Table 2.11 — Illustrative primary mineral demand-production comparisons in the United States by 

 class of mineral, 1974, with projections to 1985 and 2000 



(Thousand short tons) 





1974 



1985 



2000 



Class of mineral 



Primary 



Primary 



Primary 



Primary 



Primary 



Primary 





demand 



production 



demand 



production 



demand 



production 



Fuels: 















Coal: 















Anthracite 



5,000 



7,000 



5,000 



6,000 



5,000 



6,000 



Bituminous and lignite 



553,000 



603,000 



918,000 



993,000 



1,555,000 



1,655,000 



Uranium (nuclear) 



8 



10 



41 



36 



70 



60 



Metals: 















Copper 



1,953 



1,597 



2,700 



2,500 



4,200 



3,800 



Iron content 



144,480 



91,840 



170,240 



128,800 



204,960 



159,040 



Nonmetals: 















Clays 



59,000 



61,000 



101,000 



100,000 



181,000 



190,000 



Phosphate rock 



34,720 



45,686 



45,000 



80,000 



69,000 



85,000 



Sand and gravel 



978,000 



978,000 



1,390,000 



1,390.000 



2,090,000 



2,090,000 



Stone, crushed 



1,041,000 



1,042,000 



1,550,000 



1,550,000 



2,500,000 



,2,500,000 



Source: Department of the Interior. Bureau of Mines, Mineral trends and forecasts, 1976. 



Table 2.12— /Area utilized for mining and area 



reclaimed in the United States by class of 



mineral, 1930-1971 



(Thousand acres) 



Class of mineral 



1930-1971 



Area 



Area 





utilized 



reclaimed 



Fossil fuels: 







Bituminous 







Coal 



1,470 



1,000 



Other 



105 



14 



Total 



1,572 



1,014 



Metals: 







Copper 



Iron ore 



166 

 108 



5 

 4 



Uranium 



13 



1 



Other 



237 



33 



Total 



523 



43 



Nonmetals: 







Clays 



Phosphate rock 

 Sand and gravel 



167 



77 



660 



59 



12 



197 



Stone 



516 



124 



Other 



138 



14 



Total 



1,559 



406 



Total 



3,654 



1,463 



Note: Columns may not add to totals because of rounding 

 Source: Department of the Inferior. Bureau of Ivlines. Information circular 

 8642 and unpublished data. 



Impacts of forest and range land uses on mining — 

 While mining has affected uses of forest and range 

 land, the reverse is also true. Use of forest and range 

 lands for wilderness, parks, and other special uses has 

 had significant effects on mineral development. 

 Particular and growing concern has been expressed 

 about restrictions placed on the availability of 

 Federal lands for mineral exploration and develop- 

 ment. In recent years, the area of such land open to 

 these activities has dropped substantially. As a result, 

 according to a 1977 report prepared by the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior, mineral exploration and develop- 

 ment are prohibited, severely restricted, or moder- 

 ately restricted on two-thirds of all Federal lands.'" 

 The restrictions comprise three major categories: 



1. Classification for disposal pursuant to spe- 

 cific Acts of Congress. 



2. Withdrawal specifically to protect against 

 impacts associated with mineral exploration 

 and development. 



3. Reservation (dedication) for a particular 

 public purpose or use. 



Much of the recent reduction has been in Alaska. 

 As lands are finally classified and reserved pursuant 

 to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, some 

 Alaska lands presently unavailable will be opened for 

 mineral development. But, elsewhere, future wilder- 

 ness designations seem likely to result in even further 

 reductions in land available for mineral development. 



of watersheds. Reclamation of disturbed land should 

 minimize the impacts of mining on the output of prod- 

 ucts such as forage and timber. 



"•U.S. Department of the Interior, Final report of the task force 

 on the availabihty of Federally-owned lands, 43 p. 1977. 



56 



