Potential conflict between the coal and arable land resources in australia: A case for corporate responsiveness

Potential Conflict between the Coal and Arable Land Resources in Australia: a Case for Corporate Responsiveness PETER d. LANGKAMP Shell Company of Australia, Limited GPO Box 872K Melbourne, Victoria 3001 Australia ABSTRACT / Background information on possible surfacecoal-mining operations in arable agricultural areas in Australia

was classified as "arable with moderate crop restrictions requiring intensive management" (classes II-IV). The total area of land that may be disturbed at some time in the future was less than 2% of the arable land in the Shires concerned. Project mutual exclusivity and ongoing rehabilitation of disturbed areas further reduce arable land out of production at any one time. It is suggested that, if self-regulation by the coal industry

is provided. The major co-occurrence of the coal and arable land resources was in the Darling Downs region of Queensland and the Liverpool Plains region of New South Wales; however, coal development will probably only occur in the former region over the next decade. Analysis of the situation in the Darling Downs region, which consists of 11 Shires, found five companies conducting prefeasibility projects for surface-coat development and the size of exploration areas concerned far exceeding final mined-land disturbance estimates. Most of the land included in the prefeasibility studies

in Australia on rehabilitation issues is to remain a viable option in these areas, an understanding between the corporate and public sectors on the extent and limitations of its responsibilities must be obtained. The current development of a National Conservation Strategy for Australia should assist this to proceed. Research on various rehabilitation issues may be required prior to project commitment to ensure the responsibilities identified are realizable. Integrative problem-solving, incorporating audit procedures, was suggested as a suitable method to achieve these aims and corporate responsiveness was seen as a necessary first step.

In Australia, land management policies have traditionally encouraged private use of an apparently limitless resource with minimal government interference. However, during the past decade concern has been expressed about the broader implications of this policy; in particular those activities that decrease agricultural production (Smit 1981), but also areas of scenic and scientific amenity (Freer t 978). These issues have been variously discussed in the United States (Raup 1976, Wood 1976, Gibson t977, Jeffords 1979) and in Australia (Birrell and others 1982). More particularly, a review of Australian agricultural policy (Balderstone and others 1982) suggested that restrictions on land usewould be made in the 1980s, including the use of land for nonagricultural purposes. At the same time, Houen (1982) expressed the current view of the Queensland Grain Growers Association that land use should be consistent with the maintenance of long-term productivity, a view that includes land suitable for dryland (nonirrigated) cropping that would be surface mined on a broad~ scale. These views are consistent with the philosophy expressed in the National Conservation Strategy for Australia (Department of Home Affairs and Environment 1983), which has as one of its objectives "to ensure the sustainable utilisation of species and

the eco-systems," an objective that must impinge on any discussion on the nonagricultural use of agricultural land. These statements reflect not only an increasing awareness by the community of contemporary environ- . mental issues, but are consistent with a broader "global village" view of uncertainty about the ability of crop land resources to meet future food demands. With the increase in standards of living over the past decades, there h a s been an increase in personal freedom and awareness of an "obligation" this generation has to future generations in the maintenance of long-term land productivity. From these points of view, agricultural land has been viewed as an international resource (Jorling 1978, Latornell 1978). The Australian coal-mining industry has stated (Australian Coal Association 1982) that "as far as possible, it should be self-regulatory. While acknowledging that it still has some way to go in this area, the industry believes that Government should set minimum (rehabilitation) standards to be achieved. . . . " T h e question of how these standards are to be formulated, established, and assessed in regard to arable land has not been considered by the mining industry or the government. The responsibility is therefore placed on each company to identify and evaluate environmental externalities, which lead to priorities

EnvironmentalManagement,Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 49-60

9 1985 Springer-VerlagNew York Inc.

50

P.J. Langkamp

Table 1. The black coal resources of Australia (million tons), a

a

New

South Wales

.

I

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I

"

A

...... , or,,on S y d n e y Basra

g

Figure 1. Australian croplands and principal coal bearing sedimentary basins. The distribution of commercial crop production ( I ) extends down the eastern margin of coastal Queensland through central New South Wales and Northern Victoria through South Australia and South Western Western Australia. Commercial coal deposits have been located in the Galilee Bowen, Surat, Clarence/Moreton, and Sydney basins. The principal co-occurrence of crop land and economic coal deposits are in the Darling Downs (A) and Liverpool Plains (B) regions.

being established based on their perception of what is required. H o w well these perceptions have embodied social priorities in the past is open to discussion, particularly on an individual company basis where difficult decisions may have to be made on social goals or economic performance. Passmore (1980), however, in his classic essay on " M a n ' s Responsibility for N a t u r e " did not dismiss as "merely cosmetic" the increased employment of environmentalists by mining companies, but echoes this problem of choice of goals when he stated "one should not conclude that they [mining c o m p a n i e s ] or anybody else--can be wholly trusted where profits are at stake." Less philosophically, technological changes in agriculture over the past decade(s) have culminated in increases in the productivity of arable land. At the same time, technological change in the coal-mining industry, together with an aim to remain cost competitive internationally, has caused, and is causing, companies to move away from underground operations toward large, more efficient surface-mining operations. T h e arable land and coal resources co-occur in several areas. It is in these areas that a potential conflict of interests between the two industries exists. T h e issue is not one of economies--if the choice were based on this premise alone, there is little doubt coal extraction would proceed, since the gross economic value of coal production is three orders of magnitude greater

Measured and indicated b Coking coal 4830 Total in situ (raw) coal 22,743 Recoverable (raw) coalc Coking coal 2740 Total 12,122 Marketable d Coking coal 5400 Noncoking coal 3150 Inferred resources e Total in situ (raw) coal 490,036

Queensland

Australia

14,181

19,011

28,953

54,555

7959 17,811

10,699 30,691

5520 8090

10,920 11,899

v. large

v. large

aData based on that of (Joint Coal Board 1982, Queensland Coal Board 1982). hMeasured and indicated reserves are those for which the density of points of observation (i.e., drill holes) are sufficient to allow for a realistic estimate of the resource, although definitionsvary from state to state. ~Recoverable reserves comprise coal that can be economicallyextracted using current mining techniques. 'tMarketable tonnages were calculated on the basis of the use of coal preparation and blending techniques to optimize cokingcoal yields. eInferred resources, at best, are based on sparse sampling, but more generally an extrapolation over large distances, analogy with better known adjacent areas, and upon geologicalinference.

than that from arable agriculture over the same surface area. T h e issue is one of perceptions on the use of different resources and therefore an understanding of other views and their logic is important. Unless this logic is properly recognized and understood, it is unlikely that companies will be able to anticipate and manage the conditions to which their future business will be subjected. At this time, companies have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with those issues that go beyond the comparatively narrow business interests, as well as to take the initiative and develop the planning systems necessary to judge the future risks associated with mining in these areas. While these decisions may be influenced to some degree by economic considerations as perceived by government and the industry, unless society is correctly informed as to the likelihood and occurrence of surface coal-mining operations in these areas and the associated environmental concerns, unwarranted and biased claims may be made. This article provides background on the issues surrounding the surface mining of arable agricultural areas in Australia, including suggestions on the development of responsive corporate strategies.

Australia: Coal Mining and Arable Agricultural Land

Table 2.

51

Surat-Moreton Basin in situ reserves of black coal (million tons), a Measured

Areau

Indicated first class

Open-cut

U'ground

Total

Injune-Taroom ATP 151C ATP 265C

---

---

---

Taroom-Wandoan ATP 189C ATP 152C ATP 157C ATP 182C ATP 138C

105 -265 110 20

3 -----

Wandoan-Dalby ATP 312C ATP 102C ATP 150C ATP Appn. Roma 2/82 Dalby-Millmerran ATP 205C ATP 129C ML3 Acland ML Rosewood

.

.

.

U'ground

Total

Total M &I

Inferred

20 35

---

20 35

20 35

Small Small

108 -265 110 20

25 55 225 35 60

10 -----

35 55 225 35 60

143 55 490 145 80

-Small Large Small Large

30 25 120

----

. 30 25 120

45 5 115

60 ----

60 45 5 115

60 75 30 235

Large Large Small Large

-145 =2

--10

-145 10

330 85 --

40 ---

370 85 --

370 230 10

Large Large --

--

--

--

--

5

ATP

215C

--

--

--

ATP

203C

175

--

175

995

18

1013

Total

Open-cut

5

15

5

5

--

20

20

--

575

Large

400

--

400

1450

115

1565

2578

Large

~'Data from Queensland Coal Board (1982). The reserves were calculated using the parameters for the calculatingand reporting of reserves defined by Anon (1968) and Mengel (1977). Only demonstrated reserves of measured and indicated first-classcategories are reported as prnven reserves. Generallyan arbitrary maximumdepth of 60 m was used for the purpose of calculatingopen-cutcoal reserves. bATP, authority to prospect.

The Resources Land Suitable for Dryland Crolpping Distribution and availability. T h e Australian croplands are located almost entirely within the most favorable zones for the growth of temperate plant species (especially winter wheat, oats, and barley) (Figure 1). Climate, terrain, and soil are considered to be the primary determinants of areas suitable for dryland agriculture (Nix 1973), and the successive imposition of these determinants reduces the total Australian land area available for arable agriculture from 768 x 106, to 77 x 106 ha. However, if the area of land suitable for agriculture that is being used for nonagricultural purposes is taken into account (7 x 106 ha, Davidson 1961), then a total of 70 x 106 ha in Australia is available for arable agriculture. Of this area, Nix (1978) and Stewart and others (1979) estimated that 26 x 106 ha of agricultural land were still awaiting development, and that most of the land was located in Queensland and New South Wales, but was clearly marginal with respect to climate, soils, and access to markets. T h e estimate_of land suitable for agriculture being

used for nonagricultural purposes (7 x 106 ha; Davidson 1961) may now be an underestimate (Millington and Kalma 1982). A critical reassessment of this estimate is needed since it comprises land used for forestry, recreation, conservation, aboriginal reserves, industry, m i n i n g , .military reserves, irrigation and water supply, roads, railways, and airports as well as u r b a n land use, all of which continually place demands on agricultural land. Future use estimates. Australia's grazing and broadacre rural industries have developed on the basis of export markets. Since the 1960s, the volume of agricultural production has been growing at 2.8% per a n n u m and accounted for an average 45% of Australian export income over the five years to 1980-81 (Anon I982). World wheat and coarse grain consumption is expected to increase over the next decade and grain producers expect to double the area cropped in the next. 10-20 years (Houen 1982).

Black Coal Distribution and reserves. Australia has extensive coal resources di_str.ita~ed as deposits in almost all of the sedimen3apL~b~_~.!) (Branagan 1975). a u s t r a -

52

P.J. Langkamp

lia has proven reserves of 54,555 million tons (Table 1), which is 8% of the total world coal resource. The most economical deposits are found in the Bowen and Sydney Basins, which, in 1980-81, provided 33% and 55%, respectively, of Australia's raw black coal production (Queensland Coal Board 1982, Joint Coal Board 1982). In Queensland, proven reserves of black coal total 28,953 million tons of which 14,181 million tons has been classified as coking coal (Table 2). The Bowen Basin contains almost all of the coking coal, and most of the proven reserves of noncoking coal. However, substantial reserves of noncoking coal have been delineated in the Surat-Moreton Basin (Table 2) and in excess of 94% of these reserves are suitable for mining by open-cut methods. In New South Wales, in situ proven reserves of black coal were estimated to be 22,743 million tons of which 4,830 million tons was classified as coking coal. Future production estimates. Future estimates of Australian black coal production show increasing requirements for steam coal exports and domestic consumption with lesser growth in coking coal exports. In a study on the importance of coal to the future of the Australian economy, Barnett (1982) concluded that increases in the domestic consumption of black coal were unlikely to exceed the growth rate in the overall economy. A recent survey "Australian Coal Export Projects" (Department of Trade and Resources (1982), which outlined Australian coal export production capacity, suggested production capacity for 1990 totaled around 85 million tons per annum (rata -1) of export coking coal and 160 mta- 1 of export steam coal. These estimates are likely to exceed demand for Australian coal in 1990 (Wheelahan 1983). However, they do stress the enormous export potential for Australia, and while the resource and reserve numbers (Tables 1 and 2) are not precise, they do show that there is a sufficient economic base to support an industry many times the size of the current one. There is enough capacity in installed and developing projects to supply the anticipated 1985 exports and there is no shortage in the queue of new projects should they be required (Barnett 1982). The growth of Australian steam coal exports from 9.8 million tons in the financial year 1981-82 to a forecast 40 million tons by 1990 will bring changes in the structure of the industry. These changes include larger mine sizes and increases in open-cut production. In 1981-82, no single mine exported more than 2 million tons; by 1990, 50% of steam coal exports will be from mines exporting more than 2 million tons of steam coal a year. It is estimated that 35% of Australian steam coal exports in 1981-82 were mined by open-cut methods, but by 1990 t h e open-cut proportion of steam coal exports is forecast to be 75% (Weston 1982).

Table 3. National and Queensland State perspectives of Darling Downs agriculture, a

Darling Downs region Agricultural establishments Number Area ('000 ha) Irrigated land Area ('000 ha) Crops Area ('000 ha) Gross value ($'000) Total rural production Gross value ($'000)

Percentage of Queensland. Australia

6512 3482

19.1 2.2

3.6 0.7

45

17.6

3.2

797 184,586

31.0 12.9

4.4 3.5

308,318

12.8

2.7

aData derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics: (a) Queensland Agricultural Sector, 1980-81 Sector (catalogue nos. 7171.3 and 7302.3), and (b) Year BookAustralia, 1982.

The Simultaneous Occurrence of Arable Land and Black Coal

Land suitable for dryland cropping and coal co-occur in two major areas--the Darling Downs in Queensland and the eastern margin of the plains of New South Wales extending westward from the Great Dividing Range (Liverpool plains region) (Figure 1). This is not to say there are no other areas where these resources occur together, since there are many pockets of good agricultural land scattered throughout both States underlain by coal. Example of the Darling Downs In recent years there has been a renewed interest in coal exploration in the Surat Basin (which includes the Darling Downs) and it is likely coal development will occur in this region over the next decade. Agriculture. The Darling Downs region is an area of approximately 4 million ha and comprises the Shires of Allora, Cambooya, Chinchilla, Clifton, Crows Nest, Glengallen, Inglewood, Jondaryan, Millmerran, Pittsworth, Rosalie, Rosenthal, Stanthorpe, and Wambo. The region has 6512 rural establishments with a combined area of 3.5 million ha (Table 3). The utilization of agricultural land in the Downs region is influenced by the climate, which is dominated by summer rainfall but allows both winter and summer crops to be grown. The annual average rainfall ranges from 1000 mm at Toowoomba to 644 at Dalby, and this decline is correlated with a decrease in the proportion of land cropped in Pittsworth, Jondaryan, Wambo, and Chinchilla (Figure 2). The major crops grown include sorghum, linseed,

Australia: Coal Mining and Arable Agricultural Land

53

1.0 ~51 ~

15~

~= o.8 ~6 ~ -

0.6 7-

"~ 0.4 ~" 0.2 27 ~ -

o

Figure 2. Utilization of agricultural land in Shires comprising the Darling Downs in 1981: D, cereals for grain (wheat, maize, barley, sorghum, millet, panicum); [], crops for green feed and silage (barley, oats, sorghum, wheat); [], field crops (sunflower, soybean, tobacco, peanuts); and [ZI, grazing and other. The increasing proportion of land used for grazing and other purposes from Pittsworth to Stanthorpe reflects a decrease in the average annual rainfall over the region.

sunflower, barley, maize, oats, wheat, canary seed, panicum, and millet. In 1981, 310/o of the land area used for crops in Queensland was farmed in the region, and the gross value of crop production was $244/ha, which must in part be attributable to the naturally fertile soils found in the region. The gross value of agricultural production from the entire Downs region in 1981 was valued at $308 million, representing 13% of Queensland's rural production. Interestingly enough, the Downs have not always been, nor in some areas still, managed in a way that duly recognized the agricultural importance of the region. Large areas of land have been fallowed as standard agricultural practice each y e a r - - a practice that has markedly accelerated erosion problems. By August 1974, 11 of the 14 shires in the Darling Downs were declared "Areas of Soil Erosion Hazard" (Skinner and others 1977), and a program of soil conservation was initiated that aimed to ensure good land management, was a lawful requirement and soil conservation measures were carried out in a reasonable period of time. The current acceptable philosophy is that the land should be managed according tO its capability. Coal occurrence and authorities to prospect. Exploration for coal in the Surat Basin is administered by the Minister for Mines and Energy, who may grant an authority to prospect (ATP) on terms and conditions as

--28

28 ~

-29

150

L

2~ ~-

'i.'

T

3. Location of prefeasibility study authorities to prospect and dominant land suitability classes on the Darling Downs: N, permanent arable (crop); N, arable with stabilizing pasture rotations (crop sown pasture); I-1 nonarable except for sown pasture establishment (sown pasture); N, native pasture and nonagricultural land; and ........... , shire boundaries. The Darling Downs comprise one section of the Surat Basin (Fig. 1), but commercial coal reserves are confined within the defined authorities to prospect. Figure

seen fit, to permit prospecting on Crown and private land, except National and Environmental Parks. Under an ATP, the holder may carry out geological investigations, aerial surveys, and drilling operations. In the case of private land, a permit to enter must be obtained and compensation agreed to. Rehabilitation is required on any disturbed "sites" and a security deposit can be called for by the Minister. The Queensland Department of Mines has other areas within the region" held under moratorium and these are subject to applications for ATPs. The granting of an A T P does not allow the holder to mine coal, which may be clone only if a mining lease is granted and environmental factors are taken into account

54

P. d. Langkamp

Table 4. Areas of shires, authorities to prospect, and land suitability groups in the Darling Downs region, December 1982.

Allora Cambooya Chinchilla Clifton Crows Nest Glengallan Inglewood Jondaryan Millmerran Pittsworth Rosalie Rosenthal Stanthorpe Wambo

Total shire areaa ('000 ha)

Total ATP b area ('000 ha)

70 75 869 87 163 176 586 190 451 110 219 197 268 574

45 58 310 73 26 81 24 178 158 21 131 0 0 401

Land suitability groupsc A B C D (% ATP area) 36 14 49 26 11 51 17 60 38 100 53 0 0 732

0 0 2 0 5 0 4 1 14 0 0 0 0

64 86 45 74 77 49 66 39 26 0 33 0 0 24

0 0 4 0 7 0 13 0 22 0 14 0 0 1

aAustralian Bureau of Statistics, Queensland Agricultural Sector (catalogue no. 7101.3) bTotal area of authorities to prospect and areas held under moratorium by the Departmentof Mines. ~Derivedfrom the data and followingthe notationof Westun and others (1983): A, permanent arable (crop); BI arable with stabilising pasture rotations (crop-sown pasture); C, nonarable except for sown pasture establishment (sown pasture); and D, native pasture and nonagricuhural land.

before a decision is made to proceed with the development. An analysis of environmental effects is made according to the impact assessment procedures developed by the Queensland Government (Co-Ordinator General 1979, now Premier's Department), pi'ior to a mining lease being granted. The principal coal-bearing sequence in the Darling Downs are the Walloon Coal Measures (Swarbrick 1975) and several potentially economic surface-mineable deposits have been identified. Of the 21 exploration projects currently operative on the Darling Downs, Acland ( A T P 129C), Brigalow (ATP 401C), Macalister (ATP 383C), Millmerran (ATP 203C), and Condamine (ATP 150C) are under consideration as coal development prospects (Figure 3) (Fitzpatrick 1982). All these projects are at a prefeasibility stage. Estimates of future land disturbance. A broad assessment of the dominant land suitability types in each Shire and the areas covered by ATPs can be made by utilizing the land suitability map accompanying a recently published survey of the agricultural and pastoral potential of Queensland (Weston and others 1983) (Table 4). The proportion of each Shire covered by ATPs ranges from 94% to 83% in Jondaryan and Clifton, respectively, to nil

in Rosenthal and Stanthorpe, reflecting a priority for exploration to occur in areas where the Walloon Coal Measures are known to outcrop. Permanent arable crop and sown pasture land are the dominant land suitability groups covered by ATPs, and land suitable for cropsown pasture rotations and native pasture/nonagricultural land generally represent smaller portions of the total A T P areas. The land resources of several areas in the Darling Downs region have been classified on a land systems basis and land capability/utilization maps prepared (Dawson 1972a and b. Vandersee 1975, Mullins 1978 and 1980). These maps, adjusted to a 1:500,000 scale, have formed the basis for a more detailed estimate of the land capability classes (Table 5) overlying deposits of the five coal projects previously identified. The data presented do not necessarily reflect areas of land that would be disturbed nor a time schedule of disturbance (which may be over several decades from initial operations) were the developments to proceed. Further resolution would be necessary at a much lower scale and factors such as areas to be mined in the deposits, progressive rehabilitation effects, location of pit spoil, and surface facilities and dams need to be taken into account. However, several points are immediately obvious: - - The total area of the A T P is not a guide to determine the much smaller areas of land overlying economic coal measures. - - approximately two-thirds of the land included in the prefeasibility studies overlying coal measures is classified as arable. most of the land include in prefeasibility studies are classes II and I I I - - l a n d with moderate crop restrictions requiring intensive management. the total area of arable land that may be disturbed some time in the future is likely to be less than 1.5% of the total area, and 2.0% of the land classed as arable, in the Shires where the prefeasibility studies are being carried out. -

-

-

-

Rehabilitation of Arable Land after Mining Of all the environmental issues relevant to mining in areas of agricultural land in Australia, rehabilitation will be the most contentious. That socially acceptable rehabilitation standards are steadily rising is evidenced not only by the statements of primary industry groups but by individuals at public meetings. Other reasons include a lack of experience in handling productive soils, technology suitable to determine rehabilitation standards, and landform criteria. However, there has been little or no disturbance of crop land by open-cut mining in Australia to date and the experience of the coal industry in the United States in this regard is useful.

Australia: Coal Mining and Arable Agricultural Land

55

Table 5. Areas of land suitability classes a (ha) overlying coal deposits which are included in prefeasibility studies for site development.

Total area ATP b Acland Brigalow Macalister Millmerran Condamine

ATP129C ATP401C ATP383C ATP203C(1) ATP203C(2) ATP150C

12200 10900 102000 31300 29800 25900

I

II

Predominant land capability class range c II-III II-IV III III-IV IV-VI VI &VII

IV

III-IV & VII-VIII

600 90 400 1400

3600 800

300

Several definitions of rehabilitation have been developed by Australian authors (Langkamp 1979, Coaldrake 1980, Bell 1981) who suggest it is the process of upgrading disturbed land to a stable beneficial use, a "proper state" consistent with surrounding land values. In areas of good agricultural land, a considerable amount of thought will be required to determine what the proper state of post mining land use will be. However, a useful starting description would be achievement of the "premining land capability," be that for crop or pasture production. No regulatio0s have been developed in Australia in this regard. Rehabilitation of Arable Agricultural Land in the United States

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87) requires that surface-mined prime farmland must be reclaimed to a premine row crop productivity or better. The mine operator must demonstrate adequate technical capability to rehabilitate the land in a reasonable time period and when operating must meet certain performance requirements. Little regard was given to geographical location, individual site requirements, whether it would be achievable with the technologies available, or if agriculture was the best land use.

Full rehabilitation of prime agricultural areas has been claimed to be a "reality" at some sites because the soil in mined areas meets certain criteria that identify prime agricultural land (Grandt 1982), but thefie statements tend to remove themselves from the general paucity of information in the scientific literature regarding the rehabilitation of prime agricultural land and its success or failure. Depending on rehabilitation procedures and overburden qualities, the yields of various crops (rye, wheat, corn, oats, barley) have varied considerably. In some areas, forage crops and cereal grain yields have been comparable to that in unmined areas, but yield reduction in corn has been large or small (4%-59%; Nielsen and

2000 7600

1000 800

500 200 5500

800 200

Miller 1980), demonstrating the importance of soil replacement, fertilizer additions, and crop rotation practices. In some instances, the replacement of topsoil on overburden has increased the success of vegetation establishment (Carlson and others 1961, Dusek 1975, Howard and Samuel 1979), improved infiltration (Power and others 1974, Hodder 1977)~ and served as a buffer zone covering sodic material (Power and others 1976, Ries and others 1977). In terms of crop growth, the use of topsoil has produced various results ranging from no benefit (Berg and Barrau 1973) to increased production with topsoil use (Dusek 1975, Power and others 1976, Schuman and Taylor 1978). Other studies investigating the effects of topsoil thickness (Power and others 1981, McGinnies and Nicholas 1980), have shown that both above and below ground biomass production increases with greater topsoil thickness, while mixing of the topsoil and overburden diluted the beneficial effects of the topsoil (Power and others 1979). Topsoil stored for a number of years has been found to have little resemblance to the premining soil (Cundell 1971, Rives and others 1980), but this may vary with the method of storage. The factors in the topsoil that enhance plant growth and production are not well defined, but besides containing more organic carbon, nitrogen, and usually other nutrients than overburden, it has greater microbial activity and better structure. While most of these parameters are not well documented, soil rhizosphere microbes in coal spoils (Fresquez and Lindemann 1982), microbial activity (Hersman and Temple 1979), soil physical characteristics (Pedersen and others 1980), and mine soil fauna (Hutson 1980) have been studied, but not in relation to prime agricultural land areas. While natural soils and mine soils have distinctly different morphological features, Schafer and others (1980) concluded that opportunities existed to improve mine soils by "manipulating key soils properties through selective handling and mixing of superior soil materials, and through adjusting slope, gradient and landscape design." In some instances,

56

P.J. Langkamp

overburden has been found to provide a better planting medium than stored topsoil (Aldon and Springfield 1973, Packer and Aldon 1978, Sandoval and Gould 1978). In general, then, following the introduction of legislation requiring certain standards to be reached in the reclamation of prime agricultural land, the coal industry and government in the United States have initiated research programs that indicate success, or achievement of premining row crop productivity in some instances, but failure in others. Whatever the reclamation result, there is a much greater understanding of the problem in restoring productivity with strong indications that the results are site (if not regionally) specific.

Australian Expectations While the goals and levels of aspiration legally required in the United States might be easily transferred to the rehabilitation of good agricultural areas in Australia, much more is required if the full benefit of overseas experience is to be realised. A connection must be made between the desired goals, what is achievable, and the strategy for rehabilitation management prior to mine development. The only way t.his can be done is through adequate planning, which must occur from the outset when mine prefeasibility plans are being drawn up, and not superimposed when a mine is fully operational. In Australia, where the legal requirements on rehabilitation are less severe than those overseas, and in the main are site specific, this places great emphasis on the concept of self-regulation in the coal-mining industry, and plans must therefore be developed as an interactive process with the community. Integrative Planning for Rehabilitation Integrative planning is a collaborative process where interested parties are not only aware that the exercise is taking place, but to a large extent determine how it is carried out. Management guides the process, but is influenced by results and decisions of the participants. To be effective, planning must allow knowledge to be linked with action and rehabilitation planning is no different. For rehabilitation planning to be effective, a numbe r of steps are required: Objectives. A range of objectives for rehabilitation decision-making need to be established. These objectives may seek to provide sufficient information to either achieve the official goal (for example, the reestablishment of the premining land capability) or to permit the determination of what are the appropriate rehabilitation standards. Criteria (both technical and descriptive) for determining the characteristics of good agricultural land need to be established in consultation with all interested

parties. For example, what physical, chemical, and landform parameters constitute good agricultural land soil. Background environmental studies. An inventory and analysis of environmental data relevant to the site needs to be made by an interdisciplinary team. Boyden (1979) and Leggate (1983) identified components of the ecosystem that need to be identified and interrelated. They emphasized the need for data to reflect the appropriate physical, biological, and social factors. While a good deal of information may be available in existing publications and maps, it is necessary for these studies to be carried out in detail in the area of interest. As a result, factors usually requiring further consideration are: Aspects of the natural environment and its processes. Site-specific, basic data are required if decisions on postmining land use and the success of future rehabilitation are going to be made at an acceptable level of risk. If mining is contemplated in areas of good agricultural land, then rehabilitation decisions need to be made with better-quality information and increasing certainty of outcome. This invariably means the establishment of an integrated research program at the prefeasibility stage of mine planning, which must define various aspects of the environment in a scientifically acceptable way. The research program must provide guidelines for auditing the chosen rehabilitation plan once implemented and identifying areas of land suitable to be retained for long-term reference purposes. Interaction at the community and government level on rehabilitation issues. Interaction needs to be an ongoing process and "provide a measure of belonging,.., has become definitive of the public interest as opposed to private interests which prosper in the spirit of independence" (Young 1976). Put simply, companies need to talk with all people interested in the study if cooperation and understanding are to occur. People may be more willing to accept risks and cooperate if they are given an opportunity to discuss the rehabilitation issues prior to project commitment decisions being made. Certainly, the experience of current land owners, be they good or poor land managers, should be accounted for in the analysis. The trust, similarity of objectives, and appreciation of mutual problems that emerge during dialogue and debate with the community should assist in reaching an early consensus decision. Alternatives. Results of the background studies, together with company, academic, government, and community views should allow the identification of alternative rehabilitation strategies which realise all the rehabilitation objectives. Cost-benefit analyses need to be made on the alternatives so that preferred rehabilitation objectives can be identified. Both the company and community need to be aware of the costs of rehabilitation alternatives

Australia: Coal Mining and Arable Agricultural Land

and the extent to which these costs might affect an acceptable rate of return on the capital invested. Implementation and administration. Following choice of the preferred rehabilitation objective, company management is able to make project commitment decisions in the full knowledge of what is required. It is essential that the agreed method and procedures for rehabilitation are carried out and to act in response to them insofar as it is possible. The appointment of a full-time professional environmental scientist at a suitable level of management is a minimal requirement only and companies must be oriented from board level down to ensure implementation of the agreed plans. While this is obvious in the United States, it is not so evident to Australian mine management. Feedback. When a project begins operations, unforseen problems may affect operation of the preferred rehabilitation plan and only after a period of time can the success of the plan be guaged. The company must maintain a continuing feedback relationship with the interested parties during all stages of plan implementation. Periodic evaluation and reevaluation are therefore necessary if effective adjustment s are to be made since both the company and interested parties will be better able to anticipate problems and cope jointly with issues that arise unexpectedly. Procedures for auditing rehabilitation efforts should be well defined as a consequence of prior research studies. As a consequence of audit, new rehabilitation plans may need to be evaluated and new programs of research instigated.

Conclusion That surface mining for coal has not yet occurred in areas of arable land gives the coal-mining industry an opportunity to familiarize itself with, and incorporate into plans, concerns expressed by society on the surface disturbance and utilization of these areas. There is no doubt that such a concern exists, at local community, national, and global levels and this is evidenced in the scepticism expressed as to the sincerity and ability of mining companies to rehabilitate disturbed areas and in longer-term national planning strategies. For example, "Mr. Haydon has no faith in soil restoration techniques. Nor does Mr. MaeIntyre" (The Australian 1982) were statements made in relation to rehabilitation practices in the Hunter Valley by two local farmers. Nationally, concern for the long-term productivity of arable land is evident both in proposed National Conservation Strategy for Australia (Department of Home Affairs and Environment 1983) and government policy that suggest that, in conjunction with the States

57

and Territories, a national approach to the management and use of land will be developed and promoted. At a global level, pressing issues, iricluding the loss of prime agricultural land, were stressed in the Global 2000 Report to the President (Council on Environmental Quality and US Stat e Department 1980) and recommendations from a World Council of Churches Conference (Albrecht 1979) that sustainability should be one criteria for the use of assets and resources and i n t h e World Conservation Strategy (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Resources 1980). In the Darling Downs, while most of the land overlying surface-mineable coal is classified as "arable land requiring intensive management," a conservative estimate of the long-term potential decrease of arable agricultural land due to surface coal operations is less than 2% of the total area. The situation is in fact much more dynamic, however, since several of the projects described are almost certainly mutually exclusive and involve differing time schedules for surface land disturbance. The issue of surface mining in agricultural areas therefore revolves around just how "transient" the opencut mining use of arable land is, and what usage of this term applies. Following an examination of literature from the United States, it is suggested that, while the official goals might be to rehabilitate disturbed land to a "premining productivity," a more pragmatic and consensus approach is necessary. Using this approach, rehabilitation plans, assessments, and feedback must be developed in an interactive process with the community. Integrative planning for rehabilitation is the proposed method. However, given there are a great many issues requiring further research and analysis before management guidelines for rehabilitation in agricultural areas can be discussed, it will be necessary that studies are formulated at the prefeasibility stage of mine development and implemented at the feasibility stage. This is particularly true with rehabilitation issues that depend on the seasons for results and, with the vagaries of the weather, may take several years to complete. The act of mining in good agricultural areas therefore involves matters that go beyond the comparatively narrow business interest and beyond the current legislative requirements. The "dilemma" faced by companies is how to determine the proper balance between long-term profitability and "social responsibility" while ensuring the maintenance of agricultural land capability. Gosper (1981) suggested that companies have "an obligation... to be more transparent, more forthcoming with informat i o n . . , to ensure that the corporate conspiracy theorists have no grounds for suspicion." Furthermore, it was suggested that "the public must have before its eyes the maximum information possible about the costs, the risks

58

P.J. Langkamp

and the returns of the corporate sector." Such an approach would positively assist the Australian corporate and community understanding of responsibility, its extent and limitations. However, the ability of companies to meet social aspirations will invariably depend on the maintenance of economic growth and continuing real profitability. To internalize social concerns early in development 151anning will undoubtedly mean an increased expenditure for companies many years before any cash flows are expected to occur. To this extent, incentives and programs to assist in the implementation of the public's concern to achieve a sustainable use of agricultural resources deserve investigation. Any business management, however, that refuses to face up to these costs cannot hope to survive in the long term. If self-regulation for the mining industry is to remain a viable option, then the industry must respond by implementing new planning methods that incorporate the community's desire for greater concern and participation in decisions. Corporate responsivehess is a necessary first step.

Acknowledgments It is a pleasure to acknowledge the advice and assistance of many colleagues in the Shell C o m p a n y of Australia and in particular those in the Coal Division, where the philosophy is that, as far as possible, operations should be compatible with the environment and alternative land uses. I also appreciate the comments and suggestions made by Dr. A. Carter, Dr. J. Hails, and Mr. M. Pinnock. Acknowledgment is also made to the following companies for their kind provision of information: Amax Australia Ltd., C.S.R. Ltd., M a r a t h o n Petroleum Australia L t d , and Petromin N.L. and Transoil N.L.

Literature Cited Albrecht, P. 1979. Faith and Science in an Unjust World, vol. 2. A report of the World Council of Churches conference on faith, science and the future. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 12-24 July. 136 pp. Aldon, E. F., and H. E. Springfield. 1973. Revegetating coal mine spoils in New Mexico: a laboratory study. US Forestry Service research note RM-245. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, CO. 10pp. Anon. 1968. Parameters for the calculation and reporting of coal reserves, Queensland. Queensland Government Mining J. 60:400-402. Anon. 1982. Situation and outlook reports. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 20 pp.

Australian Coal Association. 1982. The environmental implications of the use of coal, including its liquefaction, as a major energy source. Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. Australian Coal Association, Sydney. 190 pp. Balderstone, J. S., L. A. Duthie, D. P. Eckersley, F. T. Jarrett, and J. C. McColl. 1982. Agricultural policy: issues and options for the 1980's. Working group report to the Minister for Primary Industry. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 167 pp. Barnett, D. J. 1982. The importance of coal to the future of the Australian economy. Aust. Coal Miner 4:4-6. Bell, L. C. 1981. Rehabilitation of mine wastes and degraded agricultural land. Proceedings of the 2nd annual symposium of the Queensland branch of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, Biloela, May 1981.90 pp. Berg, W. A., and E. M. Barrau. 1973. Composition and production of seedlings on stripmine spoils in north western Colorado. Pages 215-224 in Proceedings of the 1st research and applied technology symposium on mined land reclamation, Pittsburgh, 7-8 March 1975. Bituminous Coat Research, Inc., Monroeville, PA. Birrell, R., D. Hill, and J. Stanley. 1982. Quarry Australia? Social and environmental perspectives on managing the nation's resources. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 366 ppBoyden, S. 1979. An integrative approach to the study of human settlements. MAB Technical Notes 12. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris. 88 pp. Branagan, D. F. 1975. Distribution and geological setting of coal measures in Australia and Papua New Guinea. Pages 25-51 in D. M. Traves and D. King (eds.), Economic geology of Australia and Papua New Guinea. 2. Coal. Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Parkville, Australia. Carlson, C. W., D. L. Grunes, J. Alessi, and G. A. Reichman, 1961. Corn growth on Gardena surface and subsoil as affected by applications of fertilizer and manure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 25:44-47. Coaldrake, J. E. 1980. Mining ecology and problems of coal mining in Australia. Proceedings of the international conference on energy and ecosystems: economics, ecology and planning of the coal resource, 1978. Pergamon, New York. 180 pp. Co-Ordinator General. 1979. Impact assessment of development projects in Queensland. Co-Ordinator General's Department, Brisbane. 11 pp. Council on Environmental Quality and US State Department. 1980. The Global 2000 report to the president. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 800 pp. Cundell, A. M. 1977. The role of micro-organisms in the revegetation of strip mined lands in the Western United States. J. Range Manage. 30:299-305. Davidson, B. R. 1961. The distribution of agricultural lands in Australia. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 27:203-212. Dawson, N. M. 1972a. Land inventory and technical guide, Jandowne area, Queensland. I. Land classification and land use. Department of Primary Industries, Department of Land Utilisation, Technical Bulletin no. 3.

Australia: Coal Mining and Arable Agricultural Land

Dawson, N. M. 1972b. Land inventory and technical guide, Miles area, Queensland. I. Land classification and land use. Department of Primary Industries, Division of Land Utilisation, Technical Bulletin no. 5. Department of Home Affairs and Environment. 1983. National conservation strategy for Australian Living resource conservation for sustainable development. Conference draft, February 1983. Commonwealth Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 59 pp. Department of Trade and Resources. 1982. Australian coal export projects. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 25 pp. Dusek, G. L. 1975. Vegetational responses by substrate, gradient, and aspect on a 12 acre test plot in the Bull Mountain. Pages 233-246 in Proceedings of the Fort Union coal field symposium, Eastern Montana College, Billings, 25-26 April 1975.

Fitzpatrick, D. 1982. Major development projects and proposals, Queensland. Department of Commercial and Industrial Development, Brisbane. 90 pp. Freer, P. 1978. Non-agricultural land use and desertification. Search 9:276-280. Fresquez, P. R., and W. C. Lindemann. 1982. Soil and rhizosphere microorganisms in amended coal mine spoils. Soil Sci. Am. J. 40:751-755. Gibson, J. A. 1977. On the allocation of prime agricultural land. J. Soil Water Cons. 32:27i-275. Gosper, R. K. 1981. Untitled address by the Chairman of Shell Australia to the annual meeting of the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, Sydney, 6 March. Shell Australia Limited. Grandt, A. F. 1982. Prime Farmland: is restoration a reality? Mining Congress J. 68:25-30. Hersman, L. E., and K. L. Temple. 1978. ATP as a parameter for characterizing coal strip mine spoils. Soil Sci. 126:350352. Hodder, R. L. 1977. Dry land techniques in-the semi-arid West. Pages 271-288 in Thames, reclamation and use of disturbed land in the South West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Houen, G. 1982. Mining agricultural or grazing land. Paper presented at Mining as a land use seminar. Queensland Chamber of Mines, Brisbane, 26 August. 6 pp. Howard, G. S., and M. J. Samuel. 1979. The value of freshly stripped topsoil as a source of useful plants in surface mine revegetation, jr. Range Manage. 32:76-77. Hutson, B. R. 1980. The influence on soil development of the invertebrate fauna colonizing industrial reclamatiorl sites. J. Appl. Ecol. 19:277-286. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1980. World conservation strategy. United Nations Environment Programme and the World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland. 92 pp. Jeffords, JMS. 1979. Protecting farmland: minimizing the federal role. ]. Soil ~Vater Cons. 34:158-159. Joint Coal Board. 1982. Black coal in Australia, 1981-82. A statistical year book. 98 pp. Jorling~ T. 1978. Protecting land resources for food and living. .[. Soil Water Cons. 33:213-214.

59

Langkamp, P. J. 1979. Reclamation terminology. Landl(ne 1:6-7.

Latornell, A. D. 1978. Resources for food and living: will there be enough ? J. Soil Water Cons. 33:215-217. Leggate, J. 1983. Surface mining for coal and oi[ shale in Australia: a challenge in land management. Paper to be presented at 2nd surface mining and quarrying symposium, Bristol, England, 4-7 October. 8 pp. McGinnies, W. J., and P. J. Nicholas, 1980. Effects of topsoil thickness and nitrogen fertilizer on the revegetation of coal mine spoils. J. Environ. QuaL 9:681-685. Mengel, D. C. 1977. The role of the geological survey of Queensland in exploratory coal drilling. Pages 21-35 in Core borehold evaluation, Southern Queensland. Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. Millington, R., and J: Kalma. 1982. Biographical resources constraints: an overview. Pages 171-182 in R. Birrell, D. Hill, and J. Stanley (eds.), Quarry Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Mullins, J. A. 1978. Description and management of the soils of the Eastern Darling Downs. Department of Primary Industries, Division of Land Utilisation, Technical Bulletin no. 33.80 pp. Mullins, J. A. 1980. Land use study for the Millmerran, Moorie, Tara area of Queensland. Department of Primary Industries, Division of Land Utilisation, Technical Bulletin no. 41.75 pp. Nielsen, G. A., and E. V. Miller, 1980. Crop yields on native soils and strip mine soils: a comparison. J. Soil Water Cons. 35:44-46. Nix, H. A. 1973. Land use planning for commercial agriculture. Pages 1-10 in Proceedings of symposium on land use planning in North Queensland. Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, North Queensland branch, Innisfail. Nix, H. A. 1978. Availability of land for energy cropping in Australia. Pages 6.5-6.10 in Conference on alcohol fuels. Institution of Chemical Engineers (NSW), 9-11 August. Packer, P. E., and E. F. Aldon. 1978. Revegetation techniques for dry regions. Pages 425-428 in F. W. Schaller and P. Sutter (eds.), Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Passmore, J. 1980. Man's responsibility for nature. Gerald Duekworth and Co., London. 227 pp. Pedersen, T. A., and A. S. Rogowski, and R. Pennock. 1980. Physical characteristics of some mine soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:321-328. Power, J. F., W. O. Willis, F. M. Sandoval, and J. j . Bond. 1974. Can productivity of mined land be restored in North Dakota? North Dakota Farm Res. 31:30-32. Power, J. F., R. E. Ries, and F. M. Sandoval. 1976. Use of soil materials: effect of thickness and quality. North Dakota Farm Res. 34:23-24. Power, J. F., F. M. Sandoval, and R. E. Ries. 1979. Topsoil: subsoil requirements to restore North Dakota mined land to original productivity. Mining Engineering, December. 38 pP. Power, J. F., F. M. Sandoval, R. E. Ries, and S. D. Merrill. 1981. Effects of topsoil and subsoil thickness on soil water

60

P. J. Langkamp

content and crop production on a disturbed soil. Soil Sc. Soc. Am. J. 45:124-129. Queensland Coal Board. 1982.31st annual report. Queensland Coal Board, Brisbane. 42 pp. Raup, R. M. 1976. What is prime land? J. Soil Water Cons. 31:180-181. Ries, R. E., R. M. Sandoval, and J. F. Power. 1977. Reclamation of disturbed lands in the lignite area of the northern plains. Pages 309-327 in G. H. Gronhoud and W. R. Kube (eds.), Proceedings of the 1977 symposium on technology and Use of Lignite, 18-19 May. Department of Energy, Gr~nd Forks, ND. Rives, C. S., M. I. Bojwa, A. E. Liberta, and R. M. Miller. 1980. Effects of topsoil storage during surface mining on the viability of VA mycorhizae. Soil Sci. 129:253-257. Rosser, J., G. L. Swartz, N. M. Dawson, and H. S. Briggs. 1974. A land capability classification for agricultural purposes. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Technical Bulletin no. 14. 90 pp. Sandoval, E. M., and W. L. Gould. 1978. Improvement of saline and sodium affected lands. Pages 485-502 in F. W. Sehaller and P. Sutter (eds.), Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Schafer, W. M., G. A. Nielsen, and W. D, Nettleton. 1980. Minesoil genesis and morphology in a spoil chronosequence in Montana. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.~J. 44:802-807. Schuman, G. E., and E. M. Taylor. 1978. Use of mine spoil material to improve the topsoil. Wyoming Agric. Exp. Res. J. 130 pp. Skinner, A. F., M. H. Roberts, and R. C. Osborn. 1977. Soil conservation on the Darling Downs since the late 1940's. Proceedings of the soil conservation on the Downs seminar, Toowoomba, 12 August, Agricultural Technologists Australia, Brisbane. 36 pp. Smit, B. 1981. Prime land, land evaluation and land use policy. J. Soil Water Cons. 36:209-212. Stewart, G. A., G. Grantside, R. M. Gifford, H. A. Nix, W. H. M. Rawlins, and J. R. Siemon. 1979. Liquid fuel production from agriculture and .forestry in Australia; resume of a survey of the national potential. Search 10:382387. Swarbrick, C. F. J. 1975. Surat Basin, Queensland. Pages 312-316 in D. M. Traves and D. King (eds.), Economic geology of Australia and Papua New Guinea. Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Victoria. Vandersee, B. E. 1975. Land inventory and technical guide, Eastern Downs area, Queensland: land classification' and land use. Department of Primary Industries, Division of Land Utilisation, Technical Bulletin no. 7.80 pp. Weston, E. J., J. Harbinson, J. K. Leslie, K. M. Rosenthal, and R. J. Mayer. 1983. Assessment of the agricultural and pastoral potential of Queensland. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Agriculture Branch Technical Report no. 27 (in press). Weston, M. J. 1982. Australian coal production. Paper presented at the conference on international coal trade, Washington, 3-4 May. 18 pp.

Wheelahan, B. 1983. The changing economics of Australian coal supply. Paper presented at the Pacific Basin coal conference, Honolulu, 9-11 February. 20 pp. Wood, W. W. 1976. Prime lands: the definitional and policy problems. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 58:909-913. Young, G. L. 1976. Environmental law: perspective from human ecology. Environ. Law 6:289-307.