Authors: James A. Burger, Professor of Forestry, Virginia Tech; Daniel L. Kelting, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Forestry; and Carl Zipper, Extension Specialist, Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech.
Publication Number 460-138, September, 1998
 Introduction
| Conclusion |
| Reclamation to Produce High-Quality Forest Soils
| Acknowledgements |
| Minesoil Quality Measured by "Site Index"
| References |
| Other
Values of Mined Land Reforestation |
Reforestation of land after it has been drastically disturbed by surface mining can produce high-value commercial forests while providing watershed protection and wildlife habitat. Prior to passage of the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), most surface-mined land in the east and midwest was reclaimed with trees. These reclaimed lands varied in their quality and productivity, but reforestation was generally successful and commercially valuable forests were created. Many of these new forests are maturing and are providing landowners considerable revenue.
Since implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, fewer forests are being restored, although the amount varies by state (e.g., since 1991, 86% of Virginia's mined land has been reclaimed to forested post-mining land uses). Thousands of acres of Appalachian mined land that were originally forested have been reclaimed as hayland, pasture, or wildlife habitat. Such land is usually left unmanaged after bond release and it slowly succumbs to brushy, woody vegetation with little or no commercial value.
Alternatively, if the land were returned to productive forests, landowners could enjoy the benefits of commercial forestland while simultaneously creating wildlife habitat and watershed protection. The purpose of this bulletin is to provide information that will aid landowners in estimating the effects of reclamation on forestland values, while emphasizing that creating productive minesoils for native trees can be accomplished at no additional cost to the mine operator.
Return to Table of Contents
This forestry reclamation approach has been used operationally and has proven successful. An important feature is that it can cost the mine operator $200 to $500 less per acre than traditional reforestation practices due to reduced grading costs and less expensive ground cover seed mixtures. This approach has been approved by Virginia's Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy in a July 9, 1996, memo on reforestation guidelines (VDMME, 1996). Approximately 80% of Virginia's operators/ landowners are now opting for a post-mining land use of forestry. New reforestation reclamation guidelines have also been approved as a reforestation initiative by Kentucky's Department for Surface Mining and Reclamation and Enforcement in Reclamation Advisory Memorandum #124 (KY DSMRE, 1997). In West Virginia, this approach is consistent with regulatory agency criteria for approving reclamation plans to achieve a forestry post-mining land use.
Return to Table of Contents
A generalization for most tree stands is that wood volume and wood value increase exponentially with tree height or site index. This is also illustrated in Figure 1, which shows that trees on good-quality mine soils that are 1.5 times taller than trees on poor quality minesoils (45 versus 70 ft) can be 20 times more valuable due to their disproportionately-greater stem volume and the disproportionately-greater value of the large dimensional wood contained in the log. For example, 10 cubic feet of wood as one piece from a large tree is many times more valuable than 10 cubic feet of wood in many pieces from several small trees.
A. Effect of Site Index on Timber Value: White Pine
Research data can be used to demonstrate the effects of reclamation technique on white pine productivity and stand value at age 30 (Table 1, Figure 2). For perspective and reference, Case I shows the estimated value of an average 30-year-old white pine stand growing on undisturbed soils in the Appalachians. Average site quality measured by site index (height at age 25) is 55. At the harvestable age of 30, about 35,100 board feet per acre (Vimmerstedt, 1962) as small sawtimber will be worth an estimated $1755 per acre (Timber Mart-South, 1997).
Based on our research on 78 reclaimed mined sites in Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia on which conventional reclamation procedures were used, we estimate that forest site quality has been reduced to an average value of site index 45 (Case II in Table 1) (Andrews et al., 1998). The productive capacity is greatly reduced and the timber value will be just a fraction of its original potential, $122 versus $1755 per acre.
Case III represents data from a site that was mined and planted to white pine, now 17 years old. Minesoil and ground cover conditions at time of planting were similar to those described above in the four steps for successful forestry reclamation. The measured site quality is 70 and the projected volume at harvest age 30 is 46,400 board feet per acre (Vimmerstedt, 1962). Due to the higher value of large sawtimber, the value per acre would be $3480/acre (Timber Mart-South, 1997). These data show that mined land, when properly reclaimed, can be very productive and even exceed undisturbed soils (primarily due to deeper soils created by mining). Furthermore, the value of wood products is disproportionately higher on better-quality sites ($ value increases exponentially with site quality) because large timber is worth more than small timber.
Table 1. The effects of reclamation technique on white pine productivity and stand value at 30 years.
| Case | White Pine Site Type | Site Index* (Base Age 25) | Bd.Ft.Vol. at Age 30 (MBF/ac)**** | Harvestable Wood Products | Harvest Price ($/MBF) | Total Value ($/acre) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Average quality of an undisturbed Appalachian forest site (Doolittle 1958) | 55 | 35.1 | small sawtimber | 50 | 1,755 |
| II | Projected average quality of a post-SMCRA reclaimed mine soil (Torbert et al., 1994) | 45 | 6.1 | pulp | 20 | 122 |
| III | Actual quality of a white pine stand on a good minesoil in Virginia (Kelting et al., 1997) | 70 | 46.4 | large sawtimber | 75 | 3,480 |
Site Index = Expected tree height after 25 years.
** Board Foot Volume at Age 30 (MBF/acre). MBF = thousand board feet (Vimmerstedt, 1962).
B. Effect of Site Index on Timber Value: Oak
White pine was used in the analysis above because of its predominant use on post-law mined land. Although total wood volume would be less for hardwoods, the same general relationships between site quality and value per acre would hold true. A site with a white pine site index of 55 (age 25) has an average oak site index of 65 (age 50), which is an average value for oaks across most of the Appalachians. This species-to-species relationship shows that average post-SMCRA reclamation site quality for oaks would be about 50, and the site quality potential for oaks of properly-reclaimed mine sites would be about 85. This estimate is confirmed by Ashby et al. (1984) who evaluated minesoil productivities for oak species.
Table 2 shows the relative influence of soil and site properties on oak site index, wood yield, and harvest value. Average oak sawtimber value at age 60 on average quality sites (SI = 65) is about $4250 per acre. If forest sites are degraded through typical post-law reclamation from SI 65 to 50, potential harvest value becomes one-fourth of what it was originally. If sites are upgraded through reclamation to SI 85, harvest value doubles. These estimates show the dramatic effect site quality has on forest land value, and it shows why landowners and the mining community should strive for proper reclamation of forest land.
Table 2. The relative effect of site quality on Appalachian oak harvest volumes and stumpage value at age 60
| Site Index | Appalachian Oak Site Index (ft) (Base Age 50) | Bd.Ft.Vol. at Age 60 (MBF/ac)* | Harvestable Wood Products | Stumpage Price ($/MBF**) | Total
Value ($/acre) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | 65 | 11.8 | sawtimber | 360 | 4250 |
| Poor | 50 | 5.6 | small sawtimber | 200 | 1120 |
| Good | 85 | 16.2 | large sawtimber, veneer | 520 | 8425 |
*MBF = thousand board feet (Schnur, 1937)
Return to Table of Contents
A possible long-term reason for coal operators to promote forestry as a post-mining land use is to acquire carbon-sink credits to obtain a marketing advantage in selling to electric power producers. If carbon-emission restrictions become law at some time in the future, it is likely that electric-power producers will be called upon to reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere. If purchases of coal from mines that establish productive forests can be used by the power producers to meet the carbon-emission reduction requirements, coal producers with excellent reforestation programs will have a marketing advantage. Planting trees on productive minesoils after mining is a way to produce a measurable carbon sink. Besides stabilizing minesoils, maintaining clean water, enhancing wildlife habitat, and improving aesthetic landscapes, forests play an important role in global carbon cycles.
Return to Table of Contents
However, this opportunity has largely been missed in the Appalachian region, even by landowners who are also in the business of timber production.
A number of Virginia Cooperative Extension publications describe important aspects of reforesting mined land. VCE Publication 460-123, "Restoring Forests on Surface-Mined Land" (Burger and Torbert, 1992), outlines the principles and procedures of mined land reforestation silviculture. VCE Publication 460-136, "Commercial Forestry as a Post-Mining Land Use" (Torbert et al., 1994), describes the economic opportunities of managed forests and stresses the importance of landowner participation in the reclamation process. A new VCE publication, "Reforestation Guidelines for Appalachian Minesoils" (Burger et al., in press), provides "how-to" information on the tree planting process from writing reforestation language in the mining permit, to determining when, how, and what to plant. These publications are available from Powell River Project and Virginia Cooperative Extension to anyone interested in mined land reforestation.
Return to Table of Contents
Return to Table of Contents
Ashby, W. C., W. G. Vogel, C. A. Kolar, and G. R. Philo. 1984. Productivity of stony soils on strip mines. p. 31-44. In: J. D. Nichols et al. (eds.). Erosion and productivity of soils containing rock fragments. Spec. Pub. 13. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI.
Burger, J. A., and J. L. Torbert. 1992. Restoring forests on surface-mined land. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 460-123. 16p.
Doolittle, W. T. 1958. Site index comparisons for several forest species in the Southern Appalachians. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 22:450-458.
Kelting, D. L., C. M. Siegel, and J. A. Burger. 1997. Value of commercial forestry as a post-mining land use. P. 344-348. In: J. E. Brandt (ed.) Proc., 14th Ann. Mtg., Amer. Soc. for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Princeton, WV.
Kentucky Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 1997. Reclamation Advisory Memorandum No. 124.
Schnur, G. L. 1937. Yield, stand, and volume tables for even-aged upland oak forests. USDA Tech. Bull. 560. 87p.
Timber Mart-South. First Quarter 1997. Stumpage Price Mart. Daniel B. Warnell School of Forest Resources, Univ. of Georgia, Athens.
Torbert, J. L., J. A. Burger, and J. E. Johnson. 1994. Commercial forestry as a post-mining land use. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 460-136.
Torbert, J. L., J. A. Burger, J. E. Johnson, and J. A. Andrews. 1994. Indices for indirect estimates of productivity of tree crops. Office of Surface Mining Cooperative Agreement OR 966511 Final Report. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Vimmerstedt, J. P. 1962. Southern Appalachian white pine plantations: site, volume, and yield. USDA For. Serv. Southeastern For. Exp. Sta. Pap. No. 149. 13p.
Virginia Dept. of Mines, Minerals, and Energy. 1996. Guidelines for husbandry and reclamation practices appropriate for forestry post-mining land uses. Memorandum July 15, 1996. Division of Mined Land Reclamation. Big Stone Gap, VA.
Williamson, D. L., and R. B. Gray. 1996. Evaluation of natural succession on reclaimed coal mine land in western Kentucky. P. 629-636. In: W. L. Daniels, J. A. Burger, and C. E. Zipper (ed.) Proc. 13th Ann. Mtg. Am. Soc. for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Princeton, WV.
Return to Table of Contents
