden comprises less than a certain percentage of the total

overburden by mining bench,l6 it will be mixed

adequately with suitable spoil material and no

vegetation or groundwater problems will arise in

the backfill. Based on field studies and empirical observations, the cut-off has been set at 15

percent unsuitable material for dragline operations and 20 percent for truck and shovel mines

(5). Several operators of large truck and shovel

mines in the Powder River basin of Wyoming are

presently conducting mixing studies to refine

these estimated mixing ratios.

If the unsuitable strata are mappable (type 1),

this bench method of overburden characterizaI bone bench IS assu rned for a d rag[ine operation, while the nu rnber ot’ benches In a truck and shovel operation WIII vary with the

thickness of the overburden.

tion is adequate if it can be demonstrated that

the unsuitable material constitutes less than the

cut-off percentage. IdealIy, this demonstration

can be made (either manually or by computer)

by correlating the unit in question from all available geologic information, mapping the extent

and thickness of the unit, and then comparing

this elevation and thickness projection to the elevation and thickness of the proposed mining

benches. Using the correlations, one can determine the location and extent of areas where the

unsuitable stratum represents a greater percentage of the bench than is permissible, I n practice,

however, more subjective and cost-effective techniques relying on professional expertise often are

employed.

If, on the other hand, the unsuitability is unmappable (type 2), and a correlation between the

occurrence of the unsuitability and a geologic feature cannot be found, the bench method must

be modified further. This technique incorporates

the proposed mining-bench configuration but

more or less ignores the stratigraphy of the overburden. Data from each drill hole are grouped

by mining bench, and the percent unsuitable material, weighted by sample thickness, is determined within each data group. Finally, the area

of influence of each drill hole is determined, usually by the conservative polygon method of interpolation. 1 7 Maps are generated to portray

graphically the limits of potential unsuitability for

the mine permit application (see fig. 6-5). Generally, the analysis is performed manually because it is as accurate as and less time-consuming

than using a computer.

This last method of overburden characterization is becoming common in Wyoming, where

most of the mines are large and where the State

regulations and guidelines, by virtue of their level

of detail, promote conformity among the permit

applicants by emphasizing design standards. In

other States, methods for characterizing the overburden generally are more empirical or intuitive.

in Colorado, for instance, the regulatory authority regularly receives and reviews uninterpreted

17A method by which the area of influence of each d rll I hole is

defined by connecting a series of lines drawn around that hole bisecting the distance between that hole and the next adjacent hole

so that the resultant area is polygonal in planview.
192 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

T 47 N

T 46 N“

Figure 6-5.–Overburden Bench Suitability

R 71 W

.

Overburden

removal

Limit of Coal

I

Overburden Bench

#2

pH suitability

Explanation

● Suitable P H

unsuitable pH

Federal coal

 lease boundary

Mined out area

as of 10/83
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques . 193

laboratory data (3). To the extent anomalous data

are found, the operator is asked to provide additional data or analysis to further define the unsuitabiIity.

Once the nature and extent of the overburden

unsuitability is defined, the operator and the regulatory authority can agree on the best method

of mitigation. In most cases, the operator must

selectively place unsuitable materials 4 to 8 feet

below the ground surface, and away from reconstructed stream channels. Special handling of unsuitable material may also be required to keep

the material out of the root zone or groundwater

recharge zones (see ch, 3, boxes 3-C, 3-H, and

3-J). For unsuitable material exhibiting parameters that are not mobile under reducing conditions, there is some debate about whether the

material should be placed above or below the

postmining water table to prevent the entry of

undesirable elements into the groundwater system. The practicability and/or cost-effectiveness

of selective placement generally are a function

of the type of mining equipment used (see ch. 3).

Soil Characterization and

Reclamation Planning18

The redressed soil serves as a chemical and

physical buffer between the backfilled mine spoil

and surface water, vegetation, and wildlife resources, and therefore is a critical element in successful reclamation. In designing soils reclamation, the objective is to determine which materials

will be salvaged for use as topdressing over the

postmining recontoured spoil surface. The three

steps involved in planning soil reclamation are:

1 ) determining the premining physical and chemical character of the soil (see ch. s); 2) estimating the total volume, the “suitable” volume, and

the final redressed thickness of the salvageable

soil resource; and 3) designing a redressing plan

to ensure chemical and physical stability of the

postmining soil. Each State has soils unsuitability criteria (see table 6-4). Differences among the

State criteria reflect differences in reclamation objectives or emphasis, as well as in professional

judgment and interpretation among the technical staff.

18u n]ess otherwise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 27.

Determination of salvageable soil is usually accomplished by direct comparison of physical and

chemical parameters of individual map units with

State unsuitability criteria. For example, salvage

depths are determined by comparing soil analytical data to limiting chemical and physical criteria,

and assigned to each unit based on this comparison. The area of each soil map unit is measured

directly from the soils map, and the composition

of the map units determined from the soil inventory, Available soil salvage volume is then calculated as the product of: 1 ) the area of the map

unit; 2) the percent of each component comprising that map unit; and 3) the salvage depth,

summed over all the components and all map

units (see table 6-5). Salvageable soil volume

estimates are then divided by the area to be reclaimed to get the average thickness of soil redressing.

This method, although easily accomplished,

may not maximize salvage volumes. One reason

is that the limiting criterion often is linked with

an observable trait that can be described to the

equipment operator (e. g., color). At the Navajo

mine in northwestern New Mexico, for instance,

an intensive soil analysis and mapping program

conducted in 1973 resulted in topdressing material being mapped initially as 12 distinct groups

of soils based on standard agronomic diagnostic

criteria. Then soil color and texture (measured

by feel) were shown to correlate highly with salinity, infiltration, and permeability, and the soils

classification system was simplified to identify

only those specific diagnostic properties that were

directly related to what was known to be the most

growth-limiting factor: effective moisture. By

1978, through continued analysis and observation of vegetative response, the original 12 groups

of soils had been reduced to 3 (1 2).

A more quantitative methodology that weights

limiting parameters may allow greater recovery

of marginal soils in situations where soil volume

is deficient, or maximization of soil quality where

quantities are adequate (see box 6-L). This system is complicated and requires technical judgment for implementation. Moreover, unless the

selection criteria and the weighting factors for the

limiting parameters are well documented, use of

the system may be subject to criticism during permitting.
194 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 6.4.—Topsoil Unsuitability Criteria by State

Montana North Dakota

(DSL 1983) New Mexico (PSC, 1983) Wyoming

Parameter (lift 2 only) (MMD 1984) (lift 2 only) (DEQ 1984)

pH acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <5.5 <6.0 none given <5.0

pH alkaline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >8.5 >9.0 none given >9.0

EC (mmhos/cm). . . . . . . . . . . . . >4.0-8.0 >16.0 >4.0 >12.0

Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . excessively clayey, none given none given none given

silty or sandy

CaC03% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . none given none given none given none given

Sat% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 250/o none given none given none given

> 850/o

SAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >11.0 12.0 >10.0 15.0

>14.0 >15.0 >12.0

depending >20.0 depending

on texture depending on texture

on texture

ESP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >15.0 none given none given none given

>18.0

depending

on texture

B >5.0 ppm >5.0 ppm none given >5.0 ppm

>0.1 ppm >0.5ppm none given >0.1 ppm

Coarse fragments (% volume). . >35% none given none given >350/0

SOURCE:James P. Walsh & Associates, “Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal Mine Reclamation,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985,

As a further check on the reliability of the annual salvage volume estimates, some operators

conduct an annual accounting of soil volumes.

The volume of soils in stockpiles, the volume salvaged during the year and where it went (i. e.,

new stockpile, existing pile, or redressing), volumes redressed on reclaimed land and where it

came from, and the volume remaining to be salvaged and the remaining area to be redressed,

are calculated. This is referred to as the “soil budget,” and provides a constant check on the reliability of presalvage estimates. Each year stripping

depths are reevaluated and the salvage plan finetuned based on new data from ongoing salvage

operations and on the results of monitoring the

soil budget.

Salvage volumes usually can be estimated with

sufficient accuracy for mine planning using the

initial baseline data. However, due to the necessarily low density of sample sites in a baseline

survey, it is possible to have a significant error.

At one Montana mine, for example, the baseline

soil survey delineated a foot of suitable topsoil

in one area of approximately 1,000 acres (a small

percentage of the total mine acreage). Subsequently the soil in this area was found to be suitable to only 4 inches due to a limiting chemical

factor, representing a 67-percent reduction over

the initial estimate.l9

For actual salvage or annual volume calculations, more intensive soil-surveying methods are

needed. For 5-year planning, the density of transects and sample points is increased to achieve

better than 90-percent confidence in the predicted salvage volumes for that specific area. Annual planning is based on analysis of daily sampling and staking data to achieve better than

95-percent confidence in the volume estimates

in order to maximize the efficiency of the soil

stockpiling and replacement program and to

avoid an unforeseen shortage and consequent expensive special handling. In fact, it is becoming

increasingly common for a soil scientist to accompany equipment operators to ensure full recovery of the redressable soil material. Another approach is to leave soil pillars at roughly 200-foot

intervals for inspection by agency and qualified

mine personnel as a further check on the completeness of the salvage program.

There is a trend among larger mine operators

to digitize soil inventory data and use computer

19See case study mine D in reference 27.
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques • 195

>

Y -

1-

.—

0 0 0

l=nl o

v - 0

I
[page omitted]

This page was originally printed on a dark gray background.

The scanned version of the page was almost entirely black and not usable.
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques . 197

software to analyze the data and to update the

estimates of available soil volumes on a daily or

weekly basis. This level of sophistication is especially useful at mines with daily staking and sampling programs, where otherwise there would be

some question about whether or not the data

were being fully utilized.

The principal model for predicting the success

of soil reclamation is an informal analysis of spoil

quality and soil thickness. Research in the five

States on production, cover, rooting depth, and

plant quality as a function of soil thickness over

spoil with various characteristics has been used

to develop guidelines for factors that affect optimum soil thickness for revegetation. These factors are: vegetation type, soil and spoil quality,

landscape position, and average annual precipitation. Table 6-6 summarizes some of the published research on soil thickness requirements,

and illustrates the concept that soil depth must

increase as spoil quality decreases. To evaluate

proposed soil reconstruction plans, regulatory authorities use a qualitative analysis that compares

predicted spoil characteristics, redressed soil

quality, and average precipitation. The informal

model illustrated in figure 6-7 was developed for

evaluating reclamation plans in the high-desert

Southwest. This model is useful because it allows

formulation of site-specific recommendations for

soil reconstruction, rather than blanket requirements for soil thickness.

Designing Hydrologic Reclamation20

In designing hydrologic and sediment control

structures and restored surface drainage systems,

it is necessary first to estimate the peak and low

flows. As discussed previously, this can be accomplished with statistical methods if sufficient

historical data are available; otherwise statistical

or deterministic models are used. The USGS multiple regression equations (Log-Pearson Type Ill

distribution method) are especially useful in predicting peak flood flows for sizing culverts and

ditches at coal mines, and have officially been

approved for this use by at least one State regulatory authority (Wyoming).

2 0 U “[e~~ othewi5e noted, material in this section is adapted from

reference 30.

The numerous permit applications reviewed for

this study revealed that many operators are using

computers to calculate rainfall-runoff for use in

the design of hydraulic structures. Programs in

common use are: TR-20 (21), TRIHYDRO (30),

and SEDIMOT II (32). Input and output from the

TRIHYDRO model are illustrated in figure 6-8.

The TR-20 model was used at one case study

mine in North Dakota to quantify the loss of water

storage and the resulting increase in area streamflow for wetlands that would not be restored after mining.21 The program SEDIMOT II can be

used to predict the runoff and sediment response

of a watershed to a particular rainfall event. It is

similar to the first two models, and is thus useful

in the design of sediment control structures.

Where in-house computer capability is not

available, deterministic modeling can be applied

indirectly through the use of technical reports

based on models, These reports enable users to

obtain approximate runoff for a precipitation

event using a family of curves developed for steep

or mild slopes within a hydrologic region. One

such report is used extensively by operators in

Colorado to design sedimentation ponds and size

culverts and ditches (22,23).

Deterministic rainfall-runoff models have several advantages over other methods of estimating peak flows and runoff volumes in the design

of hydrologic control structures. They can be

used to compare runoff from a given precipitation event for conditions before, during, and after mining. Also, because they utilize precipitation as a direct input they fulfill the common

regulatory requirement for the determination of

a runoff hydrography for a designated precipitation event (e.g., the 10-year, 24-hour storm used

for the design of sedimentation ponds). Finally,

rainfall-runoff models can be used to compute

a complete runoff hydrography rather than merely

a peak discharge and total runoff volume.

As noted previously, however, the results of deterministic models can be unreliable. Additionally, there appears to be no general consensus

among regulatory personnel on a preferred method, and selection of a particular method depends

on the capabilities or preferences of the individZlsee case study rnitle C in reference 30.
198 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 6-6.—Summary of Some Topsoil Depth Research

Overburden Topsoil Land use Optimal

quality quality or vegetation Region depth Comments

No adverse Nonsaline, Cool season Eastern No soil required It appears that in some areas of the

properties, nonsodic, grasses Powder Northern Great Plains spoil is equal to

similar to soil loamy River soil in its ability to support plant

Basin product ion

— — Wheat Colstrip Greater than 4 to 8 in. adequate

MT 4 in.

Slightly saline — Wheat grain N D 6 in. No higher yields on thicker topsoils

Goo d — Row crops — 6 in. minimum May not be significant in later years

Slightly sodic — Annual crops N D 12 in. —

Poor Loamy Northern 12 in. May be adequate if the mine soils

SAR =20-30 1:1 clays — Great physical characteristic prevent upward

Plains salt migration

Orphan mine — — Southern 12-18 in. “Satisfactory” cover not obtained unoverburden WY less 12 to 18 in.

NW Colorado — Wheat; — 18 in. (or more) Yields increased from O to 18 in. optioverburden intermediate mum may have been greater

wheatgrass

Slightly saline Nonsaline, Cool season WY, MT, 20 in. optimal Native plants require slightly more;

nonsodic, grasses ND optimal depth increases in wet years

loamy

Sodic — Wheat grain ND 20-28 in. Yields did not increase when thickness

exceeded 20 to 28 in.

Medium Good topsoil — ND 24-30 in. Landscape position as important as

EC <6 depth; 12 in. topsoil over 12 to 18 in.

SAR <12 subsoil

Slightly saline — Wheat, straw, ND 25 in. or more Increased with each application of soil

corn thickness

Sodic Good topsoil Crested wheat Central 28-36 in. Best results when topsoil was over

SAR =25 slightly saline and native ND optimal subsoil; 8 in. topsoil over <8 in.

dispersed sodic subsoil grass; alfalfa subsoil

spring wheat

— — Native grass WY 28-42 in. Low precipitation regimes; 4 to 6 in.

topsoil over 24 to 36 in. subsoil

— — — — Greater than Maximum production with thin soil

30-40 in. layer

Sodic SAR Nonsaline, Cool season MT and 32 in. Annual and species variations can

28 clayey nonsodic, grasses ND range from 28 to 37 in.

loamy

Coarse Good topsoil — ND 36-42 in. 12 in. topsoil over 24 to 30 in. subsoil

EC <6,

SAR <12

SAR 12-20 Good topsoil — ND 36-48 in. 12 in. topsoil over 24 to 36 in. subsoil

— — Deep rooted WY 40-46 in. Higher precipitation regimes; 4 to 6 in.

crops topsoil over 36 in. subsoil

SAR >20 Good topsoil — ND 48-60 in. 12 in. topsoil over 36 to 48 in. subsoil

Strongly acid Nonsaline, Cool season WY, ND, More than Maximum yields occur at depths

ph=4.O nonsodic, grasses MT 60 in. greater than 60 in.

loamy

SOURCE: James P. Walsh & Associates, ‘Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal Mine Reclamation, ” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques ● 199

Figure 6-7.—Minesoil Construction in the High Desert Ecosystem in the Southwestern United States

Where Limited Soil and Regolith Are Available for Salvage

January 1984

P +

Coarae-textured Fin-textureda

Good topeoil Marginal topsoil unsuitable topsoil unsuitable topsoil

Good overburden

I

Marginal

overburden

Coarse-textured

unsuitable

overburden

Coarse-textured

unsuitable

overburden with

major mitigation

Fine-textured

unsuitable

overburden(a)

alf the saturation percentage is above 85 percent, the problems and attenuate risks will be even more severe

SOURCE” James P. Walsh & Associates. “Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal Mine Reclamation, ” contractor report

to OTA, August 1985.

ual performing the calculations. Conflicts do arise

between the regulatory authority and the operator over the validity of the estimate, on which

much of the surface water engineering design is

based. To avoid these conflicts and the potential for expensive redesign, and to avoid the property damage and loss of life that couId result from

failure of a structure due to underdesign, most

operators are intentionally conservative in their

calculations.

Design of Hydrologic and

Sedimentation Control Structures

Techniques for the design of hydrologic control structures and sediment control facilities have

changed very little since promulgation of final

rules and regulations under SMCRA. There is an

increasing use of computers in design, and there

has been a gradual standardization of runoff and

sediment estimating techniques toward the SCS

triangular hydrography technique and the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), respectively.22

Whether designing sediment ponds, or planning alternative sediment control measures, it is

necessary to estimate the amount of sediment

that will erode from a watershed and be subject

to transport downstream during a precipitation

event. Most operators use some form of the SCS

triangular hydrography technique to compute the

10-year 24-hour runoff volume, and some estimate of gross erosion, together with an appropriate sediment delivery ratio, to estimate sediment accumulation. In the absence of site-specific

data (the usual case), the most widely accepted

method for estimating gross erosion is the USLE.

With limited available data for input, the strength

of the method lies in its ability to provide relallExamples of application of the SCS triangular hydrography and

of the USLE can be found in case studies E, Q, S, and T in reference 30.
200 ● Western Suface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Figure 6-8.—Example of Input and Output for TRIHYDRO Rainfall-Runoff Model

SAMPLE INPUT SESSION:

ENTER TITLE FOR THIS STUDY

Sample Watershed, 1O-YR 24-HR storm

Drainage area in square miles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 0.68

Watercourse length in miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 2.00

Elevation difference in feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 195,0

Curve number (CN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 75

Minimum infiltration rate (in/hr). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 0.24

Adjusted precipitation (inches) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 2.99

ARE ALL VALUES OK? (Type N or carriage return)

INPUT OPTIONS

NOW YOU MUST SELECT A DESIGN PRECIPITATION

DISTRIBUTION. YOU MAY SELECT EITHER A DEFAULT

DISTRIBUTION OR INPUT YOUR OWN.

DEFAULT DISTRIBUTION SELECTIONS:

-1,-1 . . . . . . . .USBR 6-HR General storm, Zone C,

Extended to 10 hrs-use for PHP

-2,-2 . . . . . . . .USBR 1-HR Thunderstorm, Zone Ill

-3,-3 . . . . . . . . USBR 24-HR General Storm, Zone C

-4,-4 . . . . . . . . USBR 24-HR General storm, Zone B

-5,-5 . . . . . . . . USBR 1-HR Thunderstorm, Zone II

-6,-6 . . . . . . . .SCS TYPE II 24-HR General storm

-7,-7 . . . . . . . . USBR 6-HR General storm, Zone B

-8,-8 . . . . . . . . USBR 6-HR General storm, Zone C

-9,-9 . . . . . . . . SCS TYPE II 6-HR General storm

-10, -10.... . . SCS TYPE I 24-HR General storm

-11, -11..., . .SCS TYPE I 6-HR General storm

Enter one of the above default distributions or type in a new

distribution. To type in a new distribution give the time in

hours and the percent of the precipitation that has fallen by

that time. Each pair of data (i.e., each time increment and percent value) is followed by a carriage return, Both the time

increments and the percentage values must be in ascending order or an error will result. Percent values are given as

whole numbers (i.e., 10.4 = 10.4 percent). Terminate with 0,0

(carriage return)

-3,-3

SAMPLE SUMMARY OUTPUT

SAMPLE WATERSHED, 1O-YR 24-HR STORM

BASIN CHARACTERISTICS:

Drainage area (sq.mi.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 0.680

Stream length (mi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 2.000

Elevation difference (ft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 195.00

Runoff curve number (CN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 75,00

Minimum infiltration loss (in/hr) . . . . . . . . . . . = 0.240

PRECIPITATION FOR SPECIFIED STORM:

Adjusted precipitation for selected storm. . . = 2.99

UNIT HYDROGRAPHY PARAMETERS

Unadjusted time of concentration (hr) . . . . . . = 0.76

Adjusted time of concentration (hr) . . . . . . . . = 0.91

Duration of excess rainfall, D (hr). . . . . . . . . . = 0.12

Time to peak (hr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 0.61

Base time (hr). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 1.62

QPEAK (peak flow in CFS for

unit hydrography) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 541.6

RESULTANT HYDROGRAPHY VALUES

Peak discharge (CFS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 78.79

Runoff volume (acre-feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 7.36

Time to peak discharge (hr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 10.41

USED: 24-HOUR GENERAL STORM, ZONE C

DESCRIPTION OF INPUT DATA VALUES

DRAINAGE AREA IN SQUARE MI LES—Planimetered from

the largest topographic map available.

STREAM LENGTH IN MILES—Length of longest watercourse

from the point of interest to the watershed divide, measured from the best topographic map available.

ELEVATION DIFFERENCE IN FEET—Determined by subtracting the elevation at the point of interest from the elevation at the watershed divide where the stream length was

determined, elevations taken from the best topographic

map available.

CURVE NUMBER (CN)–Dimensionless index developed by

the SCS to represent the combined hydrologic effect of

soil, land use, agricultural land treatment class, hydrologic condition, and antecedent soil moisture. Taken from

Hydrology, section 4, National Engineering Handbook, Soil

Conservation Service (1972).

MINIMUM INFILTRATION RATE (in/hr)-Minimum infiltration

rate for the soils in the drainage area. Estimated using Design of Small Dams, United States Bureau of Reclamation

(1977).

ADJUSTED PRECIPITATION (inches)—The rainfall amount

associated with desired recurrence interval. Estimated using NOAA Atlas 2, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the

Western States.

DESIGN PRECIPITATION DISTRIBUTION—Within-storm distribution of rainfall selected from 1 of the 11 distributions

provided in the program or entered by the user.

OUTPUT OPTIONS

1. Summary Output (always provided)

2. Summary of Intermediate Calculations (optional)

3. Data Describing Individual Triangular Hydrography for

the Runoff Period Only (optional)

4. Tabulation of the Resultant Runoff Hydrography

(optional)

HYDROGRAPHY EXAMPLE

(Plotted using the runoff hydrography table output from

TRIHYDRO)

RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHY

(Sample watershed, 10.yr 24.hr storm)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-80 10.0 12.0

Time (hrs)

SOURCE: Reference 29.
., .   .  ,

tive rather than absolute estimates for comparison of alternative projects.

Design of sediment control structures requires

calculation of the runoff response of the watershed to a specified precipitation event using one

of the flood-estimating techniques discussed previously, and of the sediment yield, normaily using

the USLE. A computer program, SEDIMOT II, has

been developed specifically for this purpose (see

box 6-M); it allows rapid, accurate analysis in

simulating larger areas in greater detail and over

shorter time steps than is possible with hand calculations (32). In the example in box 6-M, an extensive monitoring program was instituted to determine the effectiveness of the various control

techniques (see also ch. 8, box 8-B). The additional monitoring data also could be used to calibrate the model, since an initial data insufficiency

did not allow calibration of the model to each

of the separate drainages evaluated.

Design of Restored Surface

Drainage Systems

individual site characteristics will determine

whether restoration of stream channels is a simple matter of reestablishing premining channel

slopes, cross-sections and bed form, or whether

a complete analysis of the pre- and postmining

drainage basins must be undeflaken to reconstruct an entire drainage system on the reclaimed

surface (see ch. 3). Several approaches have been

developed toward restoration of the surface

drainage system. Selection of the approach depends on the experience and preference of the

operator (or permit applicant), the desires of the

regulatory personnel reviewing the application,

and the site characteristics” In the permit applications examined for this assessment, OTA found

that the amount of detail in the designs of reclaimed surface water drainage systems ranged

from almost none to very elaborate designs based

on geomorphic and hydraulic studies (see box 6-N).
202 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

In the simplest case, where mining only removes a portion of a channel, the reclaimed segment design is made by direct field measurement

of channel cross sections and profiles, and then

duplication of the undisturbed channel cross section, longitudinal profile, and sinuosity. If the

channel is alluvial, data are required on bedmaterial size and gradation to assure maintainance of adequate sediment transport rates and

channel stability.

The advent of computers, especially personal

computers, and readily available software for applications such as rainfall-runoff computations

and water surface profile calculations, have

added to the operator’s abilities to prepare and

analyze site-specific channel properties. This increases the assurance that well-designed, restored

drainage systems will be erosionally stable. Design is aided by the use of computerized watersurface profile analysis programs (e.g., HEC-2, developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

Predicted velocities from successive postmining

channel designs are compared to those found under undisturbed conditions until a channel geometry is found that meets all of the design goals.

Data requirements for this type of hydraulic analysis are not extensive, and include only the data

from the field survey of the channel and those

data necessary to compute or select design-discharge levels and cross-sections and profiles.

Mines that cover large areas or contain relatively small watersheds often must reconstruct entire drainage basins. Where the overburden to

coal ratio is very large or very small, the postmining drainage basin characteristics may differ substantially from the premining characteristics, further complicating the design problem (see ch. 3).

Many operators base their reclamation plan in

part on a quantitative geomorphologic analysis

of the premining drainage system, and attempt

to apply relationships determined from this analysis to the design of the restored system. Hydrologists and engineers work together to create a

new “steady state” by manipulating the surface,

slope, and channel configuration so that the

newly formed system will be approximately in

equilibrium with respect to erosion and sediment

transportation processes. The most important design parameters are channel longitudinal profiles,

drainage density, and channel and floodplain

cross-sectional geometry.

Review of mine plans has revealed an encouraging trend toward a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to the design of restored surface drainage systems, Operators are combining

the concepts of quantitative geomorphology with

rainfall-runoff hydrology and detailed hydraulic

analyses to develop plans for the restoration of

erosionally stable channels and watersheds. The

importance of this aspect of reclamation is becoming increasingly apparent as reclamation proceeds and problems in channel stability are beginning to appear at some mines. Considering

that the performance bond evaluation period is

relatively short in comparison to the frequency

of design flow events for restored surface drainages, it would be difficult to judge the success

of surface drainage restoration within the bond

release period. Evaluation of drainage restoration

will have to be based to a large extent on the design in the reclamation plan, which underscores

the importance of the correct application of the

analytical techniques that produce that design.

Design and Reclamation of

Alluvial Valley Floors23

in general, the analytical procedures for AVFS

are similar to those used in non-AVF areas, but

are applied more intensively. In AVF areas, monitoring and data collection are more concentrated

spatially and temporally, and the results are reviewed more rigorously by regulatory authorities

due to statutory protections for AVFS. Hydrologic

studies of AVF areas are unique in that, by law,

they are required to analyze the relationships between hydrologic conditions in surface and groundwaters and in land use, soil characteristics and

vegetative productivity. I n addition, most mine

permit applications provide a thorough assessment of the geomorphic and erosional characteristics of the valley floor, if it is to be physically

disturbed. To assess the special relationships in

AVF areas, most permit applications attempt to

quantify the variables of the hydrologic budget

of the valley floor.

zJUnless othe~ise indicated, the material in this section is adapted

from reference 30.
Ch. 6—Analytical Techniques ● 203

Analytical techniques used to predict the impacts of mining on AVFS and to demonstrate that

the essential hydrologic functions will be restored

are simiIar to those previously described for surface and groundwater investigations. Special

functions of AVFS that must be determined premining include the interchange of water between

the surface stream and the alluvial aquifer and

between the alluvial aquifer and bedrock aquifers; the depth to the alluvial water table and the

soil texture above the water table; and water

quality in the stream and alluvium. In planning

for the restoration of AVFS, attention is focused

on channel and floodplain geometry and erosional stabiIity, and alIuvial aquifer depth, thickness,

and water-storing and transmitting capabilities

(transmissivity and storage coefficient).

At a mine in Wyoming, potential alluvial drawdowns were predicted using a well-field simulation

model.24 Use of this model required assumptions

z~s~~ Case study m Ine J I n reference 30.

CHAPTER 6

1.

2.

3.

4.

5,

Bachmat, Yehuda, et al., “Groundwater Management: The Use of Numerical Model s,” American

Geophysical Union, Water Resources Monograph

5, 1980.

Cedar Creek Associates, Wi/d/ife Technologies for

Western Surface Coa/ Mining, contractor report

to OTA, August 1985.

Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, persona] communication, June 1985.

Davis, Robert E., in cooperation with the Bureau

of Land Management and the Montana Bureau of

Mines and Geology, Geochemistry and Geohydrology of the West Decker and Big Sky Coalmining Areas, Southeastern Montana, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 84-4225, February 1984.

Doll hopf, D.)., et al., Se/ective FYacernent of Strip

Mine Overburden in Montana, Summary Repo<,

U.S. Bureau of Mines, contract #H0262032, 1981.

6. Faust, C. R., and Mercer, J. W., “Ground-water

Modeling: An Overview, ” Ground Water, vol. 18,

No. 2, 1980, PP. 108-115.

7. Faust, C. R., and Mercer, J. W., “Ground-water

Modeling: Mathematical Models,” Ground Water,

VOI. 18, No. 3, 1980, PP. 212-227 .

of the alleviated valley width, aquifer-specific

yield, and dewatered aquifer length. The volume

of water extracted in the dewatered alluvium was

compared to flood flows in the intermittent channel. This evaluation indicated that “any moderate-sized flood event wouId totally recharge the

dewatered material.” The postmining monitoring program includes detailed plans to support

this contention.

The criteria for premining evaluation of the essential hydrologic functions of AVFS are generally standardized among the regulatory agencies

of the Western States. These same criteria are also

applied, postmining, in evaluating the success of

AVF reclamation (see ch. 7). The criteria are

based on accepted engineering and hydrogeoIogic principles, and the probable success of

reclaiming AVFS generally is viewed with confidence. As with hydrologic restoration in non-AVF

areas, however, in some instances it may be

many years or decades until reclamation success

in AVF areas can be finally assessed.

8.

9.

10.

11

12.

13.

Faust, C. R., and Mercer, J. W., “Ground-water

Modeling: Numerical Models, ” Ground Water,

VOI. 18, No. 4, 1980, pp. 395-409.

Faust, C. R., and Mercer, J. W., “Ground-water

Modeling: Applications, ” Ground Water, vol. 18,

No. 5, 1980, Pp. 486-497.

Faust, C. R., and Mercer, J. W., “Ground-water

Modeling: Recent Developments, ” Ground

Water, vol. 18, No. 6, 1980, pp. 569-577.

Groenewold, G. H., et al., Geo/ogica/ and Geochemical Controls on the Chemical Evolution of

Subsurface Water in Undisturbed and Surfacemined Landscapes in Western North Dakota,

North Dakota Geological Survey, report of investigation No. 79, 1983.

Grogan, S., et al., “Conventional Wisdom in 1975

and the Real World in 1978 i n Surface Mine Land

Reclamation at the Navajo Mine, ” Eco/ogy and

Coa/ Resource Development, M.K. Wali (cd.)

(New York: Pergamon Press, 1978).

Kirk, K., and McIntosh, G., Ground Water Modeling by Use of OSM Modified Prickett Lonnquist

Ground Water Mode/, U.S. Department of the interior, Office of Surface Mining, training seminar,

1984.
204 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

14. Linsley, R. K., et al., Hydro/ogy for Engineers (New

York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1958).

15. Moran, S. R., et al., Geologic, Hydrologic, and

Geochemical Concepts and Techniques in Overburden Characterization for Mined-land Reclamation, North Dakota Geological Survey, report of

investigation No. 63, 1978.

16. National Research Council, Soi/, Coa/ and Society (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1981 ).

17. Office of Surface Mining, Western Technical Center, personal communication, May 1985.

18. Packer, P. E., et al., Mode/s to Estimate Revegetation Potentials of Land Surface Mined for Coal in

the West, general technical report INT-123 (Ogden, UT: U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1982).

19. Prickett, T. A., and Lonnquist, C. G., Selected Digital Computer Techniques for Groundwater Resource Evacuation, State of Illinois Department of

Registration and Education, State Water Survey

Bulletin 55, 1971.

20. Stoecker, R. E., et al., Evaluation of Wildlife Mitigation practices at Western Coal Operations, draft

report to Office of Surface Mining, contract

#J51 20045 (Bouider, CO: Thorne Ecological institute, 1984).

21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, “Computer Program for Project Formulation–Hydrology; Users Manual With Supporting Documentation, ” technical release No. 20,

May 1965.

22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, “Procedures for Determining Peak Flows

in Colorado, ” supplements and incorporates SCS

technical release No. 55, Urban Hydrology for

Small Watersheds, 1977.

23. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, “’Runoff and Yield Determination,” technical notes No. 18 (Casper, WY: 1971).

24. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, personal communication, June 1985.

25. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, personal communication to Western Water

Consuhants, January 1985.

26. Van Voast, W. A., and Thompson, K. S., Estimates of

Post-mining Water Quality for the Upper Tongue

River, Montana and Wyoming, Montana Bureau

of Mines and Geology, hydrogeologic map 5,

1982.

27. Walsh, James P., & Associates, Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal Mine

Reclamation, contractor report to OTA, August

1985.

28. Western Resource Development Corp., and Dr.

J. Bunin, Revegetation Technology and Issues at

Western Surface Coa/ Mines, contractor report to

OTA, September 1985.

29. Western Water Consultants, Computer Program

TRIHYDRO for Computation of Rainfall Runoff

Using SCS Triangular Hydrography Technique as

Adapted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1984.

30. Western Water Consultants, Hydrologic Evacuation and Reclamation Technologies for Western

SurLace Coa/ Mining, contractor report to OTA,

August 1985.

31. Wilson, B. N., et al., SEDIMOT II–A Hydrology

and Sedimentology Watershed Model, EPA Project KYO121 2 (University of Kentucky, Department

of Agricultural Engineering: 1980).

32. Woods, P. F., Modeled Impacts of Surface Coal

Mining on Dissolved solids in the Tongue River,

Southeastern Montana, U.S. Geological Survey,

Water Resources Investigation 81-64, 1981.

33. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,

Land Quality Division, “Cumulative Hydrologic

Impact Assessment for Surface Coal Mines Located

North of Gillette, Wyoming, ” in Carter Rawhide

Mine Technical Environmenta/ Assessment, 1984.

34. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,

Land Quality Division, personal communication,

June 1985.

35. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,

Land Quality Division, personal communication

to Western Water Consultants, January 1985.
Chapter 7

Standards and Methods

for Evaluating the

Success of Reclamation
Contents

Page

Chapter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Performance Bonds and the Bond Release Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Standards and Methods Used To Judge Reclamation Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Types of Standards: Performances. Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Federal and State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

State Experience With Reclamation Evaluation and Bond Release . . . . . . . . . . . 222

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Chapter7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

List of Tables

Table No. Page

7-1. Selected Performance Requirements and Standards in SMCRA . . . . . . . . . . 210

7-2. State Revegetation performance Standards by Land Use Category . . . . . . . 212

7-3. Maximum Recommended Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations

in Water for Various Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

7-1. Reference Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

7-2. Control Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Chapter 7

Standards and Methods for Evaluating

the Success of Reclamation

CHAPTER

Few aspects of the process for evaluating the

success of reclamation have been firmly established under the Federal and State regulatory

programs, leaving many uncertainties and issues. None of the five States examined during this

assessment has established bond release criteria

for Phases II and Ill. Most existing evaluation techniques and standards which the States could draw

on to develop Phase II and I I I criteria have serious limitations. These limitations are particularly

problematic in revegetation and hydrology–the

two areas emphasized in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) performance

standards.

To date, no method for evaluating revegetation adequately addresses both changes over

time and spatial diversity over a large area.

There is general agreement that revegetation

standards should accommodate the climatic and

temporal variations that affect all aspects of vegetation. However, the most widespread method

for doing this–reference areas–assumes that

vegetation on a few acres wiII vary in the same

manner as, and thus can adequately represent,

vegetation over thousands of acres.

Evaluation of hydrologic restoration is even

more unclear. Although the SMCRA performance

standards emphasize hydrology, most reclamation evaluations have focused on revegetation

success. As a result, neither operators nor regulatory authorities have much experience with

applying hydrologic success standards, and the

few standards currently in place are of questionable practicality. The greatest uncertainties in

evaluation of hydrologic restoration are insurmountable, and will simply have to be recognized in the evaluation process. The hundreds

of years predicted to be necessary for resaturation of many spoils-aquifers in the West make it

OVERVIEW

impractical to actually measure spoils water quality. Therefore, evaluations will have to be made

with incomplete knowledge and available predictive tooIs. Similarly, some reconstructed surface

drainage systems are unlikely to experience peak

flow events during the liability period, and predictive techniques and design criteria must be used

to evaluate these drainages.

There also is uncertainty about whether successful revegetation and hydrologic restoration

are sufficiently reliable indicators of success for

soils, overburden, and wildlife. Of particular

concern is the time factor involved i n spoi Is oxidation and the potential for deleterious overburden material to cause problems in the root zone

after regraded spoils sampling.

Legal questions about liability under the mix

of performance and design standards currently

used by regulatory authorities are unresolved. If

regulatory authorities require a certain reclamation design, and that design fails, are operators

still liable for repairing the reclamation failure?

A recent slump in Colorado (see below) raises this

question.

I n addition, there are practical questions about

the relative effectiveness of performance and design standards. Performance standards better encourage innovation and selection of the most

cost-effective reclamation methods. However,

they also have a greater potential for reclamation

failure if innovation is not conducted responsibly and if monitoring data are not routinely used

to track and modify new practices. On the other

hand, while design standards seem to provide

greater protection against failures and operator

irresponsibility, they can stifle innovation and

may not ensure achievement of the desired performance.

207
208 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

PERFORMANCE BONDS AND THE BOND RELEASE PROCESS

SMCRA requires that surface mined lands be

restored to a condition capable of supporting the

premining land uses or to higher or better uses

(24). All of the data collection and analysis conducted by operators and regulators described in

the preceding chapters is directed toward meeting this requirement. This chapter examines the

criteria and methods used to judge the success

of reclamation efforts.

The Federal regulations define “reclamation”

as “those actions taken to restore mined land as

required by this chapter to a postmining land use

approved by the regulatory authority”(l7). The

basic reclamation requirements in the Federal

regulations provide only a general outline of reclamation performance standards, however; they

can rarely be applied without substantial interpretation and refinement by State regulatory authorities. This fits with the intent of SMCRA, that

the primary governmental responsibility for regulating surface mining and reclamation should

rest with the States (see ch. 4) (23).

In order to receive a surface mining permit

under SMCRA, operators must put up a performance bond. A bond may either cover an entire

permit area or may be filed in increments as the

mine progresses. The amount of the bond is set

by the regulatory authority and must be sufficient

to pay for completion of the reclamation plan in

the event of forfeiture. For the very large surface

mines prevalent in the West, this usually means

bonds of millions of dollars.

In practice, evaluation of reclamation success

has become virtually synonymous with bond release. Therefore, the procedures for bond release

outlined in SMCRA have shaped the way reclamation success is evaluated. Instead of keeping

the entire bond until reclamation has been judged

a complete success, which would be financially

burdensome for an operator, the Act provides for

a phased release of the bond in portions that reflect the operator’s reclamation costs (25). The

phases of bond release described in SMCRA are:

● phase I: When an operator completes the

backfilling, regrading, and drainage control

of a bonded area in accordance with the ap-

●

●

proved reclamation plan, he may apply for

the release of up to 60 percent of the bond

for that area. Topsoiling maybe required for

the release of this phase, at the regulatory

authority’s discretion.

Phase II: A second portion of the bond may

be released after vegetation has been established on the regraded mined lands and

those lands are not contributing suspended

solids to streamflow or runoff outside of the

permit area in excess of the regulatory requirements. The amount of this second release usually is 15 to 25 percent. The precise amount is left to the discretion of the

State regulatory authority, which must retain

a sufficient amount of the bond to cover the

cost of hiring a third party to reestablish vegetation should the operator forfeit.

Phase III: The remaining bond monies are

released only after the operator has successfully completed all surface coal mining and

reclamation activities in accordance with

regulatory requirements and with his permit.

SMCRA specifies that, in areas where the

average annual precipitation is less than 26

inches (virtually all of the study area), the operator must assume responsibility and liability for successful revegetation for 10 years

after the last year of augmented seeding,

fertilizing, irrigating, or other work. Final

success evaluation and final bond release

cannot occur until this liability period has

elapsed.

To date, none of the five State regulatory authorities has formulated criteria for all phases

of bond release. Moreover, because permitting

and bonding under SMCRA only began in the West

in 1979 and 1980, very few operators are sufficiently advanced in their reclamation activities

to apply for any type of bond release. There have

been a few Phase I releases (discussed further below), but no Phase II or final releases of any bonds

posted under SMCRA. In the next few years, however, more and more operators will be filing for

release of various portions of their bonds. Regulatory authorities will then have to decide whether they need to develop more specific criteria for
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation ● 209

evaluating reclamation. Preliminary indications

are that criteria will differ significantly among the

States, depending on environmental and mining

conditions and regulatory philosophies.

The State regulatory authorities are drawing up

standards for judging reclamation as those standards are needed. By waiting until applications for

bond release are submitted, the regulatory authorities hope to incorporate more of the reclamation experience they are rapidly gaining into

their criteria and evaluations. This means, however, that operators must proceed on the assumption that bond release criteria will be the same

as the revegetation and other performance and

design standards in SMCRA and the regulatory

programs. Regulators’ flexibility to establish

more detailed criteria may be limited by approved reclamation plans that establish de facto

criteria on a case-by-case basis.

STANDARDS AND METHODS USED TO

JUDGE RECLAMATION SUCCESS

Without approved bond release criteria for

reclamation parameters beyond Phase I backfilling and grading, and without any examples

of Phase II or Phase III bond release, a definitive assessment of the bond release process cannot be undertaken. A preliminary assessment of

the methods for evaluating reclamation success

can be made, however, based on the Federal

and State performance standards.

It is reasonable to assume that specific criteria

for reclamation success will be based on the performance standards, and that the methods used

to evaluate reclamation will be similar to those

developed by technical specialists in the various

reclamation disciplines for use in research and

in the development of mining and reclamation

plans. This section reviews the types of reclamation standards and success evaluation methods

available, their advantages and disadvantages,

and their use by the different State regulatory authorities. The following section describes the

States’ experience to date in applying these standards to actual bond release situations.

Types of Standards:

Performance vs. Design

There are two broad categories of success standards—performance standards and design standards. Performance standards describe the features

that must be present for reclamation to be considered a success and allow the operator to

choose a means of achieving this success. Design standards dictate specific aspects or methods of mining and reclamation which, in the regulatory authority’s view, must be used to avoid

adverse health and safety or environmental impacts, A requirement that discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) from a mine site not exceed

natural premining levels is a performance standard. Requiring TSS to be controlled with sediment

ponds of a particular capacity built at specified

points on the site constitutes a design standard.

SMCRA incorporates both performance and

design standards. The latter generally are used

either for dams and other engineered structures

whose failure would pose a significant threat to

public safety and the environment, or when the

regulatory authorities’ professional staff believe

that a required level of performance can only be

achieved with a particular design. Evaluation of

compliance with design standards is simpler, because it is a straightforward engineering assessment of whether the design has been executed

properly. However, reliance on design standards

carries with it the risk, albeit small in most cases,

that the mitigation designs specified by the regulatory authority might not prove adequate in all

cases,

Federal and State Standards

Section 515 of SMCRA contains minimum general performance standards from which more

specific success standards are being formulated

and implemented by the States (see ch. 4). Table
210 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

7-1 lists the most important of these performance

standards for Western reclamation. As the table

indicates, SMCRA requires:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

restoration of the land’s approximate original contour (AOC);1 

stabilization of the surface against erosion;

salvage and protection of topsoil, with special requirements for prime farmlands;

minimization of disturbance to the hydrologic balance, including maintenance of water

quality, restoration of the essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors (AVFS),

and restoration of aquifer recharge capacity;

protecting revegetation and postmining

water quality from acid-, alkaline- and toxicforming overburden;

establishment of a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety native to the area and capable

of plant succession and regeneration; and

assumption of responsibility for successful

revegetation for a period of 10 years after

completion of work on the area.

The Federal regulations interpret and supplement these legislative requirements (see ch. 4).

Many of the Federal regulations simply restate requirements in SMCRA. Additional performance

and design standards in the regulations address:

immediate topsoil replacement; design of hydrologic control structures; protection of wildlife, including threatened and endangered species; and

slope stability.

Performance and design standards developed

by the States must be at least as stringent as the

Federal standards. In the Western States, they

often are more stringent. In addition, the standards and criteria developed by State regulatory

authorities have to fill in a number of gaps in the

Federal regulations, which deliberately leave some

important success evaluation decisions up to the

States, particularly the revegetation standards.

‘The act allows exceptions to this requirement for mines where

it may not be compatible with the postmining land use, and for

those with thin or thick overburden.

Table 7-1.—Selected Performance Requirements

and Standards in SMCRA

General: Restore the land affected to a condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining, or higher or better uses of which there is reasonable likelihood.

AOC: Grade to approximate original contour (AOC) so that all highwalls, spoil piles, and depressions are eliminated (unless small

depressions are needed in order to retain moisture to assist revegetation or as otherwise authorized.

Erosion: Stabilize and protect all surface areas and effectively control erosion and attendant air and water pollution.

Topsoil: Remove topsoil in a separate layer, replace it on a backfill

area, or if not utilized immediately, segregate it in a separate pile

from other spoil and maintain a successful cover by quick-growing

pi ants or other means so that the topsoil is preserved from erosion

and protected from contamination by acid or toxic material. (if topsoil is of insufficient quantity or of poor quality for sustaining vegetation, or if other strata can be shown to be more suitable for

vegetation requirements, then the operator shall remove, segregate,

and preserve in like manner such other strata best able to support

vegetation.

Prime farmlands: For all prime farmlands, remove, segregate, and

preserve the A soil horizon separately from the B and C horizons

and replace the A horizon on top of the B and C horizons.

Hydrology: Minimize the disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic

balance at the mine-site and in associated off site areas and to the

quailty and quantity of water in surface and groundwater systems

both during and after surface coal mining operations and during

reclamation.

Acid or toxic drainage: Avoid acid or other toxic mine drainage by such

measures as, but not limited to:

1. preventing or removing water from contact with toxic producing

deposits;

2. treating drainage to reduce toxic content which adversely affects

downstream water upon being released to water courses;

3. casing, seailng, or otherwise managing boreholes, shafts, and

wells and keep acid or other toxic drainage from entering ground

and surface waters.

Surface water quailty: Prevent as far as possible additional contributions of suspended solid to streamflow, or runoff outside the permit area. in no event shall contributions be in excess of requirements

set by applicable State or Federal law. Siltation structures may be

constructed for this purpose but they must be cleaned out and removed after areas are revegetated.

Aquifer recharge: Restore recharge capacity of the mine area to approximate premining conditions.

AVFS: Preserve throughout mining and reclamation the essential

hydrologic functions of alluvial floors in the arid and semiarid areas

of the country.

Revegetation: Estabilsh on the regraded areas and on all lands affected, a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover of the

same seasonal variety native to the area of land to be affected and

capable of self-regeneration and plant succession at least equal in

extent of cover to the natural vegetation of the area; except, that

introduced species may be used in the revegetation process where

desirable and necessary to achieve the approved postmining land

use plan.

Assume responsibility for successful revegetation for a period

of 10 full years after the last year of augmented seeding, fertilizing,

irrigation, or other work in areas where the annual average precipitation is 26 inches or less (5 years where annual precipitation is

greater than 26 inches).

SOURCE: 30 CFR Parl 800.
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation • 211

The Federal and State standards emphasize

revegetation and hydrologic restoration for several reasons. First, the standards are based on an

assumption that success in these aspects of reclamation will provide indirect measurements of

success in other areas. Successful revegetation

can only be achieved if there is sufficient quantity and quality of soil material. Wildlife habitat

will be reestablished if adequate revegetation is

achieved and water quantity and quality are restored. Maintenance of acceptable water quality, particularly dissolved and suspended solids

levels, indicates that the land surface has been

stabilized and that erosion will not be a problem.

Second, vegetation and surface water are the

most accessible reclamation parameters, and

therefore the easiest to measure. Third, in most

cases, these are the parameters that most directly

affect achievement of the postmining land use.

Revegetation Standards*

Because of the emphasis on revegetation success—both historically and in SMCRA—the Federal regulations include much more specific

standards for revegetation than for other aspects

of reclamation. In particular, the regulations

require:

●

●

●

●

use of statistically valid sampling techniques

for measuring revegetation success, which

must include criteria representative of unmined lands in the area;

evaluation of revegetation cover and production by approved methods, such that these

parameters are not less than 90 percent of

the success standard;

use of tree and shrub stocking and vegetative cover standards for evaluation of success on lands whose postmining land use is

wildlife habitat; and

achievement of the relevant vegetative success standard for at least the last 2 years of

the 10-year responsibility period, without

augmentation practices not expected to continue as part of the postmining land use.

State and Federal revegetation performance

standards vary with land use (see table 7-2). For

‘Unless otherwise noted, material In this section is adapted from

references 6 and 13.

each use they must define: 1 ) what vegetation

characteristics, such as cover, production, woody

plant density and diversity, are to be evaluated;

2) what vegetation standard, such as a reference

area or an historical data standard, is to be used

to evaluate reclaimed areas; and 3) what level of

statistical comparability must be established between the reclaimed area and the standard, such

as considering cover equal if it is at least 90 percent of the standard with 90 percent statistical

confidences

Most of the lands overlying strippable coal in

the five-State region are native rangelands—lands

that support predominantly native vegetation

used to graze domestic livestock. Most of these

lands also support a variety of wildlife and therefore are considered to be wildlife habitat as well.

North Dakota is an exception in the study area

because cropland and tame pastureland have replaced most natural habitats. Vegetation parameters usually considered in judging reclamation

success on native rangelands are cover, production, diversity, and woody plant density. Other

land uses, such as mown pasture and row cropIand, are evaluated with some subset of these parameters. Methods used to collect data on these

vegetation parameters, from which evaluations

can be made, are discussed in chapter 5.

The permanence of revegetation is explicitly

evaluated only in Montana.4 In Montana, permanence is considered to have been achieved if the

revegetated area is composed of at least 51 percent native species, based on production and

canopy cover. This standard assumes that native

communities are more likely to be self-sustaining

than introduced species, which is generally true.

Revegetation evaluations emphasize these parameters because of their relevance to the postmining land use. Vegetative cover is an indicator

of the stability of the soil resource. Permanence

and net above-ground annual production are

measures of the utiIity of the vegetation for Iivestock grazing and for wildlife. Vegetative diversity generally is considered to be a measure of

jMany statistical standards of comparability were eliminated In

the 1984 revisions to the Federal regulations, in effect making them

standards of 100 percent with 100 percent confidence; see table 7-2.

4Use of a 10-year liability period addresses permanence indirectly,

but it is not clear that this alone assures permanent revegetation.
Table 7.2.—Revegetation Performance Standards by Land Use Category and State

Federal 1979 PRP Colorado Montana New Mexico North Dakota Wyoming

Native rangeland:

For the last two consecutive years of the liability

period:

● Ground cover 90% of

standard with 90% confidence or 80% confidence on shrublands;

• Productivity 90% of

standard with 90% confidence or 80% confidence on shrublands.

Diverse, effective, and permanent cover of the same

seasonal variety able to

support postmining land

use.

Wildlife habitat:

Ground cover 70% of

standard with 90% confidence.

Woody plant stocking 90%

of standard with 80%

confidence.

Ground cover diversity,

seasonality, and regeneration to be evaluated.

Cropland:

For the last two consecutive growing seasons of

the Iiabilty period:

● Production 90% of

standard with 90%

confidence.

Tame pastureland:

Same as PRP cropland.

Revegetation standard system:

Reference area or other

approved standard.

Cover and production same

as PRP rangeland.

Woody plant density same

as PRP (see PRP

wildlife).

Diversity same as PRP

wildlife.

Same as CO native

rangeland.

Same as PRP cropland.

Same as PRP cropland.

Reference area or technical

standard.

Cover and production with

same statistical measures

as PRP rangeland, but

comparison is to

weighted cover and

productivity (see text).

Woody plant density same

as PRP wildlife,

Weighted diversity (see

text) with same statistics

as diversity in PRP

rangeland.

Permanence if 51% cover

and production are native

species.

Same as MT native

rangeland.

Cover and production same Cover and production same Cover and production same

as PRP. as PRP rangeland. as PRP rangeland.

Woody plant density same Diversity same as PRP Diversity same as PRP

as PRP (see PRP rangeland. rangeland.

wildlife).

Diversity same as PRP

wildlife.

Same as PRP wildlife. Same as PRP wildlife. Same as WY native

Trees same as stocking of rangeland.

PRB wildlife, Shrub density same as

woody plant stocking in

PRP wildlife.

Same as PRP cropland. Same as PRP cropland. Same as PRP cropland. Same as PRP cropland.

Same as PRP cropland. Not applicable.

Reference area.

Cover and production same Same as PRP cropland.

as ND and PRP

rangeland.

Reference area, technical Reference area or other Reference area or control

standard, or historical standard. A technical area.

record. standard has also been

accepted.

NOTE: Only when statistical adequacy for a State is stricter than the Federal PRP is it entered in the table. Stocking has the same meaning as density.

“PRP” means Permanent Regulatory Program.

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, from Federal and State regulatory programs.
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation • 213

ecological stability and an indicator of the land’s

capability for supporting wildlife. Woody plants

contribute to habitat diversity, providing forage

and reproduction sites, protective cover, and

physical and spatial heterogeneity in the habitat.

Therefore, woody plant diversity and density are

considered a measure of reclamation success

where wildlife habitat is a postmining land use.

Success standards for these vegetation parameters are set by different methods. Cover and production usually are judged according to standards that attempt to adjust for the climatic

variations which affect these parameters. Woody

plant density and species/lifeform diversity standards are usually compared with quantitative goals

called technical standards, These are negotiated

between the operator and the regulatory authority based on the postmining land use, premining conditions, and practical constraints.

Five different systems of revegetation standards

have been developed that meet the Federal requirement for inclusion of criteria based on similar unmined lands (22). Each system has advantages and limitations that determine its usefulness

for the different climatic regions of the West and

for the different vegetative characteristics to be

measured. The primary limitation, common to

all of the systems, is their inability to address

both the temporal variations in environmental

conditions and the spatial diversity that occurs

over large areas. An additional concern is the

lack of testing under actual land use conditions.

For example, although the predominant land use

in the study area is native rangeland, little test

grazing has occurred on revegetated areas. Of

the five States, only Montana has established

guidelines for test grazing plans and monitoring

data collection.

Unadjusted Baseline.–This system uses the

quantitative values for cover and production observed during the baseline vegetation study (see

ch. 5) as the revegetation standard. Thuse, there

is no adjustment for natural variability due to

environmental change. Rather, the unadjusted

baseline method implicitly assumes that year-toyear fluctuations in the measured parameters are

negligible. This approach has not been used

widely except at existing (pre-SMCRA) small

Photo credit: Jenifer Robison, OTA staff

Test grazing may be conducted on native rangeland or

pastureland at some mines for the last 2 years of the

liability period in order to assess the success of

revegetation under actual land use conditions.

mines that do not have enough land for reference

areas.

Reference Areas.–This method uses 2- to 3-

acre plots of land, whose management can be

controlled by the operator. The plots are chosen

to be representative of one or more vegetation

parameters (usually cover and production) on undisturbed lands similar to the area being reclaimed. The measured vegetation parameters on

the reference areas constitute the success standard. The underlying assumptions of this method

are that vegetative cover and production on the

disturbed area should be equivalent to that on

the reference area, and that the equivalency will

hold over time and climatic variation. Vegetation

on reclaimed areas is compared directly with the

vegetation on the reference area at the close of

the liability period. Baseline data are used only

to establish comparability between the area to

be disturbed and the reference area(s) during the

baseline year, A premining demonstration of statistical equivalency between the reference area(s)

and the proposed mining area is required (see

fig. 7-l).

Operators must then demonstrate that cover

and production of the reclaimed vegetation

equals a prescribed percentage of the values in

the reference area (often 90 or 100 percent) with

a prescribed statistical level of confidence (usually 80 or 90 percent). The State regulatory au-
214 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Figure 7-l.— Reference Area

Premining Postmining

Demonstrate A = A’

Assume AA’ = AA

A = area to be mined of vegetation type A.

A’ = reference area whose vegetation is

representative of area A in baseline year.

R = area revegetated in vegetation type A. A,, = reference area in test year.

— Purpose of collecting baseline data is to demonstrate similarity of A and A’.

— Success standards are the values in A“.

SOURCE: Modified from G.P. Kunkel and E.J. Hinzel, “Considerations in the Application of Standards for Revegetatlon Success,” in E. Redente, et al., Symposium on Western Coal Mining Regulatory issues: Land Use, Revegetation, & Management, Colorado State University Range Science Department, Science Series No. 35, August 1983, pp. 31-35.

thorities prescribe levels of equivalence and statistical confidence, which may vary with land use

or vegetation type. Reference areas are commonly used in all of the States except Wyoming,

Performance standards based on reference

areas have the advantage of incorporating variations in vegetation due to climatic conditions.

Reference areas also have a number of limitations, however. Most important is the underlying

assumption that vegetation on a 2- to 3-acre plot

can adequately represent the vegetation on an

area many times larger (up to thousands of acres).

Detailed ecological studies repeatedly demonstrate that vegetation is a mosaic of plant communities resulting from minor differences in the

physical environment, localized population cycles of small mammals and insects, the natural

growth and succession of individual plants and

plant populations, and the cumulative effects of

land use changes. Because cover and production

also vary within this mosaic, a quantitative

equivalency between a vegetation type on a reference area and a reclaimed area often is difficult

or impossible to establish (see box 7-A).

Contro Areas.–Like reference areas, control

areas are hosen to be representative of vegetation on an undisturbed area similar to the area

being reclaimed. However, control areas are used

differently to evaluate success. Vegetation parameters measured in control areas are not compared

directly to the parameters on revegetated areas.

Instead, vegetation samples from the control

reference area in the test year are compared to

values in the baseline year. The ratio of the test

and baseline year samples is used to adjust the

baseline data from the disturbed area for environmental and climatic changes over time. The

adjusted baseline data are then used as the performance standard. Success is determined through

a statistical comparison of the actual values in the
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation ● 215

Box 7-A.—Use of Reference Areas

Extremely continental climates with erratic

weather patterns, which are common in most

parts of the West, make application of revegetation evaluation standards particularly difficult.

Recent monitoring of revegetated grassland at

a mine in east-central Montana illustrates the

limitation on the use of small reference areas that

results from variable vegetation response to

changes in the distribution and amount of precipitation. One area of the monitored tract experienced a very dry winter and early spring, but

more adequate late summer rain. Cool-season

grasses therefore did poorly, but warm-season

grasses did well. The result was a shift in apparent species composition in the area. In addition,

production varied across the area according to

the amount of warm-season grass in each community. Production on other areas of the tract,

which experienced different rainfall patterns,

varied not just by a few percent, but by as much

as several orders of magnitude (6).

revegetated area and the adjusted baseline values

(see fig. 7-2). Control areas are the preferred

evaluation method in Wyoming.

Control areas share with reference areas both

the advantage of incorporating variations in

vegetation due to climatic conditions, and the

disadvantage of assuming that the vegetation on

a small control area can adequately represent

the vegetation on a much larger area. The control area system, however, uses the control data

only to formulate an adjustment factor for tractwide baseline data. Therefore, it is somewhat

less dependent on that assumption than the

reference area method. But, it still assumes that

vegetational response to climatic variation between the baseline and test years on the control

area will be the same as the average across a

vastly larger tract.

Control and reference areas also may be difficult to establish or maintain. Operators may

not have land sufficiently similar to the mined

land to set aside as reference or control areas.

The small plots of vegetation can easily be disturbed or destroyed by changes in the mine plan,

or by fire, insect infestation, and plant disease.

Historical Record.–Another method for addressing the temporal variations in vegetation parameters is to collect baseline data over a period

considered to be one climatic cycle. Theoretically, this should bracket the potential variability in cover and production. In New Mexico, the

only State in which the historical record approach

has been used to a substantial extent, one climatic

cycle typically has been regarded, albeit debatably, as at least 7 years,

Historical record data may be particularly useful for mines that will eventually disturb all lands

suitable for use as reference areas; for areas

where several mines are located in the same region and so can share the cost of collecting data

to establish the historical record, as is the case

in northeastern New Mexico; and for measuring production where the postmining land use

is cropland. Use of an historical record avoids

many of the problems associated with reference

areas: site selection, measure of similarity, and

management conflicts. It could accurately reflect

the natural range of temporal variation in vegetation by incorporating samples over a much

longer period of time. The limitation of this standard, however, is that the amount of data which

must be collected in order to establish the record and the amount of time required to do this

are both very large. Similarly, the most accurate

evaluation method using the historical record requires a long period and a lot of sampling. For

these reasons, it is not widely used outside of

New Mexico. s

Moreover, it is not clear exactly how the accumulated data can best be used to judge revegetation success. One method developed jointly

by the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division (MMD) and the Office of Surface Mining

(OSM) is to use the arithmetic mean of the historical record data as a technical guide with no

associated variance term. With this approach,

however, adequate revegetation could fail to

meet the standards if it were evaluated in a

drought year, and inadequate revegetation could

be approved as successful if evaluated in a wet

year. Another possible method would be to mon5FOr ~Ore information on u5e d the historical record standard

in New Mexico, see reference 15.
276 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Figure 7-2.— Control Area

Premining Post mining

A = area to be mined of vegetation type A.

A’ = control area whose vegetation is

representative of area A in baseline year.

R = area revegetated in vegetation type A.

A" = control area in test year.

— Premining data are used to establish quantitative relationship between the control area

and the disturbed area.

— Success standards are the baseline vegetation values for A adjusted by relationship

between A’ and A“.

SOURCE: Modified from G.P. Kunkel and E.J. Hinzel, “Considerations in the Application of Standards for Revegetation Success,” In E. Redente et. al., Symposium on Western Coal Minlrrg Regulatory Issues: Land Use, Revegetation, & Management, Colorado State University Range Science Department, Science Series No. 35, August 1983, pp. 31-35.

itor the reclaimed area during a period comparable in length to the climatic cycle over which

baseline data were collected. The means of the

baseline and monitoring samples could then be

compared with 90 percent confidence intervals.

This would necessitate a longer period of sampling than the mandated 2 years at the end of

the liability period, however.

Technical Standards.–Technical standards set

quantitative goals for vegetative characteristics

based either on the range of values for particular characteristics found on similar lands in the

region, or on negotiations between the operator

and the State regulatory authority that consider

the requirements of the postmining land use,

demonstrated success of revegetation practices

in the region, and baseline vegetation values.

Technical standards are most often used for cover

and production when baseline conditions are

unacceptable due to poor land management.

Woody plant density and species/lifeform diversity are commonly judged with negotiated technical standards.

Realistic and fair selection of the technical

standards that reasonably may be expected in

an area require a substantial amount of data.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) or Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) range site data maybe used

for this purpose (see ch. 5), as may accumulated

historical record data as it is developed in a region. For example, in Campbell County, Wyoming, most vegetation types have been sampled

every year since 1977. Therefore, sufficient data

should now be available to establish minimum

regional performance standards for vegetative parameters, if such a standard were deemed desirable by the regulatory authority (6). However,

differences in data-collection methods and cli-
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation “ 217

matic conditions from site to site and year to year

couId make it difficult to translate these data into

technical standards.

Similarly, because SCS range site data are from

climax communities—a level of development that

revegetation 9 or 10 years old might not be able

to match–they can produce unreasonably high

technical standards, Even where appropriate data

are available, technical standards as currently

used do not make adjustments for climatic conditions in the test year. Data used to derive technical standards often include ranges of production from most favorable to least favorable years,

but a direct mathematical adjustment tied to climate is not available yet.

Technical standards may reduce costs of vegetation data collection by eliminating the need for

reference or control area sampling. Technical

standards also may be used to set higher standards than baseline conditions when the premining vegetation has been depleted by overgrazing. in addition, technical standards can be used

in areas where reference areas are unavailable.

As mentioned above, the most common present

and potential use of technical standards, however, is for evaluation of woody plant density and

species/lifeform diversity (see box 7-B).

Hydrology Standards8

Although SMCRA emphasizes the hydrologic

aspects of reclamation, performance and design

standards, and bond release criteria for restoration of hydrologic systems, are not nearly so

detailed as they are for revegetation. The regulatory authorities have not applied any hydrologic performance standards as yet (see below),

with the exception of the restoration of surface

drainage systems which are sometimes included

in Phase I bond release. Evaluation of restored

drainage systems is a straightforward comparison

of regraded topography with the approved postmining topographic map. Other aspects of hydrologic evaluation will, however, require the regulatory authorities to formulate more specific

directions about application of the standards. In

none of the States and at none of the 20 mines

WJntess otherwise noted, material in this section is adapted from

reference 14.

80X 7-B.—A Proposed Technical Standard

for shrub Density

Spatial heterogeneity of shrub cover greatly increases its contribution to wildlife habitat. However, baseline and reference area data usually

record only the overall average of stems per

acre. When such data are used as performance

standards, the result is often a uniform distribution of shrubs to the required density, and the

“clumping" of shrubs desirable for wildlife is

lost. To address thisproblem, Wyoming has pro-

 posed a technical standard for shrub density

which sstates that 10 percent of the reclaimed surface should have shrub densities of at least one

stem per square meter (4,050 stems per acre).

The remaining 90 percent of the area should

have shrubs included in the seed mix, but there

are no shrub density performance standards that

must be met.

reviewed for OTA are clear and complete hydrologic evaluation criteria in place.7

Surface Water.–Surface water standards in

SMCRA deal with water quality and quantity, as

well as drainage systems. The reclamation plan

must include general information regarding backfilling and grading and a detailed description of

the measures to be taken for the protection of

surface water quality and quantity. The performance standards require operators to minimize disturbances to the quantity and quality of surface

water and emphasize avoidance of deleterious

materials and increased TSS and TDS levels. The

standards also require operators to grade restored

land so as to control erosion.

The Federal regulations include design criteria

for the capacity of both “permanent diversions”

(diversions of perennial and intermittent streams)

and “diversions of miscellaneous flows” (ephemeral streams) (19). The regulations also specify design criteria for sedimentation ponds (21 ), and require that water discharged from these ponds be

in compliance with the effluent Iimitations prom7 Each of the case studies in reference 14 contains a discussion

of the hydrologic evaluation criteria for that case study mine. In

all cases, the criteria are at least vague and, occasionally, nonexistent.
218 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

ulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) (1 7,19).

Bond release criteria for surface water are also

quite general.8 All States have regulations that require evaluation of: 1 ) whether pollution of surface water is occurring, whether such pollution

is likely to occur in the future, and the estimated

cost of abatement; and 2) whether lands are contributing suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area in excess of requirements set by applicable State or Federal laws (see

box 7-C). Although erosion is the primary contributor to elevated TSS levels, evaluation of sedimentation that affects surface water has not measured erosion rates. As discussed in chapter 8, field

data on sediment yields (the total amount of eroded

material that reaches a control point) are needed

to demonstrate that alternative methods of sediment control are as effective as sedimentation

ponds.

Compliance with an approved mining and reclamation plan provides regulatory authorities with

the primary means to evaluate designs of restored

surface drainage systems (see ch. 6). All designs

submitted are evaluated during the permit application review and approval process, and progress

on channel reconstruction is reviewed during

compliance monitoring.

Groundwater. —There are no standards for

evaluating restoration of spoils aquifer hydraulics and recharge, and no official numerical standards for evaluating postmining groundwater quality. Current bond release criteria for groundwater

restoration are vaguely tied to whether or not pollution of subsurface water is occurring. However,

“pollution” in this context is not defined quantitatively by any State program.

Due to the lack of numerical standards, groundwater quality impacts usually are analyzed with

respect to use-suitability criteria established by

EPA (see table 7-3). Spoils water is examined to

determine if its quality is suitable for the same

uses as premining groundwaters. Operators are

concerned about one aspect of evaluation using

these use-suitability criteria. An operation that disturbs water with TDS levels at the low end of the

range of suitability for a particular use can add

a large amount of solids without exceeding the

criteria, but an operator affecting water at the

high end of a range can add very little. For example, an operation disturbing an aquifer with

premining TDS levels of 1,499 mg/1, which is unsuitable for domestic use but suitable for all

Bsee reference 14, table 5, for a summary of references in the

State regulations to hydrologic criteria for bond release.

Table 7-3.—Maximum Recommended Total Dissolved

Solids Concentrations in Water for Various Uses

Use Maximum TDS concentration (ma/l)

Domestic . . . . . 500 (recommended)

1,000 (maximum)

Livestock. , . . . 3,000 (for all classes of livestock)

5,000 (excluding poultry)

Irrigation . . . . 500 (for all crops and soils)

1,000 (for all but sensitive crops)

2,000 (may adversely affect some crops

and requires careful management)

5,000 (only for salt-tolerant plants on

permeable soils with careful

management)

SOURCE: Western Water Consultanta, “Hydrologic Evaluation and Reclamation

Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to

OTA, August 1985.
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation “ 219

classes of livestock, can double TDS concentrations and remain within these criteria. An operation disturbing an aquifer with TDS levels of

2,999 mg/1, which is the top of the range suitable

for livestock use, can add nothing to TDS concentrations, however.

Groundwater quantity and spoils-aquifer hydraulic characteristics usually are evaluated by

determining whether the spoils will permit reestablishment of premining groundwater flow

patterns, and whether they will provide water to

wells in sufficient amounts to restore the uses supported by the premining coal and overburden

aquifers. Because these wells typically supplied

livestock and domestic uses, small well yields (less

than 5 gpm) usually are adequate.

Mine operators must apply for permit renewals

in 5-year intervals. if monitoring of spoils-water

quality or aquifer testing of the spoils indicates

that problems are developing, corrective measures can be worked out to forestall problems at

bond release and final success evaluation (14).

Evaluation of groundwater restoration is often

complicated by the very long periods of time required for spoils aquifer recharge in the West.

Even after groundwater levels are reestablished

in an aquifer, groundwater quality will remain

variable for an indeterminate amount of time

while chemical equilibrium is reestablished. Therefore, it is unclear whether application of quantitative evaluation standards for groundwater restoration will always be possible or reasonable.

Alluvial Valley Floors.–The general performance standard for AVFS in SMCRA is that essential hydrologic functions (EHFs) must be restored.

Because these functions are described in detail

in baseline studies (see chs. 5 and 6), the intensive premining data establish performance standards for AVF restoration. Thus, restoration of EHFs

can be demonstrated by comparing data for the

reconstructed AVF with the baseline standard.

Reclamation of an AVF under SMCRA has not yet

been completed in any of the five States, so details of the evaluation process have not been

worked out. For example, no thresholds of statistical comparability have been established (e.g.,

the “90 percent with 90 percent confidence”

standard established for vegetation) to define how

close to the baseline the restored EHFs must be.

The timeframe within which restoration of EHFs

must be judged also has not been specified in any

State. As with many other aspects of surface and

groundwater restoration, it may be many years

after reclamation activities are complete before

the hydrologic system achieves approximate

steady-state conditions. One mine reviewed by

OTA has taken special measures to hasten the

resumption of subirrigation and other EHFs on

a restored AVF to facilitate evaluation of their restoration (see ch. 3, box 3-K).9

Soils and Overburden Standardsto

Standards for evaluating reclamation success

for soils and overburden are very limited. Existing standards are based on approved designs;

‘‘performance’ of soils and overburden is assessed indirectly, through evaluation of revegetation and hydrologic restoration,

Soils.–In most cases, soil reconstruction is considered to be successful if the postmining soil is

as thick as predicted in the baseline study, and

the lifts (if required) are in the correct order. ’ 1

Erosion must not exceed premining levels or contribute additional suspended solids to streamflow

outside the permit area (see discussion of hydrology standards, above).

The regulatory authorities usually evaluate erosion of the redressed topsoil quantitatively, Two

methods of erosion measurement used at mines

reviewed by OTA are described in chapter 5, box

5-E. Federal and State regulations require that rills

deeper than 9 inches on regraded and topsoiled

areas be filled, graded, or otherwise stabilized.

The regulatory authority also will evaluate compliance with any special stipulations regarding

soils. Several permit applications reviewed by

OTA had stipulations regarding soil monitoring

for salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, and pH.

However, in some cases, the stipulations did not

specify the value at which each of these parameters should be considered a problem. The stipulations also did not always say how problems

should be treated if discovered.

9

See reterence 14, case study J.

IOU nless otherwise noted, material for this section is adapted from

reference 12,

I I Montana and North Dakota both require two Iifis.
220 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Recent research on soil standards focuses on

the reconstruction of a viable root zone. In North

Dakota, researchers are developing methods for

evaluating the properties of the reconstructed

root zone that will help compensate for the shortcomings of reference areas. In addition, evaluation of soil parameters is an attractive method of

gauging land productivity in areas where land is

being reclaimed to cropland (e.g., in the Midwest

and North Dakota), because of the variability in

production due to climatic factors. However,

methods to conduct such evaluations are still in

their experimental stages and have not been accepted by the North Dakota regulatory authority (3).

Overburden.–Evaluations of overburden replacement emphasize prevention of problems because success is difficult to predict conclusively.

Furthermore, cures for the inadvertent placement

of material that may be detrimental to revegetation or postmining water quality may be prohibitively expensive because they involve removing

and redistributing large amounts of material. Regulatory authorities therefore rely heavily on formulation of good spoils-handling plans in the permits to ensure proper handling of potentially

deleterious spoils material, and on frequent inspection during mining to ensure compliance

with approved plans.

As discussed in chapter 5, it is fairly common

in the West for operators to sample the surface

of recontoured spoils to check for unsuitable material in the root zone (usually considered to be

the top 4 feet of spoils). If a problem is found,

steps can then be taken to treat or cover deleterious material. During bond release, each of the

five States evaluates the data from these spoils

samples by applying the same unsuitability criteria that they use for baseline evaluations of overburden suitability (see ch. 6). Surficial spoils sampling for bond release is the norm in Montana

and Wyoming. The North Dakota regulatory authority rarely requires spoils sampling because

they require so much soil cover that unsuitable

overburden usually will not be a problem. in

Colorado, surficial spoils sampling is used to

evaluate reclamation only if it is required in a

permit stipulation because a potential problem

was recognized before or during mining. In New

Mexico, spoils sampling is not the norm, but in

the two mines reviewed by OTA, baseline investigations showed all of the spoils to be unsuitable.

Therefore, sampling the regraded material was

considered unnecessary.

Where the surficial spoils are sampled, all State

regulatory authorities consider a single round of

sampling sufficient; nowhere are spoils routinely

monitored over time. Consensus among the regulatory authorities is that monitoring following

topsoiling should be required only if revegetation

problems develop. This approach ignores the risk,

however, of changes in spoils suitability, particularly in areas with potential for sodium migration.12

Wildlife Standards13

The regulatory agency personnel in the five

States reported that they have no quantitative performance standards for judging the success of

wildlife mitigation measures. Instead, regulatory

authorities assess habitat restoration by evaluating the various habitat components, such as

revegetation, topsoil placement, and water quality. Operators usually monitor wildlife use of

restored habitats, but lack of confidence in wildlife data makes all parties reluctant to use monitoring data for quantitative evaluations (see ch.

5). Another obstacle to wildlife performance evaluations is the varying effect vegetation succession

has on wildlife use of reclaimed land. Early- to

mid-successional plant communities often benefit more—and different kinds of—wildlife than

do late-successional and climax communities. Because floral succession through these vegetation

stages often takes decades, wildlife use of reclaimed land will not reach premining levels of

diversity and population density during the bond

liability period.

Some wildlife mitigation measures must be

evaluated with design standards; for example,

range fencing that permits pronghorn passage,

road underpasses and overpasses for wildlife,

nesting structures, and raptor-safe power lines

lzReCent Work done in Montana increases cause for concern that

sodium migration through spoils over time will not be detected

through one-time spoil sampling programs (3).

IJUnless Othemise noted, material in this section is adapted from

reference 1.
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation ● 221

Photo credit: Jenifer Robison, OTA st aff

Rockpiles are used to simulate surface features such as rock outcrops that are destroyed in mining. However, quantitative

design standards to facilitate optimum establishment of features such as rockpiles have not been established.

(see ch. 3, fig. 3-1 1). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service currently is developing design standards

for raptor nest and highwall manipulations. However, design standards do not exist for many of

the more commonly required habitat enhancement or replacement measures. There is general

agreement that features such as rockpiles and

shrub patches are beneficial to wildlife, but designs for optimum establishment of these features

are less obvious. Lack of quantitative design

standards for these features also make evaluation

of compliance difficult for regulatory authorities.

Questions that must be answered include: How

big should these features be? How many of them

should there be? In what configuration should

they be placed over the landscape? Without some

numerical parameters for constructing these features, it is difficult for operators to know how to

install the mitigation features in a way that will

satisfy the regulatory authority, and to have confidence in the usefulness of the habitat enhancement measures required in permitting.
222 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

STATE EXPERIENCE WITH RECLAMATION EVALUATION

AND BOND RELEASE

Reclamation under SMCRA and the approved

State programs is a relatively new activity in the

West. While no mines have completed their 10-

year liability period, a limited amount of experience has been gained in some States with release

of Phase 1 bonds. Each of the five Western States

studied has a slightly different approach to bond

release and success evaluation. This section presents a brief overview of bond release activity and

the development of bond release criteria in the

study States.

North Dakota14

To protect the rich soil resource in its State, the

Public Service Commission (PSC) in North Dakota

divided the SMCRA Phase I release into two parts.

To receive the initial 40 percent of the bond, operators must backfill, grade, and establish drainage control to the PSC’S satisfaction. After these

activities have been judged successful, operators

14LJ nless Othemise noted, this discussion is based on reference 9.
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation ● 223

must topsoil the regraded surface to qualify for

another 20 percent of their bond. Up to another

20 percent of the bond may be released after revegetation has been established. The PSC may

only release the remaining 20 percent or more

of the bond after the 10-year liability period has

elapsed and it judges all reclamation activities to

be successful.

North Dakota law establishes a Reclamation

Advisory Committee to oversee the two final

stages of bond release, The Committee consists

of representatives from PSC, SCS, the North

Dakota State agricultural extension service, and

others knowledgeable about reclamation. When

an operator wishes to start the 10-year liability

clock, the committee inspects the reclaimed site.

If the committee judges revegetation to have

been reestablished successfully at that time, the

initial revegetation portion of the bond is released

and the 10-year liability period begins. During the

liability period, the operator must manage the

land with practices considered normal husbandry

for the designated postmining land use. At the

end of the 10 years, the committee reinspects the

reclaimed site and decides whether the remainder

of the bond should be released.

A few bonds have been partially released for

grading and backfilling in North Dakota. Criteria

used to judge success of these activities are fairly

straightforward and usually are applied by mining engineers. Topographic maps are used to inspect for AOC and for adequate reconstruction

of drainages according to approved reclamation

plans. Sampling for deleterious material in the

postmining root zone or water table is not routinely required. The regulatory authority generalIy relies on early identification of these materials from baseline data submitted with the permit

application (see ch. 5), and on frequent inspections during mining and reclamation to ensure

that any such materials have been handled properly. In addition, the requirement for 48 inches

of soil cover over regraded spoils reduces concerns about deleterious overburden. Sampling

may be required on a case-by-case basis if there

is reason to believe that any material may be deleterious to plant growth.

The PSC is preparing guidelines for judging the

reestablishment of revegetation. None of the

mines studied has applied for the revegetation

stages of bond release yet, although the first of

these could be filed in 1986 if weather conditions

are favorable.

Montana15

Montana has not released any phases of postSMCRA bonds. At the time of this writing, however, the Department of State Lands (DSL) had

two applications for Phase I release pending, and

expected another application in June, 1986. One

of the pending applications had been submitted

twice, and both times was returned to the operator for further work. DSL has tried to formulate

criteria for Phase I release (up to 60 percent),

which in Montana covers backfilling, topsoiling,

regrading, and drainage control. In this attempt,

however, DSL found more exceptions than rules,

and so is relying to a large extent on case-by-case

evaluations of success,

In general, DSL inspects sites during Phase I release for obvious design features: AOC, stable

drainage structures, adequate topsoil thickness

as approved in the permit. If permit stipulations

require sampling of recontoured spoi Is, the monitoring data must be submitted and evaluated

prior to Phase I release. In addition, DSL uses the

Phase I inspection to reexamine compliance with

the mining and reclamation plan and to ensure

that modifications—which are inevitable during

the course of any mining operation—have been

fully taken into account in the mine’s long-range

planning. In particular, DSL checks to ensure that,

where an operator is seeking bond release on

only a portion of the site, as is common at large

Western mines, modifications made in the overall mine plan will not require the operator to

redisturb the site.

DSL does not expect to receive any applications for Phase II bond release on revegetation

for another 3 to 5 years. Unlike the other States,

where Phase II revegetation is considered to be

I ~Unle55 otherw15e noted, this discussion is based on reference 7.
224 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

only a preliminary surface stabilization measure,

the Montana regulations require all of the revegetation success standards to be met prior to release

of the Phase II bond (1 1). Montana also applies

the lo-year liability clock on revegetation in

Phase II rather than Phase [11. The regulations

contain detailed standards for revegetation success in this second phase of bond release. These

include:

●

●

●

●

●

the use of reference areas under management practices similar to the revegetated

area, and grazed at no more than so percent

of capacity, as standards for judging reclamation success;

evaluation of weighted productivity and

weighted canopy cover by morphological

class (the mathematical formulae to be used

to calculate these are specified in the regulations);

evaluation of weighted diversity by species

(the mathematical formula to be used is specified in the regulations);

evaluation of permanence and seasonality

of vegetation; and

analysis of potential toxicity of vegetation to

animal consumers, where suspected.

Up to 25 percent of the bond may be released

during Phase II1 leaving 15 percent (or more, if

less than the maximum was released in previous

phases) to be released when the regulatory authority finds that all reclamation activities have

been completed in accordance with the approved

reclamation plan.

Wyoming16

Wyoming’s bonding system differs slightly from

the other States in that it is based on the intensive annual review the Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducts for each

mine. Under Wyoming’s system, each surface

coal mining operation in the State has two different bonds. ’ 7 The area bond covers only the cost

lbunless othe~ise noted, this discussion is based on reference 16.

I The Federal regulations that allowed “phased bonding” of this

type have recently been declared inconsistent with sec. 509(b) of

SMCRA by the U.S. District Court because they do not require full

bond for all aspects of reclamation for the duration of the mining

and reclamation operation (5). The regulations have been remanded

to the Department of the Interior, but until new Federal regulaof backfilling any portions of the pit that will remain unfilled during the coming year. The area

bond is adjusted following annual DEQ review

to reflect both progress in backfilling and progress

of new disturbance. Therefore, if an operator

backfills and disturbs at the same rate, his area

bond will remain unchanged. Area bonds may

only be adjusted upward—a protection for the

regulatory authority to ensure that sufficient funds

are available to cover default at any time.

The incremental bond covers all other features

of reclamation; it is increased annually to reflect

costs of reclaiming the amount of acreage that

will be disturbed in the coming year. DEQ does

not consider reclamation of previously disturbed

acreage in the annual review of the incremental

bond. Rather, release of the incremental bond

follows a pattern similar to that outlined in

SMCRA: 60 percent of the incremental bond may

be released after regrading, topsoiling, and drainage control have been completed. Another portion of the bond (amount to be determined by

the regulatory authority) may be released after

initial revegetation, as determined by species

composition, which must be similar to that of the

approved seed mix. The remainder of the incremental bond may only be released after the operator has completed all reclamation activities in

compliance with the permit, the regulatory program, and SMCRA.

Although DEQ has been reviewing and adjusting area bonds each year, no Wyoming operators have yet applied for release of any part of

an incremental bond. Definite criteria for evaluation of the different phases have not yet been

formulated. DEQ personnel do not anticipate

much controversy or difficulty in the Phase I

evaluation. As in other States, the criteria at this

phase are fairly clear engineering design criteria.

DEQ inspects mine sites frequently during mining and reclamation to monitor the operators’

progress. Moreover, after regrading an area, an

operator may request that DEQ inspect it for

acceptability of drainage topography, AOC, and

tions are promulgated and, if challenged, are accepted by the courts,

the State of Wyoming plans to continue to bond under its current

system, as outlined in its approved permanent program (1 6).
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation ● 225

presence of unsuitable spoil material at the surface. Before the inspection, operators supply data

from recontoured spoils samples. This pre-topsoil

inspection is not mandatory, but most operators

request it because it can help identify problems

in this expensive part of reclamation early so as

to avoid the greater expense of fixing problems

after topsoiling.

DEQ does not anticipate receiving any applications for Phase II release of the incremental

bond for several years, but is working now on

formulating criteria for this phase.

Colorado18

The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD) has released one Phase I portion of

a bond, and is reviewing two more applications

for Phase I bond release. The Phase I release is

for backfilling and grading only, and is based on

standard engineering principles. However, MLRD’s

experience at the northwestern Colorado mine

where Phase I release has been granted suggests

that judging success for Phase I bond release may

not be so straightforward as it appears.

MLRD’s review of that Phase I bond release application concluded that all of the required criteria had been met. Therefore, MLRD was prepared to release 60 percent of the applicant’s

bond in the spring of 1984, when a major slump

occurred on the regraded site. Much of the surface coal mining in northwestern Colorado occurs on fairly steep slopes, many of which contain mica shales dipping at angles semi-parallel

to slope topography. The instability of these formations is well known and routinely taken into

account in road and building construction, as

well as in mining. Furthermore, precipitation had

been much higher than normal during the years

prior to the mine’s application for Phase I release.

Therefore, slumps were common in this area of

Colorado, both in areas of little or no human

activity and where the land had been disturbed

(e.g., along highways).

Because MLRD determined that, at the time of

application, the site met the criteria for bond reI alJnless otherwise noted, this discussion is based on reference 2.

lease, MLRD released 60 percent of the bond on

the area despite the slump. MLRD maintains,

however, that the operator retains liability for the

slump because it was the result of poor reclamation, and wants the operator to repair the damage. On the other hand, the operator argues that

the slump was the result of unusual natural conditions unrelated to mining, and therefore is an

act of God for which the operator may not held

liable for repair. The remaining 40 percent of the

bond is insufficient to repair the damage. The liability issue had not been resolved as of this writing.

One condition of MLRD’s bond release was

that the operator conduct a study of the reasons

for the slump, to be submitted to MLRD in August 1985. Prior to the slump, the operator had

been granted a permit to mine an adjacent area

which contains similar steep formations. If the

operator cannot diagnose the cause of the previous slump, and therefore cannot develop satisfactory mining and/or reclamation techniques to

prevent another similar occurrence, MLRD feels

it will be forced to withdraw this permit. Despite

the operator’s claim that the slump was unrelated

to mining, the regulatory authority suspects that

it may have occurred, at least in part, because

of increased water infiltration into the spoils as

a result of the mining methods used at this site.

Revising the mine plan and/or draining the spoil

might make mining on the adjacent similar areas

possible. Detailed analysis of the problem must

wait until the operator’s report on the slump has

been completed .19

In Colorado, the second phase of the bond is

released after topsoiling and revegetation to a

level sufficient to prevent erosion. The State has

some Phase II applications pending and is in the

process of formulating specific standards for

evaluating them. Because MLRD views Phase II

release as a judgment that the surface has been

stabilized, these standards will emphasize vegetative cover to a specified level and a demonstration that sediment levels in water from reclaimed

areas are not greater than baseline levels.

lgAlthough the site discussed here originally was mined Prior to

the passage of SMCRA, it was repermitted under Colorado’s permanent program, bond was released according to SMCRA-mandated standards, and similar areas have been permitted for mining

under SMCRA. For these reasons, the site is relevant to this study.
226 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

New Mexico20

The New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division

(MMD) has not received any applications for

bond release under its SMCRA program, and has

not formulated standard criteria for release because it intends to judge applicants on a caseby-case basis to give proper consideration to the

wide variability among surface coal mining sites

in the State. MMD considers judging Phase I release, which includes backfilling, grading, drainage control, and topsoiling in New Mexico, to

be a fairly straightforward engineering problem.

Inspections for proper handling of acid- and

alkaline-forming materials, which are very common in the overburden in New Mexico, will be

conducted throughout the mining and reclamation

process to ensure that potential problems are discovered and dealt with before bond release. By

keeping in close contact with operators throughout the reclamation process, MMD does not anticipate any surprises at Phase I bond release inspect ion.

Zounless othe~ise noted, this discussion is based on reference 8.

MMD expects judging success at the second

phase of bond release to be more difficult, and

their personnel are trying to formulate standards

now. Because, historically, so much of the land

in New Mexico has been poorly managed and

overgrazed, baseline data often represent undesirable conditions. Therefore, suitable reference

areas are difficult to find, and MMD is relying on

a mix of methods while they try to formulate technical standards for cover, species diversity, shrub

density and other vegetative parameters. At some

sites, historical record evaluations can be used

for the plant communities that are less likely to

have been damaged by poor land management

practices, particularly for evaluating woody plant

density. At other sites, suitable reference areas

may be available for some plant communities but

not for others. For example, one mine has suitable reference areas for herbaceous communities, but not for woody plants because premining woody plant density was deemed too high

to be compatible with the postmining land use.

Technical standards will be used to judge success for woody plant communities. Thus, each

mine is likely to have its own mix of evaluation

methods and standards depending on peculiarities of the site.

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Cedar Creek Associates, “Wildlife Technologies

for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor rePOrt to OTA, August 1985.

Colorado Mined Lands Reclamation Division, personal communication, 1985.

Doll, E. C., et al., “Planning and Evaluating CropIand Reclamation After Stripmining in North Dakota,” Minerals and Environment, vol. 6, 1984,

pp.121-l 26.

Dollhopf, D. J,, et. al., “Chemical Amendment and

Irrigation Effects on Sodium Migration and Vegetation Characteristics in 7-Year-Old Sodic Mine

Spoils,” Montana Agricultural Experiment Station,

Montana State University at Bozeman, SR-17, January 1985.

In re: Permanent Su~ace Mining Regulation Litigation, Civil Action No. 79-1144, D.C. Cir., Oct.

11, 1984,

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Kunkel, G. P., and Hinzel, E. J., “Considerations in

the Application of Standards for Revegetation Success, “ in E. Redente, et al., Symposium on l#estern Coal Mining Regulatory Issues: Land Use,

Revegetation, &Management, Colorado State University Range Science Department, Science Series

No. 35, August 1983, pp. 31-35.

Montana Department of State Lands, personal

communication, 1985.

New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, personal communication, 1985.

North Dakota Public Service Commission, personal communication, 1985.

Prodgers, R., “Circle West Vegetation Monitoring

Study: Third Annual Report for the Period August

15-25, 1980, ” Circle West technical report 7,

MDNRC, Faculty Siting Div., Helena, MT, as discussed in G.P. Kunkel and E.J. Hinzel, “Consider-
Ch. 7—Standards and Methods for Evaluating the Success of Reclamation • 227

ations in the Applications of Standards for Revegetation Success, ” in E. Redente, et. al., Symposium

on Western Coal Mining Regulatory Issues: Land

Use, Revegetation, & Management, Colorado

State University Range Science Department, Science Series No. 35, August 1983, pp. 31-35.

11. Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Rules

and Regulations, State of Montana, Apr. 1, 1980.

12. Walsh, James P., and Associates, “Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal

Mine Reclamation, ” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.

13. Western Resource Development Corp., and Jane

Bunin, “Revegetation Technologies and Issues at

Western Surface Coal Mines, ” contractor report

to OTA, September 1985.

14. Western Water Consultants, “Hydrologic Evaluation and Reclamation Technologies for Western

Surface Coal Mining, ” contractor report to OTA,

August 1985.

15. Wolfe, M. H., “Use of a Historical Data Base as

a Revegetation Success Standard, ” in E. Redente,

et al., Symposium on Western Coal Mining Regulatory Issues: Land Use, Revegetation, & Management, Colorado State University Range Science

Department, Science Series No. 35, August 1983,

pp. 31-35.

16. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,

personal communication, 1985.

17.30 CFR 701.5.

18.30 CFR 816.42.

19.30 CFR 816.43.

20.30 CFR 816.46(c)B.

21, 30 CFR 816.46(c)C.

22.30 CFR 816.1 16(a)(2).

23.30 U.S.C. 1201 (f).

24.30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(2).

25.30 U.S.C. 1269(c).
Chapter 8

Technical Issues in

Western Surface Mine

Permitting and Reclamation
Contents

Chapter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acid Potential in Western Mine Spoils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sediment Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soil Handling and Revegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Revegetation of Woody PIants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Postmining Land Use.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Designating the Postmining Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

implementation and Management of the Postmining Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . .

Effects on Reclamation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Landscape Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

231

232

235

240

244

249

250

251

252

254

260
Chapter 8

Technical Issues in Western

Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

OTA’S assessment of Western surface mine permitting and reclamation highlighted several technical issues that have significant implications for

the long-term success of Western reclamation.

These issues encompass the technologies, data,

and analytical methods for identifying acid-forming overburden; techniques for controlling sediment in runoff; soil handling methods that could

improve revegetation; achieving revegetation of

woody plants; defining and maintaining the postmining land use; and designing the postmining

landscape.

Some of these issues address areas in which

OTA’S analysis of surface mine permitting and

reclamation indicated additional research or

reclamation experience is necessary to resolve

uncertainties about the long-term success of

reclamation. For example, baseline studies indicate that some Western mine spoils may contain material with a potential for acid-formation,

which could be detrimental to revegetation. The

magnitude of possible impacts cannot be estimated reliably, however, because available techniques for predicting the acid-base potential of

spoils were developed for Eastern mining conditions, and their reliability when applied to the

very different climate, hydrology, and other conditions in the West has not been demonstrated.

Ongoing research is making progress at developing a more reliable technique, but in the meantime, estimates of acid-forming potential in the

West may be overly conservative, increasing the

cost of reclamation.

Meeting uniform high woody plant density

standards is a major concern throughout the

study region. While the technology of shrub

reestablishment has advanced substantially in

recent years, operators in many areas still find

it difficuIt to establish more than one or two

species. At the same time, high woody plant

density has long been a source of aggravation to

ranchers, who have undertaken large-scale rangeIand management programs to thin or kill woody

species, frequently with financial or technical support from Federal land management agencies.

Additional research and reclamation experience

are needed on the relative values of different densities and groupings of woody plants for the

postmining land uses of rangeland and wildlife

habitat.

A second set of issues discussed in this chapter highlights reclamation techniques that are accepted practice or are required by law or regulations, but which may themselves cause adverse

environmental impacts. Sedimentation ponds are

considered the best technology currently available to control the discharges of total suspended

solids that result from accelerated erosion caused

by mining and reclamation activities. But sediment control ponds increase the land that must

be disturbed during mining and reclamation,

can cause reduced streamflows and channel

degradation downstream, and are expensive to

build and maintain. Additional data are needed

on sediment yields and on the effectiveness of

alternative means of control before the continuing need for sedimentation ponds can be evaluated fully.

A third set of issues highlights emerging practices that OTA found to improve the quality of

reclamation. Innovation in soil handling methods has significantly improved the prospects for

the long-term success of revegetation. Furthermore, optimization of soil handling can reduce

the costs of reclamation. Yet, in some casees,

operational and regulatory considerations constrain the widespread adoption of such techniques.

OTA also examined the concept of “landscape

diversity, ” which recognizes the mosaic nature

of Western landscapes resulting from localized

231
232 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

differences in the physical environment, plant

communities, wildlife populations, and land

uses. While no general requirements related to

landscape diversity currently exist, requirements

for specific mines have been established on a

case-by-case basis, primarily in relation to vegetative communities.

Finally, OTA found a general lack of attention

to the detailed quantitative characterization of

pre- and postmining land uses that is required

by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation

Act (SMCRA) for the permit application package. Lack of specificity and quantification in these

characterizations can adversely affect postmining vegetative (and landscape) diversity, the implementation of surface owners’ or management

agencies’ land use recommendations, and the difficulty and cost of reclamation. Moreover, at

mines where reclaimability is an issue during permitting, a much more vigorous approach to characterizing premining land uses and to predicting

the capability and productivity of the reclaimed

surface is necessary.

ACID POTENTIAL IN WESTERN MINE SPOILS’

One objective of methods used to design the

replacement of overburden is to identify strata

that could be detrimental to revegetation, including potentially acid-forming materials within the

premine overburden, in order to devise a strategy by which the deleterious potential of these

materials will be neutralized. The principal means

of accomplishing this are selective placement in

the post-mine spoils to prevent saturation with

surface or groundwater, and/or burial with sufficient depth of cover to block infiltration of surface water and prevent the deleterious material

from migrating upward to the root zone.

Regardless of the specific setting or the mining technique, mining rearranges the natural sequence of coals and associated rock strata and

places them in contact, at least temporarily, with

atmospheric conditions. In that new environment, a host of interrelated factors, including oxygen, humidity, and iron bacteria, combine to accelerate the rock-weathering processes which, in

turn, may cause radical changes in the chemistry

of water contacting the weathering strata. In some

cases, mineralogy is such that the rock remains

inert and neither acid nor alkaline conditions are

produced.

Acid drainage from mining is a common prob

Iem in the East, where groundwater systems

generally are more active than in the West, and

1 Unless otherwise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from references 2, 4, and 6.

recharge rates much greater. The overburden

from Eastern coal mines contains significant

amounts of sulfur as inorganic iron pyrite (FeS2

).

In an oxidizing environment, much of the sulfur

in the pyrite will combine with water and oxygen to form sulfuric acid (H2SOJ. The humid climate in the East accelerates the oxidation of sulfur compounds by ensuring there is a constant

supply of water to saturate the spoils and thus

a constant supply of hydrogen ions to form sulfuric acid. The pH of surface or groundwater supplies in contact with the pyrite-bearing strata will

be lowered unless the surrounding materials have

a large buffering capacity. As the pH is lowered

the water becomes an acidic solution with a high

content of sulfate and iron that is unsuitable for

all domestic and agricultural uses. Moreover, the

volubility of other mineral constituents of the soil

or rock will be affected by a lowered pH and

potentially toxic materials (e.g., arsenic, barium,

cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium)

can go into solution, further contaminating the

water supply and rendering it harmful to vegetation or to animal and human populations.

The potential for acid formation in the West

is different for several reasons. First, the climate

is generally arid or semiarid, which limits the

amount of water available for oxidation of sulfur compounds. Below the water tab/e, the oxidation process is not very active because the

availability of oxygen in the geological material

there is severely restricted by the very low volubility limit for oxygen in water. However, the time
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation • 233

scale associated with the evolution of this hydrogeochemical process may vary over years, decades,

or possibly centuries and cannot be predicted

with much confidence with existing knowledge.

If pyritic materials are inadvertently placed above

the water table, oxidation can be very active and

rapid provided that the pore spaces in the material receive oxygen, because the subsequent

infiltration of rainfall or snowmelt causes the oxidation products and associated weathering products to go into solution. They are then able to

move downward where they become part of the

dissolved solids in the groundwater systems.

Second, while the sulfur in Western overburden occurs in organic compounds as well as in

inorganic iron pyrites, Western overburden typically has a high buffering capacity. Calcite and

dolomite, common overburden constituents, are

solublee in an acidic solution and the carbonates

combine with available hydrogen to form bicarbonates that raise the pH and neutralize the acidity. From an environmental viewpoint, alkaline

drainages originating from calcium-magnesium

carbonate systems are normal in the West, and

thus do not harm the hydrologic regime. A rising water table that inundates pyrite-rich zones

in the spoils is another mechanism by which

pyrite oxidation is inhibited. A fluctuating water

table can promote weathering in the zone of fluctuation, but if no replenishment of oxygen from

the atmosphere occurs, severe degradation of

groundwater quality is unlikely.

The following must be determined to predict

the

●

●

●

●

●

potential for acid formation:

the organic content of the pre- and postmining soil;

the porosity and permeability of the recontoured spoils, to aid in predicting available

oxygen for oxidation;

the predicted level of the postmine water table and in what general time frame recharge

will occur (1, 10, 50, 100, 500 years);

the percentage of pyrite in the overburden,

to give a gross indication of the potential for

acid formation; and

the buffering capacity of the overburden, to

allow a gross indication of the potential for

neutralizing acid.

A test has been devised that uses these data

and analyses from Eastern overburden materials to predict their acid-forming potential. This

procedure leaches overburden samples with hydrogen peroxide to extract sulfur forms; it assumes that all sulfur forms will be oxidized completely. In the West, however, a large fraction of

the sulfur is in less reactive organic forms, and

the assumption that all sulfur forms will go from

a reduced to a completely oxidized state is not

valid. These lab methods and the overburden

suitability criteria derived from them have been

proven reliable for predicting the potential for

acid production in Eastern mine spoils through

years of application.

Applicability of the same methods and unsuitability limits has not been proven in the

West. The chemical and physical conditions that

contribute to the potential for acid formation are

sufficiently different in Western coal regions to

invalidate the lab results and, therefore, the interpretations from which suitability limits are established. The issue is one of understanding the geochemistry of Western overburden and the range

of conditions that exist in the various coal fields,

and of devising a laboratory method that yields

reliable results from which valid overburden

suitability criteria can be established.

Baseline studies similar to those listed above

have demonstrated that there are conditions under which acid formation could occur in New

Mexico and in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River basin.2 The Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) has acknowledged

the potential for acid production in mine spoils

since 1978. DEQ requires sample testing for determination of the acid-base potential (ABP) of

overburden using a furnace-induction method

that allows isolation of the reactive inorganic sulfur compounds. The calculation of acid potential still is based on the assumption that all reactions go to completion, however. In New

Mexico, the soils and overburden are strongly

alkaline, the climate desert-like, and sulfates appear primarily as gypsum in weathered strata.

Zlt is unclear why the unknown potential for acid formation is

not considered a problem in the Montana portion of the Powder

River coal region.
234 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Acid-forming strata have been documented at

one mine, and ABP determinations are required

for strata low in lime.

The potential for acid-forming material is low

in the Fort Union coal region of North Dakota

and Montana where soils are deep and more

likely to be sodic. No ABP analysis is required

in these areas. [n Colorado, no special analysis

or interpretation would be required unless there

were a reason to suspect a problem (e.g., acid

formation at nearby mines, or high concentrations of pyritic sulfur in the lab data).

While both the regulatory authorities and the

operators acknowledge that the available techniques for estimating ABP may not produce reliable results when applied to Western overburden

materials, the lab techniques will continue to be

used until better methods are devised. As a result, the operators believe that some overburden

material is being erroneously classified as unsuitable and that, as a result, they are being required

to special handle the material needlessly (see box

8-A) and/or bury it more deeply than would ordinarily be the case. The regulatory authorities,

while recognizing this possibility, believe that an

overly conservative estimate of acid potential is

better than failing to special handle deleterious

material, with potentially much greater costs for

reconstruction if revegetation problems arise.

Research currently being funded by the Western mine operators, both jointly and individually,

is making progress in resolving this problem. The

regulatory authority in at least one State, Wyoming, is prepared to rewrite State guidelines to

reflect any changes in analytical techniques or

overburden suitability criteria that may result

from this research.
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation ● 235

SEDIMENT

Surface coal mining and reclamation operations

in the Western United States can result in discharges of sediments to surface streams as a result of accelerated erosion caused by removal of

the vegetative cover; topsoil stripping; and construction of stockpiles, roads, and other facilities.

Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) are regulated under SMCRA and the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act requires the States to establish water quality standards to be achieved

through effluent limitations on discharges from

point sources, These standards and limitations are

established and enforced through permits issued

for point source discharges under the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N PDES;

see ch. 4). Effluent limitations for surface coal

mines regulate discharges of TSS as welI as iron,

manganese, and pH. SMCRA also established a

performance standard that requires a mine operator to prevent, to the extent possible using the

best technology currently available, additional

contributions of suspended solids to streamflow

or to runoff outside the permit area.4 Until 1982,

the Federal regulations specified that the best currently available technology for the control of sediment IS a properly designed and constructed sedimentation pond, as governed by both design and

performance standards adopted by each State

(see ch. 4).

In 1982, the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Changed the Federal effluent limitation for

sediment in discharges from sedimentation ponds

(point sources) from 70 mg/I to a far less stringent settleable solids effluent standard of 0.5 ml/1

to be used during precipitation events and for

reclaimed areas. The original TSS standard of 70

mg/I still applies to all discharges when no precipitation is occurring and to pit water discharges.

3U nless othemwse noted, the material in this section is based on

reference 6.

‘in this context, “best technology currently available” is defined

[n the Federal regulations as “equipment, devices, systems, methods, or techniques which will prevent, to the extent possible, additional contributions of suspended solids to stream flows or runoff outside the permit area, but in no event result in contributions

or suspended solids In excess of requirements set by applicable

State or Federal Iaws”(l 0).

CONTROL3

The 1982 EPA revisions also eliminated specific

design and construction standards for sedimentation ponds. In 1983, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) revised its TSS performance standard

to be consistent with the new EPA rules. While

most State regulatory programs still adhere to the

more stringent suspended solids standard of 70

mg/1 for point source discharges, the States eventually may revise their programs to incorporate

the new settleable solids standard.

Sedimentation ponds historically have been the

accepted technology for sediment control in all

of the Western States studied except New Mexico, which is just beginning to develop a policy

on the design and construction of runoff and sediment control structures. Previously, New Mexico had no design standards for sediment control structures, and New Mexico mines generally

would construct a berm around the limit of disturbance to contain the estimated runoff from a

10-year 24-hour event. There is no discharge from

the mines for runoff events less than the 1 ()-year

24-hour event. In other States, the use of alternative sediment control measures (see below) has

been permitted through case-by-case exemptions.

For example, a mine in a plains area of southern

Wyoming, where peak flows occur primarily from

rainstorm runoff and all drainages are ephemeral,

received a permit in June 1982 for a combination of sedimentation ponds and “other sediment

control techniques. ” Contour berms and retention ditches were proposed and implemented as

alternative sediment control measures to intercept surface runoff and trap sediment from disturbed areas.

Alternative means of maintaining sediment production at or below the level produced from undisturbed terrain include preventive measures

and remedial designs. Preventive measures generally retard the velocity and reduce the quantity

of runoff, thus reducing erosion rates. The primary preventive measure is topographic design

of reclaimed slopes and drainage basins to reduce

erosion rates, and thus sediment production.

Complex slopes with upper convexities, middle

straight reaches, and lower concave reaches have

long been associated with the lowest erosion
236 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

rates. Such slopes, in concert with drainage basin

design that provides adequate drainage density

and shorter slopes, will minimize long-term sediment production from reclaimed lands. Other preventive measures include revegetation, mulching, contour plowing, and use of rocky topsoil.

Revegetation adds soil strength and surface

roughness, retarding the velocity of overland runoff. Mulch retains surface water, enhances infiltration, and adds surface roughness. Contour plowing also adds surface roughness and enhances

infiltration. Rocky topsoil produces an armor

when it erodes, thus impeding further erosion,

but is not allowed under the regulatory programs

because rocks are considered to “contaminate”

soil.

Remedial designs for actively disturbed and

temporarily unstable lands can be constructed,

where needed, at low cost and with minimal

added impact. These techniques reduce erosion

either by avoiding sensitive areas or by decreasing the amount of sediment in runoff. They include small diversion channels, porous rock or

straw bale check dams, interceptor ditches,

vegetative buffers, and diversion of runoff into

the pit. Small channels divert runoff away from

sensitive areas. Rock check dams and straw bale

dikes act as temporary, permeable barriers to decrease streamflow velocity and cause sediment

to deposit. interceptor ditches are small, level

trenches running across hillsides that slow surface runoff and promote sediment deposition.

Strips of undisturbed native vegetation adjacent

to disturbed land enhance sediment deposition

and inhibit further erosion. Ditches placed

around the toes of all topsoil and overburden

stockpiles capture sediment as close to the source

as possible.

The requirements for sedimentation control

ponds are controversial in the Western United

States because the ponds are expensive to build

and maintain, because they increase the amount

of land that must be disturbed during mining

and reclamation, because most Western streams

already have naturally high sediment levels, and

because the cumulative effect of water storage

in ponds at several mines can be a significant

loss of water—the West’s most scarce resource

—to downstream users. Moreover, historically,

the alternative sediment control techniques described above are considered proven technology and have been implemented successfully in

agriculture, highway construction, and other

land-disturbing activities.

Most of the streams in the semiarid West are

ephemeral (flow only during runoff events). They

originate in fine-grained sedimentary materials,

derive all of their flow from surface runoff, and

average 50 percent solids by weight. TSS concentrations as high as 1 million mg/1 have been documented during runoff events. Runoff from mines

or mine-water discharges into ephemeral streams

can have adverse impacts on water uses that are

especially sensitive to sediment loads. Also, if the

sediment load is increased to the point that the

sediment transport capacity of the stream is exceeded and its basic deposition processes fundamentally altered, the changes in the stream system can extend offsite. A significant decrease in

sediment loads (e.g., when relatively clear water

is released from ponds) also can have adverse impacts on ephemeral streams, because the unnaturally clear discharged water is erosive, and can

result in channel incision or degradation downstream.

Perennial streams, on the other hand, originate

in mountainous areas, receive discharge from

groundwater, and derive their runoff chiefly from
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation • 237

snowmelt. These streams, such as the Tongue,

Yampa, and Missouri Rivers and their major tributaries, have naturally high-quality water. They

typically support sport fisheries, municipal and

domestic water uses, and large amounts of irrigation–all uses that would be affected adversely

by an increase in sediment loads.

The cumulative effect of multiple sedimentation control ponds at several mines within a drainage basin can be a reduction in streamflows in

both ephemeral and perennial streams. For example, the Wyoming DEQ’s cumulative hydrologic impact assessment of mines north of Gillette, Wyoming, concluded that “the greatest

cumulative impact to the surface-water system

will be the reduction in streamflows resulting

from the impoundment of runoff in sedimentation ponds and mine pits.’’(7) The greatest effect

on the Little Powder River, as determined by DEQ

from mine plan maps submitted by the permit

applicants, will occur at its confluence with Rawhide Creek. Above this point, the flow of the Little Powder River could be reduced as much as

17 percent.

Such streamflow reductions could cause conflicts between mines and downstream irrigators

who depend on flood flows to irrigate hay

meadows. These potential conflicts have led DEQ

to encourage the use of “alternative sediment

control measures” such as straw dikes and porous check dams, which trap sediment but allow

water to pass downstream, in lieu of conventional

sedimentation ponds (8). This recommendation

is made only where the receiving streams are

ephemeral or intermittent, and therefore naturally high in TSS during runoff events. Perennial

streams, which could be adversely affected by

discharges high in TSS, still must be protected

with sedimentation ponds. Therefore, it is unclear

how these alternative measures would mitigate

the streamflow reductions in perennial streams.

The advantages of alternative sediment control

practices for discharges to ephemeral streams are

highlighted in the Wyoming DEQ decision document on the proposed use of such practices at

a mine in the southwestern part of the State. The

decision document included a determination as

to whether the alternative sediment control practices would encourage advances in mining and

reclamation technology—one of the bases for permitting an experimental practice under SMCRA

(see ch. 4):

sediment ponds are considered to be the

best technology currently available to control

sedimentation and protect receiving water quality. The coal mining industry as well as professional hydrologists and geomorphologists are

often of the opinion that although sediment

ponds may very well be the best technology currently available to protect perennial stream water

quality in the Eastern United States, they are not

the best, or most practical technology currently

available to protect ephemeral stream water

quality in semi-arid regions of the Western

United States.

The potential benefits of using alternate sediment control techniques instead of sediment

ponds to protect the quality of receiving streams

are

1.

2.

3.

4,

5.

6.

7

as follows:

The lack of sediment ponds will lead to less

land and wildlife habitat disturbance.

Alternate sediment control techniques will

keep topsoil and subsoil on site where it is

most useful for revegetation efforts.

Several alternate sediment control techniques result in less runoff which may lead

to greater soil moisture, providing for more

successful revegetation.

Alternate sediment control techniques may

be more cost effective than sediment ponds.

The consequences of sediment pond dam

failure and associated environmental degradation are eliminated.

Channel incision below sediment ponds, resulting from TSS concentrations well below

ambient conditions, is eliminated.

7. Alternate sediment control techniques minimize the retention of runoff from undisturbed areas thereby providing more water

to downstream water users (6).

Two sets of data are needed before the regulatory authorities will consider changing the

strict requirement for technological sediment

control on ephemeral streams to more flexible

performance standards: empirical data on sediment yields (the total amount of eroded material that reaches a control point), and on the effectiveness of alternative means of control. The

data on sediment yields from surface mining and
238 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

reclamation can be obtained from premining

baseline studies and from monitoring. Whether

designing sediment ponds or planning alternative sediment control measures, it is necessary

to estimate the amount of sediment that will

erode from a watershed and be subject to transport downstream during a precipitation event.

This can be accomplished through premining erosion pin studies or with other methods (see chs.

5 and 6). Small watershed studies currently are

underway at a number of mines that also could

provide empirical data on sediment yields during mining and reclamation.

Two mines in Wyoming currently are collecting data from experimental practices designed to

demonstrate that alternative sediment control

measures are as effective as sedimentation ponds

in protecting water quality in ephemeral streams.

One of these was approved for southwestern Wyoming in 1983 (see box 8-B) and one in the southern portion of the Powder River basin in 1985.

As stated in the Wyoming DEQ decision document on the mine illustrated in box 8-B:

To date, little, if any, meaningful suspended

sediment data has been collected in areas being affected by coal mining activities in semi-arid

areas of the Western United States. Therefore,

this experimental practice will not only determine the adequacy of the alternate sediment

control techniques proposed but will also adequately quantify ambient water quality conditions and streamflow conditions in ephemeral

streams. This information, coupled with precipitation data, will greatly further the understanding of ambient and mining disturbed runoff conditions. [In turn this can be used to adjust analytic

techniques used by the mining industry and regulatory authorities in the development of mine

drainage plans etc.

Additionally, data collected as a result of this

proposal will also be able to be used for the development and calibration of various hydrologic

and sedimentation models . . . (6).

Box 8-B illustrates both innovative sediment

control practices and state-of-the-art sediment

and runoff monitoring techniques for ephemeral

streams. The mine in this case study may benefit

substantially from alternative sediment control

because the high drainage density of the permit

area would have required construction of over

200 ponds. Not all mines are faced with this situation, and for other mines the monitoring, reporting, and inspection requirements that accompany

a formal experimental practice may outweigh any

economic benefits of alternative sediment control.

As regulatory authorities become more comfortable with the use of state-of-the-art sediment

and runoff monitoring techniques and with alternative sediment control measures, and as the

needed data become available, more mines may

be able to use alternative sediment control practices without the extensive requirements for an

experimental practice. As the result, water quality in ephemeral streams will be protected while

creating smaller impacts on the availability of

water for downstream users—a critical consideration in the arid and semiarid West.

A continuing uncertainty is how the effectiveness of alternative sediment controls will be

evaluated. The SMCRA and Clean Water Act effluent limitations are technology-based standards

dependent on the designation of any control

structure as a point source. For example, if the

alternative controls implemented at the mine discussed in box 8-B are considered point sources,

they must meet the TSS limitation of 70 mg/l;

otherwise they could have TSS concentrations

measured in the tens of thousands and be in compliance with Wyoming regulatory program standards so long as the receiving water quality is not

degraded.

in approving the experimental practice illustrated in box 8-B, OSM indicated that the effectiveness of the alternative controls will be evaluated in terms of whether they are at least as

effective as sediment ponds. If this means achieving point-source effluent standards, obviously

alternative practices will not be as effective as

ponds. The operator’s evaluation program for this

experimental practice is designed, with State concurrence, to measure effectiveness in terms of

nondegradation of water quality —i.e., whether

the alternative controls will prevent additions to

naturally occurring TSS concentrations. The alternative sediment control practices also will be

evaluated in terms of minimizing land disturbance
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation ● 239

Box thB.-ArI Expedmentd Pradb for Alternative Sediment CmMroP

A surface coal mine in southwestern Wyornin~ &quested afi ~emption tO the use of sediment control

ponds because the mine’s large area and high dra#n~ de~dty ~tddlwwa required the construction of

about 200 ponds, and because the region% aphetnkrai str@@$ haw naturally high sediment loads. The

sedimentation ponds would be classified as poiatqums of the CJean Water Act. Therefore, they would be subject to stringent ~ent ~i=$, _ed solids, total iron, and total

manganese. The natural sediment ccmcent@ons ki-th$% sf~:tange from 400 to 1 million mg/1-far in excess of the point source effluent Qadifd +$.?~ ~~~ ~ ~ ; ‘::. ~ ,, ~, .,

,“

Under the Wyoming regulatory progr&n,@ of sedimentation ponds can be

granted if alternative sediment control’ meas~::i m$nddrainage from degradin g

receiving waters. Although the operator% indicated that such degradation

would not occur, and DEQ granted tfw exernptiont OSM required that the alternative sediment control

measures be permitted as a formal experimental practice under SMCRA.

The objectives of the alternative sediment control plan at thi~nt$w are to protect water quality, conserve soil, and reduce mining costs. Other environmental advar#ag@s eked by the operator are the elimination of channel degradation below dams (from the discharge of unnaturally clear and therefore erosive

water); reduction in land disturbance that would have been re@ired for the construction of sediment ponds

(estimated at over a acres); and mitigation of water qu~tity impacts on natural streamflows through

elimination of impoundment storage, seepage~ aod evaporation.

In-stream flow criteria were established to provide a cl~ar Mnition of stream water quality degradation. Though this plan deals with nonpoint source runoff exclusively, the operator used the NPDES point

source parameters for iron, manganese, pH, and TSS a guide from which to select nonpoint source water

quality parameters. Baseline surface water quality data showed that TSS was the only parameter in natural

streamflow that consistently violated NPDES criteria. Therefore, the operator used TSS concentrations as

the design parameter for the alternative sediment control pro~rarn. After consultation with the regulatory

authority, the operator designated the largest ephemeral stream in the area (to which all streams within

the permit area are tributary) as the receiving stream. The receiving stream is not currently truncated by

the pit, and changes in through-flowing water quality therefore can be observed at sites above and below

the disturbed area. Alternative sediment control techniques will & used in all areas draining to these sites.

In order to appiy the alternative control techniques in a rigorous manner to the disturbed areas, the

operator developed a design method based on a standard ,$Q~puter simulation model (SEDIMOT 11; see

ch. 6) to simulate runoff from an area prior to the rwed for sedimi?qt control and with different sediment

control techniques. The sizes and locations of the controls were evaluated to determine how best to reduce the sediment discharge to levels below the receiving stream water quality. Successive computer iterations were conducted and~”&iti~naf #imen$ controls added as necessary until the design TSS concentration (30,000 mgll) was +ch”iwld. C%ntrol structtms were added in the following order: rock check dams,

contour interceptor ditc&, ”@ntiui”befis, vegetative buffer strips, toe ditches, temporary barriers, and

benches on stockpile For the nine &b@mtidded, fol,t~ ~uird~~.control measures to limit TSS concentrations to values less than or M%w the design value ~f WJW mg/1. Two watersheds required contour ditches andlor contour diskkg to meet target TSS ccwcentrations.

-.

In consultation wkh &)EQ and @“M~ f& operh@r ddgned +maxteosive monitoring program to obtain

site-specific and areawide hydrologic and Airnefitologic data. These data will enabie the operator to evaluate the effectiveness of t~ @tern@ve techniques and to quantify the Wpacts of mine area drainage on

water quality in the pri~ary:wei@ng ~~eam. Qap are co@ctec! go the receiving stream upstream of the

disturbed area, on the drainage from t~ di%urbd area, @On an undisturbed drainage that serves as

a control watershed+ In the 4vent that @n@@ data show degradation of receiving water quality during a

runoff event, the alternative sediment control program will be temporarily out-of-compliance, (The possibility of temporary noncompliance also exists for a sediment pond if the dam were to wash out, or if set-
240 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

and changes to natural streamflow rates. If these If this is demonstrated, the definition of best

additional criteria are applied to the performance practicable control technology may have to be

of the control measures, then they may be more changed to recognize factors other than contrieffective than sediment ponds in some cases. butions of suspended solids.

SOIL HANDLING AND REVEGETATION5

The early State reclamation laws, followed by

SMCRA and the Federal regulatory program, instituted requirements for topsoiling in the reclamation of surface mined lands. Soil handling and

redressing ought to be an optimization process—

too little soil or soil of poor quality and revegetation will be unsatisfactory; too much soil and

money is wasted.

The results of long-term studies of the effects

of different methods of soil handling on revegetation have indicated that stockpiling can adversely affect the success of revegetation efforts.

Studies that compare revegetation with stored soil

versus directly hauled soil indicate that storing

soil for more than about 2 years at many sites significantly decreases the viability of seeds and

microbiota. The direct haul or “live” soil-handling technique (see ch. 3) preserves the biologically active component of the soil and tends to

5Unle55 Othewise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from references 4 and 5.

encourage faster reestablishment of nutrient cycles, improving the establishment of planted and

volunteer species and producing superior Iifeform

and species diversity within a relatively short time.

The most recent monitoring data at one mine

where the conditions for revegetation are among

the most favorable in the study area indicate that

the combination of biologically active direct haul

soil plus other innovative soil handling techniques

can produce revegetation on some areas that

meets the SMCRA performance standards even

without direct seeding or planting (see box 8-C,

below). The efficacy of direct haul soil handling

varies among regions and sites within regions,

however.

The importance of maintaining a biologically

active soil is not surprising when one considers

that temperate-zone grassland and shrub-steppe

ecosystems—those common in the study area—

have substantially more biomass (i.e., living tissue) below ground than above ground. Furthermore, a good portion of the central ecosystem
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation ● 241

Photo credit: Jenifer Rob/son, OTA staff

The foreground shows a portion of a mine in northwestern

Colorado that was revegetated 4 years previously with

volunteer growth (no seeding or planting) using twoIift direct-haul soil handling and supplementing the

topsoil with mulch produced onsite by shredding

the premining vegetation.

processes (nutrient and energy cycling) are located below ground.

Because the direct haul technique eliminates

the middle step in the process of stripping, stockpiling, and respreading soil, it can be less expensive, depending on haul distances, equipment,

and other operational considerations. Direct haul

also is advantageous for small mines that do not

have room for topsoil stockpiles. The fortuitous

coincidence of economic and biologic advantage

has caused direct haul to be adopted to some degree by most Western surface coal mines that are

beyond the first box cuts, and that were able to

incorporate it in their operational mine planning.

At some mines, the area ultimately treated by direct haul will be well over sO percent. In other

cases, however, mine logistics can prevent the

use of direct haul over much of the disturbed area

(e.g., in deep or multiple seam operations). In

North Dakota, the ability to direct haul soil also

is limited by the regulatory requirement to return

soils to the original landowner. Where direct haul

soil handling is not feasible, supplemental topdressing–application of a thin layer of freshly salvaged topsoil—could enhance volunteer growth

and diversity and serve as a source of desirable

microbiota.

A second soil handling method that recognizes

the importance of reestablishing the natural horizon order within soil profiles, and also helps to

maintain biological soil components in an active

state, is the handling and replacement of the biologically most active surface soil layers, without

dilution by underlying subsoil–’’two lifts.” Two

lifts require that surface materials are kept segBOX 8-C: Innovative WI! Hm$Wg ard-ltevqgetatfdn Teehnlquad

,“ MI northwestern Colorada, conditim we more favorable than anywhere

uction on reclaimed

area have akut w tO ~~

~s. Similarly, herbac=us

rein baseline vegetation

~fi, one operator expedmented

!%!fifig supplemented with mulch

to W inches, If the 18 inches

I occum within the I&inch

ccwered with 0 inches

y (i.e., without seeding

us production after 4

pe$the $egulatcq authority

rndch, arguing that

, @’#X@ *I! h approved w ~ field trial.

‘ $ i~’~ * Cal and dated text in derence 5; case study j in referefm 4.
242 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

regated from subsurface materials during stockpiling or direct haul operations, and redressed

with topsoils over subsoils (see ch. 3). The surface soil, including the A horizon along with the

upper B horizon, is the zone of maximum organic

matter accumulation and macrobiotic activity.

The subsoil, consisting of the lower B horizon (if

present) and the C horizon, contains far less organic matter, and can have a layer of calcium carbonate accumulation that reduces its value as a

plant growth medium.

Two-lift soil handling is an especially important

consideration in deep soils. As a result, it has been

practiced and/or required in Montana and North

Dakota for years, and is standard practice at many

other Western mines with deep soils. When a soil

suitable to depths as great as 60 inches is salvaged

in a single lift, the relatively thin surface layer of

maximum biological activity is buried or mixed

with relatively sterile, albeit chemically and physically “suitable” subsoil. Roots, seeds, and beneficial microbiota, as well as the organic-rich surface material, are diluted or lost by burial. Surficial

organic matter that could increase soil moisture

capacity and gas exchange and decrease erodibility is diluted. Seeds and roots are distributed

throughout a large soil volume, many buried too

deeply to aid revegetation.

The combination of two lifts with direct hauling is especially advantageous for the reestablishment of rangeland diversity, and maybe enhanced even further in some instances by the use

of other soil treatments such as mulch derived

from shredding native vegetation (see box 8-C).

There are no formal research projects directly

comparing two-lift direct-haul soil handling with

other methods, but monitoring data from the

mines in the study area that are using this combination should be available within a few years

for comparison with those from mines in the

same areas using other methods.

The results of recent research and innovation

on soil handling and revegetation raise questions

about whether soil handling is optimized under

the current regulatory framework. SMCRA, as

implemented in the Federal regulations, requires

that topsoil, defined as A and E horizons (originally the A horizon), be redressed over spoil, and

that subsoils be used only if the regulatory authority determines it to be necessary (1 1). The

State programs in the study area (with the exception of Colorado), however, require the salvage

of all “suitable” soil, including A, E, B, and C

horizons. In some cases this requires salvage of

soil down to depths of 60 inches or more. “Suitable” is defined by physical and chemical criteria

(pH, salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, texture,

and other parameters such as coarse fragments,

lime, boron, and selenium). This salvage requirement aims at providing the most favorable medium for seed germination and plant growth–a

medium similar to that in which the native plants

grew originally. Salvage of all suitable soil is

appropriate in many situations; e.g., when undetected deleterious materials may occur in the

spoil, where erosion is a concern, or where the

moisture-holding capacity of the spoil is limited.

But it is not appropriate in every case.

First, as discussed above, the experiments with

direct haul, two lifts, and other techniques (e.g.,

mulch produced onsite from native vegetation)

all indicate that the biological and organic parameters of soil are at least as important in determining soiI quality for revegetation —if not more important-than physical and chemical criteria.

Greater attention needs to be paid to the biological quality of soil in planning and implementing soil handling and revegetation.

An additional consideration is soil depth. There

has been very little research on the optimum

depth of soil as a function of soil quality. Much

of the work has been on the soil depth needed

over problem spoils. Where such spoils are not

a concern, one rationale for requiring the salvage

of all suitable soil is that in arid and semiarid regions, where soil moisture is assumed to be the

primary limiting plant growth factor, the moistureholding capacity of the reclaimed soil will be

maximized by maximizing soil thickness. Thus,

if none of the physical or chemical criteria is limiting in soil handling, depth to bedrock is the

usual limiting factor. Yet the surface layers of soils

generally have better structure, aeration, lower

resistance to root penetration, and infiltration

capacity than subsoils, These favorable characteristics will be diluted by salvaging all suitable

soil (including B and C horizons) in one lift,
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation • 243

Organic matter is primarily responsible for the

development and maintenance of soil structure.

An organically rich, thin soil layer with welldeveloped structure at the surface will have better infiltration than a thicker soil with less organic

matter, and the moisture-holding capacity of a

soil low in organic matter may not be better than

the spoil. Because organic matter typically decreases with depth, salvaging subsoil will dilute

the organic matter content of the reconstructed

soil unless two-lift handling is practiced. Where

surface soils are low in organic matter and the

soil nutrient content does not greatly exceed that

of the spoils, a minimal thickness may be as

effective as a thicker one. Because present baseline analyses in permit applications do not evaluate

characteristics such as organic matter or moisture-holding capacity of either the reclaimed

soils or recontoured spoils, current soil thickness requirements do not consider the optimum

reclamation needs (see box 8-D).

Direct-haul soil handling could conceivably

outweigh considerations of soil quality or thickness, but existing regulations can discourage

direct haul. For example, in some cases the regulatory requirement for approximate uniform topsoil thickness actually promotes stockpiling. With

a direct haul system, redressed thickness would

vary as the mine moved through areas in which

the premining thickness varies naturally. Stockpiling, however, allows a uniform thickness to be

replaced over a landscape that had variable soil

thicknesses before mining. Regulations that require the salvage of all suitable soil undermine

the effectiveness of the direct haul method (without two lifts) because the biologic component of

the topsoil that produces many of the beneficial

effects of direct haul is compromised under the

requirement to salvage all suitable horizons.

SMCRA itself is sufficiently flexible to accommodate all of these considerations related to soil

handling and revegetation, but the regulations in

most States are not. Several of the reguIatory authorities do allow nonuniform thickness on a

case-by-case basis, however. In future revisions

of the regulatory programs, special attention

should be paid to relating requirements for soil

quality and depth to the proposed mining and

reclamation methods and the supporting baseline analysis.

Box 8-D.—Challenging the Requirement for 100 Percent Soil Salvagel

The permit application for a case study mine in Wyoming stated:

. . . [although] topsoil salvage depth is often emphasized as the most important criterion in providing suitable

and sufficient plant-growth material to meet the proposed postmining land use . . . two better criteria are suitable plant growth material and quality replacement depth.

The applicant conducted a laboratory and short-term greenhouse study to show that the optimal salvage plan for several of the deep soils of the site would be to salvage the A, B, and upper C horizons

and leave the Iower C horizons. The ap plicant maintained that the lower C was no different from the overburden and, in some subsoi with high K‘lime, the overburden was better. The operator proposed to salvage A, B, and upper $ materials to be redressed over %Iw 48 inches of suitable top bench cover material.

The regukto~~uthority felt the results of the applicants research were inconclusive, and rejected this

approach, stating:

. . . [it] does not meet the requirements of all applicable rubs and regulations. Although the C topsoil material

in some of the SOW k not~ @rti\e as the A and B horizons, k is felt that the stripphg of those suitable C materiais will not appr@ckibly”r4duee the quality of the replaced Wpsoil.

‘See a$m(iy E b mhrence 4.
244 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

REVEGETATION OF WOODY PLANTS6 

Woody plants–trees, shrubs, and subshrubs7–

occur in a variety of plant communities in the

Western United States, including the woody

draws of North Dakota, the shrub-steppe communities of Montana and Wyoming, the mountain shrub communities at higher elevations in

most States, and the pi non pine-juniper and salt

desert shrub types of the Southwest.8 Woody

plants are ecologically important in the West as

forage and cover for livestock and wildlife as

well as for improving soil moisture and for protecting leafy herbaceous plant species from

heavy grazing.

“Cover” includes a number of habitat features,

such as thermal cover (shade) on hot days; hiding cover for solitude and protection from predators; shelter from wind; and nesting, perching,

and feeding sites for birds and many small mammals. The food value of shrubs includes the actual leaf, stem, and fruit tissues of the shrubs for

herbivores, as well as the variety of insects they

support that serve as prey for songbirds and small

mammals, which in turn are prey for raptors and

carnivores. In areas where the shrub overstory

is relatively open and varied, the herbaceous understory usually is diverse and forage plentiful,

but where dense stands of shrubs with little diversity are present (as in severely overgrazed areas),

the understory usually is sparse and forage more

limited. Shrubs are particularly valuable during

winter because they are more nutritious than the

above-ground portions of dormant herbaceous

species and more available because they protrude above snow cover.

Cattle, and to a lesser extent sheep, prefer herbaceous vegetation to shrubs. Cattle are heavily

oriented toward grazing, although they do consume the current year’s growth on smaller shrubs

(and especially subshrubs) during fall and spring.

Sheep also are grazers, but they tend to prefer

forbs (nongrass herbs) rather than grasses, and

sunless otherwise noted, the material in this section is adapted

from references 1 and 5.

7Subshrubs are perennial plants that are woody at the base and

are either of small stature or die back nearly to ground level (i.e.,

intermediate between a shrub and a forb) (5).

8For de~riptions of these plant communities and their importance

for wildlife and livestock, see references 1 and 5 in vol. 2.

they make greater use of shrubs than cattle, especially during the fall and winter. This enables

sheep to be kept on rangeland throughout the

winter even at northern latitudes, and to forage

successfully (along with goats) in herb-poor desert shrublands in the Southwest. Even so, the

quality of sheep range, like that of cattle range,

is more apt to be limited by a scarcity of palatable herbaceous species than by the lack of

shrubs.

Although shrubs in high densities may decrease

the range value for cattle and sheep, their presence improves habitat quality for a variety of wildlife species. The food value of big sagebrush is

particularly important for pronghorn antelope

and sage grouse, which are species of special

concern in the West because of their recreational

and economic value. These species utilize sagebrush throughout the year, but especially in winter when other food materials either are buried

under the snow, or offer low nutritional value,

palatability, or digestibility. During severe winters,

these animals may be almost totally dependent

on sagebrush. Sagebrush also is essential to all

other aspects of the life history of sage grouse.

Open areas surrounded by sagebrush serve as

strutting grounds, and most nesting and brood

rearing occurs under sagebrush (3). In mountain

areas, sagebrush openings near aspen stands can

be important for elk calf-rearing. Other shrubs

of value to wildlife include four-wing saltbush,

Gardner saltbush, bitter brush, shadscale, winterfat, chokecherry, service berry, and mountain

mahogany.

Besides their value for forage and cover, woody

plants are important for improving soil moisture

and for protecting herbaceous species subject to

heavy grazing. Soil moisture in shrubby communities is enhanced because the woody plants accumulate snow within their crowns and in their

lees, especially in windy prairie habitats. Woody

plants also reduce wind velocities and hence

desiccation at the ground surface. Moreover, the

shading effect during summer may lower ground

temperatures, and thus evaporation rates from

the ground surface, sufficiently to offset the moisture loss from evapotranspiration though the
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation ● 245

leaves. Groups of herbaceous plants are protected from grazing animals because the animals

are unable to reach grasses or forbs growing

around the base of a shrub. The protected plants

serve as an important seed source, particularly

in situations where heavy grazing virtually eliminates seed sources in open areas between shrubs.

in some combinations of slope and substrate,

woody plants also may improve slope stability because their more massive root systems can anchor a greater volume of material than many herbaceous species.

Because of the ecological importance of woody

plants in the West, the revegetation requirements

in SMCRA are tied to the reestablishment of native woody plant species as well as other Iifeforms

(forbs and grasses) by land use category (see ch.

7, table 7-2). 9 In States without specific woody

plant standards for particular land uses, shrub

density standards usually are negotiated on a

case-by-case basis, based on the premining density, the postmining land use, and/or practicality

(see box 8-E, below). For the desert shrub communities of New Mexico, the negotiated figure

for shrubs generally is 190 stems/acre, while in

northwestern Colorado (where the conditions for

revegetation are among the most favorable in the

study region) it normally is 1,000 stems/acre. In

North Dakota, woody plant density standards

only address wooded draws because of the paucity of shrubs or trees in upland sites. Guidelines

and success standards for replacement of woody

9

The SMCRA performance standards and standards for revegetation success are discussed in chs. 4 and 7.
246 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Photo credit: Utah International Inc.

Pinon-juniper woodlands occur in the surface coal

mining regions of the desert Southwest.

draw habitat currently are being developed based

on research at one mine (see ch. 3, box 3-N).

Pinon-juniper habitats in New Mexico also are

relatively scarce, but regulatory personnel there

are uncertain whether the technology exists to

replace pinon-juniper after the rocky substrata

supporting these species have been altered.

Wyoming is the only State so far to propose a

formal woody plant density standard that is not

tied directly to the baseline premining density.

The Wyoming proposal states that 10 percent of

the reclaimed surface should have shrub densities of at least one stem per square meter (4,050

stems/acre), and the remaining 90 percent of the

area should have shrubs included in the seed mix,

but no shrub density performance standards must

be met. This proposed standard was under review by OSM at the time of this writing (see ch.

7, box 7-B).

The requirements for reestablishing woody

plants raise two issues. First, in all States except

Wyoming, the standards call for uniform postmining densities based on premining values. In

areas where the premining density is relatively

high (primarily Wyoming, Colorado, and New

Mexico), however, there is little field evidence

that high densities can be reestablished over an

entire reclamation site during the lo-year liability period even with the most advanced shrub

establishment technology (see below). Second,

in many areas the requirement to restore sagebrush in its premining density directly conflicts

with ranchers’ and surface management agencies’ postmining range management practices.

Achieving woody plant density performance

standards has been an area of concern throughout the study region, and the technology of shrub

reestablishment has been a major focus of research and innovation. In the first few years after SMCRA was passed, operators found it extremely difficult to establish woody plants from

seeds, and emphasis was placed on live plants

from containerized stock (tubelings), bareroot
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation ● 247

Photo credit: Jenifer Robison, OTA staff

Shrub clumps transplanted directly to reclaimed areas

with a specially modified front-end loader can establish

islands of native shrubs and other species from which

volunteers may radiate later in the liability period.

stock, and direct transplants from native stands

in the mine area. However, trials in mines in New

Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming with containerized and bareroot stock have shown low survival

rates and very high costs per surviving stem.

Bareroot stock also is only available for a limited

number of suitable species. Direct transplanting

of shrub clumps at some mines (see box 8-E) can

establish islands of native shrubs, soils, and accompanying herbaceous species from which volunteers may radiate, vegetatively or from seed,

later in the liability period, This method is very

expensive, however, and it probably is not capable of establishing required stem densities over

an entire reclamation site.

Because of the availability of seed and the cost

advantages of direct seeding, recent shrub establishment technology essentially has come full circle, and this method is now accepted as the major means of achieving the required woody plant

density effectively and economically. improvements in the success of direct seeding resulted

from recognition of the ecological fact that most

shrubs cannot tolerate vigorous herbaceous competition during their first few years. Successful

shrub establishment usually requires the use of

techniques that reduce interspecies competition,

such as separation in space or time from the aggressive cool season grasses that are planted to

control erosion and to support grazing (see ch. 3).

Other techniques that may help improve shrub

establishment include direct-haul soil handling

(see separate discussion of Soil Handling and

Revegetation), wildlife control, using locally

adapted seeds, and applying mulch produced by

shredding of woody vegetation (see ch. 3). The

latter has been used successfully at a mine in

northwestern Colorado (see box 8-E; see also ch.

3, box 3-L). Areas treated by this wood residue

technique have shown substantial woody plant

regeneration by root sprouting, resulting in far

greater densities than had been achieved previously by seeding. Moreover, this method allows

more complete topsoil salvage (due to the soil

that normally adheres to uprooted shrubs and is

disposed of with them in the absence of this

method), and after topsoil removal and replacement on the reclaimed surface, sufficient organic

debris remains on the surface to function as a

mulch, The technique is now being tried at a

mine in northwestern New Mexico where the

vegetation is sagebrush shrubland and pi nonjuniper forest, but results of that trial were not

available at the time of this writing.

The results at the mine depicted in box 8-E suggest that shrub densities of one stem per square

meter (4,050 stems/acre) can be realized at some

mines in very favorable revegetation environments within the early part of the liability period

using direct seeding and one of the various methods for reducing competition (see ch. 3). Monitoring data available from mines in less favorable environments for shrub reestablishment and

using other technologies (e.g., live transplants)

have resulted in lower shrub densities than those

at the mine in box 8-E—in the range of 0.05 to

0.15 stems/square meter.

Fewer data are available concerning shrub establishment in the sagebrush-steppe ecosystems

of the northern part of the study area. In the past,

operators have found it difficult to establish

shrubs other than fourwing saltbush in the Powder River basin of Wyoming, with a big sagebrush

being especially difficult. The most recent data

suggest that the prospects for shrub establishment

may be improving as operators invest more effort in special measures. However, the ability to

meet Wyoming’s proposed standard of one stem
248 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

per square meter on 10 percent of the area may

depend on whether fringed sage and Gardener

saltbush are counted as shrubs for density

purposes.

The abundance of woody plants on Western

rangeland has long been a source of aggravation

to ranchers, who would prefer that postmining

landscapes have fewer woody plants than before

to improve grazing for cattle and sheep. As a result, ranchers have undertaken large-scale programs to thin or kill woody species–primarily

sagebrush, but also Gambel’s oak, and pinon

pine and juniper–on rangelands, frequently with

financial or physical support under rangeland

management programs conducted by the Bureau

of Land Management (BLM). Rangeland management may be accomplished by chemical means

(spraying with a broadleaf herbicide), mechanical means (root-plowing or chaining), or burning. Such management generally reduces the

wildlife habitat value of the land, can reduce the

soil’s ability to retain moisture, and can exacerbate the effects of overgrazing because the shrubs

are no longer available to protect herbaceous

species.

The issue of postmining versus premining sagebrush densities is further complicated by the

widespread belief that present premining densities are greater than “natural” levels because

of historical grazing pressure. Thus, range managers and ranchers often feel that mine reclamation programs should reemphasize sagebrush because high densities decrease the value of the

land for livestock and are not “natural” for the

region. While it is true that very high sagebrush

densities may result from overgrazing (through

selective removal of the forbs and grasses with

which sagebrush seedlings must compete for

moisture, nutrients, light, and space), their presence or even dominance in certain regions and

on certain sites is sometimes related to other

factors.

While mine operators and regulatory personnel

recognize the ecological importance of woody

plants, they consider it senseless that so much

effort and expense is put into the reestablishment of premining sagebrush density when the

postmining landowner or surface manager may

negate those efforts through range management

programs. This conflict is exacerbated because,

while big sagebrush is the single most widespread

shrub in the study area, it also is among the most

difficult to reestablish.

For the most part, this conflict can be traced

to the lack of specificity in designation of the postmining land use (see separate discussion in this

chapter), and to inadequate coordination among

Federal and State regulatory authorities and land

management agencies. The options discussed in

the next section for defining postmining land uses

more carefully also could help mitigate the conflict between surface mine revegetation and

rangeland management.

In addition, many State regulatory and mining industry personnel feel that lower woody

plant densities, if accomplished as groupings

based on premining habitat mapping, provide

wildlife habitat as valuable overall as high uniform premining levels. In this context, rangeland

management programs also can benefit wildlife

if done selectively. For example, thinning big

sagebrush to increase herbaceous production can

improve the forage for pronghorn antelope as

long as shrubs remain available in critical winter

browse areas and are not totally removed from

summer range. Similarly, thinning dense oakbrush can greatly improve the forage value for

elk, which primarily are grazers, by increasing

herbaceous production. Although deer mainly

are browsers and are heavily dependent on

shrubs throughout much of the year, thinning

oakbrush and pinon-juniper also can be beneficial for deer because it stimulates tender young

shoots that are more nutritious, palatable, and

easily reached. For both deer and elk, however,

thinning must be done in relatively small blocks

so that adequate densities of tall brush and trees

remain nearby for the requisite thermal and hiding cover.
The postmining land use is defined during permitting of a surface coal mining operation. Under the Federal regulations, “land use” means

specific uses or management-related activities,

rather than the vegetation or cover of the land.

Multiple land uses may be identified when joint

or seasonal uses occur. Native rangeland is the

most extensive premining land use in the study

area (see ch. 3). The regulations define “native

rangeland” as land on which the natural potential (climax) vegetation is principally native grasses,

forbs, and shrubs valuable for forage. This includes natural grasslands and savannahs, as well

as juniper savannahs and other brush lands. Except for thinning shrubs (see discussion of Woody

Plant Revegetation, above), management of native rangeland primarily involves regulating the

intensity of grazing and season of use (1 O).

Other common land uses in the study area (as

defined in the Federal regulations) are:

●

●

●

Cropland: land used for the production of

adapted crops for harvest, alone or in rotation with grasses and legumes, including row

crops, small grain crops, hay crops, nursery

crops, orchard crops, and other similar crops.

pastureland or land occasionally cut for

hay: land used primarily for the long-term

production of adapted domesticated forage

plants to be grazed by livestock or occasionally cut and cured for livestock feed.

Grazingland: land used for grasslands and
250 • Western Surface Mine permitting and Reclamation

forest lands where the indigenous vegetation

is actively managed for grazing, browsing,

or occasional hay production.

● Fish and wildlife habitat: land dedicated

wholly or partially to the production, protection, or management of fish or wildlife

species (10).

In the West, the postmining land uses usually

are the same as the premining uses, although

some changes can occur. Where the surface is

privately owned, for example, the postmining

land use generally is consistent with the surface

owner’s preference. Thus, at a mine in North

Dakota, the postmining land use will convert

most of the existing rangeland to cropland at the

stated request of the surface owners (see box 8-

G, below).l0

OTA identified three issues related to the designation and implementation of postmining land

uses: the lack of specificity in describing postmining Iand uses, implementation and management

of the postmining land use after bond release, and

the effects of the postmining land use designation on the difficulty of reclamation.

Designating the Postmining Land Use

As discussed in chapter 4, SMCRA requires that

surface mined land be restored to a condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining, or higher

or better uses of which there is reasonable likelihood (1 3). SMCRA and the regulatory programs

require detailed characterizations of the premining and postmining land uses in the permit application and reclamation plan. The permit application package must contain a statement of the

condition, capability, 11 and productivity12 of the

Iosee case Study mine A in reference 4.

11 For the purposes of BLM land management, “capability” means

the ability or potential of a unit of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, or allow resource uses under a set of management practices at a given level of management intensity without permanently impairing the resource involved. Capability

depends on a fixed set of conditions that are relatively stable over

time, including but not limited to, climate, slope, Iandform, soils,

and geology (14).

I Zproductivity is determined by yield data or estimates for similar sites based on current data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, State agricultural universities, or appropriate State natural

resource or agricultural agencies (1 5).

land within the proposed permit area, including:

1 ) a map and supporting narrative of the uses of

the land at the time of the filing of the application and, if the premining use was changed within

5 years before the anticipated date of beginning

mining, the historic use; and 2) a narrative of land

capability and productivity, which analyzes the

land use description relative to other required

environmental resources information (climatological, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, soil

resources), as well as to the land’s premining capability and productivity (1 5). The reclamation

plan also must describe the use that is proposed

to be made of the land following reclamation,

how that use is to be achieved, and the necessary support activities that may be needed to

achieve it. Where the postmining land use is

rangeland or grazing, the operator must provide

details on the management plans to be implemented (16).

Some of the State regulatory programs require

an even greater degree of specificity in describing pre- or postmining land uses. In Wyoming,

for example, the regulations require a permit applicant to describe and rank the previous uses

of affected lands on an individual basis according to the overall economic or social value of the

land use to the area or local community (9).

Despite the requirements for detailed descriptions of the pre- and postmining land uses, and

quantification of land capability and productivity, the characterization of these uses is extremely perfunctory. A number of the surface

mining permits and reclamation plans reviewed

for this assessment contained land use discussions with little more information than the state

ment, “The premining land use is grazing and

the postmining land use is grazing.” In some

cases, this lack of specificity can be attributed to

inadequate baseline characterization by the permit applicant. In others, it is the fault of the Federal surface management agency, which is required to determine, or at least consent to, the

postmining land use on Federal lands (1 7).

This lack of specificity and quantification can

adversely affect postmining vegetative and landscape diversity (see separate discussions in this

chapter), the implementation of surface owners’

or management agencies’ land use recommen-
Ch. 8—Technical issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation “ 251

dations, and the difficulty and cost of reclamation. Moreover, at mines where reclaimability

is an issue during permitting, much more rigorous approaches to characterizing premining

land uses, and to predicting the capability and

productivity of the reclaimed surface, are necessary to demonstrate reclaimability (4).

The principal option for resolving this problem is for the regulatory authorities to enforce

more strictly the permit application and reclamation plan requirements for pre- and postmining land use characterization. For privately

owned lands, the land use description and the

quantification of capability and productivity must

remain the responsibility of the permit applicant,

with the cooperation and concurrence of the

landowner. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has

developed a system for predicting potential land

capability classes on reclaimed surfaces, which

couId be used for such quantification. The acres

of land in each capability class in the premine

condition could be compared to the predicted

acres in the postmining condition to determine

if the land capability would be maintained (4).

On public lands, the applicable land use and

activity plans prepared by the surface management agency should provide the basis for quantitative characterizations of pre- and postmining land uses.13 The surface management agency

prepares a resource management plan or other

land use planning document as the first step in

analyzing Federal lands for their suitability for a

variety of uses, including coal resource development. This document is then supplemented by

BLM during activity planning for a coal lease sale

with detailed site-specific analyses for each proposed lease tract. The information in these plans

and analyses should be sufficiently detailed to

meet the requirements in SMCRA and the regulatory programs for the quantitative characterization of pre- and postmining land uses, capability, and productivity.

BLM and USFS currently are in the process of

preparing land use plans that meet the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Until these documents are

I ~See the discussion of the Federal coal leasing program in ch. 4.

completed, Federal surface management agencies should ensure, during interagency review

of permit applications and reclamation plans,

that careful attention is paid to the quantitative

characterization of pre- and postmining Iand

uses, productivity, and capabilities.

Implementation and Management of

the Postmining Land Use

Implementation and management of the postmining land use after bond release raises issues

about changes in land use, conflicts among land

uses, and the long-term success of reclamation.

If the proposed postmining land use is different

from the premining or historical land use, the

regulatory authority must formally approve a

“change to an alternative land use” (1 O). After

consultation with the landowner or the surface

management agency, the regulatory authority

may approve a higher or better use as the alternative if the proposed use meets the following

criteria: 1 ) there is a reasonable likelihood for

achievement of the use; 2) the use does not

present any actual or probable hazard to public

health or safety or threat of water diminution or

pollution; and 3) the use will not be impractical

or unreasonable, be inconsistent with applicable

land use policies or plans, involve unreasonable

delay in implementation, or cause or contribute

to any violation of Federal, State, or local law.

Changes to alternative land uses can be beneficial for the capability and productivity of the

land. At a surface mine in the Colorado portion

of the San Juan River Region, for example, the

operator will attempt to change part of the permit area to a higher or better use. At this mine,

the premining land uses were rangeland, wildlife habitat, and some privately owned dryland

pasture. About 20 acres of rangeland will be

reclaimed to pasture to increase the ability of the

land to support livestock husbandry.l A However,

such changes also can make reclamation more

difficult and costly (see below).

At other mines, conflicts arise between land

uses—particularly between agricultural uses and

wild life habitat. In these situations, restoration of

1 qsee case study mine K i n reference 4.
252 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

wildlife habitat features is often in conflict with

the management objectives of the landowners,

who usually are farmers or ranchers who desire

all land returned to cropland, pastureland, or

grazingland. This conflict is most evident where

reclamation standards for wildlife habitat (e.g.,

woody plant density standards and overall vegetative diversity) are more difficult to meet than those

for other land uses, such as pastureland. It is especially a concern in areas such as North Dakota,

where natural habitat is very limited in areal extent and is “shrinking” each year due to water

developments, urban expansion, and agricultural

expansion. At a mine in North Dakota that is converting most of the premining rangeland to cropIand at the request of the surface owners, this

conflict is being resolved by the replacement of

premining wildlife habitat on an acre-for-acre basis after mining.l5

There are no regulatory mechanisms to ensure

that the surface owner will not convert lands

reclaimed for one use (e.g., wildlife habitat) to

other uses after bond release. As with the conflict over sagebrush reestablishment discussed in

the previous section, operators consider it senseless to restore wildlife habitat and native rangeIand at great expense when the surface owner

will convert the land to tame pasture or other uses

after bond release.

Similarly, although the use itself may not

change, even the best reclamation can be negated quickly by postmining land management

decisions or techniques. For example, much of

the land in the West is used for grazing and, historically, there have been problems with overgrazing adversely affecting vegetative density and

diversity. While many reclaimed surface mine

lands are required to graze for a specified period

of time prior to bond release, the operator can

control the number and type of livestock in such

grazing tests. After bond release, however, grazing pressures on reclaimed lands can increase significantly. Similarly, the mix of woody plant species for revegetation may be selected to favor

particular wildlife species, but postmining management practices to enhance pastureland uses

can reduce the number of shrubs beneficial to

1 Jsee case study mine A in reference 1

those species and the overall vegetational diversity.

One solution to conflicting land uses, postmining land use conversion, or improper management is careful design for the return of land

uses that minimize post-reclamation conflicts

(see box 8-F, and the discussion of landscape

diversity, below). Greater specificity in describing the postmining land use (e.g., number and

type of livestock that will be grazed after bond

release) would aid in this effort.

Effects on Reclamation

Specification and implementation of the postmining land use are extremely important for the

reclamation plan and for the evaluation of the

success of reclamation. Many of the reclamation

plan requirements, performance standards, and

bond release criteria in SMCRA and the regulatory programs are tied directly to the postmining land use. Two of the general objectives of the

performance standards are the prompt reclama-
Ch. 8–Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation ● 253

tion of all affected areas to conditions that are

capable of supporting the premining land uses

or higher or better uses, and revegetation that

achieves a prompt vegetative cover and recovery of productivity levels compatible with approved land uses (1 8). The specific performance

standards for backfilling and grading, topsoil and

subsoil redistribution, revegetation, protection of

the hydrologic balance, and protection of fish and

wiId life also are tied to support of or consistency

with the approved postmining land use (1 9-23).

Furthermore, the regulatory standards for determining the success of revegetation vary according to land use category (grazingland, pastureland, cropland, wildlife habitat, rangeland), and

specify that revegetation shall be judged on its

effectiveness for the approved postmining land

use (1 6).

This variability in the regulatory standards

directly affects the difficulty and cost of reclamation because there are more stringent reclamation requirements for some land use categories.

Except in North Dakota, postmining land uses

generally are designated as native rangeland and

wildlife habitat rather than improved grazingland

or tame pastureland. As a result, these lands are

subject to the full requirements for the establishment of native species; vegetative diversity, permanence, cover, seasonality, and self-regeneration; and woody plant density and diversity. For

land reclaimed to cropland, there are no requirements in the study area States for vegetative diversity, permanence, cover, seasonality, and selfregeneration, but the soil reconstruction requirements may be more stringent (see box 8-G) (5).

More careful attention to description of postmining land uses, and to considerations related

to landscape diversity, could, in the long term,

reduce the difficulty and cost of reclamation in

that the stricter requirements for particular uses

would be limited to specified areas rather than

applied to an entire reclamation site. While mine

operators and reclamation specialists may experience initial difficulties and costs i n adjusting their

planning for and implementation of such an approach, the long-term benefits for the ease and

success of reclamation could be great.

Box 8-G.—The Effects of Postmitiing Land Use on the Cost of Reclamation

At a mine in North Dakota, the premining land use was mostly for dryland wheat production, with

about 10 percent of the permit area being used as rangeland. Although areas in rangeland have some

limiting soil factors (typically shallow depth) that inhibit their use as cropland, the postmining land use

characterization indicates that most of these raogelands will be corwerted to cropland at the stated request of the surface owners. As a result, the operator will be subject to the more stringent cropland vegetative productivity standards, which can be more costly to achieve than the rangeland standards if the soils

are not suited to growing crops.?

At a mine in the Eastern Powder River basiq in Wyoming, the premining land uses were 76 percent

native grazinglands and improved pasture, 16 percent haylands, and 7 percent croplands. The premine

croplands were used for wheat, oats, and barley, The permit application stated that “low crop yields and

high operating costs make tillage agrictdture a br~ak-even or net loss operation in most years.” Therefore,

land uses at the site were ranked in value (as required in Wyoming) as: 1) hayland (improved pasture),

2) grazingland, 3) cropland, 4) water resou~es, and 5) wildlife habitat. Despite these rankings, most of

the site will be reclaimed to grazingland based on the premining survey of surface owner preferences.

Cropiands will be reclajmed despite the marginal yields, ~nd the operator wifl have to meet the yield standards for bond release. Some grasslands will be r~laimed to shrubtan& to maximize wildlife habitat, and

will be subject to the woody plant dms~,amd diversity standards. Haylwxls will not be restored.z

. . “

‘See case study mine A in reference 4.

‘See case study mine E in reference 4.
254 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

LANDSCAPE DIVERSITY

In surface mine reclamation, the term “diversity” traditionally has been used in the context

of vegetative diversity in Iifeforms, species, or

seasonality. The most recent reclamation and related research indicates, however, that a broader

meaning of “diversity,” one that encompasses

the entire landscape, may be important to the

quality of reclamation. This concept, known as

landscape or ecosystem diversity, recognizes the

mosaic nature of Western landscapes that results from localized differences in the physical

environment, plant communities, wildlife populations, and land uses. The five-State study area

has a wide range of localized environments, including native prairie, badlands, wetlands, woody

draws, broadleaf tree and shrub communities,

shrub-steppe communities, ponderosa pine woodlands, rimrock or escarpments, riparian areas,

mountain shrub communities, meadow communities, aspen woodlands, pinon-juniper communities, and desert.l6 Even some abandoned mined

lands in the West have become prime wildlife

habitats because of their diverse landscape relative to the surrounding area. In North Dakota,

some orphan mines are protected State wildlife

areas.

Localized environments on mine sites are altered or lost during mining, but with special

attention to landscape diversity in planning reclamation, many of these features could be restored. This subject has received little attention,

however, at either the State or Federal level, although requirements for specific mines have

been established on a case-by-case basis, primarily in relation to reestablished plant communities.

The restoration of ponderosa pine woodlands in

Montana, woody draws in Montana and North

Dakota, and wetlands in North Dakota are examples of reclamation that attempts to preserve

landscape diversity. The proposed woody plant

diversity requirement in Wyoming for dense

shrub patches on 10 percent of the mined area

clearly addresses this issue (see separate discussion in this chapter). Informal approaches to

woody plant density standards in Colorado also

lbTheSe localized envirorlrnerlts and their ecological irTlpOllafICe

are described in detail in the technical reports in vol. 2.

have begun to include mosaic plantings of shrubs

to enhance community diversity (5).

The importance of physical and vegetational

diversity of an area has been recognized for some

time in relation to the number of wildlife and livestock species and individuals that it can support.

A well-established diverse community of cool and

warm season grasses, forbs, and shrubs on a varied physical landscape provides vastly more feeding and nesting sites, thermal and hiding cover,

and food items than a monoculture. Additionally,

different food items become available throughout the seasons of activity so that there is less of

a “feast or famine” effect. Lifeform and species

diversity in vegetation also may enhance longterm survival of a plant community, because the

various plant species are able to tolerate slightly

different combinations of environmental factors.

The various reproductive strategies and delicate

competitive balance within a diverse plant community would enable some species to quickly fill

any void created by the decline or demise of

other species. As a result, the soil and wildlife resources would be buffered from an environmental stress such as overgrazing or drought (5).

As reclamation experience is gained in the

West, an understanding of the complex interrelationships among all of the physical aspects

of the environment is leading to an interdisciplinary approach to reclamation that recognizes

the importance of diversity in more than the

vegetation. The shift to such an approach has encompassed the design of everything from the

overburden in its relation to water quality, to

restored surface drainage systems, to the physical and vegetative features of the postmining

landscape:

● The term “engineered cast overburden” was

coined by researchers in North Dakota to refer to an approach to control of postmining

groundwater chemistry that combines geologic and soil mapping, geochemical and

geohydrological studies, and development

of a three-dimensional materials framework,

with a thorough understanding of the form

and internal structure of material deposited

by various types of mining equipment and
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation ● 255

●

●

●

techniques, to determine how best to obtain

optimum physical and chemical characteristics at desired locations within the cast

overburden (see ch. 6, box 6-H) (6).

The design of restored surface drainage systems is beginning to combine the concepts

of quantitative geomorphology, rainfall-runoff hydrology, and detailed hydraulic analyses with appropriate revegetation to enhance both erosional stability and the wildlife

value of riparian areas (6).

Other research in North Dakota suggests that

reconstructing sites with topography that

catches and retains moisture is very important in cropland productivity and in reestablishing deciduous shrub and tree communities. At one mine in that State, a small field

of prime farmland was placed on a concave

landscape position in the design of the postmining surface to maximize water runon and

snow accumulation (4).

Many wildlife habitat requirements relate to

the physical features of an area in addition

to its vegetational components. Topographic

diversity provided by rock outcrops, minor

variations in slope/aspect, and the juxtaposition of different plant species and types create a variety of ecological niches important

to many species of wildlife (1).

Adoption of a landscape diversity approach

to surface mine reclamation involves trade-offs

between the cost and/or difficulty of achieving

diversity versus the potential long-term benefits for the quality of reclamation. Moreover,

some regulatory requirements (e.g., highwall reduction, uniform topsoil thickness) may actually

discourage innovative approaches to diversity.

These requirements are directed at pre-SMCRA

abuses, but do not incorporate the more recent

reclamation experience on the benefits of diversity. Permit applicants will have to include the

cost of obtaining a site-specific variance from such

requirements in their overall assessment of the

costs and benefits of achieving diversity.

Reclamation design at some mines has been

kept as simple as possible to minimize costs and

conflicts with conventional mining methods.

Promoting an interdisciplinary approach to design and implementation of landscape diversity

would require some additional effort, and thus

cost, in premining baseline studies, in specification and design of the postmining land use, in

implementing the reclamation design, and in developing criteria for evaluating the success of

reclamation. Moreover, obtaining a permit for a

design that conflicts with regulatory program requirements may require approval of a site-specific

variance or an alternative reclamation technique.

These are expensive and time-consuming to obtain, especially given the risk of disapproval and

subsequent redesign and resubmission of the permit application package. On the other hand,

once approaches to landscape diversity become

accepted, they could provide cost savings (e.g.,

in soil handling, seeding, and grading), as well

as benefits for the quality, and perhaps the longterm success, of reclamation.

The legislative and regulatory requirements that

are most often cited as deterrents to reclamation

designs that incorporate diverse landscape features are those related to restoration of approximate original contour (AOC) and uniform topsoil depth. The requirement for full restoration

of AOC was intended to prevent large discrepancies between premining and postmining topography, but, in the West, typically has resulted in gently undulating land with little

topographic variety. This has substantially lim-
ited the potential for vegetative and wildlife

diversity. A full consideration of geomorphology

in reclamation design would emphasize not only

restoration of AOC, but also the postmining topography’s consistency with the hydrologic characteristics of the reconstructed soils, the revegetation communities, the reconstructed drainage

systems, and the proposed postmining land use,

as well as its compatibility with the geomorphology of the contiguous areas (4),

There are some Iandforms that always will be

impossible to restore to their premining condition. For example, hogback ridges are supported

by resistant strata that would be removed during

mining, precluding their reestablishment on the

reclaimed surface. Similarly, badlands—bare outcrops of vari-colored shales that compose highly

dissected mesas, buttes, pillars, and rock tables

with high drainage density and little soil—cannot

be re-created because mining removes the thin

resistant strata of sandstone and siltstone that act

as ledge- and pedestal-formers and on which the

badland topography has formed by erosion (4).

Where these features are ecologically unique,

they could be preserved through measures such

as unsuitability designations (see ch. 4).

In other cases, however, the postmining topography can be designed to mimic premining

features such as rimrock and “microsites.” Rimrock or escarpments are physical habitat features

that can occur in a variety of vegetation communities, and serve as nesting or denning sites for

many species of mammals, birds, and reptiles.

Golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, great-horned

owls, and prairie falcons commonly nest on

ledges or in cavities in rim rock and, in many areas

of the West, suitable cliff-nesting habitat is a limiting factor to these raptor populations. Rimrock

also serves as protective cover for a wide range

of animal species during winter storms, and it col-
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation ● 257

Photo credit: Jenifer Robison, OTA staff

In this post-SMCRA mined area, the highwall was

reduced (background), leaving gently-undulating land

with little topographic variety.

Iects moisture that promotes a greater variety of

shrubs or trees than are found in adjacent communities (l).

Attempts have been made at many mines to

mimic rimrock in the postmining landscape with

rock piles, but these usually bear little physical

resemblance to the original features, and do not

provide as much topographic, vegetative, or

habitat diversity as the rim rock or escarpments

that were removed during mining. Alternatively,

portions of highwalls with appropriate aspect

and ledges or cavities could be left after reclamation to restore valuable nesting habitat that

otherwise would be lost because of mining and

reclamation. However, the AOC provisions of

Photo credit Utah International Inc

Badlands cannot be re-created because mining removes the siltstone and sandstone strata on which

the badland topography formed through erosion.
258 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

SMCRA require that all highwalls be eliminated.

While leaving an unreduced highwall portion

clearly would provide cost savings in reclamation,

the cost and difficulty of obtaining regulatory approval for an experimental practice or alternative reclamation technique for highwall retention

generally is a serious deterrent. This deterrent has

been overcome in a few instances in order to create artificial cliffs or bluff extensions that come

closer to simulating the original features than

rockpiles and that aid in the retention of additional surface moisture near the highwall base

(box 8-H; see also ch. 3, box 3-O; and ch. 9, box

9-A).

Small premining surface features (or “microsites”) are another aspect of landscape diversity

that may be foreclosed by a lack of understanding about their importance, or by the difficulty

and cost of their design, permitting, and restoration. Minor depressions, drainages, and hummocks that ex hi bit different slope/aspect combi -

nations and are dependent on varying topsoil

depths and soil structure characteristics not only

provide topographic diversity, but also encourage

vegetative diversity vital for the reestablishment

of a variety of wildlife. SMCRA and the Federal

regulatory program allow small depressions on

the postmining landscape if they are needed in

order to retain moisture, create and enhance

wildlife habitat, or assist revegetation. Some forms

of microsites are difficult to re-create, however,

because they are dependent on particular hydrologic, soil, and overburden characteristics that are

very expensive to duplicate with available mining and reclamation equipment.

An internal drainage including a playa has been

approved for one mine in Wyoming. ’ 7 The heavy

clay soils typical of such features will be specialhandled and returned to the playa. This will necessitate precise timing to catch the limited range

of appropriate soil moisture content to avoid massive clod or block development and subsequent

difficulty in developing a suitable seedbed.l8

17A ~layais the flat. floored bottom of an undrained desert basin

that becomes at times a shallow lake.

Issee Case study Mine WY-6 in reference 5.

CM* “it @ptlmizes

.+ ,

●

to redu~ all highwd ‘i&j%* st*p, $J30ti highwalls

are capped by t~ as

~~$ible, IJCh rn6& emclible, f&jucing

. . %N Caw Study Mine C in ifefuHIwe 4. ‘
Ch. 8—Technical Issues in Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation “ 259

Similarly, in North Dakota, it is common for

the premine surface to lack a well-integrated

drainage system, and to have many closed depressions (prairie potholes) typical of glaciated topography. The potholes are wetlands that are important to wildlife, and one mine is undertaking

an extensive research project to determine

whether prairie potholes can be reconstructed

and reclaimed (see ch. 3, box 3-G).

At a mine in Montana, restoration of a coulee

bottom is being undertaken in response to a permit stipulation .19 The moderately steep, concave

sides with north to east aspects will be protected

with a heavy straw mulch (5 to 7 ton/acre) applied after topsoil application and deep ripping

of the side slopes, and then planted with woody

species .20

Requirements for uniform topsoil depth over

the regraded surface further homogenize site

conditions and limit the potential for vegetative

community diversity. Federal regulations require

that topsoil be redressed in a uniform thickness

consistent with the postmining land use. The

Montana legislation has a provision for special

reconstruction of soils using nonuniform depths,

but the other States routinely require uniform

thickness on each reclaimed area unless specifically exempted due to site-specific conditions (4).

This requirement does not recognize the naturally occurring variation in soil depth that contributes to landscape diversity and strongly influences long-term plant community structure. At

some sites, variations in topsoil depth, even to

the point of no topsoil in areas intended for reestablishment of some types of woody plant species, may be more appropriate (see box 8-l).

Moreover, because of the natural variability in

soil depth, restoring uniform thicknesses can increase haul distances and thus costs, and can interfere with the ability to direct haul topsoil.

There are several other arguments against uniform thickness related to erosion control and the

moisture-holding capacity of soils. One operator

suggested thicker soils on ridges and thinner soils

in swales in relatively high precipitation areas of

—- — 19A ~ou[ee 15 a steep-sided drainageway that normally is dry bY

late summer,

z~see Case Study Mine MT-1 In reference 5.

Box 8-L-Reestablishing Sandstone Stratal

This small surface mine in southwestern Colorado is mining coal under a surface originally

covered by massive sandstone vegetated by

pinon pine, juniper, tall shrubs, and scattered

patches of warm season grasses located in crevices and on small terraces. After the coal is removed, the exposed surface will be another massive sandstone stratum. The reclamation plan

calls for blasting shelves into this sandstone,

placing fine material on these shelves and planting to trees, shrubs, and grasses.

‘See case study mine CO-4 in reference S.

the West; the landscape would be designed to

forestall the effects of soil erosion on ridges.

Another suggested the opposite in desert areas,

where topsoil is at a premium and premine vegetation density is extremely low. In the desert, putting a very thin layer of topsoil on uplands and

using most of the soil in the swales would produce deep soil profiles capable of storing moisture from runon and supporting better vegetation

cover, while a uniform thickness would result in

soils unnecessarily deep on the uplands and too

thin in the swales. Research in North Dakota suggests that, to produce an optimum landscape position for dryland wheat production, thinner soils

ought to be placed in concave positions, which

support higher production regardless of soil thickness, with thicker soiIs redressed on convex surfaces to maximize moisture-holding capacity (4).

A number of mines are redressing nonuniform

topsoil thicknesses to replicate premining conditions, facilitate direct haul of topsoil, and promote vegetative diversity:

●

●

New Mexico: At this mine, topsoil and subsoil will be redressed either in two 4-inch lifts

to a depth of 8 inches over coarse-textured,

benign spoil (sodium adsorption ratio–SAR–

of less than 20 and a clay content of less than

28 percent), or to a depth of 18 inches in two

lifts of 4 and 14 inches respectively over less

favorable spoils (most of the mine), where

SARS average 53 (4).

Wyoming: The thickness of topsoil redress-
260 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

●

●

ing at this operation will range from 2.4 to

5.1 feet, depending on premining thickness,

because of the long haulage distances that

wouId be necessary to even out differences

that occur naturally over the site (4).

Wyoming: The topsoil handling plan for this

mine calls for uniform distribution by mining block, but nonuniform distribution across

the permit area. Redressed topsoil depth will

range from 1 to 23 inches (4).

Wyoming: This operator proposes to put 6

inches on the ridges and 36 inches in the

swales to recreate the premining soil configuration. The operator contends that the

requirement for uniform topsoil replacement

is hindering the ability to achieve vegetative

diversity (4).

Attention to landscape diversity needs to begin

with baseline data collection for the reclamation

plan and permit application. What is needed is

1.

2.

3

4.

5.

6.

CHAPTER 8

Cedar Creek Associates, “Wildlife Technologies

for Western Surface Coal Mining, ” contractor rePOrt to OTA, August 1985.

National Research Council, Coa/ Mining and

Ground-water Resources in the United States

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Practices for Protecting and Enhancing Fish and wildlife on Coal Sutiace-Mined Land:

The Green River-Hams Fork Region, FWS/OBS83/09 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).

Walsh, James P., and Associates, “Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal

Mine Reclamation, ” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.

Western Resource Development Corp., and j. Bunin, “Revegetation Technology and Issues at

Western Surface Coal Mines,” contractor report

to OTA, September 1985.

Western Water Consultants, Inc., “Hydrologic

Evaluation and Reclamation Technologies for

Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report

to OTA, Auwst 1985.

an interdisciplinary ecological characterization

of the proposed mine area that can be used in

the design of a diverse postmining landscape,

in addition to a set of numbers to be used to

set performance standards. For example, baseline wildlife habitat descriptions should include

measurements of physical features such as the

size, distribution, and frequency of rock outcrops

or the overall variety in topographic relief. This

effort would be aided greatly by more exact specification of the postmining land use (see above).

in addition, research is needed to identify and

describe quantitatively the physical features that

are most important to the local ecology and to

develop practical design criteria for use in reestablishing these features during reclamation.

Finally, better information exchange is needed

among operators and regulatory authorities on

the potential costs and benefits of reclamation

designs that promote landscape diversity.

REFERENCES

7, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,

8,

9.

10,

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Land Quality Division, Cumulative Hydrologic /mpact Assessment for SurLace Coal Mines Located

North of Gillette, Wyoming, in, Carter Rawhide

Mine Technical Environmental Assessment, 1984.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,

personal communication to Western Water Consultants, January 1985.

Wyoming regulations, ch.11 sec. 2A.

30 CFR 701.5.

30 CFR 816.22.

30 CFR 81 6.97(h).

30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(2).

43 CFR 1601,0-5.

30 CFR 779.22,

30 CFR 780.23.

30 CFR 740.4.

30 CFR 810.2,

30 CFR 816,22

30 CFR 816.41

30 CFR 816.97

22.30 CFR 816.102

23.30 CFR 816.111.
Chapter 9

Technological Innovation

and Research
Contents

Chapter Overview . . . . . . . . . . .

Reclamation Research Programs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Current Research and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baseline and Monitoring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analytical Techniques and Predicting Reclamation Success . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evaluation of Reclamation Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reclamation Techniques . . . . . .

Basic Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Funding and Other Constraints on

c hapter 9 Refe ences . . .

Table No.

9-1.

9-2.

9-3.

9-4.

Reclamation

Summary of

Research

Ongoing

,..., . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables

Funded by OSM in Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983

Research and Innovation at Case Study Mines. .

Research Needs for Western Surface Mine Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . .

State Severance Tax Rates and Projected Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure

Figure No.

9-1. EMRIA Study Areas.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

, . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

, . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Page

263

263

271

272

272

274

275

275

276

276

282

Page

266

269

273

278

Page

265
Chapter 9

Technological Innovation and Research

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Since the first State reclamation laws were

enacted in the early 1970s, mining companies

and other organizations have undertaken a significant amount of research and developed a variety of techniques for reclaiming surface mined

lands in the arid and semiarid regions of the

West. The earliest research focused primarily on

species adaptability and other aspects of revegetation success. Few data were available, however,

and little of the research was supported by laboratory analyses or was based on broad comparative assessments until the mid-l970s. As more

mines were opened in the West, and as reclamation standards covering all types of resources

were imposed, more data were collected and

analyzed and a better understanding of the nature and properties of the resources being used

in reclamation emerged. This increase in the

scope of mining and reclamation in the West, and

in the legislative and regulatory requirements for

reclamation, also led to more experimentation

and innovation in reclamation techniques. Resultant data and analytical interpretation have allowed the major problems in reclamation to be

defined, and have provided a scientific basis for

interpreting results.

While great strides have been made in Western reclamation technology, and the prospects

for the long-term success of reclamation in these

regions have brightened considerably, the preceding chapters suggest that additional research

still is needed in all disciplines. Although work

is ongoing at Western mines that addresses most

of these needs, it frequently is limited to sitespecific conditions. Without comprehensive

comparative analyses of the full range of Western mining environments, research at individual mines will do little to advance the science

of reclamation in the West or to improve the

cost-effectiveness of reclamation techniques.

To some extent, a limited amount of research

always will be fostered by the regulatory programs and the mining companies’ need to meet

performance and design standards for reclamation. At present, however, the most critical constraint on research is the lack of available funding. Also, in some cases, the regulations that

impose inflexible design standards can discourage

innovation. Finally, the commitment to reclamation in the West that has emerged among coal

companies and Federal and State regulatory authorities since 1977 must continue to grow to encompass needed research.

RECLAMATION RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Historically, research on Western surface mine plots, although formal experimental practices unreclamation has been undertaken or sponsored der the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation

by Federal and State agencies, mining companies Act (SMCRA; see ch. 4), and approved site-speand associations, academe, suppliers of reclama- cific variances or alternative reclamation techtion equipment, and organizations such as public niques u rider the State reguIatory programs also

interest groups. This research has been stimulated have been considered avenues for developing

by the need to establish or meet reclamation innovative methods.

standards or to develop more cost-effective reclamation techniques, as well as by site-specific The earliest research programs were estabreclamation problems. The research generally has Iished and funded by government agencies in orbeen carried out on small dedicated research der to set performance or design standards for

263
264 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

reclamation and to advance reclamation science

sufficiently to meet those standards. Beginning

in 1973, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administered the Surface Environment and Mining (SEAM)

program, which was established to research and

develop new technologies for improving the

quality of mined lands. SEAM was a partnership

among government agencies of all levels and research, land management, industry, and university organizations. From 1973 to 1979, SEAM

sponsored more than 150 research and development projects related to the management of

mineral lands. The results of the SEAM projects

were disseminated through guides that focused

on specific disciplines that might be affected by

mining (1 3). In 1978, the state of the art in reclamation was deemed sufficiently well developed

that the SEAM program changed its emphasis

from research and development to assuring that

reclamation technology is available (8). Under the

auspices of the SEAM program, USFS also published a quarterly computerized listing of reclamation studies related to the Rocky Mountain

West, the only bibliographic reference of its kind.

The SEAM program was discontinued for budget

reasons in 1979.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funded

Western coal development studies and research

from 1974 to 1982 through its Energy Minerals

Rehabilitation Inventory and Analysis (EMRIA)

program. The EMRIA program was established to

gather information about the reclamation potential on coal lease tracts and to develop lease stipulations to assure the achievement of reclamation

goals for Federal coal lands. The 36 Western

EMRIA reports are a multidisciplinary integration

of field and literature data on geology, visual resources, overburden, hydrology, climate, soils,

vegetation, and land use; figure 9-1 shows the

EMRIA study areas. The studies identified sitespecific problems affecting reclaimability, and

recommended reclamation measures to deal with

those problems (13).

The early 1980s saw the publication of the last

relatively comprehensive studies of Western reclamation. In 1981, the National Research Council published reports on the effects of surface

mining on soil resources, and of coal mining on

groundwater resources (5,6). A cooperative study

involving scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Office of Surface Mining (OSM), USFS, and BLM was

published in 1983 (4). These studies examined

the factors affecting reclamation in the West,

evaluated the state of the art, and identified research needs and long-term uncertainties about

the success of Western reclamation. it is interesting to note that the uncertainties and research

needs identified in these studies, as well as their

other findings, remain valid today; little action

has been taken in the interim.

Since the late 1970s, the primary Federal responsibility for reclamation research has rested

with OSM. SMCRA includes two basic vehicles

for fostering research and innovation in surface

mine reclamation: the State mining and mineral

resources and research institutes, and the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) reclamation program.

Experimental practices at active reclamation sites

also may be permitted to encourage advances in

mining or reclamation. SMCRA authorized appropriations to assist participating States in carrying

on the work of a qualified mining and minerals

resources research institute or center at a college

or university with a school of mines (or equivalent). The authorization for establishing such institutes was $200,000 in fiscal year 1978, $300,000

in fiscal year 1979, and $400,000 annually for the

next 5 fiscal years. The States were required to

provide equal matching funds. SMCRA also established an Advisory Committee on Mining and

Minerals Resources Research to determine eligibility.

SMCRA authorized research grants ($15 million

authorized for fiscal year 1978, to be increased

by $2 million per year for the next 6 years, to remain available until expended) to the State mining and mineral research institutes for research

and demonstration projects of industrywide application, which could not otherwise be undertaken. These projects could be on any aspects

of mining and minerals resources problems related to the mission of the Department of the interior (DOI) and not otherwise being studied, and

for training programs. The funding criteria for institutes and grants included a curriculum appropriate to mineral resources and engineering, and

submission of annual reports on work accom-
Ch. 9—Technological Innovation and Research . 265

Figure 9-1 .—EMRIA Study Areas

Idaho

Montana

I

I

South Dakota

Powder River Ragion

Nebraska

Southern Appalachian

Region, Alabama

Subregion

1-75 Otter Creek, MT 14-77 Potter Mountain, WY 29-79

2-75

North Beulah Study Area, ND

Hanna Basin, WY 15-77 Henry Mountain, UT 30-79

3-75 Taylor Creek, CO

Cook Mountain, MT

16-77 Emery, UT 34-80

4-75

Collum Gulch, CO

AlIon, UT 17-77 Kimbeto, NM 3&80 Fattig Study Area, MT

5-76 Bisti, NM 18-77 Fish Creek, CO 37-80 Garrison, ND

6-76 Foidel Creek, CO 19-78 010 Encino, NM 38-80

7-76 Red Rim, WY

Circle 2, MT

20-78 Lay Creek, CO 39-80 Thirteen Mile Creek, MT

8-76 Bear Creek, MT 21-78 Prairie Dog Creek, MT 40-80 Woodson PRLA, MT

9-76 Horse Nose Butte, ND 22-78 Rattlesnake Butte, ND 41-80 Burns Creek, MT

10-77 Beulah Trench, ND 26-79 McCallum, CO 42-80 S W Glendive, MT

11-77 Pumpkin Creek, MT 27-79 Arkoma, OK 43-80 Williams County, MT

12-77 Hanging Woman, MT 28-79 Overburden Analysts, AL 44-80

13-77 White Tall Butte, WY

McKenzie County, MT

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Coal Management Program-Draft Envirormental Impact Statement Supplement (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1985),
266 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

plished and the status of ongoing projects. Actual expenditures for the institutes and research

grants were $8,000 in fiscal year 1978, $1.8 milIion in fiscal year 1979, $745,000 in fiscal year

1980, and $860,000 in fiscal year 1981, when

OSM funding ended and responsibility for execution of these provisions of SMCRA was transferred to the Bureau of Mines (7).

Specific applied research projects continue to

be funded by OSM, either alone or in cooperation with other agencies (see table 9-1 ). However,

OSM’S research funding requests have declined

from approximately $1.5 million for fiscal year

1982 to $971,000 for fiscal year 1986 (7). The

breakdown for the fiscal year 1986 budget request was:

Subsidence control: ... ... ... .. .$200,000

Hydrologic studies: . ............180,000

Coal wastes: . ..................220,000

Reclamation/revegetation: . .......150,000

Staff and administrative support:. ..221 ,000 (12)

SMCRA also required DOI to establish a center for cataloging current and projected research

in all fields of mining and mineral resources. Each

Federal agency doing mining and mineral resources research was required to cooperate by

providing the cataloging center with information

on work underway or scheduled. The center was

Table 9-l.– Reclamation Research Funded by OSM in Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983

Fundinga

Project FY 1982 FY 1983

Design manual for sediment control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 48,000 . . . . . . . . .

State of the art in alleviating soil compaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000 . . . . . . . . .

Improvement of overburden analytical technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,000 . . . . . . . . .

Subsidence damage criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,624

Regional alluvial valley floor assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,762 $“ “ 97,238

Effect of controlled overburden placement on mine soil properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,120 . . . . . . . . .

Monitoring an excess spoil disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,992

Analysis of performance standards for coordination with Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . 4,990

Monitoring of experimental practice for alternative sediment controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,000

Analysis of gaps and duplication in regulatory process; summarize options for

further development for coordinated permitting process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,184

Monitoring revegetation of a slurry pond site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000

Monitoring a highwall retention practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,000

Identification, evaluation, and demonstration of sediment control technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 431,957

Monitoring of mine fire extinguishing experimental practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,500

Economic/environmental feasibility of lignite development in Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000

Sedimentation/hydrology of surface-mined lands in Appalachian Plateau . . . . . . . . . 100,000 75,000

Cumulative hydrologic impact information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275,000 . . . . . . . . .

Optimum moisture requirements for establishment of native species

in New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120,000 . . . . . . . . .

Effectiveness of OSM regulation to prevent groundwater contamination . . . . . . . . . . 70,000 . . . . . . . . .

Concepts of highwall removal and AOC restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000 . . . . . . . . .

Aerial photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,000 . . . . . . . . .

Sampling procedures for vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,548 . . . . . . . . .

Remote sensing of AML projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,000 . . . . . . . . .

Plant materials study to identify plants suited to reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,000 . . . . . . . . .

Committee on ground failure hazards mitigation research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000

Core Support Program (Mineral and Energy Resources). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,000 55,000

Soil survey vs. crop production as productivity measure for bond release on

prime farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,033

National wetlands assessment workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000

Technical annotated bibliography of data sources for use by permit applicants. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,900

Coordination of permitting for surface mining and dredging when mine discharges

dredge materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,307

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... .$1,559,054 $1,031,076

aFundlng for research projects in fiscal year 19S2 shown only for those PrOjeCtS Still in Pro9ress in 1%3.

SOURCE: US. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, 1983 Annua/ Report.

Cooperating

agency

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

TVA. . . . . . . .

USGS

USFS

EPA

NAS

TVA

North Dakota

USFS

USDA

NAS

NAS

University of

Illinois

FWS

Indiana State

University

Smithsonian

Institution
Ch. 9—Technological Innovation and Research ● 267

to classify and maintain for public use a catalog

of all mining and mineral resources research by

all Federal agencies and by non-Federal agencies

of government, colleges, universities, private institutions, firms, and individuals that make such

information available. OTA could find no record

of this center ever having been established.

Finally, SMCRA required interagency coordination of mining and mineral resources research,

including: continuing review of the adequacy of

Federal research programs; elimination of duplication of effort; identification of technical needs

in various research categories; allocation of technical effort among agencies; review of technical

manpower needs; and facilitation of interagency

communication. OSM cooperates on research

with a variety of agencies, including USGS, the

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA), the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS), the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), and USFS (see table 9-1).

Research funds also are available from the

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, which is derived from reclamation fees levied on a per tonnage basis on all active mines. Research and demonstration projects related to the development

of surface mining reclamation and water quality

control program methods and techniques are

fourth in order of priority for funding, after emergency and other AML projects. However, the

highest priority for AML funding is for the mitigation of past mining effects. Therefore, most of

the funds are spent on reclaiming individual sites

rather than developing technologies that could

be useful in a generic sense. Moreover, as discussed below, AML funds in the Western States

tend to be allocated to non-coal sites after the

abandoned coal mine emergencies have been

abated and the sites have been reclaimed.

While they are not intended to be a substitute

for research, SMCRA allows departures from the

environmental performance standards—experimental practices—to encourage advances in mining and reclamation or to allow special postmining land uses. OSM may approve experimental

practices if they potentially provide as much environmental protection as the performance standards, and are no larger or more numerous than

necessary to determine the effectiveness and economic feasibility of the practice. Operators must

monitor the effects of the practice to ensure the

collection, analysis, and reporting of sufficient

reliable data to enable the regulatory authority

to evaluate its effectiveness. A staff member from

OSM’S Western Technical Center is assigned to

be the technical coordinator for an experimental

practice to ensure compliance with SMCRA and

the regulations.

Since 1979, five formal experimental practices

have been approved for the Rocky Mountain

West. Two address alternative sediment control

(see ch. 8), one (completed in 1982) involved a

variance for excess spoil disposal (see ch. 3, box

3-E), one allows the disposal of mine spoil offsite to suppress an underground fire at an abandoned mine, and one involves a variance from

approximate original contour in order to leave

a portion of a highwall for raptor habitat (see box

9-A).

To compensate for inadequate research funding, OSM personnel would like to see more applications for experimental practices, especially

in the areas of soils science (e. g., for soil moisture retention on prime farmland in North Dakota)

and revegetation (8). However, the permitting

and monitoring requirements for experimental

practices are difficult and expensive to meet.

Few companies are willing to meet these requirements for a practice that can only be implemented on a small part of the mine-site unless the economic benefits are substantial (e.g.,

the sediment control plan illustrated in ch. 8, box

8-B). Furthermore, the acceptance of an experimental practice by OSM actually is dependent

on how scientifically proven the practice is in

other areas or applications. As a result, experimental practices tend to provide verification of

the effectiveness of a reclamation technique,

rather than true advances in reclamation science

or technology.

Moreover, the State programs in Montana and

North Dakota do not allow the regulatory authorities to permit practices considered “experimental. ” In those States, most innovative reclamation

methods are introduced through other program

provisions (such as the Montana provision for
268 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

alternative reclamation techniques), or through

site-specific variances. Permit applications requesting such techniques variances still must be

approved by OSM, however. OSM may require

that the proposed reclamation method be permitted as an experimental practice or not allowed, as they did in the case of the alternative

sediment control methods at the mine discussed

in box 8-B. Many in the coal industry consider

this possibility a major constraint on innovation

in reclamation methods, Other companies are

reluctant to propose innovative reclamation

methods because if they are not approved, the

company would have to expend additional time

and money to revise the permit application and

reclamation plan. Although it is clear from table 9-2, below, that some research and innovation still is undertaken, greater flexibility on the

part of OSM and the State regulatory authorities in judgments on proposals for the use of

alternative reclamation methods at particular

mine-sites, when coupled with adequate monitoring plans, could ease this constraint on innovation.

Other special reclamation research programs

sponsored by Federal agencies include:

● the U.S. Department of Agriculture, through

the Agricultural Research Service;

● the USFS' annual Vegetative Rehabilitation

and Equipment Workshop, sponsored by the

Missoula Equipment Development Center;

● the USFS’ Forest and Range Experiment Stations and regional forestry laboratories; and

● the SCS, through their State offices and Plant

Materials Centers.

In addition, the Bureau of Mines, National Science Foundation, Argonne National Laboratories,

USGS, FWS, NAS, and EPA have funded reclamation research. Most of the reclamation-related

research sponsored by these agencies was discontinued in the late 1970s or early 1980s as the

responsibility for such research was assumed by
Ch. 9—Technological Innovation and Research ● 269

Table 9-2.—Summary of Ongoing Research and Innovation at Case Study Minesa

Soil and overburden Surface and groundwater Revegetation Wildlife

North Dakota:

ND-A: Special handling of

clayey soils for wetlands

ND-D: Landform position

and mixing of soil types to

aid moisture retention in

prime farmland

—Effect of soil type on

soil/spoil interface for optimum moisture-holding capacity

Montana:

MT-B: Retention of highwall

portion as bluff extension

—Use of scoria and similar

soil over compacted overburden for ponderosa pine

substrate

—Monitoring vegetation

trace metals contents to

judge the success of soil

reconstruction

—100 percent two-lift

direct-haul topsoiling

MT-D: Sodium migration

from sodic and clayey overburden

—Topsoil erosion runoff

plots

Wyoming:

WY-A: Detailed highwall

map from stratigraphicalgeochemical correlation

—Intensive overburden

sampling to delineate acidforming and other deleterious strata as well as wet

areas, defining highwall stability, planning shovel

moves, etc.

WY-B: Composite sampling

of regraded spoils

—Watershed erosion

monitoring

WY-D: Nonuniform topsoil

thickness

—Acidic spoil treatments

—Erosion monitoring

—Reclaimed geomorphology

—Monitoring swell and

settling

WY-G: Two-lift direct-haul

topsoil in desert ecosystem

—Use of boron-tolerant

species

WY-K: Nonuniform topsoil

thickness

North Dakota:

ND-A: Restoration of

wetlands

Montana:

MT-B: Extensive sitespecific and regional

groundwater database

—Special handling of overburden to protect water

quality

MT-C: State-of-the-art PHC

and CHIA analyses for proposed mine adjacent to

perennial stream classified

as an AVF

MT-E: Management and use

of very large hydrologic

database

—Spoil aquifer hydraulic

analyses

Wyoming:

WY-C: Potentially acidforming overburden

WY-E: Computer modeling

to predict groundwater

impacts

WY-G: Alternative sediment

control experimental

practice

—State-of-the-art streamflow sampling

WY-H: Restoration of essential hydrologic functions

of an AVF

WY-K: Formation of surface

drainage channels through

erosion and deposition

North Dakota:

ND-A: Transplanting native

vegetation plugs for

reestablishing wetlands

ND-D: Restoration of woody

draws

—Planting, cultural and

management practices for

achieving grassland

diversity

—Irrigation, grazing, mulch,

seed mixes, and topsoil

handling and depth studies

Montana:

MT-A: Ponderosa pine

reestablishment

MT-E: Reestablishment of

ponderosa pine

—Coulee bottom restorat ion

—Sodding of native

grassland

—Special soil handling for

landscape diversity

—Topsoil depth, surface

manipulation, native species, legumes, phased

seeding, shrub reestablishment, native hay mulch,

temporary stabilizer crop,

and fertilizer studies

Wyoming:

WY-A: Effects of nurse crop

on establishment of

perennials

—Effects of grazing on species composition

—Mulching

—Use of sagebrush

“potlings”

WY-C: Annual grains grown

as source of soil organic

matter

WY-D: Methods to reduce

competition between vegetation species

—Planting cottonwoods in

drainages

WY-G: Need for irrigation in

arid area

WY-K: Annual rotation of

experimental species

WY-1: Reconstruction of a

playa

North Dakota:

ND-A: Reconstruction of

wetlands

—Developing criteria for

the success of wetland

habitat restoration

—Restoration of woody

draws and native prairie on

an “acre-for-acre” basis

ND-D: Reconstruction of

woody draws for wildlife

habitat

Montana:

MT-D: Relocation of sage

grouse strutting ground

—Nest box program for

American kestrels

—Use of radio-telemetry

and other methods to develop monitoring data to

determine when impacts

are due to mining versus

natural variation in populations

—Landscape diversity

through replacement of

microsites

—Identification of preferred

forage plants through fecal

analyses to develop seed

mix

Wyoming:

WY-J: Experimental practice

to leave a highwall portion

for raptor habitat
270 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 9=2.—Summary of Ongoing Research and Innovation at Case Study Minesa-Continued

Soil and overburden Surface and groundwater Revegetation Wildlife

Colorado:

CO-B: Aerial and field surveys to monitor swell factors for postmining

topography

CO-D: Shredded mountain

shrub vegetation as mulch

in direct-haul topsoiling

—Erosion monitoring

New Mexico:

NM-B: Use of overburden as

topsoil substitute

—Use of topsoil quality

evacuation system

NM-D: Nonuniform topsoil

thickness over spoil of varying quality

—Sodium migration in a

very low precipitation

regime

—Burial of fly ash with

elevated selenium levels

Colorado:

CO-C: Experimental practice for valley fill for excess

spoil disposal

CO-F: Burial of powerplant

wastes in backfill

New Mexico:

NM-C: Comprehensive erosion monitoring program

NM-D: Burial of powerplant

wastes in backfill

Colorado:

CO-A: Reclamation of

pinon-juniper on massive

sandstone

CO-D: Live mulch for woody

plant reestablishment and

complete topsoil removal

—Direct transplanting of

tree and shrub pads using

modified bucket

—Omitting seeding of

direct haul topsoil

CO-E: Use of snowfences

for water harvesting

—Mulch studies

CO-F: Direct transplanting

of mature native shrub pads

New Mexico:

NM-B: Use of overburden

strata as topsoil substitute

growth medium

NM-D: Irrigation

Colorado:

CO-D: Detailed characterization and delineation of

physical and floral features

of elk calving habitat

CO-F: Reestablishing

premining land uses on

postmining topography to

facilitate best management

practices

New Mexico:

NM-D: Annual monitoring to

provide data on wildlife use

of reclaimed areas

NM-E: Computer analysis of

mapping and telemetry data

to determine effects of mining on wildlife

aFor the key to case study mines, see appendix A in this volume.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment.

OSM. A few discipline-specific research projects

relevant to particular aspects of reclamation

continue to be funded at a much lower level,

however.

Extensive research programs also have been

conducted by university research groups, usually

in cooperation with particular mines. This research covers studies related to all aspects of

reclamation, including climate, soils and soil reconstruction, overburden analysis and handling,

revegetation, surface and groundwater hydrology, and supplemental water (1 2). Western reclamation research is ongoing at: Colorado State

University; Montana State University —Reclamation Research Unit and Institute for Natural Resources; North Dakota State University—Land

Reclamation Research Center; Brigham Young

University; University of Utah–Institute for Land

Rehabilitation; and University of Wyoming. However, because a major source of funding for

these research groups is the Federal Government, the scope of their reclamation research

has been curtailed significantly in recent years.

Some State agencies also sponsor reclamation

research. North Dakota’s reclamation law, for example, requires the regulatory authority to provide the legislature with an annual survey of past

and present reclamation research, current and

future research needs, and projected estimates

of funding requirements for conducting and administering reclamation research. This document

is a valuable tool for anyone involved in reclamation in North Dakota (14). In Wyoming, however, the legislature has denied research monies

to the regulatory authority because it is not intended to be a research agency.

In some cases, mine operators have been required to conduct applied research on specific

reclamation situations through permit stipula-
tions. Stipulations requiring monitoring cover: the

extent and potential for erosion, recontoured

spoil subsidence, overburden chemistry (through

groundwater monitoring, leach tests, and mixing

studies), soil salinity/sodicity and salt migration,

the effects of irrigation water on soil salinity, and

molybdenum levels in vegetation on reclaimed

surfaces. Other stipuIations are requiring operators to conduct research programs to develop criteria for judging the success of wetlands restoration, and to delineate suitable overburden or

other alternative materials for topdressing. As

with experimental practices, permit stipulations

cannot be considered a substitute for research.

Moreover, some industry representatives argue

that the incidence of stipulations requiring what

they consider to be “basic” research (e.g., the

movement of soluble constituents at the spoil/soil

interface) has increased as available government

funding has declined. It is extremely difficult,

however, to draw the line between applied and

basic research simply because the results may be

applicable to more than one reclamation situation.

Current Research and Innovation

In addition to the OSM-sponsored research

projects listed in table 9-1, research and innovation is ongoing at a number of mines in the West

as a result of site-specific conditions (see table 9-

2), either as experimental practices or through

other regulatory provisions. This research focuses

on the collection of particular sets of data through

baseline or monitoring studies, the use of innovative analytical techniques to evaluate reclamation situations, the development and implementation of innovative reclamation techniques, and

the development of technical standards for assessing the success of innovative reclamation situations.

Historically, revegetation has been the principal subject of research at Western surface

mines, primarily because the revegetation requirements have been in place the longest and

because the current regulatory standards for

reclamation success focus on revegetation. For

the most part, this research has examined means

of meeting the standards for production, cover,

woody plant density, and species/lifeform diversity (see ch. 8), including means of reducing inCh. 9—Technological Innovation and Research . 271

terspecies competition (see ch. 3). Other studies

have emphasized particular revegetation technologies (e.g., irrigation, mulch, fertilization, seed

mixes, planting methods); post-revegetation land

management (e. g., grazing); or revegetation in

special reclamation situations (wetlands, woody

draws, coulee bottoms, playas, pinon-juniper

communities, ponderosa pine woodlands).

As shown in table 9-2, innovation in soils and

overburden focuses on special handling or treatment of acid-, alkaline-, and toxic-forming materials; on Iandform and other aspects of geomorphology to achieve specific reclamation objectives

or postmining land uses; special soil reconstruction techniques (box 9-B; see also ch. 3, box 3-

D); the use of overburden strata as topsoil supplements or substitutes; the development of analytical techniques for evaluating overburden,

backfilled spoils, and topsoil quality; erosion

monitoring; two-lift direct-haul topsoil handling;

and nonuniform topsoil thickness.

Because of the length of time needed for

groundwater restoration, much of the past hydrologic research has focused on surface water

systems. Ongoing research in this area includes

drainage channel design and erosion monitoring.

In recent years, however, recognition of potential groundwater quality problems has grown, and

current research is emphasizing the characterization, analysis, and monitoring of the interaction

between backfill and aquifer restoration. Special

situations under study include burial of powerplant wastes, restoration of the essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors, and wetlands restoration.

Research and innovation related to wildlife

emphasize the development of data and analytical techniques for describing the extent and quality of wildlife habitat and for evaluating the impacts of mining and reclamation on wildlife

populations; of better and more effective means

of replacing specific habitat components, such

as woody vegetation, microsites, rock outcrops,

and other aspects of landscape diversity; and of

special reclamation techniques for the restoration

or protection of important habitats, such as wetlands (box 9-B), rimrock (box 9-A; see also ch.

3, box 3-O; and ch. 8, box 8-G), woody draws

(see box 3-N), and sage grouse strutting grounds

(box 3-Q).
272 . Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

RESEARCH NEEDS

Each of the technical reports prepared in support of this assessment identified research needs

based on the literature and on discussions with

mining company, regulatory authority, and environmental group personnel, as well as academic

and independent researchers (see vol. 2). These

research needs are summarized in table 9-3 and

discussed briefly below. In many cases, the needs

cut across disciplines. For example, the definition and characterization of deleterious overburden was identified as a research need by both

soil scientists and hydrologists, but problems with

such overburden also would affect the quality of

revegetation and, therefore, ultimately the quality of wildlife habitat.

Baseline and Monitoring Data

Table 9-3 lists four different data-related problems that must be resolved to ensure continued

improvement in the prospects for the long-term

success of reclamation in the West; these are discussed in detail in chapter 5. Three of these involve data that are needed but for which valid,

standardized collection methods do not exist.

First, reliable interpretations of the results of laboratory methods for generating chemical data

about overburden are not available. Tests for

selenium, nitrates, and acid-forming potential are

particularly suspect (see ch. 5, box 5-C, and ch.

8). Industry already has begun research on some

aspects of this problem, but additional work is

needed.

Second, standardized methods for collecting

data on flow and water quality in surface streams

—especially ephemeral streams—also are lacking

(see chs. 5 and 6). Because total suspended solids

levels are a performance standard specified in

SMCRA, meaningful surface water quality data

are doubly important (see ch. 7). Third, standard methodologies for collecting quantitative data

about the physical and floral features of wildlife

habitat are not available. These are needed to

provide a basis for development of design criteria

for mitigation features such as rock piles and nesting boxes. Data on large mammals, raptors, and

migratory birds are of regional concern, making
Ch. 9—Technological Innovation and Research ● 273

Table 9-3.—Research Needs for Western Surface Mine Reclamation

Soil/overburden Hydrology Revegetation Wildlife

Baseline and monitoring data:

Standardize laboratory techniques for chemical analysis of overburden for

development of valid baseline data

Develop a valid test for

predicting the acid or base

potential of postmine spoils

in the West

Develop quality assurance

programs for chemical

laboratory analyses

Develop a methodology for

determining sampling intensity for overburden and

recontoured spoils that accounts for inherent variability in physical and chemical

properties

Develop a standardized

methodology for surface

water quality data collection, especially for

ephemeral streams

Develop a digitized hydrology database to organize

data on a regional level and

make them readily accessible

Develop a methodology for

using monitoring and other

data to verify and refine

predictive techniques used

for PHCS and CHIAS

Standardize laboratory techniques to analyze overburden for chemical

characteristics detrimental

to water quality

Predictive analytical techniques:

Develop techniques for “

predicting spoils properties,

particularly weathering and

movement of salts into the

root zone

Improve erosion prediction

techniques and quantitative

methods for comparing erosion potential of reclaimed

and undisturbed lands

Develop techniques to

predict long-term consolidation and settling of resaturated spoils-aquifers and

the subsequent reduction

in permeability in re: overburden Iithology and mining

technique

Develop methods for

predicting site-specific

post-mining spoils-water

quality particularly for: a)

quantifying amount of

deleterious material needed

before special handling imposed, and b) predicting effect of settling and

consolidation of spoils in

re: spoil permeability

Improve models of cumulative regional groundwater

quality impacts of groundwater passing through

spoils of multiple mines

Define conditions under

which recharge by surface

infiltration is ‘desirable and

develop methods for restoring this recharge capacity

Standards and evacuation of raclamation success:

Evaluate plant monitoring Develop quantitative criteria

as means of detecting un- for evaluation of surface

desirable trace elements in and groundwater hydrologic

recontoured spoils and soil restoration

Develop specific criteria

and methods for applying

the TSS standard

Refine the definition of “effective sediment control” in

light of ongoing research

Evaluate the need for collection of long-term data on

erosion, productivity and

cover to evaluate soilthickness requirements and

erosion control methods

Develop and validate

statistical models for

revegetation success that

incorporate environmental

baseline and reclamation

monitoring data

Improve methods for incorporating climatic and temporal variation into

revegetation success

standards

Develop methods for adjusting performance standards based on reference

areas to incorporate the

range of conditions on an

entire mine-site

Improve methods for evaluating Iifeform, seasonal,

and landscape diversity

Develop technical standards for shrubs and other

vegetative communities,

Standardize definitions and

quantitative measurement

methodologies for physical

and floral features of wildlife habitat

Develop standardized quantitative habitat quality assessment methods

Further development of

analytical techniques similar to the FWS “HEP”

model for predicting sitespecific impacts of mining

on wildlife

Develop methods for

predicting regional and cumulative impacts to wildlife

Improve ability to differentiate between changes in

wildlife populations caused

by mining versus natural

phenomena

Develop design standards

for the size, configuration,

density of habitat enhancement and replacement, particularly physical features

such as shrub patches and

rock outcrops

where needed
274 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 9-3.—Research Needs for Western Surface Mine Reclamation—Continued

Soil/overburden Hydrology Revegetation Wildlife

Reclamation techniques:

Examine techniques for soil

resource optimization, especially over benign spoils

Quantify costs and benefits

of one-lift versus two-lift

direct haul soil handling

and their effects on revegetat ion

Determine effectiveness of

overburden mixing for various mining equipment, in

terms of mitigating the effects of toxic overburden

Determine effectiveness of

various alternative sediment

control methodologies

Develop criteria and guidelines for disposal of powerplant wastes in backfill

Develop methods of improving spoils-aquifer hydraulics

and water quality through

materials handling:

—Using available geological materials to construct

conduits through spoils

areas

—Through placement of

granular soil layer below

the rooting zone

Develop technical guidelines for special-handling

procedures required for various types of detrimental

overburden to protect

groundwater quality

Improve means of establishing woody plant density

and general vegetative

diversity

Continue research on establishment of special plant

communities (pinon-juniper,

woody draws, native grasslands, etc.)

Evaluate utility of various

types of mulch under differing environmental conditions (e.g., climate)

Evaluate use of variable

topsoil and subsoil thicknesses for establishing

different kinds of vegetation communities

Continue research on

reconstruction of special

habitats (wetlands, woody

draws, pinon-juniper, etc.)

Develop means of establishing landscape diversity

Basic research:

Determine rate at which

nutrients recycle and organic matter accumulates in

replaced soil

Evaluate need to monitor

chemical and physical

changes in reconstructed

soils to predict long-term

soil characteristics

— Continue developing plant Establish a clearinghouse

materials with broad genet- for data and research in the

ic variability West

Define the specific ways in Evaluate extent to which

which various groups of habitat availability is limitsoil microbiota affect ing to wildlife populations

nutrient cycling and recov- in the West

ery of revegetated land

Examine degree of pertubation a rehabilitated

ecosystem can absorb

without a major shift in

species composition

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

standardization particularly important because

the data may have many users.

The fourth data research need listed in table

9-3 involves data management, which is a significant problem. Chapters notes that in disciplines

such as hydrology, the large amounts of raw data

being collected can make its analysis very difficult and time-consuming. Yet both data and analyses are highly quantitative and regional sharing

of data is extremely important. If the enormous

amounts of hydrologic and other data being collected in the West are to be useful and accessible, guidelines or criteria (e.g., a scoping system) for the baseline and monitoring data that

need to be collected, and some sort of digitized

data management system need to be developed.

Precisely how these data management options

should be implemented and what standard

forms for input data should be required are

themselves important topics for research.

Analytical Techniques and Predicting

Reclamation Success

As is clear from chapter 6, analytical techniques

currently in use range from highly quantitative

and sophisticated in hydrology, to intuitive, qualitative professional judgments in wildlife. OTA
Ch. 9—Technological Innovation and Research ● 275

found a need to improve analytical techniques

used to predict the impacts of mining and to formulate reclamation plans in all of the disciplines

studied. In areas such as hydrology, existing analytical tools are impressive, but so are the obstacles to and uncertainties in the analyses. Many

of the highly quantitative computer models for

analyzing hydrologic restoration are quite new,

and data on actual hydrologic impacts will become available slowly. The validity of these

models cannot be known for many years, but

ideally, models should be constantly recalibrated

as monitoring data are collected and model assumptions refined in light of actual events.

Often the development of analytical techniques

is interrelated. Adequate methods for predicting

the effects of spoil oxidation, which affects both

water quality and vegetation potential, are lacking. Without valid chemical data on overburden

(see above) and an ability to predict the effects

of and the potential for oxidation in replaced

spoils, operators will continue to have difficulty

in delineating deleterious overburden and in

knowing how to treat such material during mining and reclamation.

Evaluation of Reclamation Success

The development of success standards and

bond release criteria are still in their infancy and

a great deal of both regulatory and research

work remains to be done. Because intermediate and final bond release and success determinations probably will focus on vegetation and hydrology, most of the research required will be in

these areas. Two challenges in the evaluation of

revegetation success are to develop standard systems that incorporate: 1 ) the effects of temporal

and climatic variation on vegetation, and 2) a

workable measure of landscape diversity. One

difficulty is that diversity and ecosystem function

(nutrient and energy cycling) may not be fully

reestablished within the 10-year liability period.

Very little work seems to have been done to

develop methods of evaluating hydrologic restoration. Where performance standards exist,

there is little indication as to how they will be

applied after reclamation is complete. Research

is needed to develop specific quantitative criteria

for evaluating virtually all aspects of hydrologic

success and to determine how best to compensate for the long time required for reestablishment

of aquifers and for the infrequent occurrence of

peak flow events to test drainage restoration. In

addition, newly developed reclamation techniques, such as the alternative sediment control

measures being used at several Western mines,

may require refinement of design criteria.

Reliance on vegetative and hydrologic success

to determine success in soils, overburden, and

wildlife is, in itself, a proposition that could bear

researching. Similarly, if the physical and floral

features of wildlife habitat can be quantified, as

suggested above, specific design criteria for habitat and for wildlife mitigation measures (e.g., rock

piles and shrub patches) can be developed and

evaluated.

Reclamation Techniques

While major improvements have been made

in reclamation techniques since 1977, OTA identified several areas in which new techniques need

to be developed, or quantitative comparative

analyses of the benefits of emerging techniques

undertaken. For soils and overburden, these include an examination of soil resource optimization in terms of both soil quality and quantity

(rather than quantity alone), and of the effectiveness of overburden mixing to dilute deleterious

material for different dragline and truck-andshovel operations. I n addition, the effects of oneIift versus two-lift direct-haul topsoiling on revegetation performance standards need to be quantified in different regions, soil situations, and vegetation conditions.

Aspects of revegetation needing additional research in particular regions and site conditions

include the ability to reestablish woody plant density and special plant communities (e. g., pinonjuniper woodland, native grasslands, woody

draws, wetlands); the use of variable topsoil and

subsoil thicknesses for establishing different kinds

of vegetation communities; the effects of grazing on revegetation; and the utility of various

types of mulch under different ecological and climatic conditions. Wildlife will benefit both from

research on means to establish special commu-
276 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

nities and from improvements in methods for establishing diversity over the mine-site landscape.

For surface and groundwater hydrology, continued or additional research is needed on the

effectiveness of alternative sediment control

methods under various site-specific conditions,

on the disposal of powerplant wastes in backfill,

on methods for improving spoil-aquifer hydraulics and water quality through materials handling,

and on guidelines for the special handling of various types of overburden materials that may be

detrimental to groundwater quality. A major focus of the latter should be the trade-offs between

extensive baseline overburden trace metal analyses combined with special handling and/or burial of deleterious overburden, versus post-reclamation monitoring and corrective action should

problems arise. Related areas of inquiry are the

number of inches of cover needed over acid-,

alkaline- and toxic-forming overburden to protect revegetation; the methods for delineating

deleterious strata; and the best place for burying deleterious materials.

In addition, many of the existing and planned

reclamation areas of Western mines have longer

slopes and smaller drainage densities than existed

premining or that exist on adjacent undisturbed

areas. Research needs to be conducted to determine whether the hydrologic balance is being

protected in terms of erosional stability and infiltration/runoff relationships in such reclaimed

areas.

Basic Research

As noted previously, there frequently is a fine

line between basic and applied research. When

the results of site-specific research are documented carefully and disseminated publicly,

they often can provide incremental advances in

the science of reclamation in the West. However, research projects incorporating comparative analyses at many sites have the potential for

larger improvements in reclamation technology

and the understanding of reclamation science.

For example, several mines are examining the importance of Iandform position, slope, and aspect

for moisture retention for particular vegetation

types under specific ecological, physical, and climatic conditions. In order to improve the longterm prospects for the productive capability of

reclaimed lands throughout the study region, this

research would need to be expanded to cover

the full range of different precipitation zones,

vegetation, and soil types, etc., and the results

disseminated and analyzed on a comparative

basis.

Besides the specific research needs already discussed, OTA identified a need for more basic research in the following areas: the extent to which

habitat availability limits the size and distribution

of wildlife populations in the West; the rate at

which nutrient and organic matter cycles reestablish in replaced topsoil; further definition of the

specific ways in which various groups of soil

microbiota affect nutrient cycling and recovery

of revegetated land; continued development of

plant materials with broad genetic variability; and

the degree of perturbation a rehabilitated ecosystem can absorb without a major shift in species composition or ecosystem function (e.g.,

productivity).

FUNDING AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Constraints on research and innovation in and from attitudes toward the role of and need

Western surface mining may be imposed by the for research. The most critical constraint probcost of research and limited budget resources, ably is the lack of available funding for reclaby regulations that impose strict design stand- mation research, which frequently is very expenards for reclamation or restrictions on innova- tive. As discussed previously, research funds are

tion, by a lack of knowledge of past research, limited and have declined significantly in the last
Ch. 9—Technological Innovation and Research Ž 277

few years, primarily due to Federal budget cuts.

OTA recognizes the realities of Federal budget

cuts in the face of massive deficits, yet other

sources of reclamation research funding need

to be sought at the Federal level, in State governments, and in the private sector.

At the Federal level, there are three potential

sources of increased funding for reclamation research. First, a substantial amount of money accrues to the Federal Government through their

50 percent share of the royalties and bonus payments on Federal coal leases. These monies go

into the general treasury fund, rather than being

earmarked for the cost of administering the leasing program or for any other special purpose. Because these monies are derived from the extraction of Federal coal, it would be in the public

interest to use some of these revenues for reclamation research to ensure that the overlying Federal lands are as productive, in the long term, as

they were before coal leasing and development.

Second, SMCRA imposes a permit application

fee, which may be less than but may not exceed

the actual or anticipated cost of reviewing, administering, and enforcing the permit. This provision couId be amended to increase the fee to

create a dedicated research fund, with the amount

either fixed or proportional to the size of the

mining operation being permitted.

Third, as noted above, research funds are available from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation

Fund. Total projected income for the AML Fund

from its inception in 1978 to its scheduled termination in 1992 is estimated at $3 billion. As of

September 1983, $1.32 billion had been collected, Under SMCRA, 50 percent of this money

is returned to the States from which it came in

the form of grants for AML programs and projects.

The Federal share of $658.5 million is to be spent

at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.

As of September 1983, about $16 million had

been used to carry out the inventory and perhaps

$50 million had gone to administrative costs. The

use of these discretionary funds is controversial,

and currently is being studied by several groups,

including the House Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs and the National Research Council.

These latter two options essentially shift the burden of funding research to the private sector, but

the Federal Government still would be responsible for allocating the resulting funds and still

wouId absorb a portion of the funds for administrative costs. The latter is a source of controversy

because approximately 23 percent of OSM’S research budget and 8 percent of the Federal AML

share have gone to administration and staff

support.

The Federal Government also might expand its

use of permit stipulations to require coal companies to perform and monitor research projects,

analyze the data, and disseminate the results. This

option has fewer administrative costs to the government, since there would be no research funds

to oversee, but still would require OSM Staff supervision of the research itself. Permit stipulations, however, should not be considered a substitute for general research, because they are

intended to address site-specific reclamation uncertainties.

State government options for funding reclamation research are essentially the same as those

for the Federal Government, with the addition

of severance taxes and of legislative appropriations for those States whose budgets are healthier

than the Federal Government’s. The States collect severance taxes from coal mining, as well as

their share of bonuses and royalties from leasing.

Table 9-4 shows the tax rate for severance taxes,

DOI estimates of potential State revenues from

the Federal leasing program and from severance

taxes under various coal production scenarios,

and the State allocation of severance taxes. ’ The

primary purpose of both severance taxes and the

Federal revenue-sharing is to mitigate the social

and economic impacts of coal development (e.g.,

population increases resulting in overloaded services such as schools, health facilities, etc.). Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

‘ Note that the figures in table 9-4 do not reflect the proposed

sequestering of a portion of the States’ share of Federal mineral

leasing revenues as a result of the Gramm-Rudman-Hol lings budget cuts. Preliminary estimates by DOI were that Wyoming could

lose $8.9 milllon in anticipated revenues in fiscal year 1986; New

Mexico, $6.7 million; Colorado $1.9 million; and Montana,

$900,000. An estimate was not available for North Dakota at the

time of this writing. The legality of such sequestration under the

Mineral Leasing Act is in dispute (1 1).
278 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Table 9-4.—Statea Severance Tax Rates and Projected Revenues

DOI estimate of coal (thousand dollars royalty and

severance tax revenuesb,e

1983

Severance production PRLA and

tax rate Basis (tons) Severance tax allocation Year No new leasing emergency leasing Continued leasing

Colorado:

$00.60 Per ton 50% severance tax trust fund

50% distributed as follows:

–80% to local governments

in impacted areas

–15% to communities in

proportion to number of

residents employed in

mines

1990:

Royalties

Severance taxes

1995:

Royalties

Severance taxes

2000:

Royalties

Severance taxes

10,535,211

29,477,000

20,439,402

18,471,000

108,321,269

$13,200-$14,000

12,000-12,600

16,200-17,100

13,200-13,800

19,100-27,800

14,400-21,000

14,700-15,100

113,400-116,100

24,000-25,700

118,000-126,400

25,500-41,700

$13,200-$14,000

12,000-12,600

16,200-17,100

13,200-13,800

19,100-22,900

14,400-17,400

14,700-15,100

113,400-116,100

24,000-25,700

118,000-126,400

25,500-43,400

125,400-213,700

$13,200-$14,000

12,000-12,600

16,200-17,100

13,200-13,800

19,100-21,400

14,400-16,200

14,700-15,100

113,400-116,100

24,000-25,700

118,000-126,400

25,500-37,000

Montana:

24,62% % taxable

value

50% 10 permanent trust fund

1.5% to alternative energy R&D

8.5% to local impact assistance

10% to education trust fund

5% to State public school

equalization aid

0.5% to county land planning

1,25% to renewable resources

1,5% to parks and cultural

projects trust

1 % to conservation districts

0.5% to State library commission

19% to general fund

1990.

Royalties

Severance taxes

1995.

Royalties

Severance taxes

2000:

Royalties

Severance taxes 125,400-205,

11,900

14,000

00 125,400 - 82,300

NeW Mexico:

$00.50 per ton 100% to permanent fund including principal and interest

payments

1990:

Royalties

Severance taxes

1995:

Royalties

Severance taxes

2000

Royalties

Severance taxes

11,900

14,000

12,700

15,000

14,700-17,800

17,000-20,500

14,700-17,800

17,000-20,500

14,700-17,800

17,000-20,500

17,800-23,100

18,500-24,000

17,800-27,000

18,500-28,000

17,800-27,000

18,500-28,000

North Dakota:

$00.85 per ton 35% for impacted localities

15% trust fund for loans to

local governments

20% to coal-producing

counties as follows:

–30% tO Cities based on

population

–40% to county government

–30% to school districts

30% general fund

1990:

Royalties

Severance taxes

1995:

Royalties

Severance taxes

2000:

Royalties

Severance taxes

2,700

20,400

2,700

20.400

2,700

20,400

4,300

28,000

4,300-4,900

28,000-31,400

4,300-4,900

28,000-31,400

4,400

28,000

4,800-5,600

30,600-35,700

4,800-6,900

30,600-43,400

Wyoming:

13 5% 0

/0 taxable

value

Divided among:

–impact fund

–capital facilities account

—cities and counties

–water development

1990:

Royalties

Severance taxes

1995:

Royalties

Severance taxes

2000:

Royalties

Severance taxes

56,300-69,900

242,600-300,300

56,300-69,100

242,600-297,200

55,300-69,100

238,300-297,200

88,200-142,900

261,300-413,500

115,500-202,000

333,600-572,300

88,200-145,200

261,300-419,700

88,200-142,900

261,300-413,500

117,200-172,300

338,330-495,500

115,500-178,300

333,600-510,200

alncludes all coal regions within a State.

bus DePaflment of the ]nter~or, Federal Coal ~anagemenf Program—Draft Env/ronmenta/ hn~acf Statement SUPPk317WIf (Washington, Dc: U.S. Government pr~ntiUl

Office, February 1985).

cFrom 1984 Keystone Coal Industry Manual, estimated from Surface mines.

dlCF, InC,, ,. Econom ic A~9e99ment of Effects of Royalties, Severgrlce Taxes, and Diligent DevelopmentRequirements on Coal Production, priCeS, and consumer Costs,”

draft final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy, June 1982; Southern States Energy Board, State Severance Taxes (Atlanta, GA: December 1981).

eRanges shown reflect low-high production leveiS.
Ch. 9—Technological Innovation and Research • 279

of 1976, however, the States’ share of Federal

leasing revenues may be used for any public purpose. Given the total projected revenues from

both sources, funds could be made available for

research into mitigating the environmental impacts of coal development.

The State share of AML funds is projected to

total $1.5 billion by 1992. As of September 1983,

$484.7 million had been distributed to 23 States.

In the Western States studied for this assessment,

most of the abandoned coal emergency and high

priority sites have been abated, and the States

have begun using their share of the AML Fund

for noncoal sites (e.g., abandoned uranium mines).

While the States have broad discretion on how

they use their share of these funds, there are a

variety of research needs related to the mitigation

of abandoned coal mines, in addition to the research needs of current surface mining reclamation. Because these funds are derived from active coal mines, the coal industry would prefer

to see the funds returned to addressing their problems. Moreover, abandoned surface mine areas

often are ideal sites for reclamation research.

Many States also have a “reclamation fee” as

part of their permitting programs to cover administrative expenses (equivalent to the permit application fee under SMCRA). As with the Federal

fee, the State reclamation fees could be increased

to create a dedicated research fund.

The coal industry also could assume the responsibility for reclamation research through

formal or informal cooperative efforts. This is

the approach taken by the electric utility industry, through the Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI; see box 9-C). Such an approach has been

adopted informally by five coal companies in IIIinois, who contribute a total of approximately

$200,000 annually plus field plots to support research on prime farmlands performed by university agronomists (9). Similar efforts in the Western

States include the Western Soil and Overburden

Task Force (an industry group), which is working on improving laboratory methods and quality assurance in soil and overburden analysis to

Box 9=C.-EPR#; A Ccwperat.lve Industry

ReaewQh ‘organization

EPRI is # naticmdl organization that conducts

research and development (R&D) for the electric utility Industry. WRl is the successor to the

Electric Resmreh @uocil(ERC), which was

organized in 1965 tqwxourage all sections of

the irt&@q toj@p k cooperative sponsorship

of ebctric In 1%9, ERC setup

a Task Force to draw up a blueprint for utility

industry R&f) through the year 2000. Concurrently, ERC worked out the details for an industrywide organization to provide direction and

support for R&D. The resuk was EPRI, which incorporated both EI?C and the Edison Electric lnstftute’s RI!@ ptigrarns.

EPRl is wpportd by voluntary contributions

from @me@MIE% @hkiih include investor-, public-,

and electric utilities and

in power produc.

tkm. 6uidk@r@ WQ established under which

member comp@@were asked to contribute at

a level proportional to the number of kilowatthours sold (0.1 mill/kWh in 1974). R&O is not

actually conducted at EPRI offices; but at universities, rnariufacturing plants, utility sites, or wherever else nee@ed skills and facilities exist. Advi-

~=~ ~~wagenda include: the Board

@fDi~Of$~f~~e~@~ives from member util-

- ltks; &R-rch ii$#&ismyCommittee of 24 senvice presidents of util-

~ @@?t *h*,-,MEPRI’s senior staff on

?ll

. khnktlf $MO@ - ““ #@ndas; and a 25-member

from the research comof Regulator y

aind a cross-section of th e

public (Z* ‘ “

improve the possibility of developing soil and

overburden resource information; the Gillette

Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization,

which compiles groundwater data collected by

its member coal companies and publishes them

in annual reports; and the Western Reclamation

Group, which evaluates the technical aspects of reclamation methods and regulatory requirements.
280 • Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

Such a cooperative structure for industryfunded research would be more equitable than

the current situation in which a few companies

shoulder the burden of research through experimental practices and permit stipulations. As

with EPRI, advisory committees comprised of industry representatives, supplemented with academic, regulatory, and interest group personnel,

could evaluate the need for particular types of

research in different ecosystems, with the research results disseminated to all members as well

as to regulatory authorities, academic researchers, and other interested parties. Because the coal

industry, unlike the electric utility industry, is

competitive, the antitrust implications of a formal

cooperative research organization are unclear.

A second set of constraints on research and

innovation in surface mining reclamation results

from legislation or regulations that impose rigid

design standards or place strict limitations on

innovation. The design standards in SMCRA and

the regulatory programs cover sedimentation

control technologies, topsoil thickness and suitability, and approximate original contour and highwall reduction (see chs. 4 and 7). As discussed

in chapter 8, research to date suggests that there

may be some situations in which these standards

either may unnecessarily increase the cost of

reclamation or may even undermine efforts to improve the quality and capability of the land. On

the other hand, design standards for these aspects

of reclamation generally are easier to enforce

than performance standards, especially in disciplines where there are few if any monitoring

requirements or criteria for evaluating reclamation success. The main problem is how to encourage innovation while maintaining regulatory

control (see box 9-D).

While limited research on alternatives to these

design standards is underway in the West (see

notes on mines MT-B, ND-D, NM-D, WY-G, WYJ, WY-K in table 9-2), it must either be carried

out under the stringent requirements for a formal experimental practice, or the permit applicant must obtain a variance. The difficulty and

cost of either avenue poses a significant obstacle to the extension of this research to other mining situations.

One option is to incorporate alternative sets

of design standards in State guidelines, with approval of their use at a particular mine depending on site-specific environmental and operational conditions. Guidelines are more flexible
Ch. 9—Technological Innovation and Research ● 281

than regulations, but some State regulatory authorities are reluctant to use them (they are not

allowed under the North Dakota legislation). A

second option for encouraging innovation while

maintaining regulatory control would be to keep

design standards but make maximum use of the

phrase “unless otherwise approved by the regulatory authority” or to liberalize the requirements for a variance or experimental practice.

Design standards could be enforced strictly when

necessary, and innovation encouraged when

possible.

In either case, the regulatory authority should

ensure that shifts from design to performance

standards, or variances from design standards

are backed up with strict criteria for evaluating

the success of the reclamation, and with requirements for monitoring and analysis of the resulting data. ultimately, however, judgments about

a proposed practice’s success must depend heavily on the technical expertise within the regulatory authority.

A third set of constraints on research and

innovation results from a lack of data or of

knowledge about past research. In areas where

reclamation problems are just beginning to be

recognized, baseline or monitoring data may not

be available, or analytical techniques may not

have been developed. For example, the potential for, effects of, and best means of handling acid

production from spoils are not understood, yet

only in Wyoming are studies of the acid-base potential routinely required in baseline overburden

studies, and uncertainties about the results of

such studies remain unresolved (see ch. 8). Similarly, there has been very little research on the

optimum depth of soil as a function of soil quality. Present baseline analyses do not evaluate

characteristics such as the organic matter in, or

moisture-holding capacity of, either the reclaimed

soils or recontoured spoil, and soil suitability generally is based on chemical and physical parameters. Therefore, regulatory programs that require

the salvage of all suitable soil may not be optimizing soil depth,

Furthermore, there are few vehicles for dissemination of reclamation research results. In

some cases, companies may prefer to keep such

information confidential for competitive reasons.

But even when competition is not a concern,

reclamation specialists at mines, reguIatory agencies, and other research groups must rely on

word-of-mouth and infrequent conferences or

symposia to learn about research and innovation

at Western surface mines. Regular publication

of research/innovation newsletters by regulatory

authorities and regular compilation of a bibliography on reclamation research (similar to the

publications previously issued by the USFS’

SEAM program) would greatly assist information dissemination.

Finally, attitudes toward the role of and need

for research on Western surface mine reclamation can pose a significant constraint on research

and innovation. Reclamation research, including documenting the effectiveness of i nnovative

practices, can be expensive. As a result, each of

the parties-coal companies, and Federal and

State regulatory authorities–tends to believe that

the economic responsibility for such research lies

with one of the other parties. Implementing the

options for increased research funding discussed

previously would alleviate this problem. But the

commitment to meeting the legislative standards

for reclamation that has emerged among all of

these parties since 1977 must continue to evolve

to ensure that attitudes toward research also

change.

A second aspect of this problem is the allocation of limited Federal research monies among

Eastern, Midwestern, and Western reclamation

problems. Western (and Midwestern) regulatory

authority personnel and coal operators argue that

a disproportionate amount of such funds is dedicated to Eastern mining situations and problems.

To resolve this dispute, OSM should undertake

a study, with participation by operators and regulatory authorities from all parts of the country, to ascertain regional research needs and

determine the priorities and relative costs of

meeting those needs.
282 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9,

Cedar Creek Associates, “Wildlife Technologies

for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor repOrt to OTA, August 1985.

Electrical World, The Electric Century 1874-1974

(New York: McGraw-Hill, June 1, 1974).

ICF, Inc., Economic Assessment of Effects of Royalties, Severance Taxes, and Diligent Development

Requirements on Coal Production, Prices, and

Consumer Costs, draft final report submitted to the

U.S. Department of Energy, June 1982.

Narten, Perry F., et al., Reclamation of Mined

Lands in the Western Coa/ Region, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 872, 1983.

National Research Council, Coa/ Mining and

Ground-Water Resources in the United States

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981).

National Research Council, Soi/, Coa/ and Society (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1981 ).

Office of Management and Budget, Annual Budget Summaries (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, various years).

Office of Surface Mining, Western Technical Center, personal communication, 1985.

Personal communication to OTA from companies

involved, 1985; see also Reclaiming Prime Farmlands and Other High-Quality Croplands After Surface Coa/ Mining, OTA Staff Memorandum, 1985.

10. Southern States Energy Board, State Severance

Taxes (Atlanta, GA: December 1981).

11. “State Mineral Receipts Slated for Hefty Cut,” /nside Energy, Jan. 20, 1986.

12. U.S. Department of the Interior, BudgetJustifications, FY 1986: Office of Sudace Mining (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,

1985).

13. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federa/ Coa/

14

15

16

Management Program–Draft Environmental impact Statement Supplement (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1985).

Walsh, James P., and Associates, “Soil and Overburden Management in Western Surface Coal

Mine Reclamation,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.

Western Resource Development Corp., and J. Buni n, “Revegetation Technology and Issues at

Western Surface Coal Mines, ” contractor report

to OTA, September 1985.

Western Water Consultants, “Hydrologic Evaluation and Reclamation Technologies for Western

Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA,

August 1985.
Appendixes

.
Appendix A

Key to Case Study Mines

State/Mine Soils a Hydrology b

Revegetationc WiIdlife d

North Dakota:

ND–A . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ND–B . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ND–C . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ND–D . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana:

MT–A . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MT–B . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MT–C . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MT–D . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MT–E . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming:

WY–A . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–B . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–C . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–D . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–E . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–F . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–G . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–H . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–J . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WY–K . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado:

CO–A . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CO–B . . . . . . . . . . . . .

co–c . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CO–D . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CO–E. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CO–F. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CO–G . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico:

NM–A . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NM–B . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NM–C . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NM–D . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NM–E . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A c (3.3)

D (3.4)

B (3.2)

A (3.1)

ND– 2

—

—

ND– 1

A

—

B B

MT– 2

—

—

—

MT– 1

— —

c F(3.6)

E (3.5)

H (3.8)

G (3.7)

— —

c

—

D

—

E

F

— WY– 1 —

—

—

—

—

—

M (3.13)

—

WY– 5

WY– 2

—

G —

L(3.12)

N (3.14)

I (3.9)

J (3.10)

— —

— —

WY– 3

—

I —

—

—

WY– 6

—

— — —

— D

H

—

K(3.11)

—

WY– 4 —

co– 4

—

— —

K

J

—

Q(3.17)

0(3.15)

—

co– 1

co– 2

co– 5

co– 3

—

E

— —

— P(3.16) F

— —

T(3.20)

—

S(3.19)

R(3.18)

—

M NM–1

—

NM– 2

NM– 3

L

—

H

— G

ajames P. Wal$h &Associates, “Sofl and Overburden Management In Western Surface Coal Mine Reclamation,” contractor report to OTA, August, 1985).

bwesternw aterconsu~ants, “HydrologlcEvaluaUon and Reclamation Technologies for Western Surface Coal Mining,” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.

cwestern Resource Development Corp. and J. Bunin, “Revegetation Technology and Issues at Western Surface Coal Mines, ” contractor report to OTA, September 1985.

dcedar Creek Associates, “Wildllfe Technologies for Western Surface Coal Min(ng, ” contractor report to OTA, August 1985.

285
Appendix B

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABP

ACEC

AML

AOC

AVF

B

BLM

Btu

CDOW

CFR

CHIA

cmlyr

c o

DEQ

DOI

DSL

EA

EC

ECO

EHF

EIS

EMRIA

EPA

EPRI

ESP

FCLAA

FDM

FEM

FLPMA

FONSI

ft

FWS

FY

GAGMO

gpd

gpm

HEP

KRCRA

lb

m

286

—acid-base potential

–Area of Critical Environmental

Concern

–Abandoned Mine Land Program

—approximate original contour

—alluvial valley floor

–boron

–Bureau of Land Management

–British thermal unit

–Colorado Department of Wildlife

–Code of Federal Regulations

—cumulative hydrologic impact

assessment

—centimeters per year

–Colorado

–Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality

—U.S. Department of the Interior

–Montana Department of State Lands

—environmental assessment

—electrical conductivity

—engineered cast overburden

—essential hydrologic functions

–Environmental Impact Statement

–Energy Minerals Rehabilitation

Inventory and Analysis

—U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

–Electric Power Research Institute

—exchangeable sodium percent

—Federal Coal Leasing Amendments

Act of 1976

–finite-difference model

–finite-element model

–Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976

–finding of no significant impact

–foot

–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

–fiscal year

—Gillette Area Groundwater

Monitoring Organization

–gallons per day

–gallons per minute

–Habitat Evaluation Procedures

program

—Known Recoverable Coal Resource

Area

–pound

—meter

MBMG

mgll

mill

MLRD

MMD

MMS

Mo

M T

N

NAAQS

NAS

NAWDEX

ND

NEPA

NGWIC

NM

NOAA

NOV

NPDES

NRC

NSPS

OSM

OTA

PHC

ppm

PRP

Psc

RA

RCT

SAR

Sat%

SCs

Se

SEAM

SMCRA

SSA

T D S

tpd

–Montana Bureau of Mines and

Geology

—milligrams per liter

—milliliters per liter

—Colorado Mined Land Reclamation

Division

–New Mexico Mining and Minerals

Division

–Minerals Management Service

—molybdenum

—Montana

—nitrogen

–National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

–National Academy of Sciences

—National Water-Data Exchange

–North Dakota

–National Environmental Policy Act of

1969

—National Ground Water Information

Center

—New Mexico

–National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (DOI)

–Notice of Violation

–National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System

–National Research Council

–New Source Performance Standard

–Office of Surface Mining

–Office of Technology Assessment

—probable hydrologic consequences

–parts per million

–Federal permanent regulatory

program

–North Dakota Public Service

Commission

—regulatory authority

–Regional Coal Team

—sodium adsorption ratio

—moisture content saturation

–Soil Conservation Service

—selenium

–Surface Environment and Mining

Program

–Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977

–Site-specific Analysis

—total dissolved solids

–tons per day
App. B—List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ● 287

tpy —tons per year USGS –U.S. Geological Survey

TS S —total suspended solids USLE —Universal Soil Loss Equation

TVA –Tennessee Valley Authority WATSTORE—National Water-Data Storage and

URA –Unit Resource Analysis Retrieval System

Usc –United States Code WWRC –Wyoming Water Research Center

USDA –U.S. Department of Agriculture WY –Wyoming

USFS –U.S. Forest Service
Appendix C

Glossary

Alluvium: Sand, silt, or clay that has been deposited

on land by streams.

Aquifer: A body of earth strata capable of transmitting water through its pores at a rate sufficient for

water supply purposes.

Arroyo: A water-carved gully or channel in arid areas.

Aspect: The direction a slope faces; affects temperature, moisture (e.g., snow accumulation and retention), and wind exposure, and hence can dramatically influence vegetation.

Available water: The portion of water in a soil that

can be absorbed by plant roots. The amount of

water released by the soil when the equilibrium soil

water matrix potential is decreased from field capacity to –15 bar.

Base flow: That portion of the stream discharge which

is derived from groundwater outflow or other

sources outside the net rainfall which created the

surface runoff.

Bench: A thickness of overburden handled as a layer.

Browse: Palatable shrubs.

Calcareous: Soil containing sufficient free calcium carbonate or calcium: magnesium carbonate to effervesce visibly when treated with cold 0.1 N hydrochloric acid.

Carrying capacity: The amount of livestock or wildlife use that an area is able to support; relates to forage production, water, shelter, etc.

Climax: The kind of community capable of perpetuation under the prevailing climatic and substrate

conditions, assuming long-term absence of disturbance. See Succession.

Coulee: A drainageway that is steep-sided and normally is dry by late summer.

Cover (absolute): The percentage of the ground covered by above-ground portions of plants; may be

expressed by species, Iifeform, or totaled; values for

litter, rock, and soil may be similarly reported.

Cover (relative): The proportion of the total absolute

cover contributed by each plant species.

Crest-gage station (or Crest-stage gage station): A simple measuring device used to obtain a record of

flood crests at sites where recording gages are not

present.

Cumulative hydrologic impact assessment (CHIA):

A determination of the probable additive impacts

to surface and groundwaters associated with all existing and anticipated mining in an area.

Dancing ground: Small clearings and/or hilltops used

by sharptail grouse for their breeding activities; also

referred to more generically as a lek.

Dendritic: Branching or treelike forms.

Dip: The angle that a structure surface (i.e., bedding),

makes with the horizontal measured perpendicular to the strike.

Discharge: In its simplest concept, discharge means

outflow of water; therefore, the use of this term is

not restricted as to course or location and it can be

applied to describe the flow of water from a pipe,

aquifer or from a drainage basin. Flow rates in

canals or streams are often referred to as discharge

rates. It is also correct to speak of the discharge of

a canal or stream into a lake, stream, or ocean.

Dissected plateau: A flat topographic bench exhibiting one or more large erosion gullies or arroyos.

Diversity: The variation of heterogeneity of species

or Iifeforms within one plant community, which

may incorporate “richness” (species or Iifeform

number) and “evenness” (comparative species or

Iifeform abundance).

Drainage basin: A part of the surface of the earth that

is occupied by a drainage system, which consists

of a surface stream or a body of impounded surface water together with all tributaty surface streams

and bodies of impounded surface water.

Edge effect: The result of the overlap (ecotone) of two

adjoining plant communities on the quantity and

diversity of wildlife in the immediate vicinity.

Ephemeral stream: A stream that flows only in direct

response to precipitation, and thus discontinues its

flow during the dry seasons. Its channel is above

the level of the water table.

Erosion: The group of processes whereby earth or

rock material is loosened or dissolved and removed

from any part of the earth’s surface.

Escape cover: Floral cover thick enough to provide

a visual or physical protective barrier for animals.

Flood plain: Nearly level land, consisting of stream

sediments, that borders a stream and is subject to

flooding unless protected artificially.

Forb: A nongrassy (i.e, broadleaf) herbaceous plant;

includes many species commonly referred to as

wildflowers or weeds.

Gaging station: A particular site on a stream, canal,

lake, or reservoir where systematic observations of

gage height or discharge are obtained.

Game animals: A group of animals legally protected

under the various game laws of the States, usually

taken for human consumption as regulated by hunting laws (e.g., deer, rabbits, ducks, etc.).

Geomorphology: That branch of both physiography

and geology which deals with the form of the earth,

288
App. C—Glossary ● 289

the general configuration of its surface, and the

changes that take place in the evolution of land

forms.

Grassland: An area of vegetation dominated by

grasses, with other types of plants (e.g., shrubs)

present in low numbers.

Habitat affinity: The expressed preference shown by

a particular species for certain associations of physical and biotic features of the environment.

Herbaceous: A type of plant with no woody parts

(e.g., grasses and forbs).

Highwall: The unexcavated face of exposed overburden and bedrock in a surface mine.

Hogback: A sharp-crested ridge formed by the outcropping edges of steeply inclined resistant rocks.

Hydraulic conductivity: Ratio of flow velocity to driving force for viscous flow under saturated conditions

of groundwater in a porous medium.

Hydrography: A graph showing, for a given point on

a stream or conduit, the stage, velocity of flow,

available power, or other function of the discharge

with respect to time.

Hydrostratigraphy: The study of the relationships between the occurrence and characteristics of groundwaters and the geologic features of the rock units

forming aquifers.

Indicator species: A particular kind of animal which,

by its mere presence in a given area, indicates the

existence of a known associated habitat or habitat

feature, lack of disturbance, or other condition; for

example, aquatic invertebrates such as mayfly or

stonefly larvae indicate unpolluted stream waters.

Infiltration rate: The rate at which water enters the

soil; it has the dimensions of velocity.

Intermittent stream: One which flows only at certain

times of the year when it receives water from springs

or from some surface sources such as melting snow

in mountainous areas.

Lek: An assembly area where birds, especially members of the grouse family, gather for display, courtship, and breeding activity.

Lenticular: Stratigraphic units that are discontinuous

horizontally,

Lifeform: Structural categories of plant types, commonly set forth as annual grass, perennial grass, annual forb, perennial forb, subshrub, shrub, tree, etc.

Line intercept: A method of estimating plant cover

by measurement of the interception of vertical projection of plant canopies or parts along a horizontal line.

Lithology: The physical character of a rock.

Litter: Undecomposed dead plant parts accumulated

at the ground surface.

Morphological: Pertaining to shape or form.

Mycorrhiza: Literally “fungus root. ” The association,

usually symbiotic, of specific fungi with the roots

of higher plants.

Native rangeland: Grazingland dominated by naturally

occurring plant species; generally requires low levels of active management other than controlling the

intensity, season, and duration of use by livestock.

Nesting box: A structure built by man for the artificial replacement of cavity nesting habitat. Other

nesting structures, such as platforms, are common

management tools for aiding avifauna dependent

on specific landscape features for nesting success.

Nurse crop: A short-lived plant cover (e.g., annual

grains) sometimes planted in the initial year of

revegetation to protect the seedlings of perennial

species from desiccation by sun or wind. A related

practice is mowing the annual plant cover in the

fall prior to the perennials’ planting, thereby producing a “stubble mulch.”

Partial-record station: Particular site where limited

streamflow or water-quality data, or both, are collected systematically during a period of years for use

in hydrologic analysis.

Partings: Thin shale layers within the coal seam.

Pastureland: Grazing dominated by introduced

(“tame”) grasses and forbs (e.g., alfalfa, clover) that

is highly productive but requires moderate to high

levels of active management such as fertilizers, periodic reseeding, and weed control. Often rotated in

use with hayland or allowed to periodically lie

fallow.

Peak-discharge: Peak flow rate. The term is normally

used in regard to the peak flow rate in a stream during a flood event.

Pedestaling: The process by which small pedestals

form under stones through erosion.

Pedologic: Pertaining to soils.

Pedon: A three-dimensional body of soil with lateral

dimensions large enough to permit the study of horizon shapes and relations. Its area ranges from 1 to

10 square meters.

Pellet group: The fecal material left by ungulates (deer

family).

Perennial stream: A stream that flows at all times.

Piezometer: An instrument for measuring pressure

head in a conduit, tank, soil, etc. It usually consists

of a small pipe or tube tapped into the side of the

container, the inside end being flush with, and normal to, the water face of the container, connected

with a manometer pressure gage, mercury or water

column, or other device for indicating pressure

head. Certain wells can be used as piezometers to

measure pressure heads in aquifers.

Playa: A shallow depression with no external drain-
290 Ž Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

age that dries up for part of the year. The occasional

inundation and tendency for development of heavy

clay soils results in distinctive vegetation tolerant of

such conditions.

Point intercept: A method of estimating cover by the

interception of above-ground plant parts (and litter, rock, or soil) by a vertically projected point, as

defined by a sharp pin or by cross-hairs in a viewing device,

Point source: A single source of contamination to surface or groundwater. Point source also may refer

to a highly localized area of surface or groundwater

contamination.

Population estimates: Actual estimates of an animal’s

population numbers based on a sample of that population.

Population size indices: An index which identifies the

relative size of a particular species’ population without statistically sampling the actual population.

Potentiometric surface: Surface to which water in an

aquifer would rise by hydrostatic pressure.

Prairie pothole: A regional term for the small wetlands

commonly occurring in the glaciated portions of the

Northern Great Plains.

Probable hydrologic consequences (PHC): The projected effects of a mining operation on the quality

and quantity of surface and groundwater; depth to

groundwater; surface and groundwater flow, timing and pattern; stream channel conditions; and

aquatic habitat.

Production: The weight (usually oven dry) of annual

growth of above-ground plant parts (i.e., “standing

crop”); usually expressed as weight (“biomass”) per

unit land area.

Propagule: Plant tissue which, if separated from the

plant, will give rise to a new individual (seeds, certain types of buds, etc.),

Quadrat: A plot of variable size, used to measure or

estimate a vegetation parameter such as production

or cover.

Range site: A vegetation unit traditionally defined as

an area where the physical environment (topographic, soils, and climate) is sufficiently uniform

to produce the same potential or climax vegetation.

Raptor: A bird of prey.

Refuge effect: The tendency for animals to congregate

on coal mine properties due to the “no trespassing” and “no firearms” policies of many mines,

which removes hunting and harassment pressures

from big game.

Regolith: Loose, incoherent weathered rock below the

soil.

Rider seams: Thin coal seams above the main coal.

Rimrock: Erosionally resistant rock of a plateau that

outcrops to form a vertical face.

Riparian areas: Areas exhibiting plants associated with

frequent surface or persistent subsurface water,

such as along the banks of a stream.

Runoff: That part of the precipitation that appears in

uncontrolled surface streams, drains, or sewers. It

is the same as streamflow unaffected by artificial

diversions, imports, storage, or other works of man

in or on the stream channels.

Runoff hydrography: A graph showing, for a particular watershed, a time record of stream surface elevation or stream discharge at a given cross-section

of the stream for a rainfall event.

Saline seeps: Spring water soluble salts accumulate

at the ground surface.

Scat: Wildlife fecal matter.

Scoria: Rock material affected by the burning of

underlying coal, also known as clinker.

Seasonality: In plant ecology, refers to the time of the

growing season when maximum growth occurs;

especially used to differentiate between cool-season

grasses (peak growth in spring and fall) and warmseason grasses (peak growth in summer).

Sedimentation pond: A primary sediment-control structure designed, constructed, and maintained to slow

down water runoff to allow sediment to settle out;

includes barriers, dams, or excavated depressions.

Shelterbelt: A grouping of trees and shrubs usually

planted perpendicular to prevailing winds to serve

as a windbreak for buildings or to reduce soil erosion in croplands.

Shrub: A perennial woody plant, smaller than a tree

and typically with more than one main stem, whose

over-wintering buds are borne on twigs above the

ground.

Shrub steppe: A broad floral community of the Western

Great Plains and foothills of the Rocky Mountains

typified by a shrub (usually sagebrush) overstory.

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR): A relation between

soluble sodium and soluble divalent cations which

can be used to predict the exchangeable-sodium

percentage of soil equilibrated with a given solution.

It is defined as follows:

SAR = sodium, mmoles/liter

(calcium =magnesium)1/2(mmoles/liter)Y2 “

Soil: (1) The unconsolidated mineral material on the

immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. (2) The

unconsolidated mineral matter on the earth’s surface that has been subjected to and influenced by

genetic and environmental factors of: parent mate-
App. C—Glossary ● 291

rial, climate (e.g., moisture and temperature),

macro- and micro-organisms, and topography, all

acting over a period of time and producing a product—soil—that differs from the material from which

it is derived in many physical, chemical, biological,

and morphological properties and characteristics.

Soil classification: The systematic arrangement of soils

into groups or categories on the basis of their characteristics. The USDA soil classification system (soil

taxonomy) was adopted for use in publications by

the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Soil horizon: A layer of soil, approximately parallel

to the surface, that has distinct characteristics

produced by soil-forming processes.

Soil phase: A subdivision of a soil type or other unit

of classification having characteristics that affect the

use and management of the soil but which do not

vary sufficiently to differentiate it as a separate type.

A variation in a property or characteristic such as

degree of slope, degree of erosion, content of

stones, etc.

Soil profile: A vertical section of the soil through all

its horizons and extending into the parent material,

Soil series: The basic unit of soil classification, being

a subdivision of a family and consisting of soils

which are essentially alike in all major profile characteristics except the texture of the A horizon.

Soil structure: The combination or arrangement of primary soil particles into secondary particles, units,

or peals.

Species diversity values: A mathematically calculated

index value that indicates the relative diversity of

animals in a given habitat or area.

State sensitive species (or sensitive species): Nongame wildlife species which are rare or have very

limited habitat in a particular State and are therefore afforded some degree of protection.

Station: Ground position at which a geophysical instrument is set up for observation in the field.

Storage coefficient: (1) For surface waters, a coefficient that expresses the relation of storage capacity in a reservoir, to the mean annual flow of a

stream above the dam forming the reservoir. (2) For

groundwaters, the cubic feet of water discharged

from each vertical column 1 ft. square as the water

level drops 1 ft.

Stratigraphic correlations: The process by which

stratigraphic units in two or more separate areas are

shown to be laterally similar i n character or mutually correspondent in stratigraphic position.

Stratigraphy: The arrangement of strata,

Streamflow: The discharge that occurs in a natural

channel. “Streamflow” is more general than runoff, as streamflow may be applied to discharge

whether or not it is affected by diversion or regulation.

Strutting ground: Small clearings and/or hilltops used

by sage grouse for their breeding activities; also referred to more generically as a lek.

Subshrub: A perennial plant which is woody at its

base and is either of small stature or dies back nearly

to ground level (i.e., intermediate between a shrub

and a forb).

Subsoil: The soil horizons underlying topsoil, typically

the B and C horizons.

Succession: The natural progression of plant communities following partial or complete disturbance;

theoretically culminates in the “climax” community.

Surface soil: The uppermost part of the soil, ordinarily moved in tillage or its equivalent in uncultivated

soils and ranging in depth from 3 to 4 inches to 8

or 10. Frequently designated as the “plow layer, ”

the “Ap layer, ” or the “Ap horizon. ”

Suspended sediment: The very fine soil particles

which remain in suspension in water for a very considerable period of time without contact with the

bottom.

Swell factor: The amount of expansion on excavation

expressed as a multiple of one or a percent.

Talus slope: A slope covered with loose rock.

Telemetry: The wildlife management technique involving the attachment of a radio-transmitting collar to animals thereby facilitating their relocation

with radio receivers.

Threatened and endangered species: Any species of

animal or plant that falls under the protection of the

Endangered Species Act and is listed in the Federal

Register. Some States may also have listings that expand the Federal list.

Till: Unstratified glacial drift deposited directly by the

ice and consisting of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders intermingled in any proportion.

Tilth: The physical condition of soil as related to its

ease of tillage, fitness as a seed bed, and impedance

to seedling emergence and root penetration.

Time of concentration: The time required for water

to flow from the farthest point on the watershed to

the gaging station or other point of interest.

Topsoil: (1) The surface horizons of a soil, typically

A and E Horizons. (2) The materials used as a top

dressing for soil reconstruction over regraded spoil.

Total dissolved solids (TDS): The total quantity of

chemical constituents or elements in solution in

ground or surface waters.

Total suspended solids (TSS): The velocity-weighted
292 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

concentration of suspended sediment expressed as

milligrams of dry sediment per liter of watersediment mixture.

Transect: A line or narrow belt along which ecologic

data are collected, either continuously (e.g., total

counts of trees) or periodically (e.g., periodic location of cover or production samples).

Transmissivity: The rate at which water of the prevailing kinematic viscosity is transmitted through a

unit width of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. Commonly expressed in gallons per day per

foot (gpd/ft).

Walrus scat: Popcorn.

watershed: All lands enclosed by a continuous hydrologic drainage divide and lying upslope from a specified point on a stream.

Wetlands: Land containing significant soil moisture

and/or free-standing water; usually accompanied by

a diverse community of riparian and emergent vegetation.

Woody draws: Broadleaf tree and shrub communities occurring along perennial or intermittent drainages, or bottoms, of more mesic draws and coulees;

usualIy i n reference to the Northern Great Plains

wooded draws.

Woody plant: Any perennial plant that produces

wood fibers in its above-ground parts and whose

over-wintering buds are borne above the ground;

includes trees, shrubs, and subshrubs.
Index
Index

Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program, 41, 44, 267,

277, 279

acid-base potential, 231, 232-234

alluvial valley floors, 32, 73-76, 100, 139, 148, 167,

202-203, 210, 219, 271

analytical techniques, 7, 11, 23, 25-32, 165-203,

274-275

impact prediction, 25-30, 43, 168-189

reclamation design, 30-32, 189-203

approximate original contour, 3, 210, 255-256

baseline and monitoring data, 21-24, 99, 121-162,

272-274

analysis, 7, 11, 23, 168, 179, 186

collection methods, 11, 21-23, 41, 121

management, 11, 23-24, 42, 121-122

requirements, 97-100, 106, 122-123

Center Mine, 180

coal resources, 47-48

Colorado, 21, 47, 112, 147, 149, 152, 159, 171, 184,

190, 191, 197,218, 220, 225, 234, 242, 245,

246, 247, 251, 254

Congress:

House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 4,

5

cumulative hydrologic impact assessment (CHIA), 22,

23, 25, 28, 103-104, 121, 166, 169, 177, 182,

186-187,

Department of Agriculture:

Agricultural Research Service, 185, 268

Soil Conservation Service, 24, 123, 124, 152, 153,

185, 199, 216, 217, 264, 268

Forest Service, 37, 40, 89, 110, 152, 153, 251, 264,

268

Surface Environment and Mining Program (SEAM),

40, 264, 281

Department of the Interior, 91, 93, 110, 186

Bureau of Land Management, 4, 16, 37,89,91,93,

96, 97, 110, 123, 124, 152, 153, 159, 216,

251, 264

Energy Minerals Rehabilitation Inventory and

Analysis (EMRIA), 40, 264

Bureau of Mines, 110, 268

Fish and Wildlife Service, 110, 123, 159, 188, 268

Geological Survey, 24,110, 123, 124, 143, 144, 146,

147, 148, 177, 181, 182, 185, 197, 264, 268

Minerals Management Service, 110

Office of Surface Mining, 16, 24,40,41,96,97, 100,

110, 124, 177, 215, 235, 238, 264, 267, 268,

271, 281

Electric Power Research Institute, 279

Environmental Protection Agency, 95, 110, 143,

144-145, 147, 218, 235, 268

experimental practices, 41, 105-106, 237, 238, 263,

267, 280

Federal coal leasing program, 3, 4, 89-95, 277

fair market value, 4

lease stipulations, 4, 16, 96-97

unsuitability criteria, 3, 93, 94

Fort Union Coal Region, 5, 51-53

Gillette Area Groundwater Monitoring Organization,

23, 146, 147, 149, 279

Green River-Hams Fork Coal Region, 5, 55

groundwater hydrology:

data collection, 23, 139, 147-148

quality, 12, 26-27, 72-73, 165-166, 169, 181-183

quantity, 25-26, 71-72, 165, 169, 171-177

recharge, 7, 26, 33, 165, 178-181, 219, 271

standards, 103, 207, 217, 218-219

landscape diversity, 14, 38-39, 231, 254-260

legislation:

Clean Air Act, 107-108

Clean Water Act, 107, 235, 238

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act, 4, 91, 110

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 4, 91,

110

National Environmental Policy Act, 108

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

(SMCRA), 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 21, 23, 25,

38, 40, 44, 95-107, 154, 168, 169, 186, 199,

207, 208, 209, 210, 217, 225, 235, 237, 238,

240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 250, 251, 252, 263,

264, 266, 267, 280

Los Alamos National Laboratory, 188

Montana, 21, 38, 47, 113, 149, 150, 152, 159, 171,

175, 179, 182,211, 212, 218, 220, 223-224,

234, 242, 254, 259, 267

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, 149, 179

National Academy of Sciences, 3, 264

Navajo Mine, 193

New Mexico, 21, 47, 114, 147, 150, 152, 159, 168,

171, 190, 215, 218, 220, 226, 233, 235, 245,

246

North Dakota, 21, 38, 44,47, 115, 149, 150, 152, 171,

180, 183, 211, 218, 220, 222-223, 234, 240,

241, 242, 245, 252, 254, 255, 259, 267, 270

North Dakota Geological Survey, 182

295
296 ● Western Surface Mine Permitting and Reclamation

overburden:

characterization, 7, 13, 22, 30, 33-34, 63, 126-129,

133-136, 167, 189-193, 271

handling, 12, 13, 30, 63-65, 191-193

monitoring, 136-138

standards, 104, 219, 220

performance bond, 3, 12, 32-33, 43, 207, 208-209

permit applications, 24, 124, 147

permitting, 3, 23, 97-102, 174, 270-271

postmining land use, 3, 14, 37-38, 211, 232, 248,

249-253

Powder River Coal Region, 5, 53-55, 177, 186, 191

probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) determinations, 23, 25, 28, 103, 121, 166, 169, 186-187

research, 11, 15, 40-44, 197, 263-281

revegetation:

data, 149-154

standards, 105, 211-217, 245-247

success, 13, 29-30, 33, 35, 166, 189, 207, 240-243

techniques, 76-79, 271

woody plants, 13-14, 35-37, 66, 152, 154, 217, 231,

244-248

Rosebud Mine, 179

San Juan River Coal Region, 5, 55-58

sediment control, 231, 235-240

soil:

characterization, 30-31, 62-63, 126-133, 167,

193-197

erosion, 51, 210, 211, 271

handling, 13, 31, 35, 66-67, 231, 240-243, 271

standards, 104-105, 219-220, 259

substitutes, 63

surface mine reclamation:

design, 7, 30-32

methods, 59-85, 275-276

success, 5, 7, 12, 32-33, 207-226, 274-275

surface water hydrology:

data collection, 13, 23, 27, 28, 139, 146-147

design, 31-32,34-35,68-71, 167, 197-202, 217,231,

271

quality, 13, 27, 28, 67-68, 166, 183, 185-186

quantity, 27, 28, 68, 166, 183, 184-185, 236

standards, 103, 217-218

Uinta-Southwestern Utah Coal Region, 5

Utah, 5, 47

West Decker Mine, 179, 181

Western Soil and Overburden Task Force, 279

Western Reclamation Group, 279

wi Id Iife:

data collection, 23, 154-162

habitat restoration, 14, 37-38, 79-84, 244-248, 271

impacts on, 7, 23, 28, 166, 187-188

standards, 105, 220-221

Wyoming, 21, 22, 23, 47, 116, 143, 147, 149, 150,

152, 159, 168, 171, 177, 182, 197, 203, 216,

218, 220, 224-225, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238,

246, 247, 250, 254, 258, 259

Wyoming Water Research Center, 145-146